Introducing Social Policy and the ‘Welfare State’
Goals/Purposes/Possibilities of Social Policy
Discuss different views about the goals or purposes of social policy and possible reasons for them. // ‘Social
policy must maintain a balance between “Robin Hood” (redistribution) and “piggy bank” (individual
insurance and savings).’ Discuss. // 'The main goal of social policy is to reduce inequalities.' Discuss. // 'If
social policy did not exist, any modern society would have to invent it.' Why? // Should the state be
interested in the welfare of its citizens?
Definitions
Social policy
Two meanings
1) Academic discipline/field of study
2) Specific policies/welfare approaches taken by governments
‘…deliberate interventions by the state to redistribute resources amongst its citizens so as to achieve a
welfare objective’ (Baldock et al. 2007)
The nature of social policy is inherently political and normative, underpinned by different ideas of what
social policy is for, who social policy is for, the value of social rights, universal citizenship, and how social
policy is likely to influence the economy.
Welfare state
How do we define the welfare state? Broad and narrow definitions (Pierson 2006)
Narrow: the welfare state may refer to state measures for meeting key welfare needs (often
confined to health, education, housing, income maintenance and personal social services). This
provision may take the form of either services (funded or provided by the state) or income transfers
(formerly often known as ‘social administration’ in UK)
Broad: a society in which the state ‘intervenes within the processes of economic reproduction and
distribution to reallocate life chances between individuals and/or classes’
o For example, this definition may include the provision of transport to groups/areas whose
life chances are limited by lack of accessibility
Our understanding of welfare states is increasingly broad, but the level of state provision that constitutes a
welfare state is contested (different understandings of ‘welfare’ and/or ‘state’).
Simply put, the essence of the welfare state is the belief that the state has some measure of responsibility
for the welfare of its citizens
Good way to reconcile competing definitions
‘Studying just the welfare state leaves a huge “welfare residual” unaccounted for’ (Esping-Andersen 1999)
What is social policy for?
Motives are characteristically mixed and are not necessarily reducible to philanthropy or humanitarianism
(Goodin 1988).
Goodin (1988): 6 reasons for state interest in welfare:
, 1) Promoting economic growth (including via investing in human capital)
a. E.g. early years education
b. Can be problematic e.g. investment in elderly dependents (social care)
c. Complementary relationship between social investment and economic growth contested by
liberalism
2) Reducing poverty
a. Tend to believe that poverty damages people/their life chances
3) Promoting social stability (sometimes seen as social control)
4) Promoting social equality
a. Broader than just reducing poverty (e.g. tackling class disparities, gender disparities)
5) Promoting social integration
6) Promoting autonomy
a. Equivalent to Sen’s capabilities
But contested; and reasons/objectives may conflict.
Whilst providing a useful framework, these goals/purposes are riddled with complexities caused by
intersecting questions.
Complexity: defining needs
Relative vs. absolute poverty
o Governments may share, for example, the view that the purpose of social policy is to reduce
poverty. This single view, however, may generate entirely different policy goals/objectives
should one government favour an objective interpretation of need as what is ‘basic’ or
‘essential’ (absolute poverty), and the other favour a relative concept, or even a subjective
interpretation of need defined by individuals themselves, experts and government agencies
and others who provide services designed to meet needs (Alcock et al. 2016)
Complexity: contrasting approaches to economic growth
While different governments may agree that promoting economic growth should be a goal of social
policy, they may use opposite approaches to achieve this goal
Human capital investment vs. minimal state intervention
o Example: development of the British welfare state and shifting views on the compatibility of
state welfare with a capitalist economic system
o New Pragmatism, emerging in Britain at the turn of the 21st century, views the promotion of
social justice and economic competitiveness as the goal of social policy. This movement
posited a ‘Third way’ for social policy, combining private and public provision in a ‘mixed
economy’ (Alcock et al. 2016). Particular emphasis was placed on the importance of
research and evidence-based policymaking, rejecting a theoretical or ideological conception
of social policy which fails to recognise the importance of public policy research. The ‘goal’
or ‘purpose’ of social policy is, according to the New Pragmatic line of thought, to reflect
what works, as evidenced by objective social policy research
Goals/Purposes/Possibilities of Social Policy
Discuss different views about the goals or purposes of social policy and possible reasons for them. // ‘Social
policy must maintain a balance between “Robin Hood” (redistribution) and “piggy bank” (individual
insurance and savings).’ Discuss. // 'The main goal of social policy is to reduce inequalities.' Discuss. // 'If
social policy did not exist, any modern society would have to invent it.' Why? // Should the state be
interested in the welfare of its citizens?
Definitions
Social policy
Two meanings
1) Academic discipline/field of study
2) Specific policies/welfare approaches taken by governments
‘…deliberate interventions by the state to redistribute resources amongst its citizens so as to achieve a
welfare objective’ (Baldock et al. 2007)
The nature of social policy is inherently political and normative, underpinned by different ideas of what
social policy is for, who social policy is for, the value of social rights, universal citizenship, and how social
policy is likely to influence the economy.
Welfare state
How do we define the welfare state? Broad and narrow definitions (Pierson 2006)
Narrow: the welfare state may refer to state measures for meeting key welfare needs (often
confined to health, education, housing, income maintenance and personal social services). This
provision may take the form of either services (funded or provided by the state) or income transfers
(formerly often known as ‘social administration’ in UK)
Broad: a society in which the state ‘intervenes within the processes of economic reproduction and
distribution to reallocate life chances between individuals and/or classes’
o For example, this definition may include the provision of transport to groups/areas whose
life chances are limited by lack of accessibility
Our understanding of welfare states is increasingly broad, but the level of state provision that constitutes a
welfare state is contested (different understandings of ‘welfare’ and/or ‘state’).
Simply put, the essence of the welfare state is the belief that the state has some measure of responsibility
for the welfare of its citizens
Good way to reconcile competing definitions
‘Studying just the welfare state leaves a huge “welfare residual” unaccounted for’ (Esping-Andersen 1999)
What is social policy for?
Motives are characteristically mixed and are not necessarily reducible to philanthropy or humanitarianism
(Goodin 1988).
Goodin (1988): 6 reasons for state interest in welfare:
, 1) Promoting economic growth (including via investing in human capital)
a. E.g. early years education
b. Can be problematic e.g. investment in elderly dependents (social care)
c. Complementary relationship between social investment and economic growth contested by
liberalism
2) Reducing poverty
a. Tend to believe that poverty damages people/their life chances
3) Promoting social stability (sometimes seen as social control)
4) Promoting social equality
a. Broader than just reducing poverty (e.g. tackling class disparities, gender disparities)
5) Promoting social integration
6) Promoting autonomy
a. Equivalent to Sen’s capabilities
But contested; and reasons/objectives may conflict.
Whilst providing a useful framework, these goals/purposes are riddled with complexities caused by
intersecting questions.
Complexity: defining needs
Relative vs. absolute poverty
o Governments may share, for example, the view that the purpose of social policy is to reduce
poverty. This single view, however, may generate entirely different policy goals/objectives
should one government favour an objective interpretation of need as what is ‘basic’ or
‘essential’ (absolute poverty), and the other favour a relative concept, or even a subjective
interpretation of need defined by individuals themselves, experts and government agencies
and others who provide services designed to meet needs (Alcock et al. 2016)
Complexity: contrasting approaches to economic growth
While different governments may agree that promoting economic growth should be a goal of social
policy, they may use opposite approaches to achieve this goal
Human capital investment vs. minimal state intervention
o Example: development of the British welfare state and shifting views on the compatibility of
state welfare with a capitalist economic system
o New Pragmatism, emerging in Britain at the turn of the 21st century, views the promotion of
social justice and economic competitiveness as the goal of social policy. This movement
posited a ‘Third way’ for social policy, combining private and public provision in a ‘mixed
economy’ (Alcock et al. 2016). Particular emphasis was placed on the importance of
research and evidence-based policymaking, rejecting a theoretical or ideological conception
of social policy which fails to recognise the importance of public policy research. The ‘goal’
or ‘purpose’ of social policy is, according to the New Pragmatic line of thought, to reflect
what works, as evidenced by objective social policy research
