Attitudes to the welfare state and the response to reform
A hard copy of this report summary can be obtained by contacting Paul Noakes [E-Mail: Paul.Noakes@dwp.gsi.gov.uk] or by writing to him at the 'Social Research Division, Department for Work and Pensions, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT'.
Research Report No. 88
By Teresa Williams, Maxine Hill and Rachael Davies
This report draws together the findings of a number of qualitative and quantitative research studies which have explored the attitudes of the general public - and those of claimants - to the welfare state and to the government’s proposals for welfare reform. For the most part, these studies were funded by the Department of Social Security (DSS) and undertaken in 1997 and 1998 but, on occasion, other (sometimes earlier) studies have been included to provide a broader context.
- The findings of a wide range of DSS-sponsored research studies point to a high level of support for the principles underpinning the government’s proposed reforms to the welfare system.
- Changes to the social security system were seen as inevitable and necessary. Many aspects of the current social security system were considered anachronistic and in need of reform.
- Levels of knowledge and understanding about the detailed operation of the social security system and how it is funded were generally low, and there was a strong desire for greater simplicity and transparency.
- People were generally comfortable with the idea that receipt of benefits from the state should be linked with responsibilities. More generally, the public sensed a greater onus on them to make provision for themselves, for example by contributing towards non-state pensions.
- The state was also expected to meet certain responsibilities in delivering a fair and efficient welfare system. In particular, people looked to the state to provide high quality assistance with training and jobsearch; adequate levels of provision, including in retirement; greater transparency in the welfare system – especially in relation to the future of contributory benefits; and regulation of non-state provision.
- There was little enthusiasm for means-testing benefits - especially those for which entitlement is ‘earned’ through National Insurance contributions - but recognition of the need to better target resources.
- There was a willingness to consider non-state forms of welfare provision – including pension schemes and private insurance – but there was considerable mistrust of the private sector, with existing products not always being thought to provide sufficient security.
General attitudes to the welfare state
Support for a broadly defined ‘welfare state’ - which includes education and health provision as well as social security benefits - appears to be high. Over the last decade, people have been more likely to say they would prefer an increase in taxes to fund more spending on health, education and social benefits, than to keep taxes and spending the same, or to reduce them.
Levels of knowledge and understanding about the social security system and how it is funded were generally low. There was recognition that the benefits system was changing, although few people related to the term ‘welfare reform’ or were aware of the scale of reform being considered. Change was seen as inevitable and necessary and people generally welcomed the opportunity to be consulted about the government’s proposals.
People held different views about the extent to which the National Insurance system should provide security for everyone, or whether resources should be targeted at those in greatest need. They appeared to be uncomfortable with the idea of means-testing social security benefits in general and contributory benefits in particular.
The majority of the public believed that benefit recipients were generally deserving of state support, but some categories of people were considered more deserving than others. Typically, ‘deserving’ cases were those in which the recipient’s need for benefit is perceived to have arisen through no fault of their own: for example because they had become sick, been bereaved, or been made redundant. ‘Undeserving’ cases included those who falsely claimed benefits to which they were not entitled and those who were not doing their best to get off benefits.
Numerous qualitative studies highlight the existence of public concern about fraud, which was often raised in discussions about willingness to pay more for social security. However, quantitative studies do not suggest this concern has reached high levels. Inefficiency within the social security system was seen by some to be at least as great a problem as fraud.
There was a willingness to contemplate alternative forms of provision to complement state support. However, there was some mistrust of private sector provision and a perception that some of the products currently on offer were inappropriate. It was felt the state would need play a strengthened role in regulating private sector provision.
Pension provision
People were generally aware of the need to plan early and more proactively for retirement, although few people were actually doing so. Even when people had thought more actively about retirement, they experienced a number of barriers to taking action. In particular, people did not feel well informed about the options available.
While people were pessimistic about the future of state pension provision, they had a strong expectation and desire that the state “should ”be responsible for providing a basic level of retirement income, and that this should be higher than the current level of the basic state pension. Beyond this, there was more acceptance of the idea that individuals should be prepared, even encouraged, to make provision for themselves.
People had mixed views about whether they wanted to be compelled to save more for retirement. Few properly understood that state provision already contained an element of compulsion through the payment of National Insurance contributions, which were used to determine an individual’s entitlement to state pension(s). Once explained, this level of compulsion was generally supported and seen as the only way of ensuring that everyone would save enough for an adequate retirement income.
Fewer people were prepared to consider compulsion beyond this level. Those who supported compulsion were generally prepared to do so only under certain circumstances (e.g. exemptions for very low paid workers, people nearing retirement, and those not in work). A number of people – most notably those in self-employment - were ideologically opposed to the idea of any compulsion on the grounds that people should be responsible for making their own provision. An appropriate role for the state, in addition to that of securing a basic income in retirement, was seen by most to be educational and facilitative, and some people saw this as inconsistent with the more coercive and interfering role implied by compulsion.
Citizenship and stakeholder pension schemes have been proposed as vehicles for meeting the needs of those people (principally carers and those on very low incomes) not properly served by the existing state pensions. These were seen as potentially fruitful areas for development, which would for the most part address the perceived limitations of the current range of options. However, there was some concern that adding further to the range of available pensions would simply add to the complexity. What people most wanted was greater transparency and simplicity to enable them to plan more effectively.
The rights and responsibilities of benefit recipients
There was strong public support for the idea that jobseekers should have to meet certain conditions in return for receiving out of work payments and that those who refuse to either work or train should not be allowed to stay on benefits indefinitely. The public were in favour of both partners in childless unemployed couples having to seek work as a condition of receiving benefits. Where couples had pre-school children, the consensus was that only one partner should be obliged to seek work. Opinion was divided over what should happen when an unemployed couple had a school-age child.
