Introduction to Social Policy - Essay Example

Introduction to Social Policy Social Policy: The "social policy" is used by the government to apply to the policies for welfare and social protection, to the ways by which welfare is developed in a society and to the academic study of the subject. Social policy is usually concerned as policies for social service and for welfare of state, but actually it means that these policies are concerned to the issues, which are beyond government's actions. This also means the way by which welfare is promoted which shapes the development of welfare by social and economic conditions. How globalization affect social policy : Although social policy has arrived relatively late to 'globalization studies' its engagement with this field has been substantial and productive. Indeed, whatever one's position in relation to globalization the concept/debate is a significant one for this field, and even 'septic internationalists' who otherwise deny the fundamental precepts of the globalization thesis would agree there is a need to address the wider global contexts and dimensions of social policy. In fact, used carefully, 'globalization' presents many new opportunities to critically interrogate social policy to think about how we construct fields of enquiry, the concepts and theories we use, the areas and issues we examine, and the types of questions we ask. (Nicola Yeates) Questioning the 'national' frame: One basic illustration of how a globalization perspective 'disrupts' the precepts of social policy is to consider how it challenges the basic unit of analysis the national welfare state. Thus, academic social policy has essentially been concerned with variations in how welfare services are financed, organized, delivered, and consumed within these political territories as well as with the effects of these services on the social structure, social relations, and quality of life of their resident populations. Whether the variations are between social groups, over time, or between countries, the nation-state and the social policies enacted within it have framed the analysis. In many ways, this is sensible: after all, most welfare services are organized, funded, regulated, and delivered by governmental and non-governmental entities based and operating within the territorial boundaries of individual countries, while the services provided are usually accessed by people living in those same countries. Yet in other ways this orientation unnecessarily restricts, even distorts, the field of enquiry by focusing our gaze on the national context to the detriment of the transnational and global ones. In particular, it presumes that the forces shaping the social structure are primarily local and national ones and that the entities involved in formulating and implementing social policy operate purely on a national basis. It obscures the various transnational sites and spaces in which social policies are formulated, and the social impacts of 'our' domestic and foreign economic and development policies on other countries and populations. In essence, it problematically assumes that social policy exists within an impermeable national container space, and that it develops with little or no reference to the global circumstances of 'our' country or its relationship to other countries, or to developments and events elsewhere in the world. (C Murray, 1984) Globalization brings new concerns and perspectives to social policy. A globalization perspective also brings new perspectives and subject matter to social policy, extending its field of enquiry. To begin with, it opens up to enquiry the ways in which the content of social policy and the distribution of welfare are shaped by: governmental and non-governmental organizations responding not only to domestic issues and sources of pressure but also to circumstances, events, and developments in other countries; the policies of foreign governments, international organizations, and financial institutions; and the decisions and activities of overseas headquarters or branches of TNCs. In essence, then, globalization draws attention to the ways in which societies, economies, and polities - including labor markets and welfare systems - of different countries are entangled in one another. This appreciation of the extent and dimensions of 'enmeshment' leads us to focus on the 'external' and global sources of what are seen as principally 'domestic' or 'national' social problems and policy issues. (United Nations, 1995) For example, the global causes of increasing mobility of people internationally, some of which is manifested in the North as the 'problem' of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, can be seen as residing in uneven development and geo-economic inequalities. Similarly, the levels and distribution of employment and unemployment within countries and localities are at least in part related to the overseas investment decisions of TNCs as well as economic events. The 1997 Asian financial crisis illustrates this latter point, demonstrating as it did the extent to which 'national' economies are interconnected through finance and the inter-nationalized social consequences of financial crises. Amongst the effects of that crisis, which were felt worldwide, were massive job losses, a severe drop in wages and incomes, a sharp rise in the numbers of people in poverty, and the mass repatriation of foreign workers in some Asian countries to their countries of origin. The international response to the crisis focused wider attention on the need to reform institutions of global governance (especially MEIs) to better regulate global financial transactions and develop more effective social protection systems. (R Nozick, 1974) Of course, any analysis of the relationship between globalization and social policy must also attend to the policies and practices of 'core' country governments. In recent years the anti-globalization movement and international development campaign groups have done much to raise public awareness of the content of anti-poverty and social development policies pursued by national governments abroad. They have also drawn attention to the social (policy) dimensions and implications of 