Social security policy

brotherly gage polity is a study, tangled issue in on the whole societies. Millions of the great unwashed argon heavily reliant on fond protection as a elbow room of back down to achieve a basal pattern of living. in that appreciate is intellection to be terzetto main offbeat authoritiess, in western society. These regimes argon corporate-conservative, socio- sparing and liberal. This essay repels to give a brief description of these regimes in symbolizeion, in proportion to the ground forces, France and Sweden, respectively. Then, go on to comp be the regimes, in relation to loving certification measure. It leave behind take in to account un use, al paltryances and family polity. hearty security is mountainonicalally the procedure of eudaemonias and tilts in the form of financial economic aid as income main ten-spotance which is funded by measureationation and/or insurance contributions. (Baldock et al, 1999) in that location arrest been three pr inciple types of easy-being regime. These argon corporatist-conservative, socio-democratic and liberal. The corporate-conservative regime is ordinarily based on roughlybodys contributions, thusly really work-orientated. The socio-democratic regime is usually based on universal values. The liberal regime is usually residualist.This concocts that the welf are is promisen more as a bag-up, lone(prenominal) to cater for t irrigate who would non manage at all with discover it. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) France is an example of the corporatist-conservative regime in action. Social security is hinged on solidarity. In this context, it mean values mutual responsibility, divided up risks and common action. It was first brought in to place by the introduction of a regime general for loving and health security. This was then expanded. In the 1970s additional measures were introduced to include all excluded people.The roughly signifi gouget measure was introduced in 1988. This was call ed the Revenu Minimum dInsertion. It amalgamated a rudimentary delegate on with a personal contract for neighborly inclusion. The cut regime is somewhat expensive. The control of expenditure has become the focus of brotherly policy. Pensions p define a real prominent part as they are precise costly. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/ normal policy/introduction/w realm. htm) The French regime basically advocates the powerfuls are in accordance status and class. expect comes mostly by dint of private insurance, which is back up by the articulate.It plans to fortify civil society while limiting the commercialize. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) Sweden is an example of the socio-democratic regime in action. This Swedish model is often judged as the exemplary form of public assistance aver. One of the inviolate components is the sense of coordinate co-operation. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/public policy/introduction/w produce. htm) The socio-democratic regime advocates equality and universalism of hig h standardizeds. This is through the asseverate. The verbalise is the main air of defy in that respect are high takes of benefits.It aims to amalgamate social eudaemonia and work and promote full employment. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) The fall in States of America is an example of the liberal regime in action. The liberal regime advocates residualism, laissez-faire, singularism and a knock let go forth stand on poerty. These are all dominant contents in regular the States debates on eudaemonia, yet the USA does non confirm a unified eudaemonia carcass. The predominant measures of federal provision came in the 1930s from the Roosevelt administration. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/public policy/introduction/w show. htm) it was called the new deal.It was instigated to be a safe-guard against market failures, which was desperately implyed after the tummy unemployment of the depression geezerhood. The main principle behind it was that the state should provide more than just suppor t it should actually protect the individual. (Miller, 2003) The liberal regime basically has a strong work ethic. Support comes through means- tried and true assistance. It aims to lace the market. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) Unemployment is a truly contentious issue. The three countries all have differing shipway of dealing with it. France has a deucef senile system of providing unemployment benefits.One of them is an unemployment insurance system of rules. This device is when individuals are part of a national embodied agreement, which is intermediate by the state. This system is financed by contributions. The idle are al outseted to develop benefits if they are a member of this scheme and it was not their own fault that they lost their profession. The provision and duration of these benefits also depends on how foresighted the individual has been part of the scheme. Its payment has two forms. These are either the basic benefits or post-entitlement benefit. (www. euro ope n. ie/under. tm) The other system of unemployment benefit is a guarantee supplementary scheme. It is funded by the state and was set up in 1984. its aim is to provide unemployment benefits for widowed or divorced women, young people and other disadvantaged sort outs, who have not been in the job-market long enough to make substantial contribution. It also helps those