There was overall support for the idea of additional support being provided to help the partners of jobseekers find employment. The outline proposals presented to focus groups contained many popular features. These included the extension of equal rights to government help and training schemes for partners and increased motivation and help for the young unemployed. There were concerns, though, about the potentially detrimental impact of the reforms on existing jobseekers because of a likely overload on Jobcentre resources and the perception that opportunities within the labour market were limited.
Lone parents and child support Lone parents and work
The age of the children was a key factor underpinning views on whether or not lone mothers have a duty to go out to work. Nearly half the respondents in a recent national survey thought that lone mothers with school age children (as opposed to those with pre-school children) have a duty to go out to work, although a similar proportion thought they should be able to choose. Women appeared to be more in favour of choice than men.
There was recognition that lone parents faced specific barriers to work and were likely to need assistance from the state. There was general support for state resources to be used to help encourage and support lone parents, but approaches which could be interpreted as placing pressure on lone parents were largely viewed as inappropriate. In particular, reduction in benefit was not generally seen as an effective way to encourage lone parents into work.
There was some spontaneous awareness of the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) - the package of support to help lone parents find work. There was a high level of support for the principle of the scheme once explained, but with concern from some quarters that it might ‘pander’ to lone parents. The public were generally opposed to the idea of compulsion, particularly for parents of pre-school children. People felt specific action in the form of the NDLP needed to be reinforced by wider initiatives including better childcare and family friendly employment policies.
Child support
There was strong support for the principle that some financial contributions should be made by non-resident parents, regardless of their circumstances. The state was felt to have an important role to play in providing ‘back-up’ should either natural parent fail to provide support, but there was concern that this should not encourage ‘irresponsibility’ in having children.
The Child Support Agency had a relatively high profile and its role was clear, but it was seen as ineffective, insensitive and punitive in approach. There was tension between the desire for a simpler, more transparent and open system for calculating the level of support payable; and the feeling that for the system to be fair, it should take into account (to a greater degree than at present) detailed individual and family circumstances.
The level of financial responsibility of each natural parent was seen to depend principally on the financial resources of each partner and the access to/level of contact with the child. While these factors affected the level of financial support from the non-resident parent perceived to be ‘fair’, there was strong support for the idea that “some” payment should be made, regardless of the circumstances.
Disability-related benefits
The general opposition to means-testing of social security benefits also applied to disability-related benefits, although there were indications that people recognise a need to target resources on those perceived to be in greatest need. Claimants who were willing to work, but prevented from doing so because of a disability or long-term illness, were seen as more deserving than others.
There was strong support for encouraging claimants of disability-related benefits back to work, where feasible. However, people did not generally favour making jobsearch activity a condition of claiming sickness and disability benefit. The preference was for an approach that would encourage and help people to work, rather than compel them to do so.
People wanted to see greater entitlement to contributory benefits for carers, irrespective of whether they have given up work, or built up a full contribution record. Carers were seen as providing ‘care on the cheap’ in the absence of government provision, and were recognised as making an important contribution to society.
Benefits for widows and widowers
There was a high level of dissatisfaction with the current arrangements for widows and widowers. These arrangements were seen to reflect a previous world where the emphasis had been on compensation for death rather than financial need, and where the assumption had been that women were financially dependent on men. People wanted a system that better reflected the needs of today’s widows and widowers.
In recognition of the emotional and financial pressures immediately following bereavement, people argued for the retention of (non means-tested) state help in the short term, which they wanted extending to widowers. In the longer term, people seemed to be prepared to consider more targeted social security support.
Housing-related benefits
Decent housing was seen as an important basic need and the government was seen to have a responsibility in this area. The overall perception was that government spending on housing had decreased over the last few years.
Some people considered the Housing Benefits system to be complex and excessively bureaucratic; and it was associated with 'scroungers', claimant fraud and landlord abuse. It was also felt that people should not be able to ‘better themselves’ through the social security system. There was some support for more targeted spending, possibly supplemented by a return to rent control.
Some of the spending priorities of the public were to:
- enable people to remain in their own homes;
- encourage people whose rented housing was in excess of their needs to move;
- encourage owner-occupiers to protect themselves through a government-backed insurance product; and
- pay MIRAS only as a last resort.
There was some support for additional means of containing spending on housing benefits, for example by encouraging people to move to smaller and/or cheaper accommodation or by time-limiting state support for high rents. There was only limited support for the concept of having a housing budget with the ability to shop around for cheaper accommodation.
Relevant publications
Department of Social Security (1998a) “New Ambitions for Our Country: a new contract for welfare”, Cm3805, London: The Stationery Office.
Hedges, A. (1998) “Pensions and Retirement Planning”, DSS Research Report No 83, London: Corporate Document Services.
O’Connor, W. and Kelly, J. (1998) “Public attitudes to child support issues”, DSS In-house Research Report No. 46, London: Corporate Document Services.
Snape, D. and Kelly, J. (1999, forthcoming) “Public attitudes to state support for lone parents and their children”, forthcoming in the DSS In-House Research Report series.
Stafford, B. (1998) “National Insurance and the Contributory Principle,” DSS In-house Report 39, London: Corporate Document Services.
Thomas A. and Pettigrew N. (1998) “Attitudes to benefits for widows and widowers”, DSS In-house Report No 43, London: Corporate Document Services.
Thomas A., Pettigrew N. and Tovey P. (1999) “Increasing compulory pension provision: attitudes of the general public and the self-employed”, DSS In-house Report No. 48, London: Corporate Document Services.
Woodfield K. and Finch H. (1999) “Unemployed couples: attitudes to proposals affecting the non-working partners of jobseekers,” DSS In-house Report No 47, London: Corporate Document Services.