What are the arguments for and against the state taking on responsibility for social welfare?

The different bloods for and against the secern taking on responsibility for well-disposed offbeat conduct been powerfully put across by stack of debate political persuasions in Britain over the last 60 years. In this essay, therefore, I intend to use Britains eudaemonia state to exemplify arguments for and against the state taking primary responsibility for amicable welfare. The welfare state in Britain was introduced in 1945 by the newly elected Labour government. Although this was the first tot eachy-encompassing attempt at creating a functional welfare state it is important to none that it was not an entirely new policy.In fact, we brush off trace back to 1601 to find an early attempt at implementing a state welfare formulation the Poor Law. The theory behind this legislation was that the slimy were to be categorized into the deserving (the impotent poor) and the undeserving (the persistent idlers). There were many obvious flaws in the methodology and logic in the effectuation of the Poor Law but it must be recognised that this was an early attempt at providing a social welfare placement. This demonstrates that for hundreds of years a case has been made for few measure of state social welfare proviso.It is withal vital not to underestimate the impact the studies carried out(a) by social researchers very much(prenominal) as Rowntree (1901) and Booth (1902) had on the forming and implementation of a social welfare provision in 1945. The Beveridge delineate (1942) pointed to the chaotic and piecemeal introduction of changes into the organization and stated the collect for a new and more comprehensive organisation to be installed. Beveridges report was underpinned by the need to cure the five giants. Beveridge identified these five giants as Idleness, Squalor, Ignorance, Want and Disease.He identified the need for a state commitment to securing full employment to rubbish idleness. He argued everyday lodgment must be gettable for al l citizens to rent. To cure ignorance he suggested the need for a free education organization for anyone up to the age of 15. He suggested the implementation of a topic health military service to help cure disease. Finally, Beveridge argued that National Insurance eudaimonias should be handed out to all in need. The welfare state had to be introduced in a series of acts, notably the National wellness Service Act (1946), the Education Act (1944), the Family Allowance Act (1945).At the time there was much reluctance towards carrying out all of the proposals. The arguments against this degree of state provision stemmed from concerns about cost and the primordial principles of welfare (e. g. how decisions are made and who should be entitled to receive welfare). Because of the reluctance that grew from the fact that these arguments were neer resolved. Beveridges suggestions were never fully implemented but his ideas still clearly formed the inspiration for the future of welfare ref orm. unrivaled of the main criticisms of Beveridges proposals and of the concept of a welfare state is that a offspring of important assumptions have to be made for it to function successfully. For example, within the report, Beveridge makes the assumption that married women would be full time housewives and that for most of their lives women would not be employed. Therefore, married women would only receive benefits through men, thus, creating a culture which encourages womens reliance on men. Because of this feminists have argued that the British welfare state relied on a familial ideology and treated women as secant class citizens.This example of the role of women within the welfare state illustrates the point that any welfare system is not neutral that is based on ideological assumptions. These assumptions will influence the way that different members of the public will respond to state provision of welfare. An opposite example of these ideological assumptions would be the 17t h cytosine belief that only the impotent poor deserve state welfare. The stintings of Britains state welfare system have also come under a lot of criticism. These critics argue there are some fundamental flaws with the economic ideology underpinning the system.Firstly, for the welfare state to operate properly and fairly their must be nearly full employment in the country where it is based as, in theory, this will maximize tax revenue revenue and minimize unemployment benefits. This system worked relatively effectively until the early 1970s. However, due to the relative decline of the UK economy, Britain suffered an economic crisis and unemployment started rising rapidly. Since then mass unemployment has been a serious problem within British troupe. Critics suggest that this is conclusion of how dependent a welfare state is on a prosperous economy.Basically this meant that the welfare state was reliant on capitalism rather than contributing to the undermining or softening of i ts most brutal aspects . The peeled Right have made strong arguments against state welfare provision. The 1979 election brought into power a right government that had a new and radical approach to public expenditure and the welfare state as a whole. Probably the most notable change in policy brought in by the virgin Right was the end of the commitment to full employment that previous governments had encouraged.The New Right believed in a natural level of employment. They felt that this natural level of employment was being undermined by takings being too high due to the actions of trade unions. Therefore, they argued that the market would solve unemployment by creating downward nip on wages. Because of this, the differential between wages and benefits was increased by creating downward pressure on benefit levels and therefore welfare expenditure. However, despite this right wing shift in political thinking, there was no major change in welfare expenditure until the