Zero Tolerance essays

Zero Tolerance essays The idea behind zero tolerance policing is that a strong law enforcement approach to minor crime (in particular public order offenses) will prevent more serious crime from occurring and will ultimately lead to falling crime rates. Zero tolerance policies are based on the broken windows theory by Wilson and Kelling. An unrepaired window is a sign that no-one cares and therefore more damage will occur. Zero tolerance policies feel that if disorderly behavior is not dealt with in a particular area, then more serious crime will be the result. Nuisances such as public drunkenness, vandalism, begging and so forth create an atmosphere where more serious crime can occur. The zero tolerance approach was originally introduced by the New York Police Department and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Based on the information I have read, it appears that New Yorks crime rate dropped drastically during the period in which there were zero tolerance policies. According to statistics since 1993, major crime in New York City has fallen by 39% and murder has fallen by 73%. Whether it was this approach, or some other factor, which was responsible for the recent falls in crime in New York and elsewhere, I am unsure. One theory for the decreased crime rate is that fewer people are involved in the crack epidemic which swept the city in the 1980s and early 1990s. Another theory is that the majority of the offenders responsible for crime in the 1980s are now in prison. Some of the opponents of the zero tolerance policies state that the police are based on a punishment mentality, which creates fear and distrust in many communities. The most serious complaints about "Zero Tolerance" revolve around police brutality. Other opponent of zero tolerance policies feel that zero-tolerance policing means zero tolerance for certain people mainly black males who are disproportionately arrested and convicted of crimes. ...

What Is an Unsubsidized Loan Definition and Explanation

What Is an Unsubsidized Loan Definition and Explanation SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips You have a general idea of what it means to take out a loan, but calling a loan "unsubsidized" makes it sound a bit suspicious. What is an unsubsidized loan, and how are they different from subsidized loans? Are they good options if you're considering taking on student debt? Here's the unsubsidized loan definition: a Direct Unsubsidized loan is one type of financial aid provided by the US federal government, or more specifically, the US Department of Education. You can also receive Direct Subsidized loans as part of your financial aid package. In this post, I'll discuss why these loans exist, before talking in more detail about how loans usually work. With this information, you'll be able to get a full understanding of the details of Direct Unsubsidized loans and whether they may be a good option for you. A Brief History of Federal Student Loans In the 1950s, the US government started taking seriousmeasures to encourage the pursuit of post-secondary education. The Department of Education started offering government-backed loans under the National Defense Education Act, or NDEA - as more people pursue college educations, these loan programs have expanded. As of 2012, almost 70% of students graduating from 4-year colleges have taken out some amount of student loans. Because federal loans are government-backed (that is, you're essentially borrowing and repaying taxpayer money to fund your education), interest rates tend to be better than those of private loans. We'll go more into why interest rates are important in the next section. What Does It Mean to Take Out a Loan? The decision to take out a loan is a very personal one, but you should know there's nothing inherently bad about being in student debt. Here, I'll address the logistics of taking on student debt. I hope that with this information, you'll be able to make educated decisions about taking out loans. (If you are already familiar with this information, just jump to the next section). The way that loans work is pretty standard, no matter where you're getting the loan from. You borrow a sum of money, or principal, from some lender - usually a bank (in the case of Direct Unsubsidized loans, the lender is the federal government). You also agree to particular loan terms, including interest rates and length of repayment. When you make loan payments, which usually happens on a monthly basis, you pay back a portion of the principal plus extra money: the interest, or a percentage of the principal that's accrued (accumulated).The longer you take to pay back the loan, the more interest accrues. The bigger your principal, the more interest accrues. You can think about interest as a charge or a fee that you pay to your lender. Interest is how lenders make money on loans. It usually starts accruing as soon as the loan is disbursed (when the money is given out, or provided to you. Sometimes, the interest that has accrued on your loan is added to your principle. When new interest accrues, it will be on this new, larger principle.This is called capitalization - when this happens, you start paying interest on more than your original loan amount, which means more interest. Loans can be really helpful when it comes to paying for school, but as you may have guessed, people generally don't love being in student debt. When thinking about how much student debt you can afford, it may be helpful to consider the amount of debt you plan on taking out in relation to your expected earnings post-graduation. The more questions you have answered about taking out student loans, the more likely you are to make a decision that's right for you. Direct Unsubsidized Loan Details There are some standardized limits, restrictions, and repayment terms for all students who take out Direct Unsubsidized loans. They don't have some of the perks of Direct Subsidized loans, but they do offer more flexibility. First, there are limits to how much money you can take out in subsidized loans. These annual maximums depend on your year in school: Year Dependent Students Independent Students 1st Year Undergrad Annual Limit $5,500 $9,500 2nd Year Undergrad Annual Limit $6,500 $10,500 3rd Year Undergrad Beyond Annual Limit $7,500 $12,500 Graduate/Professional Student Annual Limit Not applicable $20,500 Total Loan Lifetime Max (includes subsidized loan amounts) $31,000 $57,500 for undergrads $138,500 for grad/professional students (includes any federal loans received for undergrad study) A few notes on these maximums: The vast majority of undergraduate students are classified as dependent. You can read more about dependent/independent classifications here These loan maximums include any money you take out in Direct Subsidized loans. For example, if I take $3,500 in subsidized loans my freshman year as a dependent student, I could take out a maximum of $2,000 in unsubsidized loans that year. These maximums do not include any private loans, or loans that your parents may take out. Unlike Direct Subsidized loans, there's no maximum eligibility window or period for Direct Unsubsidized loans. Interest rates are generally pretty competitive, and are standardized (so, personal credit history doesn't affect interest rates).Rates are slightly higher for graduate/professional students than they are for undergraduates. For 2015-2016, the interest rate is 4.29% for undergraduates, 5.84% for graduate/professional students. Finally, repayment plans (including details about the amount you owe every month, and the amount of time you have to pay back your loans) can be customized, and will depend on variables such as your principle balance and your income.Standard repayment plans set up monthly payments so that you pay off your principle + interest in 120 months, or 10 years. How Are Unsubsidized Loans Different From Subsidized Loans? If you've looked into private loans to help pay for school, you probably recognize that Direct Unsubsidized loan terms are pretty good. Subsidized loans are a bit of a different animal, in that they offer certain perks that you won't find elsewhere.I'll use an example here to demonstrate the long-term financial outcomes of a subsidized vs. unsubsidized loan. Say I take outa $3,500 loan to pay for school my freshman year, at an interest rate of 4.29%. The chart below outlines different outcomes based on loan type if I don't make any payments while still in school. UNSUBSIDIZED SUBSIDIZED Amount Borrowed $3,500 $3,500 Interest Rate 4.29% 4.29% Interest Accrued During School (4 years) $640 $0 Balance Owed at Graduation $4,140 $3,500 Time to Payoff at $50/month (Interest accrues for both subsidized and unsubsidized loans during this period) 99 months 81 months Total Amount Paid $4,950 $4,050 Standard repayment plans for federal student loans set a timeline of 120 months until payoff, but the minimum monthly payments are $50.In this example, it would take me much less time (81 months vs. 99 months) and much less money ($4,050 vs. $4,950) to pay back a subsidized loan vs an unsubsidized loan. Many students have some combination of subsidized and unsubsidized loans. If you decide to take out federal student loans, you should max out your Direct Subsidized loan eligibility before taking out any Direct Unsubsidized loans. Who's Eligible for Direct Unsubsidized Loans? If you're looking for aid to bridge the gap between what you have and what you need to pay for college, unsubsidized loans are good options if you meet all the eligibility requirements. Eligibility requirements are not as strict for Direct Unsubsidized loans as they are for Direct Subsidized loans. They're open to both undergraduate and graduate students, and you don't need to demonstrate financial need to be eligible. You do, however, need to meet all federal financial aid requirements. The following charts list these requirements. You must do all of the following: Have ahigh school diploma, GED, or approved homeschool education Be enrolled or accepted to enroll in aneligible degree/certificate program You can check with your school/program’s financial aid office if you want to confirm eligibility Be registered withSelective Service, if you are male and between 18-25 years old If applicable, you canregister on the SS website Have a validSocial Security Number(unless you’re from the Marshall Islands, Federal States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau) Sign statements on the FAFSAstating that (1) you’re not in default, and do not owe refund money, on a federal student loan, and (2) you’ll only use federal aid money to help pay for your education Access the FAFSA Maintain â€Å"satisfactory† progress in school If you’re concerned about your academic performance, or have questions about what is considered â€Å"satisfactory,† set up a meeting with your dean or other school administrator. In addition to the requirements listed in the chart above,you must be able to check one of the following options: Be aUS citizenorUS national Have agreen card Have anarrival-departure record Havebattered immigrant status Have aT-Visa How Do You Apply for a Direct Unsubsidized Loan? All things considered, eligibility requirements aren't too stringent for unsubsidized loans. The next step after meeting requirements would be to actually apply for this great financial aid resource. You can apply for all types of federal financial aid, including Direct Subsidized loans, by submitting a Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA. The federal submission deadline to receive aid for the 2015-2016 academic year is June 30, 2016. You can find detailed instructions on submitting a FAFSAhere. What's Next? You can get an estimate of your federal aid eligibility, including the amount you could take out in Direct Subsidized loans, by following steps listed in ourPell Grant Calculator guide. Want more information on federal aid that youdon'thave to pay back? Learn more abouthow to get a Pell Grant, and check out our guide onPell eligibility requirements. Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now:

