Field of Social Welfare Policy - Essay Example

Running Head: SOCIAL POLICY SOCIAL POLICY Events in the field of Social Welfare policy chronologically- Timeline Legislation Health, Social, Educational, Economic issues Political Ideology of Government 1942 Beveridge Report on social welfare. It addressed all the aspects of a social policy through a set of government sponsored programs.(University of California, 2007) The Labour party worked for the betterment of the working class in general. 1945 Family Allowance Act This Act provided economic support to families by way of a guaranteed income. (Walsh, Stephens and Moore, 2000) To ensure a minimum income for those affected by sickness, industrial accidents or unemployment 1946 National Health Service Act It provided adequate health facilities to the people by building more hospitals. (Speller and Lewis, 1946) To provide free and comprehensive health services to all. 1947 Town and country Planning Act, Housing Act It aimed to build more towns and houses, in each area. (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002) To build houses and towns in a way that will benefit the local dwellers. 1954 Housing Rents and Repairs Act It worked to repair houses in dilapidated condition and stressed the right of the tenant. (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002) To protect the tenants and the landlord. 1980 Rejection of the tax-and-spend policy of the government. It cut down most of the expenditure on social policies of the government. The Conservatives did not believe in providing government sponsored welfare services. 1986 Single European Act It combined all the European countries into a group: the first rough framework of European union (EUROPA, 2007). To ease the flow of goods and services between European nations by way of trade. 1992 European Union is formed by the Maastricht Treaty The final forum of European nations (EUROPA, 2007). More trade with greater ease between the European nations. Stages of Development of the Welfare State between 1940 and 20th century A social policy is an “action-oriented” directive aimed towards the society (Titmuss, 1974, pp. 23-24). It is associated with a number of other measures like social administration, social services, social welfare, social security, welfare state, etc. So, these are altogether dealt with as an aggregate. It may include healthcare, education, employment and more. One of the most important among these is the Welfare State that deals with the “state’s approach to welfare for a given economy” (Spicker, 2000, p.6). In this regard, a state may follow laissez-faire, i.e., be completely inactive whether in positive or negative way, or it can be highly interventionist having a well defined pattern of action or may have just a supervisory role. A Welfare state is a channel of expression of power – “through politics and administration” (Pierson and Francis, 2006, p.16). Depending upon the existing market structure, the state decides its welfare policy. This means that welfare policy is based on the problem caused by market power, so, there is a high correlation between the prevailing market power and welfare policy of the state. Keeping this fact in mind, we will study the changing welfare policy scenario in UK corresponding to its rapidly transforming economic and social conditions between the early 1940’s to the 20th century. Transformation of UK as a Welfare State from 1940s to the 20th century The journey of UK from the 18-19th century to its current stature has been immense. In the early 18th century, UK was largely an agricultural economy in which the laborers had complete decision making powers regarding work. Market power was non-existent and thus, so was state welfare. It all started with the “Industrial Revolution” (Mokyr, 1985, p.39) in the 18th century. The agricultural economy started gradually to turn into an industrial giant. The immediate consequences were “rapid migration from rural to suburban areas in search of employment, a drastic increase in population in the urban areas and thus, a total upside down juggling of existing condition.” (Pierson and Francis, 2006, pp. 20-22).Due to this rise in population, a need for proper sanitation, housing, and healthcare was felt as these were in deplorable state. Along with these, the state wanted to protect these factory workers from being exploited by the industrialists as well as from the clutches of abject poverty. So, it decided to make its presence more emphatic. The political scenario in this period is also of immense importance as it can explain why the state implemented respective measures. During this time, the Labor Party was in power, so obviously, the policies were targeted more towards the problems faced by the workers than the Ruling Class. There was a radical movement to nationalize healthcare, education, housing, sanitation, etc, as they were cited as basic needs of the people. So, a series of legislative initiations followed, the New Housing Act, opening up more educational institutes, hospitals, as prescribed by the famous Beveridge Report (University of