The General Election has brought some of the welfare issues back into the spotlight. This may be because the Labour Party now has a leader who believes in the good of welfare.
I have often struggled to find good arguments why welfare should not be a universal entitlement. The argument for universal welfare (all the up to basic income) are very compelling. What's wrong with helping people who cannot help themselves? It surely must be their right to be supported in times of need.
Sometimes, it's worthwhile to go back to what others have written on the subject since nothing is new under the sun, least of all the debate about welfare. So I came across this passage in Michael Lipsky's seminal study of 'Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services'.
'The ways in which street-level bureaucrats deliver benefits and sanctions structure and delimit people's lives and opportunities. These ways orient and provide the social (and political) context in which people act. Thus every extension of service benefits is accompanied by an extension of state influence and control over their lives.' (p.4)
Lipsky is no dyed in the wool Tory, he was an American political scientist who investigated the effects of public services on those who delivered them (the local staff) and those who received them.
The passage is so insightful because he does not opt for the usual perspective on welfare that we commonly adopt when debating public services, focusing on the support function of welfare payments to individual. Instead, he tries to see it as a form of control that is being exercised over people. This resonates with the messages that are often articulated from the extreme left about the injustices of the welfare system such as Ken Loach's recent film 'I, Daniel Blake' and his critique of the welfare sanction regime. Lipsky's conclusions are different to those of Loach. Whilst Loach wants every one to have unlimited welfare payments, Lipsky articulates the malign effect of welfare on welfare recipients themselves, as welfare payments start to structure their lives and determine the way the behave.
The answer, Lipsky makes clear, is not to grant street-level bureaucrats more or total control (i.e. universal benefit) but to reduce their influence over our lives. Welfare is not innocuous, he argues, it restricts us and exerts power and control over us. Providing less welfare to all of us in the end liberates us, it allows us to shape our own lives.
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 June 2017
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
On the 'undeserving poor'
I often hear people speaking out in indignation about the phrase 'the undeserving poor'. I struggle to share their indignation. It seems to me that the phrase expresses at least one general principle that I find entirely reasonable to be applied in the welfare state: merit.
It is mainly the left that seems to be deeply agitated by the use of the phrase but their arguments against it are far from clear to me. There are at least two aspects that move me to find their indignation either motivated by unacceptable paternalism or by a confusion of values.
Let's examine paternalism first. Saying that everyone deserves what he or she needs regardless of merit, seems to me to undermine the principle of equality and fairness. In essence, those who dislike the term 'undeserving' appear to say that there are some people who are not subject to the principle of merit which is applied to everyone else, clearly flouting the principle of equality and fairness.
So why is this patronising? To me, the phrase 'deserving' or 'undeserving' articulates a fundamental principle that whatever we gain in life should be based on our merits. To negate the possibility that some are deserving and others not, means nothing else but that, in contrast to anybody else, some do not have to contribute to their own wellbeing. To me, this smacks of infantilising and patronising impulses.
But denying that there are people 'undeserving' of welfare is not just patronising. It is also a symptom of confusion within the leftist terminological universe. There is no other political movement that loves more to talk about merit and 'desert' than the left when it comes to those on the top of the income scale. The left is often aghast at how 'undeserving' the salaries and bonuses of the bankers or CEOs of companies are. So, whilst they base their argument on the principle of merit when it comes to highlight the alleged discrepancy between personal achievements and income for the top earners, they would like to banish all talk about merit when it comes to the poor. This sounds like a confusion of values to me.
So far from being a disreputable phrase, I believe that 'undeserving' and its related term 'merit' is one of the sharpest weapons in the armoury of social criticism.
It is mainly the left that seems to be deeply agitated by the use of the phrase but their arguments against it are far from clear to me. There are at least two aspects that move me to find their indignation either motivated by unacceptable paternalism or by a confusion of values.
