Research Topics: Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy

src=”http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js”> Introduction Good governance comprises the rule of law, effective state institutions, transparency and accountability in the management of public affairs, respect for human rights, and the meaningful participation of all citizens in the political processes of their countries and in decisions affecting their lives (Babst, DV, 1964: 9-14). In the past, the idea of holding free and fair elections has dominated the thinking and therefore the means and the goals of most operations (Gibson, 1998). Just as there are many definitions of peacekeeping, there are also many definitions of democracy (Zakaria, 1997:22). A “democratically elected” government is all that many people require for democracy (Zakaria, 1997:22). For them, the modern view of democracy is satisfied once elections are held. However, further inquiry into the subject will often elicit other requirements for true democracy–requirements such as the rule of law, protection of individual and human rights, protection of minority rights, separation of governmental powers, checks and balances of power, and protection of private property rights. Clearly, something more than elections are required before a country can be said to have a democratic government–rather than merely having a democratically-elected government. It is “liberal democracy” that has the power to bring lasting peace and stability that can come from mere free and fair elections. The term democracy, as used in this paper, refers to a liberal democracy that is designed not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. It is a democracy based on fundamental human rights, sound governmental structures that control the powers of those who govern, and the rule of law.  Basically, liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where elected legislative body that hold the power to decide are moderated by a constitution that accentuates defending individual autonomy and the minorities’ rights in society.   Discussion Liberal democracy is now the leading form of government not only in the West but also in the Union Soviet community. Moreover, it shows to be gaining significant ground in other parts of the world (Zakaria, F. 1997: 22). Despite this scattering pressure, there is a variety of heaviness that has the potential to threaten liberal democratic systems, even in well established organisation. Undoubtedly, in cases where constitutional government is still in its influential stages, as in Russia, liberal and democratic practices are liable to encounter major obstacles. Constitution-making has become an international and comparative exercise in a way that it rarely was in the century before 1989. International in the sense that the involvement of experts and practitioners across state boundaries has been welcomed, indeed encouraged, to the point at which a new democracy that excluded foreigners entirely from its constitutional process might stamp itself as definitely insular, even fairly expect. The post-1989 period has been a time of constitutional liberation. In this period, democracy has been marketed aggressively as a product that ought to be available to everyone. Even if purchases of off-the-shelf varieties are a bit dangerous and tailor-made versions are preferred, the implication is that those with less experience can profit from consulting those with more (Reynolds, 2002: 152). Western governments have been forthcoming with assistance although some, fearing being held responsible for the results, were slow off the mark; a spate of non-governmental organisations has sprung up to meet the demand and to create it where it was slow to arise; the United Nations and other international organisations have responded; and professional bodies such as the American Bar Association have gathered groups of merchants, lawyers, and judges eager to give out ready-made constitutional passages on appeal. If the nineteenth was the century of Christian missionaries, the twenty-first may be considered as the century of constitutional missionaries (Reynolds, 2002: 152). If it is true that designs are not generally adopted, that does not render constitutional design an unimportant subject. It is a naive view of the relation of ideas to institutions that concludes that ideas are insignificant just because organisations do not reflect them completely or rapidly. The intricate pathway of democracy itself, from 1680 to 1789 to 1989, makes this clear enough. Ideas are contested by other ideas, ideas are met with a variety of non-ideational barriers, and even ideas that survive these tests must go further: they must be put in adoptable forms, they must be legitimised by opinion leaders and opinion-leading states, and they must be seen to be in the interests of those who must approve their adoption before they find their way into institutions (Reynolds, 2002: 150-160). In the case of constitutional design, the battle of ideas is not over, non-ideational obstacles are strong, it is still early days in terms of constitutional iterations, the interests affected by adoption are not uniform, and retrogression is possible after adoption. As Nigerians looked to the United States in 1978, so, too, have many countries aimed to resemble Switzerland rather than Nigeria, even though their problems may have resembled Nigeria’s more than Switzerland’s. Success attracts admirers, although success may imply an easier problem that may have made possible the adoption of institutions that are held, in retrospect, to be responsible for the success. Severely divided societies need to look to other severely divided societies that have made some progress in reducing conflict, rather than to societies that are less severely divided, especially if the reduction of divisions in the less divided countries can causally be attributed to political institutions that antedate the onset of democracy (Reynolds, 2002: 150-160). Democracy is something that is not easily achieved and not easily maintained. Protecting democracy is one of the aims of the state (Gleditsch, NP 1995: 321). One of the means to protect democracy is through surveillance of the threats to the state.             In current usage, democracy is often described to be the similar as liberal democracy. This existing idea of democracy to a large degree changes from how the term was at first defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political establishment.  On the other hand, some individual speculate that the link between peace and democracy may be due to the geographic proximity of Western democracies, or to their high degree of economic development, or to intensive mutual trade. This is a claim that there is an intermediate variable in the democracy-peace correlation. Conversely, Nils Petter Gleditsch (1995) eradicated geographic distance as a factor.              On the other hand, several individuals believe that there is no system that can preferably arrange society and that democracy is not ethically ideal. Moreover, the essence of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in conformity, it is acceptable to harm the minority. The opposition to this point of view say that in a liberal democracy where conscientious minority groups are restricted from being targeted, majorities and minorities in fact obtain a perceptibly different form on every issue; therefore, majorities will generally be cautious to take into account the contest of the minority, lest they eventually grow to be part of a minority on a potential democratic verdict. Actually, liberalism is the view according to which states exist primarily for the sake of protecting individuals and their rights (Zakaria, F. 1997:22). That is, on the liberal view, states exist not for the sake of the salvation of individuals, but rather for the sake of creating and maintaining conditions under which each individual can live as he sees fit or according to his own conception of the good life, within the constraint that he respects the right of others to do the same. In line with this, some may argue that liberal democracy is not actually democratic or even liberal especially in making serious decision in which the general welfare is at stake. Let say for example, in war, the majorities cannot insist or cast votes to push minorities to war in order to make them safe. But we can only say that liberal democracy can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship.             Apparently, there are global political events point toward the need to give serious philosophical attention to the relationship between human rights, democracy, and peace. While each of these ideals has independently enjoyed expanding recognition since the end of the Second World War, there has also been widespread reluctance to assert a necessary linkage between them. Much of the reluctance stems from the persistent tension that exists in the international system between the universality of human rights and the traditional primacy of state sovereignty.             Further, it is very important to remember that democracy and peace are not timeless but historical social concepts. Although some may explain war as a result of innate violence, as structured aggression it assumes socially-controlled use, and originates in definite historical forms. For political scientists no less than for political practitioners, peace and democracy often seem to be natural partners. We are told that democracies do not go to war with each other, and the prospects of armed conflicts are said to be further enhanced by the high profile of the military in many non-democratic regimes.       Conclusions In conclusion, a significant point to be raised here is that even though democracies hardly, if ever, go to war with each other, they are generally hostile to non-democracies. As a result, democracies are hardly immune from engaging in war, at least with non-democracies. In Kant’s view, the peaceful resolution of conflicts is a characteristic of “mature,” stable democracies that reject the incessant preparation for war and embrace the ideals of social justice and nonviolence. Actually, liberal democracy or any other type of democracy aims to prohibit war and promotes welfare of its people. The possibility for attaining a just and lasting peace for all peoples is one reason since it would be permissible, indeed obligatory, for mature democracies (or those democracies striving for maturity) to exert greater diplomatic and legal pressure for democratic reform and the protection of equal human rights. In other words, actively promoting global democracy and human rights is essential to the pursuit of perpetual peace.             Basically, attaining world’s peace is merely a hard thing to achieve.  Actually, peace is not in democracy or even in liberal type of democracy but it is on how a certain state or individual practiced any type of democracy.             References: Babst, Dean V.,(1964).  “Elective Governments: A Force for Peace,” Wisconsin    Sociologist,  pp. 9-14.   Gleditsch, Nils Petter (1995), “Geography, Democracy, and Peace,”International Interactions, Vol. 20, pp. 297 323.     Reynolds, A. (Ed.). (2002). The architecture of democracy: constitutional design,   conflict management, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.         pp. 150-161.     Gibson, S. (1998) The Misplaced Reliance on Free and Fair Elections in Nation Building: The Role of Constitutional Democracy and the Rule of Law. Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 21.   Zakaria, F. (Nov.-Dec. 1997) The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign affairs.  22.     Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Liberal Democracy

src=”http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js”> Introduction Good governance comprises the rule of law, effective st...

