IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bri/cmpowp/08-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

UK Welfare Reform 1996 to 2008 and beyond: A personalised and responsive welfare system?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Gregg

Abstract

The UK welfare system has undergone three very profound periods of reform of the post-war model laid down by Beveridge. The first was a move in the direction of (but never fully converged with) the Bismarkian model of a contributory social insurance model with time limited earnings related benefits with a low value means tested social assistance safety net. This occurred slowly through the 1960s and up to the mid-1970s. The second phase started in 1979 and involved a dramatic move to curtail the social insurance entitlements and end all earnings related benefits. The result was a residualist low value means tested social assistance model, which ended both the Beveridge model and completely reversed the drift toward a European Bismarkian approach. Finally from 1996 a new model has emerged based on an activational welfare model with greater emphasis on incentives, support services and conditionality. As a direction of travel from the previous regime(s) this represents an increase in the engagement and support functions, increases in the (disciplinary) required activity functions combined with increased financial support for children and pensioners and personalised support services. The emerging model is far from completion and the final make up of the system remains uncertain. However, it bears strong similarities with developments in New Zealand and to a degree Australia and Canada. Within Europe the model most closely resembles a less generous version of the welfare systems in Denmark or Holland, which are sometimes referred to as embodying Flex-security. This evolutionary process of reform had some antecedents prior to 1996 but has really come to the fore since that date. This paper discusses reform in depth from 1996 and looks at its current direction of evolutionary change.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Gregg, 2008. "UK Welfare Reform 1996 to 2008 and beyond: A personalised and responsive welfare system?," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 08/196, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
  • Handle: RePEc:bri:cmpowp:08/196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2008/wp196.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gale, William G., 1997. "What Can America Learn From the British Tax System?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 50(4), pages 753-777, December.
    2. Paul Gregg, 1996. "It Takes Two: Employment Polarisation in the OECD," CEP Discussion Papers dp0304, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Mike Brewer & Anita Ratcliffe & Sarah dSmith, 2012. "Does welfare reform affect fertility? Evidence from the UK," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 245-266, January.
    4. R. Disney, 1997. "Research Report 1996," Working Papers 365, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    5. Mike Brewer, 2000. "Comparing in-work benefits and financial work incentives for low-income families in the US and the UK," IFS Working Papers W00/16, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. William Gale, 1997. "What can America learn from the British tax system?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 341-369, November.
    7. Richard Disney & Carl Emmerson & Matthew Wakefield, 2008. "Pension Provision and Retirement Saving: Lessons from the United Kingdom," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 34(s1), pages 155-176, November.
    8. Richard Dickens & Paul Gregg & Stephen Machin & Alan Manning & Jonathan Wadsworth, 1993. "Wages Councils: Was There a Case for Abolition?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 515-529, December.
    9. Lorraine Dearden & Carl Emmerson & Christine Frayne & Costas Meghir, 2005. "Education subsidies and school drop-out rates," IFS Working Papers W05/11, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francesconi, Marco & Rainer, Helmut & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2008. "Unintended Consequences of Welfare Reform: The Case of Divorced Parents," IZA Discussion Papers 3891, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Martina Celidoni, 2015. "Decomposing Vulnerability to Poverty," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 61(1), pages 59-74, March.
    3. Herault, Nicolas & Vu, Ha & Wilkins, Roger, 2020. "The Effect of Job Search Requirements on Welfare Receipt," IZA Discussion Papers 13684, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Paul Gregg & Claudia Vittori, 2008. "Exploring Shorrocks Mobility Indices Using European Data," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 08/206, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mike Brewer & Paul Gregg, 2001. "Eradicating child poverty in Britain: welfare reform and children since 1997," IFS Working Papers W01/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Kaplanoglou, Georgia & Newbery, David Michael, 2003. "Indirect Taxation in Greece: Evaluation and Possible Reform," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 10(5), pages 511-533, September.
    3. Michael Keen, 1997. "Peculiar institutions: A British perspective on tax policy in the United States," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 371-400, November.
    4. Mike Brewer, 2000. "Comparing in-work benefits and financial work incentives for low-income families in the US and the UK," IFS Working Papers W00/16, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Steven C. Bourassa & Ming Yin, 2008. "Tax Deductions, Tax Credits and the Homeownership Rate of Young Urban Adults in the United States," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(5-6), pages 1141-1161, May.
    6. Michael Keen, 1997. "Peculiar institutions: A British perspective on tax policy in the United States," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 371-400, November.
    7. Dickens, Richard & Machin, Stephen & Manning, Alan, 1998. "Estimating the effect of minimum wages on employment from the distribution of wages: A critical view," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 109-134, June.
    8. Libertad González & Sofia Karina Trommlerová, 2023. "Cash Transfers and Fertility: How the Introduction and Cancellation of a Child Benefit Affected Births and Abortions," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 783-818.
    9. Svetlana Biryukova & Oxana Sinyavskaya & Irina Nurimanova, 2016. "Estimating effects of 2007 family policy changes on probability of second and subsequent births in Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 68/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Morgenroth, Edgar & FitzGerald, John & FitzGerald, John, 2006. "Summary and Conclusions," Book Chapters, in: Morgenroth, Edgar (ed.),Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Investment Priorities for the National Development Plan 2007-2013, chapter 24, pages 317-333, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
      • Baker, Terence J. & FitzGerald, John & Honohan, Patrick & FitzGerald, John & Honohan, Patrick, 1996. "Summary and Conclusions," Book Chapters, in: Baker, Terence J. (ed.),Economic Implications for Ireland of EMU, chapter 12, pages 339-352, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    11. S Milner, 1994. "Charting the Coverage of Collective Pay Setting Institutions 1895-1990," CEP Discussion Papers dp0215, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    12. Daniele Checchi, 2010. "Educational achievements and social origins in Italy," Politica economica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 359-388.
    13. Peter Lindert, 2003. "Why The Welfare State Looks Like a Free Lunch," Working Papers 59, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    14. Mike Brewer & Marco Francesconi & Paul Gregg & Jeffrey Grogger, 2009. "Feature: In-work Benefit Reform in a Cross-National Perspective - Introduction," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(535), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Costas Meghir, 2006. "Dynamic models for policy evaluation," IFS Working Papers W06/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    16. Paul Gregg & Rosanna Scutella & Jonathan Wadsworth, 2010. "Reconciling workless measures at the individual and household level. Theory and evidence from the United States, Britain, Germany, Spain and Australia," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 139-167, January.
    17. Gordey Yastrebov, 2016. "Intergenerational Social Mobility in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 69/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    18. Wolfgang Ochel, 2003. "Welfare to Work in the United Kingdom," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 1(2), pages 56-62, 02.
    19. Colin C. Williams & Jan Windebank, 2000. "Self-help and Mutual Aid in Deprived Urban Neighbourhoods: Some Lessons from Southampton," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(1), pages 127-147, January.
    20. Aedin Doris;, 1999. "The Means Testing Of Benefits And The Labour Supply Of The Wives Of Unemployed Men: Results From A Mover-Stayer Model," Economics Department Working Paper Series n940999, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    welfare reform; tax credits; lone parents; disabled adults;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bri:cmpowp:08/196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cmbriuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.