'our' government's foreign policy and practices as regards WELFARE: Now we must understand WELFARE. Welfare is an ambiguous term, which has several meanings for example; it is commonly referred as " well- being ", in economics it is referred as " utility " that is people's well being or interest, another meaning of WELFARE is the policies which are used for the protection of people like childhood, sickness, old age etc. Welfare is often associated with needs, but it goes beyond what people need; to achieve well being, people must have choices, and the scope to choose personal goals and ambitions. (G Esping-Andersen, 1990) Arguments for welfare: First is the "Humanitarian" which shows concerns about poverty and needs that have been the central objective for many developments. Another argument can be " Religious " i.e. many religions in the world like Islam, Christianity, Lutheran, Judaism, all communities related to these respective religion collect charity and as a religious duty they divide it responsibly and as per required. And the main argument is the "N.G.O "that are non-government bodies that are working for the betterment of humanity, they consist of private people grouped together to work mutually for people in need and people living below poverty line. These groups often pressurize the government to take actions that are very beneficial for the country and for the economy as a whole. Arguments against welfare: The main objections to the provision of welfare come from the 'radical right'. They are against welfare in principle, on the basis that it violates people's freedom. Redistribution is theft; taxation is forced labor. (1) These arguments rest on some questionable assumptions: People have absolute rights to use property as they wish. People in a society are interdependent, and the production of property depends on social arrangements. Rights to property are conventional. Liability to taxation is part of the conventions. People do not consent to welfare provision; redistributive arrangements are based in compulsion. This is not necessarily true. Several countries have developed welfare systems, in whole or in part, on a voluntary, mutualism basis - Denmark, Finland and Sweden have moved to compulsion only recently. The rights of the individual are paramount. Property rights are certainly important, but few people would argue that property rights are more important than every other moral value. If one person owns all the food in a region while everybody else is starving, do the others have no moral claim on it The radical right also claims that the welfare state has undesirable effects in practice. Economically, it can be argued that economic development is more important for welfare than social provision. Dollar and Kraay, for the World Bank, have argued that property rights and a market economy are essential for growth and so for the protection of the poor. The other main argument is that the welfare state undermines economic performance. However, this position is not supported by the evidence. In social terms, the welfare state is accused of fostering dependency and trapping people in poverty. (2) Evidence on the dynamics of poverty shows that poverty and dependency are not long-term, but affect people at different stages in the life cycle; the population of welfare claimants is constantly changing. (3) Where poor people are separated and excluded by welfare, this is mainly the product of the kinds of restricted, residual system the radical right has been arguing for. (D Gordon et al, 1999) Who is welfare for Residual welfare: Welfare provision is often seen as being for the poor. This was the dominant model in English-speaking countries; the English Poor Law (1598-1948) was exported to many other countries. This has been taken as the model of a residual system of welfare, in which welfare is a safety net, confined to those who are unable to manage otherwise. Solidarity: Welfare in much of Europe is based on the principle of solidarity, or mutual responsibility. The responsibilities which people have to each other depend on their relationships; people in society are part of solidarity social networks. Many of the rights which people have are particular, rather than general - they depend on a person's circumstances, work record or family relationships, not on general rights protected by the state. Those who are not part of such networks are said to be 'excluded' Institutional welfare: An institutional system is one in which need is accepted as a normal part of social life. Welfare is provided for the population as a whole, in the same way as public services like roads or schools might be. In an institutional system, welfare is not just for the poor: it is for everyone Industrial achievement/performance: Welfare has often been seen as a 'handmaiden' to the economy. It helps employers, by preparing and servicing the capacity of the workforce, and it acts as an economic regulator, stimulating demand when production is low References R Nozick, 1974, Anarchy state and utopia, Basic Books. C Murray, 1984, Losing Ground, Basic Books. L Leisering, R Walker (eds) 1988, The dynamics of modern society, Policy Press. G Esping-Andersen, 1990, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity. J Bradshaw, 1972, A taxonomy of social need, New Society ( March) 640-3. D Piachaud, 1981, Peter Townsend and the Holy Grail, New Society (Sept.) 421. B S Rowntree, 1901, Poverty: a study of town life, Longman. United Nations, 1995, The Copenhagen Decalaration and Programme of Action, UN. P Townsend, 1979, Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin. I Kolvin et al, 1990, Continuities of deprivation, Avebury. D Gordon et al, 1999, Poverty and social exclusion in Britain, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. M K Pringle, 1974, The needs of children, Hutchinson. UN Declaration of the Rights of the Rights, 1959, Article 6. W Wolfensberger, 1972, The principle of normalization in human services, National Institute on Mental Retardation (Toronto). R Flynn, R Lemay (eds), 1999, A Quarter-century of normalization and social role valorization, University of Ottawa Press. Globalization n Social Policy by Nicola Yeates. Read More