SWP1CHS Social Democratic Perspectives on Welfare States Assignment Sample

Contemporary Human Services

Contents

Introduction.

Socio Democratic and Neoliberal Perspectives of Welfare/ welfare states.

Current Dominance of Neoliberal Perspective of Welfare State in Australia.

Social Democratic Perspective of Welfare State in Australia and Mendes’ Arguments.

Conclusion.

References.

Introduction to Social Democratic Perspectives on Welfare States

The social policy in Australia was focused on the safety of male employees and their relatives. It is true that social democratic efforts were focused at safeguarding satisfactory conditions of work entailing lawmaking measures to pay male workers a rational and sensible family wage. The neoliberalism can be defined as a philosophy of political-economic performs that suggests that human welfare can be progressive by emancipating separate business freedoms and abilities with a recognized framework featured by robust private property privileges, free markets, and open trade (Beattie, 2019). The social democratic rule rotates around the philosophies of de-commodification, diversity, and equality. The goal within this regime is to decline the market reliance via risk analysis and substantial benefit stages puts pronounced stresses on the economy in eras of reduced financial performance and advanced levels of joblessness (Carlberg, 2008). This essay discusses the socio democratic and neoliberal perspectives of welfare and welfare states and demonstrates the differences between the two. Furthermore, it entails the current dominance of the neoliberal perspective of welfare states in Australia and consideration of this perspective as opposed to social justice values. Moreover, it studies the Mendes’ arguments in favor of social democratic perspective of welfare in Australia.

Socio Democratic and Neoliberal Perspectives of Welfare/ Welfare States

The social democracy stems from numerous political, philosophical, and national practices. The golden period of this perspective aroused in the quarter century after World War II. Social democrats powerfully preferred a welfare state to safeguard that all people were assured a minimum income mainly when they were not employed that could further help to eliminate poverty. The welfare state is the portion of the very essential of social democracy. It certifies that simple privileges are not just formal, but can be vigorously understood. It is true that the basic values or morals of social democracy are liberty, unity, and justice. Bothe the social democracy and welfare state deals in a relative manner with fundamental philosophies and values, another institutional buildings, and key strategy areas like basic income, education, healthcare, tax system, and so on of modern welfare states (Odekon, 2015). Moreover, the neoliberalism can be related in the philosophy of political economic practices which suggested that human welfare can be progressive by liberating individual business freedoms and abilities within an recognized outlook features by robust free markets and trade. It evolved in the 20^th century from being the obsession of economic philosophers to becoming the avoidance logic for community policymaking across the sphere (Schram, 2018). The basis principles of this perspective entail the privatization policy for government business; economic foundational for international companies; state size decrease to make it more effective; law of demand and supply are enough to price regulation; and so on. Furthermore, it is best frequently realized as being regarding endorsing market liberty and it is certainly regarding improving the control of market and the authority of market sense. Nevertheless, the continuing neoloberalization of the welfare state shows that neoliberalism is analytically about the state, even if it is marketization of the state. Neoliberal theory, if understood, would thus need the elimination of the welfare state (Schram, 2019). The social democratic perspective aims to attend all the people as per the substantial benefit values, while the neo-liberal perspective aims to offer assistance to those in necessity as per the needs tests allowing the interior class turn to private assurance risk prevention. The liberal welfare regime turns around the supposition that parity and wealth should be followed by making a supreme of free markets and letting only a least of state intervention. Contrarily, the social-democratic welfare regime rotates around the philosophies of de-commodification, diversity and impartiality (Deeming, 2014). In the social democracy, the welfare is important to human wants and prospects and to understanding of social rights, democracy, and nationality while in the neoliberalism, the welfare is essential but is best fulfill via market forces and active contribution through commitment in jobs and private consumption.

Current Dominance of Neoliberal Perspective of Welfare State in Australia

The neoliberalism political ideology has impacted the social policy path in Australia. It is noteworthy that engagement in the labour market as a path to complete and equivalent nationality has always been an important part in Australian social policy. Nevertheless, welfare reform ended with the 2005 welfare to work act under the traditional Howard government that strengthening the dominant role of paid labor in Australia. The government has a motive for two main neoliberal approaches in their changes named as reducing the number of individuals getting income support aids by limiting entitlement; and decreasing welfare dependence by rising employment engagement levels (Harris et al., 2014). Australia is the alliance of previous British colonies that has grown-up into the sphere’s 12^th major nationwide economy. It has been found that neoliberalism is the universal strength within the Australian nation of contemporary times. Nevertheless, it is not unusual for versions of political alteration in nation to see the government as simply occasionally neo-liberal, attributing neo-liberalist enthusiasms to alliance governments and seeing the market creations of labor management as unwilling replies to globalization (Weller & O’Neill, 2014).

