Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State

The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual

The NHS came around in July 5, 1948. The Health Minister Aneurin (also known as Nye) Bevan purely nationalised the existing system across the UK. The groundbreaking change was to make all services freely available to everyone. Half of Scotland’s landmass was already covered by a state-funded health system serving the entire community and directly run from Edinburgh. Additionally, the war years had seen a state-funded hospital building programme in Scotland on a scale unknown in Europe. This was combined into the new NHS. Scotland also had its own individual medical tradition, this is centred on its medical schools rather than private practice. The legislation that empowered the UK to have the NHS is National Health Service Act (1948), this despite opposition from doctors, who maintained on the right to continue treating some patients privately. The NHS ensured that Doctors, hospital, dentists, opticians, ambulances, midwives and health visitors were available, free to everybody. This Reason why we have health services is because it developments a view that health care was a right, not something given unreliably by charity, also two-party’s agreement that the existing services were in a mess and had to be sorted out, it stopped financial difficulties for the voluntary hospitals and After the second world war it ensured the creation of an emergency medical service as part of the war effort

Human capital is what makes us work, and working is what establishes are living conditions. That’s why productive countries have had increases in income, which made for increases in education and labor training. This is especially beneficial to third world countries, because as women receive more education, the more they learn about their roles in society, independence, family, and contraceptives - which, in turn, decreases the infant mortality rates. However, in order to be productive for a society’s economy, you need to possess certain skills. Skilled individuals have to work together to achieve success. Those who are talented come to the realization that their skills are more valuable in countries that already have a great amount of skilled workers. Being skilled helps trade, and not practicing trade, or being a closed off economy, has a damaging effect. An open economy will grow

That this was also the decade in which globalization came into full swing is more than a minor inconvenience for its advocates” (Rodrick). If globalization is supposed to present an advantage to developing countries, why have there been so many setbacks? Indeed, both sides will have its winners and losers regardless of which side of the development coin they live on, but for the most part globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, improved the standard of living, and increased life expectancy rates all while keeping developed nations relatively competitive to their developing counterparts. Globalization’s value is that it seeks to create an economic equilibrium in the world, where parties are free from barriers and can benefit from one another through a more efficient allocation of resources. This allows all participating nations to contribute to an integrated economy and where all nations willing to embrace globalization have the potential to benefit. Regardless, the path to successful integration to the global economy has not always been easy. There is contention towards globalization as some argue that it is detrimental to developed nations, while many developing countries that were forced to hastily open up their markets and integrate failed. However, if implemented properly, globalization has proven that it can benefit all parties involved and that the potential gains outweigh the losses.

Today Denmark is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Unemployment rates are low. Denmark also has low inflation and a surplus on both balance of payments and public expenditure. The World Economic Forum’s 2008 competitiveness index ranks Denmark in its Top Three world-wide. And the World Transparency Index ranks it as the world champion in non-corruption. Furthermore it should be noted that other international comparisons nominate the Danes as the happiest people in the world! Denmark’s success is so impressive.

Economics is based on several theories, whether it is neoliberalism or the welfare state. Neoliberalism and the welfare state are opposite beliefs that have been introduced to help the United States economy. Neoliberalism has a key goal of improving the well-being of society while encouraging a ‘free market’ economy. Similar to neoliberalism, the welfare state is a concept in which the state is supposed to protect and promote the well-being of society, socially and economically. A welfare state can occur in a neoliberal state. When the welfare state is used, then neoliberals believe an abuse of power is occurring. While the welfare state can occur in a neoliberal state, the role of the government should be limited to allow for a free market.

