NEW RIGHT

1. NEW RIGHT By Georgia Hams, Lauren Arney and Alison Bennett

2. View on the State The New Right is very critical of the state: • A free market is that of a market free from state interference, it is essential to the efficiency and smooth running of capitalist economies. Free and open competition between companies will increase productivity and profits. • The state has intervened far too much in the market, - negative effect which reduces efficiency, profits and productivity. • Market forces by the economy e.g. supplying and demanding should be the major influences not the state. • Personal freedom is at threat from intervention of state. • State welfare policy = negative. The benefits are high, they reduce peoples incentive to work/compete for jobs in labour market, reduce self-reliance (dependant on welfare rather than standing on own two feet). • Too many responsibilities, interference and intervention. The solution is to ‘roll back state’ – state control minimised. Result: dynamic economy and individual freedom. If state shrinks so will the money it requires leading to lower taxation (McAuley). • Emphasis of laissez-faire – leave economy to do what they will or economy will be damaged.

3. Charles Murray • He believed that the state has created a dependency culture due to people becoming dependant upon the welfare system. • This dependency was caused by poverty and disadvantage. • This lead to the development of an urban under-class. • The solution to this is that benefits should only be provided if claimants worked in return.

4. Friedman • Government shouldn’t be involved in economy apart from four main functions: • Defence • Law and Order • The provision of the necessary public works that private enterprise does not find profitable to provide. • Protection from members of the community who cannot be regarded as ‘responsible individuals’

5. Saunders • Cause of class differences in society did not lie in structural factors like your place in terms of the means of production, but instead were determined by what he describes as consumption cleavages. Our position relies on whether we rely on the state e.g education or privately purchasing. • Consumption cleavages the results of equal opportunity and hard work. Successful therefore deserve success. • He suggests there is a considerable amount of social mobility in Britain and that the causes of this mobility are ability, hard work and motivation.

6. Criticisms • Heath claimed that the benefits claimants were actually keener to work than those that are in employment. • Saunders appears to ignore gender and ethnicity inequalities, or implies that differences may be down to lack of ability or motivation. Consumption cleavages may be just the result of traditional class divisions e.g. less money for working class to spend on services. • Without the state there would be no one to care for the poor and powerless and give them human rights ad there would only be market forces. If the state is rolled back then society may end up being dominated by those with wealth or property. • Criticised for blaming ‘victims of society’ for problems they cannot handle themselves.