Liberalism

OBJECTIVES As a person with knowledge of liberalism in the 1960s, the author has always brought up to his superiors the viability of strategy formation regarding its analysis and at times fails to understand the reasons or logic behind certain strategic implementations imposed on it. By delving into this project paper, the author intends to have better insights into how liberalism in the 1960’s were thought up, formulated and then imparted down. The author hopes to have an in-depth understanding as to how the liberalism in the 1960s enabled the people in that generation to compete effectively and profitably in that era of internationalization where competition was extremely intense. In order to reinforce the learning objectives, two key focal issues were focussed upon i.e. innovation and diversity. Innovation was discussed with regard to liberalism in the 1960’s where it was renowned for its developmental capabilities to constantly innovate. Diversity came under strategic thinking and formation as the author considered the diverse culture, political climate, economic surroundings, social environment, technological settings, government policies and legal systems in order to better understand the state of liberalism in the 1960s.    INTRODUCTION Liberalism in the 1960s was characterized by freedom of choice and expression. It can be defined as the efficient and effective implementation of the individual’s will and decision-making power necessary to satisfy his / her needs. In the perspective of mass media, freedom of choice and expression focuses on the careful management of the processes involved in an individual’s pursuit of the correct choice, whether to agree or not (Curran, 2001). Unlike in the 1960s, ordinary people like us don’t really have the capabilities to fully exercise our freedom of choice and expression nowadays. Instead, we engage in activities that various schools of mass media typically associate with exercising freedom of choice and expression, such as whether the “medium is the message” or not. Other activities include the manufacturing of mass media products, mass media development, production and distribution (McChesney, 1997). However, liberalism must deal with all aspects aside from the realm of mass media. Activities such as the management of choices, the control of the freedom endowed on individuals, and evaluations are often associated with freedom of choice and expression. A great deal of emphasis lies on the efficiency and effectiveness of this freedom.   The occurrence of liberalism in the 1960s reflects the growing difficulty for the people during that time to freely express their actions and expressions. And even ordinary people were no exception to these. This is the reason why liberalism flourished in the 1960s so people can have the choice to determine the most effective ways to express their actions through the application of methods derived from fields of studies such as literature, mathematics, science, and art. Through liberalism, problems involving freedom of expression were solved in different ways and alternative solutions were then relayed to the people. The people then selected the appropriate course of action in line with their skills, actions and personal goals. More often than not, liberalist outputs in the 1960s were concerned with complicated issues such as top-level strategy, resource allocation, designing of facilities and systems, and the analysis of large databases. Liberalist ideas actually may vary according to the ideas and philosophy of the individual. But in the 1960s, liberalism was centralized in mass media. This scenario brought the possibility of working closely with top level managers in order to identify and solve a variety of problems into reality. Liberalism in the 1960s had four main objectives: A)   Remain one of the top ideologies in terms of educating and entertaining people. Being one of the top ideologies upholding liberty enabled liberalism to command the respect and confidence of the public in the 1960s. Thus, liberalism was able to expand its influence through the acquisition of other liberalist disciples (Henman, 1988). B)    Gain more following and support than other ideologies. The principles that were laid down in the foundation of liberalist outputs in the 1960s were able to meet the high quality standards of the public. As a result, liberalism was able to earn the respect of more people as against other ideologies (Taras, 2001). C)    Establish liberalism as the best ideology in that era; and D)   Maintaining its independence. Being an independent ideology allowed liberalism in the 1960s to continue its tradition of excellence in both its principles and services by setting new trends and standards until today. US and Conservatism Today The United States has been able to maintain its reputation as one of the world’s leading conservative countries for more than 130 years now. It is able to face the challenges and criticism in its conservative culture directly. This is made possible by the effective promotional and positional strategies aimed to deliver not only the growth of conservative philosophy, but also on building down the foundation of conservatism’s principles within the country. The promotional campaigns and strategies of conservative groups in the US are focused mainly on driving the growth of its teachings and improving the credibility and popularity of conservatism among the public. These campaigns have also helped secure significant acquisitions and partnerships, even among prominent figures and clans in the US. And more importantly, these campaigns have led to the release of the potentials of the conservative Americans, thus building a quality performance- based culture. The promotional strategies of conservatism in the US are practically reinforced by the citizens themselves. These moves certainly allow the conservative philosophy to grow even more without the costs of introducing new teachings. These efforts have resulted in increased acceptance of conservatism in the US for the last 30 years or so. It is interesting to know the basic reasons why the US has become more conservative in the last 30 years or so. ·        Mental Stability Mental stability is crucial especially in the pursuit of the correct decision as well as the management and development of the processes accompanying it. Americans in the last 30 years or so have given so much importance in remaining updated with the latest developments to be able to stay aware and knowledgeable in all issues. ·         Performance and Credibility The production of America’s best outputs comes as a result of conservative activities. The strong performance of their products and outputs in the market could also be linked to the conservative strategic planning and human resource mobilization of the US. Thus, their credibility increases as their performance becomes better (Gitlin, 1980). ·        Conservative Planning and Strategy Formation Planning and strategy formation nowadays in the US has created the need for Americans to become conservative especially in the area of marketing themselves. This is because the access to strong distribution channels is critical for their continued existence. ·        Conservative Decision-making Upon arriving at the correct decision or choice using conservative options, Americans now gains confidence in their ability to make critical decisions or choices especially when their integrity is on the line. Thus, they will now search for even more challenges and opportunities where they could further enhance their decision-making abilities regarding conservative issues.   ·        Conservative Mindset of Issues Through the exposure to various conservative issues, Americans along the process are able to develop a conservative mindset regarding the issues surrounding them. They now become a keen observer of the truths and lies surrounding the issue being tackled, instead of relying on mere hearsays. The continuous pursuit of the truth behind the puzzling issues enables the Americans to consistently practice and enhance a healthy and conservative mindset which makes it difficult for detractors to give influence. Because of this conservative approach, the Americans are able to effectively select the right choice and continue to maximize this potential for future use (Douglas, 1986). CONCLUSION The results of the analysis carried out on liberalism in the 1960s indicated very significant effects, even amidst the threats of unrest. Therefore, we could conclude that liberalism could still be expected to grow and expand faster than average. The review of the objectives of liberalism in the 1960s revealed very little inconsistencies regarding its strategies. This is coherent with its traditional inside-out approach. However, the need to reconcile both the inside-out and outside-in approaches became imperative for liberalism in the 1960s. The analysis of conservatism in the US revealed certain gaps, most of which are biased towards the environment. However, these gaps paved the way towards determining a number of recommended strategic options to secure the continued existence of conservatism in the US. Also, Americans have to find a balance between adherence to internal forces of conservatism and to the changing forces of the environment in order to implement such strategic options.   REFERENCES Curran, J 2001, Mass Media and Society. 3rd edition. London. Douglas, S 1986, Labor’s New Voice: Unions and the mass media. Ablex. Gitlin, T 1980, The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. University of California Press. Herman, E 1988, Manufacturing Consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books. McChesney, R 1997. Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy. New York: Seven Stories. Taras, D 2001, Power and Betrayal in the Canadian Media. Peterborough: Broadview Press.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Liberalism

OBJECTIVES As a person with knowledge of liberalism in the 1960s, the author has always brought up to his superiors the viability of str...

