Introduction
Social policy consists of legislation, principles and activities that countries employ to enhance the social conditions of their people.
Due to the emergence of democracy across the world, social policy has become an integral part of democracy as it supports human rights and further enhances the delivery of services in important sectors such as healthcare, housing, security, education, trade and labour amongst other essential social aspects of the society (Kennett 2004, p.91).
The basic objective of a social policy is to enhance equity and to improve human welfare by ensuring the accessibility and affordability of essential resources to all members of society. Thus, the kind of social policy possessed by a country reflects the extent of how its government satisfies the societal needs since poor social policy depicts a society deprived of its essential needs and deficient of human welfare.
Kennett (2004) argues that although the social policy is a discipline on its own, it greatly interfaces with economics, political science, legal studies, history and health disciplines for they all have a significant impact on the welfare of humanity (p.91).
Thus, social policy is a complex discipline that attracts other related disciplines making it a multidisciplinary field of study. Given the complexity of social policy as a multidisciplinary subject, this essay examines factors that contribute to differential evolution of social policy in various countries ultimately exploring comparative case studies of three countries, the United States, China, and Sweden.
Historical Perspectives
Social policy is a discipline that employs multidisciplinary approaches in the study of problems that affect social processes and the welfare of human beings in society. Social policy seeks to ensure that people receive essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, security and provision of food, water and employment to improve the lives of people.
Fundamentally, social policy aims at alleviating social problems that affect the wellbeing of humanity by ensuring that the government puts proper welfare structures in place to enhance accessibility and distribution of critical resources to the people. As a discipline, social policy is the study of social problems and wellbeing of humans.
The discipline emerged after the realisation that, disciplines like political science, sociology, economic, and history do not effectively examine social issues that society is grappling with (Esping-Andersen1990, p.9). Thus, social policy provides a wider examination of social issues, as it interfaces with all these disciplines. Therefore, social policy deals with everything that affects the wellbeing of humanity.
Social policy has evolved tremendously in the last three decades since social issues have been increasing due to globalisation. The economic system of capitalism that has swept across the world has enhanced inequality in many societies, thus necessitating social policy to reverse trends of inequality and improve the wellbeing of marginalised communities.
Although governments are making significant strides towards keeping abreast with the globalised forces of politics and economics, development have been trailing due to insufficient attention from policymakers. This means that the wellbeing of citizens has been gradually declining because social policy has not been created in tandem with the societal needs.
Inefficiency of social policy is evident in the wellbeing of indigenous people or marginalised communities for they are lagging behind when mainstream society is embracing and reaping varied benefits from globalisation.
Therefore, social policy helps in improving the wellbeing of marginalised communities and unprivileged citizens through the provision of essential resources such as: healthcare, housing, security, education, food, water and employment (Kennett 2004, p.91). If the government ensures that every citizen receives enough of these resources, it guarantees the wellbeing of the people and society.
Disparity in social expenditure in different countries is due to dissimilar approaches that welfare public policy and administration use in enhancing the wellbeing of citizens. Comparative theory of social policy has shown that four main approaches of social policy exist and can effectively elucidate disparity of social expenditure among nations.
Firstly, the deterministic approach views economic conditions as the determinant of social expenditure. In this approach, both local economy and international economy due to the advent of globalisation have a significant impact on social policy of a country. Secondly, political approach views that democracy enhances development of social policy because individuals have the freedom to advocate for the needs of the society.
The third approach views that cultural and social factors determine the nature of social policy of a country. This approach holds that social ideologies, cultural values and religious beliefs have a significant impact on the development of social policy.
While the fourth approach holds that structures of institutions in policy development determine the nature of social policy in a country, it, therefore, implies that countries with excellent policymaking structures have a good social policy, while those that have meagre policymaking structures have poor social policy (Mullard, & Spicker 1998, p.186).
Basing on regime theory, the welfare systems across the world depend on regimes for they have a strong influence on social aspects of society. According to the regime theory, three types of regimes exist that determine social policy systems in the society. These regimes are liberal, conservative and universal states (Hill 2006, p.25).
