Welfare state Flashcards
Judt - postwar economic of planning
Drew directly upon lessons of 1930s
Successful recovery must preclude any return to economic stagnation, depression, and unemployment
Lay behind creation of the Modern European welfare state
Judt - 1940s conventional wisdom on causes of the war
Political polarisation came due to economic depression and its social costs
Fascists and Communists thrived on social despair, so the ‘condition of the people’ question must be addressed
Judt - examples of rudimentary welfare provisions
Germany typically most advanced, instituted pension, accident and medical insurance under Bismarck
Pre-WW1 embryonic national insurance and pension schemes in Britain
Britain and France introduced ministries of health just after WW1
Judt - limits of initial welfare reforms
None of these arrangements were comprehensive welfare systems
They were cumulative ad hoc reforms, each dressing a particular social problem or improving on previous schemes
E.g. scope of British pension and medical insurance schemes very limited (only working men)
Judt - lack of pre-war state responsibility
Nowhere was there yet any recognition of an obligation upon the state to guarantee a given set of services to all citizens
Judt - role of the war in transforming state obligation
Just as WW1 precipitated legislation and social provision, WW2 transformed the role of the modern state and the expectations placed upon it
Judt - general points about postwar welfare states
Provision of social services chiefly concerned education, housing and medical care, as well as transport
Social security consisted mainly of state insurance agains illness, unemployment, accident, and the perils of old age
Every European state in the postwar years provided or financed most of these resources, some more than others
Judt - difference between postwar welfare states
Lay in the schemes set in place to pay for the provisions
Some collected revenue through tax and provided free/heavily subsidised care and services e.g. Britain
In France and smaller countries, citizens had to pay up front for medical provision, but could then claim most expenses from the state
Judt - reason for differences between postwar welfare states
Systems of national finance and accounting, but also a differing strategy choice
In isolation, social insurance, however generous, was not in principal politically radical (present in most conservative regimes)
Comprehensive welfare systems, however, were inherently re-distributive due to their universal character and sheer scale
Thus the welfare state in itself was a radical undertaking, and the variations in states reflected political calculation also
Judt - Eastern European opinion of welfare states
Communist regimes after 1948 did not usually favour universal welfare systems
They did not need to as they were at liberty to redistribute resources with force without spending scarce state funds on public services
E.g. they frequently excluded peasants from social insurance and political arrangements on political grounds
Judt - Catholic Europe
Long-established local and communal coverage against unemployment probably impeded the development of universal systems by reducing the need for the,
Judt - desire for full employment
Particularly marked in countries where inter-war unemployment had been especially traumatic (UK, Belgium), and so there was a clear desire to keep employment close to full
Judt - comparative ambitiousness
Sweden and Norway were vanguard of benefit provision, and West Germany kept in place Nazi era chilbirth programmes
However, Britain saw the most ambitious effort to build, from scratch, a genuine ‘Welfare State’
Reflected outright 1945 Labour majority, leaving them free to legislate unlike many other coalition governments
Also derived from rather distinctive sources of British reformism
Judt - Beveridge report
In 1942 - it was an indictment of the social injustices of pre-1939 British society and a policy template for root and branch reform once war was over
Even the Conservatives did not dare oppose its core recommendations, and it was the moral basis for the most popular and enduring elements of Labour’s postwar programme
Judt - Beveridge report assumptions
Four key assumptions, all of which were to be incorporated into British policy for the next generation
There should be an NHS, adequate state pension, family allowances and near-full employment
On this assumption generous provisions could be made, paid by levies on wage packets and progressive taxation
Judt - welfare state implications in Britain
Non working women got first coverage; humiliation and social dependency of Poor Law system removed; free medicine and dentists at point of service
British Welfare State was both a completion of earlier reforms and a genuinely radical departure
Most comprehensive social coverage attempted on so generous a scale all at once
Judt - cost of the welfare state
Heavy - French spending on social services increased 64% 1938-49
Britain - by 1949 nearly 17% of all public expenditure was on social security alone
Judt - reasons why Europeans were willing to pay so much
Because times were difficult, and welfare systems guaranteed a minimum of fairness
Welfare states were not politically divisive (not revolutionary) and long term beneficiaries often middle classes - bound the classes together
Chief basis that these services corresponded with the proper tasks of government
Judt - differences in achieving aims
Easier in the small population of a wealthy, homogenous country like Sweden than in one like Italy
But faith in the state was at least as marked, possibly more, in poor countries as in rich ones, since only the state could offer hope
Judt - state as a source of community and social cohesion
For the generation of 1945, some workable balance between political freedoms and the rational, equitable function of the administrative state seemed the only sensible route out of the abyss
Garland - three concentric circles of welfare state government
First characterises it as welfare for the poor - narrowest conception, preferred by the opponents of the welfare state
Second focuses on social insurance, social rights, and social services (core elements abidingly popular with the electorate)
Third highlights economic management and the role of the government in regulating the state
Garland - metaphor for the welfare state
Capitalist economy - a dynamic machine for generating private profits through competitive production and market exchange
Welfare state - retrofitted set of gears, breaks, and distributors to steer the capitalist juggernaut along a socially acceptable course
Garland - lack of utopian ideals in welfare states
Product not of revolutionary idealism but piecemeal reform and cross-class coalitions, principles created by civil servants
Therefore they rarely provide unbridled enthusiasm, open to attack from both sides by committing to ‘middle way’ solutions
Ameliorative rather than curative - rarely achieve complete success or large-scale victory
Garland - range of ideals from welfare state creators