California, 2007, pp.10-12). The rate of unemployment, too, fell from 20% in 1930 to 2% in 1945 with the state’s increasing participation. But, the most alarming problem for the state was poverty. The state’s role in this area was far from satisfactory. It initially implemented the “Poor Law” followed by ‘its quick amendment’ ((Blakemore and Griggs, 2007, p. 43; Walsh, Stephens and Moore, 2000, p. 41), but these laws were harsh on the poor. Apart from providing them with minimum income to sustain them with, it made it mandatory for the workers to wear a uniform. This became the basis on which people were being discriminated against and there was mass resistance. As a solution to this, “self-help aids and Philanthropic Voluntary Action” (Douglas and Philpot, 2005, pp.7-8) and was undertaken. A large number of Quaker families like the Freys, the Cadburys, and the Tukes took part as philanthropists. The parishes were told to look after their poor. A tax was levied on the residents of a particular area for financing its poor population and a concept of “Outdoor Relief” emerged (Walsh, Stephens and Moore, 2000, p.41). In the 1980’s Margaret Thatcher became the new head of state and with this conversion to Thatcherism, the active role of the state in welfare activities changed as did the principles underlying them. This government was Monetarist in approach and believed in free price mechanism. To cut down on state’s expenditures, a majority of welfare activities were given up though some marginal ones remained. This was the beginning of withdrawal of welfare activities of state and with the passage of time; it became more and more pronounced. Finally, with the formation of the European Union in 1993, the role of state in welfare activities became even more doubtful as a uniform code of welfare activities became the order of the day for all participating nations including UK. This meant that now even the state was no longer sovereign in deciding whether or not to undertake certain welfare expenditure. Beveridge Report Vs Thatcherism and other Welfare approaches The Beveridge Report The Beveridge Report was given by Sir William Beveridge that provided solution to some basic problems of the society by an increase in the welfare expenditure of the state. It was based on “tackling five evils” (Walsh, Stephens and Moore, 2000, p.45), viz, Poverty (need), Disease, Ignorance (illiteracy), Squalor (poor housing), Idleness (unemployment). The solutions to these evils were the founding stones of the Welfare state as per the following report. The given solutions to these problems were as follows. With rapid migration from rural to urban areas, a huge chunk of migrants were living in utter Poverty. After investigating all the relevant factors, the establishment of a social security system that would primarily ensure income security was shown as a way out of poverty. Minimum income should be guaranteed as social benefit. The important legislative measures in this case were the Family Allowance Act and the National Assistance Act. Whereas, the former ensured that a family had a minimum amount of income for its sustenance, the latter guaranteed financial help from the state in case of old age, ill-health or unemployment. The second problem of disease was sought to be solved by an all-over integration of the healthcare system and centralization to a general hospital. Apart from this, “reconstruction, re-equipment, innovation, strategic planning and expansion”(Walsh, Stephens and Moore, 2000, p. 49) should be taken up. Plus, the problem of unequal distribution of healthcare services had to be addressed and mental health clinics set up. The third problem of illiteracy, needed that schools and higher educational institutes be setup on a larger scale and thus, the blueprint of several big universities like Sussex, Warwick and Aston was created. The fourth problem of squalor was addressed with several legislative acts like the “Town and Country Planning Act of 1947” (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002, pp.21-22), New Towns Act, Housing Acts of 1947 and Housing Rents and Repairs Act, 1954. All these was based on the concept that the local authorities should build in a way so as to benefit the local residents. And, lastly, the problem of unemployment could be solved by investment by the state in generating employment in all possible ways. Approach to Welfare in the post- Beveridge Report period “Thatcherism” (Walsh, Stephens and Moore, 2000, pp.50-51) : Around the 1960s, Thatcherism came into force. It was based on four central principles. They were “Monetarism” (Karabiber, 2004, p.5), “Privatization, Central Political Power and Authoritarianism” (Walsh, Stephens and Moore, 2000, pp.50-51) This meant that the state’s intervention would be minimum as this system relied completely on price mechanism, there would be “large scale privatization to reduce government borrowings through more profits” (Prasad, 2006, p.99) and the power of the state would be central and authoritarian in nature. What followed in the aftermath of Thatcherism was a cutback in all public