What is LIBERAL DEMOCRACY? In practice, how closely do you think states describing themselves ‘liberal democracies’compare to this ideal

Liberal Democracy   Introduction Good governance comprises the rule of law, effective state institutions, transparency and accountability in the management of public affairs, respect for human rights, and the meaningful participation of all citizens in the political processes of their countries and in decisions affecting their lives (1964: ). In the past, the idea of holding free and fair elections has dominated the thinking and therefore the means and the goals of most operations ( 1998). Just as there are many definitions of peacekeeping, there are also many definitions of democracy ( 1997). A “democratically elected” government is all that many people require for democracy (1997:). For them, the modern view of democracy is satisfied once elections are held. However, further inquiry into the subject will often elicit other requirements for true democracy–requirements such as the rule of law, protection of individual and human rights, protection of minority rights, separation of governmental powers, checks and balances of power, and protection of private property rights. Clearly, something more than elections are required before a country can be said to have a democratic government–rather than merely having a democratically-elected government. It is “liberal democracy” that has the power to bring lasting peace and stability that can come from mere free and fair elections. The term democracy, as used in this paper, refers to a liberal democracy that is designed not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. It is a democracy based on fundamental human rights, sound governmental structures that control the powers of those who govern, and the rule of law.  Basically, liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where elected legislative body that hold the power to decide are moderated by a constitution that accentuates defending individual autonomy and the minorities’ rights in society.   Discussion Liberal democracy is now the leading form of government not only in the West but also in the Union Soviet community. Moreover, it shows to be gaining significant ground in other parts of the world ( 1997). Despite this scattering pressure, there is a variety of heaviness that has the potential to threaten liberal democratic systems, even in well established organisation. Undoubtedly, in cases where constitutional government is still in its influential stages, as in Russia, liberal and democratic practices are liable to encounter major obstacles. Constitution-making has become an international and comparative exercise in a way that it rarely was in the century before 1989. International in the sense that the involvement of experts and practitioners across state boundaries has been welcomed, indeed encouraged, to the point at which a new democracy that excluded foreigners entirely from its constitutional process might stamp itself as definitely insular, even fairly expect. The post-1989 period has been a time of constitutional liberation. In this period, democracy has been marketed aggressively as a product that ought to be available to everyone. Even if purchases of off-the-shelf varieties are a bit dangerous and tailor-made versions are preferred, the implication is that those with less experience can profit from consulting those with more ( 2002:). Western governments have been forthcoming with assistance although some, fearing being held responsible for the results, were slow off the mark; a spate of non-governmental organisations has sprung up to meet the demand and to create it where it was slow to arise; the United Nations and other international organisations have responded; and professional bodies such as the American Bar Association have gathered groups of merchants, lawyers, and judges eager to give out ready-made constitutional passages on appeal. If the nineteenth was the century of Christian missionaries, the twenty-first may be considered as the century of constitutional missionaries (2002:). If it is true that designs are not generally adopted, that does not render constitutional design an unimportant subject. It is a naive view of the relation of ideas to institutions that concludes that ideas are insignificant just because organisations do not reflect them completely or rapidly. The intricate pathway of democracy itself, from 1680 to 1789 to 1989, makes this clear enough. Ideas are contested by other ideas, ideas are met with a variety of non-ideational barriers, and even ideas that survive these tests must go further: they must be put in adoptable forms, they must be legitimised by opinion leaders and opinion-leading states, and they must be seen to be in the interests of those who must approve their adoption before they find their way into institutions (2002: ). In the case of constitutional design, the battle of ideas is not over, non-ideational obstacles are strong, it is still early days in terms of constitutional iterations, the interests affected by adoption are not uniform, and retrogression is possible after adoption. As Nigerians looked to the United States in 1978, so, too, have many countries aimed to resemble Switzerland rather than Nigeria, even though their problems may have resembled Nigeria’s more than Switzerland’s. Success attracts admirers, although success may imply an easier problem that may have made possible the adoption of institutions that are held, in retrospect, to be responsible for the success. Severely divided societies need to look to other severely divided societies that have made some progress in reducing conflict, rather than to societies that are less severely divided, especially if the reduction of divisions in the less divided countries can causally be attributed to political institutions that antedate the onset of democracy (2002:). Democracy is something that is not easily achieved and not easily maintained. Protecting democracy is one of the aims of the state (1995). One of the means to protect democracy is through surveillance of the threats to the state.             