‘The state should have no responsibility for providing for the basic and welfare needs of its citizens’. Assess this view.

Written by Sarah Furzer

Introduction

The state should take responsibility for providing the basic and welfare needs of its citizens, in the instance of a citizen not being able to provide this for ones self. To illustrate this point, I will firstly be outlining The Third Way Approach to welfare, followed by examples to support this theory. To show analysis of a balanced argument, I will be elaborating on other suggested approaches (i.e. The Beveridge Method and The New Right) with the possible advantages and disadvantages of these approaches to follow.

What is welfare?

Welfare can be defined as the life chances of an individual or group in a community, primarily a reflection of their economic, health, mental, and social status in society. Therefore, for instance, an individual who comes from a disadvantaged background or community, normally associated with high levels of crime, deviance, and unemployment, the life chances of this particular individual are likely to be significantly limited in comparison to an individual from an industrious area of high prosperity.
         From this, the term welfare state can therefore be understood to mean a state of which the primary objectives are to fulfil and promote the economic and social status of its citizens, often through direct involvement/action being taken. From a positive aspect, this can help bring those out of low profiles positions into one that allows life opportunity in terms of personal fulfilment and career prospects. However, the on-going debate about this intervention of welfare brings about the issue of to what degree should the government be supporting its citizens, if at all? Are the condemned lifestyles and fatalistic attitudes of those reaching out for help as a result of self-infliction or is there a genuine calling for state intervention? The answers to these questions are clearly debatable – the models of state welfare outlined below express diverse responses to such issues.

The Third Way Approach

The Third Way theory was an idea suggested by predominantly academics (e.g. Giddens 1993) who argued welfare needed to be initiated by the individual before government allowance came into the equation. The approach has been adopted by New Labour, dating since the 1990’s through to the present day.
In support of the proposed statement ‘The state should take responsibility for providing the basic and welfare needs of its citizens, in the instance of a citizen not being able to provide this for ones self’, The Third Way approach addresses the idea of both the citizen rising to the responsibilities and duties for the benefit of oneself and wider society but also the addition of government intervention in society to provide or assist those who cannot provide for themselves. Such an example of a situation in which this may occur may be when an individual is without current paid employment but is in the process of actively seeking, therefore, the government will allow what is known as an unemployment benefit to assist the individual throughout this period of absence from the workplace.
Therefore, the Third Way approach focuses on the encouragement of promoting self-sufficient, competent citizens but will step in and, for example, financially assist people when it is absolutely needed. Another example of this is providing individuals incapable of working due to a disability a disability allowance. In this way, this prevents people who are in unpreventable situations avoiding a life of poverty as a result of a lack of money.

Possible disadvantages of The Third Way Approach

Although this approach would be deemed an appropriate solution and amounts to perfect sense, the reality it would seem, begs to differ. Taxation evasion and benefit fraud are just to name a few of the dilemmas associated with such a ‘generous’ welfare system. One example of this can be seen through an article published by the BBC (1st November 2007) about a 49-year-old man who had continually been claiming benefits successfully, nonetheless, illegally for over 4 years; ‘He received a total of £22,181 in benefits from August 2001 to November 2005’. Actually a full-time foreman on a building site, Connie Minihane admitted to ’10 offences of failing to declare changed circumstances and failing to say he was employed’.
Other theories of state welfare combat these problems with the following models; The Beveridge Method and The New Right Approach.

Other proposed Welfare Models – The Beveridge Method and The New Right Approach

From this differing perspective, the Beveridge method is set on combating the ‘evils’ of society as they came to be known. These ‘evils’, namely squalor, want, disease, ignorance, and idleness were what sociologist William Beveridge identified as the ills of society that were to answer for the economically unbalanced status of Britain. Through this identification of which Beveridge assumed to be the issues of society, he proposed the way in which to overcome the problems were to tackle the ‘evils’ with a head-on approach. This was to happen through the state accepting prime responsibility for the economic decline and rectifying the situation to better society. Such examples to combat the problems faced by Britain included the state providing free health care for all (The National Health Service 1946 – ‘help given at the point of need’) and ensuring a basic standard of living. Therefore, providing free healthcare for those who needed it would produce a healthier workforce, capable of producing more in the economy, therefore, having more money to spend, resulting in both an increase in aggregate demand and supply in the economy. Guaranteeing a basic standard of living would lessen the gap of inequality between the rich and the poor, preventing people having to live ‘below the bread line’.
         However, this view has been highly criticised by the New Right approach. With Beveridge producing his findings (The Beveridge Report 1942), towards the end of World War II, this indicates his theory is highly outdated. The economic and social face of the British economy has had an extreme makeover during this time. The New Right approach would suggest that the Beveridge theorem would lead to welfare dependency within society, also described as a ‘nanny state’. New Right perspectives were adopted by the Conservative political group who penalised single-motherhood, for example, and any other living arrangement that did not conform with the typical and widely accepted nuclear family structure.
         Although the Conservative party came into power in 1979, led by Margaret Thatcher, the idea was not new and had been toyed with many centuries before. In short, the New Right tries to maintain as little (or no) state intervention within society as possible to reduce the welfare dependency culture that had so blindingly obviously been draining British resources.
         An example of a disadvantage of the theory is that it allows there to develop an even greater income inequality between the rich and the poor. This is because as a result of there being a lack of government intervention, the poor receive no assistance so their situation deteriorates further, widening the gap between them and the rich.

From a more extreme point of view, what do radical models have to say for the distribution of welfare in Great Britain?

From a feminist perspective, the redistribution of wealth, and ultimately welfare, along with government legislation is epitomising male domination, or patriarchy, in society that disadvantages women e.g. not giving free childcare so that women can return to work as soon as possible after child-bearing. Therefore, the responsibility should lie in the hands of the state who should not assume that a females place is at home, whilst the male is the greatest ‘breadwinner’ and should allow women the flexibility and greater support needed after the birth of a child.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have analysed different state welfare models, both in favour of and opposition of the proposed statement, with examples.