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

Written by Jamie Howell (November 2006).

I aim to look at how and where the state does, and does not hold responsibility for providing the basic welfare needs of its citizens.

By looking at the models of State Welfare, I will see how the state has supplied for the basic needs of the citizen, and assess what they have supplied is correct. From these models, I will get an understanding as to what forms of welfare were introduced by society, and will be able to assess these forms to see whether the state should have a primary purpose of endorsing welfare to the maximum of their responsibility, or whether they should have no responsibility whatsoever.

During the Second World War, many problems were recognised by the state in issues over disease, idleness, ignorance, squalor and want. People were expected to cope with these problems themselves! They were immense issues, which were rapidly becoming economically costly in Britain and in 1942 William Beveridge introduced The Beveridge Report, which identified these evils in society. The government interpreted his report as a truthful account of the circumstances of the state at this time, and that was why Welfare and The Welfare State were introduced.
Ever since the emergence of Welfare - where money is paid, and things are provided to the people in need from the taxman, people in society have questioned its purpose and whether the state should have responsibility of pursuing it. This is why so many models of state welfare have been created:

The Beveridge Report and The Welfare State

William Beveridge introduced the Beveridge Report in 1942, identifying the major problems that plagued our society. People had obviously noticed that with war in action, there were elements of society that were impossible to cope with… in particular fascism. Britain’s economic prosperity was declining due to this rise, and many believed that it was problems of extreme poverty, ill health and unemployment that caused this decline. Welfare funded from the government would ensure the eradication of many of these problems; including an escape from fascism and an increase in gross domestic product. However, there was no certainty of an increase in GDP, as the government would now be spending its money on providing housing; healthcare; employment and pensions to its citizens, which would result in a decrease in profit. This is evident that the introduction of welfare may hamper the power of the state, despite the increase in power of its citizens. Over the process of time, the government may lose so much money per year that they will be unable to provide the citizens with welfare, and because of this: the state and its citizens will be in an uncomfortable economical position. To save it’s political status, the government may have to reduce its responsibility on providing some of the basic welfare needs.
Despite this problem, the government wouldn’t make any money whatsoever without the citizens who make it and due to an increase in ill health; if the Welfare State wasn’t introduced, the population wouldn’t be able to work any longer and thus would be unable to make the state any wealth, and both the state and citizens could potentially die out. Therefore the government should perhaps have equal responsibility in providing for the state and the citizens within it.
So the Welfare state was introduced primarily to provide welfare for everyone so that these problems wouldn’t occur. This was beneficial in ensuring everyone had equal human rights, and it should naturally be the states job to look after the citizens who were born and work for their state. However people should not be made to be too reliant on benefits and this is the affect of which The Beveridge Report of 1942 generated. People generally should have to work for what they get and some people deserve the benefits of working hard, more than others. Although people at disadvantages; such as the disabled and those in areas of poverty, clearly need all the help they can get. By receiving benefits, people may not feel the need to work to a high standard or even at all. Some of these reasons were why the New Right model was established in the 1970s.

The New Right

In the 1970s, many academics and politicians such as Sir Keith Jones felt that the state should limit its responsibility for ensuring full employment and welfare and undo its close involvement with aspects of employment and welfare. The New Right reduced the responsibility of the state.
Although the Welfare State encouraged employment, this new model of welfare may have reminded people that they cannot rely on provision from the government to be successful. This would have led them to understand the concept of having to work hard to do well. So although the previous report may have highlighted employment as a key element of the state, the removal of benefits and the promotion of neo-liberalism (responsibility of the individual) may have brought an increase in employment as otherwise, the citizen of the 1970s would have plummeted. People however, may have seen this recent policy of neo-liberalism as unfair. They had to pay the government (tax) by working, and the New Right wasn’t giving them anything in return! By paying taxes, it is only fair that the state should have a responsibility in providing basic welfare, so that they can work.
Once again the minorities went unrecognised and this policy would have left them with no choice but enduring social decline. The state would obviously have to provide some form of welfare as otherwise equality in human rights and the concept of freeness would be gone. This was why The Third Way was introduced in the 1990s.