In current usage, democracy is often described to be the similar as liberal democracy. This existing idea of democracy to a large degree changes from how the term was at first defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political establishment.  On the other hand, some individual speculate that the link between peace and democracy may be due to the geographic proximity of Western democracies, or to their high degree of economic development, or to intensive mutual trade. This is a claim that there is an intermediate variable in the democracy-peace correlation. Conversely,  (1995) eradicated geographic distance as a factor.              On the other hand, several individuals believe that there is no system that can preferably arrange society and that democracy is not ethically ideal. Moreover, the essence of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in conformity, it is acceptable to harm the minority. The opposition to this point of view say that in a liberal democracy where conscientious minority groups are restricted from being targeted, majorities and minorities in fact obtain a perceptibly different form on every issue; therefore, majorities will generally be cautious to take into account the contest of the minority, lest they eventually grow to be part of a minority on a potential democratic verdict. Actually, liberalism is the view according to which states exist primarily for the sake of protecting individuals and their rights ( 1997:). That is, on the liberal view, states exist not for the sake of the salvation of individuals, but rather for the sake of creating and maintaining conditions under which each individual can live as he sees fit or according to his own conception of the good life, within the constraint that he respects the right of others to do the same. In line with this, some may argue that liberal democracy is not actually democratic or even liberal especially in making serious decision in which the general welfare is at stake. Let say for example, in war, the majorities cannot insist or cast votes to push minorities to war in order to make them safe. But we can only say that liberal democracy can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship.             Apparently, there are global political events point toward the need to give serious philosophical attention to the relationship between human rights, democracy, and peace. While each of these ideals has independently enjoyed expanding recognition since the end of the Second World War, there has also been widespread reluctance to assert a necessary linkage between them. Much of the reluctance stems from the persistent tension that exists in the international system between the universality of human rights and the traditional primacy of state sovereignty.             Further, it is very important to remember that democracy and peace are not timeless but historical social concepts. Although some may explain war as a result of innate violence, as structured aggression it assumes socially-controlled use, and originates in definite historical forms. For political scientists no less than for political practitioners, peace and democracy often seem to be natural partners. We are told that democracies do not go to war with each other, and the prospects of armed conflicts are said to be further enhanced by the high profile of the military in many non-democratic regimes.       Conclusions In conclusion, a significant point to be raised here is that even though democracies hardly, if ever, go to war with each other, they are generally hostile to non-democracies. As a result, democracies are hardly immune from engaging in war, at least with non-democracies. In Kant’s view, the peaceful resolution of conflicts is a characteristic of “mature,” stable democracies that reject the incessant preparation for war and embrace the ideals of social justice and non-violence. Actually, liberal democracy or any other type of democracy aims to prohibit war and promotes welfare of its people. The possibility for attaining a just and lasting peace for all peoples is one reason since it would be permissible, indeed obligatory, for mature democracies (or those democracies striving for maturity) to exert greater diplomatic and legal pressure for democratic reform and the protection of equal human rights. In other words, actively promoting global democracy and human rights is essential to the pursuit of perpetual peace.             Basically, attaining world’s peace is merely a hard thing to achieve.  Actually, peace is not in democracy or even in liberal type of democracy but it is on how a certain state or individual practiced any type of democracy.             References: Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

What is LIBERAL DEMOCRACY? In practice, how closely do you think states describing themselves ‘liberal democracies’compare to this ideal

Liberal Democracy Introduction Good governance comprises the rule of law, effective state institutions, transparency and accountabili...

