What are the implications for social policy of the changes which have occurred in the structure and dynamics of the family in the last 30yrs?

state as means of sustenance.  The question for social policy is whether policies are formed for the re-integration of those who have few means to support themselves, at the same time acknowledging that any attempt to do so will be contested on the basis that these individual acts require personal, as opposed to public, rectification.Naturally the disintegration of marriage heralded in a situation that social policy makers have found increasingly difficult to combat; the rise of lone parent/ single parent families.  Traditionally, a single/lone parent family was entitled to government support only when the wife or husband were widowed.  In such circumstances the welfare state took an interventionist stance of supporting the widowed partner, specifically the female; Women were also granted access to their partners' pension (Glennerstein, pg 169).  However, as more marriages begun to break down -and with indications of this scenario rising-the welfare state has increasingly backed away from the responsibility of looking after lone parent families.  Although allowances such as the lone parent benefit were set up in order to offer assistance, the increasing rise in this scenario lead to the introduction of the ‘New Deal’ in 2003.  This policy offers training and encourages the lone parent to participate in the labour market, which is an obvious attempt by the state to move away from its tag as offering easy handouts.  Despite this, a specific problem of supporting the rising rate of lone parents is that providing constant support for one section of society-in this case the single parent-without offending or excluding another-tax payers whose money is funding the lone parent- is becoming increasingly difficult.  When elected to parliament this issue was immediately taken up by Tony Blair; under the banner “supporting families” he proclaimed that divorce would be more difficult to attain and that preserving the “institution of the marriage” was a priority in order for society to succeed.  It is a notion that has backfired as divorce rates within Britain have continued to rise (risen 3.7% since 1997, National Statistics Online)A notable shift over the last thirty years which has had major implications for social policy is the mounting economic independency of females.  Whereas social policy had a relatively quiet time with regards to the allocation of roles based upon assumptions about familial structures, this has now become difficult to ascertain.  Traditional images of male as breadwinner and female as the domesticated backbone of the family have withered away, leaving a void in the socially allocated gender specific duties.  This change has largely been bought on by the increasing participation of women in the workforce who no longer requires male counterparts for financial stability.  In Europe in the 1960s, 48.73% of women were in the workforce compared to almost 70% in 1999.  The latter figure is also likely to have risen since this period (Eurostat).  As well as economically, this has specific social and political implications that the state had perhaps failed to foresee.  Women prolong marriage far longer than previous generations, and the birth of children out of wedlock has seized to be scorned upon as a moral issue. Social policy is now faced with the situation of having to form a policy based on the equal rights of the parents of the child, as females are readily equipped to raise children autonomously.  If anything, the scenario of late has been one in which men find themselves fighting for a right that society had naturally allocated to them.  Whereas child rearing without a fathers' presence was morally (hence politically) unheard of, it has now become an issue which each male recognises as plausible.  Social policy is faced with increasing demands to meet the growing needs of fathers who have been denied access from their children, something the state had not taken into account under the assumption that children were inherently the responsibility of the mother.  The development of political groups such as 'Fathers For Justice' has further amplified the need to redefine child policies.    A further trend associated with this, and which social policy makers will have to address at alarming speed, is the number of people who are now living alone.  According to the The Observer (6th February, 2004) this scenario has risen by 31% since 1971, a clear indication that individual needs are taking ascending priority over those of the family as females become economically independent and financially secure.  What causes grave concern for policy makers is whether a ‘family’ will cease to exist, and, if so, policies will have to be implemented on an individual as opposed to collective basis.  This will be a complicated, costly and extremely difficult procedure to apply to society. Perhaps one of the most dynamic situations to accompany these changes is the steadily declining fertility rate consistent with an increasingly ageing population.  In United Kingdom, the average number of children per woman has fallen from 2.75 in the 1960s to just over 1.50 in 2003 (National Statistics online).  It is estimated that by 2031 the population will have 20% more over 65s than under 15s (National Statistics Online)  Whereas women have traditionally been the main backbone in the care of the elderly-a mantle transferred from generation to generation-the suggestion that the trend listed above is increasing is a worrying prospect for the state.  It does not avert the gaze from a key debate raging within society, and that is the responsibility of the care of the elderly.  Whereas the state has held back in intervening when it comes to this, partly out of respect and partly out of convenience, it appears that this stance will have to be reviewed.  Policy makers will be faced with the tough decision of taking the interventionist approach in order to maintain the wellbeing of its ageing citizens as well as ensuring the reproduction of humans-tools that effectively control the economy.  It will be a very difficult balance to strike.  Although traditional family structures are in flux, the likelihood of families completely isolating themselves from the lives of their elder family members against the general European ethic of informal care is unlikely, hence social policy makers find themselves in a compromising position.  Also, unlike in China, where the birth rate is limited to 1 per couple, it is difficult to foresee the measures the EU will take so as to boost fertility rates.  There may be a need to offer further financial and emotional support to families in order to urge reproduction, although herein lies another issue of the maintenance of the child; should the above family patterns continue, more children will face adolescents in single-parent households and a growing amount will be at the centre of custody battles (Glennerstein, pg214).  There will certainly be a review of the current retirement ages, a situation the EU addressed, urging the UK to extend its retirement age for men (currently 65) and women (60) to allow them to support themselves for longer periods. What remains certain is that if patterns of financial independence, individualisation and descending fertility rates widens, Europe may find itself making social policies based primarily upon the welfare and sustenance of the aged.   It appears from all the above that one of the biggest implications for policy makers today is the very notion of the term ‘family’.  Within the last 30 years, what was once a fixed criterion to review has now become a difficult concept to grasp.  As a result of extremely fast transitions within the family, social policies which covered traditional risks are becoming increasingly outdated.  One major issue for social policy is whether it can move with the changing family dynamics or whether it holds back and aims to exert some control over its citizens.  Neither approach will be easy, but one would be naive to think that the latter will be an entirely successful stance.  The family-despite all it's changes and it's increasingly unfixed nature-remains one of the biggest institutions of socialisation and it is unlikely to become passive recipients of overpowering policies.  If social policy does intervene, for example, in the care of its elderly citizens, it will have to do so in a manner which co-operates with families as opposed to dominate.  There are also distinguishable cultural issues to be considered.  Despite an increasing amount of marriages undergoing dissolution and as well as fertility rates falling, it is generally recognised that specific ethnic affiliations within Europe are not following this pattern.  For example, in the census 2003, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had the youngest population (40%) against its counterparts (22% Indian, 25% Black Caribbean); as way of specific cultural tradition, the elderly remain important and influential members of certain families, many of whom will not advocate intervening policies. The rising irregularities in family life can also be seen as a result of the contradictions within existing policies.  Whereas on the one hand the state urges its members to show increasing participation in the labour force, it also encourages the maintenance of the traditional notions of 'family.'  This requires females to remain at home and men to dominate in the financial domain, a lifestyle which is unlikely; financial requirements of raising children are now are so high that it needs dual work, which in turn increases individualisation, one primary reason the state is in a frenzy with regards to childcare.  What is required is a balance between the two variations; the traditional and the new, but whether social policy can incorporate the new 'fluctuating' family into it's make up remains to be seen.