The first type of regime is a liberal state in which globalisation factors of free markets take precedence over welfare systems, as markets forces self-regulate satisfying demands of the society.
According to Esping-Andersen (1990), in a liberal regime, the government function is just to enhance efficiency of trade and economic growth through liberalisation, with minimal emphasis on development of social welfare systems (p.12). Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada are in this category.
The conservative state is the second type of regime in which a state plays a vital role in the development of social policy institutions and structures that enhance formulation of social policy. In the conservative state, neither democracy nor globalisation trends of free markets determine formulation of social policy, but instead nationalism matters. Countries that fall in this category include China, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan.
The third type of regime is the universal state because it seeks to uphold the highest principles that improve the wellbeing of humanity. Hill (2006) argues that these states are very democratic, valuing social rights for they seek to promote a high standard of equality in society (p.28).
Countries under this category are trying to get out of globalising forces that seem to cloud many countries, preventing them from perceiving the importance of social policy. Countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway fall under this category of regime.
Current Perspectives
Current trends of social policy across the world are under the influence of globalisation. Globalisation is a powerful political, economic and social ideology that is sweeping all countries to become one global nation, sharing common problems, demanding similar needs and requiring same policies (Pierson 2006, p.202).
Under the context of globalisation, countries are finding it hard to adopt conservative forms of state that have their own social policy. Since politics have a significant impact in the formulation of social policy, the influence of globalisation in the political arena consequently affects the development of social policy.
According to Kennett (2008), democracy is an overwhelming ideology in the globalisation of politics (p.12). Developed countries that have mature democracies tend to create a political environment that favours establishment and development of social policies.
For instance, a country like the United States have a good social policy because of a mature democracy, while developing countries like Zimbabwe have an immature democracy, which reflect a poor social policy.
Moreover, since the development of a social policy in a country is dependent on economic conditions, economic factors of globalisation affect the development of social policy.
Globalisation’s trend of liberalising markets is threatening the economies of many countries because free markets offer stiff competition in the business environment and thus do not provide a chance for uncompetitive goods from developing countries.
In essence, liberalised markets provided an opportunity for developed countries and mega-companies to monopolise and dominate markets. If the globalisation forces of liberalised markets threaten the existence of small companies and market share of developing countries, it means that economic growth and development gradually declines.
Pierson (2006) argues that nation-states are gradually losing their economic powers to international markets that regulate and determine the country’s capacity to survive in liberalised markets (p.201).
This means that the welfare system of a country is subject to a globalised economy. Countries that are uncompetitive in the liberalised markets will experience a decline in economic growth and development, which consequently hampers the establishment of social policy.
In contrast, social issues of globalisation such as the advocacy of human rights, cultural values and spread of religious beliefs enhance development of social policy. Due to technology, people living in the remotest corners of the world are able to keep abreast with social forces of globalisation that have transformed society into a global village.
Modern society can share common values and beliefs due to the advancement in information technology that hastens the transfer of information from civilized to uncivilized people.
Castells (2000) argues that information technology is transforming cultural and social aspects of society very fast, leading to the globalisation of societal values and beliefs (p.8). Therefore, information technology, as an aspect of globalisation is gradually establishing a global culture that favours formulation and development of social policy.
Development of social policy in contemporary society is dependent on the efforts of various players such as individual, non-governmental organisation and government (Mullard, & Spicker 1998, p.188). Individual members of the society play an integral role in the formulation, development and implementation of social policy, for they are at the receiving end of governance.
When a government issues orders, laws or polices, all citizens have a legal and moral responsibility of ensuring that no one is breaching those laws. Moreover, given that social policy deals wellbeing of citizens, individuals should demand better services that enhance their wellbeing and in so doing they participate in the formulation and implementation of social policy.
In times of crisis, non-governmental organisations help government in alleviating impacts of crises and improving wellbeing of the citizens.
According to Larner (2005), government uses structures and systems such as families, schools, communities, companies, media and political parties in imparting social policy into the society for people to adopt (p.53). These structures and systems are very important in the society for they reduce the burden of dealing with individual members of the society.
Critical Perspectives
Diversity in the society in terms of gender, race, sexuality and disabilities is creating inequality that classifies people into various classes of economic status and power. Society for a long time has gendered roles that suite men and women, and mostly women have experience marginalisation since men dominate in various roles (Jenson 2008, p. 135).
Since society perceives women as weak gender, issues and challenges affecting women have become part of social policy as a way of empowering them and enhancing their wellbeing. Feminists protest that the society has stereotyped roles of women to be inferior to the roles of men, thus undermining capabilities and wellbeing of women.
The Anglo-Western perspective of gender is to empower women through formulation of social policy that provide for affirmative action. According to Jenson (2008), feminists are advocating for the rights of women in social, political and economic aspects of society (p.136).
In the social aspect of society, feminists argue that women have the same abilities as men, but discrimination and stereotyping of their roles as inferior have been undermining their quest for a better life.
Feminists also assert that men have dominated politics and misused political powers in undermining women. Another view of feminists is that economic structure of society has placed women in low economic classes, thus receive economic oppression from their counterparts.
Ethnicity and race have created inequalities, in that marginalised ethnicities or races are trailing in aspects of human development such: as social, political and economics. For the government to empower different ethnicities, it must have appropriate social policy in place that identifies specific needs of the people in certain communities.
For instance, according to Morrissey (2006), the indigenous people of Australia suffered from marginalisation and discrimination for a long period because the government had no any social policy until prompted by other Commonwealth Countries (p.349). This means that social policy of indigenous or marginalised communities is not only a limited issue but also a global issue.
Disability and sexuality is a social issue that is slowly gaining recognition in social policy. People with disabilities and aberrant sexual orientations have formed part of minority groups who need recognition and protection of their rights. In the case of people with disabilities, various governments have made significant progress in gathering for their needs in spite of poor social policies.
Currently, many disabled people are receiving formal education and employment that have considerably improved their wellbeing in the society (Shima, Zolyomi, & Zaidi 2008, p.9). Regarding aberrant sexual orientation, gays and lesbians are advocating for their rights based on their perception of the society as having marginalised and discriminated against them.
Proponents of homosexuals are arguing that lesbians and gays need recognition in the society. According to Concannon (2008), the constitution and social policy provide good structures that would enhance wellbeing of homosexuals if formulated and implemented well (p.327). Therefore, social policy is central to promoting the rights and wellbeing of minority groups like homosexuals and people with disabilities in the modern society.
Comparative Case Studies
Comparative case studies show that different countries have different approaches of social policy depending on their social, political, cultural and economic conditions. Therefore, what are the approaches that countries like the United States, China and Sweden employ in their social policy? Regime theory classifies the United States as a liberalised state, due to their capitalistic economy and the liberalisation of their markets.
The United States does not place much emphasis on development of the welfare system since free trade and capitalism favours individualism. Issues that mainly dominate the United States social policy are health insurance, security, education, employment and inequality, but mainly occur at state levels.
Bailey, Harte and Sugden (1994) argue that the United States does not have an integrated welfare system because of factors such as federalism, capitalism and liberalised markets that favour individualism (p.9). Different states in the United States have their own unique social policy in sectors like health, security, education and housing due to federalism.
Capitalism and liberalised markets have provided a lucrative environment for private enterprises and non-governmental organisations to venture into the welfare system, making it complex and expensive.
China’s social policy mainly has it basis in political stability making it fall under the conservative states according to regime theory. In China, democracy and liberalisation of trades have no any impact in the development of social policy since political figures and nationalists are only aiming to achieve political expediency and the stability of their nation.
This means that the current wave of globalisation in terms of liberalisation of markets and democracy is threatening survival of China’s social policy. Li, Feng, and Gizelis (2008), argue that the current economic, social and political trends of globalisation have compelled the Chinese government to construct new social policies (p.6).
New social policies became essential because the liberalisation of capital and labour markets have affected traditional labour and trade systems tremendously, thus necessitating restructuring of both social and economic policy.
The restructuring of economic policy resulted in unprecedented unemployment, which aggravated inequality and increased the cost of living, hence compelling the government to formulate new social policies to address these issues.
Moreover, the family-planning policy of one-child significantly changed the demography of China in that extended families that provided support for the elderly diminished, leaving nuclear families that have no capacity to support the old in the society. Thus, the Chinese government had to gather for the needs of the elderly through social policy (Li, Feng, & Gizelis 2008, p.5)
Sweden is the ideal form of a welfare state, which belongs to the category of a universal state according to regime theory. Hantrais (2007) argues that the Swedish model of social policy is very advanced compared to the British model because it provides universal care to its citizens, enhancing equality (p.23).
Comparatively, in the European Union, Sweden has the highest social expenditure relative to Gross Domestic Product per head. According to social expenditure database, Sweden spends 35.2% of Gross Domestic product, while it has Gross Domestic Product of $28100 per head, which is the lowest in Europe and the entire world (Hill 2006, p.20).
Hence, factors that contributed to development of social policy in Sweden as a welfare state include its
Good policy institutions, stable economy, political commitment to social issues, and culture that favour social protection.
Therefore, comparative case studies have shown that social policy in different countries varies according to political, social, economic and cultural factors. The comparative case studies have shown that variability in social policy and social expenditure in developed countries is attributable to political, social, and cultural factors, while financial factors do not have a momentous impact.
For instance, according to Hill (2006), the United States has Gross Domestic Product per head of $37,600 and spends about 19.6% of this in public social expenditure, while Sweden has Gross Domestic Product per head of $28,100 but spends approximately 35.2% of it in social expenditure (p.20).
The statistics shows that Sweden spends significantly higher on social expenditure as compared to the United States. Therefore, the disparity is in social expenditure across nations depends on economic, social, cultural and political aspects of government since they have a significant impact in the formulation of social policy.
Conclusion
Social policy is an integral type of policy that every government needs to enhance provisions of essential services and resources such as healthcare, education, security, employment, housing and food, among other societal needs. Social policy has evolved considerably in the last three decades because inequality has been increasing following the globalising factors of capitalism, liberalised markets and economic crisis.
Although globalisation seems to pose a harmful blow in the progress of social policy, it has benefits in enhancing democracies, providing information technology and creating a global culture that promotes the wellbeing of humanity.
Literature reviews and comparative case studies have shown that different countries employ different approaches in developing social policy. Thus, the social policy possessed by any country depends on economic, social, cultural and political factors.
References
Bailey, D., Harte, G., & Sugden, R., 1994. Transnationals and Governments: Recent Policies in Japan, France, Germany, the United States, and Britain. London: Routledge.
Castells, M., 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. Malden: Blackwell Publishers
Concannon, L., 2008. Citizenship, Sexual Identity and Social Exclusion: Exploring
Issues in British and American Social Policy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28, (10), pp. 326-339.
Esping-Andersen, G., 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. United Kingdom: Polity Press
Hantrais, L., 2007. Social Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Press.
Hill, M., 2006. Social Policy in the Modern World: A Comparative Text. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jenson, J., 2008. Writing Women Out, Folding Gender In. Social Policy, 15(2), pp. 131-153.
Kennett, P., 2004. A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kennett, P., 2008. Governance, Globalisation, and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Larner, W., 2005. Analyzing Social Policy: A governmental Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Li, J., Feng, Y., & Gizelis, I., 2008. China’s New Social Security System in the Making: Problems and Prospects. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(1), pp. 5-23.
Morrissey, M., 2006. The Australian State and Indigenous People 1990-2006. Journal of Sociology, 42(4), pp. 347-354.
Mullard, M., & Spicker, P., 1998. Social Policy in a Changing Society. London: Routledge,
Pierson, C., 2006. Beyond the Welfare State? The New Political Economy of Welfare. United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Shima, I., Zolyomi, E., & Zaidi, A., 2008. The Labour Market Situation of People with Disabilities in Europe. European Center for Social Welfare, pp.1-18.