Social justice can be defined as the reasonable distribution of life opportunities, prosperity, salary, rights, and accountabilities. Moreover, it is a core obligation which societies must be called upon to uphold. Neoliberalism ideology is opposing the social justice theory as the neoliberalism perspective of welfare state agrees with the fact that social justice is a misuse of control and is a disputed and unclear idea. Further, neoliberals compromise the regulation of decree and weaken specific freedom when government tries to understand it (Gray, 2010).

Social Democratic Perspective of Welfare State in Australia and Mendes’ Arguments

Mendes believers a social democratic outlook of welfare state and claims that it is merely via collectivist interference of the government that the present tendencies towards enhanced disparity and unfairness can be overturned. Moreover, it has been stated that this approach would be the most preferred for Australia and will be more reliable with social fairness standards and aid to decrease disparities (Mendes, 2017). It is absolutely agreeable statement as social democratic perspective of welfare is against the social injustice and social inequality. Additionally, justice and equality are the characteristic form in the socio democratic system and are a precondition for the implementation of democratic opinion. The social democratic ideology of welfare is featured by numerous welfares and higher notch of benefit equivalence. This regime pursues an equality of the greatest standards rather than just addressing negligible desires. Moreover, it also pursue full employment in a bid to offer the salary required to finance their substantial redeployment schemes, and because the right to employment is supposed as equivalent in rank to the right to income safety (Buckmaster, 2009). It is also true that approach of Australia to welfare state is changing and influencing by neoliberal political ideology and perspectives on welfare. There has been the reinforcement of neoliberal and administrative structures through Australia and other developed and developing nations. Neoliberal thoughts of minor government, open markets and incomplete social outlay have delivered the philosophical stimulus for slashes to the welfare state. The neoliberal system might offer partial, residual welfares to the underprivileged, but it declines to address what makes these individuals poor (McCoy & Peddle, 2012).

Conclusion on Social Democratic Perspectives on Welfare States

From the above essay on the discussion of social democratic and neoliberalism perspective of welfare state, it can be concluded that there exists numerous differences between these two approaches to political ideology. The socio democratic perspective is based upon the principles of social justice; equality; social rights; equity; and collectivism. On the other hand, the neoliberalism perspective is based on the values and principles of market forces; equal treatment inequality; natural justice; individualism; and so on. It is clear from the above discussion that the neoliberalism perspective is opposing the social justice values and equality principles while socio democratic system completely supports such values. Furthermore, it can be inferred that neoliberalism is best frequently realized as being regarding endorsing market liberty and it is certainly regarding improving the control of market and the authority of market sense. Neoliberalism ideology is opposing the social justice theory as the neoliberalism perspective of welfare state agrees with the fact that social justice is an abuse of power and is a disputed and unclear idea. It has been found that neoliberalism is the universal strength within the Australian nation of contemporary times. The social democratic ideology of welfare is featured by numerous welfares and higher notch of benefit equivalence. This regime pursues an equality of the greatest standards rather than just addressing negligible desires. Thus, this perspective would be preferred to the Australia to benefit all members rather than on individual basis.

References for Social Democratic Perspectives on Welfare States

Beattie, P. (2019). The road to psychopathology: Neoliberalism and the human mind. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 89-112.

Buckmaster, L. (2009). Money for Nothing?: Australia in the Global Middle Class Welfare Debate. Parliamentary Library.

Carlberg, J. (2008). The Social Democratic Welfare State in a Neo-Liberal Context, does it Fly?-On Social Policy Convergence. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1317129&fileOId=1317130

Deeming, C. (2014). Social democracy and social policy in neoliberal times. Journal of Sociology, 50(4), 577-600.

Gray, J. (2010). The neoliberal state. Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/non-fiction/2010/01/neoliberal-state-market-social

Harris, S. P., Owen, R., Fisher, K. R., & Gould, R. (2014). Human rights and neoliberalism in Australian welfare to work policy: Experiences and perceptions of people with disabilities and disability stakeholders. Disability Studies Quarterly, 34(4).

McCoy, G., & Peddle, R. (2012). Neoliberal policy and its influence on welfare ideology: a source of social injustice. Socheolas Limerick Student Journal of Sociology, 3 (2), 61-79.

Mendes, P. (2017). Australia’s welfare wars: The players, the politics and the ideologies. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(2), 145-148.

Odekon, M. (Ed.). (2015). The SAGE encyclopedia of world poverty. Sage Publications.

Schram, S. F. (2018). Neoliberalizing the welfare state: Marketizing social policy/disciplining clients. The SAGE hand-book of neoliberalism, 308-322.

Schram, S. F. (2019). Neoliberal relations of poverty and the welfare state. In The Relational Nordic Welfare State. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Weller, S., & O’Neill, P. (2014). An argument with neoliberalism: Australia’s place in a global imaginary. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 105-130.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Social Work Assignment Help