Youth and Social Policy Neo-liberalism - Essay Example

? Youth and Social Policy: Neo-liberalism and Neo-liberalism Neo-liberalism is an economic concept that emerged in the 1930s. It is a philosophy that has grown in popularity in the recent past and its application has also spread (Leighton, 2011). During the 1930s, the philosophy was used to strike a balance between the capitalists and the socialist. Neo-liberalism as an ideology is the term used to denote a social value of reducing the state functions to the society (Gamble, 2001). Capitalism was the theory that advocated for capital accumulation while socialism advocated for the pooling of resources as a society in order to improve the well-being of individuals in the society. Neo-liberalism emerged to merge the two concepts by deregulating the market for goods and hence letting the forces of demand and supply to determine the market prices. Another essential proposition of neo-liberalism is that it deregulated the private sector and increases the roles it plays in the society (Hall, 2011). The rationale behind this thinking is that most social functions, if left to be performed by the government, will be inefficiently executed and the policies will not be as effective as when provided by the players in the private sector. Neo-liberalism was proposed by Milton Friedman and rose to object the economic theories that existed then and were used to guide policy formulation in the 20th century (Gray, 1996). In the UK, this ideology has largely been embraced by the Conservative and the Liberal-Democratic parties. Since they formed this ideological coalition, they have boldly advanced the idea with nearly all the policies formulated of late based on this thinking. Some of the main theories that influenced policy formulation before UK leadership embraced neo-liberalism include Keynesianism, Crony capitalism, libertarianism and neo-classical price theory. Keynesianism was an economic theory that stated that in the short run aggregate demand is the one that affects economic output (Bochel, 2011). It also suggested that during that short run, especially when the economy is in recession, the private sector decisions may be detrimental to the macroeconomics outcomes. This theory suggested policy responses, in terms of monetary and fiscal policies by the central government order to control the economy. With this view in mind, the governments of the time tasked themselves with being the sole providers of the social services and consequently, the formulators of the social policies. However, many countries have now embraced neo-liberalism in their policy formulation and service provision (Jordan, 2010). Since neo-liberalism advocates for decentralizing of services through privatization, majority of the social policies are now formulated by the private sector in the UK (Blackwater, 2012). While the reason behind privatization is plausible, overdoing it threatens the very fabric of the society. For instance, social amenities like libraries, parks, community centers and sport facilities are being privatized so that they can be managed effectively by the private sector. It is a great idea, but some social services have to be provided by the central government because it is rational (Fredman and Doughney, 2013). Just recently there was a proposal in the national assembly to privatize even the prison system. The education secretary, concerning the policies affecting the youths and other education policies, directed that these policies be formulated at the local government level (Hall, 2013). The youth are an integral part of the society and require special attention from the government. The youth are the carriers of dreams for the future; if they fail to reach their potential, then the country too may not (Steen, 2012). This prospect was clearly illustrated in 2011 during the summer riots that spread among the youths like an inferno. It not only showed how the youths were dissatisfied with the policies that affected them but also the high level of unemployment in the country. Among the policies that directly the impact on the life of the youths include security policies, health policies and education policies and policies that tackle unemployment. Other policies relate to homelessness; crime reduction and drug abuse prevention (Dean, 2013). The government has been on the forefront to see to it that the youths benefit from the policies formulated in order to better their lives. For example, in order to reduce the unemployment levels in the country, the Department of Work and Pension rolled out a youth contract flagship project which was designed to act as an incentive to get more youths get jobs. It was designed as an incentive to businesses, which were offered 2275 pounds for employing a young person who has been out of work for more than 6 months. By 2013, this policy was effective getting nearly 5000 youths employed, and the number is touted to rise exponentially as time goes by (Steen, 2012). The education sector is the sector that has been influenced the most. High-performing systems in education are said to be the fundamental unit that leads to the achievement of national and economic capability for competition against other economies. Neo-capitalism stresses on luring the people towards “localism" (Dean, 2013). Under this idea, free schools which are meant to be funded by the public will give the parents an empowerment and give power to the people. This of course is just the sugar-coated idea (Gamble 2001, p 127-134). The private sector, tasked through neo-liberalism that has largely affected the education sector, tends to discriminate the less financially stable when it comes to the access to the best level of education. Private schools run by the capitalists who are after maximizing their profits, poach teachers from public schools leaving the public schools devoid of quality teachers (Burchardt, 2013). The government is keen on seeing that the youths get at least the basic education. For a start, it is contemplating adjusting the mandatory age for schooling from 16 to at least 18. This move has, however, not been legislated. However, there are many policies that are meant to help the youth get education; some are by the government while others are implemented by the private sector as a result of neo-liberalism (Fredman and Doughney, 2013). Before 2010, the whole of the UK had Education Maintenance Allowance. This was centrally administered, but once the neo-liberalism took effect in England, the policy has been discontinued in England but still exists in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This fund was established to pay those students who were undertaking work-based learning. It paid the youth between 16 and 19 years old to motivate them to continue schooling. This is because the legally after 16 years of age one is not compelled to stay in school. It also offered bonuses based on attendance (Hall, 2013). It was highly successful and managed to raise the number of students especially those from poor backgrounds. ConneXions service is another policy that was formulated to guide the youths by offering them personal advisors. This was integrated in the academic curriculum through citizenship education (Mishra, 2012). It aimed at producing youths that are socially upright and thoroughly motivated to seize life opportunities. Another related policy was that establishing an initiative called Excellence Challenge. This was an initiative that provided scholarship to students from poor backgrounds so that they could further their studies. Another initiative known as Learning Monitors was rolled out to assist in identifying and supporting those youths that needed extra help in school by encouraging them to be greater consumers of knowledge (Dean, 2013). There are many policies that the government has formulated to aid the youths in the education sector. But that is not their only focus, it has policies designed to provide them with homes, for example, the Homelessness Act of 2002. Other policies are to help marginalized youths, for example the refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. For example, there is ‘the cost of waiting’ campaign by an NGO known as Brighter Future. It is a campaign that wishes to push the central government to formulate a policy that will allow the youths in these special groups to go on with their lives without interruption or otherwise exclusion by offering them the status they have applied for as fast as possible (Blackwater, 2012). Conclusion Neo-liberalism has largely affected policy formulation in UK. Neo-liberalism has led to privatization of the provision of social services that were once the task of the national government (Bochel, 2011). There is a very thin line between the use and misuse of this ideology and so the leadership should be cautious when structuring policies around it. When it comes to the area of education, the youth especially those from poor background face the challenge of being exposed to lower qualities of education since most schools will be dictated by the private sector’s capitalists or not completing their studies at all because of the fee that will be demanded by the private run institution especially in England where a major policy on education has been scrapped (Hall, 2013). A balance, therefore, ought to be developed for the UK to realize the full benefits of neo-liberalism especially in formulating policies that affect the youth. If that cannot be achieved and the idea becomes more damaging instead of bettering the well-being of the society then liberalism, socialism, capitalism and other economic models and theories that informed policy formation in the past should be embraced (Fredman and Doughney, 2013). References Alcock, P., and May, M., 2008. The Student's Companion to Social Policy. Oxford: Blackwell. Belloc, F. and Nicita, A., 2012. Neo-liberalism, Partisanship, and Public Policies. Society, 49(5), pp. 444-450. Bochel, H., 2011. The Conservative Party. Bristol, Policy Press. Burchardt, T., 2013. The Vastness of Social Policies. Social policy and Scope, 50 (1), pp. 12-24. Blackwater, B., 2012. Enough of neo-liberalism. Renewal : a Journal of Labour Politics, 20(2), pp. 139-142. Clarke, J. M., 2008. Living within and without neo-liberalism. Focal, 2008(51) pp. 135–147. Dean, H., 2013. Social Policy and the Youth. London School of Economics and Social Science. 57 (6), pp.13. Fredman, N., and Doughney, J., 2012. Academic dissatisfaction, managerial change and neo-liberalism. Higher Education, 64(1), pp. 41-58. Gamble, A., 2001. Neo-Liberalism. Capital & Class, (75), pp. 127-134. Gane, M., 2009. The Paradox of Neo-liberalism. Durkheimian Studies, 15(1), pp. 20-25. Giddens, A., 1994. Beyond Left and Right, The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge, Polity Press. Giddens, A., 2007. The Third Way. Cambridge, Polity Press. Gray, J., 1996. After Social Democracy. London: Demos. Hall, S., 2011. The March of the neoliberals. The Guardian [online] Available at: [Accessed 4th November 2013] Hoye, W.R., 1997, Jun 04. Instant neo-Liberalism. Wall Street Journal, 232(15), pp. 34-45. Jones, K. T., 2003. Education in Britain: 1944 to present. Cambridge, UK, Polity in association with Blackwell. Jordan, B., 2010. Why the Third Way Failed. Bristol, Policy Press. Kennedy, G.K., 2011. Citizens to Lords: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Historical Materialism 19(1): 304-318. Leighton, D., 2011. Long live neo-liberalism? Renewal : a Journal of Labour Politics, 19(3), pp. 50-63. Mishra, S.K., 2011. Neo Liberalism and State: In Indian Context. Globsyn Management Journal, 5(1), pp. 1-10. Osipov, Y.M., 2012. Neo-dirigisme Neo-liberalism: Economic Relevance. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 8(3), pp. 75-77. Steen, J.A., 2012. The Development of Foster Care Privatization Policy in Florida. An Application of Kingdom’s Policy Development Model. 9(4), pp 56. Read More