Political & Economic Impacts on Organization of Welfare & Delivery

6SC004
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON THE ORGANIZATION OF WELFARE AND DELIVERY OF SOCIAL CARE SERVICES IN THE UK OVER TIME
Student’s Name
Professor
Course
Institution
Due Date
Political and Economic Impacts on the Organization of Welfare and Delivery of Social Care Services in the UK over Time
Caring for oneself and loved ones is imperative. Over the years, the UK government has initiated plans to ensure that the social welfare of its people is catered for through the organisation of welfare delivery and social care services. However, it remains a daunting task for UK citizens to search for various welfare and social care options, especially at the beginning of the journey. That raises questions about the path that social care and welfare have taken in the nation. One may ask about what the organisations were developed to achieve and the much that they have achieved. Since the institutionalisation of social care and welfare organisations in the post-war era, the nation has faced multiple changes in its social, political, and economic paradigms. It is necessary to explore whether the contemporary organisation of welfare and social care services matches the political and economic attributes of the nation.
Enormous progress has been made in framing social care as a set of positive principles centred on wellbeing and independence that have been reached since the post-war era (Wetherly, 2017). People can live their lives fully besides having control over their care thanks to advancements in social care. However, political and economic impacts have triggered debates in the services deep into the future. There are emerging policies in the political arena that restrict social care funding. Part of the challenge stems from the increasing number of people who live longer. With more people needing the services, the gap and vision of social care are increasingly becoming visible. Even with different social care systems, all the countries within the boundaries of the UK are facing similar challenges. This paper explores the impact that political and economic factors have had on the organisation of welfare and delivery of social care services in the UK over time. The spilling of unmet social care needs triggers debates into the possible political and economic causes, which could create a platform for a lasting solution.
Development of the UK Welfare State
The development of the UK welfare state was primary in the conversations on policy changes at the beginning of the post-war era. The UK developed multiple legislations to combat some of the social challenges that the nation faced at the time. According to Linda (2013), primary among the legislations was the Family Allowances Act of 1945 that established a benefit to be paid to families for each second and subsequent child. The benefit was universal and aimed to benefit all the families. The primary intention of the Family Allowance Act was to allow all families to afford their basic needs (Armstrong, 2017). The deeper intention would be a systematic elimination of poverty from the family baselines. The other legislations introduced in this era to set a platform for the welfare state included the National Insurance Act of 1946, the National Health Services Act implemented in 1948, the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, the National Assistance Act of 1948, the Children Act of 1948, and the Housing Act of 1949 (Boston, 2017). All the above legislation aimed at eliminating some of the social challenges that the UK communities faced at the time.
Politician William Beveridge laid a 5-point plan that has since been used as the blueprint of the welfare state (Wetherly, 2017). Wetherly (2017) states that primary among the factors that Beveridge considered was ignorance. Beveridge believed that ignorance is an evil that no democracy should allow among its people. A successful attack on ignorance is an implication of a caring democracy. Beveridge noted that an attack on ignorance should barely mean widening the educational ladder or raising the school age. Instead, fighting ignorance should be pegged on addressing real-life challenges, including enabling individuals to be sound both economically and socially. The second factor for considerations in Beveridge’s plan was disease (Glasby, 2017). Wellness among citizens is akin to the economic prowess of a country. The first matter in managing a disease is implementing prevention mechanisms before considering a cure (Linda, 2013). The third factor for consideration was want/poverty. Beveridge defines poverty as a state when one’s resources cannot match his/her wants (Bell, 2017). Failure to meet minimum needs means that individuals will resort to debts or minimisation of their expenditure to the most basic needs. Addressing poverty would elevate the nation into achieving a social welfare index that balances need with capabilities. The other evils that Beveridge deemed necessary to be addressed included squalor, a disorderly growth of great cities, and idleness that emphasised income security through stable employment opportunities (Vivien, 2010). Even presently, the nation still employs Beveridge’s plan to define the scope of the welfare state.
