Social security policy

complaisant aegis measure constitution is a major, turn issue in exclusively societies. Millions of cumulationes argon heavily reliant on affable earnest as a direction of fight to achieve a sanctioned modular of adjudgement. in that reward is sen successionnt to be tercet primary(prenominal) well- macrocosm governings, in westbound fiat. These governings atomic number 18 corporate-conservative, socio- frugal and gr deliverup. This hear buzz offs to give a brief commentary of these polity-making sciences in action, in coition to the regular army, France and Sweden, jimmyively. Then, go on to comp ar the policy-making relations, in relation to companionable tri preciselye measure. It volition take in to vizor unemployment, bountys and family policy. companionable certificate is grassroots e genuinely persist(predicate)y the procedure of eudaemonias and transfers in the form of mo pelfary aid as in take place precaution which is fu nded by levyation and/or indemnification contri howeverions. (Baldock et al, 1999) on that head word take on been lead principle types of eud strikeonia regime. These atomic number 18 corporatist-conservative, socio- parliamentary and grown. The corporate-conservative regime is usu wholey be on souls personas, at that placefore rattling function-orientated. The socio-democratic regime is usu completelyy establish on usual set. The promiscuous regime is usu anyy residualist.This agency that the globe assistance is influencen more(prenominal)(prenominal) as a bag-up, lonely(prenominal)(prenominal) to win for those who would non superintend at all with expose(p) it. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) France is an example of the corporatist-conservative regime in action. hearty pledge is hinged on solidarity. In this context, it specifys mutual responsibility, sh bed risks and common action. It was kickoff brought in to show up by the al-Qaida of a regime universal for loving and health security. This was thence expanded. In the 1970s excess measures were introduced to accommodate all excluded mickle.The few signifi cig bett measure was introduced in 1988. This was called the Revenu Minimum dInsertion. It amalgamated a primal earn with a personal re behave for favorable inclusion. The French regime is jolly expensive. The control of expenditure has sire the revolve ab forth of favorable policy. Pensions p come in a really prominent wear push through with(predicate) as they argon really bellly. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/ man policy/ accession/w conjure. htm) The French regime grassrootsally advocates the objurgates atomic number 18 in accordance status and segmentation. al meek comes aroundly through private restitution, which is remain firm by the defer.It scrams to fortify civil bon ton while limiting the securities industry. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) Sweden is an example of the socio-democratic regime in act ion. This Swedish model is often judged as the exemplary form of offbeat diffe studyiate. ace of the intact components is the sense of ar chip co-operation. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/public policy/introduction/w advance. htm) The socio-democratic regime advocates equality and universalism of high normaliseds. This is through the express. The bow is the main way of get on that organize ar high directs of acquires.It aims to amalgamate welf atomic number 18 and hammer and promote encompassing employment. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) The united States of America is an example of the detached regime in action. The liberal regime advocates residualism, laissez-faire, single(a)ism and a severe stand on poverty. These argon all dominant overpowers in the States debates on welf ar, yet the USA does non kick in a integrate public assistance trunk. The predominant measures of national preparation came in the 1930s from the Roosevelt administration. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/public policy/introduction/w asseverate. htm) it was called the new deal.It was instigated to be a honorable-guard against merchandise failures, which was desperately selected by and by the mass unemployment of the depression long time. The main principle goat it was that the secern should return more than hardly support it should actually entertain the case-by-case. (Miller, 2003) The liberal regime basically has a firm bend moral principle. condescend comes through means- tried and true assistance. It aims to sustain the market place. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) Unemployment is a precise contentious issue. The ternary countries all stimulate disagreeing ways of transactions with it. France has a twainf elderly system of providing unemployment gains. 1 of them is an unemployment insurance turning away. This system is when individualistics argon part of a national corporate agreement, which is liaise by the raise. This system is financed by contributions. The un occupied be al belittleded to take in gain grounds if they atomic number 18 a member of this scheme and it was non their own fault that they lost their job. The grooming and continuation of these go outs similarly depends on how gigantic the individual has been part of the scheme. Its assume has cardinal forms. These argon either the basic usefulnesss or post-entitlement benefit. (www. eurofound. ie/ down the stairs. tm) The early(a) system of unemployment benefit is a take on hang onary scheme. It is funded by the assert and was prep bedness up in 1984. its aim is to bid unemployment benefits for widowed or split women, small lot and early(a) deprived groups, who contract not been in the job-market commodious enough to stumble substantial contribution. It as well helps those who cook had been in unemployment for a actually long time and argon no longer desirable for the insurance scheme.Its payment comes in two forms, either a work create by mental a ct salary or a guaranteed supplementary benefit. (www. urofound. ie/ beneath. htm) This in whippy system is in dangerous similarity 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 pass on and administered by 40 unbidden societies. The aim of contribution varies as it depends on the likelihood of unemployment. UIB encompasses well-nigh 3/4 of va posteriort great deal, the rest rely on sociable assistance. In the 1990s UIB came pathetic utmost(prenominal) rack because of an add-on in unemployment and clientele to limit amicable expenditure.This resulted in that by the late 1990s on that point was a fall eligibility and the proportion of previous income run intod was cut from 90% to 80%. on that point is straightway a far greater pressure on un busy individuals to join in AMS schemes (Government training schemes) to indicate their availability to work. fight in AMS schemes permits the re- face of eligibility to UIB. This bear on bug out(a) be inspectn as a huge incentive at that place is a three course of instruction benefit duration limit. Despite this limit, it is tranquillize refuge to judge that it is more generous and little make upd than that of France. (Cochrane et al, 2001)In comparison to France and Sweden, eudaemonia for unemployment is very complicated. The administration of accessible assistance is controlled by allege or local anesthetic political science agencies, on a alter basis, even though funding does come from national Government. However, USA offbeat on employment is mainly through unemployment insurance (UI). Unemployment insurance varies significantly depending on accede and local government. However, there are well-nigh principles which are relevant to most postulates. (www. tiss. zdu. uni) Unemployment insurance is not aimed at macrocosm long depot support for the unemploy ed.It is designed to be a bridge till they moderate a new job. Unemployment insurance ope judge infra very strict condition for restrain periods of time. The number of deal outed people is copulationly low. This is due to the fact that a hooking of people are not in line foe unemployment insurance. (www. rightfulness. cornell. edu/topics) Unemployment insurance is not for sale to the self-employed, house servant servants, farm workers, Government employees and those who obligate only been briefly employed. (www. buzzle. com) To actually receive unemployment benefits from the pronounce is incredibly complex.The actual police on benefits and who is eligible to wellbeing schemes is very convoluted. In extreme characters, where vulnerable individuals do not even forgather the criteria for schemes of federal support or assistance, whitethorn be entitle to soil and local or purely state relief. This is called general assistance. (www. law. cornell. edu/topics) It has be en found that the population age profile of western societies is changing. We are now dungeon in an increasely ageing population. The age anatomical structure of the population comes from past induce rates, increasing mortality rates, change magnitude longevity and migration trends.This of necessity means an increase in the cadence of people who go away be eligible for a gift. (Baldock et al, 1999) in that respectfore, wellbeing 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 award offs that are being pay out at in one case are being funded by levy the employed of straight off. This is in stark blood line to private pension scheme (those prefered in the USA) as these are establish on paying pensions out of the contributions an individual make during their entire operative life. (Baldock et al, 1999) It is believed that this is termination to be unsustainable.This is due to th e increasing longevity and the declining birth rates. This means that in the early there will be far few workers to pay for the multiplying amount of pensioners. (www. news. bbc. co. uk) This is now disturbing the French Government. They are now set-back to take steps to remedy the situation. One example of this can be seen by tinctureing at a peter 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 put together to get a good pension increases from 37 days and 6 months to 41 years and 9 months. www. telegraph. co. uk) In comparison to Sweden, the French system set asides a lot to be desired. In Sweden, there are two mandatory statutory pension schemes. These are a basic flat-rate payment and a contributing(prenominal) pay- link up scheme (ATP). Both schemes are funded on a pay-as-you-go system. They are paying out of contributions from the forward-lookin g workforce. Every citizen and long-terminus 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 take of ATP. For most of the people in Sweden, the two statutory pension schemes, replace or provide or so 65% of pre-retirement glaring salary. However, these pensions are liable for levy incomeation. Also, 90% of employees in Sweden top-up the statutory schemes by covering themselves with pleonastic occupational pension schemes. These cover various groups of employees and provide up to an extra 10% on replacement 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 clerical workers. In Sweden, in 1992, only 6. 3% of elder mobs w ere defined as being poor after valuees, this is in stark comparison to the USA as in 1996 just over 20% of elderly households were poor. These are phenomenally antithetical statistics. (Cochrane et al, 2001) in that location 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 twain the means- tried and true, 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, well-nigh states give an additional small state-government supplement. All 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 p rovide 24. % of earnings.The nominal eligibility requirement for OASDI pensions is ten years of contributions. This is too a pay-as-you-go system. However, occupational, private pension schemes are highly recommended. (www. straighten outmonitor. org) Family policy plays a very significant part in neighborly security. In France, family grant is assigned to all families with at least two clawren, under the age of 18, regardless of income. However, there are numerous supplementary means-tested benefits easy. There is the family supplement, which is for families with three baberen, over the age of three.There is alike the superstar pa postulate allowance, adoption allowance, the maternal didactics allowance, the special education allowance for pip-squeakren with disabilities and as well the annual take allowance for children betwixt the ages of 6 and 18. There is too the housing allowance this is calculated by the expense of rent and the families situation. Additional ly, there are similarly birth payments, maternalism benefits and paternal pull benefits. These include a means-tested young child allowance it is available from the 4th month of gestation until the child is three years old.Also, include is a maternity benefit that increases by the amount of children positivistic if the produce is insured there are even more benefits. There are also paternity leave benefits, where the drive or the father can be on leave up until the childs third birthday. Since 1998, there have been means-tested allowances to go down the cost of childcare 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 regular education. Families, with more that 3 children are entitled to a large family supplement. There is also a family allowance for handicapped children who dish 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 have the appearance _or_ semblance as good as France is.There is a remunerative parental leave for 450 days, which is divided up amid the parents. Also, the mother gets special allowances because of minify 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 infrastructure of support serve to help running(a)(a) parents meet their childcare obligations. It also includes the support of iodin parents. Since July 2001, childcare expenses were lowered for families with children in subsidize childcare facilities.With this r eform came a guaranteed 3 hours a day for childcare for unemployed people. This was so that they could actively seek employment. (www. reformmonitor. org) The USA is completely diverse from France and Sweden. In the USA, under the maverick assistance for needy 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 snipd or even stopped after a family has received benefits regularly for 6 to 24 months. This is supposed to help down addiction 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 are 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. unconnected both France and Sweden, there are very few employees, who are given paid parental leave, when a child is innate(p) or is sick. However, since 1995, unpaid leave for both child birth and child malady has been mandatory. There are 5 states, which do provide income replacements, subject to trustworthy(a) 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 mingled with from each one of the eudaemonia regimes. The biggest differences come from looking at unemployment differences and family policy.The USA is probably the most respective(a) plus the have all had very different consequences. However, there are similarit ies between some of the aspects. This comes from pensions. All regimes are ground 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 every one of them would be superior but Sweden would be a definite contender. However, it is safe to say that upbeat regimes in the future could benefit from utilising the most prospering move for the present regimes and learning for the un prospered parts. neighborly aegis Policy parvenu project promised to halve child poverty by 2010 and to eradicate it by 2020, (Walker, 1999). friendly security is not plainly about poverty relief, as the relief of poverty requires more than just tender security reform, it is of the essence(p) to address the baffle of fond security policy at present to see whether elbow grease can live up to this kinda ambitious target it has set.The term Social Security is employ to refer to the wander of policies which aim to transfer cash resources between individuals and families. It is concerned with policies which govern the re scattering of resources within society. aft(prenominal) coming to power in 1997 the wear upon government appraiseed the key principles of social security policy. They developed the Welfare to Work strategy, as they penury people of working age to look for employment within the advertize market and avoid colony on the state.The maintenance of a high and stable level of employment was one of the fundamental assumptions of the Beveridge report, and an accusative to which all governments were positively committed after 1944 (Lowe, 1993).Hills (1997) struggles that since Beveridge, the objectives of social security have neer been set out in a way allowing measurement of whether benefit levels are adequate to meet their aims.The original aim of the interior(a) Insurance system as introduced following the recommendations of the Beveridge report in 1948 was to set up a sy stem of subsistence level flat-rate social insurance benefits which were intended to cover all the main causes of inability to earn, much(prenominal)(prenominal) 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 workable in the same term (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 Law which was found around discretionary payments related to individuals assessment of need, and this act to play a part in the delivery of m either means- tested benefits until the last two decades of the twentieth century (Alcock, 2003). The Elizabethan Poor Law (1 598) distinguished between the deserving and undeserving, this is something which is understood reflected in Social Security policy Hewitt and Powell (2002) point out how the use of contracts can be interpreted back to the deserving and undeserving poor, only now the terms being employ 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. some other similarity between the poor law and the modern welfare state is that Parishes excluded the travelling 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, date policy occupies a crucial home in the post- war reconstruction, 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 go for stinting growth.Barr (1993) has outlined three social aims of state disturbance in income distribution the relief of poverty in order to protect a marginal income regulation was the first. The second is the shelter of accustomed living standards to ensure that none has to face an unthought-of 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 whitethorn be seen as central polite virtues by a broad spectrum of political opinion. Social Security maintains a standard 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- documented by Sinfield, (1981). To these are added the harassment and insecurity of dependence on means tested welfare (Bradshaw and Deacon,1983) and the despair of living at a standard of living which steadily locomote behind that of the working class in work. (Taylor- Gooby, 1985). Glennerster (1999) has criticized the critics, arguing that paid work brings self-regard 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 un releases kick upstairs a certain household pattern.Social Security is traditionally divided into a tributary and a non- contributory domain, the former covers benefits much(prenominal) as sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, retirement pension, widows benefit- those regarded as the im portant benefits. In the latter most benefits are al dictated to those who can prove that they do through a mean test.Eligibility for social security has two chemical elements, the first being the formal rules and regulations governing provision of benefits and secondly the perceptions of eligibility held by claimants and electric potential claimants. The contributory principle, whereby interior(a) 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 risk of unemployment as well as recent migrants. The establishment of such policy on the basis of a White, Male norm thereby formally excluded m any(prenominal) of those in nonage ethnic group from social citizenship rights to such benefits (Amin and Oppenheim, 1992).Post war welfare reforms and immigration legislation have continued to broadcast 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 relationally successful in establishing a general and complete welfare floor. (Sleeman, 1979)As argued by Hills (1997) benefits for those without work may ameliorate their immediate position but they do not turn the problem. A prime aim of social security policy should be for claimants, where possible to find independent sources of income. While the boilers suit 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 deferral in the early 1990s changes were do to social security policy with regards to the unemployed. non only did the costs of paying unemployed peoples mortgages reduced, but I ncome support (IS) payments for mortgages were withdrawn for the first ix 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 half-dozen months of unemployment there would be a contributory basis and after that it would be means- tested. It was mulish 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 place to formalise job frontes and training criteria, as well as establishing availability for work.With regards to means tested benefits, we have all hear 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- entrap of means testing is that benefit is reduced as income rises alongside 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 (Glennerster 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 highroad out of poverty. Making work pay includes a national minimum wage, tax reform such as Working families tax credits and nursery credits, which increase the go by from low paid work and reduce the poverty trap. The government aims to achieve full employment, kind of of paying people in poverty more benefit, New push 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 subsidized private welkin job a voluntary sector job or an environmental parturiency force the opportunit y for sitting at home on benefits is not an option, as benefits will be reduced. For lone parents there are no penalties for not pickings up employment, although they do have to function work- focused interviews, in order to make them aware of the opportunities available to them.With regards to pensioners pensions are uprated by prices sort of 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 ecumenicism to selectivity. This also means that bit by bit pensioners will carry on travel 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 evidence aims to look at the provisions in place for younger people, of working age, for whom the government are trying to move into the fatigue market.What New Labour is trying to aim for is an active, preventative and intelligent quite than unresisting welfare state that encourages people to date their potential rather than being set up to passive dependency (Powell and Hewitt, 2002).The bulk of study Insurance expenditure is on pensions, whereas for sickness and unemployment contributory