Welcome to this special series of themed sections. To mark the eightieth anniversary of the ‘Beveridge Report’, we made a special call for proposals for this series in 2021. By adopting a forward-looking approach, we aim to encourage a continuous debate on the welfare state in response to the needs and challenges in the 21st Century.
We are very pleased to be able to include three themed sections in this series, all contributed by guest editors and authors with outstanding academic achievements. Each themed section focuses on a theme that has been either under-explored in current debates or recognised as significant for welfare state discussion in the coming decades. The three themes are:
Towards a sustainable welfare state (co-edited by Mary Murphy and Michael McGann)
– In this themed section, contributors challenge the productivist nature of contemporary welfare states and advocate for an eco-social policy orientation to enable sustainable wellbeing and human flourishing (Murphy and McGann, Reference Murphy and McGann2022: 1). This themed section consists of six articles that not only offer exciting theoretical insights but also make proposals for policy reforms.
Interrogating welfare stigma: dynamics of (re)production, experience and resistance in the welfare state (co-edited by Fiona Dukelow, Joe Whelan and Robert Bolton)
-
– Contributors of this themed section are interested in the structural and agentic dimensions of stigma in welfare states. By examining how stigma is (re)produced, experienced and resisted in welfare provision in Ireland and the UK, this themed section aims to investigate the ‘totality’ of welfare stigma, challenge its production and contribute to ‘an agenda of reimagining welfare’ (Dukelow et al., Reference Dukelow, Whelan and Bolton2022).
Mapping the shifts in Russian and European welfare polities (co-edited by Linda Cook and Mike Titterton)
-
– Articles in this themed section use the concept of welfare polity to compare an area of welfare policy in Russia and an EU country. The themed section enhances the understanding of the under-studied Russian welfare system and how it is similar or different from European welfare states in facing common challenges such as post-2008 austerity, large-scale international migration, an ageing population, and the coronavirus pandemic (Cook and Titterton, Reference Cook and Tittertonforthcoming).
The ‘Beveridge Report’ (Social Insurance and Allied Services by William Beveridge) was published in 1942 (Beveridge, Reference Beveridge1942). In the report, Beveridge famously argued that Five Giant Social Evils (ignorance, disease, idleness, squalor and want) had undermined British society and that the state had a duty to remove these evils (Hill, Reference Hill2003). Corresponding to his ideas, comprehensive state provision was introduced in Britain in the post-WWII period, including free education up to the age of fifteen (later sixteen); a national health service (NHS); state commitment to securing full employment; public housing for all citizens to rent and national insurance for all in need (Alcock, Reference Alcock, Alcock, Haux, May and Wright2016). Although Beveridge’s ideas were not fully approved by all policy analysts (such as feminist writers and supporters of the Bismarckian model) (Colwill, Reference Colwill1994; Cremer and Pestieau, Reference Cremer and Pestieau2003), few would dispute their far-reaching effects on welfare development in Britain and beyond.
Eight decades have passed. Despite the tremendous efforts made in improving people’s well-being around the world, statistics tell us that the Five Giant Social Evils are still threatening the welfare of millions of people. For instance, a recent UNDP and OPHI report (2021) shows that 1.3 billion people across 109 countries live in acute multidimensional poverty; 481 million live with an out-of-school child; and 788 million people live in a household with at least one undernourished person. Many of these problems are the product of the structural characteristic of many national and international systems – such as sheer inequalities and mechanisms of racial, gender and class oppression; some relate to very old global issues – such as natural disasters, military conflicts and diseases; others are caused by newly emerged (or newly-recognised) challenges, such as globalisation, climate change, and the so-called ‘refugee crises’.
On the very days these notes were written, the British government withdrew most of the COVID-related social restrictions. As soon as people were told this was the beginning of the end of a two-year-long global pandemic, Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border and hundreds of thousands of people fled their homes for safety. These recent incidents remind us of a world in a constant state of flux, one in which the search for ways to address people’s needs and promote their welfare will and should never end.
We would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the guest editors and contributors of the three themed sections on the publication of their outstanding work. We sincerely hope that this special series encourages further debate on the welfare state; and that Social Policy and Society continues to serve as a platform for an open, vibrant and critical discussion for the future development of social policy, as both an academic discipline and an important instrument to improve people’s welfare.