The Women’s Movement and the Welfare State

I.                   Introduction In the political setting of the state, the social polices governing the operations of the government creates a significant impact to the entire population. These policies include ratified government legislation, both locally and centrally, that is geared towards addressing the social needs of the population. To a certain extent these legislations are considered policies attempting to enhance the welfare of the public. Aspects such as social security, housing, healthcare, and education constitute these social policies. In the current trend of internationalisation and globalisation, the said concepts are continuously changing to adapt to the existing situations that states have to contend with. This paper intends to describe the existing meaning and usage of such terms in the current context of Britain. Moreover, the paper similarly intends to take a historical look on how the welfare state is shaped through several social movements. In addition to analysing the effects of economic theories on the social policies of states, the study will also take into consideration the other welfare states in different western countries. To this end, the welfare state in the western setting will be established and differentiated with one another.       II.                Welfare state Contemporary welfare state in the context of Great Britain started subsequent to the Second World War. After a considerable loss of resources brought about by the ravages of war, England assumed an industrial capitalist society wherein it has significantly reduced the power of the state to control the economic factors in the market. In so doing, it created a surge of employment among the citizens of the country. (Castles, 2004, 119) With these set of circumstances, the government has assisted families in UK with regards to their acquisition of income. However, given the changes in leadership in the subsequent years, the concept of the welfare state has similarly altered frequently.   On the current setting, the current welfare state that UK is experiencing is considered as a ‘’liberal welfare state.” (Taylor-Gooby, 2004, 77) This may be primarily be the case considering the domination of the Labour Party on the ratification of social policies in the state. Considered as a “highly centralised liberal-leaning” with regards to the arrangement and framework, the social objective still remains to adhere to the basic principle of the welfare state: enhancing the well-being of the public. However, the setting of such concept has considerably concentrated to a more specific part of society. As compared to the earlier context of the welfare state wherein the primary focus is on the provision of employment for breadwinners, the current policies now take into consideration the well-being of particular groups of people who appears to be disadvantaged in some ways. These include lone parents, disabled individuals, and working mothers among others. (Taylor-Gooby, 2004, 77)   In the work of Lewis and Surender (2004, 123) they have similarly characterised the United Kingdom’s welfare state as a liberal model. In this setting, the said authors have indicated that the model in which UK uses in its welfare policies largely depend on the lower level of the government. Similarly, the spending that entails from that part of the government, particularly with reference to social welfare spending, is directly connected to the state’s non-profit sector. In addition to the claim, since UK is using such a model, it appears that the non-profit sector of the said state is considerably large. A huge non-profit sector connotes that voluntary approaches, devoid of the intervention of the government, are the preferred way to deal with the social conditions of the state. With this assumption, the said authors have indicated that United Kingdom, in its modern concept of the welfare state, have limited itself in its spending for social welfare. (Lewis and Surender, 2004, 123)   Based on the discussion in this part of the paper, the concept of the welfare state in UK has significantly changed in the past years. In the post-war era, the government have taken steps to aid the industries to help the public establish a source of living. On the other hand, the current period revealed that the government have considerably diminished its spending on social welfare and placed that commission on the hands of the civil society. From its roots and initial initiatives of the post-war era to the current labour dominated policies, the future of the welfare state still is vague. This may well be true considering the fact that the social policies are similarly subject to change the moment the ruling party changes.   III.              The Women’s Movement and the Welfare State  The setting of UK with regards to its workforce has significantly been altered during the post-war era. These changes took place as a result of the majority of the male breadwinners’ drafting to the fight in the war. As a result, a lot of female workers have taken their place in the industries which were formerly dominated and solely administered by the male workforce. This surge of women in acquiring positions for paid employment has triggered a different view on the welfare state provided for by the British administration. In the place of men, the women’s movement to the employment sector adhered intimately to Marx’s context of a “reserve army of labour.” (Kiely, 1996, 14)   Theoretically, the concept of the welfare state in the feminist perspective represents a government that stands for male-centric policies and interests. Nevertheless, regardless of such condition, these theories also suggest that women could also penetrate through the system if only they are given the proper representation. (Sainbury, 1999, 141) Even though the welfare state has given the opportunity for the female population as represented in the conditions on the post-war decades, the claims of the feminist theories presents a contradictory view on the said concept. This may probably be true as reflected in the 1942 Beveridge Report as it imply for women to return to doing their domestic duties. (Pemberton, 2004, 35)   However, the government, with the help of women’s movement have significantly altered the face of the concept of welfare state by