The New Right in Dealing with Poverty and Welfare Provision - Essay Example

Ways Which New Right attempt to undermine social democratic approaches to poverty and welfare provision What is New Right? Thatcher-Conservatives move towards neo-liberal agenda-political ideology The origin of neo-liberalism dates back to the 1960’s when a minority group of conservative economists through Milton Friedman’s leadership backed by wealthy system of institutes, research centers, and foundations. Henceforth neo-liberalism emerged as the dominant shift and the ideological stimulant of the global economy. In the United Kingdom, neo-liberalism was given a big boost by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher during the 1980’s. The concept was considered an unavoidable truth rather than an economic construct, giving Reagan and Thatcher the impetus for championing for “efficiency” and “competition”. The beliefs were allowed to shape all the political, economic and social policies following strict Darwinism (Neoliberalism, n.d). Neo-liberalism is a political dimension consisting of two detached aspects that occasionally complement or say the opposite of each thought. The new political belief by the neo-liberals emphasizes the significance of the market mechanism being superior as an avenue for the allocation of resources. On the other hand, there is an emphasis on the significance entity conscientiousness and freedom as a way of allocation, apart from the market forces. Thus, their notion supports limited intervention in the financial system by the regime. The suggestion affronted by the neo-conservatives premises on the formulation of conditions for the optimum efficiency of the private sector in the economy. Neo-conservatives are likely to be inclined on calling for a repeat in affirmation of conventional values on driving societal issues and oppose multicultural setting of the society (Wedd, 2000). The documentation above is evidence that while the neo-conservatives are against government intervention in the market, they would support government interference on issues related to the way of life, which include morals and the way of life. For the market neo-liberals, the mechanism of the market can adequately address these issues. Brief overview of social democratic approaches to poverty and welfare provision On poverty, the social democratic hold that a welfare state is brought about by the existence of a capitalistic societal setup. Further, it is believed that a capitalistic setup creates the stage for inefficiency and wastage. In such a state, the profits margins from businesses do not account for the welfare of the destitute, the poor and the disabled who end up suffering. The general belief of the social democratic approach is that the societal members who are strong ought to take care of weak societal members. For this reason, the social democrats have a supposition that there has to be the government’s intervention in the market aimed at recompensing the disadvantaged parties. Further, the social democrats also have the belief in government intervention to avail opportunities to the less fortunate individuals. The intervention is potentially believed to create avenues for advancement of improved societal justice (Hughes & Lewis, 2012). According to Hughes & Lewis (2012), another dimension taken by the social democrats supposes that for the regulation of the undesirable capitalistic societal effects, there in need for welfare. The undesirable effects of a capitalistic societal setup include lack of employment opportunities and low wages for workers. The social democrats believe that, when the benefits are made universal, mitigation of poverty will be simpler. Discriminatory benefits are extremely humiliating to an extent that individuals would shy away from making deserved claims because embarrassments associated with such humiliations. For this reason, there would be an escalation of poverty. In summation, the approach of the social democrats has an emphasis on the necessity for welfare in the present time capitalistic societal setup. The arguments advanced are that with social welfare in place, the negative effects associated with capitalism would be regulated. The said negative effects of capitalism include unemployment cases and instances of low earnings. Another emphasis advanced here is the needs for transformation of the welfare system to alleviate poverty among the victims of poverty. Social democrats in their views also advocate the enactment of universal benefits and reductions on the levies chargeable on low-wage earners. The democratic argue that the measures would cut down the numbers of individuals eligible for the benefits reception. Finally, the social democrats approach emphasizes the need for government intervention in the marketplace for the facilitation of extending help to individuals adversely affected by the market and have the people compensated. Ways in which New Right undermined approaches to legislation established in the post-war period. Neo-liberalism undermined the legislative approaches in several ways; The campaigned for the diminution of the powers of trade unions that they purported to be excessive The neo-liberalist ideology promoted the minimization of the independence of the home administration Advocating private education and health care were another undermining factor Support of reduced echelons of spending by the government and reduced charges of taxation Instead of supporting Keynesian macroeconomic management methods, they advocated the monetarist techniques Provision of support for ambiguous markets in the state education and health service provisions They also advocated the interests’ services privatization Instead of ramping up prop up for nationalization, they advocated for privatization Finally, they advocated minimal expenditures on welfare Poverty-move to reinforce individualistic/moralistic explanations In the moralistic viewpoints of the poverty explanation, poverty explanations are clustered around individual possessed or missing attributes or the groups the individuals belong. As is held, poverty, for this reason, is a quality