Enabling State (Liberalism)

The creation of the modern welfare state owes much to the ideological outlook of social liberalism. Those on the libertarian-left of the political spectrum argue that the state should accept some level of responsibility towards meeting our welfare needs.

In the UK, the Liberal government of 1906-11 implemented a coherent package of measures to address the four spectres of old age, accident, sickness and unemployment. However, the modern welfare state owes much to the Liberal peer Sir William Beveridge. In his best-selling report (1942) Beveridge outlined a welfare scheme to combat the “five evils of want, squalor, idleness, disease and ignorance.” In a particularly famous phrase, the Beveridge Report laid the blueprint for a welfare state that would provide for its citizens from “the cradle to the grave.”

According to the social liberal perspective, the welfare state is entirely consistent with liberal goals such as the maximisation of freedom and equal opportunities. Those who are disadvantaged within society require a degree of state assistance in order to truly experience a life of liberty. The state is therefore entirely justified in allocating a modest redistribution of wealth within society. Without sufficient resources, it is unlikely that the poorest could do that which most people would consider worth doing.

In order to fund the welfare state, social liberals favour a degree of progressive taxation. Whilst this enables a modest level of wealth redistribution, there is no justification whatsoever within liberal ideology for punitive levels of taxation. In modern times, a very clear illustration of this argument is the pupil premium. The premise of the pupil premium is to help those born into poorer families via state intervention. It therefore seeks to ensure equality of opportunity within the early years of education when our life chances are already being shaped and determined. There is also some degree of support amongst social liberals within the Liberal Democrats for a mansion tax.

Extension material:

It is in the realm of welfare policy that we can identify the largest division of all within the ideology of liberalism. In essence, classical liberals are morally opposed to the welfare state. As befitting those further to the right of the political spectrum, classical liberals argue that the welfare state undermines our sense of responsibility and self-reliance. Recipients become reliant on the largesse of the state, which in turn contributes to a form of dependency. Far from enhancing liberty, the provision of welfare services actually threatens it. Doling out benefits on the basis of something for nothing strengthens the state at the expense of the individual. For classical liberals within the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party, this represents the slippery slope towards socialism.

In terms of helping those in need, classical liberals do at least concede that some state intervention is required. However, they firmly advocate a night-watchman state rather than an enabling state that provides welfare to its citizens. Consistent with their conception of negative freedom, the role of the state must always be limited. Ultimately, the solution to poverty lies with the individual and their family. Richard Cobden for instance argued that the less well-off should look to “their own efforts and self-reliance rather than from the law.” Hard work, thrift and self-reliance enable those with fewest resources in society to escape their situation. It is not the role of the state to provide for our welfare needs, and this would undermine the proper route out of poverty. As the blunt words of the American social scientist and classical liberal William Sumner remind us; “the drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be.”