The Third Way

A corporatist (economic stability, but responsibility of welfare) model of welfare capitalism was incorporated by the state when The Third Way was created in the 1990s. Giddens and F Field argued that a blend of state and individual responsibility for social and economic welfare must be forged in order to balance individual and state responsibilities. This suggests that the state should have responsibility for providing welfare, but only if the citizen needs it. Benefits would be given to the people who I have mentioned previously in the essay like the disabled (who are in no position of possibly being able to work) and also to those that cannot find work. The disabled would receive Disability Benefit from HM Revenue & Customs, which are a government-based company, for the entire course of their lives, and people who cannot find work would be liable to a JSA (Jobseeker’s Allowance) which will be funded through the Job Centre. However the Job Centre, as well as the individual would have to look for work, and when the individual had found work, he or she would come off benefits. Though people could still remain on benefits if they are still not penetrating enough income; in which case they would receive Work Benefit if they earn under £30,000.00 a year. Also if people are able to qualify for any other benefits under HM Revenue & Customs or Directgov, they can receive this form of welfare. Unfortunately people may try to purposely not find work, but the state must ensure that they only have a responsibility of supplying this form of welfare to people who genuinely and beneficially need it

The different models that have arose from The Beveridge Report; debate whether the state should be responsible for providing its citizens with a better life. They give an indication as to what responsibilities the state should have. However the needs of the citizens such as: housing; free healthcare; transport; pensions and free education, established by policy makers from the 1940s, have all been questioned. People argue whether the state should actually provide these for the people of the UK.

The process of housing has taken radical movements forward since the end of WWII in 1945. Better housing, of a higher standard, had been build to accommodate for all the citizens of the UK. Today there is still an increase in the production of housing, due to the increase in asylum seekers and immigrants in our country. Some may say that it is beneficial that our country provide housing, in particular for the immigrants who become citizens, as they are coming to the country primarily to work. Their acceptability to labour (manual) work means that they are able to do the jobs that many British born citizens won’t, and thus generate the country more money. This, along with them also being taxed, means they should be entitled to housing. Asylum seekers, who often come to Britain to escape torture or poor conditions in other countries, are given British citizenship and are given free accommodation. British born citizens are entitled to buy a house, and adequate housing has been built for the people who buy it. However the expense at which most housing is sold means it is almost impossible for the average working class citizen to buy a satisfactory house. Therefore private tenants, housing associations and councils have been introduced via the government to provide rental housing for people that cannot afford to buy a house or property outright. The council or housing associations have to look after your house and make sure it is humane to live in. Houses have to be to a sufficient standard. However this all contradicts with the purpose of housing being a form of welfare, as welfare is meant to be aid from the government. However housing has to be paid for – either entirely or in part instalments per month or week. As people are working and having to pay either 40% or 25% on tax (depending on their income, they shouldn’t be made to pay for housing as well, when the concept of shelter is a basic human right. In respect of all this, I believe that housing should be made free for everyone.

However, free healthcare is provided to all in this country. All children up to the age of sixteen, OAP's and those in full time education are entitled to free healthcare and treatment from the NHS and adults are only made to pay for their prescriptions. People who chose to go private have to pay, but those who rely on state welfare get healthcare free. This is seen by many in society as good, as a lot of people do not have the money to pay for some of the treatments they may need to receive in their lifetimes and is the government fulfilling to society the main issue of basic human rights set by the UN Declaration of the right to life. Without healthcare, people would die. As well as this, the population of the country would decline, meaning that there would be more job vacancies of which would bring the country into bankruptcy. However, the UK has been found to spend barely any of its expenditure on providing this free healthcare. Only about 8% of Britain’s GDP is spend on this form of welfare, compared to some countries like Germany and France which spend almost double. This shows that Britain has a responsibility in ensuring more of its expenditure is spend on health to compete with Europe's elite, and to ensure that its citizens don’t migrate freely from the country, to one of these places, where they will receive much better healthcare. They will also get new jobs and because of this, Britain’s tax profits and earnings will decrease significantly. Doctors and Nurses may also notice these differences in the quality of healthcare of other countries and go over there to work in their hospitals. Therefore the state definitely does have magnificent responsibility in providing the basic welfare needs of the citizens to a higher degree, so that they are more sufficiently treated for and so the country doesn’t find themselves in an awkward situation of an increase in unemployment, yet a decrease in population. However Tony Blair has promised to increase the governments spending on this form of welfare so that the expenditure on healthcare meets the EU average.

