Ideology and welfare in the UK: the implications for the voluntary sector

Author(s): Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

Source: Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations ,
November 1992, Vol. 3, No. 2 (November 1992), pp. 153-174
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27927335

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27927335?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Voluntas:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 a ?
Marilyn

Ideol
impli

Abstract

The UK has, over recent years, moved from a 'welfare state' to a

more 'market-oriented' system of welfare. But the extent of this change
has varied considerably according to the ideological position of local
government in different parts of the country. This makes it possible
within one country to assess the implications for the voluntary sector
of different models of welfare. This article develops a framework for
looking at different welfare ideologies and the values they espouse,
with reference both to the UK and to the models that exist in other
countries. It then takes four examples of UK local authorities which
demonstrate the different models and examines the implications for
the voluntary sector. In doing so, it examines the prospects for the
voluntary sector to deliver both service and political pluralism in the
future.

Introduction

Demographic change, ageing populations and world recession are

forcing governments in the developed countries to search for new
welfare resources and responsibilities and new ways of rationing and
delivering welfare services. This comes at a time when the role of
the state in welfare is in any case under the microscope, with socialism
as an economic and political system apparently discredited and the
free market economy in the ascendant. To characterise this as a
wholesale move towards the market would be oversimplistic. Different
political traditions combine with a whole host of factors to produce
different models in different countries. But when even the Swedish
electorate has demanded change, it is time for a careful look at the

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 254 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

changes that are in train and the implications of changing ideologies

for the future of welfare.
This is especially true for the voluntary or non-profit sector/ which
tends to be overlooked in ideological debates about the relative merits
of the state and the market. Policies which move the responsibility
for welfare away from the state may indeed herald a new era of
recognition for this sector and an enhanced role for philanthropy.
Critics of state welfare in the UK have argued that the incentive for
self-help and altruism was suffocated by state intervention (Anderson
et al., 1981; Patten, 1988). But there is no guarantee that voluntary
organisations will have a role in a free market economy, and theorists
of the sector have warned of the possible consequences for the voluntary
sector of the withdrawal of the state (Salamon, 1985).
The UK experience offers an interesting perspective on the impact
of different ideologies on the voluntary sector for two reasons: because
of the moves made in this country over recent years away from a
'welfare state' towards a more 'market-oriented' system of welfare;
and because of the ideological tensions between the national and local
state in effecting such a transformation. During the 1980s at least, a
national government committed to market solutions and a New Right
ideology found its ambitions thwarted by local administrations
committed to a continued high-profile state role in welfare. This allows
us to assess within one country a number of different ideological
models and suggest their implications for voluntary organisations. But
it also throws up the confusions that exist between ideologies and
the way in which different ideological viewpoints are combined in
reality.

Models of welfare

Britain has always had a mixed economy of welfare, in the Victorian

era much welfare relied on philanthropy from the rich to the poor,
and the state was a residual provider (Owen, 1965). However, there
was also a growing tradition of mutual aid through the friendly
societies, especially in the relief of poverty. During the early years of
this century, UK governments in common with many others (Flora
and Alber, 1981) took on a greater responsibility for aspects of welfare,
particularly social insurance, although the voluntary sector was still a
major provider of welfare services. There was increasing criticism of
the patchiness of its coverage, however, and major legislation in the
1940s covering income maintenance, health and education led to the
introduction of the welfare state, which aimed at providing universal
coverage and hence a right to welfare through state responsibility. In

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 155

the UK this took the form of state delivery in most cases; for example,
Beveridge's (1948) recommendation that the mutual aid friendly societies
maintain a major role in the delivery of social insurance was overruled.
Nonetheless, voluntary organisations had a continued role to play -
in fields as varied as lifeboat services, special needs education, adult
education and the provision of advice and information - and new
organisations continued to be formed. Indeed, the 1960s and 1970s
saw the growth of a new wave of voluntary activity as advice,
advocacy, self-help and campaigning organisations were set up to
improve and supplement the quality of public services.
As one of the authors has described elsewhere (Taylor, 1992), growing
dissatisfaction with public services over this period was reflected in
the promotion of alternative ideologies of welfare, which sought to
introduce more pluralism and choice in provision, to reduce dependency
on the state and to promote efficiency. Welfare plur?lists argued for
an increased role for the voluntary sector (see, for example, Gladstone,
1979; Hadley and Hatch, 1981) while the New Right championed the
market as the mechanism for controlling welfare expenditure and
offering choice. The new Conservative government elected in 1979 on
a mandate to 'roll back the frontiers of the welfare state' followed
the ideological lead provided by the New Right in the UK in introducing
market mechanisms into welfare.
Each of the approaches to welfare outlined above has its counterparts
in other countries. In rolling back the frontiers of the welfare state,
much reference has been made by the UK New Right to their
counterparts in the USA and the models available there. The welfare
pluralista might in turn make reference to the welfare systems of the
Netherlands or West Germany, where religious differences, past experi
ence of a totalitarian state or, conversely, a stable politically pluralist
system have produced pluralist systems of welfare (Brenton, 1982,
1985; van Kersbergen and Becker, 1988). Those who advocate a
continued adherence to state welfare have pointed to Scandinavian
models, especially in Sweden, although recent political change may
put this at risk.
The debate in the UK over approaches to welfare was, for most of
the 1980s, highly politicised in an ideological contest between the
Right and the Left - respectively championing the market or the state.
Peter George (1981, 1985; see also Lee and Raban, 1983) criticised this
oversimplification of the alternative ideologies, and identified two more
dimensions of the welfare debate:

