POLITICAL SCIENCE: NEW LIBERALISM Vs OLD LIBERALISM
Using examples, show how ‘classical’/’old’ liberalism and ‘social’/’new’ liberalism differ in their approaches to social welfare.
INTRODUCTION
The origins of liberalism can be traced back to the evolution of socialism and equality. As the roots of free thinking and equality grew among the masses it led to the growth of what is now referred to as Classical Liberalism. They can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment and Reason when free thinkers like David Hume, John Locke, Adam Smith, and so on were able to exert political influence. Their tradition continued into the 18th and 19th centuries and was represented by the Marquis de Condorcet, William Gladstone, Charles James Fox, and so on. Today liberalism has several offshoots including social liberalism, neoliberalism, and so on. regardless of its name, at the heart of liberalism remains the ideology of equality. The changes in each branch of thinking are merely a difference in the degree of governmental interference and involvement. Thus, social welfare or the welfare of the common man remains the primary goal of liberalism (Vegener, 2015), (Coburn, 2000).
The policies that contribute to the welfare of society as a whole are a result of the ideology and thinking exhibited by the collective society and thus may be considered a mirror of the society in which it exists. While social welfare started with classical liberalism, it underwent significant changes following the great depression. This has resulted in the social liberalism as we know it today. The subsequent changes in economic growth and collective thinking contributed to the rise of neoliberalism which is the hallmark of many developed societies today. Although Eastern Europe continues to show a marker preference for social liberalism and countries like Canada prefer the classical approach, the vast majority led by the UK and the USA have adopted a neoliberal approach that can tap into the best aspects of classical and social approaches to liberalism (Shevtsova & Yavlinsky, 2004), (Bassin et al., 2017), (Bruszt & Langbein, 2017).
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL WELFARE
Classical Liberalism can be considered as anti-government, in the sense that it discourages governmental intervention and advises free trade and enterprise for the common good of the country (Coburn, 2000). It can be considered as an advocate of laissez-faire that uses free enterprise and trade to help improve the problems faced by the common man. Here, the emphasis is on self-help groups and private enterprises being leaders who play an active role in the betterment of society, while the government is limited to enforcing protection and ensuring that legal contracts are adhered to. Thus, in a classical approach, the government is a mere super cop, who would ensure that individual players adhere to laid down laws and also contribute towards social welfare. This approach depends on the social conscience of individual entrepreneurs rather than any formal law laid down by society or government.
For instance, the laissez-faire economy that was seen particularly at the onset of the Industrial Revolution is an example of classical liberalism. Here, all welfare activities depended on the intention of the entrepreneurs, who contributed a part of their income earned from free trade towards the betterment of the masses. This contribution was usually done through the church or a self-help group and the role of the free enterprise was to merely make a monetary contribution that would be used for the welfare of the economically backward sections of society. Canada is a classical example of the limited role accorded to the state in ensuring the welfare of its citizens. The role of free enterprise can be credited with the growth of the country through the various ages and the significant economic growth of the country. The minimalistic interference by the government helps ensure that the market forces guide the success of businesses. Businesspersons are also keen on returning a [part to society and helping them adapt various welfare measures for the benefit of the economically downtrodden (Mahon, 2008).
SOCIAL LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL WELFARE
Social liberalism, however, considers governmental intervention essential for the redistribution of wealth for the greater good (Vegener, 2015. This form of liberalism is deeply rooted in equality and social good. The government is expected to work towards redistribution of wealth to reduce the economic gap between the haves and the have-nots. This is usually done through a differential taxation method as well as through social welfare activities. The government, thus works at actively safeguarding the rights of the poorer sections of society and works towards bringing about economic equality universally. Thus, in a socialistic approach, the government is deeply involved in various social welfare activities that are guided by the philosophies of public responsibility and equitable wealth distribution. This ideology gained popularity following the great depression when the general population was highly dependent on social welfare schemes for existence and survival.
The state is concerned with the welfare of all its citizens and develops universal policies that would benefit them through various social welfare activities (Shevtsova & Yavlinsky, 2004). For instance, the socialistic economy that was seen during the Industrial Revolution is an example of social liberalism. Here, trade unions were able to get political patronage that ensured the welfare of all its members. All welfare activities depended on the governmental initiatives, that were funded by taxing the economically well-off entrepreneurs. This income was spent on the betterment of the economically downtrodden parties by ensuring the betterment of the masses, the government aimed at attempting to bridge the divide between the haves and the have-nots. This contribution was usually done through various governmental channels and the role of the government was to ensure the welfare of the economically backward sections of society. The geopolitical legacy of the Russian Revolution was the advent of the socialistic state the welfare activities formed the core of all governmental activities. The very national identity of the country was that of a socialist state and they were proud to uphold the tradition (Bassin et al., 2017).
