The rise of neo-liberalism and its ideologies have greatly affected the welfare state. The main focus of neo-liberalism is to abolish the welfare state and transform it into an entrepreneurial state wherein welfare programs are carried out by private institutions and is based on economic functions of investment and returns.
The key component of the neo-liberalisms’ reform of welfare programs is ‘responsibilisation’; it means that every welfare program should be designed to inculcate to its recipients the value of self-discipline, monitoring and taking charge of one’s welfare.The development of ‘responsibilisation’ had significantly affected the welfare reforms of western states. This paper presents the background with which ‘responsibilisation’ was developed and used as a guiding principle of welfare reforms, moreover, the strengths and weaknesses of the integration of ‘responsibilisation’ to welfare reforms will also be discussed. The neo-liberal tradition of governance has shifted the welfare state into an entrepreneurial state.With the prevalence of the neo-liberal ideology in many Western States, it is not surprising that many of these states’ welfare system have evolved from a state that was responsible for the care of the less fortunate into engaging the citizens to become responsible for their own welfare (Kenneth, 2001, p. 25).
The evolution of the welfare system into a self-limiting moral regulation was carried out in accordance with the principles of neo-liberalism.This development have seen the rise of contracting out of public services, the reduction of the economic activities of the state due to privatization of government held institutions, and the lessening of the functions of the public sector. The main assumptions of neo-liberals argue that the welfare state had been the leading cause of financial and economic difficulties. The decrease in power of the state to control economic activity had made it difficult for the state to realize its full employment welfare program and the equal distribution of welfare benefits.
According to neo-liberalism the welfare system had encouraged dependency, it is costly to maintain and is not really helping its people but rather limiting their opportunity to become a part of the labor market (Mendes, 2000, p. 42). Thus, the main concern of the neo-liberalists is to implement welfare reforms, this has been referred to as the retrenchment of the welfare system wherein spending for welfare programs have been lessened and qualifications for welfare entitlement became more stringent.Although early in its inception it have failed to enforce the changes it identified as necessary measures to change the state from welfare to enterprising.
With this development, political leaders and theorists have also called for the need of those on welfare to give something back in return to the community since those who are unemployed are a liability to the active society (Walters, 1997, p. 224). It is within this context that neo-liberals sought to assimilate the principle of ‘responsibilisation’ as the key factor to realize the effectiveness of the welfare system (Williams, 1996, p. 51).‘Responsibilisation’ according to Rose (1996, p.
86) refers to the ways in which state policies are directed to instill in its citizens a culture of self-discipline, wherein individuals become responsible for their own well-being and future. In this concept the ability of the individual to look after him/her self in terms of becoming an active member of society and to ensure a good future is emphasized. Responsibilisation arose out of the neo-liberals belief that an individual can only better him/her self if he/she invests in his/her own personal growth.Likewise, the government should also provide programs that are considered to be social investments like education and skills training, the goal of these programs to ensure that the state has a supply of well educated and skilled workforce. Thus, all welfare reforms must incorporate the concept of responsibilisation, which necessitates that measures be taken to inculcate self-regulation and surveillance of their individual welfare.Take the case of education; in the old welfare state it is supposed to be a fundamental right and a basic service that the state provides its people and is free for all citizens, with the concept of responsibilisation, students earn their education through vouchers and student loans.
This measure was designed so that students would appreciate more their education and hence would not take it for granted. In the same way it would also minimize the costs of educating the youth since there would be fewer drop outs.The changes in the welfare system due to the concept of responsibilisation have led to the state becoming an ‘enterprise form’ (Burchell, 1996, p. 275). This means that the state promotes an enterprise culture wherein education and training are important factors that enhances the nation’s economic competitiveness in the global market. This condition also helps welfare recipients develop an entrepreneurial self from being a dependent and passive welfare consumer.
The welfare system currently place greater emphasis on education and the learning of skills that would increase the employability of the individual, while social responsibilities like health, elder care and retirement have been delegated to the individual in terms of being able to privately choose what form of health and life insurance they need. Moreover, the rise of globalisation and the need of the state to become economically competitive in the world market as seen by neo-liberalism demands that the welfare state should be reconstructed and that the culture of dependency be abolished.Thus, welfare programs that in the past that have satisfied the needs of its people were remodeled to become commercial institutions and corporations that frowns on the concept of a universal welfare state of equality and social rights. States therefore had made drastic reductions in welfare benefits, stricter eligibility qualifications, and the increase in surveillance of welfare recipients and obligating the recipient to ‘pay’ for the benefit through community service (Moss, 2001, p. ).
