Relating back to the question that the welfare state is more of a cause for poverty rather than a solution, this is proven in the New Right’s approach that is a direct cause. In that it undermines the will for people to work by providing a free health service and financial support, as it allows them to live off benefits and receive the basic essentials that are needed to live. This then results in the rest of the population having to face the burdens of increased taxes that supplies money for those unwilling to work, which relates back to the indirect cause of poverty in that employers find it difficult to provide such high wages due to high taxation and therefore the welfare state leads us in to this vicious circle of dependency. The New Right approach therefore believes that the welfare state is far too generous and provides too much towards the underclass, who are seen to abuse the system and constantly take hand outs but never give back. It is apparent that this approach is in agreement with the question in that the welfare state cause poverty rather than solve it by providing universal benefits to some extent, when maybe the government should be looking at more selective benefits and services.
However, this approach can be heavily criticised, as there are a number of benefits the welfare state has made in order to reduce poverty and they have worked successfully. If there were no such thing, as a welfare state the amount of poverty would increase, it would also mean that there would be a split in society: the very wealthy and the poor. There is also a minimum wage, which is made to protect workers from being exploited and it should allow them to be able to provide the basic needs. Once again if there was no such thing as the welfare state employees would not have this protection and it would allow employers to take advantage and give ridiculous pay, resulting in more poverty.
The New Right approach contrasts with the social democratic approach (1940-1980) as it sees the welfare state as trying to combat poverty by helping those in need; this was then later developed in to the ‘Third way’. This approach argued that for some groups certain things happen to them in which no one is to blame. For example being disabled or retired which then leads to poverty, as they are unable to earn an income, therefore the role of the welfare state is to ensure these people are cared for. Whereas New Right thinkers believe poverty is a result of a generous welfare state and benefit system that should be cut if we are to reduce poverty, in contrast the social democratic approach believes in handing out benefits in order to eliminate poverty. Nevertheless this view is still criticised particularly by Third Way thinkers such as Giddens, as they believe this approach has failed to respond to the social, political and economic changes that have occurred since the 1980s. For example the benefits usually went to families and by the 90s it was no longer typical families that were in poverty, which left single mothers in poverty traps as in earlier years they were seen to stay at home and look after children. The expenses of the social democratic approach were also becoming too costly as living standards began to improve and the relative definition of poverty changed, which made it harder for the state to be able to provide these standards that people expected then resulting in poverty. So there is also an argument that the social democratic view was infact-causing poverty as they weren’t able to provide what was needed.
Feminist thinks have also found that the welfare state only serves the needs of then men and not women, such as Glendinning and Millar, they believe it often ignores their problems and only targets men. It is also fact that women receive lower wages and are then less likely to receive a decent pension as to men. They are usually given the head role of a lone parent; as a result of this it tends to leave them in great risk of poverty despite of tax credits, as they are kept trapped by the welfare state.
It is clear that some sociologists believe that the welfare state is to blame for poverty as a cause rather than a solution, which can be agreed with but also argued. I mainly agree with the New Right view, in that the welfare state is too generous to groups in society and this has an effect on why we have poverty. Mainly down to that it rewards individuals who are too lazy to work by giving them money or providing them with a house, instead of only providing it to the people who actually aren’t at fault for their poverty. This then encourages other people to follow these individuals and the problem grows. I believe that the welfare state should be more selective with benefits and people should have to undertake a means test, instead of handing out universal benefits, as this would give people more incentives to work. Although the welfare state is not fully to blame for poverty as there will always be some sort of poverty as long as there is inequality. People will always be richer then others meaning people are also poorer and therefore they will be listed as in poverty.
