Periodization
In the early 1980s, the American political scientist Hugh Heclo proposed differentiating three phases in the development of the welfare state (more recent scholars have proposed establishing a fourth phase, which would cover the period after 1980):[15].
Although there are some antecedents in previous political systems, it has been alleged that the perception of the improvement of the general material well-being of the population, as one of the central functions of the Society or State, really began with the origins of the Enlightenment.[20]
In that period, although the power of the monarchs became absolute, the concept of the enlightened despot appeared, whose function was, especially in Germany, to bring progress and social and economic well-being to its people[21]
―see Characteristics and evolution of cameralism―.
According to Gertrude Himmelfarb, a neoconservative historian, this culminated around the beginning of the century:
Throughout the second half of the century, in most Western European countries, the so-called "social question" - expressed in the political pressure of social movements, especially labor movements - prompted governments to adapt legislation on the social condition of the working class and work, legislation that was progressively modified. Most of these measures were specific and of minimal scope, with characteristics that depend on both the history and the political-social circumstances of each country. However, it is possible to notice a movement towards increasingly more comprehensive services.
This situation culminated in the economic crises of the Interwar Period and concomitant sociopolitical crises (see Great Depression), since the dictatorships that emerged proved capable of resolving crises more effectively than democracies. Both the Soviet Union with the Five Year Plan "Five Year Plan (USSR)"), prewar Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy (who was praised for "making the trains run on time", that is, for ending the strikes and economic chaos that had dominated that country) and imperial Japan, all countries that imposed strong state controls on the economy, resolved the crisis by the mid-1930s. This led to the rise of totalitarian political projects, and not only among ordinary citizens. For example, on January 20, 1927, during a visit to Rome, the then conservative and self-declared "constitutionalist and anti-socialist" Winston Churchill declared that if he had been Italian, he would have joined Mussolini:
Around that time, Churchill suggested machine-gunning strikers as a practical way to end the strike. Even as late as 1938, on the eve of the start of World War II, Churchill declared that if England ever had the same problems as postwar Germany, he hoped it would find its “Mr. Hitler»[23]
threatening the conceptions of the liberal State and democracy, which in turn threatened global stability, culminating in the Second World War (1939-1945).[24].
It is in that sense that Waligorsky says that state intervention was proposed “as a safeguard against the power of the market to undermine our most valuable political and social institutions. [...] A totally free market is definitely not the best market for a democracy, a market without regulations guarantees neither justice nor prosperity.»[25].
It is generally agreed that Claus Offe's summary of this development is correct:
In order to avoid errors, it is necessary to specifically add the influence of liberal and Christian Democratic sectors, with figures such as David Lloyd George and Konrad Adenauer, respectively.
Based on the previous reflections - and beginning in 1945 - the socioeconomic policies that became known as the modern "welfare state" were implemented in Western Europe. This implementation gave rise to what Eric Hobsbawm ―among others―[27]
has been called "the golden age of capitalism",[28][29]
since it caused the most successful period of sustained economic growth in the 20th century.[30].
Some authorities[31]
They argue that such developments were carried out under the general proposal of Keynesianism. Others[32]
They argue that it was under the general proposals of ordoliberalism (see Social State). However, most scholars of the subject suggest that there is a basic similarity between these visions and even others, such as those of dirigisme proposed in France in that period[33]
etc. (see also: Wellbeing economics).
In the late 1970s, the contemporary capitalist welfare state began to decline, partly due to the economic crisis of capitalism and the Keynesianism of World War II, and partly due to the lack of a well-articulated ideological basis for the welfare state.[5].
In 1956, Karl Popper described the achievements of that proposal in the following terms:
Popper continues:
And he gives the following list of what he considers - from the liberal point of view - the evils that can be solved or remedied by social cooperation:
From a conservative point of view, the benefits of the welfare state are twofold: on the one hand, the generation of social consensus so that the system works harmoniously and efficiently.[35]
and, on the other hand, following from the above, a function of creating and reinforcing ethical values fundamental to the existence and stability of social relations, thus leading to growing social integration: "The provision of the benefits (of the welfare state) is on the basis of helping the less privileged to acquire the discipline necessary to adhere to moral standards (social or common)":[36].
It is worth remembering that the conservative vision of the State is that it exists to satisfy human needs (from the liberal point of view it is to promote citizen freedom) and as such conservatives accept the welfare State[38]
(see also Alfred Müller-Armack).
The advantages from the point of view of social democracy are, generally, those of a gradual but sure reformist advance towards socialism, ensuring at the same time the protection and deepening of democracy through the recognition of the legitimate right of unions and representatives of communities and marginalized social minorities in making government decisions, as well as the growing integration into these decisions of the principles of social justice, human dignity and citizen participation.