Foster's Beer Strike Brewing Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Foster's Beer Strike Brewing - Case Study Example Foster's General Manager Yatala, Noel Jago, said that, "The LHMU, AMWU and ETU were deliberately misleading the public by suggesting that the vast majority of the company's workforce would walk off the job" (Foster's, 2007). The company has now started looking at the union membership strength involved in this action and claims that less than half of the total worker's strength, are the members of these unions. Therefore the company is telling the world that the Yatala Brewery will keep producing despite this threat. Looking at all the reports appearing in the media, it is quite apparent that so far no side is ready to relent on the issue and both sides are on the offensive. The Unions have not yet communicated any date for the action, but they are soliciting support from all available quarters, including from international unions. The bone of contention in this industrial dispute is the Foster's attempt to used Howard government's industrial relations laws at Yatala brewery, which empowers the employers to negotiate with individual employees instead of their representative unions. Though the company does not bar the employees from becoming members of unions, but such negotiations will certainly discourage the employees from becoming union members, thus weakening the unions and their bargaining strength. Companies and organizations are made for people and by the people, and obviously their effectiveness depends on the behavior and performance of the people running these companies. The true importance of the human resource of any enterprise lies in its ability to respond favorably and willingly to performance objectives and opportunities and in these efforts gain satisfaction from both accomplishing the work and being in the work environment. Core areas of HRM include the individual, the organization and the so cial context of work and how all of these factors shape relations at work and result in organizational performance. LHMU, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union contends that worker's are also peeved after the recent announcement of a hefty hike of 12.5% in the Brisbane brewery CEO's salary, whereas the workers are denied their basic rights (LHMU, 2007). To get the optimum from a satisfied and participative individual is considered to be the ultimate objective of HRM policies. Unions and their outlook have undergone a sea change over the years. Whereas, earlier unions and their leaders were considered as hindrances in implementing newer policies, but now with the concept of marketing and globalization, the union leaders too have become aware about the competitive strength of their company. Earlier unions and their memberships used to be limited to the blue collared employees of a factory or a company, but now most of the union members and leaders come from the IT era, who are well aware about the utility of being net savvy, IT experts and using IT as a powerful tool to reach the outside world and gain support from all corners. Setting up of union websites, using online campaigns etc. are some important methods being used by the unions now. In fact it goes to the credit of the company if it maintains cordial relations with the employe es as well as with the unions. Therefore the decision of Foster's to talk to the employees only by totally sideling the unions appears to be little flawed. Foster's

Metaphysics and Mysticism Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Metaphysics and Mysticism - Term Paper Example Various sections would analyze both the positions and stances. All relevant detailed philosophies and theories would also be considered. The main stance of the paper is a defense of the mysticism argument, not a critic of it. Analysis of the Controversial Views regarding Correlation between Metaphysics and Mysticism Every man and woman that has the desire to understand and know beyond the accepted limitations of physical reality is attracted to the unknown, and by this attraction, be pushed to learn what many do not and wish not. Everything that exists, whether inanimate or not, is connected with an energy binding all things together; to understand this, is to understand the basic principles of Metaphysics. Metaphysics encircles everything that we can perceive through our five senses. Metaphysical belief pushes beyond what is taught in the church or in the Bible, even. It allows one to go outside and sit with the rest of everything that has been created without the hands of man, that is still pure, and be able to feel what it's like to be the grass and the soil. Metaphysics is a way of life to many, and it is taught without teachers. These pages will contain a very brief introduction and explanation of metaphysics and several of its branches of ideas and philosophies. Some scholars believe that Aristotle's "Metaphysics" is only the follow-up or sequel to his extremely well renowned "Physics"; Meaning that Aristotle did not pioneer the spirituality that is now an important part in today's Metaphysics. "All men by nature, desire to know. An indication of this is the delight in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness, they are loved for themselves; and above all others, the sense of sight (Aristotle, 1977)." The first line of Aristotle's "Metaphysics" immediately shows his recognition that the typical five senses perceived by every capable human, are used only in the idea that they are the only way to perceive. Aristotle also states that "All men desire t o know." (Aristotle, 1977), allowing the argument that his thoughts were going toward that of which we cannot know from the five senses that we are born aware of. The argument as to Aristotle's beliefs in the subject can go either way because of an extremely important factor. So one may interpret Aristotle's work as one wishes, it was still his ideas that laid down the essential framework to get the Metaphysical idea moving. Discussion In order for anybody to be able to understand the following ideas and theories, one should take time to put themselves in an open-minded and relaxed state. Once you have entered this state, you will be able to comprehend and understand to the fullest of your capabilities. Relaxation is the ultimate medium for learning, and by being in control of your stress, you can be relaxed whenever you feel the need to, allowing quicker learning and easier understanding. Now things are going to get a little complicated and may begin to get confusing. First of all, there are three divisions of the mind; the conscious, subconscious, and superconscious. (Furse, 1977) These three divisions of the mind control the way we perceive and interact with others, ourselves, and our environment in general. We use these states of consciousness, sometimes entirely unaware of it, for different purposes

Explanation of the Multistep Synthesis of Benzilic Acid Essay Example for Free

Explanation of the Multistep Synthesis of Benzilic Acid Essay The synthesis of several complex organic compounds follows a multistep synthesis. Multistep synthesis refers to the procedure in which the product of one reaction serves as the starting material in the subsequent reaction. The multistep synthesis of benzilic acid begins with a conversion benzaldehyde to benzoin through a condensation reaction. The benzoin then oxidizes into benzil, which undergoes rearrangement to give benzilic acid. Benzoin Synthesis * When two benzaldehyde molecules condense in the presence of thiamine, it leads to the formation of a molecule of benzoin. The thiamine behaves as a coenzyme catalyst. This step of the reaction involves the addition of ethanol and sodium hydroxide into an aqueous solution of thiamine hydrochloride and creating a reaction with pure benzaldehyde. When you heat this mixture to a temperature of 60 degrees Celsius for about 90 minutes and then cool it in an ice bath, the benzoin crystallizes out. Recrystallization of these crystals from hot ethanol yields pure benzoin as a colorless powder. Benzil Synthesis * Benzoin undergoes oxidation in the presence of a mild oxidizing agent such as nitric acid to produce the alpha diketone known as benzil. When you heat benzoin with concentrated nitric acid using a reflux condenser, evolution of reddish brown nitrogen dioxide occurs and then stops. When you add cold water to the cooled reaction mixture, benzil precipitates out as a yellow solid. You can then recrystallize this substance from hot ethanol. 1. Benzilic Acid Synthesis * When you reflux a solution of benzil in ethyl alcohol with potassium hydroxide for 15 minutes and then cool it, it forms the carboxylate salt potassium benzilate. When you dissolve this salt in hot water in an Erlenmeyer flask and add hydrochloric acid to bring the pH down to 2, the salt becomes acidified to yield benzilic acid. Precautions * During the conversion of benzaldehyde to benzoin, you must maintain temperatures below 65 degrees Celsius to obtain benzoin. Take care when refluxing benzoin with nitric acid; the nitrogen dioxide fumes are extremely toxic and can cause lung damage. During the conversion of benzoin to benzil, some benzoin may remain unoxidized. Prevent this scenario by creating a reaction of an ethanolic solution of the benzil with 10 percent sodium hydroxide solution; if benzoin is present, a purple color develops.

Belief Worlds and Epistemic Possibilities :: Philosophy Philosophical Essays

Belief Worlds and Epistemic Possibilities ABSTRACT: This paper develops an individualistic, belief-based account for a limited class of epistemic possibility statements. Section I establishes the need for such an account by reviewing a recent version of the majority view (the "Relevant Community Account") and contesting two key assumptions. I argue that some epistemic possibilities are belief-based-contra the assumption that all are knowledge-based. Against the assumption that all epistemic possibility statements are analyzable in terms of the speaker's "relevant community," I contend that the truth value of some statements is a function of the speaker's epistemic states alone. Section II develops an alternative account designed to capture those internal, individual statements. Modeling belief sets as "belief worlds," I explain our epistemic processes in terms of an ability to shift attention among our various belief worlds. Ever since G. E. Moore set out to explain the phrase "it's not certain that" and ended up offering a definition of epistemic possibility, ordinary uses of epistemic modal sentences have commanded more attention. A number of more recent accounts-which I'll call the "Moorean accounts"-follow Moore by analyzing all statements having the form "It's possible that p" uniformly. Their analysis is uniform in that they make two assumptions: first that some community is relevant in every case, and second that every statement is analyzable in terms of knowledge. I think that both assumptions are false, so one thing I'll do today is to suggest truth conditions for statements failing of both assumptions-"individual, doxastic possibility statements." I will have time to contest only the first assumption, though, and will therefore help myself to my conclusion regarding the second; I will assume that the locution "It's possible that p" is not restricted to expressions of epistemic, that is, knowledge-based possibility, but may be used to express doxastic or belief-based possibility as well. The first assumption-that some community is relevant to every use of "It's possible that p"-will be my main concern, then. To make the assumption in its stronger form, as Ian Hacking and Paul Teller do, is to treat all uses of "It's possible that p" as statements to be translated as "For all we know, p." But the locution "It's possible that p" is used not only for statements of that sort-for, in my terminology, "community statements"-but also for what I'll call "individual statements"-statements properly translated as "For all I know, p." The assumption that some community is relevant to every use of "It's possible that p" is also made by Keith DeRose, but in a weaker form.

