The End of the Welfare State
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11196330 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Martin Powell (0000-0002-9148-5087, University of Bath, corresponding author), Maria Hewitt (0000-0001-9799-5187, University of Hertfordshire), Martin Hewitt |
| Year | 1998 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-13 |
| Publication date | 1998-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Policy and Administration (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0144-5596 • E-ISSN: 1467-9515 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9515.00082 |
| OpenAlex | W2105116874 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 17 |
| References cited | 6 |
This paper critically examines claims of a new consensus on welfare and the end of the welfare state. We first review the concept of welfare consensus, concentrating on the idea of welfare pluralism, in particular the relatively neglected distinction between national minimum (base) and extension ladder (superstructure). We then examine these concepts in the 1990s under Conservative and New Labour governments. Important changes to welfare pluralism are noted. There have been changes in the character of means‐tests, with the national minimum replaced by a series of residual minima, which represent fundamental changes to structural incentives governing the social division of welfare and work. The line between state and non‐state provision has been blurred and there have been moves to achieve universalism in the private sector. It is possible to tentatively classify Labour’s principles and fledgling policies into three categories: essential continuity with the Conservatives, reversing Conservative policies and extending Conservative policies. However, it is difficult to detect the degree of consensus because a new flexible language is beginning to pervade social policy, with the result that the welfare state is being redefined, notably in areas of full employment, citizenship and conditionality. It is possible to detect, in our terms, moves towards turning Beveridge inside out and from the “Marshall” towards the “Beveridge” welfare state. It is clear that the welfare state is being redefined, but reports of its death have been much exaggerated
Economics · Law and economics · Market economy · Pluralism (philosophy · Political economy · Political science · Social citizenship · Universalism · Welfare · Welfare state · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Law · Political and Economic history of UK and US · Social Policy and Reform Studies
Ideas and Welfare
The reform of the English National Health Service
The Limits of Joined‐up Government
Pragmatic localism uncovered
Race, Labour and the Archbishop, or the Currency of Race
Blaming Europe? Exploring the variable impact of national public service dissatisfaction on EU trust
Mechanisms of poverty alleviation
Sustaining State Welfare in Hard Times
The Construction of an Integrated and Transparent Index of Wellbeing
New Labour
Towards a mixed economy of long-term care in Norway
New Labour and the third way in the British welfare state
Interaction between Voluntary and Statutory Social Service Provision in Sweden
The disembedded digital economy
From competition state to competition states
The lore of the jungle
When rhetoric does not translate to reality
| Unique citing works | 17 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,65 |
| Citation span | 2000 - 2020 (21) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 17 |