Introduction to Sociology: The Welfare State
We shall examine how the welfare state has changed since 1945, analysing its first and second transformations.
a) Capitalism always faces continuous crises, and is unable to regulate itself. For example, in1930s, there was an economic depression, mass unemployment, extensive poverty and a reduction in ‘national assistance’ (limited social benefits to unemployed). This caused strikes, ‘lock-outs’, demonstrations and civil unrest, and a social conflict between the working class and the ruling elite.
b) In the light of such unrest, there was a fear of a socialist revolution and a possibility that Britain could follow the communist path of the Soviet Union. This stirred the ruling elite to transform the nature of industrial capitalism.
In 1940s, there were the Beveridge Committee 1942 and the post-war Marshall Plan. This transformed Britain into the ‘New Jerusalem’, and formed the start of the modern welfare state:
- pensions increased by 160% - 39% of the average salary;
- local authorities responsible for residential care of the elderly;
- social benefits for sickness and industrial injury;
- enlarged unemployment benefits;
- the creation of the NHS – widely and free access to general practitioners and hospitals; and
- free secondary schooling and subsidised school meals.
The welfare state was based on the principle of universalism – entitlement to welfare for all, as a right, irrespective of means. The welfare state related to the conception of social citizenship – not only did citizens possess economic and political rights to free labour and voting but also social rights to welfare and entitlements. This helped to enshrine the social values of liberty and equality, and citizens are considered as equals in the governing of the society, and on the basis of ‘collectivisation of risk’ (i.e., social insurance).
c) There were several key institutions and power relationships within the welfare state:
i) professionals – highly qualified practitioners, who had considerable autonomy and decision-making powers; e.g., doctors, teachers and civil servants.
ii) bureaucrats – operated organisational procedures and rules to ensure consistent and fair allocation of resources; e.g., a points system for housing, and a referral system for hospital appointments.
iii) clients – dependent persons who sought professional support, assistance and protection; e.g., patients, unemployeds, and pupils.
Over time, what emerged was a relationship of domination, control and hierarchical dependency based on:
- professional knowledge – professionals (especially doctors) were able to shape and define the nature of welfare services;
- bureaucratic authority – bureaucrats were able to co-ordinate welfare services; and
- client passivity and dependency – clients were unable to engage in what and how social services were provided:
e.g., going to a hospital for assistance was shaped in the interests of professionals and bureaucrats.
Three forms of criticisms emerge:
a) Marxism
The Marxists claim that the welfare state works for the benefit of the capitalist system. The welfare state:
i) creates an educated and healthy workforce poised for labour exploitation;
ii) reduces ‘production wage’ as the state (and not the employer) becomes responsible for the ‘social wage’ for the up-keeping of workers’ families;
iii) creates some degree of social mobility through education and health care, so legitimising the inherent uneven and unequal nature of social order; and
iv) achieves some re-dress of life chances – though very limited (social mobility largely unchanged).
b) Feminism
The feminists largely draw on Marxism for their criticism of the welfare state as a patriarchal institution:
i) the welfare system locks women into domestic housewife and carer roles due to the patriarchal assumptions behind its social services; and
ii) social benefits based on a family wage and a male breadwinner model of the household; regard women’s work as largely unpaid, or part-time/casual paid employment.
iii) Liberalism
The liberals (in particular neo-liberals) find other problems with the welfare state.
i) generally, the state is attacked because it reduces the autonomy and freedom of individuals – they do not enjoy the rewards of their personal enterprise and risk-taking;
ii) individuals should be responsible for their own life and their own family – the welfare state is a ‘nanny state’;
iii) there should be a minimal safety net – though only a small intervention, otherwise a large welfare state can damage the functions of families and the voluntary sector;
iv) the market is valued as a fair allocator of resources, since markets are based on individuals’ own decisions, ideas and enterprise; e.g., tokens for choice of child-care.
There have been several attempts to restructure the existing welfare state into a more liberal regime (or ‘welfare mix’). Neo-liberalism refers to a liberal turn in political, economic and social thinking in the 1980s. This ideology aims to transform the old social democratic welfare state into a less costly, smaller, more efficient and more flexible welfare regime. But, the costs of the welfare state have not declined.
Nevertheless, there have been significant changes in institutions and power relationships:
i) welfare manager
- the emergence of the ‘managerial state’
- a shift from ‘public servants’, ‘professionals’ and ‘civil servants’ to ‘purchasers’, ‘providers’ and managers.
- de-professionalisation - a loss of status and power of professionals as managers usurp control and limit professional discretion;
- the transformation of the social welfare organisation into a more ‘business-like’ form, more ‘customer-centred’, and more efficient and economical:
- to ensure managerial accountability, targets (other than profits) are set to measure performance and competence – though demoralisation at the workplace as professionalism and trust diminish;
- organisations (say, individual hospitals) are seen as competitive cost-centres with their own budgets; i.e., the creation of internal/pseudo/quasi-markets in the health care.
ii) welfare consumer
- not depicted as dependent on professional knowledge, but as a knowledgeable welfare consumer, who has a personal interest and choice over how social services are to be delivered; e.g., the ‘client-cum-consumer’ decides which hospital to go for the best treatment.
As a result of these changes, what has emerged is ‘privatised providentialism’; this means:
- self-responsibility exhorted by the government; e.g., contribute towards one’s own pension plan; and
- individuals must calculate privately their own risks and opportunities; e.g., to become entrepreneurial in choosing a medical consultant.
However, this form of ‘welfare consumerism’ leaves the poor quite vulnerable.