Leadership in the 21st Century: Contrasting Views of Leadership and Their Utility for My Practice

HML 1001: Leadership of change S. McGowan. June 2008 Leadership in the 21st Century: Contrasting Views of Leadership and their Utility for My Practice Introduction In this paper I will examine two modern views of leadership. The leadership models I have decided to review are Servant-Leadership and Discretionary Leadership and my aim is to describe them, explore some of their similarities and differences and consider their usefulness for my own practice. Servant-Leadership Robert K Greenleaf defined Servant-Leadership in1970 in his essay ‘The Servant as Leader’ (Greenleaf, 1970). Greenleaf attributes the inspiration for his idea to the novel ‘Journey to the East’ by Herman Hesse (1932), where the central character Leo; servant to a party of travellers, proves ultimately to be the vital member of the group, whose mission fails without him. The servant-leadership theory is based on a model of empowerment and contrasts sharply with models of leadership that are based on power. Instead of concentrating on the acquisition of power and control, servant-leaders focus on helping people to grow and fulfil their potential. Greenleaf states: the servant-leader is servant first†¦ It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions’. (Greenleaf 1970) The servant-leadership theory advocates the role of leader as serv ing rather than controlling. By serving the needs of their workforce, clients and communities servant-leaders can harness the full force of an empowered group. Servant-leadership models promote a sense of community and an holistic approach to work and, ultimately, society. Steven R Covey, vice chairman of Franklin Covey, the world’s largest management and leadership development organisation, described four roles of leadership in his keynote speech to the Greenleaf Centre’s (www. greenleaf. org) 1999 conference (Covey 1999). These are: (i)Setting an Example: Leaders must work hard, contribute and model integrity, humility and the values of servant-leadership. Integrity breeds confidence and generates followers. ii)Pathfinding: Creating a vision that involves and inspires, and that through empowerment, mobilises the efforts of others. This way, strategic planning is values based and derived from an understanding of people’s needs. This is in stark contrast to power models, which espouse individualistic missions and goals for organisations to be ‘herded’ towards. (iii)Alignment: Aligning the systems and struct ures of an organisation to serve the agreed task and vision. Values need to be ‘institutionalised’ and language and action must be consistent. iv)Empowerment: This is what Covey describes as the ‘fruit’ of the first three roles: When you have a common vision and value system, and you have put into place structures and systems reinforcing that vision, when you have institutionalised that kind of moral authority – its like lifeblood feeding the culture, the feelings of people, the norms, the mores – feeding it constantly†¦You can†¦release the enormous human creativity, the human ingenuity, the resourcefulness, the intelligence of people to the accomplishment of those purposes. Everything connects together: the quality of the relationships, the common purpose and values. You find that people will organize themselves. They’ll manage themselves. People are drawn to doing their own best thing and accomplishing that worthy purpose, that vision. That’s empowerment! (Covey 1999) Max DePree has famously defined leadership as ‘a serious meddling in other people’s lives’ (DePree 2002). DePree is concerned with the interdependence of members of organisations and has argued that leadership can’t be just about the individual: When we think about the people with whom we work, people on whom we depend, we can see that without each individual, we are not going to go very far as a group. By ourselves, we suffer serious limitations. Together we can be something wonderful. (DePree 1990) DePree coined the term ‘Fiduciary Leadership’; one of the three things he believes to be vital to servant-leadership. Fiduciary leadership describes a model of leadership based on trust and reliance. With this model, leadership is a set of opportunities and accountabilities bestowed (temporarily) by followers, in the trust of the leader. Central to this concept is the idea that the ‘led’ are consenting to be led and this idea lies at the heart of democratic society. In the 18th Century Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Anglo–Irish statesman and political philosopher wrote: It is the love of the people; it is their attachment to their government, from the sense of the deep stake they have in such a glorious institution, which gives you both your army and your navy, and infuses into both that liberal obedience, without which your army would be a base rabble, and your navy nothing but rotten timber. Burke1775) With regard to fiduciary leadership Burke said: All persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust. (Burke1790) And DePree says: Leadership is not a position†¦promotion has never made anyone a leader. Leadership is a fiduciary calling. Inherent in this calling is the knowledge that hope plays a critical part in the lives of fo llowers. Fiduciary leaders design, build and then then serve inclusive communities by liberating human spirit and potential’ (Depree 2002) Here again, then, the themes of leaders serving and harnessing human potential in organisations that are communities. Depree’s second ‘necessity’ vital to servant-leadership is broadenning the definition of leadership competence. He describes five areas of compertence: Firstly, defining and expressing reality for an organisation; second, vision and strategy; third, enabling creative people; fourth, transforming – by learning, risking and changing – and finally, unleashing the potential of all members of an organisation. Depree’s referrence to ‘transforming’ is important. Servant-leadership and fiduciary leadership are both examples of Transformational Leadership (Burns 1978). Transformational leadership is concerned with bringing about progress and accomplishing success through communication, influence and empowerment, as opposed to Transactional approaches, which favour activities such as resource management, and management by policy, proceedure and control. Transactional leaders prefer systematic approaches, organisational hierarchy, straightforward objectives and tried and tested techniques. They manage efficiently but are in danger of producing mediocrity and suffocating innovation and creativity (Fairholm 1991). Transformational leaders reject the rigidity of transactionalists, arguing that ideas such as Scientific Management (Taylor, 1910), with their focus on controlling the minute details of the means of production are restrictive , dehumanising, alienating (Marx, 1959) and, ultimately outdated. Conversely, the transformational model can be criticised as inefficient, wasteful and lacking focus and direction. The third of Depree’s three neccesities for servant-leadership is a clear moral purpose. He argues that leadership requires moral purpose to give it meaning, measures and a worthwhile goal. Keen on lists, DePree desribes six ‘signs’ of moral purpose. These are: (i)An acceptance of Human Authenticity: Organisations comprise individuals with a ‘cornucopia of gifts and talents’ and not just their ascribed roles or inherent characteristics. (ii)Rights: All are entitled to the right to belong; to ownership; to opportunity; to inclusion; to a covonatal relationship as ‘members’ of the organisation. iii)Truth: Consistent, multifaceted honesty is crucial to moral leadership (iv)Vulnerability: An absence of ego and openness to criticism. Willing to listen to others, to experiment, to make mistakes and to learn from them. (v)Equitable Distribution of Results: Distributing ‘profits’ fairly is a necessary and motivating feature of an org anisation that demands high levels of contribution from its members. Results or profits can be financial or else less tangiable outputs. (vi)Personal Restraint: Vulgar displays of power, wealth and status are offensive and demotivating to others. Ultimately, then, the servant-leadership theory regards leadership as a moral calling. Greenleaf’s leadership theory also has its basis in morality and latterly he concerned himself with the question of managing change in society, citing examples of immoral, senseless and destructive problems in the world. His view was that the system to deliver the necessary change would be the one that works best – in his view servant-leadership: The difference [between leader first and servant-leader] manifests itself in the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (Greenleaf, 1970). To read Greenleaf and his followers, one might conclude that servant-leaders are essentially ordinary people drawn naturally, perhaps randomly, from the servant ‘classes’. People with philanthropic and selfless natures, who assume leadership positions only to spread their good deeds more widely. Interfering (DePree 1993) ‘do-gooders’ best suited to social and charitable enterprises! However servant leadership places as much emphasis on leadership as it does on servitude, even if the servant has to come first. Powerful servant-leaders can be found at the head of many serious, succesful, profit making organisations (e. g. Herb Kelleher, CEO South West Airlines, Jack Lowe, chairman of TDI Industries and Rich McClure, president of UniGroup Inc. [all US]) and, most recently, servant-leadership is the leadership philosophy espoused by newly elected President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea, who has called for servant-leadership as his primary presidential leadership vision (Hyun-kyung, 2008): Military leaders or professional politicians will be unable to manage the economy any longer mainly because they were born to wield power, instead of serving citizens. These leaders attempt to rule the country, while managers serve their customers. As a result, the boss is destined to wane, while servant leaders achieve mutually beneficial goals for the community. (Myung-bak, 2002) If we look more closely, then, servant-leadership, far from rejecting the idea that some people are natural leaders, actually shares many ideas with ‘trait’ models of leadership. Trait theories date back to the first half of the twentieth century and Weber’s thory of leadership-charisma (Webber 1947) is a good example. Trait theorists argue that leaders neither emerge naturally as a result of a personal ‘epiphany’, nor are they created by experience or training, but that they are born. Born leaders are the result of natural selection (Darwin 1859). Nicholson (2000) describes how evolutionary psychology has produced ‘alpha-males’: hard wired individuals with natural leadership qualities driven, by high levels of testosterone, to seek an optimal seratonin buz by taking charge and achieving personal success. Grrrrr! Foremost among these natural leadership qualites is charisma. Charismatic Leadership (House 1977, Burns 1978) concerns itself with the impact of charisma on the leader/follower relationship and the effect of charismatic leadership on the motivation and morale of followers. Charisma is regarded as an inate quality, a charm that compells others to follow. Freud described charisma as an ability to realise compliance from others (Freud 1922). Charismatic leaders are heroic, energetic and driven by dissatisfaction with the status quo. Although generally seen as a transactional model, charismatic leadership, when paired with a moral basis, is far from inconsistent with servant-leadership. In fact, many of the qualities required of the servant-leader such as vision, integrity and empowering others can be regarded as extremely attractive and thus charismatic qualites. Indeed Jesus Christ, cited by many servant-leadership disciples as the ultimatate servant-leader, was undoubtedly a charismatic leader. Discretionary Leadership In contrast to servant-leadership – which, whilst advocating a different moral basis for leadership, retains traditional ideas of hierarchy and organisational structure – discretionary or ‘shared’ leadership theory recognises the need for a number of leaders with different viewpoints and responsibilities to coexist and cooperate in organisations. Discretionary leadership has emerged as a model suitable for complex modern day organisations (Kakabadse, 2000) with complex environments, contexts, and structures or, as Hunt put it, ‘macro-variables’ (Hunt 1981). Modern organisations are frequently network based, where the sum of a wide and diverse set of functions and departments combine to form a ‘virtual’ whole. Discretionary leadership places high value on an organisations’ ability to respond effectively to multiple agendas and stakeholders in a variety of situations simultaneously: a challenge that would be impossible to meet with conventional hierarchical organisations where leadership authority is held by a small number of senior managers. In essence, modern complex organisations need to coordinate the actions of a broad group of employees who adopt leadership behaviours, when and as required, to tackle the issues they face. Discretion would seem to be a two way process with this model: Senior leaders still define the degree of leadership authority that is delegated at their discretion, whilst employees are expected to adopt leadership roles, when necessary, at their discretion. Not completely un-hierarchical, but certainly less paternal and more organic than traditional models of leadership. Thus roles are defined in terms of the breadth of their discretion. At one extreme, some employees will have minimal discretion and be expected to carry out their duties in strict accordance with prescribed procedures – a model akin to that of production line workers in a scientific management system (Taylor 1910). At the other extreme, the CEO of an organisation has ultimate discretion. Between these two extremes it is vital that the quantity and quality of available leadership is commensurate with the needs of the organisation. Discretionary leadership, it is argued, is not only a suitable model for complex network-based organisations, but also the model of leadership that will naturally emerge in response to the pace and pressure of organisational change in the twenty-first century: The nature of role discretionary boundaries is increasingly determined by personal views concerning the challenges leaders face and the nature of those with whom they interact†¦Thus, the idiosyncratic nature of the organisation, the peculiarities of each leader role and the characteristics of each individual occupying such a role, are critical considerations in determining role boundaries and parameters. Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1999) Organisations that require/generate substantial numbers of discretionary leaders will, by definition, include a multitude of visions and ideologies. Achieving cohesion is the vital key for this group model of leadership to be effective. This is achieved by those in charge skilfully conducting multiple conversations (or ‘polylogue’ – Kakabadse, 2005); by discretionary leaders reflectively understanding their roles and relationships and acting responsibly, and by promoting a shared philosophy, core vision and value system. Kouzmin has described this as the role of the ‘organisational architect’: The focus [for Contemporary leaders] has shifted increasingly to the role of the ‘organisational architect’. The principal contributing skill of architects is an ability to design and develop organisations; skills that require considerable creative insights and technical knowledge about how to analyse, design and stimulate complex, increasingly globalising, social and communication networks supported by rapidly advancing IT. Kouzmin et al. , 2007) With this model, leadership is not simply about goal-oriented control and coordination. Leaders need to properly understand the context in which actions are exercised and the appropriate mobilisation of others (Kakabadse, 2005). The modern organisation will be flatter, less hierarchical and based more on networks. It will be founded on interdependency, communication and the flow of ideas (supported by ever more sophisticated information techn ologies) rather than command and control models. With discretionary leadership employees will be incentivised to produce value by being fully and intelligently involved in the overall purpose of their organisation rather than alienated in the way that Marx (1959) has criticised scientific management (Taylor 1910). However, discretionary leadership also has its critics. Variations and tensions among workers in leadership roles can lead to negativity, whilst success is highly dependent on cohesion and the quality of interactions; both notoriously hard to control in network-based organisations: Where discretionary role analysis highlights variation of experience, capability, values, personality, behaviours, and the exercise of choice among the leaders of the organisation, tension and conflict become endemic with potentially disastrous implications for individuals and the organisation. (Finklestein and Hambrick, 1996) Globalisation, fast moving technological development, the increased recognition and value of social capital, multi-faceted demands and accountabilities, and the need to respond simultaneously and effectively to a number of agendas, means that organisations need different leadership models in the twenty-first century. Models of leadership that might have been appropriate to the manufacturing industries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries now seem increasingly inappropriate to the educated, informed, skilled and sophisticated workforce of the present day, whether working in manufacturing or (more probably) in paper-based organisations or the service sector. It can, therefore, be argued that discretionary leadership is the ideal solution for the future, but only in a carefully esigned and managed system that maturely accepts the inherent will and ability to lead that is both needed and to be found within many key members of complex organisations. The utility of these ideas for me The leadership theories that I have chosen to examine might be considered to have much in common and it might seem that more radical alternatives could have been examined in order to better illustrate the contrast between theories. I have however chosen to focus on these models because of their resonance with my own i deas about leadership and their utility for a modern health service. I would also refute the view that servant leadership and discretionary leadership are very similar. Yes, they are both progressive, placing as they do an emphasis on employee empowerment and the importance of shared values and vision. However, servant leadership takes a rather traditional and paternalistic view of the structure of organisations and those destined to lead them, whilst discretionary leadership is based on a much more sophisticated understanding of the structural configuration of modern organisations. Personally, I have found utility in each of these models. As service lead for a new specialist mental health service, I am acutely aware of the complexity of modern day organisations as described by Hunt (1981) and Kakabadse (2000) in their explorations of discretionary leadership. The multifarious environmental, contextual and structural variables of the NHS epitomise the challenges recognised by advocates of this model. The NHS is also increasingly network based and is certainly the sum of a wide and diverse set of functions. For my own service, the ability to respond effectively to multiple agendas and stakeholders in a variety of situations simultaneously is vital. Our structure, although not completely without hierarchy, is relatively flat. The largest group of employees in my service are senior, professionally qualified practitioners including nurses, doctors, psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists. Each of these practitioners is responsible not only to me but also to their professional bodies and, as such, have a substantial degree of authority devolved to them, and broad freedoms to act and make decisions. The need to coordinate the actions of this broad group of employees is central to my role as service lead, as is the need for these well-paid individuals to accept and adopt leadership behaviours, when and as required, without undue recourse to management advice or consent. Discretionary leadership theory also recognises the need for a number of leaders with different viewpoints and responsibilities to coexist and co-operate in organisations. This is extremely pertinent to modern mental health services, which are both multi-disciplinary and multi-agency. With multi-disciplinary teams, each different discipline ideally brings unique professional skills and ideologies to the service, which are then combined to produce a multi-dimensional ‘whole’ befitting of a service aimed at meeting the holistic needs of diverse individuals. For me, the achievement of cohesion is certainly the vital key to realising this ideal and Kakabadse’s (2005) notion of ‘polylogue’ resonates with me. Similarly, modern mental health services exist as components of broader networks that transcend the traditional boundaries of the NHS. In order to run an effective service I need to manage interfaces with a wide and diverse range of partner agencies and stakeholders that include GPs and other referrers, social care agencies, specialist providers, the criminal justice system, drug services, community and faith groups, and service users and their carers. Pollywollydollylogue! Central to the achievement of cohesion in my service has been the promotion of a shared philosophy, vision and value system and Kouzmin’s (2007) concept of the ‘organisational architect’ appeals to me in this sense, with its emphasis on leaders’ responsibility for designing and developing organisations with shared vision and effective communication networks. This concept of shared vision is also found in servant-leadership. Covey (1999) emphasised the need for leaders to create a vision that involves and inspires, and that mobilises the efforts of others, and Depree’s (2002) third neccesity for servant-leadership was a clear moral purpose, arguing that leadership requires moral purpose to give it meaning. It is not surprising that such sentiments should find esonnance in the NHS, or any other care sector organisation that has its base in social morality, and we are reminded of Bevan’s vision for a national health service, available to everyone and free at the point of access, sixty years ago: The collective principle asserts that†¦ no society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means. (Bevan 1952) Interestingly, ‘moral purpose’ has played a significant role in influencing the development of my specialist field, Early Intervention in Psychosis (EI P), in this country. The introduction of this new model of mental health service has been extensively driven by a ‘bottom up’ approach that has witnessed the emergence of a ‘social movement’ for mental health reform (Bate et al, 2004): A diverse group of proponents, including statutory and non-statutory agencies, clinicians, service users and carer groups who are impatient for service reform and find commonality with the civil rights movement, equal rights for women campaigners and Gay Pride. Despite its diversity, this mental health social movement is connected by a shared view that that the suffering associated with the poor outcomes experienced by people with serious mental health problems is unnecessary, and largely a product of inadequate and ineffective services. It is argued that the kind of radical, transformational change required for mental health modernisation will not be achieved by top down, programmatic, transactional leadership approaches, but must be complemented by a grass roots desire for bold, sustainable change. Harnessing this shared sense of moral purpose has proved crucial to achieving cohesion in our complex service and is constantly and intentionally reinforced through team meetings, training and supervision. DePree’s (2002) notion of ‘fiduciary leadership’ also resonates and the sense that my position is one of responsibility and accountability both to and for a group of staff remains important for me. Having emerged from the ‘ranks’, my painfully slow rise to mediocrity might be seen as a good example of Greenleaf’s model, where individuals accept leadership, with modest reluctance, as a means to better serve others. In reality, my pathway has been determined by a combination of bossiness, laziness and poverty, fueled by a growing sense of moral purpose and by a personal philosophy that ‘it is better to lead, than be led by a w*nker’. I am, however, genuinely drawn to many of the core values of the servant-leader model: I believe that as leader I must work hard, contribute and model the values of the service. I believe that language and action must be consistent and that integrity breeds trust and confidence. I am keen to drive progress through experimentation and risk-taking but recognise interdependence with work colleagues and that change and improvement will only be delivered by harnessing human potential, empowering staff and clients, and by helping people to grow and fulfil their potential. In a service where ‘recovery’ is the product (or ‘profit’) it is vital that everybody’s contribution is acknowledged and people are fairly rewarded. Inevitably our system rewards some more than others and the recent introduction of ‘Agenda for Change’, the new NHS pay structure, has arguably made this harder. Never the less, I strongly agree with the need for personal restraint (DePree, 2002) in a system with such a wide range of pay scales. There is nothing more offensive than a highly paid NHS manager in an expensive sports car, no matter how severe their mid-life crisis. I do also recognise the reasonable criticisms of servant-leadership when presented as a purely transformational approach. Traditional transactional activities such as resource management, policy and proceedure are also necessary in a twenty-first century health service and some control remains necessary if outcomes are to be realised efficiently. Balancing these requirements with empowering models is the key, in my view, to enabling innovation and creativity whilst avoiding mediocrity and waste. Finally, as a big, hairy bossy-boots, I would need to declare some sympathy for the trait theorists. I think that I do have some natural in-built leadership qualities, as well as plenty of testosterone, and I enjoy seratonin as much as the next man (or woman)! Learning Points Foremost among the learning points stemming from this assignment for me was the relevance and usefulness of this subject to my work and this has been explored in the previous