Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
to social development. Has the strong provision in Western countries been useful
to overall development, or might it be that some elements of social structure have
actually been damaged by the welfare state?
A central question within the more developed countries is not the reality of
social change or social development, which may be measured in terms of
education levels, housing or medical services, but whether this social provision is
best provided, directly or indirectly, by the state, and whether the state is able to
direct its efforts equitably or efficiently. Evidence shows that in those countries
where welfare has been provided, it has tended to expand to cover more than
basic provision, and to become ever more complex. In the UK, over 90 per cent
of education is provided by the state, over 90 per cent of medical care, and
before the housing reform of 1980, over 30 per cent of housing. There has been a
concern to provide the welfare as evenly as possible, indeed to use welfare
provision as a means to reduce differences between the poor and the rich. In the
event, this has not been possible.
We may take three examples. In Britain, educational facilities, especially those
for higher education, have traditionally been taken up more strongly by the
middle classes, those most aware of the value of education. The provision of
secondary schooling, and still more of universities as a free but voluntary service,
has been of greatest value to these groups, while paid for out of general tax
revenues of the country (Marsland 1996). As another example, the provision of
public housing in Britain has been through local government, which has run this
service in an uneven fashion. In Glasgow and most industrial cities over the
1930-80 period, the council house provision was via a standing list, the top
people on the list being those who had been on it longest. This favours long-term
residents against newcomers, those who are immigrants to the country or to the
city, or newly-formed families who may well be the people in greatest need of
housing. A third example is in the take-up of healthcare, which Le Grand (1982)
has shown is highest for the middle classes in Britain. In one study, professional
people had a 40% higher expenditure on healthcare than unskilled manual
workers, partly due to stronger perceptions of the need for care, and partly to
greater ease of access (private cars, time available) to the services.
These three examples indicate the variety of irregularities in provision and the
complexity of any attempt to address the issue of equity. But there are other
criticisms of the welfare provision which may be more damaging. In the
examples given above, the role of the provision is liable to work against
economic forces and to reduce the efficiency of production in direct ways.
Thus, housing provision in Glasgow has created a barrier to the flow of labour
from the city region to other areas of Scotland or the UK over the last 40 years,
which have seen constant job losses in the traditional industries of steel,
shipbuilding and heavy engineering. In reality there is a need for some labour
movement into other regions and other industrial sectors, to loosen labour-
market rigidities. For education in Britain, the heavy take-up of higher education
