to what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main...
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
1/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
1
To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the
main political parties
Neo-liberalism has been in vogue for a sustained period in western politics. This paper will firstly
identify what neo-liberalism is, as a political philosophy and ideological driver, before applying this
understanding to the main political parties in the UK in order to ascertain whether indeed, neo-
liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of the main political parties. In so doing, it will be argued
that neo-liberalism to an extent, does underpin the welfare agendas of the main political parties; at
least, in the post-Thatcher years of the UK. However this answer is offered with the caveat that neo-
liberalism does not solely underpin the welfare agendas of the parties investigated. It forms part of a
wider framework which differs between the two parties observed. The main political parties will be
defined here as being the Conservative and Labour parties, not least because in the period examined
the Liberal Democrats have not won an election. Lastly, it will be argued that whilst this approach
has had a significant impact upon these parties, it cannot be seen as the sole causal factor in
explaining the current state of affairs within social policy agendas, but rather as part of a wider
global shift to markets.
Before we begin, it is important to understand what neo-liberalism is. Firstly, neo-liberalism can be
seen as a new take on classical liberalism hence neo-liberal. So we shall examine its liberal roots,
which can be seen most strongly influenced by writers such as Ricardo and more significantly, Adam
Smith (Page, 2005a, Ellison, 2008). Writing in conditions very different to our own, Smith offered a
radical new outlook for how to structure society, not along the aristocratic feudal lines of the past
but rather economic ones (Ellison, 2008, Evans, 2006). The two most important strands for us to take
from Smiths prescription can be seen as that of human liberty and the championing of free markets.
The liberal and neo-liberal conception of liberty is commonly referred to as negative
freedom. When Berlin (2002) refers to the history of western philosophy in establishing this, I argue
the origins he intimates to be Hobbess definition as [the] absence of external impediments
(Hobbes 2007:77). As Berlin (2002:170) puts it; *by+ being free . . . I mean not being interfered with
by others. This negative freedom can be seen in the neo-liberal approach, as championed by Hayek
(1944), which Plant (1990:8) helpfully spells out: The neo-liberals view of freedom is that it is
essentially negative, that is to say the absence of intentional coercion. In continuing this theme
Hayek, posited here as the intellectual heavyweight underpinning the neo-liberal endeavour,
described freedom in equally negative terms as independence of the arbitrary will of another
(1960:12). These examples help outline the freedom from idea behind negative liberty and are
crucial in following the logic for why to avoid the other form of freedom, which T.H Green referred
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
2/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
2
aspositive liberty(Heywood, 1999). There is not time to fully outline the finer points of this position,
so will be adumbrated simply as freedom to, but is best seen as containing an idealistic abstraction
which Hayek argued was the first step on the road to serfdom (1944). Indeed, Hayek is not alone in
making this argument, as Berlin (2002) in his influential essay Two Concepts of Libertyoutlines in a
very similar fashion, that all forms of positive liberty, no matter how noble their intent, lead to
tyrannous unintended consequences. Where they differ however, is in Hayek offering his economic
philosophy based on negative liberty as a panacea, which Berlin would reject.
We have seen how liberals and their neo-liberal counterparts conceived of, and celebrated
freedom. For these thinkers the goal is how to maximise the individuals freedom, provided it comes
not at the expense of the liberty of others (Page, 2005a). The mechanism for administering liberty is
seen as the free market. This leads us onto the second key strand of Smiths classical liberalism ; that
of free markets being left unimpeded by interference, mirrored in Hayek s argument for neo-
liberalism.
Smiths invisible hand thesis that individuals motivated by self-interest unintentionally
create a harmonious order more effective than state planning (Barry,1990:62) is core to the
philosophy. This is reflected in Hayeks reworking in the notion of catallaxy (Hayek, 1960, Swift,
2006:19), another example of the ordo ab chao advocacy of the free market. State planning would
equate to an infringement upon the individual liberties of agents engaged in market activity. Thisposition is seen in the neo-liberal account. For Hayek, state interference is categorically wrong. The
Road To Serfdom (1944) can be read as an attack on any form of state planning or intervention in
markets, and, like Smith, the only form of coercion he would tolerate was from a minimal state
intending to prevent the arbitrary will of others limiting individuals, choice, action and liberty
(Hayek, 1944, Ellison, 2008). For Hayek and neo-liberals in general, the most equitable manner to
structure society was through private enterprise and free markets. With this in mind, one might ask
the question why would there be a need for a neo-liberal movement seeing as they seem to largely
recover classical liberal ground. The answer lies in the rise of the interventionist Keynesian welfare
state in the post-war years, which are seen to have economically undermined nation states as they
took increasing participation in the economy (Ellison, 2008). Furthermore Hayek (1944, 1960) argues
that attempts to plan the economy or redistribute wealth are, an infringement of personal liberty
and, distort market process which would benefit everybody if left unimpeded (Swift, 2006).
However, neo-liberals stop short of arguing for no intervention in market processes. For Hayek
(1944) and others such as Friedman (1962) and Minford (1991), they see some state action as
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
3/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
3
necessary in the marketplace where it is unable to achieve a desired outcome. This can be seen in
the endorsement of the basic safety net approach and in instances referred to as the public good.
Friedman was very influential in the practical policies he posited for the neo-liberal programme. He
was prominent in implementing less than successful policies in nations such as Chile and Argentina
(Klein, 2008) but has nonetheless impacted upon British policy. He advocated the famous negative
income tax (Barry, 1990), combined with his flat tax which in contrast to the sliding scale tax
schema in the UK, appears extremely regressive. Moreover, he suggested welfare should not involve
state participation at all beyond administering the finance in the form of welfare vouchers, allowing
private enterprise to, in his mind, provide more efficient services and broaden the range of freedom
for the individual in enabling choice and an exit strategy for unsatisfactory service (Friedman, 1962).
For Friedman, any provision of welfare in kind, such as health, housing etc. involves the illiberal
principle that public authorities are licensed to select certain ends as being especially desirable out
of the whole range of ends that feature in a free and pluralist society. (Barry, 1990:65). This notion
is reflected in Hayeks thinking and can be seen as a core strand of neo-liberal welfare philosophy.
A brief overview of the neo-liberal welfare state critique is worth noting. The major issue
contains three issues relevant to this discussion: first, it creates monopolies that limit individual
choice for the majority of citizens who cannot afford the private option, and deprives them of an
exit strategy (Page, 2005a) which is argued to be intrinsically coercive (Hayek 1960, Plant, 1990).Second, the vast monopolistic bureaucracies are inefficient, resistant to change and thus stymie
innovation, placing onus on the producer rather than the consumer (Page, 2005a). Lastly, over-
generous welfare handouts cause recipient dependency where personal and familial responsibility
to participate in work would have prospered before (Ellison, 2008). From these findings we can
outline a neo-liberal typology for an ideal type welfare agenda:
No attempt to create social justice as it would be a mistake to do so. Minimal state participation in the delivery of welfare services, therefore minimal public
spending by the state.
Welfare delivery provision by private enterprise and not-for-profit sector Only in extreme instances where the free market would be unable to provide welfare
efficiently would state intervention be tolerated.
Welfare vouchers would be implemented to act as a form of safety net that would enablethose lacking the resources to enter the market to maintain autonomy and liberty when
consuming welfare products.
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
4/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
4
These points would arguably underpin any political partys welfare agenda, were it ideologically
driven exclusively by a neo-liberal outlook.
There are some flaws in the neo-liberals idealistic outlook of markets being the key to liberty
that are worth noting here. Firstly, Friedman and Hayek appear to have little space in their thinking
for what happens when private producers fail. This could have serious consequences for the welfare
consumer if they relied upon the private sector which is less stable than publicly funded bodies, for
the very reason that one can lose all their investment in a private failure, whereas state funded
bodies cannot go out of business. The neo-liberal operates with a misguided faith in the market.
While Barry (1990:68) makes a strong case when arguing state welfare constitutes a loss of liberty,
no lip service is paid to the loss of liberty when welfare consumers lose their investment through
private failure. Indeed, is it even possible to have the sort of liberty that neo-liberals champion?
Could it be as (Plant 1990:7) argues that neo-liberals operate with a defective view of liberty, a
defective critique of social justice, and an over-reliance on the trickle-down effect as the means of
empowerment.?
The introduction of neo-liberalism into the British political agenda has largely been
attributed to the Thatcher government (Page, 2005a, Ellison, 2008). Indeed as Swift asserts, *Hayek]
was Thatchers favourite intellectual and a major influence on the development of the New Right in
Britain (2006:19). We will now observe the influence of neo-liberal ideology on the ThatcherConservative government in the domain of welfare. However, as Swift alludes, this New Right was
not simply a neo-liberal ideology, but was blended with neo-conservatism (Page, 2005a). Neo-
conservatism contains some tensions which ostensibly contradict the neo-liberal position. For
instance, the notion of state interference in upholding traditional moral value and ensuring
hierarchical and authoritarian relationships (King, 1987) runs counter to the logic of Hayek et al.
Despite these seeming incompatibilities, the differences should not be exaggerated" (Page,
2005a:244). Both were successfully combined into the New Right ideology, which maintained a
strong state, whilst attempting to maximise free markets and reduce the public sector as much as
politically possible. For King, neo-liberalism lies at the core of New Right ideas about economic and
social policy (1987:15), which therefore would include the New Rights welfare agenda.
This can be seen in the manner that Thatcher sought to shift public spending away from the public
welfare services, with limited success she managed to curb spending increases but was less
successful in overall budgetary reductions (King, 1987). Indeed, while Child Benefit was frozen in
1987-8, spending per pupil in education rose between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s (Ellison, 2011).
This can be argued to be as a consequence of the vagaries of the Torys economic policy, which
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
5/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
5
contributed to two recessions that paralysed attempts to control unemployment benefits; tripling
spending between 1979 and 1985, before falling in the mid-1980s, only to rise again in the 1990s
(Ellison, 2011). As Charmley (quoted in Ellison, 2011:56) states the much vaunted cuts did not
happen under Thatcher, however this had more to do with a lack of sufficient support within the
party for her ideology, and the aforementioned erratic conservative economic policy (Ellison, 2011).
Moreover, as Minford (1990:71) argues the middle class floating voter ultimately decides what is
done. This notion of the floating voter the middle class voters who both parties will attempt to
please thus limiting the ideological scope of parties agendas helps explain why in politics one sees
a limitation in the scope of ideology in implementing policy. Indeed the intention to privatise bodies
such as the NHS, or at least open up to private revenue streams and activity, became difficult partly
because of its value for money in this period (Ellison, 2011). However was also because privatising
the NHS would have political costs that could damage the popularity with the government amongst
the 'floating' voter class (Ellison, 2011).
While some areas proved impossible, the introduction of marketisation mechanisms that mimic
free market practice, and the creation of quasi-markets into the public sector was implemented, as it
was deemed to be more cost efficient (Ellison, 2011:55), despite the evidence making it difficult to
prove this assumption. This process of marketisation became synonymous with the Conservative
governments welfare policy from the late 1980s onwards until New Labour took power in 1997
(Ellison, 2011). As Labour intellectual Le Grand (1991) outlines, marketisation or quasi-markets
represent an intention for the state to become primarily a funder (1991:1257) of welfare services,
purchasing from a mixed economy of welfare, enabling greater competition. In addition to this
Friedman-esque endorsement of market-based welfare, he outlines how vouchers may be given to
consumers to exercise choice (1991:1257). Marketisation, well falling short of the idea-type, does
certainly support the notion of a neo-liberal welfare agenda, however, not a purelyneo-liberal one.
New Labour took power in 1997 and as Bochel (2011b:272) asserts inevitably, the policies
of any incoming government will be shaped and limited by those of their predecessors. The
abandonment of the almost Marxist Clause 4 in 1995 (Page, 2005b) can be seen as part of a tacit
acceptance of neo-liberal market-based thinking indeed according to Hall, New Labour;
abandoned *their+ historic agenda and set about reconstructing social democracy as the best shell
for a New Labour variant of neo-liberalism (2012:17/8). He (Hall, 2003:2012) argues that New
Labour has attempted to use neo-liberalism in conjunction with social democratic objectives to
achieve social justice. This may seem paradoxical, certainly if one considers Hayek and others view
on social justice being a mirage based upon a category error of conceptualising society (Swift,
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
6/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
6
2006). However, as Le Grand (1982, 1991) has demonstrated, the rationale of the welfare voucher
system Friedman was so fond of, could be utilised by the left to create a lopsided order which would
load higher value vouchers to less privileged individuals in order to make them more attractive to
private enterprise. Consequently, achieving greater socially justice.
Evidence of this neo-liberal strand of thinking in New Labour circles can be seen in their tougher
(Ellison, 2008:64) stance on welfare with a greater onus placed on individual responsibility which
resonates with the neo-liberal and New Right view of dependency and individual responsibility.
Moreover, programmes such as welfare to work appear more in keeping with the safety-net
approach favoured by neo-liberals than the paternalistic egalitarianism which Minford (1990)
insinuates as being in the Labour welfare tradition. In effect, New Labours shift to the middle
ground represents a tacit acceptance of the neo-liberal championing of markets. However, as
Martell argues New Labour had not simply donned the New Right jacket, but rather, Labour
modernization was about how new means could be found to further old ends ( quoted in Bochel,
2011a:2). Indeed, while New Labour certainly has not adhered to the ideal-type welfare agenda,
there is certainly an elemental neo-liberal underpinning of their welfare agenda. As Hall argues this
can be seen as combining economic neo-liberalism with a commitment to active government; In
effect, it is a hybrid of social democracy, which is subordinate to the dominant position afforded to
neo-liberalism (Hall 2003). This mirrors the Kings (1987) assertion that the Conservative New Right,
despite its blend, contained neo-liberalism at its core.
In wrapping up the New Labour neo-liberal assessment, it appears the sentiments that Barry
elucidates here can be seen best to summarise in the New Labour welfare agenda:
one positive conclusion is clear: that whatever welfare institutions and policies we have, and
undoubtedly some will be generated by the transmission of benevolent preferences through
the voting process, they should be directed towards making the market work better.
Barry, 1990:75
The post-New Labour Coalition government appears to continue this market based pseudo-
neo-liberal approach. Bochel (2011a:19) argues that Camerons conservatism is both a variety of
Thatcherism with Hayeks thought still lingering yet simultaneously and heavily draws on New
Labour/Third Way ideas (Bochel, 2011a). Evidence for the influence of New Labour can be seem in
for instance, the Coalitions continuation of unemployment welfare strategies designed to offer a
route back into work, along the lines of the safety-net conception of welfare (McKay and
Rowlingson, 2011). Indeed, Conservative economic and social policies appear likely to produce a
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
7/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
7
small state with services provided by the private and not-for-profit sectors (Bochel, 2011a:19/20).
Such outcomes certainly fit with the neo-liberal ideal for a welfare agenda. Attempts at NHS reform
(see Ham et al2011) suggest this has an ideological element in keeping with the New Right approach
of Thatcher and Major governments. Moreover, the Coalition governments ability to transform an
economic crisis in the private sector into a crisis of overspending in the public sector can be read as a
clear ideological attempt to roll back the state in a manner even Thatcher had been unable to do
(Bochel, 2011b).
Neo-liberalism has had a distinctive impact on welfare in the UK. However as we have seen,
no government including even Thatchers stewardship implemented neo-liberal fundamentalism,
however key elements of neo-liberal thinking have undoubtedly influenced economic and social
policy-makers (Ellison, 2008:67) in recent decades. The best example is arguably the introduction of
marketisation, which has created a neo-liberal-esque element of competition into areas that have
previously been considered purely public. As we have seen, the ideal type welfare agenda does not
really fit with either the Thatcher and Major or indeed New Labour government s welfare agenda.
Nonetheless, threads of the neo-liberal approach have permeated both major political parties
welfare agendas, best observed in the marketisation or quasi-market approach to welfare.
Just as the success of Keynesianism and social democratic principles led to a post-war consensus in
Britain that lasted up until the late 1970s, as typified by the term Butskellism; where the politicalground had been shifted more and more toward statism, the post-Thatcherite era can be argued to
have created a new consensus, as Kerr (2009) argues - evidential in Mandelsons dictum we are all
Thatcherites now (quoted in Tempest, 2002). However as Mandelson elaborates, and echoed by
Ellison, this embrace of markets is not simply favouring the neo-liberal school of thought. Rather, it
is part of shift in the globally competitive world (Ellison, 2008); indeed, ideas reflect as much as
drive, economic political and social change (Ellison, 2008:67) . In many ways, the Third Way
approach could be seen as a more nuanced attempt to develop a welfare agenda more conducive to
the pressures of the global era.
Concluding, we have seen neither party has embraced a purely neo-liberal welfare agenda. For
Conservatives, it was part of their New Right strategy, and with New Labour, neo-liberal market
principles were combined with social democratic objectives in order to achieve a third way going
forward in a global age. These principles of markets, choice and freedom have deeply altered the
political landscape, to the point where to fight against them would appear pass. However, as
noted, the neo-liberal perspective should be seen more as part of a development of the welfare
dialectic, which will continue to evolve in an increasingly complex global era. That neither party has
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
8/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
8
purely embraced a purely neo-liberal welfare agenda says something for the shortcomings of the
outlook, as well as the problematic of implementing politically impalpable ideas, which could lose
key electoral support.
Bibliography
-
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
9/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
9
Barry, N. (1990) Markets, Citizenship and the Welfare State: Some Critical Reflections in Barry,N.
and Plant, R. Citizenship and Rights in Thatchers Britain: Two Views (London:Institute of Economic
Affairs, Health and Welfare Unit)
Berlin, I. (2002) Two Concepts of Liberty in Hardy, H. (ed) Liberty(Oxford:Oxford)
Bochel, H (2011a) Conservative approaches to social policy since 1997 in Bochel, N. (ed) The
Conservative Party and Social PolicyPolicy Press: Bristol
Bochel, H (2011b) The Conservatives, Coalition and social policy in Bochel, N. (ed) The Conservative
Party and Social PolicyPolicy Press: Bristol
Ellison, N. (2008) Neo-Liberalism in Alcock, P. et al The Students Companion to Social Policy (3rd
edition): (Oxford:Blackwell)
Ellison, N. (2011) The Conservative Party and public expenditure in Bochel, N. (ed) The Conservative
Party and Social PolicyPolicy Press: Bristol
Evans, M. (2006) A Short History of Society (Maidenhead:McGraw-Hill)
Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hall, 2012 The neo-liberal revolution in Rutherfood, J. and Stephenson S. (eds) The neo liberal crisis
[online] available from: http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/ebooks/NeoliberalCrisis.html [accessed
26/03/2012]
Hall, (06/08/2003) New Labour has picked up where Thatcherism left off [online] Guardian.
Available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/06/society.labour [accessed26/03/12]
Ham et al (2011) Where Next for NHS reforms? Kings Fund [online] Kings Fund. Available from:
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/nhs_pause_paper.html[accessed 1/04/2012]
Hayek, F.A. (2001 first published 1944.) The Road to Serfdom, (London: Routledge)
Hayek, F. A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty (London:Routledge)
Hobbes, T. (2007 first published 1651) Leviathan (Virginia:Wilder Publications)
Heywood, A. (1999) Political Theory: An Introduction (2nd
edition) (Basingstoke:Palgrave)
Kerr, P.(2001) Postwar British Politics: From conflict to consensus Routledge:London
King, D. (1987) The New Right: Politics, Markets and Citizenship Macmillan: Basingstoke
Klein, N. (2008) The shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism London: Penguin
Le Grand, J. (1982) The Strategy of Equality (Hemel Hempstead: Unwin)
Le Grand, J (1991) Quasi Markets and Social Policy The Economic Journal, Vol. 101, No. 408 pp.
1256-1267
http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/ebooks/NeoliberalCrisis.htmlhttp://www.lwbooks.co.uk/ebooks/NeoliberalCrisis.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/06/society.labourhttp://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/nhs_pause_paper.htmlhttp://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/nhs_pause_paper.htmlhttp://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/nhs_pause_paper.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/06/society.labourhttp://www.lwbooks.co.uk/ebooks/NeoliberalCrisis.html -
7/27/2019 To what extent can it be argued that neo-liberal ideas underpin the welfare agendas of all the main political parti
10/10
1117509 Word Count: 3284
10
McKay, S. And Rowlingson, K. (2011) Social security and welfare reform in Bochel, N. (ed) The
Conservative Party and Social PolicyPolicy Press: Bristol
Minford, P. (1991) The role of the social services : a view from the new right In Loney, M. et al
(eds) The State or the Market[2nd
edition] (London:Sage Publications)
Page (2005a) The New Right: neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism In Bochel et al (eds) Social
Policy: Issues and Developments Pearson: Essex
Page (2005b) From democratic socialism to New Labour In Bochel et al (eds) Social Policy: Issues
and Developments Pearson: Essex
Plant, R. (1990) Citizenship and Rights in Barry,N and Plant, R. Citizenship and Rights in Thatchers
Britain: Two Views Institute of Economic Affairs, Health and Welfare Unit: London
Swift, A. (2006) Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Students and Politicians Polity: Cambridge
Tempest, M. (10/06/2002) Mandelson: We are all Thatcherites now [online] Guardian. Available
fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/10/labour.uk1[accessed 26/03/2012]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/10/labour.uk1http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/10/labour.uk1http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/10/labour.uk1http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/10/labour.uk1