equality/inequality, where he contrasted a 'top-down', paternalist or

'etatist' approach with a 'bottom-up' fraternalist or proletarian

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 156 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

approach (both supporters and opponents of the state could, he

argued, advocate a top-down approach);
individual I collective.
A simplified version of his schema is given in Figure 1. However,
this view of the state/anti-state dimension is still oversimplified. It
distinguishes neither between the different forms that state intervention
may take (for example, finance, delivery, regulation) nor does it
recognise the interdependence between state intervention and the
values of equality and community that appear on the other axis. State
intervention may, for example, be supported as the means of ensuring
that the values of equity and collective responsibility are enshrined
in a system of welfare.

Figure 1 George's classification of welfare ideologies

Anti-state

Communism Market liberalism

Equality Inequality
(+ Collective)" "(+ Individual)
Collectivism Conservatism

Pro-state

While the welfare pluralists in Britain argued for independent deliv

ery, they still saw the need for state finance (Gladstone, 1979). While
the first would increase choice, the second would be required to
deliver an equitable system. In the US, Salamon has argued that this
distinction has the potential to use the strengths of both worlds: 'it
utilises government for what it does best - raising resources and
setting societal priorities through a democratic political process - while
utilising the private sector for what it does best - organising the
production of goods and services' (Salamon, 1989, pp.10-11).
Following this lead, we have revised George's diagram to reflect
the different forms of state and independent intervention, the values
each implies (see also Mishra, 1990, p.113) and the forms of provision
which would dominate in each model (see Figure 2).
The conservative case, however, no longer quite fits. It is clearly a
patriarchal system in George's definition and is individual rather than
collective. But it is difficult to describe it as a system of state delivery
and we have moved it closer to the independent delivery end of the

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 157

Figure 2 A revised framework

Independent delivery
(Choice)
Welfare pluralism Market pluralism
Mutual aid Market and family
State finance Conservatism Independent
_ finance
(Equality) ? Philanthropy and
(Collective)
family j(Individual)
(Efficiency)

Welfare state
Government

State delivery
(Consistency)

diagram in recognition of this. Nonetheless, it is not the same as a

market system. The interests and values of the ruling class are pervasive,
even if not mediated through the state and it is arguable that, in
conservative ideologies, there is little distinction between the interests
of the ruling class and those of paternalist, charitable providers. The
significance is that it is philanthropy not the state that pays.
In identifying where a welfare system stands on this grid, it is
important to acknowledge the interp?n?tration between state and
non-profits. In analysing the French and German systems, Seibel (1990)
borrowed the term 'embeddedness' from Granovetter (1985) to describe
this phenomenon, highlighting the extent to which the governance of
non-profits may be linked into existing power elites. Governments
may also, in an ideological climate which favours independent provision,
create quasi non-profits to fulfil their objectives.

Implications for voluntary organisations

What are the implications of these different ideologies of welfare for

the voluntary sector? If we move clockwise around our model from
conservatism or paternalism, as the first model identified in our history,
they can be identified as follows:

Conservatism/ paternalism
Philanthropy finances
Voluntary (and private) sector provides
State residual

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 158 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

Collectivism/'welfare state
State finances
State provides
Voluntary and private sector residual

Communism/welfare pluralism
State finances
Voluntary sector provides
Private sector complements (but its contribution is rarely discussed)

Market liberalism I market pluralism

Consumer finances
Private sector provides
Voluntary sector residual

In exploring the significance of ideology for voluntary organisations,

however, it is important to recognise that the voluntary sector is not
only concerned with service provision. The advocacy, campaigning
and empowerment activities of the sector are likely to fare somewhat
differently from service activities under different ideologies.
Under a paternalist system, empowerment has little place and
potential beneficiaries are dependent on the moral choices of then
benefactors. Campaigning is carried out by members of the power
elite on behalf of people in need.
In a welfare state, services are controlled through the democratic
process - the vote and the elected representative.
Some advocates of welfare pluralism in the UK have recognised the
concept of democratic pluralism, which not only allows the
emergence of independent organisations to provide services but
also to participate in the decision-making process as citizens, thus
contributing to the political process and to the principles which
determine the variety and allocation of provision. However, if the
voluntary sector moves to the centre of provision, this may be
incompatible with advocacy.
Under market pluralism, control is exercised through the transactions
of individual consumers. Advocacy distorts the market.

