Explaining Social Policy

  • Keith G. Banting
Part of the Studies in Policy-Making book series (STPM)


More than ever before, the lives of citizens depend on the social policies of government. Western nations have constructed a vast edifice of programmes designed to alter existing patterns of social life. What men can achieve, both as individuals and as groups, is shaped by the responsiveness of government to their needs and desires. Their health, education, housing and general life chances lie heavily in the hands of the state. For many of the poor and vulnerable, state action may represent the only possibility of substantial progress. Social policies today consume close to half of public expenditure in nations such as Britain, and their management consumes a similar share of the efforts of public leaders. A steady stream of decisions flows from cabinets, parliaments, public services and courts, shaping and reshaping the complex structure known as ‘the welfare state’.


Social Policy Welfare State Policy Response Policy Innovation British Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For useful reviews of the policy-making literature generally, see Austin Ranney (ed.), Political Science and Public Policy (Chicago: Markham, 1968);Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    Richard Rose, ‘Comparing Public Policy: an Overview’, European Journal of Political Research, 1 (1973), 67–94;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 1.
    Hugh Heclo, ‘Review Article: Policy Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 2 (1972), 83–108;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 1.
    Richard Simeon, ‘Studying Public Policy’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 9 (1976), 548–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 2.
    Harold Wilensky, The Welfare State and Equality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), p. 47.Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    See also Harold Wilensky and C. N. Lebeaux, Industrial Sociey and Social Welfare (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1958), p. 230;Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    W. W. Rostow, Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 11–12, 73–4.Google Scholar
  8. 2.
    For a critical survey of similar arguments in historical interpretations of the rise of the welfare state by Beales, Carr and Polyani, see John Goldthorpe, ‘The Development of Social Policy in England, 1800–1914’, Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology, 14 (1962), 41–56.Google Scholar
  9. 3.
    Philips Cutright, ‘Political Structure, Economic Development and National Social Security Programs’, American Journal of Sociology, 70 (1965), 537–50;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 3.
    Felix Paukert, ‘Social Security and Income Redistribution: A Comparative Study’, International Labour Review, 98 (1968), 425–50;Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    See, for example, Thomas Dye, Politics, Economics and the Public (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966).Google Scholar
  12. 4.
    For critical reviews of this vast literature, see Herbert Jacob and Michael Lipsky, ‘Outputs, Structure and Power’, Journal of Politics, 30 (1968), 510–38;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 4.
    Stuart Rakoff and Guenther Schaefer, ‘Politics, Policy and Political Science: Theoretical Alternatives’, Politics and Society, 1 (1970), 51–77;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 4.
    John Dearlove, The Politics of Policy in Local Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ch. 4;Google Scholar
  15. 4.
    Joyce Munns, ‘The Environment, Politics and Policy Literature: A Critique and Reformulation’, Western Political Quarterly, 28 (1975), 646–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 4.
    For an argument that the importance of political factors increases when concern shifts from levels of expenditure to their redistributive nature, see Brian Fry and Richard Winters, ‘The Politics of Redistribution’, American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 508–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 5.
    For example, variation in social security expenditures among developed nations is explained less by economic level than by such factors as how long social security policies have been in effect. See Henry Aaron, ‘Social Security: International Comparisons’, in Otto Eckstein (ed.), Studies in the Economics of Income Maintenance (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1967);Google Scholar
  18. 5.
    Koji Taira and Peter Kilby, ‘Differences in Social Security Development in Selected Countries’, International Social Security Review, 22 (1969), 139–53;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 5.
    Frederic Pryor, Public Expenditure in Communist and Capitalist.Nations (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968), pp. 146–51 and 172–76.Google Scholar
  20. 6.
    For useful critiques of the functionalist underpinnings of many such interpretations, see Goldthorpe, ‘Development of Social Policy in England’; Dorothy Wedderburn, ‘Facts and Theories of the Welfare State’, in Ralph Miliband and John Saville (eds), The Socialist Register 1965 (London: Merlin Press, 1965);Google Scholar
  21. 6.