The economics of austerity underpinned the welfare state from 1945 onwards. The major insight of the austerity economic model was to establish a platform of expenditure towards social welfare issues rather than the conservative multidirectional economic model (Massey & Pyper, 2005). In the austerity model, attempts to reduce public spending, privatisation (more in terms of welfare provision than funding), the expansion of means-testing, and the growth of inequality are recognised as major components of its bequest (George & Wilding, 2002). The changes would imply the abolition of the tax and spend economic model to a more vibrant resource allocation towards health and education, paid promotion work, and reduction of inequality and relative poverty. Within the newly established model, the state established institutions and provided basic economic security to the citizens through those institutions. The government would be rendered responsible for its citizens’ social and individual welfare (Glasby, 2017).
Margaret Thatcher and Neoliberalism
Margaret Thatcher was the UK’s prime minister whose reign followed on the trails of a flourishing welfare state policy in the UK. Thatcher’s inputs and political ideologies would hence be valuable in determining the scope of the welfare state right from 1979 (Morgan, 2006). Upon the onset of her reign, Thatcher formed an informal transatlantic alliance with the US president at the time, Ronald Reagan. The alliance triggered the promotion of neoliberal policies internationally. The impacts of such an alliance are still influential to date. The Thatcherism ideologies amidst the promotion of neoliberal policies included privatisation of public goods and services, trade liberalisation, and financial deregulation (Miller & Campling, 2004). These neoliberal policies were largely seen as opposing to the social welfare state policies that focused mainly on collectivism rather than the newly introduced individualism (Glasby, 2017).
Thatcherism policies became highly unpopular with advancements in the welfare state. There was a notable widening of inequality in the developed state, save for New Zealand. The post-tax income of the top 10% of the population was five times that of the 10% bottom of the population in 1979 (Glasby, 2017). That number had doubled to 10 times as much by 1997, with much of the growth evident at the peak of neoliberalism of the Thatcher era. After three decades, the economic distribution went into reverse after its sharing across income groups was systematically eliminated. During the neoliberalism policies, pensioners were hit negatively. That is evident through the data on the proportion of individuals living below the poverty line that rose from 13% to 43% between 1979 and 1997 (Morgan, 2006). In the same period, child poverty more than doubled. There were further suggestions that the policies largely favoured the rich. That is mostly because the rich saw a fall in the tax rate from 83% to 40% during the same period. For the first nine years of Thatcher’s administration, the rate was maintained at 60%. The policies further affected other prospects, including housing and health (MacKian, 2013). The council home sales, for instance, was considered unfair to individuals who had saved to finance their own homes.
The delivery of social welfare insights also changed with the adoption of a mixed economy in the Thatcher era. A mixed economy implies that a section of the economy is managed through government initiatives while another portion is left to the managed through the free market (Glasby, 2017). Mixed economies begin from the basis of allowing private enterprises to run most of the businesses, with the government intervening only in certain areas of the economy. The interventions by the government can be marked in prospects, including waste management, education, and health. The state intervention varies in degrees depending on the motivation of the government to indulge in various aspects of economic governance (Bell, 2017). Elected after the industrial unrest of the Winter of Discontent, Thatcher embarked on privatising the key sectors with the government involvement steered strategically only to boost the resurrection of the economy. The neoliberal policies targeted inflation that had reached a 25% rate by the mid-1970s. The government instilled curbs on public spending with a sharp rise in interest rates. By 1990, the inflation rate had reduced to below 3% (Jordan & Drakeford, 2013). The unemployment rate changed adversely during the Thatcher period of a mixed economy. As companies adopted the new economic policies, restructured, and modernised, the unemployment rate rose rapidly from 1.5 million people in 1976 to More than 3.2 million people in 1987 (Armstrong, 2017). A significant change would only be realised in the post-1990s era with a coinciding economic boom. Ultimately, homeownership was a right in the Thatcher era. The government launched the right to buy a policy in 1980. Local authority tenants would then purchase their council houses at a discounted price of up to 70% (Fives & Campling, 2007). The Thatcher era coincided with the battle between stabilising the economy and pursuing social welfare needs.
Voluntary Sector
The period following Thatcherism was followed with an insi...