The Concept of Social Policy - Assignment Example

DEBATE SOCIAL POLICY: WHETHER SHOULD BE ENTRUSTED TO THE GOVERNMENT OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC Name Course Title Name of Instructor Institution Location Date Q2. THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL POLICY For a long time the society has faced with various socio-economic disparities. This state is mainly contributed to by the beliefs of a people and the existing leadership and governance of the people. The state of socio-economic disparity and marginalisation afflicts all nations and societies of the world regardless of their levels of civilisation. These disparities prompted the need to come up with varied steps geared towards offsetting the inequities and establishing a society that is more equitable and egalitarian (Layton & Grossbart 2006, p.197). For a long time the society has faced with various socio-economic disparities. This state is mainly contributed to by the beliefs of a people and the existing leadership and governance of the people. The state of socio-economic disparity and marginalisation afflicts all nations and societies of the world regardless of their levels of civilisation. These disparities prompted the need to come up with varied steps geared towards offsetting the inequities and establishing a society that is more equitable and egalitarian. The main issue that remains a challenge to various nations across the world is whether social policy should be entrusted to the government or to the general public in their individualistic and isolated manner. Hence there is a need to assess whether social policies and public welfare is a duty of the government or a duty of individuals in an independent manner. Nevertheless, I tend to agree that Social policy should be channelled and managed by individuals in their isolated and independent form as a way of fostering economic and social development. This paper therefore, attempts to determine whether social policy and welfare is a driver for socioeconomic development or deterioration. Finally, the analysis in the paper uses the United Kingdom as a case study to support the various argues therein. With the wake of civilization and revolution of various sectors of the human society especially in the post-War UK, various policies were formulated to address these social disparities. The phrase social policy is defined variously according to the postulations of different authors and scholars. These definitions are analogous and can be incorporated into one statement to define social policy as a set of measures and provisions by governments, organisations and other authorities to streamline the social welfare status of the people to certain universally acceptable minimum standards with the aim of attaining a more equitable and egalitarian human society (McWilliams, 2014 pg 13). From this definition it is clear that the core objective of social policies is to elevate well-being of the people by enhancing key social provisions such as healthcare, housing, poverty alleviation, employment and remuneration, and universal education by offsetting related social discrepancies. Social policy as a multidimensional political market concept that seeks to address issues of gender equity, quality healthcare and disability, population control, poverty, decent housing, quality education, racism, children rights, immigration, job environment and social security, among other fundamental social issues (Baldock et al. 2011, n.d). To be effective and successful, social policy requires concerted efforts and collaborations among the various stakeholders including the government, non-governmental organisations, human rights groups and the general public. The collaborations are pivotal since the social policies affect each and every member of the society directly or indirectly. For a social policy to efficiently attain the intended objective, it has to possess certain attributes. First, a good social policy should be agreeable by a majority of the members in the target society, preferably a minimum threshold of two thirds of the population under consideration. Its execution should be all-inclusive, that is, all members of the society should be allowed to participate in the formulation and execution of the policy (Hezri & Dovers 2006,p.91). The participation inspires the feeling of collective ownership of the policy guidelines thus enhancing success of the social policy. Secondly, the policy should be set within sensible timelines and be easily evaluable at specified stages in the course of its execution. The goals of the policy should also be practical and achievable within the specified timelines. The goals of a social policy should be prioritised in a hierarchy depending on the time and ease of their feasibility, that is, long-term, medium-term and long-term goals (Capital 2000, p.233). The progress of the policy should be tracked regularly to address any emerging issue(s) decisively. The policy should be set within a regulated framework devoid of any form of bias to eliminate or minimise any violations that may arise during its implementation. If not properly regulated by various legal and statutory provisions, a social policy may end up violating some fundamental rights and freedoms of sections of the society. This violation may in turn end up escalating the state of disparity instead of offsetting it. If a social policy aimed at wealth redistribution is executed by