To begin with, at least in part due to these differences in approach and as Popper's quote suggests, projects in different countries were seen as dissimilar, possibly opposed.[39]
However, with the passage of time it is noted that the policies practiced in Western European countries converge[40][41] in relation to giving an active economic role to the State in order to obtain certain common social objectives (such as social well-being and economic growth) and it becomes evident that the progress and stability of each European country depends on that of its neighbors. Thus, a consensus is created that ranges from the most left-wing sectors of the social democratic parties to the most right-wing or conservative sectors in the Christian Democrats. This consensus is what became known as the European model of governance, based not only on the idea that society - through the State - has a responsibility for its citizens, but also that the well-being of each, both individuals and countries, depends on the well-being of the neighbor and that this common good, despite different visions and interests, can be achieved through the practice of consensus politics (see deliberative democracy). We then begin to talk about "community constructions." See Treaties of Rome and European Communities. The result of all of the above is what is known as the welfare state model.
Subsequently, and based on an early criticism of the welfare state from the point of view of the Austrian school,[42]
some politicians - for example, Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom[43]
They sought to implement what was generally perceived as an attempt to "dismantle the welfare state."[44]
Beyond a discussion about the possible intentions of Thatcher and others,[45]
The fact is that these figures introduced profound modifications to the welfare state - at least as it was practiced in England - motivated mainly - it has been suggested - by a misinterpretation of Hayek's position[46]
as what some consider a lack of understanding of the socioeconomic consequences of such attempts[47]
and the difficulties involved in them.[48][49].
Consequently the results of Mrs. Thatcher's project were perhaps not those expected by supporters of the "liberation of economic forces." In the years following the implementation of such measures, inflation in England reached 20%. Both interest and unemployment rates rose excessively and the British industrial base was decimated.[50].
Meanwhile, in the United States, Ronald Reagan would be elected with a promise to “cut taxes, increase the defense budget, and balance and reduce fiscal spending.”[51]
implemented similar policies that, taken together, became known as neoliberalism. During that presidency, the disproportionate increase in both public and private debt in the United States began. Contrary to what its supporters expected, the US fiscal deficit grew from $0.9 trillion to more than $3 trillion, the rate of industrial investment declined precipitously—being replaced by large investments in financial instruments in what has been called a speculative orgy—unemployment reached 10% of the workforce, and job security and real incomes for the rest declined.[50]
The continued development of these trends finally led to the subprime mortgage crisis, which forced President George W. Bush (the former's son) to undertake the largest state intervention in the history of the United States: the injection of $700 billion to support banks threatened by bankruptcy in that country, doubling the "public debt" in the process.[52]
In September 2007, that debt reached 8.9 trillion dollars (8.9 trillions, according to the English system).[53]
In November 2008, when Barack Obama became president, the debt amounted to $10.56 trillion.[54].
Globally, the imposition of such policies led to the decline of global economic growth, from an average rate of almost 3% annually in the period 1950-1973 to one of less than 1.5% in 1973-2000. At the same time, the per capita income of the highest income quartile has been much faster than that of the lowest income, which has dramatically increased social inequality.[55]
Situation that has continued in the first decade of the century. In October 2010, the International Monetary Fund published a table showing that global economic growth has declined (with the exception of Asia including China) even compared to 1980.[56].
Despite the above, the mechanisms, achievements and objectives of the welfare state are still maintained, in Europe, not only as a moral foundation of social cohesion, but also as a realistic and necessary basis for common socioeconomic well-being. For example, the Green Paper on services of general interest, presented by the European Commission in May 2002, defines the notion of the European general interest as "the satisfaction of the basic needs of citizens and the preservation of public goods, when the market fails."[57].
More recently, as a consequence of the 2008-2009 economic crisis, Christian Democrat Angela Merkel, echoing Keynesian sentiment, proclaimed: "Only the State is capable of restoring the necessary trust,"[58]
and both the non-Marxist socialist - with Christian and Fabian influence - Gordon Brown and the conservative Nicolas Sarkozy have opined that "laissez-faire had its time" and even the newspaper The Economist - a bastion of modern classical liberal thought - has said:
Regarding the future of the welfare state, the uncertainties that have been opened by the appearance of unskilled social sectors—high instability and strong job insecurity—have been pointed out, which demand specific policies to free them from marginality that clash with those of the qualified sectors that ask for more transfers of higher quality. To which we must add the decrease in the duration of the "active life cycle" compared to the "passive life cycle" as a consequence of the increase in the school-university period (young people enter the labor market later and later) and, above all, the increase in life expectancy. "Everything indicates that the maintenance in the future of the current ownership of social rights in health care and pension policies will only be possible with a substantial increase in the weight of these policies in the total public spending of each country."[59].