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 159

Ideology in the UK during the 1980s

The rhetoric of the Conservative administration which has been in

power since 1979 has been that of the New Right. Many measures
have been introduced to withdraw the state from welfare delivery:
allowing parents to take their children's schools out of local authority
control, and introducing similar 'opting-out' legislation in the fields
of housing and health; encouraging both health and social care author
ities to purchase services from third parties; introducing compulsory
competitive tendering to a range of fields from street cleaning to
leisure.
But while market pluralism is the logic behind many current govern
ment policies, political and practical realities have made it impossible
for the state to withdraw completely. Current policies in health, social
(community) care and education assume that the state will continue
to bear the burden of finance but are devolving delivery to outside
bodies where possible. Quasi-markets are being introduced with
government functions devolved to quasi-autonomous agencies and
internal markets introduced which separate purchasers from providers
in the public sphere (Le Grand, 1991). In this sense government is
approximating a welfare pluralist model. This may indeed be the
politically pragmatic position to take in a society where the general
public remains obstinately wedded to some form of government
responsibility for welfare. Even in countries where this is not the case,
government has remained a crucial actor on the welfare scene - as
theories of 'third-party government' (Salamon, 1981) and public-private
blurring (Rein, 1989) in the US demonstrate.
Nonetheless the UK government is seeking to introduce alternative
methods of financing across the board. People are being encouraged
through tax incentives to use private insurance for their pensions, and
tax relief was introduced for medical insurance for older people.
Business is being asked to pay more towards training and transport.
Fees and charges in the health service have been extended and fears
of underfunding for new social care legislation suggest that, in this
sphere too, fees and charges will become necessary to make provision
viable.
But in seeking to withdraw the state from finance, government is
also moving to a paternalist ideology, with calls for 'active citizens'
to dig deep into their pockets and to support services which were
hitherto publicly funded (Lister, 1990). Hospitals and schools are
moving into the fundraising game. Voluntary organisations are being
encouraged to seek more of their funds from the private purse
(especially from business) and corporate sponsors of the arts are
complaining that, as they put money in, so government withdraws

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 160 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

its own contribution. Government is also seeking to encourage more

efficient use of the money it provides. 1990 saw an efficiency scrutiny
of government funding to the voluntary sector (Home Office, 1990)
which, among its many recommendations, seeks to establish a stronger
link between government funding and the encouragement of volun
teering.
From this it is clear that we have a very mixed economy of welfare
in the UK. The models we have suggested are all in use at some
level of welfare provision. The dominant ideology may be market
pluralism, which implies private and informal sector delivery, but the
realities of politics mean that welfare pluralism, with the state providing
the finance to voluntary and private sector deliverers, is the means
for getting there. The realisation that people will fall through the gap
has led also to the introduction of elements of paternalism or old-style
conservatism.

The local picture

There is a further dimension to the ideological jigsaw. Many central

government policies are refracted through local government inter
mediaries - as the responsible authorities for education, social care,
leisure and recreation, transport, environmental services and so on.
During the 1980s, many local authorities were opposed to the ideology
being put forward by central government. Part of the welfare revolution
has involved stripping local government of its powers and financial
autonomy - with more than 50 bills introduced since 1979 which
affect local authority powers and services, and the introduction of
restrictions on local authority finance and the amount that can raised
from local taxation. New quasi-autonomous bodies have been created
at local level bypassing the local authority. But as it was only in the
third term of the Conservative administration that much of the
legislation was put in place to implement its move to the market, the
impact of new welfare ideologies on the voluntary sector, in the 1980s
at least, depended as much on the reaction of the relevant local
authority as on the ideological mix dictated by government. Indeed
it is arguable that, in some policy areas, it still does. In the field of
community care, for example, where new legislation has introduced
a mixed economy but defined the local authority as the lead agency,
there is considerable variation in the community care plans that are
now emerging around the country.
This allows us to examine the implications of different models of
welfare, since all four of the models suggested in our framework exist
in some part of the country. In the second part of this paper, we

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 161

describe the emergence of these models and speculate on their likely

future development. We have based our account on the purest examples
known to us: many local authorities will encompass a mix of ideologies
in practice.

Welfare state

While the historical reality is far more complex, there is a deeply

ingrained ideological belief among Labour party supporters that the
welfare state was the creation of the Labour government of 1945-50,
and that it represented the triumph of the working class in securing
welfare for all citizens as of right. But if the concept of the welfare
state adopted by the Labour party in the 1940s was one of state care
from cradle to grave, then that care was, par excellence, to be provided
through local government. This tradition has lasted in the northern
towns and cities where Labour's civic heartland lies: Sheffield, for
example, has had only one year of non-Labour rule since the second
world war, and has been typical of an all-embracing provider of high
quality services. In a city of this type the voluntary sector has been
relatively weak; it has also been thrust into the position of opposition
to the statutory sector. The traditionalist voluntary sector in Sheffield
tended to attract financial support from the wealthy industrialists who
were politically disenfranchised by the permanent Labour hegemony
and who thus exercised their civic roles as leaders of voluntary
agencies. More recently, an alternative voluntary sector has also
developed, partly based on some of the more radical church movements,
which has challenged the degree to which the city council is responsive
to local needs by sponsoring community work schemes. Municipal
socialism, in this setting, thus faces a challenge from conservatism on
the one hand and welfare pluralism on the other.
A sharper pattern of ideological shifts and challenges may be seen
in Liverpool. Although predominantly a working-class city, Liverpool
also had a very wealthy merchant and ship-owning class. It is also
a city with a long history of sectarian divisions. Among the working
class, the capture of the protestant vote by the Conservatives in the
late nineteenth century resulted in Liverpool's first Labour admini
stration not being elected until the 1950s - 50 years later than most
comparable British cities (Waller, 1981). Moreover, many of the merchant
class were Unitarians, and thus until the late nineteenth century were
excluded from local government. They, ?ke their later Sheffield
counterparts although for different reasons, thus exercised their civic
responsib?ities through the voluntary sector. Here, however, the
traditiona?y conservative city counc?s of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries were de?ghted to accept this voluntary contribution,

