The aim of this article is to place certain recent legislative reforms in the field of social security within the context of the overall development of the welfare state, and examine to what extent a certain trend is discernable: namely, whether eligibility for various welfare benefits is becoming so contingent on socially acceptable behaviour as to make the welfare system less a means for the relief of poverty, its ostensible sole purpose, and more akin to an instrument of education, even punishment, for those who have recourse to social security benefits.
Please cite this publication as follows:Bennister, M., Kelso, A. and Larkin, P. (2016)
AbstractPrime ministerial power is always contingent, based on the utilisation of personal and institutional resources, subject to various formal and informal constraints. Parliament is both a political resource to be utilised, but also a veto-player. In the absence of formal mechanisms setting out the requirements for UK prime ministerial accountability to parliament, a fluid and essentially personalised relationship has developed. Regular prime ministerial appearances before the House of Commons Liaison Committee, begun in 2002, have added to parliament's scrutiny toolkit. This article considers the accountability of the prime minister to parliament by analysing the emergence and development of the Liaison Committee evidence sessions, and draws on interviews with participants and examination of the session transcripts, in order to assess the value of this scrutiny mechanism within the broader framework of prime ministerial-legislative relations.
KeywordsUK parliament, prime minister, executive scrutiny, Liaison Committee.
The article examines the likely evolution of the social security system in the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. This recent legislation is paradigmatic of the new ideology and modes of thought which currently form the foundation of the modern welfare state, an institution increasingly viewed as a facilitator for individual self‐sufficiency, as opposed to its traditional role of providing temporary financial support in periods of need. In addition, it is likely that the Act has promoted at least some changes in the concept of citizenship, in particular the contemporary emphasis on responsibilities as much as on rights. The article considers whether the Act itself has succeeded in meeting the rhetorical claims made for it by legislators during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill through Parliament. The question of whether the Act contains a punitive or even coercive element is also examined.
We reflect on the reasons why there is not a greater and more fruitful relationship between those who seek to understand policy and the political process from academia and those with a similar task in ‘practical politics’. We attribute this lack of engagement to three core factors: (1) from without, instrumental government visions of political science perpetuate the view that the discipline exists to serve those with power; (2) from within, scientism and abstraction diminish the discipline's stock of ‘usable’ product for ‘practical politics’; and (3) where relevant research exists, its uptake is hampered by limited communication between these spheres.
This article examines the potential effects of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on the United Kingdom social security system, and on claimants. This legislation illustrates new modes of thought and ideology underlying the British welfare state. The introduction of the ‘Universal Credit’ has the potential to solve the ‘poverty trap’, where claimants are better off in receipt of welfare benefits rather than engaging with employment, and may assist low‐paid individuals into ‘positive’ citizenship. However, the practicalities of implementing Universal Credit might undermine legislators’ ambitions. It may be that the Act attempts too much reform to the social security system, trying to impose legislative uniformity on a highly complex set of socio‐economic circumstances which may be impervious to such rationalisation. This could result in the scheme requiring further reform, or even abolition. The ideological and historical underpinnings of Universal Credit are also examined to understand more clearly its nature and structure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.