Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Roles of government in social welfare policy
Welfare state in britain essay
Creation of the welfare state
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Roles of government in social welfare policy
The Welfare State in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is a Welfare State. In a Welfare State, the system of government enables the state to protect and promote the economic and social well-being of all its citizens. The basic objectives of a Welfare State is to foment the principles of equality of opportunity, non-discriminatory access to the wealth of the state and the state responsibility towards those members of the society who are unable to care for themselves or attain a minimum standard of living. In the United Kingdom, the basic idea of the British Welfare State has been articulated as the desire to care for all people resident in the United Kingdom "from the cradle to the grave".
The main objectives have been traditionally defined as the eradication of "want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness". Underlying these principles and objectives is the social consensus that it is preferable to live in a state in which all people in need are cared for by the state rather than in a community of people some of whom are poor, ill, hungry or destitute.
In order to meet these objectives, the members of the society collectively agree to contribute to a fund of money to assist the less advantaged members of the community. In this way, the responsibility for keeping all people in the society fed, clothed and healthy is the State's. It is never the sole responsibility of any individual. In the perception of modern democracies, many of which are Welfare States, the model state is one in which there is no poverty and in which all people can achieve a comfortable standard of living irrespective of their health, social standing or their physical or intellectual abilities. The British Welfare State as now exists in the United...
... middle of paper ...
...lowest unemoployment rates in the European Union. The number is approaching Beveridge's calculation for full-employment of 8,5%.
Although very comprehensive, the British welfare state has constantly fallen short of its main objectives. In the UK, the failings and weaknesses of the welfare state are compensated in part by charities, of which there are a very large number, A few examples are Oxfam, Save the Children, Shelter, the Lifeboat Association, the RSPCA, the RSPCC, Help the Aged, Dr. Barnado's etc.. So it cannot be argued that it was a total success.
Bibliography.
Field, F, Inequality in Britain: Freedom, Welfare and the State, 1981
Hadley, R, Social Welfare and the Failure of the State, 1981
Sleeman, JF, The Welfare State : it's aims, benefits and Costs, 1973
Coxall & Robins, British Politics since the War, 1998
Jones et al, Politics UK, 1998
Linda Gordon's article is thoughtful, insightful and highly relevant. As governments slash poverty relief programs at all levels and as welfare-bashing reaches an all-time high, it is instructive to take a step back and look at how the current system developed.
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
The current government believes that Britain has become a welfare dependant state and according to BBC news (2013) 2.49 million are currently unemployed; those who are unemployed will also have entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit. All claimants will be affected by what will be known as Universal Credits. Universal credits will combine all existing benefits in to one payment; the amount a household can claim in welfare will be capped, this new system could have a catastrophic impact on people’s lives. Furthermore the government does not believe
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual and human rights. Liberals support most social and human service programs; such as TANF, including long-term welfare, housing programs, government regulated health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and educational funding. Their goal is to create programs that promote equal opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion, along with many others. Liberals believe that government participation is essential and a means to bring about fairness and justice to the American way of life.
In my opinion, social programs are essential to the economic health of both citizens and the country as a whole. Programs such as public education and income support (ex. The GST/HST tax credit for low-income earners) serve as financial equalizers which allow for improved standards of living, and, as a result, increased economic activity. The reasoning behind this is that a more even distribution of wealth results in more consumer spending because money that would otherwise be held in the brokerage accounts of the upper class, for example, are instead used to fulfill the basic needs of the lower class. Additionally, programs such as public healthcare and employment insurance provide financial and psychological stability to citizens and helps to maintain a healthy economy. Although the system can be abused, it does not occur in a majority of cases and I would argue that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
Magoon, Kekla. The Welfare Debate. Edina: ABDO Publishing Company, Inc. 2009. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Print.
We must work for it ourselves and strive for greatness by pursuing our own self interest. By relying on the state, our success will be directly proportional to theirs. Once their success crashes, so will ours. An example that greatly depicts this perspective is the “Grest Leap Forward” in China in 1958. This idea was meant to develop and expant China’s agriculture and industry. For this to work, China adapted a collectivist idea called “communes” where a group of people work as one and share responsibilities. They no longer worked for themselves but worked as a collective. The idea of a welfare state is similar to what the government was able to provide its people. Essential needs such as health care, schools, nurseries were all provided. Elderls were taken care of so that all those who could work were able to work. However, as great as it may sound, consequences were met. The government crashed and the people could no longer support themselves since they gave everything that they owned up. Over 40 million people died. Eventhough this example is extreme, it illustrates the idea that collectivism creates a domino affect in an economy. Once the wall in whcih everyone is leaning on, falls down, everyone falls with
Living in the United States most people rely on the government to construct our society to better the people. The gap between rich and poor in our society significantly varies. In America, the government offers special programs to help those who fall below the poverty line. This is well known as welfare. The word welfare comes from a positive definition known as “well-being”, but most Americans would debate that welfare has become a disaster to our society as they increased welfare dependency, illegitimate babies, and family break-ups. In fact I agree with these clams, poverty programs have been abused by many Americans, causing more pressures and strains to American welfare.
Since the Welfare reform law was introduced in 1996 it has impacted American society greatly. The new welfare policy, named the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), replaced the Aid to Family and Dependent Children (AFDC) program; they have five known differences that only affect the ones who need the assistance. Critics argue that the TANF has negatively impacted the society while some argue that it has not. Linda Burnham, author of “Welfare Reform, Family Hardship & Woman of Color,” asserts that “welfare reform has increased the hardship faced by many women leaving welfare for work and their movement into low-wage jobs, exposes them to higher level of housing insecurities, homelessness, food insecurity, and hunger.” She also argues that women of color “are especially vulnerable to the negative impact of welfare reform” (38).
Welfare has been a safety net for many Americans, when the alternative for them is going without food and shelter. Over the years, the government has provided income for the unemployed, food assistance for the hungry, and health care for the poor. The federal government in the nineteenth century started to provide minimal benefits for the poor. During the twentieth century the United States federal government established a more substantial welfare system to help Americans when they most needed it. In 1996, welfare reform occurred under President Bill Clinton and it significantly changed the structure of welfare. Social Security has gone through significant change from FDR’s signing of the program into law to President George W. Bush’s proposal of privatized accounts.
I would agree that the welfare system is a “broken system”, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that the welfare system needs to be “wiped out” before it can be improved. The welfare system is a large system and within that large system there are parts of the system that works well and there are parts that need additions and changes made to be more effective system with assisting individuals to become self-sufficient. Additionally, the welfare system needs to undergo change to become a more efficient system.
Based on the a article “The Definition of Social Policy” my understanding of social welfare policy is law and rules that are set in place to develop the lives of people in the community and allow them to thrive. Social welfare is not only about programs and benefits provided by the government to assist disadvantaged groups. It is far more complex than that as Midgley states “This narrow meaning fails to capture the original significance of the term,
For years, the welfare topic has been debated, and throughout history, both failed and thriving solutions have been seen to this dispute. The settlement of the matter of welfare came from independently sponsored programs only to be replaced by government funded organizations and devices to benefit the less fortunate using taxes, aids, and deductions. With the only hope to overcome the grief stricken state our country has been in over the centuries of seeing the destruction of nations over the word that stirs up a variety of emotions, welfare, to be the decreased amount and time government support should be offered. Most importantly, as seen through the effects of social welfare, the need for change in responsibility, the root of the problem, is to be Christians and the community rather than the government’s, whose failed efforts left our country in declining “poverty” as identified by the means-tested programs and raised taxes.