Ideologies of Welfare - Assignment Example

Idealogies of Welfare Welfare is a controversial topic. And this is not just true in the UK. It does not help when popular, world respected leaders,such as American President Ronald Reagan, use words like “no free lunch” and “welfare queens” in speeches against welfare. (Curen) Such ideas contribute to the public’s negative feelings. It makes them angry. The rich want the government to cut welfare programs and the government often has to because there is not enough money to fund them properly. The Poor Law, an amendment to the first Poor Law passed in the 1600s, was passed in 1834. Earl Grey, then Prime Minister, established a Poor Law Commission to examine how the country could best deal with the conditions of its poor. Among the problems was health care. In 1834 the Commission revealed its findings and the Poor Law Amendment was passed. The law seems straight away from a Dickens novel. “By way of protest against the Act, Dickens published Oliver Twist (1837-39); he continued his critique in Our Mutual Friend (1864-65). That the New Poor Laws materially changed anything very much is itself debatable, but they certainly served as a center of debate around which questions of how to know and manage the poor could be raised.” (Stokes, 1) The law stated no able-bodied person could receive money or other help from the Poor Law authorities except if they lived in a workhouse, the setting of many Dickens novels. If they needed to see a doctor, or were sick, they had few placed to turn or no place at all. The law was later changed to supply welfare to people who did not live in workhouses in response to public outcry. While the stipulation was in place, however, provisions in the law said conditions in the workhouses were to be made “deliberately harsh” so that people would not want to go there. These harsh conditions, we can assume, would have naturally led to many people dying for lack of health care from diseases brought on by the conditions. There would be workhouses in every parish. Ratepayers in each parish or union were to elect a Board of Guardians that supervised the workhouse, collected the Poor Rate (from people who paid taxes), and sent reports to the Central Poor Law Commission. The three-man Central Poor Law Commission, appointed by the government, was responsible for supervising the Act throughout the country. “The Poor Laws, moreover, were administered not by paid officials, but by ordinary citizens as a civic duty. That meant contemporary opinion on the subject of the poor was, in many cases, the opinion of the men who actually worked the machine.” (Marshall, Opinion, The Contemporary Attitude Towards the Problem of Poverty, 15). What Marshall is saying is that because the people who administered the laws were themselves average citizens, their attitudes would be that of the majority who did not look with favor on giving their money or paying for any service, including health care, away to the poor. Politicians who were elected would undoubtedly be more than happy to put this responsibility onto average citizens. Those citizens who believed the state’s treatment of the poor was cruel and unfair had only their fellow citizens to blame. The state’s hands were clean. The Laws changed the way the poor were seen by people who lived better. Before that poor were more or less considered victims of their situation. But by 1834 that idea had changed into one that said the poor were in some way responsible for their own condition and that they could improve if they wanted to. The general ideology of both the state and the populace, then, was one of picking oneself up by your own bootstraps. It wasn’t society’s fault if you didn’t have the necessities of life, but your own. Don’t ask us for help, and if you want it, you will have to work for it under the dire conditions of the workhouse. No doctors for you for every little ailment. To paraphrase a letter to the Manchester Guardian from German social scientist Friedrich Engels, he said England’s approach to the poor was based on the Malthus theory that the country was over populated and that helping the poor made it worse. This is a harsh charge and we must be careful about accepting it, since it sounds like genocide. Some provisions in the Poor Law such as The Settlement Act did not disappear until 1948. The Act allowed parishes to send newcomers back to their original parishes to avoid being charged for them among the poor population. So it seems Engels may have been partly right in that people tried to move the large number of poor around so someone else would be responsible for them. Landowners with large estates were able to achieve considerable influence over the groupings of parishes forming each union. Landowners generally preferred to keep their estates within one union or group which would allow them the maximum of influence when it came to boards governing the laws. As wealthy people, their ideology involved keeping as much of their money as possible; supporting those without it, generally despised because of their class, was not an attractive idea. Ideologies other than those of landowners and basic citizenry were also at work. An economic depression in the north of England prompted an Anti Poor Law movement. Some appointed officials refused to do their jobs and a workhouse was attacked by a mob of unemployed workers who obviously felt undermined by the poor, who basically worked for nothing. However, the heart of opposition to the new law was the hardship and brutality it represented. In 1843 the satirical magazine Punch reported how in Bethnal Green "An infant, only five weeks old, had been separated from the mother, being occasionally brought to her for the breast." Things got better over time as medical associations recognized the need for organized health care. Legislation and “The Royal Sanitary Commission in 1869... established central supervision of a public health system under the Local Government Board; local health administration for England and Wales; and the consolidation of all public health statutes.” (Goldman, 174).One might call this the beginning of the NHS. “During the late nineteenth century medical relief and the care of the insane became increasingly distinct from the Poor Law...Social insurance programs differed from poor relief in that the benefits were not invested with stigma, as was poor relief, and benefits were conditioned on tests of means...”