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
162 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

and a well-endowed and, for its day, progressive voluntary sector

grew up in Liverpool, often pioneering services which later become
national bodies, such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux. The early history
is thus, as in much of Britain, one of conservatism.
As statutory agencies came into being, they were usually happy to
work alongside these voluntary bodies. There was quite a lot of
patronising on both sides, and many of the voluntary agencies had
become rather outdated in their practice, but both sides were willing
to sustain an ideology of 'partnership' which traded reasonably generous
grant aid for the voluntary sector in exchange for relatively low-cost
services - a shift to a pragmatic form of welfare pluralism.
This pattern, however, could not last. Liverpool's deteriorating
economic and social conditions have for the last 30 years been such
that neither voluntary nor statutory agencies could command the
resources to meet the city's needs. A newly-elected Labour
administration in 1983, faced with severe cuts in central government
funding, adopted a position of total ideological opposition to all forms
of pluralistic fudging. They adopted an extreme municipal socialist
position, seeing themselves as the sole arbiters of what the people of
Liverpool needed, particularly in relation to housing (Parkinson, 1985).
Pluralism could have no place in their rhetoric of class struggle: the
city council led the working class from a position of ideological purity,
and anyone failing to accept this was ipso facto the class enemy. This
brought them into conflict with many community-based groups,
especially the local black community, who believed that black people
had special needs which should be met by a mix of services from
black-led organisations and specially-designated local authority services.
The city council, by contrast, took the view that black problems were
secondary to the general needs of the working class, and were a
distraction from the broader class struggle (Liverpool Black Caucus,
1986; Taafe and Mulhearn, 1988).
Such ideological extremism was as little to the taste of the Labour
party nationally (which perceived it as an electoral liability in the
country as a whole, even though Labour maintained and indeed
expanded its popular vote in Liverpool), as it was to the Conservative
government. A number of leading councillors were expelled from the
party for being members of Militant, a Trotskyite sect proscribed by
the national Labour party (Crick, 1986; Wainwright, 1987; Shaw, 1988).
In 1987, 47 councillors were barred from holding office for five years
for failing to observe local government finance laws. Although new
Labour councillors were elected, their approach to the voluntary sector
has been a much more moderate one, and indeed part of their
constituency has been those black organisations whose views and
interests were disregarded by the previous Labour council. In this

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 163

respect, ideological differences between welfare statism and pluralism

can be seen to be more complex than simple party labels would
suggest, and indeed George's analysis was developed to illustrate
precisely this point.
It is perhaps inevitable that people who hold strong ideological
positions will find it harder to collaborate with others than those who
are prepared to adopt a pluralist view of society. Certainly, Liverpool
offers an extreme example of this: under its Militant leadership the
Liverpool Labour party had little interest in the voluntary sector and
none at all in the private sector. At a time when government was
encouraging the privatisation of services, they were moving in the
reverse direction: municipalising and fighting to preserve the jobs of
council employees. This concern with good, state-provided services
remains a strong element in much socialist ideology, but it has been
modified, particularly in parts of London, by a move towards a more
pluralistic model of socialism.

Welfare pluralism

Variation in support for the voluntary sector by Labour-controlled

authorities is no new thing: an analysis of support for voluntary
organisations by London boroughs in the 1960s identified two patterns.
'Old' Labour councils which had remained in control during three
sets of elections tended to the welfare state model which we have
described above. 'New7 Labour councils, in those boroughs which had
gone Labour-Conservative-Labour in the sequence of elections, tended
to be more generous in their support of voluntary organisations, both
financially and in recognising that they had a role to play both in
providing services and in speaking for different groups in the
community. The study hypothesised that the difference in attitude was
in part a consequence of older councillors having stood down following
electoral defeat and being replaced by younger councillors with broader
views about public participation in local services (Lansley and Sutton,
1974).
It has perhaps been in London that this approach to welfare pluralism
has been most widely adopted, although it is at best an uneasy
relationship which all too often slips over into statutory colonisation
of voluntary bodies. Some groups have been seen as having a natural
alliance with the Left, albeit with reservations on both sides: women's
groups, claimants' unions, tenants' associations. In some Labour circles
these groupings have been welcomed as developing direct forms of
accountability and democracy and offering alternatives to market
provision or professional services (Lawrence, 1983; Gyford, 1985).

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 164 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

The popular press seized on Labour-controlled councils' support of

black or women's groups as evidence of extremism, dubbing them
the 'loony left'. In fact, this was some way from the truth. Most grant
aid to voluntary groups by these boroughs was to mainstream voluntary
welfare agencies. A study of support to the voluntary sector by Camden
Borough Council, the most generous London borough, in 1983/4,
showed the allocation of resources (see Table 1).