enhancing the condition of employment among the male and female populations. To illustrate, the government ratified the Equal Pays Act of 1970 which rests in the assumption that men and women who perform the same jobs are entitled to the same terms of employment, including pay and incentives. (McColgan, 1997, 87) This is further reinforced by the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, which was later amended in 1986, to care for the rights of the female workers and protect their welfare in the workplace. (Riddell and Salisbury, 2000, 19) To this context, the possibility of direct or direct discrimination in the workplace has been considerably been reduced. Though there are still isolated cases of discrimination, at a certain degree, the claims of the feminists’ theories on the welfare state are slowly yet surely becoming a reality with the help of government initiatives to provide equal opportunities for male and females. The women’s movement has significantly changed the face of the welfare state in such a way that it provided equal opportunity for women in the employment sector. In this manner, this has opened the door for the female population in other aspects like social mobility, financial stability, and professional opportunities.              IV.            Welfare States in Western Countries  There are several different kinds of welfare states. Social policies differ from one state to another. The work of Naldini (2003) clearly states this existence of diversity in terms of the welfare state. The said author took on several typologies of welfare states, specifically occupational and universalistic. (Naldini, 2003) The occupational model of the welfare state is anchored on the work performance of the social policies of the said states. It is further divided into a couple of divisions, occupational pure (France, Belgium, Germany, Austria) and occupational mix (Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands, Ireland). On the other hand, those under the universalistic model include the states which adhere to citizenship principles. The said model is similarly divided into universalistic pure (Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden) and universalistic mix (New Zealand, Canada, and Great Britain).   According to the work of Naldini (2003, 30) those countries under the occupational model possess a traditional framework in the family setting wherein the male is the breadwinner and the female is the home-maker. She called this the “male breadwinner model.” It rests on the assumption that in the said states, with the family as a reference point, majority are dependent to a single breadwinner in a household. In such a situation, the countries pigeon-holed in the said category possess laws and legislation on social security laws such as survivor’s pension and health insurance.   On the other hand, Naldini (2003, 30) also coined the”dual-earner model” where both male and female are breadwinners for the family. This represents states where the policies are extended to the individual earner as compared to the previous model concentrating to the dependents. It represents states that regard employment equality and other entitlements such as pension rights. This is especially true in the context of Great Britain considering the previous discussions regarding the elevation of the status of women in the employment sector. The legislation ratified in the context of UK, bears corresponding attributes to that taken by Naldini (2003).                 V.               Keynes and Social Policy  Theoretical explanation of state policies has been used to justify the actions of states with regards to their social policies. In this part of the paper, the use of Keynesianism as a theory complementing social policy will be discussed. Keynesianism is normally characterised as a way of thinking particularly geared towards the maintenance of political stabilisation. However, De Angelis (2000, 2) goes further in stating that it is more than an economic theory, it is an “expansionary strategy” for development directly related to social and institutional models geared towards balancing the interests of the public. Nevertheless, the said author never discounted the fact that it is capitalist accumulation that drives this way of thinking. To a certain extent, the claims of the said author in this context remain to be limited to controlling the social aspects of capital accumulation, and in doing so, controlling the policies directly affecting the social aspects of the country: the established welfare state.  On a more basic level, the model provided for by Keynes represents a mixed economy wherein the state and private sector works hand in hand.  In the context of social policy, Keynes’ views on the existence of “chronic unemployment” and how economic concepts like price sensitivity, wage rates and monetary policy contribute to this phenomenon. (Steele, 2001, 3) Although there is a common denominator in such themes seeking to deal with the reduction of unemployment or even the pursuit of full employment, a more definitive claim of these thinkers is based on the use of monetary expansion on the elimination of unemployment. To some degree, monetary expansion as it appears on the discussions of these academics presents a very inadequate tool to address the issue of expanding employment in society.    VI.            Conclusion  The contemporary welfare state’s understood function is to supply stability to the present market driven social order. Equality in the form of either specific or universal terms is not a rule of the society, instead citizens are provided the smallest amount needed to carry on and not bother the operation of that society. The resources that are given to people within the state in most societies are not a utility of their need but instead a function of their donation to society prior to their need for a redistribution to come about. The welfare state along with the social policies present in the current period has these objectives in place, though there have been several improvements and developments towards these ends, UK still have a long way to go. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

The Women’s Movement and the Welfare State

I. Introduction In the political setting of the state, the social polices governing the operations of the ...

Top