These changes reflect the responsibilisation of the self as free agents that has to earn and be worthy of the benefits given by the state. It is an established fact that the state or the public sector operates differently from private corporations, individuals expect the state to provide them with benefits as a basic right, while they can pay for the same benefits if it is a private corporation.Thus, welfare has turned into a private enterprise in order to effect the conditions at which individuals develop a responsibilised self, individuals who are self-disciplined, are not dependent on anyone but is a free agent and can compete in the labour market. For those who qualify for welfare support, it is stressed that they should strive to participate in the labour market and that the state should also provide them with programs that would encourage them to engage in the labour market.The strength of welfare reform along the lines of responsibilisation is that it takes out the responsibility of the state to provide for it people and transfers it to the individual.
Although, the state still provide welfare programs it is not in the manner of doling it out but rather it is given to those who deserve it. With fewer responsibilities for social welfare, the state can now focus its much needed resources into policy building and program development (McGuire, 1997, p. 103) of the country that would ultimately lead to economic prosperity.Since the individual is ‘responsibilising the self’, the individual takes on the challenge of dealing with his/her difficulties not like when welfare was considered by the state as risk management. Responsibilised individuals become calculative and rational in their choice of investment decisions on health, education, security and retirement (Beck, 1992, p.
135). Hence, the state needs only to provide the options with which the individual can choose from and avoid costly major welfare programs.The strength of the welfare reform in terms of integrating responsibilisation is that the greater public is viewed as a community rather than as a society. A group of individuals who are responsibilised perceive each other as equals who are masters of their own fate and hence they refer to each other as members of a community, with the same goal, same aspirations and that is to prepare for a better life (Walters, 1997, p.
224). A community is also a collective term for individuals who are responsible for each other; hence the policing and monitoring of welfare programs are assigned to the members of the community.This would mean that welfare benefits are given to those who really need and deserve it and any deviation from the rules can easily be checked by the members. This is in opposition to society that connotes the division of individuals into status and race, which is contrary to the principle of neo-liberalism on free agents and free enterprise (Giddens, 1998, p.
102). The emphasis on responsibilisation within the welfare reforms have also led to greater information sharing, within state departments and between public and private institutions.This has led to the concept of an open government where accountability and transparency is evident. With the responsibilisation of the self, the state views welfare as well-being and promotes the empowerment of the self to rely on his/her ability through the provisions of personal skills training. The weakness of the welfare reforms in the context of responsibilisation is that it encourages the individualizing of the society masked by the ideas of community or social capital.
This would lead to greater individuation and discord among the people of the state.If each one is responsible for his/her well-being then society would become a competitive arena where the values of compassion, charity and giving will be lost (Rodger, 2000, p. 9). The concept also stresses that the ultimate goal of the individual is to become a part of the labour market which essentially removes the humanness of the individual since everything is thought of in terms of investment and returns.
The move to privatize the welfare system places undue stress to the individual who is laden with loans and debts in order to become competitive in the labour market.Moreover, the reforms stigmatize those who are excluded from the labour market through no fault of their own, since those who cannot find employment are scorned and viewed as lazy and irresponsible by the rest of the society. It also erases the division between public governance and private enterprise (Brennan, 1998, p. 134), welfare programs that ask recipients to pay for their benefits through community service would inviolate the essence of ‘benefits’ and goes against the concept of for the good of the public.For the sake of argument, receiving welfare is not a precondition for an obligation to give back to the state, especially if the individual is unemployed due to circumstances beyond his/her control. Lastly, the emphasis on responsibilisation of the self does not adequately look into the structural inequalities present in the labour market, like when a student is employed in a poorly paid job hence limiting his investment on education which in turn also limits his degree of competitiveness in the labour market.
Conditions like this is not addressed by the call to be responsible for one’s welfare, the state should therefore look into the situations or the context with which individuals are disadvantaged and unable to live up to the expectations of the society. The concept of responsibilisation has been prominent in most western societies as a means of welfare reform and governance. The theme calls for the creation of policies and measures that would inculcate self-regulation and self-discipline.It basically means that individuals become responsible for their own well-being, the state’s participation is limited to information sharing and policy development. The individual is responsible for his/her education, health, retirement and employment that they should invest in because it is necessary for a successful life.
Critics of responsibilisation have said that it emphasize individualism and a moving away from social consciousness. It destroys a fundamental aspect of a nation and that is unity and social justice.Responsibilisation encourages the individual to think only of him/her self while stressing the importance of participating in the labour market. It penalizes individuals who have handicaps, disabilities and diseases for not being able to work, because people would think that these individuals chose not to work and hence it is their fault that they are on welfare. On the other hand, responsibilisation also promotes the ideal of freedom and personal success. It rewards those who are preserving, conscientious, hard working and productive workers, which are really positive traits that a person can possibly have.
It promotes the principle that each individual is equipped to realize their goals and that each one has the freedom to pursue his/her goals. It is without a doubt that the concept of responsibilisation in welfare reforms is a double edged sword, it is able to cut through traditional welfare programs like dole outs and dependency, but it is also able to unnecessarily wound individuals who are already disadvantaged and cuts the social fabric of equality and justice.