Table 1 Support to the voluntary sector, London Borough of Camden,

1983-4

Activity type Percentage of total

grant aid received

Advice and information services 21.2

Social care 19.0
Children's play 15.9
Community and neighbourhood centres 15.1
Arts and crafts 6.9
Leisure 5.9
Campaigning 5.7
Public participation 1.6
Self-help groups 0.2
All other groups 8.5
Total 100.0

Source: Raine and W

When these are b

allocated to select
the total, ethnic
per cent, homele
cent, and single
most, then, less th
sometimes identif
Welfare pluralism
grant aid figures
is mainly given to
sort or another,
service or to und
perform. Some m
give those councill
of needs, function
model. Some ma

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 165

councillors, or seek to maintain the support of certain political constitu

encies, but these probably account for only a small proportion of total
grant aid in most authorities. The balance of these goals may vary
from one authority to another, but the political complexion of the 32
London boroughs does not offer a simple explanation for levels of
grant aid. A study in London in 1983 (Hayes and Knight, 1983)
showed that seven out of the top ten givers of grant aid to the
voluntary sector were Labour-controlled and three were Conservative
controlled, while of the bottom seven, five were Conservative and two
were Labour.
The future of welfare pluralism in these boroughs will be affected
by the large-scale cuts that are taking place as financial restraint bites.
A recent survey by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations
(Mabbott, 1992) suggests that voluntary organisations lost ?29.4 million
in local authority funding in 1991/92, over 5 per cent of the 1990/91
total, and predicted that ?42.4 million would be lost in 1992/93. In
the metropolitan authorities the projected loss in 1991/2 was 8.7 per
cent of the 1990/91 total. Particularly hard hit, the survey suggested,
were local development agencies - the local infrastructure that helps
organisations get started, provides advice, information, training and
support, and acts as a channel for voluntary organisations to make
their views known to government.

Conservatism

The boundary between paternalism and welfare pluralism, or even

welfare statism, is by no means a clear-cut one, because there may
in either case be an overlap between councillors and those who run
voluntary organisations - a practical example of Seibel's (1990) concept
of embeddedness. This overlapping of local elites may result in a
measure of consensus over the general nature of local social policy,
and hence the relative responsibilities and collaboration between
statutory and voluntary agencies. There is a recognisable type of local
authority, especially among predominantly rural county councils, which
still tends to view voluntary organisations as the traditional and proper
provider of services, and sees the local authority as having a relatively
residual role. This does not translate into high levels of grant aid,
however. Voluntary organisations are perceived as benevolent givers
of services, according to a charitable ethos, and with substantial use
of voluntary effort. Rural counties give much less grant aid to the
voluntary sector than do metropolitan districts and London boroughs
(See Table 2).
Unlike the colonised voluntary organisations of some welfare state
authorities, these rural voluntary agencies are not seen by the statutory

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 166 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

Table 2 Support for the voluntary sector analysed by type of authority

(%)

Type of Grants Fees Total Support for

authority voluntary sector as
% of total spending
Grants Fees

Metropolitan counties 11.8 - 11.8 1.26

Metropolitan districts
and London boroughs 34.4 11.6 46.0 1.81 0.60
Shire counties 9.7 24.1 33.9 0.29 0.74
Districts 7.9 0.5 8.4 1.81 0.11

Source: Charities Aid Foundation (1985, Tab

Tables 1 and 6)
Note: These are clearly crude figures and tak
of geographical differences in need for servi
some indication of differences in attitudes t

sector as coming under their political contr

to have their own organisational niches
of things. A comment from Hatch and Mo
organisations in Suffolk is significant: 'We
our committee ../ said a member of on
they are there, it is because of their own i
1983, p.86).
Many rural local authorities see themselves as operating outside the
realm of politics. There is instead an implicit expectation that everyone
conforms to the same values. This means that alternative approaches
to welfare are viewed with suspicion, along with anything that questions
the role and politics of the local authority. The denial of the place of
politics in local government has meant that traditional conservative
councillors in rural areas (and the majority of rural counties are
governed by Conservatives or independents who take a Conservative
line) have been unwilling to concede a role to the voluntary sector
other than that of service provision, a view which matches the
perceptions of most voluntary organisations in these areas.
How long beliefs in the apolitical nature of local government will
survive is open to question. The introduction of spending controls by
central government has angered and politicised some councillors. While
most would probably go along with arguments from central government
about value for money and so forth, their strain of paternalism also
gives them a pride in the services they offer and a wish to ensure

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 167

for themselves that such provision is of good quality, rather than

having this dictated from outside. Moreover, the future of county
councils themselves is uncertain at present, with proposals by the
government to create smaller 'unitary' (that is, all-purpose) authorities.
This model, originally put forward by the Redcliffe-Maud Royal
Commission on Local Government (Cmnd 4040, 1969), was rejected
at that time because of the competing interests of counties and districts,
and because it was held that local government encompassed a variety
of functions, some of which should be local, while others needed to
be exercised over large areas. That it is now proposed to revert to
smaller, unitary authorities is perhaps a indication of a strain of
thinking within central government, which does not value local govern
ment and would seek to transfer many of its traditional responsibilities
to the private or voluntary sectors. If carried out, the privatisation of
local government could be the final achievement of Thatcherism.
Meanwhile, an apolitical rural voluntary sector cannot be taken for
granted. Increasing numbers of urban workers are living in rural
homes, profoundly changing the character of many small towns and
villages, while the demands of leisure and transport, the relocation of
industries and big business farming are all changing traditional rural
social structures and perceptions. The increasing importance of environ
mental issues, and not least the 'greening7 of the voluntary sector, are
likely in the future to affect the relationship between voluntary and
statutory bodies, and may begin to provide a pluralistic opposition
to the paternalist status quo.