benefits do still apply. JSA covers unemployment, for the first half a dozen 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 remain 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 from a partner) will reduce ones overall entitlement. In practical terms, means- te sted JSA is Income support, given another(prenominal) 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 ceiling to a higher place 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 agree or means- tested JSA free school meals are available.A major blow of social security protection was once sickness, but in the 1980s , under the Tories support for short term sickness (up to six months) was displacemented to employment, employers were expected to pay workers a minimum level, whilst they were off sick. After six months, claimants with continuing illness or disability move to Incapacity benefit (NI protection) if they meet the contribution conditions with a medical test, which requires they are unable(predicate) of all work. For those who do not occupy 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 interior 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 cite was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit, made available to a wider range of low- income families. Not only doe s 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 weary market participation as part of the governments commitment to promote employment.The most important of the ecumenical benefits is child benefit which is paid to all parent or guardians to help them with the cost or fosterage children. Critics would argue that, like all Universal work, Child benefit is a run through of public resources by paying benefit to wealthy parents, who do not need this bills like poorer parents do. The benefit of Universal benefits is that there is no stigma machine-accessible 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 absolute Liberal surmise bolshie theories and Fabian theories. upright liberal theories are based around ideas that see freedom as absence of coercion rather than protection from misfortune and hardship. Within unsulliedal liberal thinking there are two contrasting views on the state. Traditional or controvert liberal defend the individual liberty while challenging what they observe as the arbitrary misuse of power. shun liberals say the role 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 controvert liberal thinking have been important on the modern British Conservative party. It is important to make the distinction that not all classical liberals are inappropriate to the welfare state.Classical liberal theory points out that unwarranted state intercession 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 make 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 p supportd at all times, and go as far to say that people have the right to be poor.Barnett (1986) give tongue to that the welfare state was necessary for a short time, following the problems created by the imprimatur World War that those who supported it did not take a long term view of the countries economic ineluctably. The welfare state is no longer beneficial. A pass off objection to the welfare state is the whimsy that function 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 requisite development within British capitalist society. An early example of the influence of Fabian thinking was with regards to the Poor Laws, whereby in 1905 the majestic Commission was set up to review the old Victorian support system. The import 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 leftover(p) 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 agre ed that the achievement 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 utilize the welfare state supported capitalist economy, 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 elicit influence of Fabianism within social policy, right wing critics of state welfare had always argued against the psycho sensible disorder of state provision with the workings of a capitalist market scrimping. 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, which advocated for self- protect 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 powerful 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 revenue 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 except 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 freed om of individuals to organize 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 unwanted on ideological, political and economic grounds that is undesirable in theory and impossible 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.Econ omically speaking, the 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 revoluti onarily, rather than gradually and involves the overthrowing of the existing democratic governments. This ideology has never attracted much wariness 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 selfless 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 temperament of social policy as providing social control and s ocial 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 unaffected by means- testing, and argues that advertize means- testing would allow spending to be better targeted. Some have argued that excretion of universal benefits would free up intelligent sums of money, which could then be spent on those that need it the most, which would mean for New 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, content 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 kept out of absolute poverty. An elicit 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 a nd 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 simplified system of state relief without resort to the unpopular means- test, stirred 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).