main

The state of intellectual ferment surrounding the reform of the welfare state is decribed by Professor Deacon, in an introduction to this volume of essays, as a ‘revolution in thought’, and compared to the earlier revolution which led to the creation of cradle-to-grave welfare in the years following the Second World War.

The challenge of thinking the unthinkable is being met by thinkers across the political spectrum and Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead and Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, can claim much of the credit for stimulating the debate about the future of welfare on the left. In Stakeholder Welfare he puts a case for a radical overhaul of the system to harness self-interest by extending the schope of contributory benefits. He calls his proposals ‘stakeholder welfare’ because individuals will own the welfare capital created by their contributions and those of their employers.

Field’s proposals are discussed by crticis from a variety of standpoints. Pete Alcock argues that the crisis of welfare identified by Field can only be met through a more comprehensive strategy which encompasses economic as well as social policy. To be effective such a strategy must be more egalitarian in its aims and incorporate a much greater role for the state in the planning of investment and the regulation of the labour market.

Alan Deacon welcomes Field’s emphasis upon the links between benefits and behaviour, but challenges his discussion of character and human nature, arguing that the language employed by Field is too redolent of individual explanations of poverty.

Melanie Phillips applauds the moral basis of Field’s arguments and his attempt to restore the question of moral character to the forefront fo welfare debates. She is particularly sceptical about the autonomous corporations which Field proposes should administer the insurance schemes.

David Green welcomes what he sees as Field’s challenge to socialist determinism. He argues, however, that Field is wrong to focus on means tests and that the insurance benefits proposed by Field will be just as vulnerable to abuse. Green believes that Field’s autonomous corporations will prove to be a chimera because the effect of compulsory insurance will be to crowd out the voluntary agencies which are the only true basis of a functioning civil society.


			Stakeholder Welfare (with commentaries by Alan Deacon, Pete Alcock, David Green, and Melanie Phillips)

		The state of intellectual ferment surrounding the reform of the welfare state is decribed by Professor Deacon, in an introduction to this volume of essays, as a ‘revolution in thought’, and compared to the earlier revolution which led to the creation of cradle-to-grave welfare in the years following the Second World War. The challenge of thinking the unthinkable is being met by thinkers across the political spectrum and Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead and Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, can claim much of the credit for stimulating the debate about the future of welfare on the left. In Stakeholder Welfare he puts a case for a radical overhaul of the system to harness self-interest by extending the schope of contributory benefits. He calls his proposals ‘stakeholder welfare’ because individuals will own the welfare capital created by their contributions and those of their employers. Field’s proposals are discussed by crticis from a variety of standpoints. Pete Alcock argues that the crisis of welfare identified by Field can only be met through a more comprehensive strategy which encompasses economic as well as social policy. To be effective such a strategy must be more egalitarian in its aims and incorporate a much greater role for the state in the planning of investment and the regulation of the labour market. Alan Deacon welcomes Field’s emphasis upon the links between benefits and behaviour, but challenges his discussion of character and human nature, arguing that the language employed by Field is too redolent of individual explanations of poverty. Melanie Phillips applauds the moral basis of Field’s arguments and his attempt to restore the question of moral character to the forefront fo welfare debates. She is particularly sceptical about the autonomous corporations which Field proposes should administer the insurance schemes. David Green welcomes what he sees as Field’s challenge to socialist determinism. He argues, however, that Field is wrong to focus on means tests and that the insurance benefits proposed by Field will be just as vulnerable to abuse. Green believes that Field’s autonomous corporations will prove to be a chimera because the effect of compulsory insurance will be to crowd out the voluntary agencies which are the only true basis of a functioning civil society.

		< Back to Books