政府干预
自1979年以来,新工党的政策是建立在保守的政府和添加各种重大创新。保守政策由相当简单的对福利国家和recommodification未遂。根据新自由主义意识形态福利国家被视为一个有效的源削弱资本主义经济通过高水平的依赖税收与国家支出和生产依赖福利的影响。因此,保费支付价值下来而更多条件提供对申请人为了积极寻找工作。各种国有服务转向私有化。
然而发现的主要问题是政府干预本身必须减少到可能的程度。在真实,因为不能显著降低市场从根本上依赖于福利国家和政治干预医疗服务领域的私有化。因此,在198年代,真正的公共支出是平均非常非凡的高占GDP的比例为45.1%(杰克逊,2001年)。
介绍了准市场在卫生保健和社会关怀,目的是实现市场的效率效益以及客观保存各种服务的股票收益由国家或政府(Bartlett et al . 1994年)。皮尔森(1996)认为,公众的支持使得简单的取消福利国家几乎不可能。此外,再分配转移的几个资源从接受纳税人是通过削减福利的社会运动。此外,他认为,紧缩面对市场政策偏好之间的冲突和选举的野心。社会契约的形式的现代化和重组是因此成功的改革(皮尔森,1988)。因此,它不太可能成功的福利服务recommodification或私有化的新自由主义政策。根据英国撒切尔的改革,这不是革命,而是增量离开了英国福利国家大量完好无损(皮尔森,1996)。
政府干预
Since 1979 policies of New labour was built on conservative governments and added various significant innovations. Conservative policies comprised fairly straightforward towards the welfare state and attempted for recommodification. According to Neo-liberal ideology welfare state was seen as an effective source sapping the capitalist economy via its reliance on high level taxation with state expenditure and its effect of producing dependency on claiming benefits. Thus, benefit payment value got down while more conditions were offered upon claimants in order to actively seek work. Various state owned services turned to be privatized.
However the major problem identified was to be state intervention itself that had to be reduced to the possible extent. It could not significantly reduced in real because the market was fundamentally depended on welfare state and political interfere to the areas of privatization of health services. Hence, during 198s, real public expenditure was averaged very extraordinary high as a proportion of GDP at 45.1 percent (Jackson, 2001).
Quasi markets were introduced in health care and social care that was aimed to achieve the efficiency benefits of the market along with an objective to preserve the equity benefits of various services funded by state or government (Bartlett et al. 1994). Pierson (1996) has argued that public support makes simple dismantling virtually impossible for the welfare state. In addition, redistributive transfer of several resources from recipients of benefits to taxpayers was engineered by cutting in social movements. Moreover, he argued that retrenchment confront a clash between market policies preferences and electoral ambitions.Form of modernization and restructuring of the social contract was therefore a successful reform (Pierson, 1988). Hence, it was unlikely to be successful for welfare services of recommodification or privatization of the neo liberal policies. Based on Thatcher’s Britain’s reform, it was not revolutionary but incremental that left the British welfare state heavily intact (Pierson, 1996).
