In Defence of Second-best Theory: State, Class and Capital in Social Policy

Abstract

The sociology of post-fordism has facilitated the development of a new welfarism which suggests that economic globalisation, labour market flexibility, more complex patterns of family life and the dissolution of traditional class structures require a new welfare settlement. Since full employment, redistribution and expensive universal services are no longer seen as feasible, the new welfare can only justify social spending as investment in human capital and as the enhancement of individual opportunities. Welfare states are all driven in the same direction by the imperatives of international competition.

A review of available evidence indicates that the progress of post-fordist social change is partial. Inequalities in life-chances have grown wider. Changes in patterns of employment and new legislation weaken the working class. The ruling class is well aware of its interests. Increases in productivity at a time when investment is not rising, the decline in union membership and militancy and the intensification of work coupled with a policy stance by both main parties that supports lower taxes, a shift in the tax burden downwards and a decline in state intervention all indicate that capital is in the ascendant in the UK. Comparative work shows that the policies pursued under different regimes can make a difference to welfare outcomes despite the increased stringency of competition. The traditional agenda of social policy – class inequality, the strength of capital and the policy programme of the nation-state – merits particular attention in Britain in the 1990s.