Thus far, much of scholarly endeavor has been either about welfare state expansion or welfare state retrenchment, and accordingly the resilience of welfare states in relation to change. More recently, though, a number of research projects have begun to examine the new risk configurations that have emerged in the transition to postindustrial societies and that in turn have challenged welfare state arrangements that were established in the context of old, traditional risk contexts of industrial societies (Taylor-Gooby 2004; Bonoli 2005; Armingeon and Bonoli 2006). Numerous risk categories peculiar to postindustrial restructuring make an entry (Esping-Andersen 1999). Yet the central driving force of this postindustrial change is the notable rise in the international mobility of capital, which has an unprecedented impact on the welfare state. Swank has argued that Marxists, neoliberals, political scientists, economists, and popular analysts utilize “nearly identical reasoning to argue that the globalization of capital markets has effectively increased the power of capital over governments that seek to expand or maintain relatively high levels of social protection and taxation” ( 2001:203).

urn:lcp:evolutionofbriti0004fras:lcpdf:38d9b24e-1b18-422c-9a11-f72fe9b6069a Foldoutcount 0 Grant_report Arcadia #4281 Identifier evolutionofbriti0004fras Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t3mx2dw2v Invoice 2089 Isbn 9780230224650 Pressures under economic globalization have urged us to think again about the traditionally protective functions of social policy and whether this particular dimension will be robust enough to capture the highly complex nature of welfare state retrenchment and/or restructuring in the postglobalization era. As discussed earlier, this has led to a significant rethinking of the sustainability of welfare state. Increasingly, much attention has been paid to identifying “productive” elements of welfare compared to its traditional “protective” traits (Giddens 2000; Holliday 2000; Room 2000; Midgley and Tang 2001; Castells and Himanen 2002; Powell and Barrientos 2004; Vis 2007) and to test the argument that “welfare states have shifted away from traditional protective functions towards a model of ‘productive welfare,’ characterized by a greater emphasis on investment in human capital” (Hudson and Kühner 2009:34). Brings the story right up to the present day, now including discussion of the Coalition and Theresa May's early Prime MinistershipUnited Nations Research Institute for Social Development. At www.unrisd.org, accessed Jul. 2009. Here UNRISD provides various research reports and conference news, working papers, and academic publications. Key research programs include social policy and development, democracy, governance and well-being, civil society and social movements, markets, business and regulation, identities, conflict and cohesion, as well as gender and development. An established introductory textbook that provides students with a full overview of British social policy and social ideas since the late 18th century. Derek Fraser's authoritative account is the essential starting point for anyone learning about how and why Britain created the first Welfare State, and its development into the 21st century.

In comparison, the third variation puts more emphasis on political class struggle. Instead of stressing the capitalist’s long-term or short-term interests, the development of the welfare state is interpreted as the outcome of a long political struggle between the working class and the capitalist and its allies. Known as the “power resources” approach, the fundamental power resources in advanced industrial societies are assumed to be divided and derive from labor control through the market mechanism and from political power through the capacity for collective action (Korpi 1989). Therefore, this working-class mobilization thesis explains that the development of the welfare state is dependent upon the strength of the labor movement and its political ability to implement collective welfare provisions through electoral control of the state. Similarly, proponents of the mass disruption thesis (see Piven and Cloward 1971) argue that social policies have improved because of the elite’s responses to protest by the poor and workers.This neo-Marxist understanding of welfare state development is not uniform, however: there are at least three distinctive theoretical propositions within it. To start with, instrumentalists heavily criticize the core claim of pluralists that the state plays the role of neutral broker in mediating conflicts between various interests. Rather, for them, the state plays an instrumental role only to serve the capitalist’s interests. Miliband argues that “the intervention of the state is always and necessarily partisan: as a class state, it always intervenes for the purpose of maintaining the existing system of domination, even where it intervenes to mitigate the harness of that system of domination” ( 1977:91). It is the capitalist who monopolizes economic organizations, exercises strong influence on political organizations, and determines social provision depending on the necessity for capital accumulation. Hence welfare reforms basically function as a form of social control rather than of social investment (Piven and Cloward 1971; Ginsburg 1979; Miliband 1991). Neither the basic structure of capitalist society nor the status, income, and political power of those who have already been influential are affected by social policy.

From 1911 workers in certain trades such as building and shipbuilding who frequently had periods of unemployment all contributed to a fund. If unemployed they could claim a small amount of money for a maximum of 15 weeks in any year. Again it was hardly generous but in 1920 the scheme was extended to most (not all) workers.During the 18th century, the Poor Law continued to operate. In the 17th century, there were some workhouses where the poor were housed but where they were made to work. They became much more common in the 18th century 19th Century Poor Law In 1909 the Trade Boards Act set up trade boards who fixed minimum wages in certain very low paid trades. Also in 1909, an Act set up labor exchanges to help the unemployed find work. In 1908 an Old Age Pensions Act gave small pensions to people over 70. The pensions were hardly generous but they were a start. From 1925 pensions were paid to men over 65 and women over 60. Widows were also given pensions. For the unfortunate people made to enter workhouses, life was made as unpleasant as possible. Married couples were separated and children over 7 were separated from their parents. The inmates were made to do hard work like breaking stones to make roads or breaking bones to make fertilizer. A law of 1697 said that paupers (people supported by the parish) must wear a blue or red ‘P’ on their clothes. On a more cheerful note in the 17th century in many towns wealthy people left money in their wills to provide almshouses where the poor could live. Mutual Information System on Social Protection in the Member States of the European Union 1(MISSOC). At http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/missoc_en.htm, accessed Jul. 2009. Provides basic information regarding social protection measures in the Member States of the European Union and of the European Economic Area. It is therefore smaller in scope but provides more detail and is strongly embedded in social policy discussions at the European level.

The biblical view of human nature - its fallen status, yet conceived to be redeemed - was lost sight of in left-wing intellectual circles by the 1960s. Welfare was by them seen primarily as an act of altruism and this paternalistic view was advanced behind the cover of politically correct statements, so much so that even the Right lost the confidence to mouth, let alone act on, the broader, age-old understanding of mankind. Life was hard for the working class at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1900 surveys showed that between 15% and 20% of the population were living at subsistence (bare survival) level. Worse between 8% and 10% of the population were living below subsistence level. Welfare had to work with the grain of human nature. Self-interest, one of the most powerful of human instincts, had to be the cornerstone around which welfare reform was built. An established introductory textbook that provides students with a full overview of British social policy and social ideas since the late 18th century. Derek Fraser's authoritative account is the essential starting point for anyone learning about how and why Britain created the first Welfare State, and its development into the 21st century. This is an ideal core text for dedicated modules on the history of British social policy or the British welfare state - or a supplementary text for broader modules on modern British history or British political history - which may be offered at all levels of an undergraduate history, politics or sociology degree. In addition it is a crucial resource for students who may be studying the history of the British welfare state for the first time as part of a taught postgraduate degree in British history, politics or social policy. New to this Edition:

On this page

In 1911 the National Insurance Act was passed. All employers and employees made contributions to a fund. If a worker was ill he was entitled to free treatment by a doctor. (Normally you had to pay and it was expensive). If he could not work because of illness the worker was given a small amount of money to live on. However, his family was not entitled to free medical treatment. The overseers were meant to provide work for the able-bodied poor. Anyone who refused to work was whipped and, after 1607, they could be placed in a house of correction. Pauper’s children were sent to local employers to be apprentices.