Market pluralism

There have been relatively few examples of market pluralism among

local authorities. The concept has perhaps had more adherents among
members of health authorities, who are appointed rather than elected,
and where it has consequently been easier for government to achieve
a relatively quick change in ethos. By contrast, promotion in local
party politics and local government is often slow, and traditions die
hard. There is an independence both of organisation and of spirit in
local government which has always given the cutting edge to local/
central government relations. The introduction of the 'contract culture'
through a range of legislation is, however, blowing a wind of change
through the local government scene, especially at officer level. Although
there will be considerable variation between authorities in the way
this is implemented, we can expect market principles to be adopted
on a far wider scale than at present, with the introduction of current
social care and health legislation. Many authorities are privatising their
manual labour forces (cleaning, ground maintenance, waste disposal

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 168 Manlyn Taylor and John Jjansley

and so on) and new funding arrangements mean that local authorities
have been transferring old people's homes and housing estates to the
independent sector, although the favoured strategy seems to be to
pass them over to non-profit housing associations rather than to sell
them to the private sector.
In the May 1990 local government elections, three market pluralist
local authorities were vaunted by the Conservatives as flagship author
ities which had recognised the role of the private sector and had in
consequence ensured low local tax levels for their constituents. In two
of these, Westminster and Wandsworth in London, the Conservatives
increased their share of the vote; in the third, Bradford, they lost
power. However, in some other London boroughs with high local tax
levels, Labour increased its share of the vote. It is therefore too early
to say whether market pluralism is likely to take root in a significantly
larger number of local authorities.
The voluntary sector is unlikely to be the principal beneficiary of
market pluralism. Privatisation brought uncertainty and cuts in grant
aid to voluntary bodies in Bradford during the Conservative tenure
of power, while in November 1990 Wand s worth proposed cuts of ?1
million in funding for the sector, including the closure of five voluntary
sector law centres (NCVO News, September 1990). The pressure towards
the privatisation of services is likely to require a more 'business-like'
approach among voluntary service providers, which may well begin
to blur the boundaries between voluntary and for-profit organisations.
Paradoxically, the more the traditional local authorities rely on voluntary
organisations rather than the for-profit sector to provide services, the
greater these tendencies will be. Hybrid 'not-for-profit' organisations
are more likely to thrive in this climate with their mix of former local
authority staff and a commercial approach. There will certainly be
little room for those voluntary organisations which are seen as in any
way political. The feedback function of voluntary organisations is likely
to be submerged as they either become mainstream service providers
or as grant aid withers in favour of purchase of services as the
favoured means of funding voluntary organisations.

Implications for the UK voluntary sector

As financial constraints bite at local level, many local organisations

are uncertain as to their future and find it difficult to match a rhetoric
which gives them a greater role with a withdrawal of state funding
which threatens their very existence. Nationally, it seems that those
voluntary organisations which are in the market for service contracts
and which are good at raising funds will survive, but those which

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 169

are not will suffer. The Institutional environment' at local level is

getting more complex and new competitors are entering the arena as
new policies encourage the creation of hybrids, which blur quite
considerably the boundaries between the public, private and non-profit
sectors (Paton, 1989; Rein, 1989). For example, the pressure on local
authorities to get service provision 'offshore' is creating a range of
not-for-profit organisations managed by paid directors rather than
unpaid management committees and often staffed by former public
authority officers or workers on secondment from local authorities.
New quasi-autonomous public bodies are managed by central govern
ment nominees. The potential 'embeddedness' of these hybrids is great.
At the same time, voluntary organisations are learning the language
of the market and many are creating trading arms. If they are successful,
how long will it be before the private, for-profit sector begins to
challenge their tax-exempt status as it has done in the USA? Small
traders are already protesting at the growing number of charity shops
on the high street. How will this environment be experienced in the
context of different ideologies?
Welfare state authorities are likely to be entrenched in trying to
preserve jobs within the statutory sector. If forced out of this by
government privatisation policies, they may prefer to turn to the
voluntary sector rather than to the private market but will want to
retain control of policy-making by such traditional mechanisms as
requiring council representation on voluntary boards of management
as a prerequisite for the award of grant aid. The pattern of service
provision will be regulated by the state in its joint role as purchasing
agency and as inspector in the interests of clients. Management buy-outs
from the local authority, 'offshore companies' and other statutory/
voluntary hybrids will have an advantage in this market, but will be
likely to concentrate on service delivery rather than on providing a
critique of statutory provision. The pattern of service provision will
be regulated by the state and alternative models are likely to be
marginalised. Such a model will try to preserve consistency and
equality through regulation and may offer a choice of providers but
with little real difference between them and a strong element of
embeddedness through membership of management committees as
well as regulation. The provision of information, advice and advocacy
will remain firmly within local authority definitions and under local
authority control.
Paternalist conservative authorities will again remain firmly in the
service provision area. Additional use made of the voluntary sector
will be in terms of service purchase on a value-for-money basis seeing
the voluntary sector as a means of generating volunteerism. It is
significant that, even in the early 1980s, there was a marked difference

