Challenges to Social Policy in Relation to Globalisation - Essay Example

Challenges to Social Policy in Relation to Globalisation Introduction The process of globalisation has in fact weakened several institutions developed by nation-states to structure social policy formation. Systems created by policymakers and by the people within their context are not able to resolve the most serious issues at present. Most believe that social policy formation must presently have a regional or global importance. However, the needed networks or institutions are largely absent in that area (Deacon, 2000). This essay discusses the challenges to social policy in relation to globalisation. The paper specifically talks about the effects of globalisation on social policy, especially on health, poverty, inequality, and employment; theories and debates; and effect on local communities. Globalisation and the Effects upon Social Policy In essence, globalisation is the concept that has been used to describe an array of political, social, cultural, technological, and economic factors and mechanisms that are believed to have generally created the specific aspects of current living. National welfare policies and processes have become much more globalised than is generally believed (Kennett, 2008). Consideration of the influence of globalisation on social policy, therefore, requires exploring policies and systems that connect people and places all over the world. Globalisation has influenced social policy in two major ways. First is examining social policy development in domains of extraterritorial governance. These domains of governance could be global (IMF, UN, etc.) or trans-regional (ASEAN, EU, etc.) (Morales-Gomez, 1999) Second is placing emphasis on cross-border movement of products, services, people, and knowledge as they concern the effects of social policies on communities, policy development, and social welfare (Morales-Gomez, 1999). These differences are at times called ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ globalisation, since they involve informal and formal mechanisms of social policy development (Baldock et al., 2011, p. 200). However, these differences are not rigid and rapid since the mechanisms are directly interconnected. For instance, notions of ‘successful’ social policy or ‘well-functioning’ society are disseminated and strengthened by means of extraterritorial policy meeting, and cross-border movement of people and capital are controlled by a multifaceted group of regulatory policies including national governments and supranational agencies (Alcock & Craig, 2009). In essence, global social policy is not only the territory of supranational agencies working in an isolated manner from national governments. Fundamentally, global social policy stresses the cross-border informal and formal mechanisms of social policy development. A global framework of social policy encourages analysis of how social policy formation and welfare distribution are influenced by NGOs and governmental agencies tackling not just local problems but also occurrences and situations in other countries; the processes of financial agencies, international groups, and foreign governments; and the operations and behaviour of foreign HQs or subsidiaries of transnational firms (Deacon, 2007). It places emphasis on how economies and societies, as well as welfare sectors and labour markets, of various countries are strongly interrelated. The process of globalising social policy is not merely limited to occurrences or events abroad. It requires addressing the local or domestic systems and policies of developed nations as they affect local and overseas populations (Kapstein & Milanovic, 2001). The healthcare problems in poor countries are associated with the enduring consequences of poverty, alongside Bretton Woods programmes directed towards social and fiscal cutback, alongside developed nations’ recruitment of healthcare providers from underdeveloped nations. Recently, the international development advocates and anti-globalisation campaign have accomplished much to enhance public knowledge of social development and anti-poverty programmes carried out by developed nations (Stiglitz, 2007). Moreover, they have highlighted the social policy domains and repercussions of the foreign policy of the UK with regard to environment, trade, and finance, whether carried out in a bilateral way by means of assistance programmes or in a multilateral manner through global or trans-regional organisations (Lee & Vivarelli, 2006).These movements have revealed the unfavourable social effects of government agendas supporting, for instance, global financing, food and agriculture industrialisation, and public utility privatisation. These efforts have drew worldwide attention to the broader setting and impact of public policy on employment, social welfare, and health, the contribution of international institutions to the continuation of poverty and broadening inequality in developed and underdeveloped nations, and the obligations of wealthier countries to poor nations (Alcock & Craig, 2009). There are a large number of connections between the UK and other countries that reinforce the globalisation of interactions and associations. The characteristic and degree of the integration of the UK into the international economy, its systems of communications, transport, and migrations, its prominence in the international political stage, and its historical connections all influence how globalisation affect the lives of people in the UK (Bywaters & Napier, 2009). The current global escalations in