About Neo-liberalism

Discuss about the Social Policy and Concept.

Even though there are various types of theoretical perspectives, this essay will make a comparison between social democracy and neo-liberalism. It makes an analysis between the influences of these two perspectives on the chosen aspects of employment legislations in New Zealand since the year 1990. The essay will among other issues, address the debates regarding the role that is played by the State in a given society as well as the individualistic verses the collectivist approaches. The essay will also discuss the impact of various views on the most recent employment and social policy developments (Gearty, 2016). Based on the following commentary, it can genuinely be asserted that despite the fact that there has been dominance of Neo-liberalism in the most recent economic and politically history, some elements of “social democratic ideologies” can be regarded as presenting a level of social policy equality or balance right from the introduction of “centralist politics” that was being led by the government of Clark since 1999. However, it is prudent to note that even though there were significant differences which were attributed to policy changes in each of the perspectives above in regard to changes in policy, none of them can actually be linked or associated to tremendous enhancements in the social welfare of the concerned populations (Skinns, 2016).

To effectively compare between Neo-liberalism and Social Democracy, a clear outline about them regarding their major characteristics should be made. On the part of Neo-liberalism, Belgrave, O’Brien, and Chenye (2008) asserted that it was capable of gaining fame as a basis for the attainment of social well being during the 1980’s. This was attributed to the fact that neo-liberalism was deemed as being an endeavor to effectively reinstate the conventional “liberal free market” principles which had been highly compromised as a result of heightened socialist movement which occurred between 1930s to 1970s. According to Hayek who was a renowned neo-liberal theorist (Duncan, 2007, Chenyne et al, 2008), it was asserted that the availability of uncontrolled markets presented people with an opportunity to not only have the freedom, but also the relevant freedom to attain the well being that can help them to seek for their own relevant and preferable interests (O’Malley, 2016). This argued is founded on the assumption that people are always in a better position to both identify and pursue outcomes which are deemed to be desirable or preferable to them.

Equal Opportunity and Outcomes

According to views held by neoliberals, they strongly hold the belief that a free market presents individuals with the most effective channel for generation of economic growth in a country. They argue that this is because buyers and sellers use price signals in relaying preferences as well as the scarcity of resources across the available products and services in a market. As a result, this makes it easier for people to use such data and information in making informed choices about their specific needs. Producers on their part are known to attain monetary rewards when it becomes apparent that their services and products help the human population. As a result, individual pursuits that are capable of satisfying personal needs also have the ability of benefiting the entire society (Humpage, 2016). Based on this model, it can truly be expressed that it is the responsibility of the state to both develop and implement the relevant legislation that can enhance the effective functioning of the market. The state is also tasked with the responsibility of not only guaranteeing equal opportunity for all and sundry in market involvement, but it is also tasked with ensuring that private property is well protected.

One of the most important distinctions that should be highlighted in this research paper is between equal outcomes and equal opportunity (Schmidt, 2016). For instance, even though all people ought to have equal opportunity of pursuing their self interests, some people may have skills which are unique or even robust abilities in entrepreneurial skills. It thus becomes apparent that individuals having such skills having such knowledge or skills will have added advantage which will make them achieve higher returns at the expense of others in the market place.   Owing to the fact that the market cannot essentially yield certainties and sureties in the outcomes, unequal outcomes become natural instead of being intentional. In addition to that, individuals who reap more benefits as opposed to other should never be victimized for succeeding on life (Dryzek, 2016). This is because their success can motivate other people to also work hard towards the achieved of more success.

It has been asserted that the intervention of the state in market processes is known to greatly impinge upon the exercises of individual freedoms. This is because taxation is capable of undermining the rights of private property via neo-liberal perspective while on the other hand, service delivery and provisions which are controlled centrally are paternalistic and thus removes the freedom of people to freely make choices regarding the services that are required. As a result of such assumptions, a mandatory safety net ought to be given to individuals who are not able to meet or satisfy their needs and requirements.

Market Processes Intervention

The ability of the market to fully maximize social well being is less convinced through social democracy. Social democracy, which is known to be a key critic of “industrial capitalism”, depicts an increase in the inequalities that are class-based due to unregulated or uncontrolled functioning of the market. Social democrats usually put more emphasis on not only equitable outcomes, but also provision of vulnerable members in the relevant societies (Upchurch & Taylor, 2016). This can be achieved through intervention of the state through market regulation and redistributive taxation. As a result of this concern, most of the union movements which are well organized prefer social democracy because it caters for the general well being of the society and it also prefers to have collective responses to both economic and social disparities that exist in the society.

