Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 10 items for
- Author or Editor: Peter Taylor-Gooby x
Public opinion supports some welfare services much more strongly than others. One tradition in social policy theory has interpreted this distinction as a dichotomy between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ needs and seen it as reflecting moralistic judgements on the citizenship status of different categories of recipients. An alternative approach argues that ideas about the extent to which services supply felt interests are more important. The two perspectives have different implications for the extent to which a process of conscious reflection on self-interest as against the unconscious internalisation of norms is the crucial factor in judgements on welfare. The more opinion is a matter of active evaluation, the more amenable it is to modification by considerations of argument and the more likely is it that the norms of the market will not prove insuperable obstacles to citizen acceptance of welfare policy in capitalist society. This paper analyses evidence from a recent survey to show (a) that judgements of self-interest in welfare show some correspondence to claims by political scientists about the objective social circumstances that produce need for services, and (b) that felt interest plays an important role in public opinion about the welfare state.
An influential literature suggests that the transition from modern industrial society is accompanied by an erosion of solidarities. Everyday life risks become understood as issues of personal failure and responsibility rather than social problems to be addressed through collective action. A corresponding welfare literature analyses the way policy change highlights individual responsibility and proactivity as a result of the constraints on government from globalisation, post-industrialism and other changes. This article uses recent attitude data to investigate whether risk society dissolves traditional welfare state solidarities, and how far it offers a basis for new solidarities to maintain support for vulnerable groups.
The UK Coalition government's cut-backs and restructuring of the welfare state imply considerable risks for citizens and for its own economic legacy and re-election prospects. They form part of a larger strategy to set the UK political economy on an entirely new path. This article reviews current proposals and shows that any viable alternative programme must be eclectic and must accept that some parts of a good welfare state cannot be justified on practical economic or human capital grounds, but must be included because they are good in themselves.
The most influential categorisation of capitalist welfare systems – regime theory – suggests that European welfare states will find it difficult to adapt to the changing circumstances of more intense international competition. The problem is seen as particularly severe in the dominant continental corporatist regime. This article uses data from a recent study of the views of politicians, representatives of employers’ organizations, unions, the voluntary sector and religious organizations, civil servants and journalists in four European countries to examine this claim. The pattern of opinion fits that predicted by theory, but the potential for change appears to differ in different countries for specific local reasons. Regime theory may be better at understanding stability than in capturing the forces that make for change, and may find it increasingly difficult to do justice to the increasingly uncertain international context of welfare.
English
An influential recent study argues that disenchantment with the achievements of the welfare state results from the comparison between modest welfare performance and the improvements in standards of provision in the non-state sector associated with rising living standards (Glennerster and Hills, 1998). This article analyses recent data from the British Social Attitudes survey to show that dissatisfaction in the flagship area of the National Health Service is associated with underprivilege rather than secure and rising standards of living. The implication is that the traditional defence of state welfare, as providing for those who experience needs which they find difficult to satisfy through the market, may still strike a chord with public opinion.
The UK welfare state is under attack from harsh spending cuts, focused particularly on women, children, low-paid people and claimers of working age, and a restructuring programme. This paper examines why it is hard to make a case for generous state welfare that is both inclusive and electorally attractive. It discusses the way the issues are understood, the trilemma that pro-welfare policy-making faces, proposals for new directions in policy and a reform programme that might help build a more inclusive welfare discourse. A more inclusive society requires policies that reframe the way people think about work, reward and welfare.
This chapter considers participation and solidarity in the development of the European welfare state. Participation requires that the less powerful groups succeed in making their voices heard. Such groups often have few resources other than their numbers, so that concerted action within a democratic framework is essential. The various welfare states that emerged during the past century rested in different ways on traditions of national male breadwinner working class solidarity, often in class-coalition with middle class groups and supported by an active trade union movement. Welfare policies in the post-war heyday of corporate capitalism reinforced this solidarity. More recently the post-war settlement has been eroded by globalisation, the shift from manufacturing to a service economy, the decline of the nation state, insistent pressures from women’s groups and others for greater equality and the emergence of new social risks. The new welfare state settlement is market liberal rather than neo-Keynesian. These shifts disempower the groups that were able to influence the traditional welfare state but empowers new groups affected by new social risks and by globalisation. The key question for a politics of participation is whether these groups can form solidarities that enable them to exert real influence.
The Great Recession of 2007–08 and subsequent stagnation had a major effect on European welfare states: in the short term social spending increased, and then in most cases trended back towards previous levels, most swiftly in the case of Germany among the larger economies (Figure 2.1).
Most commentators point out that the main regime differences between European welfare states persist (for example Hemerijck, 2012).
This paper relates the findings of an exploratory study of opinions on the role of the state in welfare to issues of social integration. The focus is on public opinion about the interrelation of welfare provision and the means used by governments to finance it. The analysis shows that ideas in this area are complex and that value judgements about the nature of the welfare state appear to playas important a role as conceptions of self-interest. The suggestion of some recent writing that divisions on the lines of perceived group interest threaten social legitimacy is not confirmed. However, there is also little evidence for the view that state welfare provision may playa strong positive role in generating a moral commitment to social integration. The considerations that influence people’s judgements reflect a complex interpenetration of the interests on the one hand and evaluations on the other that underlie each of these positions.
This article presents a critical commentary upon a research report on Occupational Sick Pay Schemes recently commissioned and published by the Department of Social Security. The authors argue that evidence of increasingly widespread occupational provision conceals a growing disparity between the conditions of service enjoyed by higher paid ‘core’ workers and those endured by more vulnerable ‘peripheral’ workers.
This article uses deliberative forums to examine attitudes to UK welfare futures. It makes methodological, empirical and theoretical contributions to the field. We demonstrate the value of the approach, provide insights into attitudes, in particular about priorities and how people link ideas together, and show how the UK’s neoliberal market-centredness fits with enthusiasm for state healthcare and pensions, desire to close national labour markets to immigrants and approval of government interventions to expand opportunities for those who make the effort. Findings point to the strength of the work ethic and individual responsibility alongside a regret that major and highly valued state services appear unsustainable, the construction of immigrants as simultaneously a burden on provision and unfair labour-market competitors, and backing for the development of a ‘new risk’ welfare state through social investment. The study reveals the complexity of responses to current challenges in an increasingly liberal-leaning welfare state.
