Neo-liberalism: Equality for all.. to a certain extent

Neo-liberalism, similar to conservatism, is a paradigm that has many negative effects on people living in poverty. Mullaly (2007) mentions in his textbook, “[w]hereas conservatives subscribe to an absolute form of individualism, liberals, particularly reform liberals, subscribe to a modified version of individualism and/ or to a reluctant form of collectivism”(p.94). Although this marginalization does seem to exist under liberal ideals, it is noteworthy to acknowledge what measures have been put into place to relieve this social problem.

One similarity found between the neo-liberals and the conservatives is their view of individualism and government. Mahon (2008) mentions that neo-liberals are returning to mindset that the free-market and minimal government intervention are ideal in society.  She mentions “[p]rivatization, contracting out, and public–private partnerships form part of the neo-liberal toolkit” (p.344). This has negative implications for people living in poverty, due to the fact that privatization of interventions on poverty could mean that the needs of the people living in poverty would not be met. This is an issue due to a lot of the money that could be used to help feed and shelter those who require help will go to paying salaries of those in the company. This is an example of helping those higher in the class system and continuing to suppress those who need help the most.

            Although there are some similarities between the two paradigms, neo-liberalism does have several distinct advantages over neo-conservatism for those living in poverty. The main advantage of liberalism is the acceptance of the welfare state. Mullaly (2007) mentions that “[a] goal of the Canadian welfare state is described as being to provide a basic minimum to all Canadians” (p.111). This is a direct advantage to those living in poverty. In this sense, it is not based on the deserving and undeserving poor (Mullaly, 2007, p.86), and it does not critique the reasons as to why some people have less than others and require intervention. This goal provides all people with the necessities to eat and be sheltered, which are necessities not viewed as necessary intervention of the government by the conservatives.

            Another major difference between the two ideologies is their views on social problems. Although both ideologies view poverty as a personal problem, their reasons for this are very different. In the case of the neo-conservatives, they believe that a person encounters poverty because they are too lazy to work or are genetically inferior to those in the workforce, therefore poverty is a necessary punishment to correct this (Mullaly, 2007, p.79). In contrast, neo-liberals view poverty differently. “[E]veryone has access to education, the job market, health care, social services, and so on. If a person fails in society it is because he or she did not take advantage of available opportunities (Mullaly, 2007, p.98). Although this idea is still pessimistic in nature, they at least believe that services should be provided to those in need, instead of each providing their own.

                 Although the neo-liberals share some ideologies with the neo-conservatives, it is necessary to mention the major contributions they make to those living in poverty. Liberals do have a more positive view of humanity, and although they value individualism, they do not forget the importance of helping people in need, even if it is just to provide the minimum. They have also been the political party known for “establishing universal medicare, a good public pension system and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing equality of rights and responsibilities for all Canadians”, as mentioned by Ignatieff. Due to this, people living in poverty have been given more opportunities to be safe, healthy and be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

References

Mahon, R. (2008). Varieties of Liberalism: Canadian Social Policy from the ‘Golden Age’ to the

Present. Social policy & administration, 42(4), 342-361.

Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University   

Press.

http://www.liberal.ca/platform/