Welfare State and Social Policies in Britain

Welfare State and well-disposed Policies in BritainWhat are the essential characteristics of bourgeois benefit acress?Given that benefit states are normally associated with left of centre administrations, and the supposed hostility of conservative right wing parties to struggled high levels of state intervention, the term conservative benefit states seems somewhat of an anomaly. Nonethe little, there are definite examples of conservative states that not unaccompanied refrain from fighting the eud studyonia state but actually push the dependence of citizens on the governing. This can be traced back to the Bismarckian corporatist strategy of 19th century Ger galore(postnominal), in which it was seen as in the interests of the state to insure after the welfare of its citizens. This type of welfare state (in its extreme form) is less about reducing inequality and improving citizens lives than it is maintaining the status quo a ranked system based on a culture of dependenc e (Esping-Anderson, 1990). hidebound welfare states are often religious and/or nationalist in nature, with a strong fury on family values. Epitomising such characteristics is arguably George provides current reign. Despite initial cuts in human race expenditure, government spending has actually change magnitude faster under render than it did under Bill Clinton, with an add-on of almost 33%. The religious aspect of Bushs conservative system is illustrated with reference to his 2001 pledge to give billions of dollars to faith-based charities. judge the inevitability of big government (and thus the end of Conservative emphasis on cutting spending), the republican government under Bush has prioritised public spending partly according to religious preferences. Therefore, a conservative welfare state is one which hires welfare as a control mechanism, to come a particular way of thinking for instance religion, nationalism on its citizens.What impact has social polity in Brita in had on nonage social groups?One of the greatest challenges for social policy in Britain has been to encompass nonage cultural groups, and in many ways it has failed to achieve this. Bochel full points out that for many years social policy has been reluctant to recognize ethnic diversity, intending to be universal in character, so the issue of race has long been overlooked. This has had a significant impact on minority ethnic groups as the discrimination that they most definitely suffer in the labour market and in the community has not been properly addressed. Research has shown that men and women from ethnic minority groups are twice as likely to be unemployed as white Britons, and other social indicators echo this pattern. Ethnic minorities are in addition more than likely to undertake low-paid, low-skilled work, and the vicious circle that stems from this inferior housing, poorer backup standards, and substandard schools in deprived areas is actually partly caused by t he welfare state system, which institutionalises this discrimination. The unique problems faced by ethnic minorities must be addressed individually, and until recently social policy has failed to do this. Furthermore, the emphasis on tackling crime that has underpinned New Labours social policy and that of the forward Conservative governments has impacted on ethnic minorities due to the often prejudiced nature of initiatives to cut crime. The stop and search programme is unfairly targeted toward forbidding youths, to the extent that many believe being black is tantamount to a social problem (McGhee, 2005). Such flaws in British social policy cede undoubtedly contributed to a growing sense of isolation amongst ethnic minority groups, and thus it could be argued that social policy is often more harmful than beneficial.What have been the most significant changes in the size and use of public social expenditure in the UK in the gone 30 years?The mid-seventies certainly marked a w atershed in British muniment with regard to the welfare state however, to claim that the past 30 years has witnessed a roll-back of the state and a decline in public spending is at best too simplistic and at worst incorrect. In position, research has shown that from the late 1970s, public spending as a proportion of GDP has remained fairly stable. Thatcher certainly espoused the merits of small government and individualism and bemoaned the high levels of government spending associated with the economic crises of the 1970s, but the welfare state had become entrenched in British society, practically to the point of no return. There have, though, been significant changes in the use of public spending, as governments have been forced to re-prioritise spending (Alcock et al). For example, spending on education has increased in the past 30 years, whereas the Conservative and New Labour governments have attempted to tighten their budgets in the area of income support through an increase in means testing for benefits. NHS spending has also increased importantly under Labour following the 1999 Comprehensive Spending Review, by almost 4.7% annually (Alcock et al). Ultimately, governments in the past 30 years have strived to mitigate the efficiency of public services, and this has accounted for the changes in the use of public social expenditure.What was distinctive about the classic welfare state in Britain from the 1940s to the 1970s?Although it is important not to overlook the pre-1940 foundations upon which the welfare state was built, one cannot revoke that the concept of the welfare state was most fully completed in Britain between 1940 and 1970. Building on the strong sense of collectivism that characterized the war years, the public and the government alike reached the consensus that state intervention was necessary to date that Britain would meet its full economic potential. It is widely regarded that the subsequent policies stemmed from a combination of the economic philosophy of John Maynard Keynes and the social philosophy of William Beveridge. The fact that a basic framework of social policy emerged for the first metre was distinctive because it complemented the political and economic rights afforded to citizens from the turn of the century. Moreover, it represented the beginning of a rights-based citizenship in Britain (Alcock et al). It was also effectively the first time since the development of political parties that the common good of the nation prevailed over partisan differences. Asa Briggs classic move identified three principal elements of the welfare state which were distinctive from the pre-war period. The aim was to ensure the guarantee of minimum standards (including income), social protection by the state at times of need and the provision of services at a maximum level (Briggs, 1985). Another distinctive factor was that this protection was to be universal unlike the poor laws of the Victorian times, access to welfare was to be free at the point of delivery for all, without the stigma previously committed to welfare support. Of course, the ideal of the welfare state was never truly realized and disagreements regarding policy were common, but the consensus that emerged from the Second World War undoubtedly marked a major turning point in British history regarding the development of social policy.ReferencesAlcock, C. Introducing Social Policy, Harlow Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.Bochel, H. Social Policy Issues and Development, Oxford University Press, 2005Briggs, A. The accumulate Essays of Asa Briggs, Harvester Press, 1985Esping-Anderson, G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge, 1990McGhee, D. Intolerant Britain, Open University Press, 2005