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 270 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

between county council funding of voluntary organisations compared

with that by London boroughs and metropolitan districts; the counties'
funding was generally lower but contained a higher element of direct
payment as fees for services (see Table 2). Given the 'apolitical' cast
of paternalism and the assumption of common values, there will be
little money for advocacy and empowerment activities. There will
again be a high degree of 'embeddedness' with local power e?tes
dominating the voluntary sector. If county councils are replaced by
smaller unitary authorities, voluntary bodies will not be able to exploit
any ideological differences between two tiers of local government as
is sometimes the case at present, and it will be harder for them to
provide any effective critique of opted-out services.
Market pluralist authorities are unlikely to use the voluntary sector
as anything other than service providers and according to their ability
to compete favourably with the private, for-profit sector. Minority
preferences would get short shrift in such a scenario - the role of
the voluntary sector in meeting needs that are not met by the market
will be in jeopardy if it is at all dependent on public funding. Advocacy
organisations are unlikely to be funded under this regime. The pattern
of provision will be determined by market considerations and any
kind of collective pressure from service users could be seen as distorting
market forces.
In the welfare pluralist model, there is scope for a wider spread of
grants to the voluntary sector, recognising a diversity of approaches.
There is also scope to fund advice, campaigning, advocacy and
community development - the empowerment part of the sector - in
the belief that this will allow for both the generation of community
and user-managed services and improved feedback to service providers
and councillors. The democratic system, contract specifications and the
required involvement of voluntary organisations and consumers in the
planning of many services should provide the mechanism to promote
consistency and equality.
However, much will depend on the resources available. The original
welfare pluralists have been criticised as being somewhat naive. Brenton,
for example, questioned how far the models they proposed could be
achieved 'alongside a substantial privatisation of power, functions and
resources' (1985, p.161). It is also difficult to envisage how the diversity
of provision they wish to see can be achieved in a climate of economic
restraint. The extent to which the welfare pluralist ideal, as we have
defined it, will be realised will depend on a recognition from central
government that public expenditure has a crucial role to play in paying
for welfare, and in the development of an independent sector that
can offer choice and diversity.

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 171

But this alone is not enough to guarantee the values of choice and
equity which have been the poles of the welfare debate in recent
years. What we have described as welfare pluralism is a strategy with
local roots and a considerable emphasis on community-based organis
ation and empowerment activities as part of the total scenario. Certainly
this is the implication of the George model outlined earlier. This is
something which Brenton failed to observe in, for example, the Nether
lands where she saw 'all the defects and deficiencies held to be
characteristic of the statutory social services in Britain' (ibid, p.200).
There are three respects in which the welfare pluralism being
encouraged by current government policies may differ considerably
from the model outlined above. First, the welfare pluralism that is
based upon large independent organisations with structures, cultures
and employees which are similar to those of the state will be very
different from that which is based on small, local community-based
organisations, as envisaged in George's analysis. Larger organisations
are likely to be better placed to bid for contracts or survive in the
funding market place, while the conditions which govern purchase of
service and funding agreements may well encourage community-based
organisations to become more bureaucratic in style. Second, there are
likely to be more quasi-independent organisations of the kind referred
to above with governing bodies filled ex officio from statutory bodies
or appointed by government. Certainly, the appointed Boards of the
new quasi-independent National Health Service Trusts fit this model.
Third, with the emphasis on quasi-markets based on individual choice
rather than collective empowerment through participation, resources
for advocacy and information, campaigning and development activities
are not a priority. Even in a quasi-market, these are the resources
which should ensure informed choices by consumers, and continued
variety and renewal in the market.
Perhaps much will depend on the capacity of local government to
continue to offer a variety of approaches. There is still considerable
variation in the way local authorities are responding to new policies,
for example in the field of community care, but local government is
under financial restraint and now under review. Its future may also
be affected by developments in Europe.

Conclusions

The trend in ideology, as it affects voluntary organisations, appears

to be generally shifting away from traditional welfare statism or
conservative paternalism (despite some vigorous rearguard actions)
towards welfare or market pluralism. The voluntary sector itself, we

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 272 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

have suggested, is likely to favour, and potentially benefit from, welfare

pluralism, while the present government, with its emphasis on value
for money generated by competition, favours a market pluralism
approach. We argue that there is a need for a model such as that
proposed earlier to demonstrate and explain the varieties of ideology
affecting the voluntary sector which we have illustrated.
Much of this shift may be explained in terms of central government
pressures, themselves the consequence of an ideology based on
economically-centred individualism. But the concept of the individual
as consumer also resonates with a different ideological trend which
emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as 'participation', and which emphasises
a collective voice (or voices) in service planning and delivery. There
are many differences between these two ideas, but they both involve
a shift away from paternalism, whether of a ruling elite or of an all
pervasive state, and towards greater choice of services, whether on
an individual or communal basis. The consumerist individual whose
personal choices create aggregate demand for market pluralism may
thus overlap with the citizen, who is drawn into the collective action
of welfare pluralism. The future of the voluntary sector in the UK
may depend in no small measure on how the dialectic between these
two forms of pluralism develops.

Notes

a School for Advanced Urban Studies, University of Bristol, UK.

k Department of Sociology, University of Liverpool, UK.
1 Voluntary sector is the common term used in the UK to describe what
in other countries may be called the non-profit, non-governmental or
social economy sector. It carries no implication that the workers within
voluntary organisations are unpaid or volunteers. Similarly, welfare is
taken to cover the range of health, education and social care services and
not just income maintenance.