section. Also, I was surprised at just how large in both breadth and depth this subject is. Theories on leadership can be traced as far back as the ancient Greeks and Romans, with a massive expansion of interest dating back to the nineteenth century, culminating in a veritable explosion from the middle of the twentieth century onwards. And leadership theories stem from a wide spectrum of fields including industrial, religious, military, financial, educational, political and organisational. I have learned that no one model fully explains everything or is pertinent to all situations, and that leadership models, like history, are open to interpretation and reflective of the dominant culture of a particular place or time. Theories seem to exist, like most things, on a continuum, with poles that represent unworkable extremes such as dictatorship and anarchy. In between lie a spectrum of models that will have different levels of utility according to the presenting circumstances. I have reflected that there are times when strong, authoritarian leadership is necessary (such as wartime or when trying to organise a multi-agency conference! ) and there are times when more subtle influence is required. Coming from a health service management perspective, this assignment has reinforced my view, as illustrated by Covey’s (1999) description of servant leadership, that clinicians in caring roles have to want to perform well and that managers can’t force workers to ‘care’ – any more than the north wind could force the man to remove his cloak in Aesop’s sixth century BC fable of the wind and the sun: Kindness, gentleness, and persuasion win where force fails. (Aesop, 6BC) I have also learned to recognise that different, coexisting parts of the same organisation can be working to different leadership models simultaneously. For example, in our organisation, the IT and catering departments might be run along the lines of scientific management, the finance department (and in particular the director of finance) employ authoritarian transactional control, whilst our clinicians require engaging and empowering approaches to optimise their creativity and output. The CEO, as ‘organisational architect’ needs considerable skill to hold all of this together and I have learned that complex organisations like ours can only function when discretionary leadership roles are promoted. When thinking about the different types of leadership required in the NHS, I was also led to consider the problems that occur when leadership style conflicts with leadership need and there are many examples of organisational problems stemming from this kind of dichotomy. Similarly, problems occur when the ‘espoused’ (Argyris, 1974) theory of leadership differs from the theory in action. The starkest example of this, perhaps, would be Adolph Hitler, who espoused to be the natural leader (‘Ubermensch’ – Nietzsche, 1883) of national socialists but was in fact a nasty dictator. Speaking of dictatorship, in studying for this assignment I found myself naturally drawn to models of leadership that reflect my own values and beliefs and that vindicate my own approach. At the same time I found it useful to see these ideas in their broader context and contrasted with alternatives. I have become increasingly aware of the social, political, philosophical and spiritual dimensions of leadership theory and was struck by the strong link between Christianity and servant-leadership, with many of its exponents being unashamed god-botherers with evangelical tendencies. This led me to reflect on the way leadership theories have been influenced by dominant cultural models over time, and how we have seen a transition from authoritarian ‘old testament’ models of leadership at the start of the industrial revolution, to the scientific and evolutionary models of the twentieth century and, finally, to models based on the modern Christian/Humanistic values of empowerment. In the NHS we have witnessed a shift from leadership models based on power and status (Consultants, Medical Superintendents etc. to models based on emulating the business models and management control of business/industry, to the discretionary models of leadership that are increasingly found in large, complex, network-based NHS organisations. It remains to be seen whether the NHS will continue this evolutionary journey or, as some fear, pendulum back to models based on the divine power and status of medical leads and general managers. Conclusion This essay asked us to consider leadership requirements for the twenty-first century and I would be inclined to agree with Greenleaf’s (1970) axiomatic proposition that the system needed to deliver the necessary change would be the one that works best. For Greenleaf that was servant-leadership. Importantly Greenleaf identifies the requirement for leadership to deliver the ‘necessary change’, and this examination of leadership theories has shown me how the management of change is central to the purpose of leadership and how successfully managing change is a defining characteristic of leadership (Pedler et al, 2004). Pedler describes this in a way that both resonates with me and promotes simultaneously the ideas of discretionary leadership, servant leadership and transactional progress: Major change usually involves large numbers of people, and there are usually many agendas present concerning what the change should be, what it is for and how it is achieved. Listening to and balancing these views and concerns, whilst continuing to move forward is one of the hallmarks of good leadership. (Pedler et al, 2004) With regard to whether a different kind of leadership is required for the twenty-first century, I think that it can be concluded that different scenarios demand different models of leadership. Kakabadse (1999) argues that discretionary leadership will naturally emerge in response to the pace and pressure of organisational change in the twenty-first century. For me, the model of leadership needed in the twenty-first century, will be the one that best reflects the cultural norms and values of the century. For modern NHS organisations, I am inclined to agree with the discretionary leadership theorists that flexible, interdependent, multi-layered leadership based on shared values, relationships, communication and the flow of ideas is required. Gooding supports the view that the requirements of the twenty-first century will undoubtedly be different to those of the preceding centuries: The manager will become much more of a coach, positioned alongside rather than above his team, working with them, acknowledging their concerns, ideas and aspirations. (Gooding, 2005). According to Gooding, the ‘command and control’ culture is dying and the personality profile of successful managers will change, emphasising empathy and sensitivity. However, despite many examples of successful servant-leaders, I remain to be convinced that these models will soon be adopted in the ‘for-profit’ sector, where macho, transactional behaviour is still valued and rewarded: ‘You’re fired! ’ (Alan Sugar, 2008) References Aesop, (6BC). A Selection Of Aesop’s Fables From A New Translation For Modern Readers (1953), Wolverhampton College of Art Argyris, C and Schon D (1974). Theory in Practice, Jossey Bass Bate, P, Robert, G & Bevan, H (2004). The next phase of healthcare improvement: what can we learn from social movements? Quality and Safety in Health Care,13, p62 Bevan, A (1952). In Place of Fear, New York: Simon and Schuster Burke, E (1775). Speech on Conciliation with America, March 22, 1775, Department of Alfa-informatica, University of Groningen Burke, E (1790). Reflections on the Revolution in France and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to that Event in a Letter Intended to be Sent to a Gentleman in Paris, Pall Mall (London): Dodsley Burns, JM (1978). Leadership, New York: Harper Row Covey, S R (1999). Servant leadership and Community Leadership in the Twenty-first Century in Spears LC and Lawrence M (2002) Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin Of Species, London: John Murray DePree, M (1990). Leadership is an Art, Dell Depree, M (2002). Servant Leadership: Three Things Necessary in Spears LC and Lawrence M (2002) Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley Fairholm, GW (1991). Values Leadership: Towards a NewPhilosophy of Leadership, London: Praeger Finklestein, S and Hambrick, DC (1996). Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and their Effects on Organisations. New York: West Publishing Agency Freud, S (1922). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. London: International Psychological Press Gooding, V (2005). What will Tomorrow’s Organisation Look Like? In Leadership and Management in the 21st Century: Business Challenges of the Future (ed. ) Cooper, CL (2005). Oxford University Press Greenleaf, RK (1970). The Servant as Leader. In (eds. ) Zimmerli, WC, Richter, K and Holzinger, M (2007. ) Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, Berlin: Springer Hesse, H (1932). Journey to the East (Die Morganlandfahrt), Samuel Fisher House, RJ (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In Leadership: The Cutting Edge, (eds. ) JG Hunt and LL Larson. Carbondale. IL: Southern Illinois University Press Hunt, JG et al. (1981). A Multiple Influence Model of Leadership. Report for the US Army Research Institute. Carbondale. IL: Southern Illinois University Press Hyun-kyung, K (2008) Will Servant Leadership Work in Next Government? In Korean Times, 30/01/08 Kakabadse, A & Kakabadse, N (1999). Essence of Leadership. London: International Thompson Kakabadse, A (2000). From Individual to Team to Cadre: Tracking Leadership for the Third Millennium. Journal of Strategic Change, Vol. 9 pp. 5-16. Kakabadse, A (2005). Discretionary Leadership: From Control/Coordination to Value Co-Creation Through Polylogue. In Leadership and Management in the 21st Century: Business Challenges of the Future (ed. ) Cooper, CL (2005). Oxford University Press Kouzmin, A Kakabadse, A & Kakabadse, N (2007). Leadership and Ethics in a Managerialist Context. In Public Governance and Leadership: Political and Managerial Problems in Making Public Governance Changes the Driver for Re-Constituting Leadership (ed) Koch, R and Dixon, J. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitats-Verlag Marx, K (1959). Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Moscow: Progress Publishers Myung-bak, L (2002). Having Hope Among Continued Frustration, Nicholson, N (2000). Managing the Human Animal. London: Texere Nietzsche, F (1883) Also Sprach Zarathustra, Cherrnitz: Ernst Schmeitzner Pedler, M Burgoyn, J and Boydell T (2004). A Manager’s Guide to Leadership. Glasgow: McGraw Hill Sugar, A (2008). The Apprentice, BBC TV Taylor, FW (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper Weber, M (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. Henderson, AM and Parsons, T, New York: Free Press

Social security policy

Social security policy is a major, convoluted issue in all societies. Millions of people are heavily reliant on social security as a means of support to achieve a basic standard of living. There is thought to be three main welfare regimes, in western society. These regimes are corporate-conservative, socio-economic and liberal. This essay aims to give a brief description of these regimes in action, in relation to the USA, France and Sweden, respectively. Then, go on to compare the regimes, in relation to social security. It will take in to account unemployment, pensions and family policy. Social security is basically the procedure of benefits and transfers in the form of financial assistance as income maintenance which is funded by taxation and/or insurance contributions. (Baldock et al, 1999) There have been three principle types of welfare regime. These are corporatist-conservative, socio-democratic and liberal. The corporate-conservative regime is usually based on individual's contributions, therefore very work-orientated. The socio-democratic regime is usually based on universal values. The liberal regime is usually residualist. This means that the welfare is seen more as a bag-up, only to provide for those who would not manage at all without it. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) France is an example of the corporatist-conservative regime in action. Social security is hinged on solidarity. In this context, it means mutual responsibility, shared risks and common action. It was first brought in to place by the introduction of a regime general for social and health security. This was then expanded. In the 1970's additional measures were introduced to include all ‘excluded' people. The most significant measure was introduced in 1988. This was called the Revenu Minimum d'Insertion. It amalgamated a rudimentary benefit with a personal contract for social inclusion. The French regime is somewhat expensive. The control of expenditure has become the focus of social policy. Pensions play a very prominent part as they are very costly. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/public policy/introduction/wstate. htm) The French regime basically advocates the rights are in accordance status and class. Support comes mostly through private insurance, which is supported by the state. It aims to fortify civil society while limiting the market. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) Sweden is an example of the socio-democratic regime in action. This Swedish model is often judged as the exemplary form of welfare state. One of the integral components is the sense of organised co-operation. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/public policy/introduction/wstate. htm) The socio-democratic regime advocates equality and universalism of high standards. This is through the state. The state is the main way of support; there are high levels of benefits. It aims to amalgamate welfare and work and promote full employment. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) The United States of America is an example of the liberal regime in action. The liberal regime advocates residualism, laissez-faire, individualism and a severe stand on poverty. These are all dominant subjects in USA debates on welfare, yet the USA does not have a unified welfare system. The predominant measures of federal provision came in the 1930's from the Roosevelt administration. (www2. rgu. ac. uk/public policy/introduction/wstate. htm) it was called ‘the new deal'. It was instigated to be a safe-guard against market failures, which was desperately needed after the mass unemployment of the depression years. The main principle behind it was that the state should provide more than just support; it should actually protect the individual. (Miller, 2003) The liberal regime basically has a strong work ethic. Support comes through means-tested assistance. It aims to strengthen the market. (Esping-Anderson, 1990) Unemployment is a very contentious issue. The three countries all have differing ways of dealing with it. France has a twofold system of providing unemployment benefits. One of them is an unemployment insurance scheme. This scheme is when individuals are part of a national collective agreement, which is mediated by the state. This system is financed by contributions. The unemployed are allowed to receive benefits if they are a member of this scheme and it was not their own fault that they lost their job. The provision and duration of these benefits also depends on how long the individual has been part of the scheme. Its payment has two forms. These are either the basic benefits or post-entitlement benefit. (www. eurofound. ie/under. tm) The other system of unemployment benefit is a guarantee supplementary scheme. It is funded by the state and was set up in 1984. its aim is to provide unemployment benefits for widowed or divorced women, young people and other disadvantaged groups, who have not been in the job-market long enough to make substantial contribution. It also helps those who have had been in unemployment for a very long time and are no longe r eligible for the insurance scheme. Its payment comes in two forms, either a work programme allowance or a guaranteed supplementary benefit. (www. urofound. ie/under. htm) This rigid system is in stark comparison to Sweden. Their unemployment insurance benefit (UIB) has been thought to be one of the most generous in the world. It is controlled by the trade unions, finance by the state and administered by 40 voluntary societies. The level of contribution varies as it depends on the likelihood of unemployment. UIB encompasses about 3/4 of unemployed people, the rest rely on social assistance. In the 1990's UIB came under intense pressure because of an increase in unemployment and concern to limit social expenditure. This resulted in that by the late 1990's there was a decreased eligibility and the proportion of previous income received was slashed from 90% to 80%. There is now a far greater pressure on unemployed individuals to join in AMS schemes (Government training schemes) to indicate their availability to work. Involvement in AMS schemes permits the re-establishment of eligibility to UIB. This can be seen as a huge incentive! There is a three year benefit duration limit. Despite this limit, it is still safe to say that it is more generous and less disciplined than that of France. (Cochrane et al, 2001) In comparison to France and Sweden, welfare for unemployment is very complicated. The administration of social assistance is controlled by state or local government agencies, on a decentralised basis, even though funding does come from federal Government. However, USA welfare on employment is mainly through unemployment insurance (UI). Unemployment insurance varies significantly depending on state and local government. However, there are some principles which are relevant to most states. (www. tiss. zdu. uni) Unemployment insurance is not aimed at being long term support for the unemployed. It is designed to be a bridge till they obtain a new job. Unemployment insurance operates under very strict condition for limited periods of time. The number of covered people is relatively low. This is due to the fact that a lot of people are not eligible foe unemployment insurance. (www. law. cornell. edu/topics) Unemployment insurance is not available to the self-employed, domestic servants, farm workers, Government employees and those who have only been briefly employed. (www. buzzle. com) To actually receive unemployment benefits from the state is incredibly complex. The actual law on benefits and who is eligible to welfare schemes is very convoluted. In extreme cases, where vulnerable individuals do not even meet the criteria for schemes of federal support or assistance, may be entitled to state and local or purely state relief. This is called general assistance. (www. law. cornell. edu/topics) It has been found that the population age profile of western societies is changing. We are now living in an increasingly ageing population. The age structure of the population comes from past birth rates, increasing mortality rates, increased longevity and migration trends. This inevitably means an increase in the amount of people who will be eligible for a pension. (Baldock et al, 1999) Therefore, welfare regimes have to account for it. France has a pay-as-you-go system. (www. news. bbc. co. uk) The pay-as-you-go system is basically that the pensions that are being paid out today are being funded by taxing the employed of today. This is in stark contrast to private pension scheme (those favoured in the USA) as these are based on paying pensions out of the contributions an individual made during their entire working life. (Baldock et al, 1999) It is believed that this is going to be unsustainable. This is due to the increasing longevity and the declining birth rates. This means that in the future there will be far fewer workers to pay for the multiplying amount of pensioners. (www. news. bbc. co. uk) This is now worrying the French Government. They are now beginning to take steps to remedy the situation. One example of this can be seen by looking at a bill approved by the French Government, in May of last year. They approved a bill that meant that the amount of time that all Government employees must work in order to get a full pension increases from 37 years and 6 months to 41 years and 9 months. www. telegraph. co. uk) In comparison to Sweden, the French system leaves a lot to be desired. In Sweden, there are two mandatory statutory pension schemes. These are a basic flat-rate payment and a contributory earnings-related scheme (ATP). Both schemes are funded on a pay-as-you-go system. They are paid out of contributions from the current workforce. Every citizen and long-term r esident are entitles to the basic flat-rate pension. To get the ATP pension, they have to have a thirty year history of contribution. However, there is a supplement that can be obtained with the basic pension if an individual has no ATP or a very low level of ATP. For most of the people in Sweden, the two statutory pension schemes, replace or provide around 65% of pre-retirement gross salary. However, these pensions are liable for taxation. Also, 90% of employees in Sweden top-up the statutory schemes by covering themselves with extra occupational pension schemes. These cover various groups of employees and provide up to an extra 10% on replacement income. The extra occupational pension schemes encompass four main schemes and they work on a collective agreement. They cover people employed by local and central government as well as blue-collar workers and white-collar workers. In Sweden, in 1992, only 6. 3% of elderly households were defined as being poor after taxes, this is in stark comparison to the USA as in 1996; just over 20% of elderly households were poor. These are phenomenally different statistics. (Cochrane et al, 2001) There are two public pension schemes in the USA. They are the public flat-rate pension and the public earning related pension. The public pension scheme encompasses both the means-tested, basic-rate pension (Supplementary security income, or SSI) and the earnings related pension (Old-age, survivor and disability insurance, or OASDI). The flat-rate basic pension is financed by general federal Government revenues. However, some states give an additional small state-government supplement. All SSI pensions are subject to income and asset testing. The earnings related pensions (OASDI) are financed through contributions. It is broken down as follows: employee provides 6. 2% of earnings and the employers provide 6. 2% of payroll whereas the self-employed provide 24. % of earnings. The minimum eligibility requirement for OASDI pensions is ten years of contributions. This is also a pay-as-you-go system. However, occupational, private pension schemes are highly recommended. (www. reformmonitor. org) Family policy plays a very significant part in social security. In France, family allowance is assigned to all families with at least two children, under the age of 18, regardless of income. However, there are numerous supplementary means-tested benefits available. There is the family supplement, which is for families with three children, over the age of three. There is also the single parent allowance, adoption allowance, the parental education allowance, the special education allowance for children with disabilities and also the annual school allowance for children between the ages of 6 and 18. There is also the housing allowance; this is calculated by the expense of rent and the families' situation. Additionally, there are also birth payments, maternity benefits and parental leave benefits. These include a means-tested young child allowance; it is available from the fourth month of gestation until the child is three years old. Also, included is a maternity benefit that increases by the amount of children plus if the mother is insured there are even more benefits. There are also paternity leave benefits, where the mother or the father can be on leave up until the child's 3rd birthday. Since 1998, there have been means-tested allowances to decrease the cost of childcare for children under 3 years old. The childcare can be in the home (child minder) or at a registered facility. There are also allowances in childcare for 3 to 6 year olds. (www. reformmonitor. org) Like France, Sweden has a universal child allowance. This is for children under the age of 16 years. This goes up to 20 years, if they are in full-time education. Families, with more that 3 children are entitled to a large family supplement. There is also a family allowance for handicapped children who attend a public school. They also, like France, have a housing benefit. This benefit is also dependant on the expense of rent and the size of family. There are also birth payments, maternity benefits and parental leave benefits but the do not seem as good as France is. There is a paid parental leave for 450 days, which is divided up between the parents. Also, the mother gets special allowances because of reduced work ability. In Sweden, they can also claim a sick child benefit. This is available for a maximum of 60 days, per year, per sick child under the age of 12 years. There is a positive infrastructure of support services to help working parents meet their childcare obligations. It also includes the support of single parents. Since July 2001, childcare expenses were lowered for families with children in subsidised childcare facilities. With this reform came a guaranteed 3 hours a day for childcare for unemployed people. This was so that they could actively seek employment. (www. reformmonitor. org) The USA is completely different from France and Sweden. In the USA, under the temporary assistance for needy families programme (TANF), benefit payments differ widely across states. The TANF programme is to support poor families with low incomes and dependant children. It is often reduced or even stopped after a family has received benefits regularly for 6 to 24 months. This is supposed to help reduce dependence on the state. The main family assistance, which is practically available in most states, is provided through federal income tax. Families with 1 or more children are provided with an ample amount off of income tax and people who earn a very low wage plus have children are given refundable income tax benefits. Unlike both France and Sweden, there are very few employees, who are given paid parental leave, when a child is born or is sick. However, since 1995, unpaid leave for both child birth and child illness has been mandatory. There are 5 states, which do provide income replacements, subject to certain conditions, for up to 52 weeks. Federal employees do benefit from 24 hours of paid leave a year, for child related activities. Some employers, in the USA, do offer subsidised childcare facilities for their staff. However, the majority of employers do not. Federal childcare funding was provided so that states could be flexible in designing