transferring excess wealth from the rich to the poor, it may further widen the rich-poor gap and escalate the wealth disparity (Morel, Palier & Palme 2012,n.d).To achieve an appreciable proportion of the ultimate goal, any social policy must therefore strictly adherent to these attributes. Social policy plays the most crucial role in the offsetting of existing socio-economic inequities to establish an egalitarian society. To ascertain and understand this, an in-depth scrutiny of the importance and effect of social guidelines on various aspects of the society namely social administration, public services and social service delivery, and welfare pluralism (Amenta 2003, p.127).Social administration concerns the role of various governmental and organisational frameworks to ensure social services are disseminated to the general public. It involves control and regulation of various social welfare needs of the people. The administrative interventions include funding, management and oversight. The government regulates expenditure towards social provisions through the treasury as well as appointing managers and agencies to oversight the various welfare sectors such as health and education. Hence social policy enables efficient and effective social administration (Narayan 2002,p.71). Social policy enhances access to and delivery of social services by guiding the nature and scope of the social services. Social amenities such as schools and hospitals are established in accordance with guidelines of social policies; the quality of social services is also guided by social policies (Haugh & Kitson 2007, p.981) Welfare pluralism is a state where a social welfare service is offered by more than one provider. This state presents the society with varied options for service provision. A good example is the health sector where various players provide the services, including voluntary organisations, churches and private entities. The presence of many players in one field can raise ethical issues such as some providers exploiting their contact with the public to propagate perverted ideologies like religious radicalisation. Social policy is thus crucial in regulating welfare pluralism (Helliwell 2006, p.45). Social policy in United Kingdom outlines the systematic improvements in the United Kingdom welfare policy, which tended to have been dominated by the state policies and duties. These policies were assorted from ideals in order to point out the factors that affect the wellbeing of the people like reduction in public expenditure, reduction in the over dependence ratio and promotion of equity by raising the wages and salaries of the poor people (Taylor, 2012 pg65). The social policy evolution in United Kingdom, is subdivided into pre- the old poor law; the old poor law which involves settlement and removal, workhouses under the old poor law and out relief and lastly is the twentieth century which include the liberal government, the interwar period the end of the poor law and the welfare state (Joutsenvirta & Vaara 2015, p.753). Firstly the pre-old poor law, the less fortune were supported by the religious charities in Europe. Those living below the basic needs requirements were regarded as bad people in the society hence the higher classes were neither willing to support nor associate with them. Secondly, in the old poor law, rapid increase in number of people and association was on rise around the sixteenth century, for instance the Elizabeth Act of 1563 and 1572, established provisions that were aim towards imposing punishment on sturdy beggars and impotent poor (Berrington, and Stone,2014 pg 56). It supported the establishment of settlement, labourers were placed under ancient poor law and relief was not to be provided for the labouring class. Malthus (1983), noted that the increment in numbers was superseding beyond the country’s ability to support and so reforms were a must. The poor law of 1834 included labouring class under the modern poor law, public health act introduction in 1872 to ensure sanitary control, local government equipped with the role of establishing health centres as well as welfare assistance upon other duties, compulsory education for beginners was offered freely though the secondary and tertiary was voluntary with the sole believe that this will boost the political economy and elevate the status of the united kingdom (Sims, & Gulyurtlu 2014,p.17). Care services were fee for service delivered and voluntary. The twentieth century marked the introduction of the political and welfare ideologies hence governance and welfare thought like liberalism and socialism are associated with major British political parties. Classical liberalism was asserted with pure rights, individual involvement, free expression and minimum government roles. Those scholars advocated that government is no necessity in provision of well-being exceeding the minimum threshold. Self well-being is superlatively advocated by permitting free inter-personal association amongst themselves voluntarily for charitable and mutual support purposes (Gooby 2012, p.71). Liberal government took interest in the establishment of welfare amenities and national efficiency which promoted the desire to establish a profound social status for public services. Socialism basement was on the developed association between economic system and society. This type of production led to creation of company income-worker relations which led to rise of associations