What is the emotional effect of the provision of welfare?

In social policy

Social Policy is an applied subject; it was developed to meet the needs of people who would be working in the public services. Social administration is the area of the field concerned with the practicalities of service organisation and delivery. In the US, it is dealt with as 'public policy' or 'policy analysis'.

There are five main sectors:

• public sector (provision by the state),
• private (provision for profit by commercial organisations or individuals),
• voluntary or third sector organisations (provision on a non-profit basis),
• mutual aid (provision by solidarity) and
• informal (provision by friends, neighbours and families).
  
  For some the idea of the welfare state means the same as state welfare, and opposition is seen as a commitment to the 'private market'. This can be seen as false choice. The state is not the only provider of welfare in any country, and the 'private market' does not consist of activity for profit, but a wide range of different motivations. There is a mixed economy of welfare. The state does not operate in isolation; rather, it acts in conjunction with a number of non-statutory organisations. The state is actively involved in regulation, finance or subsidy, and direct provision.
  
  In this blog I am just writing about Public sector and the Private sector.
  
  If we look at the public sector there are four main arguments for public sector provision.
• Universal standards. The state is uniquely able to impose a general regime, and so can ensure uniform or minimum standards.
• Social control. Control is used where people need protection (e.g. child abuse), as punishment (like prisoners), and where control increases freedom (like compulsory education).
• Economic benefit the state may be able to perform the action more cost-effectively than is the case elsewhere. National health systems have proved to be cheaper than many liberal systems.
• Residual provision. The state may act as a safety net where other sectors do not provide.

The Three main arguments against are:

• Economic efficiency. State provision does not have clear incentives to reduce unit costs.
• Clientelism. State provision can be the source of patronage or corruption.
• Paternalism. States make decisions for people who could choose for themselves.

When we look at the private sector:

Economic liberals argue that the private market is the best method of arranging the distribution of resources. In Dr Arthur Seldon CBE argued before he died that the price mechanism leads to choice for the consumer a service led by the consumer rather than by the professions more efficient services at lower costs because this increases profitability responsiveness to need because their payment depends on it education of people as to the implications of their choices.

If poor people cannot afford services, we can give them the money to decide for themselves as we do with food and clothing; there does not have to be a publicly provided service.

The main arguments against this position are:

• Market failure. Markets do not work if people do not have choice (e.g. in health care), where there are monopolies, and if people do not bear the costs of their actions themselves.
• Exclusion. Markets exclude 'bad risks' and people with extreme needs.
• Social preference. Markets respond to individual preferences; social needs may be different.

What do you think on this?