inclusive, integrated childcare facilitates, to make it easier for unemployed or single parents to get back to work. (www. reformmonitor. org) To conclude, there are some major differences between each of the welfare regimes. The biggest differences come from looking at unemployment differences and family policy. The USA is probably the most diverse plus the have all had very different consequences. However, there are similarities between some of the aspects. This comes from pensions. All regimes are based on the pay-as-you-go regime, to a certain extent. However, they all have differing success. All in all, it would be hard to say for definite that any one of them would be superior but Sweden would be a definite contender. However, it is safe to say that welfare regimes in the future could benefit from utilising the most successful parts for the present regimes and learning for the unsuccessful parts. Social Security Policy New Labour promised to halve child poverty by 2010 and to eradicate it by 2020, (Walker, 1999). Social security is not merely about poverty relief, as the relief of poverty requires more than just social security reform, it is important to address the position of social security policy at present to see whether Labour can live up to this rather ambitious target it has set. The term ‘Social Security' is used to refer to the range of policies which aim to transfer cash resources between individuals and families. It is concerned with policies which govern the redistribution of resources within society. After coming to power in 1997 the Labour government reviewed the key principles of social security policy. They developed the ‘Welfare to Work' strategy, as they want people of working age to look for employment within the labour market and avoid dependence on the state. The maintenance of a high and stable level of employment was one of the fundamental assumptions of the Beveridge report, and an objective to which all governments were positively committed after 1944 (Lowe, 1993). Hills (1997) argues that since Beveridge, the objectives of social security have never been set out in a way allowing measurement of whether benefit levels are adequate to meet their aims. The original aim of the National Insurance system as introduced following the recommendations of the Beveridge report in 1948 was to set up a system of subsistence level flat-rate social insurance benefits which were intended to cover all the main causes of inability to earn, such as old age, sickness, unemployment, widowhood and orphanhood. It also included virtually the whole body of the populations, whether employed, self- employed or non- employed, as far as possible in the same terms (Sleeman, 1979). Changes in the welfare system have been needed for a variety of reasons, society has changed, and policies need to change to keep in tune with this, these changes include changing families, working women, an ageing society and rising expectations (Giddens, 1998; Hills, 1997). In the UK, the earliest form of social security was the Poor Law which was based around discretionary payments related to individuals' assessment of need, and this continued to play a part in the delivery of many means- tested benefits until the last two decades of the twentieth century (Alcock, 2003). The Elizabethan Poor Law (1598) distinguished between the deserving and undeserving, this is something which is still reflected in Social Security policy; Hewitt and Powell (2002) point out how the use of contracts can be taken back to the deserving and undeserving poor, only now the terms being used are responsible and irresponsible; and this is reflected in the ‘Security for those who cannot' (DSS 1998)- which means no security for those who can but do not. Another similarity between the poor law and the modern welfare state is that Parishes excluded the traveling poor from its boundaries; this is still evident today with the treatment of travelers and the single homeless. This argument is supported by Hills and Gardiner (1997). Within Social Security, Employment policy occupies a crucial position in the post- war reconstruction, and without which the welfare state could not exist. Full employment would both finance the development of the welfare state, and government welfare policy would help to maintain economic growth. Barr (1993) has outlined three social aims of state intervention in income distribution; the relief of poverty in order to protect a minimum income standard was the first. The second is the protection of accustomed living standards to ensure that none has to face an unexpected and unacceptably large drop in their standard of living and the third is, smoothing out income over the life cycle. However, as pointed out by Glennerster and Hills these three interact, the balance between them and the responsibility of the state can differ over time and between countries. The aims of Social Security policy are not merely to be measured in income terms. Social and political participation may be seen as important civic virtues by a broad spectrum of political opinion. Social Security maintains a standard of living that supports inclusiveness (Townsend 1979), the consequences of failure in this respect is ‘social exclusion'. The miseries of unemployment in a work- ethic society are well- documented by Sinfield, (1981). To these are added the harassment and insecurity of dependence on means tested welfare (Bradshaw and Deacon,1983) and the despair of living at a standard of living which steadily falls behind that of the working class in work. (Taylor- Gooby, 1985). Glennerster (1999) has criticized the critics, arguing that paid work brings dignity and respect. Social welfare imposes controls on society, social security regulations distinguish those who do and do not deserve support. As pointed out by Taylor- Gooby (1985) regulations which ensure that a household head is usually responsible for the living standards of family members defined as dependents encourage a certain household pattern. Social Security is traditionally divided into a contributory and a non- contributory sector, the former covers benefits such as sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, retirement pension, widows' benefit- those regarded as the important benefits. In the latter most benefits are allocated to those who can prove that they do through a mean test. Eligibility for social security has two elements, the first being the formal rules and regulations governing provision of benefits and secondly the perceptions of eligibility held by claimants and potential claimants. The contributory principle, whereby National Insurance benefits are linked to earnings established under rules of eligibility which disproportionately excludes those in intermittent or low paid work, those with a higher risk of unemployment as well as recent migrants. The establishment of such policy on the basis of a White, Male norm thereby formally excluded many of those in minority ethnic group from social citizenship rights to such benefits (Amin and Oppenheim, 1992). Post war welfare reforms and immigration legislation have continued to institutionalize racially exclusionary rules which determine eligibility to welfare benefits these include residence tests, rules on ‘recourse to public funds' and sponsorship conditions. This is well documented in the case of asylum seekers in Britain. Compared with some of the other developed industrial countries, Britain has been relatively successful in establishing a general and comprehensive welfare floor. (Sleeman, 1979) As argued by Hills (1997) benefits for those without work may ameliorate their immediate position but they do not solve the problem. A prime aim of social security policy should be for claimants, where possible to find independent sources of income. While the overall level of employment depends on wider economic factors, the social security structure may discourage employment under some circumstances. Under the Conservatives, due to rising unemployment and the recession in the early 1990's changes were made to social security policy with regards to the unemployed. Not only did the costs of paying unemployed people's mortgages reduced, but Income support (IS) payments for mortgages were withdrawn for the first nine months of unemployment. In 1996 Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) was created when contributory unemployment benefit and means- tested Income support were merged. With JSA for the first six months of unemployment there would be a contributory basis and after that it would be means- tested. It was decided that those under the age of 25 would receive a lower rate of benefit and that contract would be introduced between claimants and the benefits agency to formalise job searches and training criteria, as well as establishing availability for work. With regards to means tested benefits, we have all heard politicians expressing their concerns about benefit ‘dependency'. According to Glennerster and Hills (1998) unemployment benefit has been the largest single source of growth in means- tested populations, followed by lone parenthood. A major theme of policy has been to sustain a gap between income and benefits and in work to ensure incentives to work in the face of increasing levels of unemployment, decreasing relative levels of wages for the unskilled, and increased part- time and temporary working, Benefit policy has been changed to both decrease relative value of benefits for the unemployed and to increase use of means testing. This leads to two problems for ensuring incentives to work: one is to ensure that benefit rates are not close to or greater than in- work income and to ensure that those who are working on the margins of benefit entitlement are able to improve their incomes through work. The side- effect of means testing is that benefit is reduced as income rises alongside the incidence of tax and social security contributions on increased earnings. As benefits have fallen relative to incomes over time, the incentives to work, therefore, in general have been improved (Glennerster and Hills, 1998). The main theme of social security policy is ‘work for those who can; security for those who cannot'. Which consist of a rights and responsibilities discourse. Those who cannot work have a right to security. However, for those who can work, the right to benefit is more conditional. The basic philosophy is that work is the best route out of poverty. ‘Making work pay' includes a national minimum wage, tax reform such as Working families tax credits and nursery credits, which increase the return from low paid work and reduce the poverty trap. The government aims to achieve full employment, instead of paying people in poverty more benefit, New labour will redistribute opportunities and take a preventative approach, giving people the skills to escape poverty. Within Social Security policy is employment centred social policy which is based around the ‘New Deal' programmes; which target different groups. For example for young unemployed people there are four choices; education; a subsidized private sector job; a voluntary sector job or an environmental task force; the opportunity for sitting at home on benefits is not an option, as benefits will be reduced. For lone parents there are no penalties for not taking up employment, although they do have to attend work- focused interviews, in order to make them aware of the opportunities available to them. With regards to pensioners; pensions are uprated by prices rather than earning, the poorest pensioners do have a means- tested minimum pension guarantee that ties in with the increase in earnings. This represents a move from Universalism to selectivity. This also means that gradually pensioners will carry on falling behind workers (Powell and Hewitt, 2002). This in itself demonstrates the lack of respect for the elderly, and the fuels the argument that once someone passes working age, they are no longer deemed an integral part of society, and are pushed out of mainstream society. This essay aims to look at the provisions in place for younger people, of working age, for whom the government are trying to move into the labour market. What New Labour is trying to aim for is an active, preventative and intelligent rather than passive welfare state that encourages people to realize their potential rather than being chained to passive dependency (Powell and Hewitt, 2002). The bulk of National Insurance expenditure is on pensions, whereas for sickness and unemployment contributory benefits do still apply. JSA covers unemployment, for the first six months there is non- means tested support for hose who meet the NI contribution conditions and is linked to an agreement by claimants to take steps to secure a return to the labor market. Jobseekers allowance is no longer an Insurance benefit for the unemployed, after six months claimants remain on the benefit, and are subject to the same job search criteria, but their benefit moves onto a means- tested basis, which means any other resources (income from a partner) will reduce one's overall entitlement. In practical terms, means- tested JSA is Income support, given another title, as Income support has for some time been payable to unemployed claimants not covered by National Insurance benefits. It is still available for those out of work, who are not required to seek work under JSA rules, such as lone parents and people with disabilities and Carers. ‘Income support is a minimum income scheme for British citizens' (Alcock, 2003), payable only to those who are out of full- time employment (16 hours a week) and is reduced if there are any earning or any capital above à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½3000 in total. Housing costs are not covered, but claimants who pay rent can apply to their local council for housing benefit and council tax benefit, in some cases interest payments on mortgage debts are covered. For children of parents who are in receipt of Income Support or means- tested JSA free school meals are available. A major feature of social security protection was once sickness, but in the 1980's , under the Tories support for short term sickness (up to six months) was shifted to employment, employers were expected to pay workers a minimum level, whilst they were off sick. After six months, claimants with chronic illness or disability move to Incapacity benefit (NI protection) if they meet the contribution conditions with a medical test, which requires they are incapable of ‘all work'. For those who do not satisfy the contribution condition, they are paid Income Support which is means- tested, as long as they can satisfy the conditions for Incapacity Benefit. For those in low wage employment means- tested support is also available through tax credits, payable through employers, administered by the Inland Revenue. Alcock (2003) argues that there has been a significant shift in the operation of means – tested benefits under the Labour government since 1997. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit, made available to a wider range of low- income families. Not only does this act as a supplement to the wages of low income workers with dependent children, it also aims to make low paid work seem more attractive, to encourage labour market participation as part of the governments commitment to promote employment. The most important of the Universal benefits is child benefit which is paid to all parent or guardians to help them with the cost or rearing children. Critics would argue that, like all Universal services, Child benefit is a waste of public resources by paying benefit to wealthy parents, who do not need this money like poorer parents do. The benefit of Universal benefits is that there is no stigma attached to being in receipt of it. Jones and Novak (1999) argue that the whole benefits system operates to control and discipline citizens rather than support and protect them. There are a number of different theories and ideologies of welfare, the main traditional theories are the Classical Liberal theory; Marxist theories and Fabian theories. Classical liberal theories are based around ideas that see freedom as absence of coercion rather than protection from misfortune and hardship. Within classical liberal thinking there are two contrasting views on the state. Traditional or negative liberal defend the individual liberty while challenging what they perceive as the arbitrary misuse of power. Negative liberals say the role of the state should be minimal. On the other hand there are positive liberals who say that the state can adopt a more constructive role in dealing with social problems. Both positive and negative liberal thinking have been influential on the modern British Conservative party. It is important to make the distinction that not all classical liberals are opposed to the welfare state. Classical liberal theory points out that unwarranted state intervention will only amplify social and economic problems since the market system will be less efficient and economic growth will slow. It is also believed that individual freedom is of paramount importance and any attempt by the state to provide fiscal help to the poor compromises that individual freedom, this is said to be done in two ways; the first is by asking those who earn wages to pay extra taxes to support the poor and secondly, by creating the conditions under which poor individuals and the state will have a relationship of dependency. Classical liberals regard the causes of poverty to be personal, rather than structural; poverty is traced to personal feelings rather than to failings of the political or economic systems. They go on to say that individual rights must be preserved at all times, and go as far to say that people have the ‘right' to be poor. Barnett (1986) stated that the welfare state was necessary for a short time, following the problems created by the Second World War; that those who supported it did not take a long term view of the countries economic needs. The welfare state is no longer beneficial. A recurring objection to the welfare state is the belief that services provide benefit to those who do not need it; such as child benefit, which is a universal benefit and it paid to everyone, regardless of earning, some would see this as a waste. Sidney and Beatrice Webb were influential figures in Fabianism, they believed that collective welfare through the state was not only essential, but an inevitable development within British capitalist society. An early example of the influence of Fabian thinking was with regards to the Poor Laws, whereby in 1905 the Royal Commission was set up to review the old Victorian support system. The significance of this was the governments' recognition that it had to implement major changes to the welfare state. Fabianism is a variant of British Socialism. The ‘New Left' is a term used to describe a broad range of differing approaches to social structure and social policy from a Marxist perspective. In general many agreed that the achievement of the welfare state in Britain was neither as desirable nor as successful as had been assumed. Marxists argued that the welfare state had not been successful in solving the social problems or the poor and of the broader working class, in practice the welfare state supported capitalism, as opposed to challenging it (Ginsburg, 1979) The New Left has been criticized for its theoretical assumptions of the assumed desirability of state welfare services, arguing that for many of the working class social security was seen as being oppressive and stigmatizing. Hayek (1944) argues that despite the overwhelming influence of Fabianism within social policy, right wing critics of state welfare had always argued against the interference of state provision with the workings of a capitalist market economy. This neo-liberal thinking was referred to by Fabians and the new left as the ‘New Right; as it was interested in returning to the classic liberal values of a laissez- faire state, which advocated for self- protecting families and communities. The main argument of the new right was that state intervention to provide welfare services, and the gradual expansion of these which Fabianism sought, merely drove up the cost of public expenditure to a point at which it began to interfere with the effective operation of a market economy (Bacon and Eltis, 1976). They claimed that this was a point that had already been reached in the 1970's , where the high levels of taxation needed for welfare services managed to reduce profits, crippled investment and driven capital overseas (Alcock, 2003). Like the New Left, the New Right also challenged the desirability of state welfare in practice, arguing that free welfare services only encouraged dependency and provided no incentive for individuals and families to protect themselves through savings and insurance (Boyson, 1971). Hayek (1982) argued that state intervention involved unwanted interference with the freedom of individuals to organize their own lives. Neo- liberal thinking is opposed to extensive state intervention to provide public services; effectively they are opposed to the ‘welfare state'. They argue that it is undesirable on ideological, political and economic grounds; that is undesirable in theory and impossible in practice. Their ideological objections to it revolve around their concern about dependency culture; by providing welfare through the state, individuals are discouraged from providing these for themselves and their families, which could in turn trap them into relying on others for support. Murray (2002) makes the point that in social security if everyone is going to be provided with a basic standard of living, this makes it an attractive option for individuals to choose this, rather than seeking paid employment. Which applies to means- tested benefits, whereby entitlement is related to an individuals' income level, this means any increase in income means a loss in benefit. Economically speaking, the welfare state is undesirable because it interferes with the free working of the market, leading to failures in markets developing properly. Although neo- liberals argue that the welfare state is not practical, most recent neo- liberal theorists agree that a safety net should be in place, as it may still be needed. Neo- liberalism, therefore still remains within the mixed economy of welfare, which is found in all modern welfare capitalist countries (Alcock, 2003). Marxist theories are based around the idea of Marx (1970) whose claim was that capitalism is an inherently oppressive economic structure in which the working class are exploited by the capitalist class through the labour market. It is argued by Marxists that Socialism or Communism is the logical and desirable alternative to the failures of both capitalist markets and the welfare state. However, they do not provide any explanation as to how this is to be achieved, except that it needs to be done revolutionarily, rather than gradually and involves the overthrowing of the existing democratic governments. This ideology has never attracted much attention in Britain, making its political potential limited here. Marxists believe that the welfare state uses taxes paid by everyone to provide services and to foster the illusion that the state is altruistic and redistributiove, whereas in actual fact the stae is preserving and reinforcing certain norms and structural relationships. Ginsburg (1979) argued that institutions of welfare operated within British society to control and suppress people as well as to provide for them; arguing that the social security system in practice stigmatized claimants and forced them into low waged employment. This criticism of the British welfare state comes from a Marxist perspective. The strength of the Marxist critique of the welfare within Capitalism is its ability to demonstrate the contradictory nature of social policy as providing social control and social protection at the same time. In 1998, New labour developed a ‘third way', Blair argued that both the right wing pro- market approaches and the old left's support from state monopolistic services should be rejected in favour of a new (third way) which would be located between the state and the market. The new labour government was not interested in whether services were best provided by the state (the old, Fabian, left) or by the market (the right) instead it was looking to find the most effective way to meet social needs; which was a practical judgement based on empirical evidence of effectiveness. Hills (1997) has pointed out that some benefits, such as child benefit, state pension and unemployment benefit for some, go to people unaffected by means- testing, and argues that further means- testing would allow spending to be better targeted. Some have argued that elimination of universal benefits would free up sizeable sums of money, which could then be spent on those that need it the most, which would mean for New Labour that they could go a little further to achieve its targeted with regards to child poverty. Eliminating Universal benefits would mean a substantial reduction in the overall cost of welfare spending, meaning the government could put more money into other areas such as the National Health Service. Social Security is the largest element of public expenditure, greater than both health and education, and accounts for 11 per cent of gross domestic product (Alcock, 2003). Social Security is an important aspect of our society, through state intervention individuals are provided with a basic standard of living, and kept out of absolute poverty. An interesting Marxist theory of the purpose of the welfare state states that the state maintains a ‘reserve army of labour' , through which a certain portion of society are kept out of work , but may be asked to join the labour force when needed. By providing these people with benefits (the unemployed, disabled and lone parents) the welfare state is serving capitalism by maintaining these groups who can be called upon at short notice. Marxists would argue that welfare constitutes social control and ‘polices' the state. They claim that the unemployed and other members of the reserve army of labour are treated harshly, to remind others of the consequences of not working. Lowe(1999) points out that the history of postwar social security was riddled with contradictions. The promise of the Beveridge report was to realize the new ideal of social security, through a simplified system of state relief without resort to the unpopular means- test, aroused immense popular enthusiasm and lay at the heart of the new values and perspectives upon which the new welfare state was initially built. Yet within ten years the social security system was no longer popular. The means test did not wither away and the system started to become so complex that it became self defeating. Social Security has both positive and negative connotations, in practice it can be seen as a benefit and by others a cost (Alcock, 2003).