New Right Approach

The new right approach is the based on the politics of the conservative party who believe that the welfare state was leading to a culture dependency. The new right approach is believes on a free market economy. Unlike, the social democratic approach they believe that universal benefits drain the economy and state that the best option for the welfare state would be privatisation. By privatising the welfare state, they state that the individual would be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves which would help the economy grow. They believe that the government should not provide so much help through welfare as, government interference leads to wages that are too high, unemployment and a lack of initiative (S-cool 1 November 2012).

 

Sociologist David Marsland has adopted the new right approach and does not believe that poverty is as bad as others are making out. He claims that groups such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation purposely confuse poverty with inequality and completely exaggerates the extent of poverty. He argues that there is only absolute poverty and that relative does not exist. Marsland is very critical about universal benefits and services such as health care, education and child benefits. He believes that people who are on low income are results of the state being too generous in their benefits and services rather than the individual’s inadequacy to work (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008).  A quote from Marsland : "the expectation that society, the sate, the government, "they", will look after our problems tricks us into abdicating from self-reliance and social responsibly" (Marsland 1989).

 

However, Marsland has been criticised by Bill Jordan who says that he is wrong to blame the culture of dependency to universal welfare provision. He argues that selectively means testing benefits can trap people in a life of poverty. It often turns out that people are better off on benefits than they would be in work. It also can exclude the individual from the rest of society and make them feel ashamed and embarrassed that they receive benefits. Also, if education and health care are private then people with disability and unskilled workers may not be able to afford or find work. Jordan also claims that societies that rely upon means-tested benefits and private health care, tend to develop a large underclass, who have little chance of escaping from poverty; this is the case in countries such as America. Jordan states that poverty is a result of societies being too harsh. He argues that the only way to break the cycle of poverty is by universal benefits that are at a high enough standard so people can afford to work and get back up on their feet (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008). Despite this, the New Right approach has been influential across Western countries, and the Conservative party is in power in Britain today.

 

As solutions to these problems of welfare, the New Right have changed some policies. A significant proportion of the welfare state has been privatised, such as cleaning and transportation of prisoners. There have been cuts in benefits; benefits are not going to be paid out in line with inflation. Up until now child benefits were universal, however the Conservative government have introduced plans to means test child benefits as of the 7^th of January 2013, meaning thousands will lose out in benefits. If a family earn more than £50,000 then they will not receive child benefits, they are also only giving benefits for two children to encourage those on welfare not to have more children if they can not afford them (BBC.co.uk 2 November). Iain Duncan Smith the conservative secretary for state work and pensions, has suggested that pensioners should not receive universal benefits, he stated that wealthy pensioners should not get benefits, free TV licences and bus passes (Daily Mail.co.uk 4 November 2012).

 

Charles Murray an American sociologist came to Britain in 1989 and claimed that Britain, like America was developing an underclass. He produced a study called the "underclass", his findings from the study showed there were three factors that played a part in the rising underclass these were; illegitimacy, crime and unemployment. Firstly, he looks at illegitimacy. He states that in 1979 Britain's illegitimacy rate was 10.6 per cent which was low compared to most Western societies, however, by 1989 this has risen 25.6 per sent which was higher than many other Western countries. The rising illegitimacy rate is important because illegitimate children will tend to "run wild", and the lack of fathers results in a level of physical unruliness which makes life difficult. Murray suggests the reason for this problem is due to changes in legislation that allowed pregnant women priority to houses and increased their benefits. Murray claimed that there has always been a potential for rising illegitimacy because "sex is fun and babies are endearing", however, to reduce illegitimacy we need to go back to a time where it was extremely punishing to be a single parent, socially and financially. The next point that Murray associates with the development of an underclass was rise in crime. He claimed that in 1989 the rate of property crime in Britain was higher than the USA; however, violent crime was lower. Murray argues that crime is particularly damaging to a society as people will become defensive and suspicious of one another. It may also result in young people copying their role models and participating in crime themselves, which can be even more damaging to a community. Murray suggests that like illegitimacy, crime too has become less severely punished. To solve this problem we have to go back to a time where criminal where more likely to be caught and punished. Finally, Murray saw the unwillingness of young men to take jobs as a problem for society. He says there is a considerable number of people who claim benefits even though they are perfectly able to work and would probably turn down any job they were offered. Similarly to illegitimacy and crime rates, unemployment is much higher in the lowest social class. According to Murray, attitudes of work are changing amongst the young, near the end of the 1980's. The older generation of males who were unemployed, were generally more committed to work and saw being unemployed and relying on benefits as being humiliating unlike the younger generation. Murray states, that when a large number of men do not work then communities break down. Young men who are unemployed are unable to support families so are therefore, unlikely to get married, however, when they do father a child, illegitimacy rates rise. Supporting a family is a way for a man to prove their manhood, so when a man does not have family responsibilities, they will use other methods to prove themselves such a violent crime. Murray states, that providing more jobs will not solve this problem of unemployment as it is more of an attitude problem. He suggested that local communities should be given a responsibility to run things such as education, housing and criminal justice. These way communities would ensure problems were tackled. (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008)

 

Charles Murray underclass theory has been a very influential study for New Right theorist. The study supports what the new right sociologists says and it has also been a valuable study for the conservative party who use a lot of Charles Murray's ideas for helping produce legislation. However, Murray's study has been subjected to fierce critics. Alan walker (1990) argues that Murray puts forward totally inadequate evidence and unreliable data to support his case. For example, Murray's figures on illegitimacy are not accurate. He claims that, approximately 60 per cent of illegitimate births to women younger than 20 are registered by both parents. He also states, that lone parenthood is often short lived with the average women finding a partner within 3 years. Therefore, most children do not spend their childhood with a single parent. Anthony Heath found in an attitude survey that 86 percent of the underclass said that they would like to have a paid job. This shows that Murrays claim that those reliant on benefits are unwilling to work regardless of the job is untrue. Murray has also been criticised for making a sweeping generalisation about lone parents and unemployed (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008).