( Besley, Coate, Guinnane 6) This philosophy continues to the present. Throughout the twentieth century more humane approaches evolved that eventually culminated in what is known as the “middle opinion” attitude toward many political and social topics including health care. In the 1970s, one was either a political “Thatcherite,” middle opinion person, or neo-Marxist. Throughout history, social welfare programs changed according to the economy. Thatcherites generally held that the origins of Britain’s post-war problems were largely due to a failure to correct its course to more conservative social and economic policies. In short, they thought too much money was being doled out by the state. The most important goals were to defeat inflation, build a competitive economy similar to the U.S., stamp out the ideology of socialism (which many believe is at the heart of any welfare program.) Thatcher was successful in turning around the British economy but at a great cost? Those of the “middle opinion” disagreed with her approach. While they could not deny the short-term success of her policies and that of the Conservative Party, they were concerned about the huge cost of those successes to the country and to particular groups in society—namely, the poor. The moderate economic social democratic consensus of the post-war era had been tossed away, replaced by a political ideology similar to that of the 19th century and the Poor Law. Public expenditures had been cut, but it was accomplished at the cost of a weakened welfare state whilst creating vast profits for privatisation speculators. The Labour Party, particularly those on the left, disliked Thatcher’s rude cuts, but members more in the center of the party went along, giving conservatives the votes they needed to cut spending. On the Right, moderates were concerned about what affect cutting the programs might have, but they too eventually went along with the ideology that said the prosperity created by privatisation would improve things in general, and that everyone, including the poor, would also do better. The ideology proved correct on the first matter but wrong on the second. Things worsened for the poor. The philosophical differences between the Conservatives and members of the Labour party are clearly defined. Labour these days (more socialist leaning in the early twentieth century) are more center-left; allied to trade unions and support greater European integration. Conservatives are divided into three categories: Thatcherites, who we have already discussed; the economically moderate, socially conservative wing (One Nation Tories), and radicals who support the most fundamental conservative policies. A third party, Liberal Democrats, swung left to fill the gap left when Labour adopted a more moderate social stance in the 1980s. While still socially progressive, they now support cutting taxes in a drooping economy—bad news for social welfare. In terms of party support things may or may not look promising for those on welfare. All of the parties have drifted toward a more centrist ideal and are now attempting to appeal to middle class voters, many of whom, as in 1834 and on through the present, are not particularly fond of the welfare state. Yet if the U.K. remains true to form, it may take into account the poor economy and actually fund more programs for the poor, as it was known to do back in the days of the Poor Laws. These days ideology remains a solid influence on welfare programs. The most obvious is the National Health System and how it delivers or doesn’t deliver on its responsibilities. One example of how ideology has influenced the development of policy in social and health care is in the realm of cost cutting and efficiency. “The two central features of the UK system that contribute to cost-control are, first, its capacity to set and reinforce a budget limit on hospital spending and, second, the role the family doctor or general practitioner (GP). (Imai, 40) Doctors now act as gatekeepers and control the services patients receive based on perceived need. Before, patients admitted to hospitals did not always need to be, thus costing the National Health System more money than it needed to pay. However, the new policy prompted by more conservative economic concerns has also caused dissatisfaction. “In the UK, increasing concern has been expressed about the level of under-diagnosis of left ventricular dysfunction (heart failure) in the community. In the UK primary care doctors act as gate keepers for all but emergency services and there is evidence of inappropriate and inadequate testing and under-prescription of the drugs which these practitioners know to be effective.”(Grimshaw, Khunti, 17). They suggest that guidelines should not hinder a doctor’s ability to treat patients. The conclusion is that the UK, in its effort to provide health services that are indeed appropriate and beneficial, must not place economics over social welfare. Cost saving achieved may in the end cost the NHS more to treat patients with complications from not being treated properly to begin with. Sources Besley, Timothy. Coate, Stephen. Guinnane, Timothy W. Incentives, Information, and Welfare: Englands New Poor Law and the Workhouse Test, v May 2001 www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers/Incentives%20Information%20and%20Welfare/document Curen, David Van, There’s no free lunch or ‘free market’. http://www.tdn.com/articles/2004/03/15/readers_new/news03.prt Goldman, Lawrence, Science, Reform, and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Social Science Association, “Victorian socio-medical liberalism: the Social Science Association and state medicine” 1857-1886, Cambridge University Press, 2002. www.questia.com/library/book/science-reform-and-politics-in-victorian-britain-the-social-science-association-1857-1886-by-lawrence-goldman.jsp?CRID=bp_science_reform_and_politics_in_victorian_britain_the_social_science_association_1857_1886_by_lawrence_goldman&OFFID=se2q Grimshaw, GM and Khunti, K, Annual Meeting International Society Technology Assessment Health Care, University of Warwick, UK, 2001, Abstract No. 101. Imai, Yutaka, The United Kingdom The National Health System, Journal Article, OECD Observer, Vol. a., 1994 Marshall, Dorothy, A Study in Social and Administrative History, G. Routledge and Sons, Ltd, 1926. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=498964 Stokes, Peter M. Journal article, “Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol 4, 2001. http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=5000923645 Read More