such as trade unions and political parties (Conning & Kevane 2002,p.382). Another policy is feminism, which is considered a postulation of a modern social faction along others based on sexuality, disability, ethnicity and ecology. It advocated for sex equity, as it gives into the needs and requirements of women, thus being congratulated for positivity on social policies. In Britain Ratbone advocated for familiar allowance, which was an essential necessity for the correlation between income and family well-being (Szreter & Woolcock 2004, p.661), and later advocated for socialization in kids brought-up through provision of cash allowance given to women. Contemporary feminism has placed more emphasis on social organizations since they advocate for women and children well-being. Welfare institutions are seen as agents of social control they try to spear a head gender stereotypes. Ethnic perception is seen as the foundation for social disintegration. As far as races and cultural beliefs are concerned, Western nations are viewed as the most oppressive. Welfare institutions that are mandated with the responsibility of fighting against it are the mostly involved in this as they are the ones that employ the cultural minorities (Haugh & Kitson 2007, p.976). Ethnic perception had limited influence on social policy, until it became the main issue for the labour party. An integral component of culture-based concept of social policy was the cultural pluralism which implied accepting and being respectful for the difference related to smaller communities. Thus, provided emphasis on equity to rights and opportunities when they arise, which United Kingdom has not strictly adhered to since the immigrant policies is still restricted (Sims & Gulyurtlu 2014, p.19). In the ecological approach, the ecological perspective raises issues demanding answers on the characteristics of capitalized economy and social status and their jurisdiction for welfare improvements in the political economy. Since the green movement is concerned with the limits to growth, it questions the supportability of capitalism and social order. It is also concerned with maintenance of healthy environmental condition for human survival, more so the current concern of the global warming and the ecological degradation. Policy justification in the indigenous domain should be curbed in order to maintain good ecological sheer for survival. The controlling measures should be put in place to take control of the environment (Berrington, & Stone 2014, p.231). Social policy is considered one of the policies that persist to dominate human kind since time immemorial. Social policies play a significant role in ensuring that the common interest of every biodiversity especially human kind is guaranteed and well taken care of. Every individual aspires to have the most common and most critical aspects of socialism such as freedom, culture, health, finance as well as socio-political needs. Over time, human diversity has experienced and persistently undergo through series of poverty, lack of basis socioeconomic factors such as water, poverty, and misappropriated and misplaced beliefs and religions (Sonenshein 2016 p. 354). The main issue therefore is who to blame for all the mischief that the human diversity endure. People in their own capacities are in disarray as to whether to confide the responsibilities for their social needs to the government or to entrust the obligation to themselves. Morality for instance forms an undisputedly most crucial part of social responsibility and therefore the question remains as to whether moral laws and policies should be amended and controlled by the government prima facie or should be based on cultural laws, principals and beliefs (Chu, Davoodi, & Gupta 2000, n.d). Other proponents propose that human beings are rational and should never be bound by any social law but should be left to make decisions by themselves and walk according to their own ways. However, such assertions are still debatable for palpable solutions to be derived. Various researchers and proponents attempts to devise various ways of solving the emanating problems with social jurisprudence and responsibility with others ascertaining that it is the responsibility of the government to control and manage the social structure and system of the country while others maintain that people can devise social policies individually and in an isolated so as to ensure perfect success of such policies (Morel, Palier & Palme 2012, n.d). The assertions are completely controversial and therefore the solution to the problem is blurred necessitating the need of systematic and comprehensive debate. The phrase ‘social policy’ is contentiously used to refer to the strategies and guidelines that the government uses to ensure social welfare and social protection of the diverse cultures in societies and institutions. Bradshaw (2015 p32) classifies social welfare in three major categories. The first category addresses the administrative practices in social services which entail factors such as health administration, education, housing, social security and healthcare. The second category addresses social problems which include the ageing population, disability, mental disorientations and unemployment. The last category addresses the inconveniences attached to social alienation such as race, ethnicity, gender, age and poverty. In his attempt to explain the person responsible for social welfare