Transport is another form of welfare, which has been provided by the government to accommodate anyone for any purpose. Whether they need to get to work or just simply are going out, trains; buses and taxis have been introduced to transport them. The government has obviously understood that many people cannot drive and have created this system of mobility, so that everyone can get around. The disabled are also able to travel on these modes of transport, and transport companies have included wheelchair areas on their vehicles to involve them more within society. Freedom Passes are also given to the disabled so that they can travel free on buses and trains. The disabled obviously need to get around and obviously cannot often do this by themselves, so the government have undertaken radical changes to ensure that they have the freedom to mobility. It could be argued that out of all the forms of state welfare, the disabled are being treated for most by the transport service. However the government has made sure, with the invention of The Informal Sector, that the government doesn’t take on the full responsibility of ensuring that these people are mobile. The introduction of the Informal Sector means family members and friends are most active in mobilising these dependants. However other people are made to pay for transport compulsory and many citizens cannot afford this. Therefore the state should be responsible for ensure the needs of all its citizens by cutting the costs of transport.

Pensions are a main form of welfare, which are provided by the government, as it is money being provided. State pensions have been created so that people can have something to fall back onto when they retire. When many people have retired after spending most of their lives working hard for the state, they deserve to be rewarded. The state pension means that everyone over a certain age of retirement is entitled to £67.50 a week. It's like a way of the government repaying the citizen for the taxes that he or she has given! However many people earn enough money not to even need a pension and some people may not have even worked hard in their careers to deserve the privilege of having one. Therefore the government should only have a responsibility of re-paying only the hard working. This would encourage people to work to their maximum potential. The well-off people go private, where they raise money for the pension themselves and are therefore distributed with more money per week. The government shouldn’t be responsible for creating pensions for well off citizens, as they often do not require the service. The money given out by the state is by no means satisfactory as it is not enough money by anyone's standard to survive. So the pension scheme should adopt more money into its system, to distribute more money to every citizen of the UK. It is also unfair how women only have to be 60 to receive a pension, whilst men have to be 65. This totally abolishes the rite of fairness and equality the country has adopted, and is especially unfair when the life expectancy of a man is less than a woman’s. This means women get on average more pension money than men in Britain. In terms of pensions, the government should be responsible for increasing the expenditure generated by them; making the liable ages for men and women the same and abolishing state pensions for the well off and creating more private pensions.

Education has also been made free by the state for all youths up to the age of 18. Children can go to school to learn useful information and don’t have to pay a penny! This is beneficial, as the children are recognised as the future of our state. Our dependency on how well they do, determines how well they achieve in life in terms of getting a good job, and free education helps to ensure that this happens. However this coincides with the introduction of university fees. University can be argued to be the most beneficial place in deciding the future of a young adult. Many of the top students, who are going to strive for the top jobs and generate a vast amount of the countries wealth in years to come, study at these institutions. Yet they are made to pay extraordinary amounts by the state. Therefore the government should make endorsing this form of welfare a primary aim, and ensure they provide this form of free welfare for all in education, and not just for the students who are eighteen and under. If they were made to pay: firstly the costs would be too expensive for them to cope with; and secondly they would be less willing to go. This means that people would be less likely to excel in the future. This is why the EMA system has been created, where students are paid a certain sum per week depending on their parent’s income... to give children that added incentive to go to school and achieve their target grades, so that they are more likely to do well in the future. This makes the average student work harder in school! Students also need the money for travelling purposes (when travelling to school or college), as transportation hasn’t been made free by the government. It is evident that the government should be responsible for ensuring free education and forms of educational benefit, as it is these people who make the countries revenue in terms of the profession they do in years to come. All this is determined by how well they do at school.

In conclusion, the state has an immense responsibility for ensuring welfare, so that the citizens are in an able condition to succeed and do well. However, when welfare is provided, people can become too dependent of it. Therefore the state should not only have a responsibility of ensuring welfare, but also encourage self-dependency, by merging aspects of the New Right and Third Way together. This way, the people are helped to succeed, but are also left with the incentive to work hard to reach the maximum goals, which benefit both the state and the individual.

Bibliography

“AS Citizenship” by Tim Holden-Rowley and John Blewitt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbeveridgereport.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Right
http://www.third-way.info/
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/
http://www.direct.gov.uk/Homepage/fs/en
http://www.housing.org.uk/
http://www.nhs.uk/
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/
http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/education
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/financialhelp/ema/