To what extent and why would you agree or disagree with the view that the New Right proceeded by assertion approach to welfare provision?
Perspectives on Social Policy
(3) 'Our judgement would be that, essentially, the New Right proceed by assertion'
[George and Wilding].
To what extent and why would you agree or disagree with the view that the
New Right proceeded by assertion approach to welfare provision?
Professors George and Wilding made the statement in their study of welfare and
ideology that the New Right 'proceed by assertion' - that is to say that they make over
generalised and unbalanced rhetoric about the state provision of welfare.
The New Right emerged as an ideology in critical response to the post 1945
government attempts to provide a comprehensive system of welfare in Britain. They argue
that state provision is not only inefficient and ineffective, but that collective enterprise is
actually impossible as they have no belief in a common purpose in society.
New Right ideas can be separated into two major strands of thought. The Neo-
Liberal philosophy that is concerned with economic factors; and the Neo-Conservative
strand which is interested with social, moral and political implications. However, they can
be grouped together to define a philosophy which favours more market and less state
involvement in peoples lives. They equate that more government means less personal
freedom which, for the New Right, undercuts the principles of democracy.
It is widely argued that the New Right present an ideology of Welfare that while
being rational and efficient in theory; in practice is simply too idealistic and is neither
sensitive nor flexible enough to the social needs of contemporary society.
This essay intends to show that the ideologies of welfare presented by the New
Right lack legitimate evidence to support and justify their proposals; this will be shown in
two ways. First, the inadequacies of the New Right philosophical basis will be highlighted
to show that at the most primary footing of their perspectives on social policy are
unsound. Secondly, I will look at their argument for the supremacy of the free market
system over state provision. This will be examined in both the economic and social
spheres.
The key and most basic reason why the New Right has a tendency to make
statements with little substance or legitimacy is that their fundamental philosophical basis
appears to be flawed. New Right thinkers emphasise individualism; Friedman asserts that
'. The individual (is) the ultimate entity in society '. Clearly, there is little room for
collective conscious in their philosophy. This egotistical individualism stresses that the
welfare state, a collectivist policy, cannot work due to 'human nature' e.g. self-seeking
and greedy. The New Right ideology claims that the nature of human kind is
unchangeable which thus makes the Welfare State an impossibility.
However, many critics of this theory argue that classifying human nature as fixed
ignores all culture and history surrounding the development of society. They centre their
ideology on agency and completely fail to recognise the role of structure. Thatcher, a
leading figure of the New Right ideology, said there is no such thing as society -just
individuals. However, George and Wilding dismiss this assertion by highlighting that as
human beings, we are all linked together in patterns and cycles of dependency. Williams
also points out that surely '. We are not just individuals or families, but members of one
another.'
The New Right also asserts that the Welfare State policies view people as social beings
who can be motivated by social concerns and social goals. Naturally, the New Right
reject this view of humans, again this can be rooted back to the importance of the
individual and their assumption that humankind will very rarely ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
human beings, we are all linked together in patterns and cycles of dependency. Williams
also points out that surely '. We are not just individuals or families, but members of one
another.'
The New Right also asserts that the Welfare State policies view people as social beings
who can be motivated by social concerns and social goals. Naturally, the New Right
reject this view of humans, again this can be rooted back to the importance of the
individual and their assumption that humankind will very rarely act for the collective good.
However, this argument ignores the cyclical nature of human relationships, any moral or
collective consciousness is disregarded which is highly unrealistic for as humans we are
social beings, we are graggrarious .
New Right supporters also declare that the Welfare State is essentially inefficient due
to its need for rational planning. They reason that due to
the complexity of modern society, it is impossible to structure and implement plans that
would be beneficial both economically and socially. As Willets points out '.It is precisely
the increasing complexity of modern life which makes centralised organisation
impossible..'
They dismiss constructive rationalism as unrealistic and call for less government
intervention. Friedman views much government activity as undesirable. He believes it
should have a limited role restricted to areas such as foreign policy and overseeing
economic policies.
However, it seems unreasonable to dismiss some degree of planning in modern society,
people need valid motives and goals that are justified.
The New Right principles on the role of the Welfare State assert that:
we must first help those in need. Socialists believe that the State should provide an
average standard. We believe that it should provide a minimum standard, above
which people should be free to rise as far as their industry, their thrift, their ability or
their genius may take them....
This highlights the New Right emphasis on individual freedom and choice. They say that
the state provision of welfare is an encroachment on basic human freedoms as it restricts
choice.
However, if one considers services such as water, housing or health care, these
are such fundamental needs that there is no real choice whether or not these needs are
fulfilled. As a result of this, consumers in markets for these services are in a weak
position. Because of this vunerablilty, state provision of these services ensures a
comprehensive service which is regulated. Market systems in such essential areas of
provision leave the consumer susceptible to exploitation and it also undermines the
principles of a free democracy
As a result of the need for planning in the functioning of the Welfare State, many New
Right thinkers dismiss it as it ignores the concept of spontaneous order- the market
system. Or, at a more tangible level, they favour monetarism over Keynesianism.
- The New Right view the market as the most efficient system as it generates
competition which,in turn, spurs innovation and a consumer led market. It also means that
a monopoly cannot be created and consequently, prices are kept reasonable and quality
of services are kept high. They argue that the Welfare State violates the spirit of
capitalism and basic human nature . For the New Right, the market is the most efficient
and rational way to operate economically and socially
- The New Right also argue that the State presents a series of destructive economic
consequences. Mead contends that the government projects a view to society that work
is merely an option, not a nessecity. In other words, that social security creates a 'nanny
state', causing idleness. He views the Welfare state as a victim of it's own success by
feeding and sustaining the type of behaviour it is trying to minimise.
Another problem with this, according to the New Right, is because the welfare
state is centralised it is therefore seen as 'government money', it is depersonalised and as
a result becomes vulnerable to abuse and manipulation . Again, this leads back to the
view that man is individualistic and self seeking, rejecting the concept of the 'common
good' or collective social conscious.
In the defence of the State, it is obvious that in any socio-political arena there will be
negative and positive outcomes of any kind of social policy. However they must be
weighed up against each other. It is impractical and unrealistic to assess the welfare state
in the abstract, as the New Right tends to. Their philosophies also ignore the complex and
diverse nature of modern society, and are simply not sensitive enough to the various
needs. Holman explains that in reality, the New Right regard '..personal gain and material
selfishness..as virtues while compassion for the disadvantaged and a readiness to share
goods and power are sneered at as weakness..'
Thus far we have seen that the New Right philosophy celebrates private
enterprise as it promotes democracy, however there is much substantial evidence to
prove otherwise. Friedman, for example, claims in his writings NAME OF BOOK
AND QUOTE DIRECTLY.. that it is the free market which made it possible for black
people to overcome racial discrimination in the United States. This completely
disregards the role of state legislation in this matter, and further presents an unbalanced
and misleading view of the social policy process which seems to be a consistent motif
that runs through the New Right philosophies.
XPAND ECONOMIC POINT
Another major factor in the inadequacy of the market provision of Welfare State services
is that it cannot supply needs regardless of ability to pay or according to need. As a
result, it is easy to deduce that the market solutions are distinctly less equitable than the
state provision of public services.
Therefore, it can be argued that, the New Right fail to consider the social consequences
of the market system.
The problem of the New Right is that their opinions of the supremacy of the free market
are formed from their own view point which is invariably secure, affluent and
professional. They fail to recognise that the freedom the market offers is conditional.
Holman argues that it '...depends upon the prior advantage of having jobs, opportunities,
savings. The market provides freedom for the privileged.'
The World Bank, long regarded as supporters for the free market, issued a report in
997 emphasising that an effective state is '...vital to the provision of goods and services
and the rules and institutions that allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier,
happier lives. Without it, sustainable development, both economic and social is
impossible..' This shows that while the New Right ideology is not wholly disregarded, it
is seen as not looking at the whole picture, which gives an unbalanced and bias view of
state provision. The New Right can be thought of as 'leading by assertion' due to the fact
that they often make statements without backing it up with legitimate evidence.
According to the New Right ideology, the Welfare State has many negative
social implications. Firstly, it undermines any sense of responsibility and self-reliance by
providing, not so much a 'safety net', more an altogether too comfortable cushion to
those who get state provision. This, in turn, fosters what Keith Joseph coined in the
970's a 'dependency culture'. This anti-collectivist theory claimed that poor families in
poverty transmitted this culture of difficult relationships, unskilled work or
unemployment.
