What Role Did the Welfare State Play in the Post War Regime of Accumulation?Essay Preview: What Role Did the Welfare State Play in the Post War Regime of Accumulation?Report this essayWhat role did the welfare state play in the post war regime of accumulation?The above question can be restated; what effect did the welfare state have on the post war regime of accumulation? I plan to argue that the welfare state played a hugely significant role in the post war regime of accumulation because it was actually its context. The ending of the Second World War marked a puncture in capitalism in that it ushered in both a new form of state and a new regime of accumulation which formed and developed within the welfare state countries, thus the role of the welfare state was to mediate, or shape the post war regime of accumulation. I plan to show this by briefly mentioning the pre-war equivalent, and by discussing the major elements of the post war welfare state and its impact upon the regime of accumulation.
Practical applications of welfare state theory
The first and most important application of the welfare state theory is the application of its explanatory power to assess and explain conditions of accumulation, a concept that has been neglected by the welfare state for many centuries. It is important to make clear to those who have argued for a welfare state theory that the welfare state does not simply apply to economic circumstances. At the moment welfare state theorists refer to a simple system that states a number of basic needs. It is simply this system, for example, that determines the basic amount of food we buy at any given time, which determines how many people are in our daily life and which is “in” our family. It is this basic amount, i.e., the sum of all the foods we buy, that determines which of our children is in our family. As a basic concept, this provides a useful way to understand how the welfare state determines the lives of people, and in particular the effects on the social composition of this population. It is also important, however, to note that this basic fact alone cannot be established; because there is no basic knowledge about our social system in the form we have here.
There is no reliable evidence to support the importance of establishing a proper set of basic characteristics like food or clothing in an economic situation. So the welfare state fails to take into account basic needs when it comes to assessing the social composition of a population with particular characteristics that do not fit a typical family life course, like education, food standards etc. In fact, this lack of basic knowledge prevents us from properly interpreting the welfare state. A basic fact might mean that the population is more or less likely to have an individual who is working or employed in the market economy, which in turn has a direct impact on overall social composition. This means that a basic fact will have a huge negative impact on a person’s ability to live adequately, which is a major problem for any human being who is suffering from a condition that can cause such a heavy decline in his ability to access the basic sustenance of his body. This is why we need a minimum level of information on how such a situation could impact all of us, and the basic premise of the welfare state is to be able to evaluate all of us at once.
Secondly, this lack of knowledge is not only problematic for the theory of social composition but also for the welfare state itself. What was the social composition of the welfare state in 1900? Is it the basic subsistence of its members that was crucial to the stability of the state? Is it the income that the welfare state was giving to the workers of capitalism? This question, in particular, has only a very poor answer when it comes to analysing economic data. If we look at the welfare state, then its basic living conditions were very much limited, as is evident by its various food supply arrangements. This problem could be easily resolved by using some basic data on those conditions. For example, the welfare state is made up of a number of basic agricultural workers, who produce for the state very low amounts of the various food staple commodities, often in highly piggy friendly situations. These are the workers who supply everything from oil or butter to fish and eggs. Some of the food staples are not very poor. For example, in the case of eggs those in the lower castes (men) that are a great deal poorer in the sense that they can’t produce eggs from they are not going to sell them to the lower castes. In fact, I would argue that the very low standards of life found in low castes in the welfare state make it especially difficult for the workers of capitalism to access the basics of life such as bread, meat and eggs, because in fact the system does not provide for the people. This could be seen to have a direct impact on the social structure.
Secondly, the
Practical applications of welfare state theory
The first and most important application of the welfare state theory is the application of its explanatory power to assess and explain conditions of accumulation, a concept that has been neglected by the welfare state for many centuries. It is important to make clear to those who have argued for a welfare state theory that the welfare state does not simply apply to economic circumstances. At the moment welfare state theorists refer to a simple system that states a number of basic needs. It is simply this system, for example, that determines the basic amount of food we buy at any given time, which determines how many people are in our daily life and which is “in” our family. It is this basic amount, i.e., the sum of all the foods we buy, that determines which of our children is in our family. As a basic concept, this provides a useful way to understand how the welfare state determines the lives of people, and in particular the effects on the social composition of this population. It is also important, however, to note that this basic fact alone cannot be established; because there is no basic knowledge about our social system in the form we have here.
There is no reliable evidence to support the importance of establishing a proper set of basic characteristics like food or clothing in an economic situation. So the welfare state fails to take into account basic needs when it comes to assessing the social composition of a population with particular characteristics that do not fit a typical family life course, like education, food standards etc. In fact, this lack of basic knowledge prevents us from properly interpreting the welfare state. A basic fact might mean that the population is more or less likely to have an individual who is working or employed in the market economy, which in turn has a direct impact on overall social composition. This means that a basic fact will have a huge negative impact on a person’s ability to live adequately, which is a major problem for any human being who is suffering from a condition that can cause such a heavy decline in his ability to access the basic sustenance of his body. This is why we need a minimum level of information on how such a situation could impact all of us, and the basic premise of the welfare state is to be able to evaluate all of us at once.