attributable to the poor based on definitions that may take perspectives such as, cultural or biological dimensions. Having noted this, when the character of the individuals causes poverty there would be a need for them to change the poverty causing behaviours. Further, they hold it that poverty is a socially engineered occurrence contrary to viewing it because of other causes such as disasters or diseases. In this line of argument, the neo-liberal observant argue that adults that have experienced poverty get accustomed to and pass on to their generations the knowledge of living in poverty. The general belief, for this reason, is that living in poverty is socially nurtured, and the poor are to be blamed for living in poverty. They further believe that poverty is a dysfunctional culture and has a representation of a self-defeating strategy that deprives children of their childhood. The poor by coping and adapting to living in poverty further escalate the problems because their actions lead to the upshot of informal sectors (Brock, 2009). Notion of Deserving and Undeserving Poor The deserving poor are classified as groups of societal members whom, even though, are not part of the poverty cause find that they are victims of poverty. This group consists of individuals working for meager wages for existence and, for this reason, the notion that they are in need of help. The other group of undeserving poor consists of individuals that are assumed that are contented with living at the behest of the state. Individuals in this group live and survive on benefits from the state. Another stereotype accorded to these individuals is that, at any slight chance will they indulge in criminal activities. Finally, individuals in this segment usually make very little efforts of engaging themselves in the ordinary life activities of the conventional societal setup (Nunn, 2014). Limited role for the state The neo-liberal philosophy holds the argument that in a free societal setting where the government’s roles are limited, there are high chances of undeniably inequitable distribution of wealth and income. In the course of justifying this belief, the philosophy suggests that individuals hold different ideologies and talents, which are outcomes of genetic determination. The differences in persons empower them differently and consequently the uprising of inequalities (Pilger, 2013). Private provision and family care (Family ideology) The neo-liberalists held a family unit ideology, which reinforced the notion of community concern as the premise of interest’s provision. Another aspiration was the promotion of voluntary private services for provisions, thus relinquishing the notion of state provision. Emphasis was laid on the essence of the family being the core welfare contributor. The ideology hailed family concern as the appropriate form of care. Through emphasis on the family care in a normative manner, the diversities in families and gender roles were obscured (Corby, 2001). In this sense, it was fronted by the neo-liberal ideologists that people had to be individually responsible for own lives. The society was for this cause absolved from blame for the problems, which individuals faced. People according to this philosophy had to look solely after themselves while at the same time taking care of associates like neighbours. The rationale for this argument was, that in the event the administration took part in the provision for communities and family units, the incentives for self-help would be diminished. For this understanding, it was held that the government should disassociate itself from helping households so that self-reliance and national charitable efforts would burgeon (Pilger, 2013). Charity Charity was viewed as a great performance of safeguarding freedom in the social order. The charitable activities were given the eminence to extents of serving functionalities related to political and economic agenda contexts. Cost efficiency and innovation were treated as the major qualities of charity. In the neo-liberal ideologies, it was held that since the scope of the government was limited, service provision would greatly be hinged on the willingness of the citizens to offer charity work. Charity would also ensure that service provision was not ensnared in the political clutches (Cowley, 2013). Conclusion In essence, it is appropriate to analyze for each case of the neo-liberal and assess the outcomes of the policies in the context of equity, economic efficacy, and economic development. After that focus should be on the tangible benefits of growth and development to the poor, and how the various policies affected equity of prospect. Bibliography Brock, R 2009, No Such Thing as Society": Thatcherism and Derridean Hospitality in "The Fifth Child, Doris Lessing Studies, 28, 1, pp. 7-13, Literary Reference Center Plus, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 January 2015. CORBY, S., 2001. Facing up to Thatcherism: The History of NALGO 1979-1993 / Redefining Public sector Unionism: UNISON and the Future of Trade Unions. Employee Relations, 23(4), pp. 417-420. Cowley, J 2013, The left struggled to understand Thatcher. When it finally did, the result was New Labour, New Statesman, 142, 5153/5154, p. 53, Literary Reference Center Plus, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 January 2015. Hughes, G., & Lewis, G. (2012). Unsettling Welfare the Reconstruction of Social Policy.Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Neoliberalism. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2015, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/pro NUNN, A., 2014. The contested and contingent outcomes of Thatcherism in the UK. Capital & Class, 38(2), pp. 303-321. Pilger, J 2013, Thatcher may be gone, but remember -her cruel influence lives on in the Labour Party, New Statesman, 142, 5155, p. 54, Literary Reference Center Plus, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 January 2015. Wedd, G 2000, WHAT WAS THATCHERISM?, Contemporary Review, 277, 1616, p. 179, Literary Reference Center Plus, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 January 2015. Read More