Right from time immemorial, social democracy has been known to value collectivism as opposed to individualism. It thus holds the view that the human population is a social group as opposed to a composition of creatures that are detached. It also holds the opinion that membership in the community and nuclear families aid in shaping the identity of individuals. Another strong belief that exists is that cooperation and coordination strongly enhances social bonds and competition is deemed to be destructive because it is divisive in nature (Donzelot, 2016). Major industries that have significant national interests ought to be kept under public control as opposed to private control. Based on this, the state has a vital role to implement especially regarding decision making in the regulation or control of the economy and the distribution of resources.

As from the year 1930 to the 1970s, the use of social democracy was known to uphold a theory which had been earlier created by John Maynard, an economist who was not even a socialist in the provision of credibility towards the argument. According to the economist, it was believed that governments or streets could easily intervene with the major aim of supporting instead of replacing and that that capitalism was a tool that could be used in reducing the volatility of the global market (Dawes & Flew, 2016). This is because the system depended on total employment and the spending of the government on welfare, education infrastructure as well as education in the provision of goods and services which were unable to be produced by the markets.

About Social Democracy

The conflict which exists between social democratic and neo—liberal ideologies have led to the transformation of the current employment social policies in different ways (Morgan, 2016). Some of the major policy areas is the contrasting approaches towards relations in employment and the value of judgments that are attached in provision of help or support for individuals who search for employment.

The implementation of the “Employment Contracts Act 1991” resulted in major changes in the “employment relations legislations” to the objectives of neo-liberalism. This is because the act was the final stage in overturning of the “industrial relations system” which had existed since the late nineteenth century. On the other hand, the introduction of the “Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894” was aimed at the creation of enhanced efficiencies in the labor markets through the use individualized competition, contracts, and even industrial stability that was coerced instead of being enhanced via employment relations (Langille, 2016).

Based on the above information, it can truly be concluded that even though “neo-liberal political perspective” or ideology had a significant impact on the transformation of social policy in New Zealand as from the 1980s, the use of social democracy should never be underestimated. This is because social democracy has over a long period of time evolved significantly and made positive contributions in the 21^st century on its own. It has been asserted that Neo-liberalism is characterized with its preference for free markets as being the tool for the achievement of economic growth and distribution of resources in the entire society. It is also marked with placing people in positions that can be used to pursue and determine the life courses that they prefer. Modern social policy on its hand is more concerned with achievement of social justice as well as collective well being using a missed economy.

References 

Cheyne, C., O’Brien, M., & Belgrave, M. (2008). Social policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (4th ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Dawes, S., & Flew, T. (2016). Neoliberalism, voice and national media systems: An interview with Terry Flew. Networking Knowledge, 9(5), 1-10.

Donzelot, J. (2016). City, Insecurity and Citizenship: The Emergence of Social Cohesion Policies. Dangerous Others, Insecure Societies: Fear and Social Division, 23.

Dryzek, J. S. (2016). The Forum, the System, and the Polity Three Varieties of Democratic Theory. Political Theory, 0090591716659114.

Gearty, C., 2016. Neo-Democracy:‘Useful Idiot’of Neo-Liberalism?. British Journal of Criminology, p.azw010.

Humpage, L. (2016). ‘A Common Sense of the Times’? Neoâ€Âliberalism and Changing Public Opinion in New Zealand and the UK. Social Policy & Administration, 50(1), 79-98.

Langille, D. (2016). Follow the Money: How Business and Politics Define our Health. Social determinants of health: Canadian Perspectives, 470.

Morgan, G. (2016). New actors and old solidarities: institutional change and inequality under a neo-liberal international order. Socio-Economic Review, 14(1), 201-225.

O’Malley, P. (2016). Neoliberalism, Crime and Criminal Justice. Sydney Law School Research Paper, (16/10).

Schmidt, V. A. (2016). The roots of neo-liberal resilience: Explaining continuity and change in background ideas in Europe’s political economy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(2), 318-334.

Skinns, D. (2016). Neo-liberalism and Austerity, Outsourcing and Punishment. In Coalition Government Penal Policy 2010–2015 (pp. 201-228). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Upchurch, M., & Taylor, G. (2016). The Crisis of Social Democratic Trade Unionism in Western Europe: The Search for Alternatives. Routledge.