Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in “What is the best explanation for the differences that have developed between social welfare arrangements in different advanced capitalist countries? In particular, does it matter what party controls government?”, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your “What is the best explanation for the differences that have developed between social welfare arrangements in different advanced capitalist countries? In particular, does it matter what party controls government?” paper at affordable prices with livepaperhelp.com!
Social welfare provisions have come to be seen as an almost essential part of any modern state, however there are many differences between the states, the level of welfare they provide, who is eligible to it and how it is financed. Much early research on the topic has failed to properly define the concept of a welfare state as such, but it has come to be accepted that the definition involves the responsibility of the state for securing the basic level of welfare for its citizens. However there are many ways in which this can be interpreted and a number of ways in which policies to tackle this can be implemented. The way in which they are implemented to some extent depends on the aims and principles of the party or state that is implementing the provisions.
The different directions of development for welfare states was in some cases a result of the very foundations and initial steps towards the welfare state. In many states the first welfare initiatives were actually taken as a result of decisions made by the old ruling class rather than as a result of emerging working class influence as is sometimes argued. The regime that was in power when the first policies were introduced had an influence on the type of welfare regime that developed in the modern state. The states that developed social policies first tended to be the opposite of those that contemporary theorists would have suggested.
Authoritarian states, with an influential aristocracy and a strong church presence were those that often introduced the first schemes, for example the social insurance provisions of Bismarck’s Germany which have often been highlighted as the first example of a welfare state. These states implemented the most extensive welfare policies because they had developed stronger bureaucratic systems which meant that they were capable of administering welfare provisions more effectively and because they felt that it was necessary to consolidate the support of the working class because the developing workers and socialists movements were seen as a threat to the legitimacy of the authoritarian regimes. The dominance of the agrarian classes and the landed elites meant that the cost of these social policies was often shifted onto the urban upper and middle class through tax on incomes and profits and employers contributions to insurance schemes. It was argued that these schemes although largely benefiting the working class were not actually introduced in their interests, especially when some of the cost was placed on the working class through indirect taxes and compulsory insurance schemes, the measures were a technique of the ruling class to ensure they retained the loyalty of the working class.
States that had a more liberal democratic, particularly parliamentary structure, were the type of structure that it has been argued is most conducive to the introduction of welfare provisions because it is assumed that the possession of citizenship rights by the lower classes, that increased as democratic regimes developed, would increase their ability to make demands of socio-economic equality. However these states often introduced welfare schemes after the authoritarian states. It was assumed that the working class would become politically mobilised and then the government would come under pressure from the developing socialist and labour movements to introduce welfare provisions. However these states were later to introduce welfare provisions because of their strong commitment to the market and the schemes that they did introduce tended to be based on means testing as the belief in the market meant that they only helped those who were identified as in the most need. These liberal welfare regimes have persisted to an extent and have been identified as one type of welfare regime that can be seen in modern states.
Buy “What is the best explanation for the differences that have developed between social welfare arrangements in different advanced capitalist countries? In particular, does it matter what party controls government?” term paper
Esping-Anderson has identified that the international variations in welfare states can be grouped into clusters that have different arrangements between state, family and market. One cluster is what he terms the Liberal welfare state which is still closely related to and influenced by that which developed originally in traditional Liberal states. These systems are dominated by means-tested assistance, modest universal funds transfers or modest social insurance plans. These systems benefit only a small group of society and tend to be those from the working class who have only a low income and who become almost dependent on the state. Welfare reforms were kept to a limited level because of the liberal work ethic, which advocates that all those who can work should, so there is very little opportunity for those who do not want to work to decide to rely on the state instead. There are strict rules about who is entitled to benefit and even though the benefits tend to be rather modest there is often a stigma attached to them because of the means test. The market is still influential in these systems and often supported through government support or subsidies for private welfare schemes. This regime creates a class political dualism through the relative equality of poverty of welfare recipients and welfare that is differentiated by the market amongst the majority of the population. This kind of regime can still be seen in the United States, Canada and Australia. The development of this kind of regime is usually explained through the principles of classical liberal theory of both politics and economics.
The second regime cluster that Anderson identified was that influenced by the conservatives. These are regimes that are still based on historical corporatist and statist principles, which have been updated to address the new ‘post-industrial’ class structure. The most important feature of these regimes is that they want to preserve the status differences that exist in the country so the granting of political rights is not contested but they are connected to class and status. These states are willing to replace the market and private schemes as providers of welfare, but they do not have a great redistributive effect, as they are still concerned with the continuing divisions of status. These regimes have often been influenced by the church which means that they have a strong commitment to traditional family structures; this means that although there are state provisions of welfare they will only interfere when the situation can no longer be handled by the family, which is seen as the more natural provider of welfare.
How the most differentiated and sophisticated regime that Anderson identifies is that which he calls the Social democratic regime. These regimes were motivated strongly by socialist and left wing forces, which were demanding a welfare system that would provide a high standard of equality rather than an equality of minimal needs. This system is more sophisticated because it has been extended to cover the large new middle class that has developed since World War II. This meant that the welfare services and provisions had to be improved to meet the requests of the middle class. Social democratic regimes also attempt to guarantee equality by giving workers the same rights as those who are in a better financial position. This results in a system that has universalistic programmes that cater for a number of different expectations, with all citizens being part of a universal insurance system but this is graduated in accordance with usual earnings. This removes the influence of the market and the welfare programmes help to create a universal solidarity, as all citizens benefit from, are all dependent on and are all obliged to contribute to the system. This also helps to remove the element of stratification that is often associated with welfare systems as those who receive help are looked down upon by the classes that are not covered, as this divisions and related discrimination is removed by the universal system.
This system also deals with the influences of the market and the traditional family that were restrictive in the other two regime types. It gives little support to private welfare schemes and the higher standard of government provisions means that there is little demand for them. Instead of waiting for family structures to get beyond their capacity to help, this regime aims to prevent the problems from reaching this stage by giving grants directly to those who need them, maiximising independence in contrast to a reliance on family structues and introducing schemes that may prevent problems before they occur. They are also committed to providing a better range of social services which will enable women to have the choice of working outside the home. This regime is very noticeable for its fusion of welfare and work, as it is committed to the full employment but the huge cost of universalistic programmes means that they need to maximise revenues to meet their costs, which means they are also dependent on full employment being achieved to maximise their revenue gain.
The causes of this sophisticated welfare state have also been identified, the successful creation of any welfare state is dependent on the formation of cross class and cross party coalitions, as although the working class have much influence as a mobilised group they are rarely large enough to give a left-wing party a large enough majority to construct a welfare state on their own. The early success of socialist regimes was dependent on the formation of a coalition with the rural classes because they were the largest group in the electorate in less industrialised societies. The farmer used their influence to secure concessions from the state, such as farm-price subsidies, in return for their support for the welfare programmes. This coalition was achieved in the Nordic countries and to some extent in the USA, but the conditions in continental Europe were different because the rural classes had been incorporated into conservative forces.
However after World War II the rural classes lost their dominance and were replaced as an electoral force by the newly developing middle class. The privileged economic position of the middle class meant that they had been successful in meeting their welfare needs outside the state, there greater employment security meant that they were not attracted by commitments to full employment and were hostile to programmes of income equalisation. This conditions make it seem that the middle class would be hostile to the development of the welfare state, which highlights how successful the social democratic parties and groups who have integrated the middle class have been. Other countries failure to develop this system has been blamed on their commitment to a residual welfare state, whose continued commitment to the market and family structures has failed to break the middle class away from the market and a commitment to welfare provisions.
However other forces than the formation of class coalitions have been identified as important in the different developments of welfare states. The initial emergence of welfare provisions has been explained as a result of economic development, industrialisation and urbanisation which create social needs that cannot be met by the family, church or traditional associations, as they are damaged by forces of social mobility, urbanisation, individualism and market dependence that result from industrialisation and modernisation. Problems result from these changes such as the insecure job position of many industrial workers, so the development of capitalism leads to demands for economic security, provided by the state, as the market in this situation only provides help for those who are able to participate in it. The concentration of workers in industrial areas and the spread of information as a result of mass communication mean that the working class is more easily mobilised. But it is not just the working class that put pressure on governments to implement further welfare reforms in the early stages but also the demographic fact that populations are ageing, and the greater the proportion of elderly people in the population there is a greater demand for pensions, this put pressure on the state to provide a better standard and more wide ranging pension scheme as a response to the greater numbers who were now in need of and entitled to help in their old age. This results in a considerable increase in the working of the welfare state because of the large portion of both welfare state spending and administration that becomes concerned with pension schemes.
The party that is in control of government becomes important when it comes to the structure of the welfare provisions rather than the introduction of provisions. Analysis of the way that welfare states have developed has shown that it is important whether the left-wing hold power for the certain structure and policies that are introduced. Countries were the working class are politically mobilised, which is represented by a high level of trade union organisation and the number of parliamentary seats or cabinet positions held by Labour or left-wing parties are more likely to develop a social democratic welfare state.. The left-wing parties are most likely to introduce a social democratic welfare regime because; they are in favour of comprehensive, egalitarian and universalistic social policy, and because of the improved status and solidarity that these policies provide amongst the working classes. They are particularly opposed to welfare provisions which are allocated on the basis of means tests as they argue that they divide the population into those who receive benefits and those who don’t and those that do receive benefits are stigmatised because they do.
It has been identified that countries were the working class is highly politically mobilised and the working class or left-wing parties have held support for a considerable length of time, are most likely to have welfare systems where there are fairly equal levels of income amongst large sections of the population, both the tax system and the use of the government budget are redistributive and levels of unemployment and relative poverty tend to be comparatively low. In contrast countries where the socialist parties have regularly been excluded from government for example in France, the USA and Italy, have great inequalities in income, little redistributive effect from taxes or government budget, a large proportion of people live in relative poverty and rates of unemployment have remained fairly high. These are countries that have tended to be influenced by religious, particularly catholic, groups who have supported conservative welfare policies because they believe in the power of the family and the church to provide welfare and the legacy of absolutist government which has restricted the growth and representation of socialist groups.
The development of welfare provisions has been affected by a number of factors as it has moved through its stages of development, the forces that often initiated its development were different from those that have been suggested by theorists, but these forces have in many countries given way to the forces of the working class and the socialists who were expected to push for social security policies particularly after World War II as they have managed to integrate much of the large middle class and ensure their support. The influence of the left wing has been important for developing the structures of the welfare state to be comprehensive and universal rather than remaining in the role they were originally introduced as a restricting and dividing tool of the ruling class.
Please note that this sample paper on “What is the best explanation for the differences that have developed between social welfare arrangements in different advanced capitalist countries? In particular, does it matter what party controls government?” is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on “What is the best explanation for the differences that have developed between social welfare arrangements in different advanced capitalist countries? In particular, does it matter what party controls government?”, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on “What is the best explanation for the differences that have developed between social welfare arrangements in different advanced capitalist countries? In particular, does it matter what party controls government?” will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment from livepaperhelp.com and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.