which is a crucial component of social policy, Bradshaw establishes that the applicability of welfare responsibilities is constrained by the policies of the welfare state of which he defines a welfare state as a country which recognizes, appreciates and responds effectively to the social requirements of its inhabitants. He illustrates further that with respect to an ideal model, a welfare state is solemnly responsible for provision of basic and universal welfare to the citizens with precision. Nonetheless, some countries such as Western Europe and Scandinavia believe in social protection where the responsibility of social protection is presumed to be everyone’s responsibility including the government, independent bodies, voluntary organizations and the general autonomous public involvement (Amenta 2003, p.97). The third principle is the most widely used globally especially in the Western part of Europe where individuals as well as governments deem that dealing with welfare issues requires solidarity and mutual aid hence call for massive and resourceful involvement. Brunell, Tumblin and Buelow (2014 p.367-371) in their endeavour to discuss volunteerism expresses that humanitarianism is explicitly and undisputedly necessary in meeting the attempts to address international social challenges. The article presented by the researchers articulates that, “humanitarianism is a crucial factor albeit often neglected… it has a great deal of relevance when it comes to social welfare policies”. The policies of humanitarianism calls upon every individual irrespective of race, gender, age, tradition or natural orientation to recognize appreciate and respond respectively to the responsibility towards social welfare predicaments. Dean, (2015): Andrew Dunn (2014) , concur in their ideologies that indeed welfare responsibilities should never be a one party responsibility part a responsibility for and by everyone residing within the boundaries of a specific state. O'neil, (2015) gives further details on the same issue in his attempt to explain theoretical framework on context versus Communist Regime Exposure Socialization where he affirms that the individuals who benefit from social welfare such as the aged, impoverished, unemployed and the disadvantaged should take the lead in supporting the same social welfare. In O’neil’s ideology, every single individual must develop the humanitarianism nature in them in which, without being compelled, people just get to believe that social responsibility is their own responsibility. Additionally, it is determinable that indeed religious and political institutions play a palpable role in dealing with social welfare issues through making charitable contributions (Wagner, Frick & Schupp 2007, n.d). Catholics for instance acknowledges that the church has a duty to solidarity and every Christian must respond to the call of social responsiveness. In one accord, the Islam, Judaism and Lutheran Christianity consider it vital coming together and addressing social welfare such as poverty and immorality without necessarily debating on the extent of their religious boundaries. Dean (2015); Dunn (2014) attempt to link welfare positivism to democracy and political economy where the two proponents explain that people become positive to their own welfare as well as welfare of others in tandem with the need to embrace democratic rights. They explain that an individual free from oppression and dominion would in his personal wit make decisions that are positive and beneficial to the general society. A free person recognizes the sufferings of other people and wishes to unbind them from such sufferings. Such an individual would forever endeavour to provide all the paraphernalia necessary in liberating their fellow beings from such chains of oppression with the belief that a free mind is economically productive as opposed to an oppressed one. Democrats believe that social protection and welfare provision have greater benefits to the economic and social status of an economy and that countries with stringent and diverse policies on social welfare are far much wealthier in comparison to the ones that lack or do not stress much on such policies (Conning & Kevane 2002, p.77). The studies presented by most communists supports the ideology proposed by Dean and Dunn where the communists affirms that collective production of resources is undisputedly necessary in ensuring social security and responsiveness towards building strong social communities and ensuring equality amongst social groups. The communists proclaim that protecting the proletariat through education, historical understanding and health amongst other factors proves to be the absolute necessity (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004, p.659). According to assertions devised by communists, bourgeois class of people who exploit the proletariat form no part of a generous society and should reconsider their stand towards supporting the society. Finally, the communists claim that antithetic aims towards harming the policies for social welfare by going controversial to the social policies deemed crucial and most necessary for economic and social developments. Therefore, it is vital to consider the reasons behind antithetical claims and the validity of such claims. Adam Smith, one of the antithetic scholars in his discussion of the invisible hand claims that the society is like a free market where each person can only sell and buy according to the person’s capabilities and resources at the person’s disposal. He proclaims that the free social market is indeed an avenue for people to practice their free will unbound by any feeling of oppression or complement (Hezri, & Dovers 2006, p.93). According to his assertions, the market is a divine avenue that can operate by itself free from imposed policies and that the market in itself is controlled by supernatural factors that no man has ability to control, something he names the invisible hand that controls and directs the market forces (Thussu, 2014 pg76). He expounds further that by letting the society run itself like a free market, people would be in a position to practice their own free will so as to achieve self-interest. The invisible approach to free market strategy utilizes the concepts of capitalist approach to social and economic growth. One of the major capitalists approaches states that every individual is interested in maximizing his personal output and would forever endeavour to move away from factors that would reduce or rather mean harm to his current social and economic status (Narayan 2002, p.66). According to the principle, the globe is a world of competition where social and economic resources are limited and therefore cannot serve fully the interests of each and every individual hence each person in his or her own capability would fight towards collecting the maximum volume of resources needed by him or her (Helliwell 2006,p.37). Under this perspective, it can be denoted that Smith’s capitalist approach is absolutely controversial to the communists’ approach which proposes collective production and utilization of resources (Layton & Grossbart 2006, p.202). The self-interest approach as devised by Smith promotes individualism instead of pluralism in solving social problems. It purports that people in their individualistic nature would diligently and persistently work by taking risks, currying out innovations and discoveries as well as implementing such discoveries as a way of competing effectively towards maximizes self-resources. In as such, contribution to social welfare must be considered harmful to people’s social and economic wellbeing hence must be avoided at all cost. In one of his statements, Smith explains that it is not that capitalists are against social responsibility but through the market forces controlled by the invisible hand people indirectly and somehow unknowingly contributes to the social welfare of the society (Capital 2000, p.227). For instance, during economic depression, prices of commodities increase and as a result, revenues collected by the government institutions proportionately increases. Consequently, government expenditure on social welfare also increases. Additionally, according to the capitalism ideology, during economic boom, prices are relatively lower consequently resulting in increased capacity of people to buy more. As such, people’s welfare is well taken care of since they can purchase commodities below the averagely expected prices. Modern proponents that support capitalism suggest that the government as well as corporate institutions are already doing much is dealing with social issues that individuals do not need to contribute more or involve themselves much in the scheme (Haugh & Kitson 2007,p.990). The government for instance has the mandate for social protections inform of pension schemes, health insurance funds, infrastructural development funds, health development funds and disaster response reserves which directly solve the emanating social issues (Joutsenvirta,and Vaara 2015, p.763). The corporate institutions such as companies are as well playing their part in ensuring social responsibility through their schemes towards communal responsiveness. However, capitalists maintain that it is social exploitation for individuals to contribute towards social responsibilities. The approach maintains that people should be considered independent and never compelled to make irrational decisions like taking up the financial responsibilities of another person. Finally, it shows that every person on the planet irrespective of gender, race, age or physical ability have the capacity to respond effectively to his personal needs by working diligently and in a focussed manner towards meeting such personal demands and satisfying them fully (Chu, Davoodi, & Gupta 2000, n.d). However, Smith’s ideologies still remain hazy and misleading since it fails to realize that some people within the society such as the blind and the orphaned children stand a minimal chance to work for their own needs thus require social involvement. In the United Kingdom, social policy begun long time and it has been associated with the political classes and parties. Since then the policies have undergone several reforms and changes to suite the current situations and the several economic demands in the society. Association of the social policies and the political governance as witnessed in the Labour party has led to social reforms which have later been developed into policies (Berrington & Stone 2014, p.231). The reforms include social security, health and wellbeing administration, education and employment, poverty and social justice and the personal social services. Social security in Britain has been enhanced to take care of the ageing population, the disabled and the less fortune. This is to control the rapid increase in the level of poverty upon the ageing population. Health care administration ensure the wellbeing of the population which will be in turn provide for the required workforce in the industrialized fields thus ensuring increased production (Gooby 2012, p.73). Education and employment, free basic education has been provided in order to raise the status of the poor families. Employment is to be as a means of welfare improvement in terms of the wages paid to the labourers. This later is reflected in the economic development when the national income is concerned and full employment. Poverty and social justice is also brought into limelight as the individual welfare services is taken into account. Social justice entails the equity and equality when the individual welfare services are executed, they should be carried on in a free and fair ways (Baldock et al. 2011, n.d). In conclusion, Social policy plays indeed a fundamental role in enhancing equality and equity in various nations of the world. The debate discussed herein has indeed spotlighted the significance of the necessity of social policy and public involvement in social welfare. On the same note, the discussion brings out cognitive debate as to whether social responsibility should be entrusted to the government or left in the hands of the general public. Adam Smith in his ideologies as an economist explains that the government has the central responsibility in amending social policies and meeting them accordingly and that the general public should have the responsibility of meeting their own personal goals not to be affected by any other peripheral social demand. However, as indicated, Smith’s assertions are short-lived are misleading since it fails to realize that the special group of the society which cannot meet their own demands such as the blind and the orphaned children. It can therefore be concluded that meeting social policies is every party’s responsibility from the government, to institutions and finally to individuals for the sake of an improved economy. References Amenta, E., 2003. What we know about the development of social policy. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, pp.91-130. Baldock, J., Mitton, L., Manning, N. and Vickerstaff, S. eds., 2011. Social policy. Oxford University Press. Berrington, A. and Stone, J., 2014. Young Adults’ Transitions to Residential Independence in the UK: The Role of Social and Housing Policy. In Young people and social policy in Europe (pp. 210-235). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Brunell, A.B., Tumblin, L. and Buelow, M.T., 2014. Narcissism and the motivation to engage in volunteerism. Current Psychology, 33(3), pp.365-376. Capital, W.I.S., 2000. Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The world bank research observer, 15(2), pp.225-49. Chu, M.K.Y., Davoodi, M.H.R. and Gupta, M.S., 2000. Income distribution and tax and government social spending policies in developing countries (No. 0-62). International Monetary Fund. Conning, J. and Kevane, M., 2002. Community-based targeting mechanisms for social safety nets: A critical review. World development, 30(3), pp.375-394. Dean, H., 2015. Andrew Dunn (2014), Rethinking Unemployment and the Work Ethic: Beyond the ‘Quasi-Titmuss’ Paradigm. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.£ 65.00, pp. 240, hbk. Journal of Social Policy, 44(03), pp.641-643. Haugh, H. and Kitson, M., 2007. The Third Way and the third sector: New Labour's economic policy and the social economy. Cambridge journal of economics, 31(6), pp.973-994. Helliwell, J.F., 2006. Well‐Being, social capital and public policy: What's new?. The Economic Journal, 116(510), pp.C34-C45. Hezri, A.A. and Dovers, S.R., 2006. Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 60(1), pp.86-99. Joutsenvirta, M. and Vaara, E., 2015. Legitimacy struggles and political corporate social responsibility in international settings: A comparative discursive analysis of a contested investment in Latin America. Organization Studies, 36(6), pp.741-777. Layton, R.A. and Grossbart, S., 2006. Macromarketing: Past, present, and possible future. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), pp.193-213. Morel, N., Palier, B. and Palme, J., 2012. Towards a social investment welfare state?: ideas, policies and challenges. Policy Press. Narayan, D., 2002. Bonds and bridges: social capital and poverty. Social capital and economic development: well-being in developing countries. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp.58-81. O'neil, P.H., 2015. Essentials of Comparative Politics: Fifth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company. Sims, D. and Cabrita Gulyurtlu, S.S., 2014. A scoping review of personalisation in the UK: approaches to social work and people with learning disabilities. Health & social care in the community, 22(1), pp.13-21. Sonenshein, S., 2016. How corporations overcome issue illegitimacy and issue equivocality to address social welfare: The role of the social change agent. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), pp.349-366. Szreter, S. and Woolcock, M., 2004. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), pp.650-667. Taylor‐Gooby, P., 2012. Root and branch restructuring to achieve major cuts: The social policy programme of the 2010 UK coalition government. Social Policy & Administration, 46(1), pp.61-82. Wagner, G.G., Frick, J.R. and Schupp, J., 2007. The German Socio-Economic Panel study (SOEP)-evolution, scope and enhancements. Read More