Let's examine paternalism first. Saying that everyone deserves what he or she needs regardless of merit, seems to me to undermine the principle of equality and fairness. In essence, those who dislike the term 'undeserving' appear to say that there are some people who are not subject to the principle of merit which is applied to everyone else, clearly flouting the principle of equality and fairness.
So why is this patronising? To me, the phrase 'deserving' or 'undeserving' articulates a fundamental principle that whatever we gain in life should be based on our merits. To negate the possibility that some are deserving and others not, means nothing else but that, in contrast to anybody else, some do not have to contribute to their own wellbeing. To me, this smacks of infantilising and patronising impulses.
But denying that there are people 'undeserving' of welfare is not just patronising. It is also a symptom of confusion within the leftist terminological universe. There is no other political movement that loves more to talk about merit and 'desert' than the left when it comes to those on the top of the income scale. The left is often aghast at how 'undeserving' the salaries and bonuses of the bankers or CEOs of companies are. So, whilst they base their argument on the principle of merit when it comes to highlight the alleged discrepancy between personal achievements and income for the top earners, they would like to banish all talk about merit when it comes to the poor. This sounds like a confusion of values to me.
So far from being a disreputable phrase, I believe that 'undeserving' and its related term 'merit' is one of the sharpest weapons in the armoury of social criticism.
Monday, 14 January 2013
The malaise of the Left
Despite the public outrage about banker's bonuses and pay packages of chief executives, the political Left has not become wildly popular with European voters so far. In Britain, the government is introducing radical reforms of welfare and the (English) health sector, frequently bungles the presentation of its policies and yet, Labour struggles to get more than 8 points ahead in the polls. That's not a winning margin by any count.
In Germany, the radical Left (the former Communist Party) is engaged in a vicious internecine struggle (as Communists always seem to be), reducing its poll numbers down to the critical 5 percent nationally. It risks not entering the Bundestag for the first time in more than 20 years. On the other hand, the German Social Democrats have just managed to appoint as their leading candidate for the September general election somebody who is liked and respected amongst Conservatives but universally disliked by his own party. It has not helped his standing amongst his own comrades that he has a relaxed attitude to making money, or as Harry Enfield said 'loadsofmoney', through well paid lectures and company directorships.
In France, the Socialist Party has won the presidency but the hapless Hollande has managed to drop in popularity faster than the French could say 'solidarity'. His proposal to tax the rich 75% of their annual income has been cancelled by the French constitutional court and he seems to have run out of policy ideas before his ministers have even warmed up the seats of the government benches.
So, what's going wrong with the Left? Why are they struggling to capture people's imagination or their votes?
The answer lies in a fundamental dilemma that goes back all the way to the late 1970s. All Western countries embarked on a large expansion of the welfare state up to that time. In the 1980s demographic changes started to shift the fiscal basis for high state expenditure and some governments started to row back. However, there was still some considerable room for manoeuvre as governments managed to tap new sources of finance in the developing countries through the 1990s and early 2000s. As production facilities moved to the East and South, finance flowed back into the pockets of Western governments through cheap loans. The West was still thought to be a rock for short and long term investment. This allowed Western governments to continue to fund an overstretched and unviable welfare system.
Interventionist government requires plenty of finance and that in turn needs cheap credit. This was, for example, the foundation of Britain's New Labour policies. Welfare expenditure rose from £80 billion in 1998 to more than £200 billion in 2007 in Britain. Labour's Chancellor Gordon Brown confidently (and wrongly) proclaimed the 'end of boom and bust' in a time of seemingly unending plenty.
And then the tsunami hit. Although there were many different reasons for the economy breakdown, the biggest long term problems are the demographic changes in Western countries and the low competitiveness of their economies. Since their welfare systems were financed from capital flows from developing countries that now started to hold on to their money, the foundation of Western finances imploded and left little more than rubble and huge deficits.
It is this complex of reasons that poses a bigger dilemma to the Left than to the Right. The Left needs a time of plenty to fund the expansionist welfare state that we have all come to expect. If Labour does not stand for more equality through state intervention, what is it for?