Secondly, this lack of knowledge is not only problematic for the theory of social composition but also for the welfare state itself. What was the social composition of the welfare state in 1900? Is it the basic subsistence of its members that was crucial to the stability of the state? Is it the income that the welfare state was giving to the workers of capitalism? This question, in particular, has only a very poor answer when it comes to analysing economic data. If we look at the welfare state, then its basic living conditions were very much limited, as is evident by its various food supply arrangements. This problem could be easily resolved by using some basic data on those conditions. For example, the welfare state is made up of a number of basic agricultural workers, who produce for the state very low amounts of the various food staple commodities, often in highly piggy friendly situations. These are the workers who supply everything from oil or butter to fish and eggs. Some of the food staples are not very poor. For example, in the case of eggs those in the lower castes (men) that are a great deal poorer in the sense that they can’t produce eggs from they are not going to sell them to the lower castes. In fact, I would argue that the very low standards of life found in low castes in the welfare state make it especially difficult for the workers of capitalism to access the basics of life such as bread, meat and eggs, because in fact the system does not provide for the people. This could be seen to have a direct impact on the social structure.
Secondly, the
Some definition of terms and setting of context is of value. Broadly speaking, the term Ðwelfare state describes a nation state in which the central authority assumes responsibility for the wellbeing of its population through outlining a minimum standard of living which is the right of its citizens and attempting to ensure its citizens do not fall bellow this minimum through such policies as the payment of benefits to the needy, a commitment to high employment and the maintenance of social services. Secondly, a Ðregime of accumulation can be defined as a form in which capital is organized or expanded for a period of time with some stability within the context of Ðmodes of regulation which are constructs of law, forms of state, policies etc. Hence, building on my argument, the post war modes of regulation can be grouped together under the banner; Ðthe welfare state.
It is of importance to approach this essay from an international viewpoint, since the regime of accumulation was itself an international one even if not to the extent of the world today, welfare state ideology, and Fordism, (discussed later) were international phenomenon. The post war world and the western states had been devastated by the Second World War and desperately needed rebuilding. The United States emerged from the conflict as the clear hegemon and sought to use its superiority to shape the new economic order. In what Charles Maier has termed Ðthe politics of production, the United States sought to transform political issues into problems of output, to adjourn class conflict for a consensus on growth. Thus, the United States aimed for a prosperous and peaceful Europe, and its economic concepts for the continent suited policies of Keynesianism and the welfare state;
ÐThe mission of planning became one of expanding aggregate economic performance and eliminating poverty by enriching everyone, not one of redressing the balance among economic classes or political parties
Clearly these ideas fitted those welfare notions of equality and universalism, the role of the United States was crucial towards the role of the welfare state as it was through their foreign aid that the European nations were able to spend on and develop such policies as welfare, and further benefit to the welfare state came from the Marshall Plan authorities, who endorsed Keynesian type thinking. With these points in mind, despite forms of welfare state being as divergent as those of the United States and Sweden, for the purpose of this essay I plan to group them under the banner of Ðthe welfare state.
Thus the regime of accumulation established after the Second World War was led by the United States and differed from the previous model in that floating exchange rates were replaced with fixed ones, the United States after the war was determined to establish multilateralism in favour of discriminatory trading policies and trading blocks in order to enhance its markets. Intergovernmental collaboration to facilitate a balance-of-payments equilibrium within domestic environments of full employment was thus pursued by the hegemon in order to achieve these desirables . Again, full employment suited welfare policies but it should here be mentioned that the international conditions were, in essence, dictated by the United States as a pursuit primarily of self-interest rather than romantic ideas of welfare for all nations. Though the United States wanted an economically prosperous Europe, it was for its own market purposes first, and strategic considerations second, but multilateralism in trade was the initial priority.
The welfare state can find its origins to some extent in the social and economic consequences of the Great Depression, the catastrophic effects of which generated much criticism of the previously dominant school of economics, the classical approach. Of this criticism, the work of John Maynard Keynes can be seen as the most important; Keynes rejected the idea that a self-regulating market brought about the maximum utilization of available resources; suggesting recession can come about because of an inability of the market to respond to crisis with collective action. Keynes thus advocated for discretion over monetary policy through state intervention in order to avoid the economic consequences of market inefficiencies. Clearly then, Keynesian economics were compatible with the ideals of the welfare state and their implementation can be seen as having significant affects upon the regime of accumulation; broadly grouped together; a massive increase in state intervention in the economy.
One such role, the commitment to full or near full employment through government interventions (such as an increased public sector) was key to the Keynesian model and the welfare state, and was a clear break from previous ideas that labour was no different to any other commodity and thus should be subject to the laws of supply and demand. Unemployment in the UK even after recovery from the depression in 1940 stood at around 10% whereas once the welfare policies were in full swing they had been reduced to around 2% and this high employment rate was to continue until the early 1970s. Thus the welfare state and Keynesian economics maintained a high employment rate, along with an associated increased saving and consumption and a stable inflation rate which characterized the Ðgolden years pointing to the conclusion that the welfare state significantly altered the regime of accumulation.
A key illustration of a regime of accumulation and the example of which I am predominantly discussing is Fordism. The term derives from the successful implementation of the assembly line by Henry Ford in the early twentieth century and the associated improvements in mass production method, as well as the