Social Welfare

Scottish Perspective

Mono Chakrabarti

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351785761
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This title was first published in 2001. This volume, adopting a Scottish perspective, concentrates on welfare issues in the UK. The book acknowledges the fact that the Scottish legislative base has, historically, been different from the rest of the country, and explores the impact of these differences upon the nature of welfare institutions and service provision. The contributors also critically investigate the important changes being implemented in Scotland within the disaggregated local authority structure, exposing the resource implications for service providers. The book tackles policy issues ranging from poverty and social security to health care, education and criminal justice. An analysis of the relevant laws is incorporated into every chapter, together with an investigation of the crucial implications of social and welfare policies for family structure, class and ethnicity.

1. Introduction: The changing nature of social policy

MONO CHAKRABARTI

Introduction

As late as 1965, T.H. Marshall could write that there was consensus around the viability of the welfare state, and the remaining problems were those of social engineering rather than ideology (Marshall 1965). It could easily be argued that is no longer tenable. The liberal certainties of the decades of the welfare state, the general consensus about the search for social justice, the faith in the ability of society to work towards humanitarian goals, have run into severe attacks from both extremes of the political divide. Indeed, the 1981 OECD pamphlet, The Welfare State in Crisis, seems to have highlighted the problem of the structure of welfare states throughout the world which has dominated political thinking ever since. Accordingly, achievements such as improvements in housing conditions, increased educational opportunities, enhanced health care provision are counterbalanced by shortcomings like the persistence of poverty and the failure to counter class inequalities. Deakin and others, therefore take the view that the welfare state has found it difficult to counter the five giants identified by Beveridge not least because of their intractable nature (Deakin and Page 1995).

Industrialisation in the Western countries has been associated with a number of fundamental social changes, among which are the increased size and changing age structure of the population and the concentration of that population in urban areas. The institutions of the welfare state emerged as a response of these new pressures and the need for quality and quantity of the labour force to be maintained and enhanced. Social services such as health, education, housing and welfare provision, which have compensated for some of the negative effects of industrialisation such as accidents and unemployment, have represented the welfare response to the requirements and consequences of industrialisation in its early to middle stages. Much analysis of industrial society has tended to emphasise the development of the liberal democratic state in Western countries and to suggest that the rights of citizens have become an important focus. From this perspective the welfare state has been closely associated with the definition and extension of citizenship rights.

Traditionally, many definitions of the welfare state have emphasised an altruistic element. Over thirty years ago, for example, Thoeres offered the following definition: “A form of society characterised by a system of democratic, government-sponsored welfare ….. offering a guarantee of collective social care to its citizens.” As already mentioned, views may of course differ about the validity of such definitions however cautiously proffered. Firstly, it is argued, by some using Marxist analysis for the most part that the welfare process, far from mitigating the worst effects of capitalist exploitation is in fact designed to facilitate it and to accommodate the objectives expressed in the whole process of social manipulation. From this point of view welfare states are not so much to guarantee social care to their citizens as to guarantee the continued viability of some vested interests. A further idea made particularly explicit in the work of Illich is that welfare can be, and has been, translated into a common good to be distributed through the economic, political and social markets.

On the other hand, representatives of the ‘New Liberal Right’ advocate an entirely new approach to state involvement in social welfare. This approach has achieved considerable political success in Scotland, the UK and in other Western European nations. Central to this critique is the idea that the relatively unfettered play of market forces is capable of providing for the needs of majority; the state then requires to do no more than provide at a minimum level for the needs of those unable for various reasons to provide for themselves. The proponents of the New Liberal Right have called for an increase in private enterprise and a larger role for the principle of ‘mixed economy’, that is, the partnership of private and statutory sectors’ involvement in the promotion of social welfare.

Where do all these viewpoints leave the welfare state and social provision? The present Scottish Executive’s strategic agenda is to work across boundaries to combat social exclusion, encourage welfare to work, tackle inequalities between men and women and black and white people and improve health in local communities. All social service provisions, especially health and social services will need to be built around the needs of those who use them. It has been argued, with some justification, that all too often the traditional boundaries that exist between these services can be a major obstacle. The new policy shift here emphasises the notion of a ‘joined up’ approach so that the frustrations and distress people experience in trying to organise the kind of care they want, or the kind of support they need as a carer can be fundamentally addressed. In order for this approach to be effective, both in cost and service terms, work needs to be carried out at three levels. First strategic planning, that is, agencies need to plan jointly for the medium term, and share information about how they intend to use their resources towards the achievements of common goals. Secondly, service commissioning which means securing services for their local populations, agencies need to have common understanding of the needs they are jointly meeting, and the kind of provision likely to be most effective in terms of the principle of ‘best value’. And thirdly, service provision which would involve the delivery of coherently integrated packages of care, regardless of how of services are purchased or funded so that the user and their families do not face the anxiety of having to navigate a labyrinthine bureaucracy.

This modernisation agenda in social services comes after years of growth. Despite, the public’s perception of cuts in welfare provision, there has been a real increase in spending every year (Hill 2000). Politicians have grown increasingly frustrated at the failure to translate these increases into visible improvements in service provision and thus are issuing more directives. First, the national priorities guidance sets joint priorities for health and personal social services with annual targets as highlighted earlier in this chapter. Then the setting up of targets for improvements in the lives of looked-after children. Couple these targets with the approach taken by the joint review process, with its naming and shaming of failing authorities, add in the best value agenda with its own programme of services and targets, and one has a truly daunting agenda for change. The national care standards commission will serve as a further check on local authority performance.

The focus for social services is meeting targets, bidding for new money and preparing the position statements and strategies to meet the demands of auditors and inspectors. Less time is spent on ensuring standards are maintained in homes for elderly people, day centres, and in home care. Yet that is precisely where some public agencies have failed to deliver.

The modernisation agenda and the determination of politicians to back policy objectives with extra resources and specific targets is worthy of recognition. However, there is also a need for consolidation. Government is about priorities. There could be a danger in the current torrent of initiatives that when everything is a priority, nothing really is.

References

Deakin, N. and Page, R. (1995), The Costs of Welfare, Avebury: Aldershot.

Hill, M. (2000), Local Authority Social Services, Blackwell: Oxford.

Illich, T. (1975), Medical Nemesis, Boyars: New York.

Marshall, T.H. (1965), Social Policy, Hutchison: London.

Theores, P. (1966), The Elite in the Welfare State, Faber & Faber: London.

2. Local Government: Disaggregated structure

ARTHUR MIDWINTER

Origins

Scotland’s new local government system came into operation on 1 April 1996. It replaced the two-tier system of regions and districts with 32 unitary authorities, reducing the number of authorities from 65. In doing so, it continued the historical trend of reducing the total number of authorities whilst discontinuing the trend of always creating larger units. In this reorganisation, the four largest regional authorities, Grampian, Lothian, Strathclyde and Tayside, were disaggregated (as was the former Central Region) whilst the three smallest regions, Border, Dumfries and Galloway and Highland, survived with their boundaries intact, as did Fife. The new city authorities were based broadly on the former city districts, but with tighter boundaries, whilst the other authorities either replicated existing districts (e.g. Angus, Moray, Perth and Kinross and West Lothian) or amalgamated existing districts (e.g. East Renfrewshire, Aberdeenshire or South Lanarkshire).

The origins of the reorganisation lay in the fall from power of Margaret Thatcher, with Michael Heseltine’s arguments in the wake of the poll tax crisis in 1990 for a wider package of structural, functional and financial reform turned back to him to implement as Environment Minister by the New Prime Minister, John Major. However, in Scotland, there had been increasing political discontent within the Conservative Party at their municipal decline, reflected in loss of power in all but a few smaller districts by the end of the 80s (Boyne, Jordan and McVicar 1995). The impetus to reform was entirely political, in terms of furthering the new vision of local government known as the “enabling authority” where authorities played a less direct role in delivering services; and in terms of seeking partisan advantage by creating smaller units more amenable to Conservative control.

In the case of the former, the ideas were those associated with the New Right of the Conservative Party, (Ridley 1988: Forsyth 1980) which favoured fragmented, smaller scale local government, private provision of services, and increased use of charges as the basis of financing provision. It was in essence a consumerist model of local government, derived from the anti-bureaucratic public choice theory (Niskanen 1971; Pine 1992). Partisan considerations were paramount in areas such as Angus, Stirling, Perth and Kinross, Ayrshire and Renfrewshire in the drawing of boundaries, which served to create units with potential Conservative majorities, or take Conservative voters in city suburbs out of Labour dominated urban authorities with higher tax levels. This too is consistent with Conservative dislike of consolidated metropolitan authorities with capacity for fiscal redistribution (Keating 1995). Now, political considerations resulted in ten authorities with populations smaller than 100,000. Those political considerations did not prevent Scottish electors recognizing the “cynical exercise in council reform” and delivering a defeat of such proportion that It pushed then on the “road to political oblivion” (Macwhirter 1995).

Ironically local government reform was also seen as a means of appeasing Conservative devolutionists (Boyne et al 1994). Ministers believed there was a political consensus in favour of unitary authorities, and that the policy would be popular. This popularity never materialised, with a majority of Scots remaining unconvinced of the merits of the Conservative reforms (Midwinter 1995).

Arguments

It naturally flows from the consideration of funding and functions of local authorities, that ∼v need consider also the best structure for local government in Scotland. Since we announced our decision to review local government finance last December it has become clear that there is a widespread demand for further change. The proposals that I have put forward today are, in the government’s view a coherent and interrelated response affecting the funding functions and structure of local government. (H.C. Deb. vol 188 Col 462, 21 March 199...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Tables
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• 1. Introduction: The changing nature of social policy
• 2. Local Government: Disaggregated structure
• 3. Poverty and welfare
• 4. Health care: Who benefits?
• 5. Housing issues for a changing Scotland
• 6. The state of education
• 7. Child care provision
• 8. Older people
• 9. Adults in the criminal justice system
• 10. Children who offend
• 11. Ethnicity and social services