The responses of the Left to this crisis have been unimaginative to say the least. French Socialists want to tax more, and British Labour wants to, yes, tax more. The dilemma however is this: the cost increases of health care and welfare (the two largest items in government expenditure) are such that no amount of additional tax revenue can ever catch up with them. The cost dynamics of welfare and health are outstripping tax revenues at a staggering rate. That means tax rises will never again be able to cover state expenditure as it did in the past.
So, if the Left wants to create a more equal society it has to look elsewhere. State intervention through tax credits and additional expenditure wont deliver it anymore.
In Germany, the radical Left (the former Communist Party) is engaged in a vicious internecine struggle (as Communists always seem to be), reducing its poll numbers down to the critical 5 percent nationally. It risks not entering the Bundestag for the first time in more than 20 years. On the other hand, the German Social Democrats have just managed to appoint as their leading candidate for the September general election somebody who is liked and respected amongst Conservatives but universally disliked by his own party. It has not helped his standing amongst his own comrades that he has a relaxed attitude to making money, or as Harry Enfield said 'loadsofmoney', through well paid lectures and company directorships.
In France, the Socialist Party has won the presidency but the hapless Hollande has managed to drop in popularity faster than the French could say 'solidarity'. His proposal to tax the rich 75% of their annual income has been cancelled by the French constitutional court and he seems to have run out of policy ideas before his ministers have even warmed up the seats of the government benches.
So, what's going wrong with the Left? Why are they struggling to capture people's imagination or their votes?
The answer lies in a fundamental dilemma that goes back all the way to the late 1970s. All Western countries embarked on a large expansion of the welfare state up to that time. In the 1980s demographic changes started to shift the fiscal basis for high state expenditure and some governments started to row back. However, there was still some considerable room for manoeuvre as governments managed to tap new sources of finance in the developing countries through the 1990s and early 2000s. As production facilities moved to the East and South, finance flowed back into the pockets of Western governments through cheap loans. The West was still thought to be a rock for short and long term investment. This allowed Western governments to continue to fund an overstretched and unviable welfare system.
Interventionist government requires plenty of finance and that in turn needs cheap credit. This was, for example, the foundation of Britain's New Labour policies. Welfare expenditure rose from £80 billion in 1998 to more than £200 billion in 2007 in Britain. Labour's Chancellor Gordon Brown confidently (and wrongly) proclaimed the 'end of boom and bust' in a time of seemingly unending plenty.
And then the tsunami hit. Although there were many different reasons for the economy breakdown, the biggest long term problems are the demographic changes in Western countries and the low competitiveness of their economies. Since their welfare systems were financed from capital flows from developing countries that now started to hold on to their money, the foundation of Western finances imploded and left little more than rubble and huge deficits.
It is this complex of reasons that poses a bigger dilemma to the Left than to the Right. The Left needs a time of plenty to fund the expansionist welfare state that we have all come to expect. If Labour does not stand for more equality through state intervention, what is it for?
The responses of the Left to this crisis have been unimaginative to say the least. French Socialists want to tax more, and British Labour wants to, yes, tax more. The dilemma however is this: the cost increases of health care and welfare (the two largest items in government expenditure) are such that no amount of additional tax revenue can ever catch up with them. The cost dynamics of welfare and health are outstripping tax revenues at a staggering rate. That means tax rises will never again be able to cover state expenditure as it did in the past.
So, if the Left wants to create a more equal society it has to look elsewhere. State intervention through tax credits and additional expenditure wont deliver it anymore.
Monday, 26 November 2012
Good Bye Welfare State!
The BBC is going to broadcast a look back at the Beveridge Report and the creation of the Welfare State (27 Nov on BBC Radio 4). The summary makes fascinating reading and indicates that a broader consensus is emerging amongst the political parties. Welfare payments are not delivering what Beveridge designed them to do, and, instead, have contributed to a population trapped in poverty and dependency.
The reasons for this are complex. Higher mobility of labour within Europe, fewer jobs in the low skilled category, a shift from industrial to a service economy with different income structures resulting in the need for top up payments for working families and much more.
Yet, one thing seems clear: the British people want to see a radical overhaul of welfare. The old status quo won't do anymore. It takes courage to embark on such an overhaul and Ian Duncan Smith may just have the determination to do it.
The reasons for this are complex. Higher mobility of labour within Europe, fewer jobs in the low skilled category, a shift from industrial to a service economy with different income structures resulting in the need for top up payments for working families and much more.
Yet, one thing seems clear: the British people want to see a radical overhaul of welfare. The old status quo won't do anymore. It takes courage to embark on such an overhaul and Ian Duncan Smith may just have the determination to do it.
Monday, 17 September 2012
What has the coalition achieved?
The coalition government under David Cameron has had a rough time recently. Surveys show that key ministers are deeply unpopular amongst the British people and the poll figures for both parties, the Conservatives and the LibDems, took a beating since the Rose Garden photo op in 2010.
There have also been rumblings amongst Conservative members of parliament about the leadership qualities of David Cameron, prompted by a perceived advantage given to LibDems in key policy areas. Nick Clegg and his parliamentary colleagues, so the complaint goes, determine policies to a far greater extent than they should. Given the widespread disenchantment with the coalition one might be forgiven to ask: what is the point of the coalition? Has it achieved anything so far?
The most effective opponent of the coalition government is not Her Majesty's Opposition, yet perhaps time itself and the tendency of all electorates to indulge in selective memory. It is easily forgotten how radical this government actually has been, much to the consternation of some former Labour ministers who had similar plans for transformations of public services, yet either never got round to implement them or were blocked by Gordon Brown.
Just reviewing a list of recent reforms reveals the magnitude of the policy programme of the current government. Fundamental change and reforms have received legislative approval in education, health, constitutional affairs and welfare.
Take welfare for example. James Purnell was the one but last Labour Welfare Secretary and his plans for welfare reforms approximated closely those of the current postholder Ian Duncan Smith. When in power, Labour had a keen awareness that the current trajectory of welfare spending was unsustainable in the long term. Ian Duncan Smith, starting in 2010, implemented a radical shakeup of the welfare and benefits system which, for the first time in more than 30 years, involves the re-assessment of benefit recipients for payments.
Despite some criticism from disability rights organisations the reforms seem to be largely in tune with the views of the British public and there seems to be widespread consensus that benefit payments require better targeting at those in need. Ian Duncan Smith carefully built the case for reform and is about to implement it, ceaselessly reminding reform opponents that simply continuing to increase welfare expenditure is not an option and may exacerbate inbuilt injustices.
In other words, he managed to locate the current reforms in the wider context of equity and justice, as well as present them as largely continuous of previous postholder's intentions. Similar feats have been pulled off by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who argued that his education reforms are in essence an extension of the academy programme started by Labour under Tony Blair.
Yet, how truly radical the policy agenda of this government has been is only revealed by looking at those areas that have little resonance with the British public. It is in matters such as constitutional affairs that investing political capital rarely pays off and hence little progress is often made over decades. Shortly after coming to office, the coalition legislated for fixed term parliaments which removed the prime ministerial prerogative to set the date of the general election, something not even Labour was ready to give up.
After only two years, the record of this coalition government compares positively with Tony Blair's first term, even though he always regretted not having adopted a more radical approach when coming to power. Yet as selective as collective memory might be, it is also usually arriving at a more balanced appreciation of achievements as time goes by. John Major's government, though deeply unpopular at the time, might be a case in hand. Major's term in office is now seen as laying the foundation for the unprecedented economic recovery in the second half of the 1990s creating the space for the expansion of public expenditure under Labour. In this sense, Cameron and Clegg may have their best time still ahead of them.
 |
| Happier times! Cameron and Clegg in the Rose Garden of Number 10 in 2010 |
There have also been rumblings amongst Conservative members of parliament about the leadership qualities of David Cameron, prompted by a perceived advantage given to LibDems in key policy areas. Nick Clegg and his parliamentary colleagues, so the complaint goes, determine policies to a far greater extent than they should. Given the widespread disenchantment with the coalition one might be forgiven to ask: what is the point of the coalition? Has it achieved anything so far?