References

Anderson, D., Lait, J. and Marsland, D. (1981) Breaking the Spell of the Welfare
State, Agenda for Debate No. 1, The Social Affairs Unit, London.
Beveridge, Lord (1948) Voluntary Action, Allen and Unwin, London.
Brenton, M. (1982) Changing relations in Dutch social services, Journal of Social
Policy, 11:1, 59-80.
Brenton, M. (1985) The Voluntary Sector in British Social Services, Longman,
London and New York.

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector 173

Charities Aid Foundation (1985) Charity Statistics 1984/5, Charities Aid

Foundation, Tonbridge.
Cmnd 4040 (1969) Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government Reform,
HMSO, London.
Crick, M. (1986) The March of Militant, Faber, London.
Flora, P. and Alber, J. (1981) Modernization, democratization and the develop
ment of welfare states in Western Europe, in P. Flora and AJ. Heidenheimer
(eds) The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, Transaction
Books, New Brunswick and London.
George, P. (1981) Ideology and the welfare state, unpublished paper delivered
to the annual conference of the Social Administration Association, University
of Leeds.
George, P. (1985) Towards a two-dimensional analysis of welfare ideologies,
Social Policy and Administration, 19:1, 33-45.
Gladstone, F. (1979) Voluntary Action in a Changing World, Bedford Square Press,
London.
Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
Gyford, J. (1985) The Politics of Local Socialism, Allen and Unwin, London.
Hadley, R. and Hatch, S. (1981) Social Welfare and the Failure of the State, Allen
and Unwin, London.
Hatch, S. and Mocroft, I (1983) Components of Welfare: Voluntary Organisations,
Social Services and Politics in Two Local Authorities, Bedford Square Press,
London.
Hayes, R. and Knight, B. (1983) Grants to Voluntary Organisations: Part Two, from
the London Boroughs, London Voluntary Service Council, London.
Home Office (1990) Profiting from Partnership: The Efficiency Scrutiny of
Government Funding of the Voluntary Sector, HMSO, London.
Lansley, J. and Sutton, C (1974), Grant aid to London CSS: a tentative analysis,
unpublished paper, University of Liverpool.
Lawrence, R. (1983) Voluntary action: a stalking horse for the Right?, Critical
Social Policy, 2:3, 14-30.
Le Grand, J. (1991) Quasi-markets and social policy, The Economic Journal, 101,
1256-67.
Lee, P. and Raban, C. (1983) Welfare and ideology, in M. Loney et al. (eds)
Social Policy and Social Welfare, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Lister, R. (1990) The Exclusive Society: Citizenship and the Poor, Child Poverty
Action Group, London.
Liverpool Black Caucus (1986) The Racial Politics of Militant in Liverpool,
Merseyside Area Profile Group and the Runnymede Trust, Liverpool.
Mabbott, ]. (1992) Local Authority Funding for Voluntary Organisations: Report and
Recommendations, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London.
Mishra, R. (1990) The Welfare State in Capitalist Society, Harvester Wheatsheaf,
Hemel Hempstead.
Owen, D. (1965) English Philanthropy, 1660-1960, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Parkinson, M. (1985) Liverpool on the Brink, Policy Journals, Hermitage, Berkshire.

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 274 Marilyn Taylor and John Lansley

Pat?n, R. (1989) The emerging social economy, Management Issues 3, The

Management Centre, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Patten, J. (1988) Launching the active citizen, The Guardian, 28 September, 23.
Raine, J.M. and Webster, B. (1984) Strategy, Choice and Support: A Review of Grant
Aid to Voluntary and Community Organisations from the London Borough of
Camden, Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham.
Rein, M. (1989), The social structure of institutions: neither public nor private,
in S. Kamerman and AJ. Kahn (eds) Privatization and the Welfare State,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Salamon, L.M. (1981) Rethinking public management: third-party government
and the changing forms of government action, Public Policy, 29:3, 255-75.
Salamon, L.M. (1985) Government and the voluntary sector in an era of
retrenchment: the American experience, Journal of Public Policy, 6:1, 1-20.
Salamon, L.M. (1989) The changing tools of government action: an overview,
in L.M. Salamon (ed.) Beyond Privatisation, The Urban Institute Press,
Washington, D.C.
Seibel, W. (1990) Government/third-sector relationship in a comparative
perspective: the cases of France and West Germany, Voluntas, 1:1, 42-60.
Shaw, E. (1988) Discipline and Discord in the Labour Party, Manchester University
Press, Manchester.
Taafe, P. and Mulhearn, T. (1988) Liverpool, A City That Dared To Fight, Fortress,
London.
Taylor, M. (1992) Moving towards the market, in B. Gidron, R. Kramer and
L.M. Salamon (eds) Government and the Nonprofit Sector in Comparative
Perspective, Jossey Bass, San Francisco,
van Kersbergen, K. and Becker, U. (1988) The Netherlands: a passive democratic
welfare state in a Christian Democratic ruled society, Journal of Social Policy,
17:4, 477-99.
Wainwright, H. (1987) Labour: A Tale of Two Parties, Hogarth, London.
Waller, P.J. (1981) Democracy and Sectarianism: A Political and Social History of
Liverpool, 1868-1939, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool.

This content downloaded from

197.26.212.68 on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:59:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms