New Labors Policy and Developments under the Coalition Government - Term Paper Example

New Labor’s Policy and Developments under the Coalition Government New Labor’s Policy andDevelopments under the Coalition Government The United Kingdom has a complete child welfare system under which Local Authorities have obligations and tasks towards children in need in their area. This covers delivery of advice and services, accommodation and upkeep of children who become uncared for, and also the ability to initiate proceedings for the elimination of children from their parents care or care proceedings. The criteria for the latter are substantial harm which involves sexual, physical and emotional abuse and neglect. In proper cases the Care Plan before the Court will be opting for adoption. The Local Authorities also put up adoption services both for children put up for adoption willingly and those becoming accessible for adoption through Court proceedings. The plain legal principle in all public and private proceedings regarding children, under the Children Act 1989, is that the welfare of the child is paramount. In acknowledgment of attachment issues, social work good practice necessitates a minimal number of moves and the 1989 Children Act preserves the principle that delay is unfavorable to a childs welfare. Care proceedings have a time limit of 40 weeks and simultaneous planning is required. The final Care Plan set forth by the Local Authority is required to deliver a plan for permanence, whether with parents, long-term foster parents, family members or adopters. However, drift and multiple placements still arise as many older children are hard to place or maintain in placements. The role of Independent Visitor, a voluntary post, was invented in the United Kingdom under the 1989 Children Act to befriend and assist children and young people in care. In England, Scotland and Wales there never has been a legislative obligation to report alleged child abuse to the Police. However both the Children Act 1989 and 2004 makes clear a statutory responsibility on all professionals to report suspected child abuse. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006 invented the role of Local Authority Designated Officer, "LADO". This officer is responsible for handling allegations of abuse against adults who work with children (Teachers, Social Workers, Church leaders, Youth Workers etc.). Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) are responsible for ensuring agencies and professionals, in their area, effectually safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In the occasion of death or serious injury of a child, LSCBs can start a Stern Case Review aimed at classifying agency failings and improving future practice. The planned Contact Point database, under which information on children is shared amid professionals, has been terminated by the newly elected coalition government (May, 2010). The database was intended to improve information sharing across agencies. Lack of information sharing had been branded as a failing in numerous high profile child death cases. Critics of the scheme evident it was evidence of a big brother state and too expensive to initiate. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006 (updated in 2010) and the successive The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report continue to endorse the sharing of data between those working with susceptible children (Laming, 2009). A child in suitable cases can be made a ward of court and no verdicts about the child or changes in its life can be made without the leave of the High Court. The Murder of Victoria Climbié was largely accountable for various changes in child fortification in England, including the development of the Every Child Matters program in 2003. A similar program - Getting it Right for Every Child - GIRFEC was established in Scotland in 2008. The media have been vital to the growth of society’s awareness of child abuse and neglect, not so much from specific community education campaigns as through ongoing news and features reporting on precise cases, research and intervention initiatives (Gough, 1996). The failures of child protection services in exact have preoccupied the media in Britain for decades (Stanley and Goddard, in press) with headlines having a familiar ring wherever they appear: in the United States, "Never again: how we failed James Whakaruru" (Collins, 2000), "Brianna report cites chaos in 7 DC agencies" (Horwitz & Higham, 2000); in New Zealand,; and in the United Kingdom after the terrible death of Victoria (known as Anna) Climbie, "Why did no one try to save this bright, happy girl?" (Bright & McVeigh, 2001). As Stanley and Goddard have noted, such media coverage has a key impact. Every such death provides opportunities to re-visit previous tragedies. At one time UK tabloid The Mirror devoted its full front page and three other pages to "The lost ones" (7 May 2001). Inside, the paper carried more than 20 stories, supplemented by photographs of children who died as a result of abuse, neglect or murder (Wynne-Jones & Sayid, 2001). Other child abuse stories feature conspicuously and habitually in most major newspapers. In Australia, on one day (6 June), The Advertiser in Adelaide devoted its complete front page to the story of a former magistrate found guilty of sexually molesting young boys (Weir, 2001), The Courier Mail in Queensland had a major story entitled "Drinking dad drops his baby, court told" (Watt, 2001), while The Age in Melbourne stated on its front page that "child-porn swoop leads police to state bureaucrat" (Silvester, 2001). As Hutson & Liddiard (1994) note, media representations of social problems are important not least because of the impact such representations have on "public attitudes". Writing of youth homelessness, they argue that the stories provided by the media are the "main source of information" for most people. New Labor rose to power in 1997 subsequent to two decades of neo-liberal Conservative governance. Conservative policy had been dedicated to reducing taxation and public expenditure, although high levels of unemployment meant that spending on social security, in fact, increased. In broad terms the Conservatives trailed a strategy that contained a low-wage economy; an elastic labor market; progressively targeted and means-tested benefits; and more in-work benefits. They declined the idea of a minimum wage (shortly to be executed by New Labor) because of the threat it was believed to case to the creation of low paid jobs. Most of the Conservatives’ policy ideas were imported from the US (Marmor & Plowden, 1991). As in the US, but unlike the rest of continental Europe, lone mothers became the main targets of the Conservative crusade against the ‘dependency culture’, supported by much of the press. The Conservatives presided over a massive increase in poverty and inequality. Between 1979 and 1996/7, official statistics showed that the quantity of people living in households below 50 per cent of average income (commonly taken as a poverty line) rose from 9% to 24%. Particularly dramatic were the figures on child poverty, showing an increase from one in ten to around a third. These figures are very high by international standards so that the UK now has one of the highest child poverty rates in the industrialized world. In 1974, 6.4 per cent of all under-16 year olds relied on means-tested social assistance; by 1994 one quarter did so. The percentage rise for younger children was even greater, from 6.6 per cent to 29.1 percent. Hills’ (1995) research on inequalities in income and wealth showed clearly that only New Zealand exceeded Britain in the growth of inequality. Official figures show that between 1979 and 1996/7, the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent decreased by 9%in real terms, despite an overall growth in real income of 44%. Thus greater means testing and targeting did not seem to have helped the relative position of the poor, as is generally the case (Korpi et al., 1998; Cantillon, 1998). Despite this inheritance, fearing the effects of its ‘tax and spend’ image on the electorate, New Labor promised to keep to the Conservatives’ spending limits for the first two years. It also promised not to increase income tax rates, which had been cut significantly under the Conservatives. This was seriously to hamper its capacity to address the run-down state of public services, particularly health, education and transport. During the first year in office, therefore, there was a high level of continuity with previous Conservative policies. The case of policy towards lone parent families exemplifies this continuity. One of the earliest policy decisions the new Government faced (in the autumn of 1997) was whether to reverse the Conservatives’ decision to phase out the modest additional benefits for lone mothers. It decided not to do so, to the consternation of many backbench Labor Party MPs and others. This was a decision of great symbolic and strategic importance. The Party did not wish to be perceived so early on as reverting to ‘old Labor type’ by simply raising benefits, which might increase Middle England’s fear of increased taxes to follow. It also wanted to put in place a new strategic relationship between paid work, welfare payments and taxation, which a simple increase in benefit levels would undermine. The decision to go ahead and abolish lone parents’ benefits was viewed with horror by many traditional Labor supporters, but confirmed for those voters who had switched over from the Conservative Party that this Labor Government was indeed different from previous Labor administrations. The March 1998 Budget which followed, however, marked the first phase in a series of improvements to benefits for children discussed in Part III. These measures effectively made good the effect of the cuts in benefits for lone parents with young children. The outcry had had an effect. Indeed, the Budget was redistributive, but was not sold publicly as such. Overall, New Labor has accepted the fact of the low wage, flexible labor market that was created by the Conservatives (tempered by New Labor’s introduction of a national statutory minimum wage), and has sought to construct a new model for social provision around it. This involves substantial investment in human capital via the National Health Service, state education and training, albeit that the bulk of the monies was not delivered until late in 2000. It also involves a new approach to the tax/benefit system that involves measures to encourage the move from ‘welfare to work’ and to make work pay. In many respects, therefore, the UK looks increasingly like the US, especially with regard to the use of tax credits and the emphasis on getting people into employment. However, in many significant ways the two countries remain very different. The UK retains state welfare payments for able bodied adults; it has not made welfare time-limited; and the reach of its tax credit system is much wider. The promise to eradicate child poverty, discussed in the next section, is perhaps the clearest policy highlighting the differences rather than the similarities between the two countries. II. The Policy Pledge Under the Conservatives, the word ‘poverty’ had been deleted from the official policy vocabulary. The New Labor Government did acknowledge the scale of poverty and the problems it caused, but initially it preferred to use the term ‘social exclusion’. It quickly established a Social Exclusion Unit charged with helping to break the vicious circle created ‘when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown’ (Social Exclusion Unit, 1997). The early focus on social exclusion meant that the lack of money associated with poverty as such tended to be downplayed. However, in 1999 poverty, and in particular child poverty, was put firmly on the political agenda. On 18 March, Prime Minister Blair delivered a major lecture on the future of the welfare state- the Beveridge Lecture (after the architect of the post-war welfare state, William Beveridge). In it he sketched out a vision of a ‘modern popular welfare state’. He set out ‘our historic aim that ours is the first generation to end child poverty forever, and it will take a generation. It is a 20-year mission but I believe that it can be done’ (Blair, 1999). Blair cited evidence about the damaging impact of child poverty and drew on arguments that emphasized children as an investment: ‘we have made children our top priority because, as the Chancellor memorably said in his Budget, “they are 20% of the population but them are100% of the future’. “We need to break the cycle of disadvantage so that children born into poverty are not condemned to social exclusion and deprivation. That is why it is so important that we invest in our children” (Blair, 1999).Around the same time, the Treasury (the finance ministry) published a document, Tackling Poverty and Extending Opportunity, which emphasized the impact of poverty on children’s life chances and opportunities. It demonstrated how “disadvantages in childhood frequently leads to disadvantage in adult life and that increasing numbers of children are growing up in disadvantaged families” (HMTreasury, 1999). It argued that ‘lack of opportunity is of most concern when it persists between generations: when people’s life chances are determined by who their parents were rather than their own talents and efforts’ (HM. Treasury, 1999). It declared that ‘the Government attaches the highest priority to supporting families with children, tackling the causes of childhood poverty and ensuring that all children have the opportunity to succeed’ (HM Treasury, 1999). Subsequent Treasury documents have developed these themes further. For instance, in November 1999, Supporting Children through the Tax and Benefit System focused more specifically on children. This document introduced an interim pledge to halve child poverty within a decade. It started with the words that ‘the Government’s aim is for every child to have the best start in life’ (HM Treasury, 1999). It demonstrated how ‘children have not had an equal share of the growth in incomes over the last 20 years’ (HM Treasury, 1999).Although the pledge to end child poverty was made by Prime Minister Blair, much of the policy impetus has come from the Treasury under the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. This is an unusual role for the Treasury, which traditionally has focused on taxation and macro-economic policy and on regulating the expenditure of other government departments. It suggests a broader understanding of the meaning of investment, i.e. the importance of investment in ‘human capital’ alongside more traditional forms of economic investment. In an article for the journal of the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), Brown wrote: The Child Poverty Action Group is the leading independent anti-poverty organization in the UK. Child poverty is a scar on Britain’s soul. It is simply unacceptable that millions of children should start their lives in families where no-one works or where they are caught in the poverty trap, in poor housing, under-nourished, and condemned to sub-standard education and healthcare. That is why Tony Blair has said that we will not rest until we have banished child poverty from the face of Britain. We are determined to give every child the best start in life. It is essential that we address the causes of poverty and provide support where and when it is most needed. We must give all our children the opportunity to achieve their hopes and fulfill their potential. By investing in them we are investing in our future. We cannot leave behind those least able to help their selves. The article concluded: But abolishing child poverty should not just be the aim of the Government – it should be the aim of everyone. That is why this has to be a partnership between all of us. We all want to tackle child poverty. So let’s do it and give all our children the best possible start in life (Brown, 1999). In a speech to a conference on child poverty organized by CPAG Brown said: You should take pride that your concern – child poverty – and your driving ambition – the eradication of child poverty –once written off as the goal of dreamers, for many years a call for justice unheard in a political wilderness – is the ambition not just of your organization but now the ambition of this country’s Government. Action on child poverty is the obligation this generation owes to the next: to millions of children who should not be growing up in poverty; children who because of poverty, deprivation and the lack of opportunity have been destined to fail even before their life’s journey has begun, children for whom we know – unless we act – life will never be fair. Children in deprived areas, who need, deserve and must have a government on their side, a government committed to and fighting for social justice. And we must not forget that poverty – above all the poverty of children – disfigures not just the lives of the poor but all our society………We need to understand that these children are not just someone else’s children and someone else’s problem –they are the children of our country, the children of us all. And if we do not find it within ourselves to pay attention to them as young children today, they may force us to pay attention to them as troubled adults tomorrow. So it must be the government’s objective to ensure that no child will go without help, that every child is included, that every child will have the chance to make the best of their lives, that we will never allow another generation of children to be discarded…….Our starting point is a fundamental belief in the equal worth of every human being, and our duty to help each and every one develop their potential to the full: for all children and all adults ---to help them bridge the gap between what they are and what they have it in themselves to become (Brown, 2000). The Chancellor also indicated the need for a broad coalition or ‘alliance for children’ to take part in what he has called ‘a crusade’ against child poverty. He described this as ‘a movement based on faith in the future, a crusade for nothing less than the kind of society our children will inherit’ (Brown, 2000c). Two more recent speeches give a further flavor of his ambitions and the motivations driving the commitment: ‘Our country’s future lies with the hopes, dreams and potential of our children…Yet we know that a child who grows up in a poor family is less likely to reach his or her full potential, less likely to stay on at school, or even attend school regularly, less likely to get qualifications and go to college, more likely to be trapped in a low-paid job or no job at all, more likely to reproduce the cycle of deprivation in childhood, exclusion in youth and disappointment which is lifelong. So it must be the Government’s objective to ensure that no child is left behind, that every child should have the best start in life, that we never allow another generation of children to be discarded and so abolish child poverty in a generation, recognizing that tackling child poverty is the best antidrug, anti-crime, anti-deprivation policy for our country’ (Brown, 2000). ‘In the year 2000, we share a moral duty to end the scourge and tragedy of child poverty in our society. It is a duty we as citizens owe to each other’ (Brown, 2000a).‘As long as there is child poverty, there will be a scar on Britain’s soul. Let us never again have parts of Britain where there are children without nutrition, living in homes without heat, attending schools without proper books, in inner cities without hope. Children endless watching TV adverts of possessions they can see but never afford to buy – spectators in the race of life rather than likely to be its success stories’ (Brown, 2000). I want us to be the generation that took millions of children out of poverty and created a society where everyone has the chance, so long denied, to make the most of themselves and their talents and realize their potential to the full’ (Brown, 2000). It is an ambitious agenda that goes to the heart of the Government’s vision of the kind of society it wishes to build. It is backed up by annual monitoring reports, entitled Opportunity for All, which set out the progress made. The first, baseline, report was published in 1999. It sets out as the Government’s goal that ‘everyone should have the opportunity to achieve their potential. But too many people are denied that opportunity. It is wrong and economically inefficient to waste the talents of even one single person’. In addition to detailing the risk factors, which ‘increase the likelihood that disadvantaged children will fare worse in later life’, the report addresses the fact that ‘children in low income families tend to have lower aspirations and expectations for their future’. It states that ‘we want to tackle this poverty of ambition…And we need to ensure that all children aspire to fulfill their full potential (DSS, 1999). The Second Report continues with the theme of opportunity. The Secretary of State for Social Security begins his Foreword with the declaration that ‘A fair and decent society is one where nobody is held back by disadvantage or denied opportunity. We were elected to put that vision into practice’ (DSS, 2000). The policies adopted to tackle child poverty include both direct measures (e.g., increases in benefit rates) and indirect measures (e.g. policies to promote employment among parents and so improve family income). Ending child poverty - key policy measures include ; Direct support for children, increases in financial support, higher rates of benefits, new tax-based support, reform of Child Support, sure start, the Childrens Funds, educational Maintenance Allowances, Encourage parental employment and make work pay, Improved Maternity Rights and right to parental Leave, national Child-Care Strategy, New Deal for Communities/Employment Zones, Make work pay The National Minimum Wage, Working Families Tax Credit, Lower starting rates of tax and national insurance contributions, Increased earnings disregards for part-time work for lone, and Looking in more detail at the child measures: Higher rates of benefits - there have been significant increases in benefit rates for children of non-working parents, for children of parents in low-paid work, and for children in general. (Note second and subsequent children get slightly less), which gives the annual amounts of support. Benefit increases for children have been substantially above the rate of inflation, giving a real income boost for all family types. New tax-based support - The Working Families Tax Credit is payable to families where a parent is in employment for more than 16 hours per week, with earnings below a certain level, based on family size. It includes a child care tax credit which contributes towards the costs of registered childcare. The Childrens Tax Allowance will come into effect from April 2001 and will reduce tax bill for families with earnings above the tax threshold. It will be worth a maximum of £442 per family for standard rate taxpayers. Higher rate taxpayers will have payments reduced by £52 for every£780 of income liable for the higher rate of tax. From 2003, both of these (and the childrens rates of social assistance) will be combined into one single integrated child credit. Reform of Child Support - From 2001, measures will be introduced which are intended to increase the number of families receiving child support, although the amounts per family may well be lower. There will be a simplification of the formula and more streamlined administration. Child support payments are ignored in the calculation of Working Families Tax Credit, thus providing a further boost to income for working parents. And for the first time lone mothers on social assistance will be allowed to keep the first £10 of the payment. Sure Start - In 250 areas, managed by voluntary and statutory agencies in partnership, with a budget of £450 million per annum rising to £500million in 2003/4.Inspired by the American Head Start program, it aims to promote the physical, intellectual and social developments of pre-school children, to equip them for starting school. Currently reaches about 18 per cent of poor pre-school children and aims to reach one third by 2003/4. Services provided include outreach and home visiting, support for families and parents, play, childcare, primary health care, community health care, and advice about child health and child development, support for special needs, and access to special needs services. The Childrens Funds – added up to £450 million over three years. The majority of the Fund will be targeted on preventive work with children (primarily in the 5 to 13 age group)and their families, helping them before they hit crisis; £70 million of the Fund will be distributed directly to local community groups through a network of local funds, administered by the voluntary sector. Educational Maintenance Allowances - For children aged 16 plus who attend full-time courses at school or college, £30-£40 per week, depending on parental income, paid during term time. Started in September 1999 in 15 pilot areas, will be extended to cover 30 per cent of the country and may eventually replace child benefit for this age group. Connexions – to provide information, advice, guidance and access to personal advisers for all young people aged 13 to 19. On Track Aimed at reducing the risk factors that link young people with future criminal behavior. An initial £27million will fund 20-30 pilot projects, which will include pre-school education, parent support and training, family therapy, home visits and home/school partnerships. The information available mainly refers to the financial measures, although the DSS (2000) also reports that the number of children reaching expected numeracy standards at age 11 has increased from 54 per cent in 1996 to 72 per cent in 2000and school exclusions have fallen by 15 per cent between 1997/8 and 1998/9. As noted above, there have been substantial increases in benefits. These have brought families with children receiving social assistance (i.e. income support or jobseekers allowance) much closer to a low cost but acceptable budget standard, although there is still a shortfall, especially for two-parent families (Millar, 2001). There are about 1.1 million children in families receiving Working Families Tax Credit and they are receiving, on average, about £70 per week, which is about £30 per week more than under its predecessor (Family Credit). About 103,000 families are receiving the childcare tax credit. The proportion of children in workless households has fallen from 17.9% in spring 1997 to 15.8% in spring 2000, and there are 300,000 fewer children living in families receiving out-of-work benefits (DSS, 2000). The average household with children has gained by £850 per year, with the highest gains (about £1500 to £1560) at the lowest two deciles (HM-Treasury, 2000). Hills (2000) compares the impact of the budget measures introduced since 1997 with what would have happened if benefits and taxes had simply been up rated for inflation and finds that low-income couples with children have gained between £1300 and £3000per year. Following the changes announced in the 2000 budget, the Treasury estimate that1.2 million children would be lifted out of poverty by 2001 (based on a poverty line of 60per cent of median family income). Piachaud & Sutherland (2000) make a similar estimate of the impact. However, as Hills (2000, p27) points out, these estimates of the impact on child poverty are on the basis of estimating a reduction in the numbers compared to those if no changes had been made. They may not actually translate into such a fall in the numbers in poverty, which will also depend on what happens to market income, to employment levels, as well as on the achievement of high levels of take-up for these new tax credits. The measures look to be on target to meet the goal of reducing child poverty levels by half in ten years (or sooner). That will leave around two million children still in poverty and further efforts will be necessary to reach these children. Nevertheless, the pledge to eradicate child poverty has been very important in guiding the significant policy changes described here. More resources are being transferred to families with children, using both direct and indirect measures. These are already having an impact. Overall, the child as a rhetorical strategy for states and social movements alike, is also tension ridden (Dobrowolsky, 2002). The figure of the child may result in the prioritization of individualistic interests over collective identities. The state reinforces this with its preference to work in partnership with “individuals” (plucked from organizations) rather than representatives from groups (Laforest, 2002). This is particularly problematic for social movements that are premised upon the mobilization of collective identities. With the focus on the child, many collective identities get short lifted. For example, as the social investment state actively weaves together state, market, family and voluntary sector strands to eradicate child poverty, it under-emphasizes gender, race, and class and so on. For example, women are not fore grounded in the social investment state’s new discourses (save for perhaps certain aspects of the employability drive), despite the fact that key child-welfare concerns involve women. Women are mostly responsible for child rearing and care work in the home. They are also over-represented in the third sector and in social movements, compared to their under-representation in formal politics. Concepts such as “worklessness” do not tend to factor in work done by women in the home. With “employability” comes the promotion of flexibility, which translates, into low wage, contingent, often low skilled work, which clearly has gendered, and most definitely race and class implications. The complex, intersecting concerns of collective identities become overshadowed with a sun that shines ever more brightly on the child. To conclude, while the interactions of state and civil society actors that have promoted and produced the child-centered welfare reform strategy have certainly created opportunities, and civil society actors have both seized and shaped these opportunities, this paradigm shift is not free of constraints. Indeed, it may ultimately add to rather than detract from the social exclusion of certain, less favored movements (Jenson 2000; Yates, 2002). This is why a careful analysis of this emerging citizenship regime, the ideas and institutions involved, as well as the subjects that are both the targets of power and part of its articulation, are of critical importance. It is also clear that the media’s portrayal of child abuse and child protection can have negative consequences for children, families and the child protection system, such as the denial of a child’s right to privacy and anonymity and the trivialization of the physical punishment of children and the scapegoating of child protection workers. However, it is argued that media coverage is vital if public concern for children are to remain on the political agenda, and if child protection services are to remain accountable. Further, in addition to their role in highlighting specific childhood concerns, journalists may also exert a powerful influence on social and political responses to all children and are thus in a prime position to advocate for children in society. The challenge for those involved in child welfare and child protection then, is to make greater efforts to understand media influences and to use the media constructively. While a "partnership of equals" with some sections of the media may be impossible, a more active partnership is essential if the complexities of child abuse and child protection are to be responsibly debated and appropriate goals are to be set (Goddard & Liddell, 1995). The latest revolution in communications suggests that the media’s influence on child abuse and child protection may change but is unlikely to diminish. Bibliography Andersen, E. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press. Benefits for children - a four country study, Canada: the Caledon Institute. Blair, T. (1999), “Beveridge revisited: a welfare state for the 21st century.” Reproduced in R. Walker (ed.) Ending Child Poverty, Bristol: Policy Press. Brown, G. (1999), A scar on the nation’s soul Poverty, no 104, Bristol: Policy Press Brown, G. (2000) Speech to the National Council for One Parent Families, London: , Islington. Brown, G. (2000), Speech to the Children and Young People’s Unit conference, London: Islington. Brown, G. (2000), Speech to the CPAG Child Poverty Conference, “Our children are Cantillon, B. (1998) Poverty in Advanced Economies: Trends and Policy Issues. DSS (1999), Opportunity for All, Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion, London: Stationery Office. DSS (2000), Opportunity for All, One year on - making a difference, London: Stationery Office. Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries, American Sociological Review 63 (5): 661-678. Florence: EUI conference paper WS/11. Glennerster, H. (1999), Which Welfare States are most likely to Survive? International Journal of Social Welfare 8: 2-13. Hills, J. (1995), Income and Wealth, vols. 1 and 2. New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. HM Treasury (1999), Supporting Children through the Tax and Benefit System, London: HM Treasury. HM Treasury (1999), Tackling Poverty and Extending Opportunity, London: HM Treasury. HM Treasury (2000), Budget March 2000, London: HM-Treasury. Jane, M. (2001), “Benefits for children in the UK” in Mendelson M and Battle K (Eds) John, H. (2000), Taxation for the Enabling State, London: London Scholl of Economics, Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, CASE paper number 41. Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (1998), The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Marmor, T. and Plowden, W. (1991), Rhetoric and Reality in the Intellectual Jet our future”, London: , Islington. Piachaud, D. and Sutherland, H. (2000), How effective is the British Governments Attempt to Reduce Child Poverty?, London: London School of Economics, CASE paper 38. Politics, Policy and Law 16 (4): 807-12. Stream: the export to Britain from America of Questionable ideas, Journal of Health Read More