Coursework Sample: The Welfare State

Here is a sample that showcases why we are one of the world’s leading academic writing firms. This assignment was created by one of our UK assignment writers and demonstrated the highest academic quality. Place your order today to achieve academic greatness.

Introduction

The term “welfare state” describes a form of governance in which the state has the primary obligation to ensure the people’s material and social security (Deeming, 2019). Welfare is based on fairness in allocating resources, equal access to opportunities, and social obligation to those who lack the means to ensure even the barest subsistence for themselves.

Social insurance is a key component of the welfare state, prevalent in developed nations like the United Kingdom (Alcock, 2018). As an added bonus, the welfare state provides all residents with subsidised or free access to housing, transportation, and healthcare of a minimum standard. As a result, the article summarises the Beveridge report’s foundational concepts for welfare governments. The report also contrasts the foundational ideas with succeeding approaches to welfare from the perspective of various ideologies.

The Main Principles Outlined in Beveridge

A government study titled “Beveridge” was released in 1942. The United Kingdom’s welfare state owes much to this study. William Beveridge, a liberal economist, saw this text as a springboard for sweeping changes to the country’s welfare infrastructure (Diamond, 2017). The goal of the Beveridge report was to create an all-encompassing social insurance system covering people from birth until death.

The study recommended that all employed people make a weekly payment to the state to help finance benefits for the disabled, elderly, and bereaved. For this reason, Beveridge sought to combat what he called “the five giants”: sickness, poverty, filth, inactivity, and ignorance. In 1945, the government’s main priority was to take on the five giants (Deeming, 2019).

Beveridge claims several elements were involved in determining the top five giants. For instance, poverty contributed to widespread hunger, while a lack of education contributed to widespread ignorance. Inadequate health care supply was also a factor in the spread of illness, and a lack of career opportunities and motivation contributed to high inactivity rates (Beatty & Fothergill, 2018).

The research also notes that substandard housing contributed to filth. This meant the government had to invest in universal healthcare, increased public housing, affordable higher education, and guaranteed employment for all residents. As a result, the research outlined many important guidelines for taking on the five mammoths. Some guiding ideals are public accountability, economic fairness, and equal access to opportunity (Beatty & Fothergill, 2018). The study said that it was the government’s duty to establish a national insurance program to safeguard workers against the risk of financial hardship in the event of illness or unemployment.

As a result, the need for low-quality legal representation should decrease thanks to the national insurance system. The goal of this concept of equality was to guarantee that all citizens had equal access to the National Health Service to reduce the spread of illness. It was also intended that poverty would be eliminated via the application of the concept of equitable distribution of wealth. By guaranteeing that no one goes without the necessities of life, such as food, clothes, and shelter, more equitable distribution of wealth improves the quality of life for all people (Aravacik, 2018). Also essential to improving people’s level of life and prospects is access to equitable opportunities.

There is more growth and prosperity in countries where everyone has a fair shot at success. Also, when people have the same opportunity, they come up with different ideas that may be used in business or technology, which is good for the economy.

A Comparison between the Founding Ideals and the Subsequent Welfare State Ideology

Societal requirements have emerged as a consequence of social progress and transformation. So, the problems and their answers have also evolved (Rogowski, 2013). Both the economy and society have been profoundly affected by the industrial revolution. The Beveridge report intended to address social issues and assure economic growth by implementing social policies that promote equality within the state.

Some decades after Beveridge’s recommendations, the governments with liberal concerns and conventional protection systems attained a prominent position with their policies and went through a change phase due to social and economic growth (Aravacik, 2018). During the preindustrial era, the traditional method was used to provide for people’s social needs and the protection of vulnerable groups via social support and services. The latter method investigates potential answers to problems like economic and social inequality that have arisen as a result of industrialization (Beatty & Fothergill, 2018).

This is why there is an effort to balance the economic and social concerns in the policies. As a result of these shifts, the state adopted a liberal economic understanding strategy to address the state’s problems. Liberal economic theory has been criticised for its inability to guarantee social welfare, leading to the rise of neoliberal policies.

The term “neoliberalism” describes an economic philosophy popular today that emphasises free markets and little government intervention in business and commerce (Rogowski, 2013). Over the last several decades, the neoliberal perspective has had a major impact on social work. For example, managerialism has been imposed on the field to make it so that professionals rush through paperwork to allocate scarce resources and assess and control potential dangers.

In this sense, the approach is also a political philosophy to alter the welfare state and subsequent social work by freeing markets and corporate capital from the constraints of post-war social democracy. The latter perspective places responsibility for problem-solving squarely on the shoulders of individuals in need. They cannot depend on the government but must rely on themselves, their networks, and charitable organisations (Beatty & Fothergill, 2018).

Managers inside companies have a disproportionate amount of influence on the policies and procedures that affect social workers on a daily basis. Managers are accountable for overseeing the activities of social workers.

Conservatives Current Policies

Several changes have been made to improve social services by each succeeding administration (Flora and Heidenheime, 2017). Most laws enacted by each new administration have been written with the weaker elements of society in mind. Such legislation is enacted to assist the jobless, the disabled, the aged, and the sick. “Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental National Assistance Program, Housing Assistance, and Earned Income Tax Credit” are only a few.