However, this is an generalised statement that when examined, becomes totally
inadequate. Willams argues that 'such an explanation ..fails to account for the effect of
social circumstances...'
Charles Murray, whose work has been widely published in Britain by the Institute of
Economic Affairs, assets that the Welfare State infact sustains an 'underclass' by
removing any element of real risk or danger-factors which, according to the New Right,
are essential to the consistent function of an innovative and motivated market. This
theory is best represented by a quote from the 1992 Conservative Party Conference
where the Social Security minister, Peter Lillley, categorised single mothers as having
dominant membership of this supposed underclass and described them as 'young ladies
who get pregnant just to jump the housing list.'
This assertion by Peter Lilley is an example of how the New Right thinkers tend
to make broad statements, often considering them in the abstract without using much
evidence and dispensing normative prescriptions for the social ills. Clearly, however, a
broader agenda is required when evaluating social policies. Also this approach fails to
consider the supportive and cohesive functions that the Welfare State provides.
Holman shows effectively the inadequacy of the New Rights theory of the
emergence of an underclass in his study of the effect of the implementation of New Right
policies in Easterhouse during the early nineties. He presents quantitative evidence to
show that it is not the 'feather-bedding' approach of the Welfare State that is
accountable for social problems and 'wrong' values. Rather Holman argues that,
. the deprivations are imposed upon people by government policies and
economic factors beyond their control. The underclass thesis should be seen
less as an explanation of the state of places like Easterhouse and more as a
New Right excuse which diverts blame away from the dire results of New Right
practices..
The New Right maintain that the free market promotes democracy by offering choice to
the consumer. They argue that the Welfare state creates a monopoly, therefore there is no
competition, which is bad for the consumer. basically the state is answerable to no-one
because people are not directly paying for their health care or schooling (for example).
Williamson summarises that the Welfare State from a New Right perspective is
'significantly inefficient as it is an effective monopoly, bureaucratic in character and
dominated by producers, not consumers.'
Williams also highlights the problem of the concentration of power in the market or
oligopoly , which is fundamentally undemocratic. She asserts that business people rarely
practice free competition whenever they are in a position to control the market
themselves.
This is further reinforced by Richard Titmuss in his 1959 lecture 'The
Irresponsible Society' where he stressed that major monetary decisions of building
societies, insurance and pension companies were being made by a small minority of
people. Such decisions affect millions of people, and their views are not taken into
account, which is fundamentally undemocratic.
It must be noted, however, The New Right philosophy does not altogether reject the role
of state in Welfare. Gray accepts the idea of quasi-markets within the welfare state,
perhaps in the form of a voucher system. This way competition is still strong because
people have the freedom to choose which hospital or school they want. Seldon reinforces
this by suggesting that ' National economic expansion can best be helped by putting
welfare by stages into the market where the consumer will rule instead of the politician'.
The effectiveness of the market system is not completely convincing. The New Right
tends to present a distorted and partial view of the efficiency of the free market.
-more explanation of efficiency of market see george nad wildiing chapter on democratic
socialism.
conclusion
:
- Bibliography
? Deakin Nicholas (1994)The Politics of Welfare (Harvester Wheatsheaf)
? Gamble Andrew (1994), The Free Economy and Strong State (2nd Edition)
(Macmillan Press)
? Le Grand Julian (1982) The Strategy of Equality Redistribution and the Social
Services (Allen and Unwin)
? Gray John (1992) Moral Foundations of Market Institutions (The IEA Health and
Welfare Unit)
? Hayek F.A. (1962) The Road to Serfdom (Routledge)
? Hill Michael et al (1986) Analysing Social Policy( Basil Blackwell Press)
? Hindess Barry (1987) Freedom Equality and the Market (Tavistock Publications)
? Holman Bob (1993) A New Deal for Social Welfare (Lion Publishing)
M. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom p6
Windess, 1998
George and Wilding Welfare and Ideology p23
George and Wilding
Holman, p9
Araki,2000 p602
Williams, 1988
Gilder, 1981 p253
Deakin,1994 p72
Holman 1993 p26
Holman, 1993,
Milton, p168
Williams 1989 p27
Holman 1992 p15-16
Holman 1992 p21
Williamson p197
Oligopoly- State of limited competition between few producers or sellers
Holman 1992 p23
Holman, p12