“We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants—certainly not all—receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare.” In this statement by Ron Paul, a Texas congressman, it is obvious that this subject needs a serious look into modifying our current guidelines. He also states, “Illegal immigrants place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs-programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades.”(1) They

In America today, just over ten million people are on unemployment insurance, one hundred and ten million people are on welfare, and the total government spending annually is around one hundred and thirty billion dollars (Welfare Statistics). The welfare state is a political system based on the proposition that the government has the individual responsibility to ensure that the minimum standard of living is met for all citizens. Specifically, in the matters of health care, public education, employment, and social security, the welfare state assumes all responsibility. According to John Rawls, “In a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice“(Rawls). In the 1840s, Otto Von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of Germany, was the father of the modern welfare state. He built the program to win over the support of the working middle class in Germany and ultimately reduce the outflow of immigrants to the U.S., where welfare did not exist (Welfare State). In the United States, not all companies provided workers with benefits, thus the workers appealed to the government, giving rise to the first form of welfare capitalism.

As Bill Clinton’s campaign strategist once famously said, “It’s about the economy stupid!” This world is run by money, and inevitably there are the haves and the have-nots. The welfare state is a system which offers a grouping of benefits geared towards helping all members of society achieve prosperity and be successful members of society, however it is often criticized and debated in the US. The welfare state is not obsolete, as it fosters educational development to help solidify the future, and keeps from creating a reliance on welfare, all without excessively depleting the US of its monetary funds.

Before President Clinton’s vow to reform welfare, there were a series of changes happening within the United States that led to welfare’s policy change. Welfare originally was implemented to increase labor participation among public assistance recipients. The implementation of Welfare in the 1930s represented a shift from the United States protectionist legacy institutionalized in U.S. social welfare policy from the inception of “mother’s pension” beginning in the early 19th century. On top of that recipients of welfare were no longer widowed, now individuals seeking welfare were also categorized as separated, divorced or never married (Cherlin). The United States populous also began to become less and less sympathetic towards those on welfare.

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are

During the 1950s and 1960s, Europe experienced a period of prosperity. Harold Macmillan gives a sense of just how well these times really were when he says, “Let us be frank about it: most of our people have never had it so good,” (Judt, 324). As political parties moved more towards a common center, rather than towards extremism, a rebirth of democracy was created, underlined by growth and full employment. The support for social democratic ideas flourished along with the prosperity of the 1950s and the 1960s in Western Europe. This time was characterized by conservative individualism and economic growth through regulated capitalism (Mazower, 327). With the help of the Marshall Plan, a global

Globalization and Its Discontents is an incredibly easy read that provides remarkable insight to some of the world largest public institutions. Joseph E. Stiglitz takes the reader on a journey into this world via his own personal experiences as the chief economist at the World Bank in the 1990s. He draws on examples from the East Asia crisis, the transition from command to market economy in Russia, as well as Latin America to support his argument for change in global public institutions. At first glance, it would be expected that the piece would focus entirely on globalization and the potential problems that are experienced from

Globalization is the proximate and multidimensional set of political, economic, social, and technological integration around the globe. The increasing interconnectedness among countries can be seen through the prism of globalization. Essentially, the lives of people living in distant cities like Bangalore and Silicon Valley are brought closer as a result of this phenomenon. Drivers of this adjacent include; the expansion of trade, technological exchange, labor movement and investments (Stearns 2017). The discourse of globalization encompasses several multidisciplinary themes. The paper, however, concentrates on the economic factors, “which, entails the closer economic integration of countries of the world through increased flow of goods, services, capital and even labor.” (Stiglitz 2007: 4). The paper focuses on economic globalization and elucidates whether the globalization has reduced poverty and inequality or had reproduced the reversed implications. Meanwhile, the paper reveals if the developing world has benefited from the set. This seems to be the central question that policymakers, development economists, and politicians have been grappling with for years. The paper is presented in three parts. Part one reflects on the historical context of the problem statement. The second part compiles literature and juxtaposes with cases to corroborate the globalization-poverty-inequality triangle. Finally, the conclusion represents the author’s viewpoint on the

It is fair to say that the ones who benefit the most in economic globalization are developed countries whose social productive forces are highly developed ((El-Ojeili, C. & Hayden, P., 2006.). However, it is difficult for developing countries that are relatively