LIBERALISM: OLD Vs NEW
The primary disagreement between classical and social liberals lies in the ideology of welfare that each promotes. The interpretations of freedom, free trade, and governmental interpretations lay the foundation for the differences in each school of thought. At the heart of their difference lies the fundamental question – Which is more important collectivism or individualism? While peace was a common requirement for both ways of thinking, it would be apt to state that all similarities ended there! While individualism remained the primary concern of Classical Liberals who felt that governmental intervention would hanaper free trade, they also advocated the importance of churches and self-help groups as well as individuals in helping to improve the lives of the common man. Thus, while the welfare of the masses was a part of their thinking, it depended on the outlook of individuals rather than on collective thought. Therefore, each welfare activity would continue to differ from others.
Social liberalism, on the other hand, looks at governmental intervention to help bring about equality between the masses. Social welfare activities thus are more uniform across the country and this significantly helps to ensure that the welfare of the masses is more consistent as well as widespread. Socialism as practiced in the erstwhile USSR is often considered an extreme interpretation of social liberalism! An interesting phenomenon seen in developed capitalist economies is the wide income disparity that necessitates higher social funding (Coburn, 2000). Russia which followed this approach was able to ensure a uniform development of the country and the benefit of its citizens in a more planned manner. However, the efforts started to fail when corruption raised its head and inserted itself into the process. While a differential taxation regime, ensured that the economically forward sections had to pay larger taxes, the authorities who should have worked towards ensuring the welfare of the common man, were rooted in corruption, and this led to lots of a sizable chunk of the funds. This culminated in the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots that the social welfare measures were unable to bridge. Thus, Russia was a failure in both its social liberalism as well as capitalistic approaches (Barkhatov & Arbachauskas, n.d.)
Many countries including Italy, America, and the United Kingdom follow the middle path that allows them to tap into the advantages of social liberalism as well as classical liberalism. Thus, while free enterprise is encouraged, they also have adequate social welfare schemes to ensure that the lower sections of society continue to benefit (Campa, n.d.), (Coburn, 2000) (Rose, 1993). Globalization can be credited to ensuring that this approach has gained significant ground. While classical and social views tend to differ in their approaches, the ultimate aim of both remains the benefit to the masses. However, by adopting an approach that lies in the middle of these ideologies, the state can capitalize on the advantages of both approaches. Thus, free enterprise continues to flourish and they may contribute to social welfare schemes. However, the onus of taking care of its citizens remains with the government. Many such governments adopt a differential taxation regime to avail of public funds that are used to promote various social welfare schemes like food coupons, pensions, and healthcare to the economically backward sections, thus ensuring equality.
CONCLUSION
While it is essential to understand, that social welfare is part of liberalism in all its forms; the difference lies in the manner in which it is achieved. While classical liberals limit the role of government to that of a referee who merely imposes law and order and promotes peace, social liberals look towards the government for guidance in ensuring social equality as well as the maintenance of law and order. Social liberalism would benefit greatly from attempting to improve their understanding of the reasons for income inequality rather than increasing the welfare schemes (Coburn, 2000). It would be apt to state that while the means to ensure social equality are different, the end goal remains the same.
The extent of governmental intervention and the resulting impact on society may differ by degrees. However, the concept of social equality continues to flourish across the ages. Changes in individual and collective thinking as well as the changes in economic growth are the primary factors that contribute to the changes in ideologies and approaches. The vulnerabilities of the citizens are addressed in a planned manner, while the entrepreneur continues to grow and expand as part of his professional endeavors. The political nexus between the entrepreneur, the government, and society for the benefit of the common man is the ultimate goal of liberalism no matter the ideology it adopts. Profit-making and social justice are the key components and the weightage accorded to each would vary based on the approach adopted by the collective conscience. Regardless of the dominance of either component, the ultimate aim remains the betterment of society as a whole.
References
Barkhatov, V., & Arbachauskas, V. Nature and Evolution of Russian Capitalism. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bassin, M., Richardson, P., Kolosov, V., Clowes, E., Agnew, J., & Plokhy, S. (2017). 1917–2017: The Geopolitical Legacy of the Russian Revolution. Geopolitics, 1-28.
Bruszt, L., & Langbein, J. (2017). Varieties of dis-embedded liberalism. EU integration strategies in the Eastern peripheries of Europe. Journal Of European Public Policy, 24(2), 297-315.
Campa, A. The Nature and Evolution of Capitalism in Italy. SSRN Electronic Journal
Coburn, D. (2000). Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism. Social Science & Medicine, 51(1), 135-146.
Mahon, R. (2008). Varieties of Liberalism: Canadian Social Policy from the Golden Age to the Present. Social Policy & Administration, 42(4), 342-361.
Rose, N. (1993). Government, authority, and expertise in advanced liberalism. Economy And Society, 22(3), 283-299.
Shevtsova, L., & Yavlinsky, G. (2004). Russia's Peripheral Liberalism. Foreign Policy, (144), 80.
Vegener, R. (2015). The origin and nature of state-monopoly capitalism. Russian Journal Of Entrepreneurship, 16(8), 1101.
Ratings
