Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State - Australian Society in a Changing World - Essay Example

The Relationship between 'Social Policy' and 'Social Problems' Name Professor Institution Course Date The Relationship between 'Social Policy' and 'Social Problems' Introduction Since the beginning of the world, human race has been experiencing several social problems. With the presence of social problems, there are social relationships strain. Some of the social problems that are part of the human kind are health, education, unemployment, housing, environmental policy, economic issues, inequality and social security among others (Arts & Gelissen 2002, p.138). Government and individual policy makers have been compelled to come up with social policy to solve such issues. Even though there are still social problems, the social policy making has improved a great deal in the 21st century (Arts & Gelissen 2002, p.139). In light of the information, the paper defines the terms “social policy” and “social problems” and critically discusses the relationship between them. Esping-Anderson and the three ‘worlds of welfare capitalism, mixed economy and moving frontier In the 1990, Esping-Anderson wrote a book, “The three worlds of welfare capitalism” to provide an analysis of continuing debate on social welfare (Arts, & Gelissen 2002, p.141). This literature analyzed social policy based on reforming “the welfare capitalist” with regards to what shape up welfare provision. In the analysis of Esping-Anderson, a typology was formed by critically analyzing eighteen welfare states concerning three main themes including decommodification, social stratification and private–public mix (Arts & Gelissen 2002, p.139). Decommodification is the level in which welfare is dependent on the market forces. On the other hand, social stratification is the responsibility of welfare states in sustaining society and private–public mix that comprises of the family role and voluntary sector. Arts & Gelissen (2002) argue that, how these countries functions and decomodified remains the major criterion that results to the welfare states being compartmentalized into three forms of welfare states such as Conservative, Social Democratic and liberal (Arts & Gelissen 2002, p.51). The debate also has been raised concerning the function of a mixed economy and moving frontier. A mixed economy is one which both state and private sector controls the economy (Dolgoff & Feldstein 2007). The companies must have moral to create a fair transaction within the markets. Moving frontier takes further and expects both citizens to volunteer their services to create equality. Similarly, the government can intervene in matters of monetary and fiscal policies, unemployment, etc to encourage social welfare. To help protect the citizens from exploitation, wellbeing and economic concerns, some governments have introduced the welfares state policy. According to Jamrozik (2009), this system is founded on the principles of equitable wealth distribution, equality opportunities at market and public obligations for those incapable of availing themselves of fewer conditions for appropriate wellbeing. The social problems observed in the market are normally inequality and lack of opportunity. Therefore, government has always been compelled to respond by creating policies; in this context mixed economy and moving frontier and welfare state. For that reason, Social policy basically implies the guidelines, legislation, activities and principles which impact the living conditions favorable to human wellbeing (Bessant, Watts, Dalton & Smyth, 2006). Liberal Model, Welfare state and Criticism Liberal model is a political model which encourages social philosophy in analyzing the individual rights, values, economic decisions and social justice. Such issues have been the key agenda of the Liberal Party of Australia and even that of the UK (Dolgoff & Feldstein 2007). Some of the past regimes had encouraged free market economy, which creates individualism, a situation which has encouraged inequality a great deal. The free market economy inclines towards capitalism. Australia is one of the industrialized and westernized countries which is characterized by free market economy and have suffered its features in the past (Jamrozik 2009). It can be seen as a social problem because everyone makes his or her decision without government intervention. As such, the government introduced welfare state to curb the situation. This system is described by particular rights and duties of citizens and obligations of the government to fulfill them (Jamrozik 2009). The commitments and principles of welfare state are articulated by means of state social policies. In a nutshell, they are socially related problems which are to be addressed by government through its social policies. Welfare state does not necessarily deny individuals opportunity to enrich themselves, but it reduces inequality between organizations (Daly 2011). In fact, welfare state system rose from the capitalist system during the French revolution and the reign of Otto Van Bismarck in Germany (Jamrozik 2009). Thus the system has a mixed background of welfare, capitalism and democracy. According to Jamrozik (2009), this system is social policy on the codes of improving social problems in order to create equality and opportunities at market, distribution of wealth equitably, and public obligations for those incapable of availing themselves of fewer conditions for appropriate wellbeing. As the world gets globalized, the economist and critics claimed that welfare state system was uneconomic and unproductive. Jamrozik (2009) assert that some of the big authors of welfare state and later turned critics after it was not met include Richard Titmuss, T.H Marshall, Ferris, Bean and Whyne. Critics of free markets thought that welfare state system was much, however, its criticism confirms that sometimes social polices may not solve social problems. Aussie Welfare State in Relation to the Liberal Position In countries like Australia, neoliberal policies were adopted by administrations of both the Liberal Party and Labor Party from 1980s. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating governments from 1983 to 1996 practiced economic liberalization and a plan of micro-economic improvement (Dolgoff & Feldstein 2007). These administrations privatized state corporations, floated Australian dollar, reduced trade protection and deregulated markets. Looking at the welfare state and liberal system in Australia, some differences can be noted in terms of systems operations. Before these two approaches to economy took shape, Australia suffered from the influence of free market economy (Daly 2011). Welfare state was then established where the government had to intervene to create inequality in terms of wages. For instance, high income earners Australians had to pay high tax compared to low earners (Jamrozik 2009). However, the subsequent governments led by the Australian Labor party viewed the systems as ineffective and unproductive and embraced neoliberal system (Dolgoff & Feldstein 2007). This approach seems to favor individuals because they are allowed to make their own decisions but that right is regulated. The approach holds that no one is politically or morally better than others. However, neoliberal reforms have contributed to inequality in several different means. Jamrozik (2009) argues that apparently, neoliberal restructuring of tax and welfare approaches has led to unprogressive systems of tax and less liberal social security approaches, thus raising the inequality of post-tax income distribution. While welfare state favored low income earners, neoliberal reforms supported managers and highly-skilled staff and did not favor interventions which safeguarded the less-skilled staff interests (Dolgoff & Feldstein 2007). Raising the wages for high-skilled staff and decreasing the wages for less-skilled staff obviously results to greater inequality. Trying to solve different social problem like low salary or inequality through welfare state did not necessarily solve the issue. In fact, the approach received much criticism and the government changed to liberalization system. Similarly, the approach did not do much because of decreasing the wages for less-skilled staff. This proves that social policies may not solve social problems. The Fourth Model of Welfare Experts divide welfare into different three models which they use to analyze the roles of social policy. These models include a residual welfare model (model A), an industrial achievement performance model (model B) and institutional redistributive model (model C) (Titmuss, Abel-Smith & Titmuss 1974). The residual model ideology is founded on the premise that an individual has the obligation to try to fulfill the market economy and that welfare state is something that can avoided. However, according to Esping-Anderson, there is a fourth model which can also be used as an alternative to analyze social welfare (Dolgoff, & Feldstein 2007). This model is called model conservative. The model has attributes to social insurance compared to social assistance, meaning, major benefits for unemployment are considered entitlements on the basis of insurance contributions earlier made. These contributions and the benefits differ based on the individual income. Based on the researches conducted, social welfare initiatives were the same in some major countries like Australia, Britain and the US (Titmuss, Abel-Smith & Titmuss 1974). Jamrozik (2009) contends that, most outstanding feature was the rise in the number of middle class in the society. However, some experts provide that countries do have unique challenges that need certain solution. As such, the limitation of these researches is to generalize the social polices yet social problems could be different. Different countries have tried various social policies, but have always been forced to change from one to another. This is an indicator that one policy will suit one person and disadvantage the other. For instance, one businessman would think that free market economy (capitalism) is bad because it enables individualism. While other thinks it make people have the freedom to control their wealth. For such reason, it can only be recommended that policy makers conduct research and bring all the stakeholders of the society on board to ensure every citizen’s social problem is included. Conclusion In conclusion, Social policies which have been adopted by different nations have disparities in the society’s attitudes with regards to uncertainty, transparency, citizenship and the incomes. Also, many governments that come to power want to introduce new social policies into practices. However, they should note that bringing new social system is not easy and will always bring them into loggerheads with the citizens who will find it bringing inequality and other social problems. In either way, social policies will always benefit one and disadvantaging the other, but settling on the policy that benefits the majority will stand as the better option. On the basis of the reasons discussed, this paper concludes that there is a relationship between 'social policy' and 'social problems'. Reference Arts, W & Gelissen, J 2002, Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More? A State-of-the-art report, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 2 no. 2, pp.137–58. Bacchi, C 1999, Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems, SAGE Publications, pp. 1-13. Bessant, J., Watts, R., Dalton, T & Smyth, P 2006, Talking Policy: How Social Policy Is Made, Allen & Unwin. Daly, M 2011, Welfare, Polity Press. Dolgoff, R. & Feldstein, D 2007, Understanding Social Welfare: A Search for Justice (7th Ed.), Boston, Allyn & Bacon. Jamrozik, A 2009, Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State: Australian Society in a Changing World, Pearson Education Australia Mclelland, A & Smyth, P 2010, Social Policy in Australia: Understanding for Action, Oxford University Press, USA Titmuss, R.M, Abel-Smith, B & Titmuss, K 1974, Social Policy: An Introduction, Routledge Read More