    John Carrier and Ian Kendall, ‘Social Policy and Social Change — explanations of the development of social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 2 (1973), 209–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 7.
    This argument can be found in the critique of bourgeois and critical-utopian socialism in Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. For modern variations on the theme, see Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969);Google Scholar
  23. 7.
    Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Randon House, 1971);Google Scholar
  24. 7.
    Victor George, Social Security and Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973);Google Scholar
  25. 7.
    James O’Connor, The Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  26. 10.
    Gaston Rimlinger, Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America and Russia (New York: John Wiley, 1971), ch. 4; Lidtke, however, suggests that the strategy was not particularly effective and that any check on the growth of the Social Democrats was only transitory.Google Scholar
  27. 10.
    Vernon Lidtke, The Outlawed Pary: Social Democracy in Germany, 1878–1890 (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1966), especially pp. 158–64.Google Scholar
  28. 12.
    For interpretations in which the fear of unrest is not present, or at best is one of a variety of factors, see Maurice Bruce, The Coming of the Welfare State, 4th edn. (London: Batsford, 1968);Google Scholar
  29. 12.
    Bentley Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain (London: Michael Joseph, 1966);Google Scholar
  30. 12.
    Bentley Gilbert, British Social Policy, 1914–1939 (London: Batsford, 1970);Google Scholar
  31. 12.
    Kenneth Bryden, Old Age Pensions and Policy-Making in Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1974);Google Scholar
  32. 12.
    Hugh Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  33. 13.
    This approach builds on Vickers’ distinction between policy-making as a mental skill and policy-making as an institutional process. See Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgment (London: Chapman & Hall, 1965).Google Scholar
  34. 14.
    James March and Herbert Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley, 1958);Google Scholar
  35. 14.
    Charles Lindblom, The Intelligence of Democracy (New York: Free Press, 1965);Google Scholar
  36. 14.
    Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963); Vickers, Art of judgment;Google Scholar
  37. 14.
    John Steinbruner, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision-Making (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  38. 16.
    A. V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan 1914), p. 33.Google Scholar
  39. 17.
    O. McGregor, ‘Social Research and Social Policy in the Nineteenth Century’, British Journal of Sociology, 8 (1957), 146–57;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 17.
    Robert Pinker, Social Theory and Social Policy (London: Heinemann, 1971).Google Scholar
  41. 19.
    Donald Price, Government and Science (New York, N.Y.: New York University Press, 1954), v.Google Scholar
  42. 19.
    See also Guy Benveniste, The Politics of Expertise (Berkeley, Cali.: The Gendessary Press, 1972) for a comparative discussion.Google Scholar
  43. 20.
    Nathan Glazer, ‘A New Look in Social Welfare’, New Society, 7 Nov 1963, 6–8.Google Scholar
  44. 20.
    A similar picture emerges in more detailed studies of these developments; see Gilbert Steiner, Social Insecurity: The Politics of Welfare (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966);Google Scholar
  45. 20.
    Robert Connery, The Politics of Mental Health (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  46. 21.
    Daniel Moynihan, The Professionalization of Reform’, Public Interest, I (1965), 6–16.Google Scholar
  47. 22.
    James Sundquist and C. Schelling (eds), On Fighting Poverty (New York: Basic Books, 1969);Google Scholar
  48. 22.
    Daniel Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding (New York: Free Press, 1969);Google Scholar
  49. 22.
    Peter Marris and M. Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform, 2nd edn. (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1973).Google Scholar
  50. 23.
    See especially D. V. Donnison, Social Policy and Administration Revisited (London: Allen & Unwin, 1975).Google Scholar
  51. 23.
    On the role of social workers at the national level, see Phoebe Hall, Reforming the Welfare (London: Heinemann, 1976).Google Scholar
  52. 26.
    Samuel Beer, Modern British Politics: A Study of Parties and Pressure Groups (London: Faber, 1965).Google Scholar
  53. 27.
    Richard Crossman, Inside View (London: Jonathan Cape, 1972).Google Scholar
  54. 28.
    Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957).Google Scholar
  55. 29.
    David Butler and Donald Stokes, Political Change in Britain, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1974), ch. 8;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 29.
    Philip Converse, ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in David Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).Google Scholar
  57. 30.
    On politicians’ perceptions of their electorates, see David Butler and Anthony King, The British General Election of 1964 (London: Macmillan, 1965), ch. 3;Google Scholar
  58. 30.
    Warren Miller and Donald Stokes, ‘Constituency Influence in Congress’, in Angus Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order (New York: John Wiley, 1967).Google Scholar
  59. 31.
    Oliver MacDonagh, ‘The Nineteenth-Century Revolution in Government’, Historical Journal, 1 (1958), 52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 31.
    Oliver MacDonagh, A Pattern of Government Growth: 1800–1860 (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1961);Google Scholar
  61. 31.
    David Roberts, Victorian Origins of the British Welfare State (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960).Google Scholar
  62. 32.
    For an interesting elaboration of this perspective, see Graham Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971), chs 3 and 4.Google Scholar
  63. 33.
    Richard Rose, The Problem of Party Government (London: Macmillan, 1974), ch. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 34.
    Maurice Kogan, The Politics of Education (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1971), p. 36.Google Scholar
  65. 36.
    For examples, see John Stewart, British Pressure Groups (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958);Google Scholar
  66. 36.
    S. E. Finer, Anonymous Empire (London: Pall Mall, 1958);Google Scholar
  67. 36.
    Harry Eckstein, Pressure Group Politics: The Case of the British Medical Association (London: Allen & Unwin, 1960);Google Scholar
  68. 36.
    Allen Potter, Organised Groups in British National Politics (London: Faber, 1961);Google Scholar
  69. 36.
    Peter Self and Herbert Storing, The State and the Farmer, (London: Allen & Unwin, 1962).Google Scholar
  70. 37.
    See the discussion of British politics in the report of the SSRC Committee on Comparative Politics, reprinted in Harry Eckstein and David Apter, Comparative Politics (New York: Free Press, 1963);Google Scholar
  71. 37.
    Robert McKenzie, ‘Parties, Pressure Groups and the British Political Process’, Political Quarterly, 29 (1958), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 38.
    Useful discussions of decision-making are Vickers, The Art of Judgment; March and Simon, Organizations, ch. 6; Charles Lindblom, The Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1968), chs 2–4;Google Scholar
  73. 38.
    Kenneth Boulding, The Image (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1956).Google Scholar
  74. 39.
    This power may also be used to exclude issues from the political agenda. For an argument that the poor, in particular, suffer from such ‘non-decision-making’, see Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz, Power and Poverty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  75. 39.
    For a general discussion of the factors that influence the priority of issues, see P. Hall, H. Land, R. Parker and A. Webb, Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy (London: Heinemann, 1975), ch. 15.Google Scholar
  76. 43.
    Rimlinger, Welfare Policy and Industrialisation; Anthony King, ‘Ideas, Institutions and the Policies of Government’, British Journal of Political Science, 3 (1973), 291–313 and 409–23;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 43.
    Peter Kaim-Caudle, Comparative Social Policy and Social Security (London: Martin Robertson, 1973); Heclo, Modern Social Politics; Wilensky, Welfare State and Equaliy;Google Scholar
  78. 43.
    Arnold Heidenheimer, Hugh Heclo and Carolyn Adams, Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in Europe and America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975);Google Scholar
  79. 43.
    David Woodsworth, Social Security and National Policy: Sweden, Yugoslavia, japan (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  80. 45.
    Theodore Lowi, ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory’, World Politics, 6 (1964), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 46.
    On the nature of innovation see Homer Barnett, Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953), ch. 7. In Hall et al., Change, Choice, and Conflict in Social Policy, the term innovation is limited to the initial introduction of a programme; according to the typology employed in that study, the policies examined here are primarily ‘reforms’.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Keith G. Banting 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith G. Banting
    • 1
  1. 1.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations