citizenship and the welfare state

Citizenship and the Welfare State

Can we wake from complacency?

Dr Simon Duffy, Centre for Welfare Reform Birmingham, June 2016

1. The welfare state is an essential social development

2. The attacks on the welfare state are only partially ideological

3. The proper purpose of the welfare state is to secure our citizenship

4. The current design of the welfare state often undermines citizenship

5. But we can renew the welfare state by positive reform

Argument in summary

1. The welfare state is essential

the welfare state did not happen by accident

…only legal and political institutions that are independent of the economic forces and automatism can control and check the inherently monstrous potentialities of this process. Such political controls seem to function best in the so-called welfare states whether they call themselves socialist or capitalist.

Hannah Arendt

• The welfare state emerged as a response to the crises that led to World War II and the Holocaust

• In the UK its designers were led by Fabians, reformist liberals and socialists, like Keynes, Beveridge, the Webbs and Bevan

• There was great confidence in the benign role of the state to balance the injustices of the free market

…three guiding principles may be laid down at the outset:

1. The first principle… A revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.

2. The second principle is that organisation of social insurance should be treated as one part only of a comprehensive policy of social progress. Social insurance fully developed may provide income security; it is an attack upon Want. But Want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

3. The third principle is that social security must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual….

Beveridge W (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services.

• They believed the state would be rational and that democratic control would be sufficient to ensure the positive development of the welfare state.

• There was also a powerful assumptions that an intellectual elite could be trusted to solve social problems.

• “We have little faith in the 'average sensual man', we do not believe that he can do more than describe his grievances, we do not think he can prescribe the remedies.” [Beatrice Webb]

but there was an alternative vision

• The design of the welfare state reflected the spirit of the times and assumptions of dominant intellectuals, yet there were other strands of progressive thought.

• G K Chesterton and the Catholic church advocated distributism and subsidiarity - less centralised approaches to social justice.

• Archbishop Temple, who coined the term ‘welfare state’, advocated an approach which made love and human development central.

• Michael Young warned the Left of the dangers of ‘meritocracy’ and the advocated equality and creativity.

“Today we frankly recognise that democracy can be no more than an aspiration, and have rule not so much by the people as by the cleverest people; not an aristocracy of birth, not a plutocracy of wealth, but a true meritocracy of talent.” [1958]

Yesterday’s satire feels like today’s tragedy

2. The welfare state is under attack

• Public discussion of the welfare state is often simplistic and focuses simply on income tax and overall spending levels.

• Spending levels do vary - but not so dramatically

• What has been dramatic has been our decreasing commitment to equality and justice

• There are similar trends in many other welfare states, but the UK’s interest in justice seems to be declining more quickly than most.

• Strangely the UK has managed to combine high levels of inequality with high levels of employment with low levels of productivity.

Decline in justice has accelerated under recent Coalition and Conservative Governments:

• Poorest have been targeted for cuts

• Disabled people have been targeted for cuts

• Stigmatising language and misuse of statistics (e.g. benefit fraud) has grown

• Hidden subsidies to the better off have grown

• These problems are often associated with the ideology of ‘neoliberalism’ or even cruder forms of Darwinism - “Let the Devil take the hindmost!”

• But while this seems partially true, these changes are not simply ideological.

• Change often involves elitist tinkering not actual cuts in spending.

• Benefits are distributed to groups with good advocacy or voter impact e.g. disabled people vs. pensioners

• Blame shifted to scapegoat groups e.g. immigrants vs. bankers

• Universal services protected e.g. social care vs. NHS

• Self-serving influence of commercial interests e.g. think tanks funding

• Some services are more powerfully defended e.g. BMA vs. LGA

• Hubris of politicians trying to make an impact e.g. every ‘reform’ of the NHS

• Attempts to buy the swing voter

Other explanations include…

The power of the medianocracy

Where electionsare won or lost

3. The welfare state is for citizenship

Thomas Humphrey Marshall Citizenship and Social Class.

Citizenship is a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed. There is no universal principle that determines what those rights and duties shall be, but societies in which citizenship is a developing institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against which achievement can be measured and towards which aspiration can be directed. The urge forward along the path thus plotted is an urge towards a fuller measure of equality, an enrichment of the stuff of which the status is made and an increase in the number of those on whom the status is bestowed.

Marshall correctly makes citizenship the central purpose of

the welfare state. But note his dangerous fallacy…

For, while it is true that our rights need to be matched by our

duties (across a whole society)…

but that does not mean my rights and my duties

should be identical.

The welfare state exists to distribute rights and duties unequally - to protect the weak and to discipline the powerful.

We do not want citizenship to be restricted to a club of the clever,

the wealthy or the normal.

True citizenship is for everyone

We don’t want a narrow passport citizenship.

• Danish citizens saved nearly all Danish Jews and refugee Jews from the gas chambers.

• After first hiding them from the Nazis they then manned fishing boats and help them escape to neutral Sweden.

• This is true citizenship

For example…

True citizenship is inclusive

and welcomes human diversity

Each of the 3 main political values different things…

• Conservatives - value community

• Liberals - value freedom

• Socialists - value equality

This is all very confusing in UK• Conservative Party

= (right) liberals

• New Labour = (left) liberals

• Liberal Democrats = (community) liberals

• Greens = (socialist) conservatives

?

But each tradition - at its best - should value

citizenship

Conservatives (unless they are chauvinists) should value true citizenship…

because citizenship requires welcomes our diverse loyalties to family, civil

society, place and to country.

Liberals (unless they worship the right to property) should value true citizenship…

because citizenship defines our rights and

gives us our reason to fulfil our duties.

Socialists (unless they are totalitarians) should value true citizenship…

because citizenship is our valued status as an equal

member of the community.

Citizenship allows us to achieve equality, in

all our diversity by membership in community.

A polis [community] is not just a larger scale village. In ‘having reached the limits of self-sufficiency’, it forms a framework for the exercise of all human capacities. And so, ‘while coming into being for the sake of life’, the polis exists ‘for the sake of the good life’ (1252b). It constitutes the telos, the final end, of human of association.

Aristotle (384-322 BC)

“Aristotle explains that a community is not made out of equals, but on the contrary of people who are different and

unequal. The community comes into being through

equalising, isathenai.” [Nichomean Ethics 1133a 14]

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975)

“Above all, I think the idea of citizenship should remain at the centre of modern political debates about social and economic arrangements. The concept of a citizen is that of a person who can hold [their] head high and participate fully and with dignity in the life of [their] society.”

Jeremy Waldron (1953 - )

The 7 keys to citizenship

Citizenship is possible for everyone

This is the ‘stuff’ of citizenship by which we protect our status as equals1. Finding our sense of purpose

2. Having the freedom to pursue it

3. Having enough money to be free

4. Having a home where we belong

5. Getting help from other people

6. Making life in community

7. Finding, sharing and giving love

4. The welfare state is a good thing - but it’s not

designed right

• The welfare state has not been designed for citizenship.

• At its worst the welfare state weakens our ability to act as citizens.

• It often undermines family or civil society structures.

• Often it excludes those who should be welcomed and included.

• Many services operate according to the professional gift model

• The citizen is passive and must take or leave whatever is offered by the professional

• The community is reduced to the role of tax payer

• Social security systems have become increasingly insecure.

• They discourage people from risking personal, family or community development.

• We are not in a poverty trap but a poverty net.

• There is an every growing array of services, but…

• as power has been centralised the complexity of services has increased, while innovation and responsiveness is made more difficult.

• Despite, in fact because of, the complexity of services those in greatest need are often the first to be excluded.

• For all the talk of localism or devolution (a theme that has run for at least as long as central government started the process of constantly reorganising and weakening local government) power and money have been centralised.

• One of the mysterious symptoms of this fact is the enormous amount of money and capacity goes ‘missing’.

• We also fail to attend to the vast reserves of energy, activity and untapped capacity available to our communities.

5. The welfare state is renewable

Some examples of upstream solutions…

Citizen controlled support can be

extraordinarily efficient

Location N ChangeEngland - 6 Sites Phase I Report 60 -18.0%England - 17 Sites Phase II Report 128 -9.0%England - 13 Sites IBSEN Report 203 -6.0%England - Northamptonshire 17 -18.7%England - City of London 10 -30.0%England - Worcestershire 73 -17.0%England - Southwark 85 -29.8%Scotland - Glasgow 12 -44.0%USA - Denver - Disabled Children - -34.0%USA - Florida - Disabled Children - -30.0%

The women with the most complex needs don’t fit in services

Managing a serious health condition 64%Finding a safer place to live 27%Living with childhood abuse 51%Didn’t finish their education 76%Recent experience of domestic violence 85%Fractured family (for those with young families) 66%Children experienced abuse (for those with children) 55%Living with a severe level of mental illness 55%Living with some mental illness 91%History of drug or alcohol misuse 52%Victim of crime 41%Perpetrator of crimes 39%Worried by debt or lack of money 65%

A partnership between women - improving mental health

Service label n Urgent problem n Real need n

Victim of domestic violence 55 Debt 50 Better self-

esteem 64

Mentally ill 39 Housing 48 To overcome past trauma 54

Criminal 35 Benefits 46 To manage current trauma 51

Poor mother 33 Health 37 To stop being bullied 50

Misuses alcohol 24 Rent 32 Guidance 50

Uses drugs 22 Criminal justice Advocate 24 Relationship

skills 45

Violent 19 Dentistry 8 Mothering skills 26

Chronic health condition 16 Others 3 Others 1

Supporting families starts by respecting

families

Peers with mental health problems leading community change

£0

£500,000

£1,000,000

£1,500,000

£2,000,000

£2,500,000

£3,000,000

MH NursingHome CareMinimum WageCost of PFG

The average cost of PFG over the last 2 years has been £79,000. However the value of PFG

is much greater. If its support and work had all been paid at the minimum wage it would cost

over £0.5 million. If it had been commissioned as home care it would have cost over

£1 million. If it had been provided by a mental health nurse it would have cost £2.75 million.

Peer support trumps professional support

• Postnatal depression reduced by 77% • Unemployment dropped by 71% • Reduced fear of crime • Childhood accident rate dropped by 50%

Community led programme of neighbourhood renewal

Communities can take charge of their destiny

We need to think beyond services

• We can restore and improve the welfare state by shifting our attention upstream

• Enabling citizens and families to retain control and to contribute to community life

• Expecting local communities to innovate and develop locally tailored solutions

• Creating a just society with low levels of income inequality

• Universal Basic income - new forms of social security

• Focus on neighbourhoods - community-led change

• Expecting contribution - new forms of ‘jury service’

• New platforms for change - redefine public spaces

• Strengthening local government - weaken Whitehall

• Constitutional protections - balance of powers

Practical proposals:

Questions for tables:1. Which of our welfare rights should be stronger?

2. How could we encourage more citizen action?

3. What would strengthen families?

4. What would would help our communities flourish?

5. What changes are needed in local government?

6. What is the right role for national government?