The most effective opponent of the coalition government is not Her Majesty's Opposition, yet perhaps time itself and the tendency of all electorates to indulge in selective memory. It is easily forgotten how radical this government actually has been, much to the consternation of some former Labour ministers who had similar plans for transformations of public services, yet either never got round to implement them or were blocked by Gordon Brown.
Just reviewing a list of recent reforms reveals the magnitude of the policy programme of the current government. Fundamental change and reforms have received legislative approval in education, health, constitutional affairs and welfare.
Take welfare for example. James Purnell was the one but last Labour Welfare Secretary and his plans for welfare reforms approximated closely those of the current postholder Ian Duncan Smith. When in power, Labour had a keen awareness that the current trajectory of welfare spending was unsustainable in the long term. Ian Duncan Smith, starting in 2010, implemented a radical shakeup of the welfare and benefits system which, for the first time in more than 30 years, involves the re-assessment of benefit recipients for payments.
Despite some criticism from disability rights organisations the reforms seem to be largely in tune with the views of the British public and there seems to be widespread consensus that benefit payments require better targeting at those in need. Ian Duncan Smith carefully built the case for reform and is about to implement it, ceaselessly reminding reform opponents that simply continuing to increase welfare expenditure is not an option and may exacerbate inbuilt injustices.
In other words, he managed to locate the current reforms in the wider context of equity and justice, as well as present them as largely continuous of previous postholder's intentions. Similar feats have been pulled off by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who argued that his education reforms are in essence an extension of the academy programme started by Labour under Tony Blair.
Yet, how truly radical the policy agenda of this government has been is only revealed by looking at those areas that have little resonance with the British public. It is in matters such as constitutional affairs that investing political capital rarely pays off and hence little progress is often made over decades. Shortly after coming to office, the coalition legislated for fixed term parliaments which removed the prime ministerial prerogative to set the date of the general election, something not even Labour was ready to give up.
After only two years, the record of this coalition government compares positively with Tony Blair's first term, even though he always regretted not having adopted a more radical approach when coming to power. Yet as selective as collective memory might be, it is also usually arriving at a more balanced appreciation of achievements as time goes by. John Major's government, though deeply unpopular at the time, might be a case in hand. Major's term in office is now seen as laying the foundation for the unprecedented economic recovery in the second half of the 1990s creating the space for the expansion of public expenditure under Labour. In this sense, Cameron and Clegg may have their best time still ahead of them.
Monday, 23 January 2012
How to reform welfare
The government has announced today that, if the Lords pass amendments to the welfare reform bill currently going through parliament, they will send the bill straight back to the Lords without making any changes. In other words, the government is digging in its heels. In media interviews Ian Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary and ministers displayed an unprecedented amount of confidence over the weekend that they will get their way. Judged by the outpour of criticisms in the past couple of weeks from disability rights organisations and other charities, the government’s certainty that they will get their way is simply astonishing. What happened?
A couple of things have happened. First, Britain has seen a gradual but steady shift of opinion from the left who would think of benefits as a way to alleviate deprivation and address inequalities, to the right, who see benefits as a safety net when anything else has failed.
On top of that, Conservatives, in particular Ian Duncan Smith, has used a reform strategy that is nothing short of smart. If you remember, after his failed leadership of the Conservative Party, IDS became the chairman of the Social Justice think tank, which set about to investigate in detail the issues around poverty, worklessness and benefits.