From conservative Bismarck, liberal Beveridge and Keynes and democratic socialists Attlee and Bevan
All fought for welfare state as they were troubled by recurring evidence of economic instability and uncertainty
Case rested on real world problems and practical solutions
Garland - best welfare
Would be no welfare at all - would be fine it markets, families and communities all workers of their own accord
In the real world, all can fail, and therefore welfare states are nothing short of indispensable
Garland - state by 1960
Every developed nation had a core of welfare state institutions and every government had accepted responsibility for managing the economy
Garland - generalised nature of welfare state development
Development was very much generalised despite the different legislative histories of different states
At its heart, this was due to a functional response to the insecurities of capitalism
Garland - discrediting of traditional economic orthodoxies
In 1918, the victorious nations had hastened back to their pre-war economic policies, re-establishing the orthodoxies of free trade, the Gold Standard, and minimum public spending
By 1945, these orthodoxies had been utterly discredited by the economic collapse of the 1930s
Garland - five institutional sectors of the welfare state
Social insurance (against loss of earnings, cornerstone)
Social assistance (safety net of non-contributory income support)
Publicly funded social services
Social work and personal social services
Economic governance
Matsuura - permeation of the term ‘welfare’
Only in the second half of the 1960s
Matsuura - 1955-65 targets
Targets were full employment and economic growth
Although successful, this policy was criticised as most growth was in the private sector, leaving a lack of social capital
Also poorer classes less able to share in the income
Matsuura - post-1967 policy
1967 white paper called Improvement of Efficiency and Welfare indicated an expectation that welfare policies would change
Priority of targets in 1970 plan were stabilisation of prices, efficient allocation of resources and the repletion of social needs
Ernst - pre WW2 Japanese developments
Most important parts concerned pensions, health insurance, and establishment of the Ministry of Welfare in 1938
Ernst - post-WW2 welfare
More comprehensive social policy, dealing with all the major risks and applying to the majority of the population
Basis is Article 25 in the 1946 Constitution - all to have rights to minimum standards of wholesome living, and state shall extend social welfare and security and public health to all
Ernst - core areas of Japanese social security
Consist of as many as 19 systems
Britain’s five giants to kill
Want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness
Four lay in the sphere of welfare policy, and the other in education
Churchill’s stance on welfare
Sceptical, but since the Beveridge report sold 600,000 copies, the later stages of the war were punctuated with white papers
Most significant was 1944 Employment Policy, committing the state to systematically reducing employment
Butler’s Education Act
1944 - did create a tripartite system, but also raised leaving age to 15 and provided compulsory and free secondary education
Britain - 1945 verdict
Unequivocal - Labour gained 48% of popular vote and 61% of seats in the commons
Key labour government acts
1946 NI Act enshrined the principle of universality and flat rate contributions for flat rate benefits
1948 National Assistance Board repealed the Poor Law formally, becoming a means-tested safety net
Britain NHS development
Aneurin Bevan had to fight a war of attrition as Minister of Health - in 1946, 64% of GPs were against the NHS
National Health Act of 1948 created a national insurance-funded, free-at-use health service
Came into operation in 1948 with 18,000 participatory doctors
Briggs - origin of the term in relation to Britain
First used to describe post-1945 Labour Britain, but seldom clearly defined
Dealt primarily with contrast between C19 and 20
Past seen as leading inevitably along broad highway to the ‘welfare state’
However reforms like National Health Insurance Act of 1911 were designed to remedy specific problems; poor law more eroded than broken up
Briggs - ‘welfare state’ characteristics
Uses organised power to modify the play of market forces in at least 3 directions:
Guaranteeing individuals/families minimum income irrespective of market value of work/property
Narrowing extent of insecurity by enabling individuals/families to meet certain ‘social contingencies’ e.g. unemployment that would otherwise lead to crisis
Ensuring all citizens are offered the best standards of social services irrespective of status or class
Briggs - historical considerations
Concept of ‘market forces’ sets the problem of the ‘welfare state’ within the age of the modern political economy
Concept of ‘social contingencies’ strongly influenced by experience of industrialism
Briggs - factors beyond dispute in C20 welfare
Transformation in attitude towards poverty
Investigation of ‘social contingencies’, which directed attention to the need for political social policies
Development within market capitalism of ‘welfare’ philosophies and practices
Wincott - argument centring around Britain
Suggestion of Britain as the original and exemplary welfare state is anglo-centric hubris - has shaped general comparative analysis
Dominant of the idea of the Golden Age of welfare state form 1945
Wincott - Esping-Anderson definition of welfare state
The extent to which it ‘decommodified ‘ labour power and entrenched social rights of citizenship
Wincott - data examples
Uses social insurance replacement rates - shows UK levels lower than mean rate for 17 areas in social insurance
Provision for sickness, accidents and pensions higher in 1945 than before war, but stagnant until 1960 (when it rose greatly)
Wincott - picture painted of Britain
Relatively niggardly welfare state - Attlee’s administrative efficiency should not be overlooked, but not significant in economic terms
Madison - key Soviet issues
Child labour, homelessness among children, juvenile delinquency
Accentuated by WW1, Revolution, famine, rise in cost of living up to 1930
1923 - 7 mullion registered homeless children
Madison - Soviet social insurance up to 1956
Social insurance benefits for age and salaried workers and dependents were too low for even sub-standard living
Assistance doled out by the collective farm mutual aid societies were also pitifully inadequate
Madison - Soviet planner belief
Saw people presenting social problems as a product of capitalism
Therefore thought it better to use available resources to replace capitalism with socialism, for when that was accomplished, such people would disappear
Therefore welfare problems persisted into the 1950s
Madison - soviet welfare complications
Society was in constant flux - continued migration from rural into urban communities brought about terrible housing conditions
Lack of privately-supported agencies, obliging the state to carry the burden of social needs