expenditures, resulting in less and less of state welfare activities pertaining to healthcare, education, housing, sanitation or even anti-exploitation laws. The earlier allocation of resources to the welfare activities, suggested by the Beveridge Report was rejected and the phrase of ‘Each for his own’, i.e. individualism presided. The goal now was to reduce inflation and to bring back the days of Capitalism. So, a rigid monetary policy coupled with a rigid Fiscal policy followed. European Union Approach: With the inclusion of UK in the European Union, things changed further. The EU, characterized by a common market for trading, a common currency and a uniform set of rules enforced some of the welfare activities back on its path through employment rights, equal opportunities, healthcare, poverty and social inclusion programs but it was still far from the availability of welfare services in 1940s. One reason is, of course, that it was “formed from a businesslike perspective” (Lewis, Gerwitz and Clark, 2000, p.330). So, welfare is hardly stressed upon. A Comparison between the Beveridge Report and the later Welfare Approaches The following are the important points of difference between the Beveridge Report and the other approaches to Welfare state. Firstly, “whereas the Beveridge Report was based on a theory of collectivism, the other two approaches are individualistic in nature.” (Hall and Jacques, 1989, p.144) State was expected to be responsible for its citizens in times of need which was discarded with the advent of Thatcherism. Secondly, with this free price mechanism concept, the society got divided into the haves and the have-nots. The earlier principle of social equality no longer exists and now, one was evaluated as per his/her economic contribution to society. Lastly, the Beveridge Report had Welfare of the people as its main objective but the later two approaches are based on “Capitalism” (Evans, 1997, pp.37-38) with little or no regard for human welfare. Thus, it can be concluded that the first approach is beneficial from a human-oriented point of view whereas the latter two are beneficial from a commercial perspective (economic growth with reducing inflation). However, it is also true that the measure of welfare of a state is incomplete if the welfare of its people is overlooked. So, steps must be taken to ensure economic growth and decreasing inflation along with increase in human welfare, through the coordinated efforts of both the Centre and local governing bodies. What you can learn from this study professionally and personally Professionally, one can have a complete picture of the social, economic, political and legislative scenario in UK between the period of 1940 and the 20th century. This study has implications in terms of Welfare, Economic growth and future Policy Formulation of the government of all nations in general, keeping UK as the case study. It also provides a scope to analyze as to which of the approaches is a better one and also exactly how much of governance is good governance. Personally, it has helped me to analyze the radical needs of a society that are still unaddressed and also to consider if it is worthwhile to sacrifice social security for Capitalism. References Blakemore, K and Griggs, E. (2007). Social Policy. Berkshire: Open University Press. University of California (2007). Beveridge Report: Case for the retention of approved societies. California: McCorquodale and Co. Ltd. Cullingworth, J.B and Nadin, V (2002). Town and Country planning in the UK. New York: Routledge Publishers. Douglas, A. and Philpot, T (2005), Caring and Coping: A Guide to Social Services. New York: Routhledge Publishers. EUROPA, (2007), Single European Act, Available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_singleact_en.htm (accessed on August 23, 2011) Evans, E. J, (1997). Thatcher and Thatcherism. London: Routhledge Publishers. Hall, S and Jacques, M (1989), News times: The changing face of Politics in 1990s. Lawrence and Wishart Publishers. Karabiber, T (2004). Thatcherism and the Welfare State. Norderstedt Germany: GRIN Verlag Publications. Lewis, G, Gerwitz, S and Clark J, (2000). Rethinking Social Policy. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Mokyr, J (1985). The Economics of the Industrial Revolution. USA: Rowman and Allanheld Publishers. Pierson, C and Castles, F.G. (2006). Welfare State, Cambridge: Polity Publishers. Prasad, M (2006). The Politics of Free Markets. London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd. Spicker P (2000). The Welfare State: A General Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Speller, S.R. & H.K. Lewis (1948), BOOK REVIEWS, available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2530357/pdf/postmedj00600-0056a.pdf (accessed on August 23, 2011) Titmuss R.M (1974). Social Policy. London: George Allen and Unwin(Publishers) Ltd. Taylor, P (2004). New Risks, New Welfare. New York: Oxford University Press. Walsh, M, Stephens, P and Moore, S (2000). Social Policy and Welfare. Cheltenham : Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd. Read More