Since the financial crisis of 2008 and the economic collapse that followed the Coalition government, prior to its formation and since, has advocated how “We’re all in this together.” Despite evidence to the contrary, for a social policy academic it is the sustained critique on universalism that is perhaps one of the most pernicious acts that has been allowed to occur. In exploring the formation of the UKs welfare state the study of history has led to a bizarre view that war is good for social policy. Drawing on the ideas of Titmuss (founding father of the academic subject of social policy), the bombing and evacuations of the Second World War exposed chronic social problems to the public gaze whilst the war effort demonstrated the ability of the state to act to pool resources collectively for national effort. Setting the conditions for the post-war development of the welfare state the shared experiences and hope for a “new Jerusalem” fostered public support for universal provision and collective action to tackle social problems.

In contrast, an economic crisis, which is proving to be just as exposing of the problems that persist in society and regularly found reported in the media, seems to be pushing forward an anti-universal agenda. In previous posts I have outlined how the construction of social problems facilitates this agenda (with its particular ideology bias), in this post it is concern with how this view is spreading across the very narrow political landscape upon which mainstream UK political parties occupy and battle for. In a recent contribution to the Young Fabian magazine Anticipations, there is a piece which essentially argues the economic case to reduce universalism. In sum: we need to ensure limited resources are targeted at those with greatest need to deal with the real problems faced by the working poor (what about the unworking poor, you could ask here). It is rightly argued that the formation of UK society has drastically changed since the post-war settlement (in fact it was changing at the time of the settlement and many critique Beveridge’s plan for imposing stereotypical gendered roles to family life; whilst governments of both political persuasions spent the decades following the war subtly ensuring that welfare was restricted to the increasing migrant population whose work efforts delivered large parts of the welfare state on the front line). But it moves on to draw a dubious conclusion.

Redefining universalism for the 21st century around childcare is the option put forward. Whilst this is a salient issue where increasing demand for childcare provision is faced with increasing costs of childcare (in contrast to how market mechanisms are said to work), in the long run redefining universalism will do little to tackle social problems. Rather than redefine universalism the aim should be to reinvigorate it.

Universalism is essential for a number of reasons, as highlighted in The Solidarity Society – a Fabian Society publication exploring the need for universalism in social welfare. First universalism is integral to social equality – it expresses our shared, common membership to society and, as a result of equal membership, equal status. Status is something which has implicitly received renewed attention with the publication of The Spirit Level. The argument within the work of Wilkinson pre-dating and including The Spirit Level is that social relationships and status matter. How we perceive ourselves in relation to others can have significant impacts on our health status. When vast inequalities exist between individuals income, wealth, power this has a corrosive effect on perceived status which can contribute to a range of social problems: for Wilkinson these are related to health. Targeted services differentiate people, create divisions and force distinctions between groups. Universal services however do not, for they ensure all people have access to a service (even if the level of provision is greater for some than it is for others).

Second, and related, universalism can improve the take-up of services/benefits. Without making overt the distinctions that exist between groups potential stigma that is attached to claiming benefits is removed (the change in Child Benefit rules could act as a means of exploring this. What view will society have of child benefit in ten years when the well-off have forgotten their previous claim and perceive this benefit as something targeted at the undeserving poor? Will it then become a political target for cuts as other social security benefits have?). Avoiding stigma is vital, especially in contemporary society, when it is easy to get a cheap laugh by pointing at “chavs”. Targeting and stigma thus reinforce some of the perception barriers that prevent politicians from directly addressing social problems. Rather than find ways of assisting, political parties seek electoral advantage by trying to outdo each other on how punitive they can make policy measures. The aim is to be tough on the undeserving. But when the vast majority are in receipt of the same benefit it becomes much harder to paint certain groups with the “undeserving brush”. One could hope this would also lead to a more informed engagement in debates around deserving/undeserving – but that might be too optimistic for the present.

Finally, and building on the previous comment, universal provision is at the heart of generating support for the welfare state (or, of course, be used to encourage critique). Wider provision incorporates greater numbers of citizens who, especially within the middle-classes, will seek to maintain provision for their own self-interest. Ensuring that services are available for the largest number reminds us of the importance of the welfare state (to tackle the harsh externalities of capitalist production). Allowing for this approach to welfare provision to be redefined simply brings the popular view into line with the Coalition governments view of welfare: cut, shrink and remove. Why should X get benefits and not me? He has no need for them; it’s his own fault he’s in that position because he doesn’t make an effort to find a job. The real challenge for this final point is summed up in that previous argument. Provision of services based on need has largely diminished. Since the Thatcher governments, policy has shifted its focus away from what people need to survive and increasingly on what people are not doing to ensure their wellbeing (primarily, working) and disciplining citizens so that they return to work and therefore provide for their own welfare. Here we border the previous post on universalism – how problems are constructed towards individual factors rather than structural explanations. Like an Ouroboros the argument to redefine universalism is the product of this shift in explaining the cause of social problems which in turns facilitates the change in how social problems are perceived.

To protect universalism it does need to be redefined, to draw on the ideas of progressive universalism. This is something I have argued in relation to credit union development, building on ideas set out, initially by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls when in the Treasury, and in Wales by Prof. Mark Drakeford (now Labour health minister): and that, I suppose, can be the topic of my next post….