Nominal division of labour and policies to the contrary, Westminster’s influence was felt heavily in Scotland. The Scottish government now has devolved authority over skills training for economic growth. Pension and work and other crucial policies like conditional welfare have helped personalise the department by focusing on employability for those who may otherwise be left out. Scottish education has been autonomous since before the union, making it more similar to the English system.

For example, the Sewel agreement allows for the use of decisions made by the West minister, such as adopting civil partnerships in the then-Scottish parliament (Greer, 2010). Wales and England’s local governments expanded due to a lack of effective law enforcement. By the 19th century, local social support, health services, and education had been formed, and everyone was accountable for their delivery.

In order to enable the impoverished low guardians to become the backbone of the local reform government system, they were granted authority. Local administrations improved in the 19th and 20th centuries as they consolidated near police burghs to implement key reforms.

Some municipal authorities that had been in charge of social security, public utilities, and health care were taken away because of the war. When Britain’s local government was reorganised in the 1970s, there were two primary levels: the district and the county. Even though the previously trained authorities were two-tiered, the local government in 1996 was preoccupied with a single administration (Mackay, 2018). Both the state and federal levels of government had very little authority. For the most part, the federal government used its vast might to control state and municipal governments.

Such authorities may include the ability to conduct audits and inspections; in the event of a violation of auditing regulations, council members are subject to individual fines, and politicians under national legal constraints never accept such circumstances. The legislature should not provide its stamp of approval to any legislation that the executive branch would outlaw. Local governments also tend to be proactive and seek to take on projects beyond the scope of their current authority, favouring private acts of parliament.

As a result of the council tax, local governments in both Scotland and England now have limited leeway in terms of their ability to raise funds; moreover, these funds should not exceed the bounds of central government policy, as when no one is expected to take any loan without the sanction expression. The federal government alone has the authority to distribute these funds, only on the condition that their policies be followed (Greer, 2010). Finally, recommendations, only the central government may issue mandates.

Conservatives were voted to power in 1979 after a compromise was struck to address Britain’s primary economic challenge: the reliance industry’s decline. Instead of reducing and moderating the counter-cyclical impact measures of unemployment, which appears to have trebled, the choice was made to accept the consequences of the restructuring and the worsening of the slump. The federal government has boosted the total to well over three million from a low of one million.

The full extent of the impact on the industrial sector and the local economy remains unknown. Most notably, Britain’s industrial sector’s main output has declined (Greer, 2010). Releasing persons labelled as disabled or unable, parents, or singles from the labour market is one of the long-term developments that distinguishes the decline of unemployment. The term “dual labour market” has long been used to describe the increasing informality of the workforce (Siddall, 2018). It entails the widespread distribution of low-wage, precarious work that is only temporary in nature.

Conclusion

In sum, the United Kingdom is a unitary state in which the central government has considerable control over all aspects of daily life. The organisational features are shared by Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In a centralised government, each region has its executive and assembly responsible for carrying out the functions of the federal government’s ministries. Northern Ireland and Scotland have laws in this area, apart from Wales and England.

The repercussions in the Scottish parliament have greater weight than their Weils analogues. And it fulfils the social policy function for the majority of Scotland’s government. However, welfare reforms should follow a straightforward approach in which household-proportional benefits are extended to the individuals who would really reap the rewards of the ideal housing policy being advocated. The government must have the will to adapt if policy welfare reformation cannot be achieved on a temporary basis.

References

Alcock, P., 2018. Employment and social exclusion: The policy context and the policy response in the United Kingdom. In Inclusion and Exclusion: Unemployment and Non-standard Employment in Europe (pp. 149-166). Routledge.

Aravacik, E.D., 2018. Social policy and the welfare state. In Public Economics and Finance. IntechOpen.

Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S., 2018. Welfare reform in the United Kingdom 2010–16: Expectations, outcomes, and local impacts. Social Policy & Administration, 52(5), pp.950-968.

Deeming, C., 2019. The United Kingdom: new devolved welfare systems in Britain. In Routledge Handbook of European Welfare Systems (pp. 522-541). Routledge.

Diamond, P., 2017. Fulfilling basic human needs: the welfare state after Beveridge. In Austerity, Community Action, and the Future of Citizenship in Europe (pp. 25-38). Policy Press.

Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A.J., 2017. The historical core and changing boundaries of the welfare state. In The development of welfare states in Europe and America (pp. 17-34). Routledge.

Greer, S.L., 2010. How does decentralisation affect the welfare state? Territorial politics and the welfare state in the UK and US. Journal of Social Policy, 39(2), pp.181-201.

Mackay, R., 2018. Beveridge and all that. In Half the battle (pp. 221-247). Manchester University Press.

Rogowski, S., 2013. Neoliberalism and social work: facing the challenges. Policy Press at the University of Bristol. Retrieved on April, 3, p.2013.

Siddall, A., 2018. From Beveridge to Best Value: transitions in welfare provision. In Management, Social Work and Change (pp. 19-32). Routledge.

FAQs