The success of the welfare state has long been debated, not only in this country but also in others. Political writers and social analysts all have varying views depending on where they lay on the political spectrum but all if honest could agree that when it comes to the eradication of poverty it has not been a 100% success, this speaks for itself as it is clear that there is still poverty and social exclusion in this country. But why hasn’t the welfare state which, since its birth has had billions of pounds ploughed into it, worked? Charles Murray and Frank Fields both believe that the failings of the welfare state in the eradication of poverty is down to governments over looking the factor that individuals are all “motivated through self interest” (Deacon, A. 2002. Perspectives on welfare. Ideas, ideologies and policy, Open University press, Buckingham, Chapter 2) first and foremost. However their views do differ on the matter of a good society with no poverty. Charles Murray, an American writer, believes that good society is one that “cherishes the liberty and freedom of choice of individuals, but then holds them accountable for the ways in which they exercise that choice.” (Deacon, A. 2002 Chapter 2) Although in America they view welfare as being something that is different to Britain, one cant help but link this to the ideology of Thatcherism, for she believed that it was the duty of the individual to take with both hands the opportunities around and if that individual has made the wrong choices then it is them who should be accountable not the rest of society, who will have to pay for that individuals mistake.
It is important to note that spending on social security had reached a total of £96.7 billion in 1996/97 (Ellison, N and Pierson, C (ed) 1998, Developments in British Social Policy, Chapter 7) this figure is eight times higher then the original amount in 1949-50 (the first full year of operation of the Beveridge scheme) and twice the rate of growth in the economy as a whole (department of social security, 1997, pp. 9,11). This is obviously a huge amount of money, which has no doubt gone up since the 1997 and gives those opposed to giving more money to welfare ammunition against it. But why has, after so many reforms and so much money, there not been the total eradication of poverty? Ailsa Kay believes that this is due to the reforms being to based on “cost considerations” (Ellison, N and Pierson, C (ed) 1998, Developments in British Social Policy, Chapter 7, p128) but she blames the escalating cost simply on “increased demand” (p128). It was clear that the Conservatives policy of encouraging individuals to stand on there own to feet and to make them price themselves into the market (i.e. no pay strikes) was failing and a new direction had to be taken by New Labour.
Frank Fields, a political writer who was Minister for Welfare reform in 1997, believes the goal for a good society free of poverty is more “inclusive”. He unlike Murray recognises the need for “collective provision but recognises the individuals need seek their own self improvement through cooperative effort and mutual aid.” (Field, F. 1999. Reflections Of Welfare Reform, London, social market foundations). This thinking paved the way for New Labour to introduce a new wave of politics of the centre left often referred to as “Third way” politics (Deacon, A. 2002 chapter 7). Tony Blair and socialist believe that the main feature of the third way is the way in which it takes the “traditional values of the centre left” and adapts them “to the contemporary social and economic conditions” (Deacon, A. 2002 chapter 7). The third way sees the eradication of poverty as almost being a social contract between state and citizen, but with the state giving equal and ample opportunity for the citizen to succeed. Giddens feels that third way politic is “a mixture of old style left/right divide and neo liberalism” (Giddens, A 1998 The Third Way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: polity press). Third way to its believers, which included Tony Blair, was seen as seeking “both to promote self improvement and the ongoing need for enterprise and to attack poverty and discrimination” (Giddens, A. 1998, chapter 1).
Although at first the eradication of poverty was not mentioned by the New Labour government, the third way still recognised that poverty was passed from “generation to generation” (Deacon, A 2002, chapter 7) this led to the need to tackle child poverty and “the obstacles to true equality of opportunity” (Deacon, A 2002, chapter 7). Blair to this on board and began targeting single parents where most poverty was going to be. The government introduced the “New Deal” which was aimed at the young unemployed and “welfare to work”. David Price believes that these polices are nothing new and in fact argues that the “philosophy” of these programmes are “broadly consistent with the approach of Conservative governments over the previous ten years” (Price, D. 2000 office of hope, London. Policy studies institute.) The idea was to offer jobs with a “reasonable obligation to take chances offered” (Tony Blair 1995). Tony Blair eventually set a poverty target, this was to “eliminate child poverty in twenty” the government believed that this was the way to “tackling disadvantage in the future” by “. Unlike the conservatives who only believed that if people were at work they would be able to pull themselves out of the trap, this was not the case of new labour who, under John Smith set up the Borrie commission which concluded that work could not be relied apon to pull people out of poverty (Borrie Commission 112) this has led to the family tax credit policy which allows families who are at work to get some tax back. This scheme runs along with the original child benefit scheme, which Ailsa Kay believes promotes “Social Solidarity” (Ellison, N and Pierson, C (ed) 1998, Developments in British Social Policy, Chapter 7, p114).
So with this new wave of policy, the eradication of poverty should be well on the way to being succeeded? wrong. Recent studies suggest that the levels of poverty and social exclusion have stayed the same or even increased. So to conclude I believe that New Labours policies are good but are not working due to New Labours electoral strategy which is to keep hold of the traditional “middle England” voters, who are mostly at work and who don’t wish to see there tax being directed at the unemployed. This has led to New Labour focusing on issues such as education and the health service and obviously investing in those policy areas. This has led to a neglect ion of what are good policies. Policy reform on the eradication of policy has until now been to focused on the factor of cost. It would perhaps be better if policy makers “consider the dynamics of modern socio-economic conditions when designing possible reform options” (Ellison, N and Pierson, C (ed) 1998, Developments in British Social Policy, Chapter 7, p128). I believe that social security should perhaps play a larger role in the eradication of poverty to start with this, although will be expensive and perhaps not a particular vote winner, it could save money in a number of areas like crime, which is constantly being linked to poverty. I believe that this is the time to do it because of the massive majority that New Labour enjoys. This cant however be all down to the Government or governments to come, there has to be a change in culture in our society, which sees working together to improve this country, something that was not instilled by the previous Conservative government.
Bibliography
Deacon, A. (2002), Perspectives on welfare. Ideas, ideologies and policy, Open University Press, Buckingham, chapter 2 and 7.
Department Of Social Security (1998), A New Contract for Welfare: the gateway to work
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dss/1998/gateway/index.htm
Ellison, N. and Pierson, C. (ed) (1998), Developments in British social policy, Macmillan press ltd. Kay, A. Chapter 7
Field, F. (1998) Reflections of welfare reform. London, social market foundations
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: the renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press
Price, D. (2000) Office of hope, London: Policy studies institute.