Sociologist urges a wider view of the welfare state
This really thoughtful article made me think about what is sometimes described as “rural special pleading”
It is about a lecture given by an American sociologist on the challenges of developing an effective welfare policy to support the most disadvantaged – stay with me!
David Brady put forward the view that by isolating the most needy in society and arguing that they need special support we end up giving them a label which leads people ultimately to blame them for being poor. The article goes on to say:
“British attitude surveys have shown a marked decline in support for redistribution since the mid-1980s, and opinion polls suggest a majority of the British public believes that the government pays out too much in benefits and that welfare levels overall should be reduced.
As a result, this coalition government has been able to slash benefits by a colossal £18bn, and brush aside objections by bishops and peers.
Brady’s response is that we need to rebuild trust in a welfare state that everyone feels they benefit from. The problem he sees developing in Britain is similar to the situation that exists in the US, where welfare is now only for the very poorest people.”The more [that] ‘welfare’ is a broad portfolio of social policy to help people across the life span, the more effective it is at reducing poverty,” he explains.”If you create a small constituency of beneficiaries that doesn’t have broad-based political support, it’s harder to mobilise in support of those benefits.”
For evidence, Brady points out, look no further than the ease with which the welfare reform bill got through parliament compared with the ferocious fight the coalition government has had to get the health bill on to the statute book. He also cites the NHS as an example of the important role the welfare state plays in preventing people from falling into poverty.”
So why does this resonate in terms of rural policy. Largely because I think the more we argue in an unsophisticated way that rural places “have it tough” without acknowledging some of the unique benefits of living in them and without seeking to interpret them in terms of urban-rural connectivities, the more we are seen to be making such a special case for them that creates a negative brand image around “rural” from a policy point of view.