fuel and food prices and the worldwide financial problem, for instance, have revealed the quickness by which global occurrences directly and strongly influence the lives of populations. Specifically, UK populations have witnessed a rise in employment uncertainty and decrease in standard of living (Hanley & JRF, 2011). The worldwide financial crisis and increases in the prices of fuel and food resulted in an escalation of costs of living in the UK, which have concerned, specifically, poor people. Consequent ways of dealing with these issues have required significant dependence on local and family assistance (Hong & Song, 2010). Global governance is useful to the UK government’s effort to alleviate poverty, but there is not enough knowledge of how to make it effective. Numerous regional government organisations and local committees are examining how global connections can be taken advantage of (Geyer, Mackintosh & Lehmann, 2005). Studies on how these global techniques can greatly benefit underprivileged places and people are required. The nature of UK’s integration into the global economy, stressing globalised production, migration, and finance, has considerable social implications as regards social exclusion, inequality, and poverty. Although economic globalisation has played a substantial role in the advancement of the UK economy, its advantages and prospects have not been allocated even-handedly. Furthermore, the demands to function in a competitive international economy have affected the formation of social policy and domestic welfare agendas (Hanley & JRF, 2011). Although globalisation has not led to the total abolition of the welfare state, it has strengthened the movement towards ‘competitive welfare state’ wherein the emphasis is on social security or investment (Sklair & Miller, 2010, p. 483). Moreover, in supporting market-driven globalisation, numerous of the major global governance agencies (e.g. IMF, WTO) have encouraged a deregulated and liberalised international system which has added to the greater vulnerability of several of the most disadvantaged parts of the UK (Alcock & Craig, 2009). Health, Poverty, Inequality, Employment Globalisation has considerably diverse impact on families and communities in the UK. This creates repercussions for theory, research, and policy in several sectors. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) project discovered that a number of individuals endured an intense feeling of anxiety about the certainty and stability of their jobs. They believe that their employment situations had deteriorated with the intensified recruitment of agency and contract workers, and competition from migrants working at reduced wages, at times superseding collective arrangements (Hanley & JRF, 2011). The economic recession has worsened this. Poor individuals, families, and communities in the UK have confronted greater adversity throughout the global economic downturn, while increasing prices of global fuel and food have been revealed in higher living costs. Unemployment rates and decreased hours have led to abrupt changes in family earnings (Hanley & JRF, 2011). Studies have reported that low-income households are confronting tremendous difficulties in such situations, usually enduring greater costs in their attempts to survive (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2013). Globalisation has also affected public health in the UK. It is claimed by experts in the public health sector that populations in Western countries are going through an important shift in the major roots of disease and should at present deal with these new public health threats. In the UK, the ‘epidemiological transition’ raises new public health threats (Tolba, 2001). A case in point is the growth in the number of non-communicable illnesses, like cancers and coronary heart disease. But the biggest public health transitions have emerged because of trade liberalisation, such as the greater availability of tobacco, which continuously increases rates of substance abuse in the UK and other parts of the world (Lee & Vivarelli, 2006). Even though the degree to which the WHO can establish global rule on tobacco regulation has been seen as quite inadequate, partnership with regional and global public health policy institutions has resulted in greater discussion and exchange of ideas (Stiglitz, 2007). Besides non-communicable diseases, it is also a fact that globalisation is altering the features of communicable diseases, emphasised in the spread of SARS (Tolba, 2001). Communicable illnesses like cholera, malaria, and tuberculosis are seen as ‘reappearing’. In addition, there are more recent illnesses like Ebola and HIV. In fact, the WHO reports that over the recent decades new communicable illnesses have appeared (Collier, 2008). This is especially true among poor nations, and regions which have endured major economic crunches. As stated by Gwatkin and colleagues (1999), “Overall, communicable diseases were much more important for the poor than was suggested by global averages” (p. 588). It has been reported as well that broadening gap between and within nations is raising the vulnerability of more disadvantaged populations to communicable diseases, shown by HIV’s and tuberculosis’s strains that are resistant to a variety of drugs (Lee & Vivarelli, 2006). Hence, infectious illnesses have rose somewhat due to more severe poverty and because they are as well the outcome of broadening inequalities. Nevertheless, with the growth in tourism and global transport, population movement, other illnesses like cholera and malaria are