Summary
The essence of the welfare state is that the government uses the concept of a political line, in which the state is the main guarantor of the social and economic security of the population. At the same time, the principles of equal opportunities and the distribution of wealth among all residents are used, including social responsibility for those citizens who cannot adequately provide for their lives. As for the welfare state of the United Kingdom, it received an impetus for evolution at the beginning of the 20th century and has undergone various changes over the past 50 years. The state’s social security has developed, improving various areas of society, including socially accessible housing. Thus, the ideology has always been adjusted to the population’s needs, has undergone amendments in social welfare policies, and now has sufficient capacity to help.
History
Despite today’s successes in the development of the economy and the social sphere within the country, UK has previously experienced hard times in matters of welfare. In the 19th century, the country endured significant economic difficulties, among which one of the main ones was the prohibitively high level of unemployment and the poor (Mommsen, 2018). As a result, the state reformed the workhouses that provided food and shelter. However, for this, people were required to perform hard and dangerous work. Thus, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, one can speak of a selective ideology (Lewis, 2018). In this approach, a distinction was made among the poor between those considered worthy and deserving of pity and those perceived as a burden on the state and taxpayers.
At the same time, since the middle of the 20th century, the system has been conditioned by reforms and changes. The devastating consequences of the Second World War for the world community led the United Kingdom to an increased role of the state in society (Mommsen, 2018). As a result, the government’s ideology changed and aimed at helping the entire population without distinguishing gradations. The population was partially provided with housing, food, clothing and fuel for heating houses.
Various Social Policy and Ideological Perspectives
In this regard, members of the government apparatus are beginning to think about ways to improve people’s lives. The Beveridge Report of 1942 had a national ideology aimed at providing a fixed insurance scheme to those in need (George, 2018). Due to this, liberalism became a critical ideology, and to help the population, it was proposed to introduce a mandatory insurance system for every inhabitant (Kourkouta et al., 2020). It would have a certain fixed rate that would cover medical care, pension and social benefits, and unemployment.
However, within this approach, there was still a conservative ideology, as Beveridge emphasized the need for unemployment payments only for half a year. Thus, after the expiration of the period, support depended on the work or training of each individual person (Jaelani et al., 2020). The contention was based on the fact that, under other circumstances, the population could abuse the system and live solely on state benefits (Greener, 2022). The basis for the concept of the report was the retention of employees and meant that a long period of time without work could be regarded as normal.
With regard to socially accessible housing, at that time, there was an acute issue of housing soldiers and people whose homes were destroyed by the war. Their constant complaints and demands for accommodation began to widen the problem (Greener, 2022). Thus, different parties of the post-war period in the government conducted social programs in the framework of housing construction for the needy (Wilson & Wilson, 2021). As result, stability was achieved in matters of long-term rental of social housing and assistance in the payment of utility bills. After that, social housing development has undergone enough changes over the past 50 years.
The Beveridge Report gave rise to the modern welfare state in Great Britain and these social policies affected the poor. Various segments of the population reacted favorably to Beveridge’s proposals for benefits and payments (McCashin, 2018). However, years of conservative ideology influenced the opinion of people who were skeptical about the passage of these laws (Moseley, 2021). Despite the fact that, according to the proposals made, a person could become a hostage to hard work or remain unemployed, the report radically changed the position of the poor in society.
Impact on Society
First of all, this concerned people who, in the war and post-war times, were affected by large-scale unemployment and lack of housing. In this case, people who have difficulty with work could receive certain benefits to buy everything they need (Moseley, 2021). Together with social housing rental programs, the poorest segments of the population were provided with a relatively good life (Robson, 2018). However, the Beveridge Report did not correct their situation but supported them in material ways through the payments of working people. This was his main problem since the post-war devastation required decisive action and significant improvements. Accordingly, not only the payment of benefits was needed, but an increase in the budget for the restoration of the country (Robson, 2018). In this area, Beveridge’s report seems to be quite lengthy since he focuses on the elimination of the five evils.
However, for its time, the report became a hope for hundreds of thousands of those in need. At the same time, the state faced the impossibility of financial obligations due to the lack of funds in the budget. The obsolescence of want and unemployment is seen as a noble goal to be achieved by Great Britain as a welfare state (Robson, 2018). Nevertheless, widespread acclaim and support from the population could be dangerous, as the proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the solvency of the working people and the country’s reserves.
People in various industries were worried about the difficulty of what their position in society would be. The report implied that doctors had been treated as civil servants since the law was passed, which could significantly reduce their earnings (Rossi, 2018). In addition, as part of the changes, the state was to play the role of an industrial guarantee society, which elicited mixed reactions from them. This took away some of their power and ability to distribute price limits. On the part of employers, the question was raised about the advisability of making contributions for the unemployed and how this will affect the economy of companies (Rossi, 2018). Nevertheless, the inhabitants remained unconvinced, announcing the report as a revolution without bloodshed. At the same time, poor people feared that large corporations would not let the report’s provisions pass into society and were skeptical about the state’s intentions (Offe, 2018). Seeing the mood of the people, the state tried to fulfill the set conditions as much as possible. Thus, it reflects the position of sections of the population in England during the period of Conservative and Labor ideology and the Beveridge Report.
In the years that followed, the problem of social housing continued to persist, coupled with rising property prices and continued unemployment. However, the 1980s marked a turning point in this area for the English community (Titmuss, 2019). Conservative parties increasingly took part in and led the state, which was marked by shifts in social welfare (Offe, 2018). At this time, the government gave formal consent to current tenants to buy social houses with their subsequent sale at a significant discount. However, there were a number of other problems requiring close attention and use of the country’s budget.
First of all, local authorities experienced more difficulties with resources. Accordingly, the management and construction of social housing represented a serious constraint to the achievement of a great welfare state (Barr, 2020). At the same time, the level of construction continued to decline rapidly and people suffered from a shortage of social housing. As support of the idea of a welfare state and better conditions for the poor, the UK government proposed a housing law (Gottschalk, 2018). This can be regarded as an attempt to return to the construction of socially significant dwellings, which would be conducted under the guidance of associations.
For a while, this approach improved the situation and some of the houses were commissioned. However, this did not change the root of the problem and difficulties with social housing continued to plague the country (Barr, 2020). The main shortcoming can be called the fact that not all providers of social housing can come close to the resources and powers necessary for the full implementation of large-scale construction (Titmuss, 2019). This resulted in the sale of social homes outpacing their replacement. Thus, the authorities did not have enough housing to offer to those in need.
Another problem was the impossibility of a clear classification of the state ideology as a country of prosperity. Many scientists proposed their own classifications, and one of them was the sociologist Esping-Andersen, who proposed three types of states (McEnhill & Taylor‐Gooby, 2018). The author presented the models as the main directions of social policy in the economically developed countries of the Western world. Divisions are based on ideology and offer the following criteria: level of decommodification, stratification of society, government intervention (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Decommodification represents the level of strength of social benefits in the country and the degree of immunization of the market dependence of the well-being of citizens.
Thus, the sociologist distinguishes three regimes of the modern welfare state. The conservative or conservative regime is inherent, for the most part, in the Franco-German group. There is a high level of decommodification and a strong stratification of different strata of society (Smith, 2018). Moreover, within this system, the state directly exerts its influence on the provision of financial security and the constant regulation of markets. The conservative principle of the welfare state includes statist and corporate social policies (Offe, 2018). This implies the existence of separate programs aimed at various professional and status groups of society, depending on their labor contribution to the economy.
Moreover, the conservative regime of the state preserves the primordial traditions of society. First of all, adherence to religious doctrines is widespread in the countries of this model (Esping-Andersen, 1990). In some countries of this regime, a special pension fund based on occupation types is common. In addition, the conservative model focuses on family politics, where the woman is seen as the head of the family (Marquart-Pyatt et al., 2019). Thus, it can be characterized as a traditional approach to building a welfare state.
Great Britain has long stood in the way of conservatism as the main ideology of the country. At the same time, the poor strata of the population felt themselves oppressed and useless to the state (Marquart-Pyatt et al., 2019). This was explained by the fact that the main policy of the conservative parties was aimed at preserving the privileges of the middle and upper classes (Spielauer et al., 2020). As a result, the demand of the people for the provision of social housing increased, as the ruling parties did not set themselves the goal of correcting this situation.
Despite the fact that social housing as a policy dates back to the 19th century, before Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative branch of the government did not pay due attention to the issue. In the post-war period, housing was provided on conditions bordering on the absurd, where people were forced to huddle in families in small rooms (Bettache & Chiu, 2019). In addition, the population had to look for work for partial contributions, which was almost impossible with the unemployment rate prevailing in those years. Thus, one can conclude that the position of the lower class at that time was quite deplorable and helpless (Koch & James, 2022). At the same time, the middle and upper classes had the opportunity and resources for a decent existence, which caused discontent among the people.
Along with conservatism, Esping-Andersen singles out the social democratic regime of the welfare state. It is based on a high level of decommodification and a weak stratification of society. At the same time, the state directly intervenes in social policy and has a direct provision of financial security (Natter et al., 2020). The original concept of the regime was based on the concentration of public funds. Their goal was to support trade unions and any other democratic public organizations (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Subsequently, the funds extended their influence to all citizens of the state, who could claim equal benefits, regardless of their labor contribution and the degree of need for material assistance. Thus, the main difference from conservatism lies in the fact that social-democratic countries allocate benefits to everyone, regardless of their length of service and needs.
In the UK there are parties aimed at the social and democratic development of the country. This direction was most widespread in the 1990s, and at the moment, the parties are promoting a social market economy. Among other things, the model advocates balancing the commitment of the enterprise and the market (Esping-Andersen, 1990). This is due to the support of the tax code, more progressively in line with modern realities, and a significant increase in the municipal housing stock (Green-Pedersen & Jensen, 2019). Moreover, the regime pays significant attention to legal assistance to the population and changes in the provision of universal credit. Thus, the need for social housing has declined during this government model.
With this ideology, all social groups in the society have equal rights and stratification becomes less noticeable. People have more opportunities to receive social housing and a decent existence in society (Esping-Andersen, 1990). In addition, payments, including for housing, according to the main doctrine of the Social Democrats, no longer depend on seniority and contributions made to the country’s economy. Thus, people can receive the help they need regardless of their situation.
The sociologist Esping-Andersen in his book “The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,” calls the liberal regime characteristic of the modern ideology of Great Britain the third model. The state is characterized by low levels of decommodification with a strong stratification of society (Schoonvelde et al., 2019). At the same time, state intervention occurs at the level of market regulation. The principle of social assistance is based on a residual approach in which minimum needs are defined. As a result, benefits are provided to the poor, incapacitated and low-income segments of the population, who themselves are not able to earn a livelihood.
Under the liberal regime, the UK encourages private sector development, including social assistance. This combines the distribution of housing for the needy on the basis of non-state activities (Schoonvelde et al., 2019). The state adheres to strict limitations in the provision of social assistance and always checks the expectation of it (Esping-Andersen, 1990). In addition, the United Kingdom has a system in which the government takes care of all workers. The model is entirely government-run and partly financed with taxpayer money. This allows one to pay timely compensation in the event of a sudden loss of work or ability to work (Greve, 2020). At the same time, the presence of an industrial injury implies financial and housing assistance from the state.
Furthermore, the book “The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism” by Esping-Andersen highlights the basic principles of the welfare state. First of all, this refers to the formulation of the phenomenon since due to the complex components, it is difficult to conduct a single definition (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Thus, the author reduces the main idea of the welfare state to a method of government in which the institutions of government provide all citizens with basic economic needs and security (Greve, 2020). Moreover, within the framework of the established system, the task of the state is reduced to responsibility for the well-being of people in the personal and public spheres of society.
These points, among other things, reflect the current state of the United Kingdom in matters of caring for citizens. These items include the implementation of housing policy by the parties that form the government (Azevedo et al., 2019). The country notes a constant increase in funding in this area with the aim of a more favorable solution to the problem. Liberal policy is to consider social housing as a form of market (Dukelow & Kennett, 2018). Thus, the United Kingdom intervenes in the system in three ways. These paths include the availability of land and its prices for subsequent construction, project financing and subsidies.
All these factors contribute to the successful development of the social housing sector. First of all, unused or surplus land owned by the state is considered as a source of available building space (Hepp et al., 2020). However, the implementation of this paragraph is possible if the state authorities have permission to sell land at a cost below their market price. In addition, the UK has launched mechanisms to help determine the value of land (Dukelow & Kennett, 2018). This is an effective way to sell private land, the cost of which can be directed to the construction of social housing in the secondary market.
In addition, the policy of social housing depends on the distribution of finances. More than a hundred local authorities in the UK have relationships with housing companies. They finance the construction and supply of social housing, receiving funds from general funds (Le Grand & Robinson, 2018). Moreover, the UK has installed a financial aggregator that helps in the distribution of investment (Dermont & Weisstanner, 2020). At the same time, state-supported investment banks are, in some cases, seen as a cheaper and more practical source for long-term financing. Thus, the country has enough sources for social housing and the ability to provide citizens with the necessary shelter.
The third factor that determines social housing policy is subsidies. The government of the country allocates a certain housing allowance budget as the main mode of accessibility (Taylor-Gooby et al., 2019). This gives confidence to investors and developers in the availability of the budget and financial cushion (Goodin & Le Grand, 2018). Other methods of subsidizing the country’s housing policy include revolving funds, which are seen as equity models. In addition, the government offers revenue subsidies, including guarantees, which the state maintains and is responsible for their implementation.
Thus, the UK views housing policy from the perspective of a liberal regime. This defines housing problems and their solutions as a market that can be regulated by funding and subsidies (Abou‐Chadi & Immergut, 2019). The role of the state is aimed at solving the main problems with the lack of accommodation for the country’s residents and refugees. However, at present, policymakers, welfare recipients, providers or stakeholders are still experiencing difficulties in implementing accessibility.
Contemporary Issues
First of all, this is due to the influx of refugees recently, and especially this year. The problem is that in order to receive social housing benefits, people must have legal residence status in the country (Abou‐Chadi & Immergut, 2019). At the same time, the influx of arrivals is quite large, which requires the state to implement construction projects (Karakusevic & Batchelor, 2019). The political agenda of the representatives of the country must change and adapt to modern needs. This causes some difficulties since the introduction of new measures to meet realities takes time and official approval of citizens.
In addition, recipients of social benefits face queues to obtain their status in the country. This leads to the fact that for a long time people are forced to stay in cramped conditions (Lubbers et al., 2018). As a result, many people stay in rented accommodations where they spend their last savings (Lubbers et al., 2018). Moreover, some citizens of the country accept refugees into their homes. However, this conduces to embarrassment and inconvenience for both families. Thus, beneficiaries in many cases, have to wait a long time to receive comprehensive assistance from the state.
Another issue for policymakers and stakeholders is the level of homelessness in the country. This is seen as a complex issue since the situation of people can be of varying degrees of difficulty (Wakely, 2020). In particular, a sufficient percentage of people do not know how to use the right to housing to the extent required by the state (Czischke & van Bortel, 2018). Some do not follow the basic rules of looking after their children and maintaining a decent home. In addition, the problem for housing providers lies in the financial nature of the problem (Van Bortel et al., 2019). The level of homelessness is extremely difficult to track, as it is never even relatively permanent (Anacker, 2019). First of all, the nature of homelessness is constantly changing and is not a fixed state. From time to time, people stay in hostels or shelters and then return to the street again. In addition, many of them do not have documents confirming their citizenship and identity, which prevents them from receiving benefits.
In conclusion, it should be said that the social policy of the United Kingdom has undergone significant changes over the past 50 years. The modern welfare state in Britain begins with the Beveridge Report, which put forward welfare principles. Due to this, people in the post-war period could receive what they needed and were partially provided with housing. Subsequently, an active policy for the development of social housing was carried out by conservative parties under the auspices of Margaret Thatcher. At this time, the conditions of construction were significantly improved and the construction system was improved. Currently, the country is following a liberal model under which people receive subsidies and significant benefits when looking for social housing.
References
Abou‐Chadi, T., & Immergut, E. M. (2019). Recalibrating social protection: Electoral competition and the new partisan politics of the welfare state. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 697-719.
Anacker, K. B. (2019). Introduction: Housing affordability and affordable housing. International Journal of Housing Policy, 19(1), 1-16.
Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T., & Sterling, J. (2019). Neoliberal ideology and the justification of inequality in capitalist societies: Why social and economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 49-88.
Barr, N. (2020). Economics of the welfare state. Oxford University Press.
Bettache, K., & Chiu, C. Y. (2019). The invisible hand is an ideology: Toward a social psychology of neoliberalism.Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 8-19.
Czischke, D., & van Bortel, G. (2018). An exploration of concepts and polices on ‘affordable housing’in England, Italy, Poland and The Netherlands.Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1-21.
Dermont, C., & Weisstanner, D. (2020). Automation and the future of the welfare state: Basic income as a response to technological change?. Political Research Exchange, 2(1), 17-36.
Dukelow, F., & Kennett, P. (2018). Discipline, debt and coercive commodification: Post-crisis neoliberalism and the welfare state in Ireland, the UK and the USA. Critical Social Policy, 38(3), 482-504.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
George, V. (2018). Social security: Beveridge and after. Routledge.
Gottschalk, M. (2018). The Shadow Welfare State. Cornell University Press.
Goodin, R. E., & Le Grand, J. (2018). Not only the poor: The middle classes and the welfare state. Routledge.
Le Grand, J., & Robinson, R. (Eds.). (2018). Privatisation and the welfare state. Routledge.
Greener, I. (2022). The ‘New Five Giants’—Conceptualising the challenges facing societal progress in the 21st century. Social Policy & Administration, 56(2), 329-342.
Green-Pedersen, C., & Jensen, C. (2019). Electoral competition and the welfare state. West European Politics, 42(4), 803-823.
Greve, B. (2020). Austerity, retrenchment and the welfare state: Truth or fiction?. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hepp, A., Jarke, J., & Kramp, L. (2022). New perspectives in critical data studies: The ambivalences of data power. Springer Nature.
Jaelani, A. K., Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., & Karjoko, L. (2020). Development of tourism based on geographic indication towards to welfare state. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(3s), 1227-1234.
Karakusevic, P., & Batchelor, A. (2019). Social housing: Definitions and design exemplars. Routledge.
Koch, I., & James, D. (2022). The state of the welfare state: Advice, governance and care in settings of austerity. Ethnos, 87(1), 1-21.
Kourkouta, L., Sialakis, C., Iliadis, C., Mihalache, A. M., Krepia, V., Sapountzi-Krepia, D., & Kaptanoglu, A. Y. (2020). The impact of the economic crisis in the welfare state. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 13(3), 22-78.
Lewis, J. (Ed.). (2018). Gender, social care and welfare state restructuring in Europe. Routledge.
Lubbers, M., Diehl, C., Kuhn, T., & Larsen, C. A. (2018). Migrants’ support for welfare state spending in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.Social Policy & Administration, 52(4), 895-913.
Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Qian, H., Houser, M. K., & McCright, A. M. (2019). Climate change views, energy policy preferences, and intended actions across welfare state regimes: Evidence from the European Social Survey. International Journal of Sociology, 49(1), 1-26.
McEnhill, L., & Taylor‐Gooby, P. (2018). Beyond continuity? Understanding change in the UK welfare state since 2010.Social Policy & Administration, 52(1), 252-270.
McCashin, A. (2018). Continuity and change in the welfare state: Social security in the Republic of Ireland. Springer.
Mommsen, W. (Ed.). (2018). The emergence of the welfare state in Britain and Germany: 1850-1950. Routledge.
Moseley, K. L. (2021). From Beveridge Britain to Birds Eye Britain: shaping knowledge about ‘healthy eating’in the mid-to-late twentieth-century. Contemporary British History, 35(4), 515-544.
Natter, K., Czaika, M., & De Haas, H. (2020). Political party ideology and immigration policy reform: an empirical enquiry.Political Research Exchange, 2(1), 12-25.
Offe, C. (2018). Contradictions of the welfare state. Routledge.
Robson, W. A. (2018). Welfare state and welfare society: illusion and reality. Routledge.
Rossi, A. (2018). Gender and the life course. Routledge.
Smith, S. R. (2018). The Centre-Left and New Right Divide?: Political Philosophy and Aspects of UK Social Policy in the Era of the Welfare State. Routledge.
Schoonvelde, M., Brosius, A., Schumacher, G., & Bakker, B. N. (2019). Liberals lecture, conservatives communicate: Analyzing complexity and ideology in 381,609 political speeches.PloS one, 14(2), 8-17.
Spielauer, M., Horvath, T., Fink, M., Abio, G., Souto, G., Patxot, C., & Istenič, T. (2020). MicroWELT.: Microsimulation Projection of Full Generational Accounts from a Comparative Welfare State Perspective: Results for Spain, Austria, Finland, and the UK. Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
Taylor-Gooby, P., Hvinden, B., Mau, S., Leruth, B., Schoyen, M. A., & Gyory, A. (2019). Moral economies of the welfare state: A qualitative comparative study.Acta Sociologica, 62(2), 119-134.
Titmuss, R. (2019). Essays on the welfare state (reissue). Policy Press.
Van Bortel, G., Gruis, V., Nieuwenhuijzen, J., & Pluijmers, B. (2019). Affordable Housing Governance and Finance. London and New York: Routledge.
Wakely, P. (2020). Partnership: a strategic paradigm for the production & management of affordable housing & sustainable urban development. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 12(1), 119-125.
Wilson, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2021). The political economy of the welfare state. Routledge.