late 1980s.T he year 1988 was an important one in terms of implications for the welfare state as it represented a far more radical covering of New Right thinking towards the welfare state. Firstly, the New Right introduced a shift from the previous system of universal provision towards a system based more upon selective provision. For example, some of the benefits that were previously available to everyone (universal) became only available to some via a means test (selective). This was a big move that tout ensemble contradicted the universal method employed by previous more left wing governments.Another change made by the New Right was the introduction of privatization and marketization. An example of this is the case of the sale of council houses. The public housing stock was privatized and sold off in an attempt to create a market for the council housing which had primarily in Beveridges thinking, been intended for public ownership and private rent. Another major shift made by the conserv ativist government was towards community care. There was a trend for mentally ill, elderly and disabled people to be moved from institutions to care in the community.However, what this basically meant was that rather than institutional care the responsibility was shifted onto the family. It is also very important to note that care in the community was considerably cheaper for the state to maintain than institutional care. The New Right also consciously made an effort to change the publics perception of welfare teddy away from the view that the state is the only provider of welfare. The responsibility of the state was bring down through the rise of private provision and by emphasizing the importance of the charitable and voluntary sector.This is one of the central strands of the argument against state welfare provision. At this juncture it is important to consider the effect privatization has had on society and the welfare state. Since the New Right introduced new policy pertaini ng to welfare in 1979 there have been a number of examples of the UK government seeking to encourage private provision of welfare. People have been encouraged to take out private insurance plans for their welfare needs and the number of people covered by private health insurance rose from 2. million to 5. 2 million between 1976 and 1986 (Julian Le Grand, 1990).In the mid 1980s the Conservative government tried to shift sickness insurance and pension insurance into the private sector also. These plans, however, never came to fruition owing to major criticism and insurance companies expressing a reluctance to take up policies for all employees Hutton (1996) strongly criticizes the New Rights welfare expenditure policy. He argues against the belief that public expenditure should be reduced during troubled times for the economy.Hutton believes that the cuts are spurred by political ideology rather then by economic need. In Huttons words apart from Iceland, Britain runs the meanest, tigh test, lowest-cost social auspices system in the world. Hutton alleges that the twenty-first snow will see a large rise in the amount of tax revenue available to fund welfare payments. The voluntary sector must also be discussed when considering arguments for and against the state taking on responsibility for the welfare state.Organizations such as Barnados, the Salvation Army and the NSPCC provide voluntary care. They serve a different role to statutory bodies set up by Parliament, but the views of these voluntary providers are respected and need to be taken into account as well. These organizations tend to have specialized expertise and look in certain areas and the government can benefit from this knowledge. A major bonus of voluntary provision is that they are often very cost effective as unpaid volunteers are often used.It is estimated by Knapp (1989) that the total amount of public-sector support for voluntary provision between 1983 and 1986 was i3151 million. However, ther e are also inbuilt weaknesses in voluntary provision. The biggest and most blatant problem stems from the nature of voluntary work as it cannot be guaranteed. Critics also point to the fact that voluntary work may be unequally provided across the country. The service can therefore be inconsistent and the advice from the voluntary sector to government might differ depending on the region.It is also suggested that due to financial restrictions the voluntary sector will never be anything more than a secondary level service that relies on the state or private sector provision. Social security benefits are the most redistributive aspect of the welfare state as they distribute income to the poorest people in the country. A point in favour of a social welfare system, from a socialist or social democratic perspective, is that the social security benefits can be used to redistribute wealth to make society economically fairer by heavily taxing the rich and giving it to the poorest people in society.On the other hand, opponents see this as a Robin Hood aspect of state social welfare which demotivates both the richest and the poorest people in the country encouraging idleness (one of the five giants beveridge was trying to eradicate) amongst the poor and encouraging the rich to leave the country. The New Right when in power, therefore, cut back on the redistributive aspects of welfare provision. The one-off grant system that was previously in effect was replaced in the 1986 and 1988 security acts and 16 to 18 year olds entitlement to income support was revoked.In current political debates the Conservative ships company, now in opposition frequently accuse the Labour party of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor via underhand or stealthy methods. This is an indication that the argument about the termination to which the state should take responsibility for social welfare remains highly contested. Where you stand on this place is fundamental to your politic al beliefs and how you will vote.