His hard work on analysing the complexities around worklessness has led to the formulation of a radically different approach to the ‘get on yer bike’ call by previous Conservative governments.
IDS’s welfare reform has some interesting political tactics. First, present the issue of welfare reform as one that centres on the interests of those on benefits. The debate about the deleterious effects of worklessness on families and children is typical for this strategy.
Second, never use immoderate language but acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the personal dimensions of worklessness. This ties in with a public recognition that moving people from unemployment into jobs requires personalised support.
Third, and most plausibly, make an argument about the link between work and the level of benefits as an incentive to work or stay on the dole. IDS has throughout the debate stuck to these parameters of the strategy.
All this means that there are precious few serious politicians or political commentators who argue that things should stay as they are. Apart from left doomsayers, such as Polly Toynbee, there seems to be a broad consensus in the population that the cap on benefits is the right thing to do.
Most interestingly, as the latest polling suggests, there is even a large majority amongst Labour supporters who think that the government is justified in pushing for a benefits cap of £26,000. The poll results also suggests that there is a sizable minority amongst Labour supporters who would like to see this limit to be LOWER than the government wants it to be.
In addition, the welfare reforms have benefitted from the fact that the Labour party has tried too in its last years in government to reform the benefits system and that there is a broad consensus that the benefits system is hideously complicated which invites fraud and error on a large scale.
The previous Work and Pensions secretary James Purnell (Labour) probably doesn’t believe his eyes. I am pretty convinced that his proposals (had he been allowed by Gordon Brown) wouldn’t have looked much different to those of the current government.
All in all, this means at least one thing: welfare reform is a win win for the government. That is why IDS can afford to bat away any calls for changing this legislation that may crop up in the Lords this afternoon. Whatever happens in the upper house, he will get his bill through. He knows that the British public supports him.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
The real cost of welfare
A couple of weeks ago, John Humphrey's investigated the 'Future State of Welfare' for the BBC. You can find his report HERE .
He went back to Splott in Cardiff, where he was raised, to listen to the people who have been out of work for years or have never had work. His report is balanced, instructive and eye-opening. While the people who are unemployed get the chance to tell their side of the story in the documentary, listening to them evoked feelings of pity and despair in me.
Curiously, what was absent from their views was the damage unemployment causes to themselves and their offspring. While they were very vocal in asking for higher benefits and adamant that they would never work as long as they only get a minimum wage, they seemed to reflect little on the fact that being unemployed placed them outside the mainstream of society in many respects with the attendant consequences.
The debate on social rights has taken a wrong turn somewhere, to the extent that some of the interviewees in the programme were clear that they have a right to be unemployed which we would have to respect. This idea is a strange one. Rights entail obligations. So if there is a right to chose worklessness then there must be an obligation on somebody else to finance this unemployment. The people Humphreys interviewed were clear that everyone else had to support them.
But what about right of the rest of society to decide whether or not we should carry this obligation in the first place? In effect, what has taken hold in the public debate, and is neatly reflected in the responses of those unemployed mothers and fathers Humphreys spoke to, is a culture of claims made against society coupled with impunity for their own actions. In their view their 'choice' to remain out of work does not entail any consequences for themselves. They are convinced that those who decide to work day in and out (and sometimes for the minimum wage!) have to shoulder the responsibility, not just for their own choice, but also for the choice of the others who are unemployed.
Yet, this topsy-turvy view of personal responsibilities is not all there is in this confused worldview. What is often less commented on is the damage to their own lives they cause by remaining on benefits. Effectively they are condemning themselves to life without any occupational pension, old age poverty and increased chances of mental health problems.
Arguably, no one can refuse to observe the main standards of society without detrimental effects to their psychological well being. It is this disregard for their own lives that provides the strongest argument for the radical shakeup of the benefits culture in our society. The people who are damaged most by continuous worklessness are the people who chose to settle into a life of idleness. In a sense, eerily similar to how we treat drug addicts, we may have to save them from themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)