who have had been in unemployment for a very long period and are no longer entitled for the insurance scheme.Its payment comes in two forms, either a work programme allowance or a guaranteed supplementary benefit. (www. urofound. ie/under. htm) This hardened system is in stark comparison to Sweden. Their unemployment insurance benefit (UIB) has been thought to be one of the most generous in the world. It is controlled by the trade unions, finance by the state and administered by 40 conscious societies. The level of contribution varies as it depends on the likelihood of unemployment. UIB encompasses about 3/4 of une mployed people, the pass off rely on social assistance. In the 1990s UIB came under intense air pressure because of an maturation in unemployment and colligate to limit social expenditure.This resulted in that by the late 1990s at that place was a decreased eligibility and the proportion of preliminary income received was slashed from 90% to 80%. There is now a far greater pressure on unemployed individuals to join in AMS schemes (Government training schemes) to indicate their availability to work. Involvement in AMS schemes permits the re-establishment of eligibility to UIB. This groundwork be seen as a huge incentive There is a three year benefit duration limit. Despite this limit, it is unflurried safe to say that it is more generous and less disciplined than that of France. (Cochrane et al, 2001)In comparison to France and Sweden, welfare for unemployment is very complicated. The administration of social assistance is controlled by state or local anaesthetic organizati on agencies, on a decentralised instauration, even though funding does come from federal Government. However, USA welfare on employment is mainly through unemployment insurance (UI). Unemployment insurance varies significantly depending on state and local political sympathies. However, there are some principles which are relevant to most states. (www. tiss. zdu. uni) Unemployment insurance is not aimed at beingness long term support for the unemployed.It is designed to be a bridge till they rule a new job. Unemployment insurance operates under very strict condition for limited periods of time. The number of cover people is congenericly low. This is due to the fact that a lot of people are not eligible foe unemployment insurance. (www. law. cornell. edu/topics) Unemployment insurance is not unattached to the self-employed, domestic servants, farm workers, Government employees and those who have only been curtly employed. (www. buzzle. com) To actually receive unemployment bene fits from the state is incredibly complex.The actual law on benefits and who is eligible to welfare schemes is very convoluted. In extreme cases, where vulnerable individuals do not even action the criteria for schemes of federal support or assistance, may be entitled to state and local or purely state relief. This is called general assistance. (www. law. cornell. edu/topics) It has been found that the population age profile of western societies is changing. We are now living in an increasingly develop population. The age social organisation of the population comes from past turn in rates, increasing mortality rates, change magnitude longevity and migration trends.This necessarily means an increase in the step of people who will be eligible for a support. (Baldock et al, 1999) Therefore, welfare regimes have to account for it. France has a pay-as-you-go system. (www. news. bbc. co. uk) The pay-as-you-go system is basically that the pensions that are being compensable out i mmediately are being funded by taxing the employed of today. This is in stark contrast to private pension scheme (those favoured in the USA) as these are based on paying pensions out of the contributions an individual make during their entire on the job(p) life. (Baldock et al, 1999) It is believed that this is going to be unsustainable.This is due to the increasing longevity and the declining birth rates. This means that in the future there will be far fewer workers to pay for the multiplying amount of pensioners. (www. news. bbc. co. uk) This is now troubling the French Government. They are now beginning to take steps to remedy the situation. One example of this can be seen by looking at a bill approved by the French Government, in May of last year. They approved a bill that meant that the amount of time that all Government employees must(prenominal) work in order to get a full pension increases from 37 years and 6 months to 41 years and 9 months. www. telegraph. co. uk) In com parison to Sweden, the French system relinquishs a lot to be desired. In Sweden, there are two mandatory statutory pension schemes. These are a basic flat-rate payment and a contributory net profit-related scheme (ATP). both(prenominal)(prenominal) schemes are funded on a pay-as-you-go system. They are pay out of contributions from the current workforce. Every citizen and long-term resident are entitles to the basic flat-rate pension. To get the ATP pension, they have to have a thirty year history of contribution.However, there is a supplement that can be obtained with the basic pension if an individual has no ATP or a very low level of ATP. For most of the people in Sweden, the two statutory pension schemes, replace or provide round 65% of pre-retirement gross salary. However, these pensions are liable for taxation. Also, 90% of employees in Sweden top-up the statutory schemes by covering themselves with exceptional occupational pension schemes. These cover various groups of employees and provide up to an extra 10% on backup income.The extra occupational pension schemes encompass four main schemes and they work on a collective agreement. They cover people employed by local and central government as well as blue-collar workers and white-collar workers. In Sweden, in 1992, only 6. 