What role do the concepts ‘need’ and inequality play in
social policy?
From the inauguration of state organised welfare the concepts of ‘need’
and inequality have been at the centre of discussions and debates on social
policy. Since the 19th century it has widely been accepted that the state has
some responsibility towards attempting to fulfil some of civil societies
needs and the needs of those most at risk.
Changing definitions and attitudes surround the concepts of need and
inequality; this means any discussion of these instantly encapsulates the
political and ideological debates which effect all aspects of social policy.
Titmuss (ed. 1987) writes that ‘collectively provided services are
deliberately designed to meet certain socially recognized ‘needs’; they are
manifestations’ this means any changes within these are interrelated with
those in society. Miller (1987) draws from Titmuss’s work explaining that
the inequality which creates need is formed from the very nature of an
advanced industrial society as ‘the costs of economic growth and stability
are not evenly distributed’ he describes the welfare state as
‘compensation for the vulnerables who pay the prices of ‘progress’ (1987).
This essay seeks to examine the concept of need within social policy by
looking at how it became recognised in the 19th century and how it was
defined in the 20th century. This will include looking at what social
legislation has been borne out of its recognition. I will also look at the
changing attitudes towards inequality and the left/right political and
ideological debate over the relationship between inequality and need
within society. This will conclude with a brief observation of what role the
concepts ‘need’ and ‘inequality’ have in social policy today.
By the late 19th century the effects of the industrial revolution were fully
realised, although many notable individuals such as Dickens, Disraeli,
Kingsley and Mrs Gaskell (Fraser, 1984) highlighted the poverty caused by
industrialised society earlier in the century it was not until the last quarter
of the 19th century that the ‘needs’ within civil society began to
dramatically influence government legislation. Fraser (1984) cites the
‘great depression’ as a force which shattered ‘England’s faith in unlimited
economic progress and caused it to look inwards and realise the vast
inequalities between the lives of the rich and the poor were unsustainable.
The extended franchise may have also led governments to act on the
problems facing the impoverished as men had the power to vote out a
government if it didn’t respond to the needs of civil society. In 1880s the
‘Illustrated London News’ wrote ‘Recent revelations as to the misery of
the abject poor have profoundly touched the heart of the nation’ (Fraser,
1984) showing that changing attitudes towards the poor meant their
needs had to be addressed. Although several Acts which helped the most
at risk in society had been passed earlier on in the 19th century, such as
the Ten Hours Act 1847 and the Public Health Act 1848, the Acts which
were introduced towards the
end of the century represented a
recognised change in the ideological composition of Britain. The emerging
ideology was New Liberalism, which retains strong elements of classical
liberalism such as minimal state intervention in the free market,
constitutionalism, consent and toleration, however what it concedes to
accept is that equality is not achieved through constitutional laws alone.
Thomas Hill Green stated that people should live within ‘positive freedom’;
this meant one would have the ability to live as one would like without
interference from the State but a moral responsibility to others would
develop with State intervention to administer the duty of care (Rose,
1972). Although all liberals firmly believe in a meritocracy, new modern
liberals realise injustice can be created from the ‘vagaries of the market’
(Heywood, 2002). Thus the concept of there being ‘needs’ within society
that needed to be addressed rose from new liberalism.
In the beginning of the 20th century it was widely accepted that action
needed to be taken to create equality of opportunity and attend to the
problems in impoverished areas such as poor housing and health. Yet
there were many different ideas on what was seen as real ‘need’ and
who was seen as deserving of welfare. In the Victorian era people were
either deemed as ‘deserving’ or ‘undeserving’ poor; basically meaning
that their poverty was either created by their own failings such as alcohol
abuse or by eventualities which were out of their control such as job
losses or illness (thus making them deserving) (Fraser, 1984). With the
expansion of State welfare, and the bureaucracy which came with it, the
poor were no longer categorised into deserving or undeserving instead
their ‘needs’ were assessed. The introduction of the means test
established a way of determining the extent of the needs of people.
Although this may appear a fair way of organising welfare it has in fact
had detrimental effects; according to Deacon & Bradshaw (1983) the
means test is ‘socially divisive’ as it has ‘given rise to gross distortions in
the distribution of income amongst poorer families’. This system has also
failed to deliver benefits to many people who need them as the means
tested service has reflected values approved by society for example
marriage, thus leaving those who do not conform to these values in a
worse position financially (Deacon & Bradshaw, 1983). Although means
testing should essentially redistribute wealth through taxation, evidence
has shown that it has done little to combat ‘the poverty trap’ and end
inequality.
However, the end of inequality is not necessarily the aim of social policy, in
fact right wing politics often accepts inequality as inevitable this was most
apparent during the Thatcher government between 1979 and 1992, which
was a marked difference from the socialist ‘old’ labour policies which rose
from the post war consensus. Post war Britain had been a time of
cooperation in which conservative and labour domestic policy was
extremely similar this was partly due to the Beveridge Report which
promoted the need to end poverty and partly due to a recognised need to
rebuild Britain’s infrastructure (Sked and Cook, 1993). These ideas were
taken to an extreme during the 1960s when Wilson’s Labour government
policies had a strong focus on increasing welfare; this included legislation
for a development land tax, phasing out of private practice from the NHS
and the abolition of selection in secondary education (Sked and Cook,
1993). Wilson wanted labour to become the ‘natural party of government’
(Jones, 1983) this meant fulfilling the needs of the majority (the working
class) and sustaining a continuous evolutionary movement which aimed to
abolish inequality and class differences. However, as Jones (1983) states
the ‘assumption of a welfare state and full employment creating real
classlessness and equality of opportunity became hard to sustain’. The
research of Richard Titmus in the 1950s had already shown that the middle
classes had a disproportionate benefit from state welfare and nothing had
successfully been done to combat this trend (Titmuss, ed. 1987).
By 1979 Labours policies were seen as economically unstable and the
Conservatives (led by Margaret Thatcher) were voted in. Thatcher based
her economic thought on the ideas of Friedman and von Hayek (Riddell,
1985) believing ‘the state’s role should be reduced to a minimum and that
the private sector was a more efficient and effective provider of goods
and services’ (Atkinson, 1990). These ideas originate in 19th century
Classical Liberalism which defines the state as ‘a night watchman’
(Heywood, 2001) rather than a paternal caring character. This ultimately
meant that Thatcher did not see many of the services provided by the
state as actually being state responsibility; instead she envisaged a
transformation of British culture which enabled individuals to take
responsibility and achieve their own personal stability through hard work.
This idea of a meritocracy is summed up in her famous words ‘there is no
society, only individuals and their families’ (Riddell, 1985). This meant what
was constituted as ‘need’ was dramatically reduced. Financial inequalities
were seen as a natural part of having a free market economy.
New Labour (which came to power in 1997) is often described as the
‘third way’ between redistributive ‘old’ labour and New Right Thatcherism.
This basically means New Labour’s policies aim to address the needs of
those most at ‘risk’ in society such as single parents and the unemployed,
thus taking responsibility for those in need. However, this help is kept to a
minimum for the benefit of the economy and the promotion of a
meritocracy. The notion of responsibility is increasingly meaning a citizens
responsibility to the society and the state. Powell (2004) describes New
Labours ‘sanctions’ of its distribution of welfare as it’s ‘version of the old
tension between security and incentives, and the division into the
'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor’ which has faced British social policy. In
late modernity the vastness of financial inequalities are generally
accepted within mainstream politics and discussions of equality of
opportunity have turned away from being class based. Now when New
Labour discusses attempts to end inequality it is normally part of a
discussion on gender, ethnicity or religion rather than the gap between
rich and poor or the elimination of the poverty trap.