becoming public health risks all over again (Tolba, 2001). Another major public health problem concerns global environmental change. It has traditionally been claimed that major global environmental changes, caused by the high level of modern consumer-led economics, raises public health threats: “These changes to the earth’s basic life-supporting processes pose long-term risks to the health of populations” (Tolba, 2001, p. 802). Malaria strains have recently been seen in sections of southeast England, and such has been attributed to worldwide climate change. Hence climate change can cause a wider and faster spread of communicable diseases (Baldock et al., 2011). As reported by the WHO (1997), “Many of the biological organisms and problems linked to the spread of infectious diseases are especially influenced by fluctuations in climate variables, notably temperature, precipitation and humidity” (p. 220). In the meantime, earlier studies show that global forces are affecting living costs for poor people, which is increasing more rapidly than average inflation markers. Greater focus is required on the array of alternatives available to the UK to make sure that globalisation does not lead to price patterns which prohibit low-income individuals from having adequate living standards (Geyer et al., 2005). Alternatives involve methods to affect prices, even though these could be inadequate. Measures to support low-income individuals in buying basic necessities that are becoming increasingly costly could also fulfil a vital function. Furthermore, it will be crucial to take into consideration such price behaviour when adjusting public sector compensation, minimum wage, tax credits, and benefits, so as to further understand how actual minimum living costs are increasing (Kennett, 2008; Stiglitz, 2007). Global governance comprises an array of concerns applicable to inequality and poverty in the UK. Yet, there is insufficient knowledge of the way it works. Studies show that there is a greater role that civil society groups could play in the building of public awareness of global governance processes and maximising the prospects these offer by means of their learning mechanism and monitoring to assist in dealing with poverty and benefitting communities in the UK (Alcock & Craig, 2009). The Globalisation, UK Poverty and Communities project of JRF shows that the advantages and disadvantages of globalisation are unequally distributed, with the experiences of individuals being affected by their local communities and current resources (Hanley & JRF, 2011, p. 8). Additional interdisciplinary studies of the capacity and the weaknesses of various actors at the national, regional, and local arenas would contribute to the formation of effective local and national policy in the UK, to facilitate alleviation of poverty and the development of healthy communities sooner or later (Deacon, 2000; Hong & Song, 2010). Theories and Debates There is an extensive debate and discourse on globalisation. Regardless of one’s opinion of globalisation, the forces and mechanisms it tries to cover are important for social policy (Yeates & Holden, 2009). Yeates (2009) talks about the various theories of globalisation and the different perspectives that have emerged with regard to it, such as sceptic internationalism, plural pragmatism, Marxian pessimism, and technological enthusiasm. Sceptic internationalism, which refutes the basic principles of the globalisation premise and claims that the global economy is basically made up of agreements and interactions between different local economies, accepts the argument that it is crucial to focus on the fact that social systems, mechanisms, and organisations go beyond political boundaries, and to gain thorough knowledge of social policy development within a broader global setting (Yeates, 2009). The negative implications of globalisation for the welfare state and issues concerning what the proper policy measures must be have created heated debate among legislators and have drawn the interest of scholars (Yeates, 2002). Yet, a great deal of the current academic literature is filled with empirical and theoretical weaknesses that hide more than they uncover about how the global economy is influencing social policy programmes. A major theoretical model in the current literature, generally called the welfare state’s ‘efficiency theory’, promotes the idea that globalisation creates a downward impact on social expenditure (Geyer et al., 2005). While global market factors determine the behaviour of national economies, concerns for higher economic productivity will encourage legislators to abandon the welfare state so as to contend with other countries by bringing in movable global capital. While local economies become more and more assimilated into the international economy, global capital will move to national economies that give the weakest social securities for their people (Sklair & Miller, 2010). Although the efficiency theory has in several regards become the academic justification of anti-globalisation majority on the left and the right, the theory is weakened by its failure to conclusively explain the underlying processes by which economic globalisation creates the downward impact on welfare spending (Deacon, 2007). Other academics suggest another theoretical perspective of the welfare state-- the ‘compensation theory’, which argues that economic globalisation could indeed generate a widening impact on social expenditure (Geyer et al., 2005). It is claimed that states will broaden welfare expenditure to provide compensation to the underdogs of global economic integration in order to sustain their political validity. Yet, as it is presently interpreted, the compensation theory is merely an argument that economic globalisation is related to a boost in the welfare spending of governments (Geyer et al., 2005; Baldock et al., 2011). In social policy theory, established discourses are focused on a left-right continuum. Left theories, such as the social democratic perspective, claim that welfare state and social policy embody a core technique for dealing with market inequalities and the likelihood of the process of societal ‘decommodification’ (Geyer et al., 2005, p. xvi). On the other hand, right theories view social policy as a wasteful, troublesome interruption on the market that was at odds with basic freedoms and economic productivity and formed a habit of reliance. In the 1990s several thinkers tried to look outside the twofold character of this discourse (Stiglitz, 2007). An important case in point was Anthony Giddens’s work. Giddens believe that the reorganisation of the welfare state was being influenced by four important occurrences (Geyer et al., 2005, p. xvi): (1) the intensification of globalisation, (2) an emerging ‘post-traditional social order (breaking out of former clear social roles), (3) the growth of ‘social reflexivity’ (the growth of new flexible social identities), and (4) ‘manufactured uncertainty/risk’ (the growth of uncertainty/risks related to human rather than natural intervention. Giddens claimed that in order to successfully deal with these occurrences, developed countries have to endorse and implement both the social investment state and the positive welfare society. The social investment state would concentrate welfare services on the improvement of social resources such as social inclusion, education, and others, whilst the positive welfare society would support such programmes through an adaptable mixture of state services and partnerships with private and civil groups (Geyer et al., 2005). Basically, the general programme is rooted in endowing the welfare state and social policy with greater flexibility so as to address the multifaceted and changing needs of communities, and had a major effect on the UK and the rest of the world (Kennett, 2008). It is important to mention that in the 1990s the EU started creating the same ‘flexible and adaptive’ framework of its social policy (Geyer et al., 2005, p. xvi). Because of adjustments or reforms in the European Commission (EC) and persistent opposition of member states to important social policy law, the institution started to remove itself from a social policy framework of coordination or homogenisation and towards a more collaborative and unified model. As mentioned in the 1993 EC consultation paper (Geyer et al., 2005, p. xvi): The aim is not the harmonisation of national systems, but a framework for efforts to strengthen social protection systems and enable Community legislation on social policy to fit into a dynamic framework based on common objectives. Such learning-oriented and flexible model of social policy formation quite resembles Giddens’s framework and the ‘third way’ agenda of the British Labour Government (Stiglitz, 2007). As a result, the relationship between UK and EU social policy systems creates several important issues, such as how will the relationship influence the actualisation of the ‘positive welfare state’ in the UK (Geyer et al., 2005, p. xvii). Effect on Local Communities Globalisation is another force that influences local communities through the array of migration patterns to the UK. Studies reported that UK communities could be quickly influenced by developments abroad as information move almost directly across the globe through the internet and other media. The most evident effect is when this leads to movement of people to the UK, increasing the cultural, political, and social diversity of UK communities (Baylis et al., 2013). Disagreements or conflicts encouraged an array of campaigns by groups in the UK, especially those connected directly via culture or family. An illustration from studies was that of refugee assistance groups, social workers, and teachers who unite to exchange experiences and ideas to enhance services for refugees in two London boroughs (Sklair & Miller, 2010). It has been discovered that a large portion of the population living in poverty experienced exclusion from the opportunities and benefits produced by globalisation. Various populations all over the world, especially those living in underdeveloped countries, believed that the ‘prosperous’ period until 2008 had occurred only in certain countries (Baylis et al., 2013). As expected, many also believed that they were unaware of and detached from the mechanisms and spaces by which solutions to worldwide problems are being processed and formulated. Although there was general belief that the cause of depression was global in nature, there was low level of awareness that the increasing living costs they were witnessing was at least somewhat due to the measures taken towards economic development, forces within the global commodities market, and climate change (Hanley & JRF, 2011). There are several sets of evidence to the idea that poor communities in the UK have a low level of agency in relation to regional and global policy concerns that greatly affect their living conditions. This feeling of disconnection and absence of agency appeared to be especially severe in Northern Ireland, where an extra level of provincial government is observed to be financially incapable of acting in the best interests of its people (Hanley & JRF, 2011). On the contrary, people did seem to blame local officials and even the national government for failed measures (Kapstein & Milanovic, 2001). Such feeling of disconnection from the overarching global factors that progressively influence local communities has a number of repercussions. A main assumption is that this sense of disconnection will probably further remove people from participation in decision-making, and gives them additional reasons to distrust policymakers and politics itself (Yeates & Holden, 2009). More particularly, it stresses the importance of better transparency and participation in the procedures of regional and global governance. As global governance organisations like the G20 are somewhat recent, there are prospects for civil society groups and anti-poverty advocates both to enhance public knowledge of such organisations, and create opportunities wherein the issues of underprivileged communities in the UK can be voiced out (Hanley & JRF, 2011). Public awareness programmes focused on the issue of global citizenship could also contribute to the eradication of this feeling of disconnection. Another repercussion is that policy programmes centred on ‘localism’ that does not consider how global factors influence local communities seem determined to reinforce this feeling of disconnection (Alcock & Craig, 2009). It could also strengthen the feeling of ineffectiveness at the local arena. There are precise boundaries to the local officials’ actual powers when leading companies can outsource to countries where the cost of labour is lower, or where public sector reductions created by a worldwide economic recession restrain policymaking authority of people in local communities (Collier, 2008). In the absence of accurate understanding of the restrictions to localism in an international economy and of means for taking part in the areas where critical decisions are developed, an emphasis on enhancing local transparency and responsibility could lead to a disappointing understanding of the restrictions to local authority (Sklair & Miller, 2010). Conclusion Globalisation does not only affect the movement of people, goods, ideas, and capital across the globe, but also the process of social policy formation. Globalisation has affected social policy through cross-border governance and transnational movement of people, goods, and ideas. Globalisation has specifically affected four areas of social policy, namely, health, poverty, inequality, and employment. Theories and debates have arisen concerning the actual impact of globalisation on the inequality or gap between rich and poor countries. However, the sector that is most affected by globalisation are the local communities, but, unfortunately, many feel detached from the major decision-making process. Any social policy programme should take into consideration theories of welfare state and global governance in order to resolve the most obstinate issues. References Alcock, P & Craig, G (2009) International Social Policy: Welfare Regimes in the Developed World. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Baldock, J et al (2011) Social Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Baylis, J, Smith, S, & Owens, P (2013) The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bywaters, P & Napier, L (2009) ‘Revising social work’s international policy statement on health: Process, outcomes and implications,’ International Social Work, 52(4), 447-457. Collier, P (2008) The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Deacon, B (2000) ‘Globalisation and Social Policy: The Threat to Equitable Welfare,’ United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 5, 3-33. Deacon, B (2007) Global Social Policy and Governance. London: SAGE. Geyer, R, Mackintosh, A, & Lehmann, K (2005) Integrating UK and European Social Policy: The Complexity of Europeanisation. UK: Radcliffe Publishing. Gwatkin, D R, Guillot, M & Heuveline, P (1999) ‘The Burden of Disease Among the Global Poor,’ The Lancet, 354, 586-9. Hanley, T & Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2011) ‘The implications of globalisation for poverty and communities in the UK,’ Globalisation, UK Poverty and Communities, 1-17. Hong, P & Song, I (2010) ‘Glocalisation of social work practice: Global and local responses to globalisation,’ International Social Work, 53(5), 656-670. Kapstein, E & Milanovic, B (2001) ‘Responding to Globalisation: Social Policy in Emerging Market Economies,’ Global Social Policy, 1(2), 191-212. Kennett, P (2008) Governance, Globalisation and Public Policy. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Lee, E & Vivarelli, M (2006) ‘The Social Impact of Globalisation in the Developing Countries,’ The Institute for the Study of Labour, 1925, 2-18. Morales-Gomez, D (1999) Transnational Social Policies: The New Development Challenges of Globalisation. Washington, DC: IDRC. Sklair, L & Miller, D (2010) ‘Capitalist globalisation, corporate social responsibility and social policy,’ Critical Social Policy, 30(4), 472-495. Stiglitz, J (2007) Making Globalization Work. New York: W.W. Norton. Tolba, M (2001) Our fragile world: challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. UK: EOLSS. Yeates, N (2002) ‘Globalisation and Social Policy: From Global Neoliberal Hegemony to Global Political Pluralism,’ Global Social Policy, 2(1), 69-91. Yeates, N & Holden, C (2009) The Global Social Policy Reader. UK: Policy Press. WHO (1997) Health and Environment in Sustainable Development: Five Years after the Earth Summit. Geneva: WHO. Read More