3% of elderly households were defined as being poor after taxes, this is in stark comparison to the USA as in 1996 just over 20% of elderly households were poor. These are phenomenally contrary statistics. (Cochrane et al, 2001) There are two public pension schemes in the USA. They are the public flat-rate pension and the public earning related pension.The public pension scheme encompasses some(prenominal) the means- tried, basic-rate pension (Supplementary security income, or SSI) and the earnings related pension (Old-age, survivor and disability insurance, or OASDI). The flat-rate basic pension is financed by general federal Government revenues. However, some states give a n additional small state-government supplement. every(prenominal) SSI pensions are subject to income and asset testing. The earnings related pensions (OASDI) are financed through contributions. It is broken down as follows employee provides 6. 2% of earnings and the employers provide 6. 2% of payroll whereas the self-employed provide 24. % of earnings.The minimum eligibility requirement for OASDI pensions is ten years of contributions. This is also a pay-as-you-go system. However, occupational, private pension schemes are highly recommended. (www. reformmonitor. org) Family policy plays a very significant part in social security. In France, family allowance is assigned to all families with at least two baby birdren, under the age of 18, regardless of income. However, there are numerous supplementary means-tested benefits available. There is the family supplement, which is for families with three sisterren, over the age of three.There is also the single parent allowance, adoption allowance, the parental education allowance, the excess education allowance for children with disabilities and also the annual school allowance for children between the ages of 6 and 18. There is also the housing allowance this is calculated by the expense of rent and the families situation. Additionally, there are also birth payments, maternity benefits and parental exit benefits. These include a means-tested young child allowance it is available from the one-quarter month of gestation until the child is three years old.Also, included is a maternity benefit that increases by the amount of children plus if the mother is insured there are even more benefits. There are also paternity leave benefits, where the mother or the father can be on leave up until the childs 3rd birthday. Since 1998, there have been means-tested allowances to decrease the cost of child care for children under 3 years old. The childcare can be in the home (child minder) or at a registered facility. There are also allowances in childcare for 3 to 6 year olds. (www. reformmonitor. org)Like France, Sweden has a universal child allowance. This is for children under the age of 16 years. This goes up to 20 years, if they are in full-time education. Families, with more that 3 children are entitled to a outsize family supplement. There is also a family allowance for handicapped children who string up a public school. They also, like France, have a housing benefit. This benefit is also dependant on the expense of rent and the size of family. There are also birth payments, maternity benefits and parental leave benefits but the do not seem as good as France is.There is a remunerative parental leave for 450 days, which is divided up between the parents. Also, the mother gets special allowances because of reduced work ability. In Sweden, they can also claim a sick child benefit. This is available for a maximum of 60 days, per year, per sick child under the age of 12 years. There is a positive inf rastructure of support serve to help working parents meet their childcare obligations. It also includes the support of single parents. Since July 2001, childcare expenses were move for families with children in subsidised childcare facilities.With this reform came a guaranteed 3 hours a day for childcare for unemployed people. This was so that they could actively prove employment. (www. reformmonitor. org) The USA is completely different from France and Sweden. In the USA, under the temporary assistance for ingesty families programme (TANF), benefit payments differ widely across states. The TANF programme is to support poor families with low incomes and dependant children. It is often reduced or even stopped after a family has received benefits regularly for 6 to 24 months. This is supposed to help reduce dependence on the state.The main family assistance, which is practically available in most states, is provided through federal income tax. Families with 1 or more children ar e provided with an ample amount off of income tax and people who earn a very low wage plus have children are given refundable income tax benefits. Unlike two France and Sweden, there are very few employees, who are given paying parental leave, when a child is born or is sick. However, since 1995, unpaid leave for both child birth and child illness has been mandatory. There are 5 states, which do provide income replacements, subject to authorized conditions, for up to 52 weeks.Federal employees do benefit from 24 hours of paid leave a year, for child related activities. Some employers, in the USA, do offer subsidised childcare facilities for their staff. However, the majority of employers do not. Federal childcare funding was provided so that states could be flexible in designing inclusive, integrated childcare facilitates, to make it easier for unemployed or single parents to get back to work. (www. reformmonitor. org) To conclude, there are some major differences between each of the welfare regimes. The biggest differences come from looking at unemployment differences and family policy.The USA is probably the most divers(prenominal) plus the have all had very different consequences. However, there are similarities between some of the aspects. This comes from pensions. both regimes are based on the pay-as-you-go regime, to a certain extent. However, they all have differing success. All in all, it would be hard to say for definite that any one of them would be superior but Sweden would be a definite contender. However, it is safe to say that welfare regimes in the future could benefit from utilising the most made split for the present regimes and learning for the unsuccessful parts.Social surety Policy in the buff grasp party promised to halve child pauperization by 2010 and to eradicate it by 2020, (Walker, 1999). Social security is not merely about poorness relief, as the relief of poverty requires more than just social security reform, it is impor tant to address the identify of social security policy at present to see whether Labour can live up to this sooner ambitious target it has set.The term Social Security is used to refer to the range of policies which aim to transfer cash resources between individuals and families. It is concerned with policies which govern the redistribution of resources within society.After coming to power in 1997 the Labour government reviewed the key principles of social security policy. They developed the Welfare to Work strategy, as they want people of working age to look for employment within the labour market and avoid dependence on the state.The guardianship of a high and stable level of employment was one of the fundamental assumptions of the Beveridge report, and an objective to which all governments were positively committed after 1944 (Lowe, 1993).Hills (1997) argues that since Beveridge, the objectives of social security have never been set out in a way allo take flight measurement of whether benefit levels are adequate to meet their aims.The original aim of the National redress system as introduced following the recommendations of the Beveridge report in 1948 was to set up a system of subsistence level flat-rate social insurance benefits which were intended to cover all the main causes of inability to earn, such as old age, ailment, unemployment, widowhood and orphanhood. It also included virtually the whole body of the populations, whether employed, self- employed or non- employed, as far as possible in the same basis (Sleeman, 1979).Changes in the welfare system have been needed for a variety of reasons, society has changed, and policies need to change to keep in tune with this, these changes include changing families, working women, an ageing society and rising expectations (Giddens, 1998 Hills, 1997).In the UK, the earliest form of social security was the Poor equity which was based around discretionary payments related to individuals assessment of need , and this continued to play a part in the delivery of many means- tested benefits until the last two decades of the twentieth century (Alcock, 2003). The Elizabethan Poor fair play (1598) distinguished between the deserving and undeserving, this is something which is still reflected in Social Security policy Hewitt and Powell (2002) point out how the use of contracts can be taken back to the deserving and undeserving poor, only now the terms being used are responsible and irresponsible and this is reflected in the Security for those who cannot (DSS 1998)- which means no security for those who can but do not. Another similarity between the poor law and the modern welfare state is that Parishes excluded the traveling poor from its boundaries this is still evident today with the treatment of travelers and the single homeless. This argument is back up by Hills and Gardiner (1997).Within Social Security, Employment policy occupies a crucial position in the post- state of war reconstr uction, and without which the welfare state could not exist. Full employment would both finance the development of the welfare state, and government welfare policy would help to maintain economic growth.Barr (1993) has outlined three social aims of state hindrance in income distribution the relief of poverty in order to protect a minimum income standard was the first. The second is the protection of accustomed living standards to ensure that none has to face an unexpected and unacceptably large drop in their standard of living and the third is, smoothing out income over the life cycle. However, as pointed out by Glennerster and Hills these three interact, the balance between them and the responsibility of the state can differ over time and between countries.The aims of Social Security policy are not merely to be measured in income terms. Social and political participation may be seen as important civic virtues by a broad spectrum of political opinion. Social Security maintains a st andard of living that supports inclusiveness (Townsend 1979), the consequences of failure in this respect is social exclusion.The miseries of unemployment in a work- ethic society are well- document by Sinfield, (1981). To these are added the badgering and insecurity of dependence on means tested welfare (Bradshaw and Deacon,1983) and the despair of living at a standard of living which steadily falls behind that of the working class in work. (Taylor- Gooby, 1985). Glennerster (1999) has criticized the critics, arguing that paid work brings dignity and respect.Social welfare imposes controls on society, social security regulations distinguish those who do and do not deserve support. As pointed out by Taylor- Gooby (1985) regulations which ensure that a household head is usually responsible for the living standards of family members defined as dependents encourage a certain household pattern.Social Security is traditionally divided into a contributory and a non- contributory sector, the former covers benefits such as unsoundness benefits, unemployment benefits, retirement pension, widows benefit- those regarded as the important benefits. In the latter most benefits are allocated to those who can prove that they do through a mean test.Eligibility for social security has two fragments, the first being the formal rules and regulations regime provision of benefits and secondly the perceptions of eligibility held by claimants and potential claimants. The contributory principle, whereby National Insurance benefits are linked to earnings established under rules of eligibility which disproportionately excludes those in intermittent or low paid work, those with a higher(prenominal) risk of unemployment as well as recent migrants. The establishment of such policy on the basis of a White, Male norm thereby formally excluded many of those in minority ethnic group from social citizenship rights to such benefits (Amin and Oppenheim, 1992).Post war welfare reforms and immi gration legislation have continued to commit racially exclusionary rules which determine eligibility to welfare benefits these include residence tests, rules on recourse to public funds and sponsorship conditions. This is well documented in the case of asylum seekers in Britain.Compared with some of the other developed industrial countries, Britain has been relatively successful in establishing a general and comprehensive welfare floor. (Sleeman, 1979)As argued by Hills (1997) benefits for those without work may mitigate their immediate position but they do not solve the problem. A prime aim of social security policy should be for claimants, where possible to find independent sources of income. While the overall level of employment depends on wider economic factors, the social security structure may discourage employment under some circumstances.Under the buttoned-downs, due to rising unemployment and the recession in the early 1990s changes were made to social security policy wi th regards to the unemployed. Not only did the costs of paying unemployed peoples mortgages reduced, but Income support (IS) payments for mortgages were withdrawn for the first golf club months of unemployment. In 1996 Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) was created when contributory unemployment benefit and means- tested Income support were merged. With JSA for the first sixer months of unemployment there would be a contributory basis and after that it would be means- tested. It was decided that those under the age of 25 would receive a lower rate of benefit and that contract would be introduced between claimants and the benefits agency to formalise job searches and training criteria, as well as establishing availability for work.With regards to means tested benefits, we have all comprehend politicians expressing their concerns about benefit dependency. According to Glennerster and Hills (1998) unemployment benefit has been the largest single source of growth in means- tested populations , followed by lone parenthood.A major theme of policy has been to sustain a gap between income and benefits and in work to ensure incentives to work in the face of increasing levels of unemployment, decreasing relative levels of wages for the unskilled, and increased part- time and temporary working, Benefit policy has been changed to both decrease relative value of benefits for the unemployed and to increase use of means testing. This leads to two problems for ensuring incentives to work one is to ensure that benefit rates are not close to or greater than in- work income and to ensure that those who are working on the margins of benefit entitlement are able to improve their incomes through work. The side- effect of means testing is that benefit is reduced as income rises on base the incidence of tax and social security contributions on increased earnings. As benefits have fallen relative to incomes over time, the incentives to work, therefore, in general have been improved (Glenne rster and Hills, 1998).The main theme of social security policy is work for those who can security for those who cannot. Which consist of a rights and responsibilities discourse. Those who cannot work have a right to security. However, for those who can work, the right to benefit is more conditional. The basic philosophy is that work is the best route out of poverty. do work pay includes a national minimum wage, tax reform such as Working families tax credits and nursery credits, which increase the return from low paid work and reduce the poverty trap. The government aims to achieve full employment, instead of paying people in poverty more benefit, New labour will redistribute opportunities and take a preventative approach, giving people the skills to escape poverty.Within Social Security policy is employment centred social policy which is based around the New Deal programmes which target different groups. For example for young unemployed people there are four choices education a subsidised private sector job a voluntary sector job or an environmental working class force the opportunity for sitting at home on benefits is not an option, as benefits will be reduced. For lone parents there are no penalties for not taking up employment, although they do have to touch work- focused interviews, in order to make them aware of the opportunities available to them.With regards to pensioners pensions are uprated by prices quite than earning, the poorest pensioners do have a means- tested minimum pension guarantee that ties in with the increase in earnings. This represents a move from Universalism to selectivity. This also means that gradually pensioners will carry on falling behind workers (Powell and Hewitt, 2002). This in itself demonstrates the lack of respect for the elderly, and the fuels the argument that once someone passes working age, they are no longer deemed an integral part of society, and are pushed out of mainstream society. This essay aims to look at the provisions in place for young people, of working age, for whom the government are trying to move into the labour market.What New Labour is trying to aim for is an active, preventative and intelligent rather than passive welfare state that encourages people to realize their potential rather than being chained to passive dependency (Powell and Hewitt, 2002).The bulk of National Insurance expenditure is on pensions, whereas for sickness and unemployment contributory benefits do still apply. JSA covers unemployment, for the first six months there is non- means tested support for hose who meet the NI contribution conditions and is linked to an agreement by claimants to take steps to secure a return to the labor market. Jobseekers allowance is no longer an Insurance benefit for the unemployed, after six months claimants abide on the benefit, and are subject to the same job search criteria, but their benefit moves onto a means- tested basis, which means any other resources (income fr om a partner) will reduce ones overall entitlement. In practical terms, means- tested JSA is Income support, given another title, as Income support has for some time been payable to unemployed claimants not cover by National Insurance benefits. It is still available for those out of work, who are not required to seek work under JSA rules, such as lone parents and people with disabilities and Carers.Income support is a minimum income scheme for British citizens (Alcock, 2003), payable only to those who are out of full- time employment (16 hours a week) and is reduced if there are any earning or any capital above 3000 in total. Housing costs are not covered, but claimants who pay rent can apply to their local council for housing benefit and council tax benefit, in some cases interest payments on mortgage debts are covered. For children of parents who are in receipt of Income Support or means- tested JSA free school meals are available.A major feature of social security protection was once sickness, but in the 1980s , under the Tories support for short term sickness (up to six months) was shifted to employment, employers were expected to pay workers a minimum level, whilst they were off sick. After six months, claimants with chronic illness or disability move to Incapacity benefit (NI protection) if they meet the contribution conditions with a medical test, which requires they are incapable(p) of all work. For those who do not satisfy the contribution condition, they are paid Income Support which is means- tested, as long as they can satisfy the conditions for Incapacity Benefit.For those in low wage employment means- tested support is also available through tax credits, payable through employers, administered by the Inland Revenue. Alcock (2003) argues that there has been a significant shift in the operation of means tested benefits under the Labour government since 1997. Family address was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit, made available to a wider ra nge of low- income families. Not only does this act as a supplement to the wages of low income workers with dependent children, it also aims to make low paid work seem more attractive, to encourage labour market participation as part of the governments loading to promote employment.The most important of the Universal benefits is child benefit which is paid to all parent or guardians to help them with the cost or rearing children. Critics would argue that, like all Universal function, Child benefit is a waste of public resources by paying benefit to wealthy parents, who do not need this money like poorer parents do. The benefit of Universal benefits is that there is no stigma attached to being in receipt of it.Jones and Novak (1999) argue that the whole benefits system operates to control and discipline citizens rather than support and protect them.There are a number of different theories and ideologies of welfare, the main traditional theories are the definitive Liberal possibili ty Marxist theories and Fabian theories.Classical liberal theories are based around ideas that see freedom as absence of coercion rather than protection from misfortune and hardship. Within classical liberal thinking there are two contrasting views on the state. Traditional or negative liberal defend the individual liberty while challenging what they perceive as the arbitrary misuse of power. Negative liberals say the parting of the state should be minimal. On the other hand there are positive liberals who say that the state can adopt a more constructive role in dealing with social problems. Both positive and negative liberal thinking have been influential on the modern British Conservative party. It is important to make the distinction that not all classical liberals are fence to the welfare state.Classical liberal theory points out that unwarranted state intervention will only amplify social and economic problems since the market system will be less efficient and economic growth will slow. It is also believed that individual freedom is of paramount importance and any attempt by the state to provide fiscal help to the poor compromises that individual freedom, this is said to be done in two ways the first is by asking those who earn wages to pay extra taxes to support the poor and secondly, by creating the conditions under which poor individuals and the state will have a relationship of dependency.Classical liberals regard the causes of poverty to be personal, rather than structural poverty is traced to personal feelings rather than to failings of the political or economic systems. They go on to say that individual rights must be preserved at all times, and go as far to say that people have the right to be poor.Barnett (1986) stated that the welfare state was necessary for a short time, following the problems created by the Second World War that those who supported it did not take a long term view of the countries economic involve. The welfare state is no l onger beneficial. A occur objection to the welfare state is the belief that services provide benefit to those who do not need it such as child benefit, which is a universal benefit and it paid to everyone, regardless of earning, some would see this as a waste.Sidney and Beatrice Webb were influential figures in Fabianism, they believed that collective welfare through the state was not only essential, but an inevitable development within British capitalistic society. An early example of the influence of Fabian thinking was with regards to the Poor Laws, whereby in 1905 the Royal Commission was set up to review the old niminy-piminy support system. The significance of this was the governments recognition that it had to implement major changes to the welfare state. Fabianism is a variant of British Socialism.The New Left is a term used to describe a broad range of differing approaches to social structure and social policy from a Marxist perspective. In general many agreed that the a chievement of the welfare state in Britain was neither as desirable nor as successful as had been assumed. Marxists argued that the welfare state had not been successful in solving the social problems or the poor and of the broader working class, in get along the welfare state supported capitalism, as opposed to challenging it (Ginsburg, 1979)The New Left has been criticized for its theoretical assumptions of the assumed desirability of state welfare services, arguing that for many of the working class social security was seen as being oppressive and stigmatizing.Hayek (1944) argues that despite the overwhelming influence of Fabianism within social policy, right wing critics of state welfare had always argued against the interference of state provision with the workings of a capitalist market economy. This neo-liberal thinking was referred to by Fabians and the new left as the New Right as it was interested in returning to the classic liberal values of a laissez- faire state, whic h advocated for self- protecting families and communities.The main argument of the new right was that state intervention to provide welfare services, and the gradual expansion of these which Fabianism sought, merely drove up the cost of public expenditure to a point at which it began to interfere with the effective operation of a market economy (Bacon and Eltis, 1976). They claimed that this was a point that had already been reached in the 1970s , where the high levels of taxation needed for welfare services managed to reduce profits, crippled investment and driven capital overseas (Alcock, 2003).Like the New Left, the New Right also challenged the desirability of state welfare in practice, arguing that free welfare services only encouraged dependency and provided no incentive for individuals and families to protect themselves through savings and insurance (Boyson, 1971).Hayek (1982) argued that state intervention involved unwanted interference with the freedom of individuals to org anize their own lives.Neo- liberal thinking is opposed to extensive state intervention to provide public services effectively they are opposed to the welfare state. They argue that it is undesirable on ideological, political and economic grounds that is undesirable in theory and unfeasible in practice.Their ideological objections to it revolve around their concern about dependency culture by providing welfare through the state, individuals are discouraged from providing these for themselves and their families, which could in turn trap them into relying on others for support. Murray (2002) makes the point that in social security if everyone is going to be provided with a basic standard of living, this makes it an attractive option for individuals to choose this, rather than seeking paid employment. Which applies to means- tested benefits, whereby entitlement is related to an individuals income level, this means any increase in income means a loss in benefit.Economically speaking, th e welfare state is undesirable because it interferes with the free working of the market, leading to failures in markets developing properly.Although neo- liberals argue that the welfare state is not practical, most recent neo- liberal theorists agree that a safety net should be in place, as it may still be needed. Neo- liberalism, therefore still remains within the mixed economy of welfare, which is found in all modern welfare capitalist countries (Alcock, 2003).Marxist theories are based around the idea of Marx (1970) whose claim was that capitalism is an inherently oppressive economic structure in which the working class are exploited by the capitalist class through the labour market. It is argued by Marxists that Socialism or Communism is the logical and desirable alternative to the failures of both capitalist markets and the welfare state. However, they do not provide any explanation as to how this is to be achieved, except that it needs to be done revolutionarily, rather than gradually and involves the overthrowing of the existing democratic governments. This ideology has never attracted much upkeep in Britain, making its political potential limited here.Marxists believe that the welfare state uses taxes paid by everyone to provide services and to foster the illusion that the state is altruistic and redistributiove, whereas in actual fact the stae is preserving and reinforcing certain norms and structural relationships.Ginsburg (1979) argued that institutions of welfare operated within British society to control and suppress people as well as to provide for them arguing that the social security system in practice stigmatized claimants and forced them into low waged employment. This criticism of the British welfare state comes from a Marxist perspective.The strength of the Marxist critique of the welfare within Capitalism is its ability to demonstrate the contradictory nature of social policy as providing social control and social protection at the same time.In 1998, New labour developed a third way, Blair argued that both the right wing pro- market approaches and the old lefts support from state monopolistic services should be rejected in favour of a new (third way) which would be located between the state and the market.The new labour government was not interested in whether services were best provided by the state (the old, Fabian, left) or by the market (the right) instead it was looking to find the most effective way to meet social needs which was a practical judgement based on empirical evidence of effectiveness.Hills (1997) has pointed out that some benefits, such as child benefit, state pension and unemployment benefit for some, go to people unswayed by means- testing, and argues that further means- testing would allow spending to be better targeted. Some have argued that settlement of universal benefits would free up sizeable sums of money, which could then be spent on those that need it the most, which would mean for Ne w Labour that they could go a little further to achieve its targeted with regards to child poverty. Eliminating Universal benefits would mean a substantial reduction in the overall cost of welfare spending, meaning the government could put more money into other areas such as the National Health Service.Social Security is the largest element of public expenditure, greater than both health and education, and accounts for 11 per cent of gross domestic product (Alcock, 2003).Social Security is an important aspect of our society, through state intervention individuals are provided with a basic standard of living, and unbroken out of absolute poverty. An interesting Marxist theory of the purpose of the welfare state states that the state maintains a reserve army of labour , through which a certain portion of society are kept out of work , but may be asked to join the labour force when needed. By providing these people with benefits (the unemployed, disabled and lone parents) the welfare state is serving capitalism by maintaining these groups who can be called upon at short notice.Marxists would argue that welfare constitutes social control and polices the state. They claim that the unemployed and other members of the reserve army of labour are treated harshly, to remind others of the consequences of not working.Lowe(1999) points out that the history of postwar social security was riddled with contradictions. The promise of the Beveridge report was to realize the new ideal of social security, through a alter system of state relief without resort to the unpopular means- test, aroused immense popular enthusiasm and lay at the heart of the new values and perspectives upon which the new welfare state was initially built. Yet within ten years the social security system was no longer popular. The means test did not wither away and the system started to become so complex that it became self defeating.Social Security has both positive and negative connotations, in practice it can be seen as a benefit and by others a cost (Alcock, 2003).