Social Citizenship and the British Welfare State Explained

Social Citizenship and Welfare

The concepts of social citizenship and welfare are intertwined in their views on basic human needs and the right to the means of meeting those needs. The concept of social citizenship itself is based upon the investigations and writings of T.H. Marshall (Erickson & Matthews 2003). While welfare, even in its earliest forms, has always been based upon the well-being of citizens within a country, Marshall expanded this idea to include the rights of citizens beyond only legal and political equality. This expansion also includes social equality rights — such as a minimum level of economic security and social welfare — that should be provided by the state (Erickson & Matthews 2003: 1). In its initial form, social citizenship was limited to the above-mentioned rights as grounded in class inequality, while its later expansion also included non-class inequalities and proposed remedial action for these.

Erickson & Matthews (2003: 2) distinguish between two sets of rights and guarantees that form the current understanding of social citizenship. The first is what the authors call "conventional" or "old" rights — such as pensions and healthcare provided by the state — entailing that the state furnishes its citizens with economic security. The second, "new" set entails equal opportunities for groups within society that have previously been disadvantaged by political and social structures. Such groups include women, ethnic minorities such as Aboriginal peoples, the disabled, and others. Equal rights for these groups mean that they have the right to fully participate in public and economic life, and that they are entitled to respect and recognition from their fellow citizens.

While "conventional" social citizenship experienced its greatest growth during the 1940s and 1950s, the liberation movements of the 1960s saw the further expansion of these rights as elaborated by Marshall.

Social citizenship and its relation to the welfare state has received increasing attention from critics over the last decades of the twentieth century. Indeed, some have gone as far as arguing that Marshall's views are no longer relevant to the current welfare state. Mass opinion appears to tend toward a defection from relying upon the state to provide economic and health security, as an increasing number of citizens make private policy provisions for their health and future pensions. This appears to indicate a fundamental disillusionment with the concept of social citizenship and with the state's ability to provide its citizens with the level of financial and health security they require.

On the other hand, Erickson and Matthews (2003: 3) hold that the younger generation has increasingly supported a movement away from the class-oriented equality structure of social citizenship toward a more integrative, socially oriented equality structure. While the class-oriented structure tended to be mainly materialistic in focus, the "new" social citizenship values emphasize the quality of life brought about by social equality. In examining these issues, the authors suggest (2003: 3) a distinction between universal state programs — such as healthcare and public pensions, provided to all citizens and classes — and programs that focus on redistribution, which are more selective in their benefits.

In general, when examining opinions on social citizenship, the matter appears to be at least as complex as humanity itself. The state is therefore under considerable pressure in its responsibility as social citizen to be "everything to everybody." This is particularly true under the new values of social citizenship, which do indeed encompass every diverse group within a country's borders.

Furthermore, every country handles its social citizenship issues in a different manner, according to the specific paradigms applicable to each situation. The following sections examine the British welfare state and how its development since the 1940s relates to the ideals and concepts within the framework of social citizenship.

The British Welfare State: Origins and the Beveridge Reforms

While Frank Field (1999) begins his history of the British welfare state in the Victorian Age, the welfare state as it is known today was founded by William Beveridge during the 1940s. Following an inquiry in 1941, Beveridge proposed wide-ranging reforms to British welfare. Published in 1942, after the first major Allied victory in World War II, the report was seen as part of the peace process.

Specifically, Beveridge suggested that post-war reconstruction should focus on providing security for all of the country's citizens at every stage of their lives, from birth to death. To implement his suggestions, Beveridge did not draw on new ideas but instead effectively synthesized ideas already in existence. The 1940s were dedicated to translating his ideals into legislation: the 1944 Butler Act reformed schooling; the 1945 Family Allowances Act and the 1946 National Insurance Act provided financial security and assistance; and the 1948 National Health Service Act established a national minimum standard for the first time. During this period, the British National Health Service (NHS) was also brought into being.

Field (1999) notes that, while Beveridge's ideals were both worthy and valid, they were somewhat impractical in terms of future challenges such as inflation, financial instability, and political upheaval. Hence, while one of the aims was to establish a welfare state that would not merely reduce but eliminate "Want" entirely, this proved not to be the case in practice, as the ensuing decades would soon demonstrate.

Decline and the Limits of the Welfare State

The first major problem was the continued financing of the NHS. Subsequently, low insurance benefits resulted in poverty for an increasing number of pensioners, and full employment had become problematic by the 1970s. Some critics hold that none of the idealism displayed by Beveridge was evident in any subsequent political leadership in British welfare after the 1940s. According to Field (1999), Thatcherism appears to demonstrate the fundamental failure of the initial social citizenship ideals proposed by both Beveridge and Marshall.

From the 1980s, according to Field (1999), problems with the welfare state became increasingly serious. The contraction of manufacturing jobs during the recession at the beginning of the decade, combined with exchange rate difficulties, resulted in formally abandoning the goal of full employment. In addition, the NHS budget's continuing increase presented further obstacles to poverty reduction. Contributing factors included growing health consumption as a lifestyle choice, advances in medical technology, and rising life expectancy. In response, state retirement pensions were changed to increase in line with prices rather than earnings, which tended to rise more quickly.

In turn, the public reaction was to attempt to take personal responsibility for both health and old age in the form of individually owned personal pensions. Although clients were often disadvantaged by being encouraged to leave their occupational schemes in favor of personal schemes with very high charges, this proved to be a popular option in the UK. According to Stephen Berry (2004), the reason for this popularity lies not so much in immediate savings but rather in the desire to safeguard against the poor service provided by the state. Both medical and pension beneficiaries, observing the state's poor performance, have taken measures for self-protection, as the state appears unable to provide what was originally intended.

Berry (2004) refers to the State Pension as a "trap" from which citizens need to escape, because to embrace it is to embrace perpetual poverty in old age. According to the author, roughly two-thirds of the UK population holds some form of private cover. Despite this, welfare bills continued to increase, requiring a thinker of Beveridge's caliber to re-examine the system.

According to both Field (1999) and Berry (2004), the main problem with the British welfare state is its fundamental misconception of human character. Because it was assumed that welfare beneficiaries would be fundamentally honest in return for receiving benefits, the system was poorly monitored from its inception in the 1940s. This conception of human nature became diluted in political circles during the 1960s, and subsequently little attention was given to behavioral incentives within the welfare system. Yet it was clearly time to "think the unthinkable," as Field notes, and to return to a consideration of how behavior is affected by different types of insurance. This was examined across five areas:

1) The size and growth rate of social security expenditure must be considered together with the growth of means-tested welfare and the corresponding actions of its beneficiaries. 2) Rather than being a neutral agency, welfare does indeed affect the actions, motivations, and fundamental character of those it benefits. 3) Being one of the most powerful human instincts, self-interest — rather than an idealized vision of the human spirit — should be the foundation of welfare reform. 4) Welfare policy should provide adequately for its recipients and redirect its means of doing so — for example, through partnerships between the mutual and private sectors. 5) Welfare reform should be seen as integral and central to rebuilding civil society itself, rather than as a side issue to broader constitutional reform.

According to Field (1999), only time will tell whether these reformation schemes and ideals will prove effective. Whether or not they do, they are nonetheless somewhat more realistic than the views held in the past.

Conclusion

The British welfare state is a complicated issue. While its ideals adhered to the concepts of social citizenship, its current form does not. It has degenerated over decades of political and financial mismanagement. Remedies in the form suggested by Frank Field might be possible with genuine commitment, but it appears that citizens have long lost their trust in the welfare state and its capacity to adhere to social citizenship principles. Instead, the divisions between rich and poor continue to grow, providing a grim projection for the future of the British welfare state.