What were the arguments of the New Right against the Welfare State(TM)? How were these arguments reflected in Social Policy in the period 1979 to 1997?

The welfare state, post-war, used a Keynesian outlook and system, where policies:

 “were consistent with, the intervention of government through fiscal and monetary techniques to regulate demand and encourage full employment.” while “Beveridgian social policies were intended to contribute to the development of comprehensive welfare services, access to which would confer a sort of social citizenship.” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:32).  

This shows how important development of capitalism was to the Keynesian welfare state at the time.

The different theories of the role of the state also varied; including traditional views on the role of the state include those from Classical liberals, which portrayed two contrasting views. The first including the view form the ‘negative liberal’ who argued that the role of the state should be kept to a minimum as individuals should be free in their actions rather than being influenced by those in power, while the second, views from ‘positive liberals’ who argue that the state should look for alternative means of dealing with social problems, still taking on the role of ensuring the well-being of it’s citizens.

A more contemporary view of the role of the state in Britain includes that of the New Right and the Thatcher administration, this introduced a new way (or reintroduced an old way) of thinking toward the welfare state in 1979, with a major influence from classical liberal views.

The New Right “represented a radical break with social democratic values – most visibly in rhetoric but also in practice…Frequently listed beliefs include commitment to the free-market, to individual freedom, and to the reduction of state intervention and welfare; a populist morality and authoritarianism.” Scott, J. and G. Marshall, (2005:447).  

The final point made here being the most important as the New Right were very much against the welfare state wanting to ‘roll back’: “much of the new right critique of the welfare state emphasised the values of monetarism over keynesianism.” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:124), the development of capitalism being an important factor to the New Right way of thinking therefore being against the welfare state as it could cause economic problems as individuals become more dependent of the state rather than being independent and being part of the economy and labour force:

“the emphasis is on an analysis of the damage which it is claimed welfare state do to the individual and to the economy and on providing a vision of an alternative utopia.”  Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:125).

The New Right, as well as the Classical Liberal, has two different views of the role of the welfare state, including Neo-liberalism and Neo-conservatism.

Neo-Liberals try to find alternatives to the welfare state, emphasising the economic problems surrounding the idea of relying upon the welfare state.

Neo-liberals argue that at a micro-level:

“the high levels of personal and corporate taxation associated with redistributive approaches to welfare are said to reduce individual incentives to work and invest, because the gains to be made form hard work and risk-taking are diminished… Wealth creation is thus stifled leading to economic stagnation.”  Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:125).

Individuals believe they will benefit more by relying on the welfare state rather than being part of the labour force, earning and saving, therefore, the more the state give, the more individuals will take, reducing economic growth.

Also, Neo-liberals argue that the welfare state gives to those who need rather to those who deserve the benefits, taking away the fear of poverty as an incentive to work hard, earning a living individually and saving for future prospects.

At a macro-level, neo-Liberals argue that:

“Keynesian demand management is seen as inflationary. Keynesians seek to manipulate demand in order to secure full employment…running budget deficits to fund an expansion of public expenditure and through relaxation of interest rates and consumer credit controls to promote more spending by individual consumers.” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:125).

This view claiming that Keynesians believe to develop capital, consumerism must increase, and the way to do this would be to ensure individuals work in full employment to ensure individuals consume.

The Neo-liberals also argue that those who do not necessarily need the welfare state may benefit more than those who do as “the interest of the powerful and articulate are more likely to be served than those of the needy and explains why the middle classes have done so well out of the welfare state.” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:125).

The implications that the neo-liberals suggest to develop capital include through “privatisation, deregulation and the introduction of quasi-markets in the public sector” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:126), as well as allowing for individuals to become more independent through providing them with vouchers in order to consume, possibly allowing for ‘consumer sovereignty’ keeping both the customer and the service providers content.

The second view within the New Right includes the Neo-conservative view where individuals are given the idea that they do not have to take responsibility for their actions, as the problems are considered to have social causes not individual blame, this arguing the view that the welfare problem is not an economic one but is a moral issue. This emphasising the role the state has in creating a ‘nanny state’ and creating more needs for individuals rather than avoiding dependency.

The implications that the neo-conservatives suggest to allow individuals to become more independent include the use of conditional benefits, receiving welfare on certain conditions.

  The major point being emphasised by the New Right was that:

 “the number of people dependent on welfare services was growing as the population aged, yet the number of young people of working age paying into the system was declining. This signalled a potential financial crisis.” Giddens, A. (2006:371).

Society under management of Thatcher saw a change in the way welfare was provided from the state:

“The 1988 Social Security Act allowed the state to cut back on welfare expenditures by raising the eligibility criteria for income support, family credit and housing benefit.” Giddens, (2006:372).

An example of how the New Right affected social policy between 1979 and 1997 includes the 1980 Housing Act, which involved the privatisation of council housing, allowing individuals to buy rather than just rent council houses, the act allowed for “council tenants, of at least three years, the option to own their own council home, by purchasing it at a substantial discount and so to benefit from rising prices in the housing market.” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:221).

Over the period of the 1980’s over 1 million council houses became privatised and those tenants being more financially secure and within employment, this reducing the chances of housing benefit regulations being put into place and allowed for the homes to be developed for future benefits, this has meant in recent years that:

“the role of Councils is developing into a role involving the maintenance of standards and regulation of rents in the private rented sector, the administration of the housing benefits system, the enforcement of environmental health standards and the temporary accommodation of the statuary homeless.”  Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:223).

Here, the point should be made that a disadvantage of privatisation of council housing, it could be argued, includes the growth of homelessness in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Other ways in which the Conservative Party, or the New Right affected policy in Britain includes that in the early 1990’s a focus was on the family, in particular lone-parents being seen as a policy problem:

“The introduction of the Child Support Act in 1991 as a result of the debate over lone parents represents a family policy with the explicit aim of reducing the incentive to become a lone parent and increasing the incentive for parents to stay together” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:266).

This showing the way in which the New Right emphasises considering the consequences of individual’s own actions and taking more responsibility.

Another major contribution from the Conservative party includes that in Education, ensuring all children receive an education as they are entitled to do so, through the Education Act of 1980, which “allowed bright children, whose parents were of limited means, to attend fee-paying schools, the Assisted Places Scheme.” Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:180), the Conservatives here allowing parents to have more freedom of choice as to where their children attended school.

Also, the Education Reform Act introduced grant maintained schools, locally managed schools, school league tables, a national curriculum and standardised testing, this allowing for all children to test their ability and have the opportunity for a brighter future no matter what their background.

There have been criticisms over New Right ways of thinking and the ways in which policies may have been a disappointment as even through the attempts to roll back the state, other problems have been encountered, for example, Hutton, (1996) outlined by Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:127) argues that there have been increasing social divisions due to factors such as privatisation, using the example of “thirty, thirty, forty society” the 30% being the disadvantaged, 30% being the insecure middle class and the 40% being the privileged over-class who live separate lives.

“For the New Right, the state is partial and corrupt while the market, with its ‘hidden hand’ impartially adjudicates and distributes on the basis of desert”. Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004:128).

This criticism emphasising how the powerful state is able to benefit those who apparently deserve welfare rather than who really need welfare.

Looking back over the views of the New Right and looking at some of the ways in which the Conservative Party under the administration of Thatcher, implemented certain social policies, looking at the theories behind their decisions, it is clear that the intention of allowing individuals to become more independent was present, however, it is also clear that the state or the government’s power and capital was also of great interest, ensuring the development of capital within society, this giving some reason to why the New Right was against the Welfare State as it was argued that it did not benefit the economy as a whole.

References

• Alcock, C. Payne, S. and M. Sullivan, (2004), ‘Introducing Social Policy,’ Pearson Education Limited, Essex

• Giddens, A. (2006), ‘Sociology’ Polity Press, Cambridge
• Lowe, R. (2005), ‘The Welfare State in Britain Since 1945’ Palgrave Macmillan, New York

• Scott, J. and G. Marshall, (2005), ‘Oxford Dictionary of Sociology’, Oxford University Press Inc, New York