Social Policy essay

To begin with, social policy can be defined as the system of guidelines for the changing, maintenance or creation of living conditions that are conducive to human welfare (Geoghan and Powel). In fact, Ireland, as any other republic, does not differ significantly with the general pattern of social-policy making from other democratic states. It has commonly adapted system of three power  branches, that was found by Montesquieu and John Locke. In this regard, the core principles of social policy are implemented through legislative and executive authorities. However, the model of Social Policy in Ireland remains widely discussed in the aspect of unique role of civil society in it. In this paper, we’ll try to outline the main peculiar properties of Irish Social Policy and give critical evaluation to them.

Frankly, the main point to speak about in this paper is social partnership. Mostly, this political and social institution is related to the sphere of labor. In fact, its official appearance is dated to 2000, with the foundation of National Center of Partnership. However, the roots of it can be found in 1963, when National Industrial Economic Council was created. Initially, it included employers’ associations, trade unions, farmer’s organizations and senior civil servants. It was intended to seek agreement on issues of economic and social policy and to advise government, through the Taoiseach (Sinnott). With the past of times and civil society development, Social Partnership became the outcome to succeed private and public collaboration during several decades. To get the general understanding of Irish social partnership, words from Paul Teague’s work are the most suitable probably: ”One institutional difference is that a wider group of participants are involved in the social partnership framework. Whereas traditional corporatist arrangements usually consist of representatives from trade unions, employers and government, the Irish system of social partnership also incorporates civil associations that  articulate the interests of the voluntary and community sectors as well as the farming sector. In practice this broader membership base changes  the negotiating procedures used to conclude national social agreements”(Teague and Donaghey).

As the outline, the partnership process involves a combination of consultation, negotiation and bargaining,  that are featured with next points:

• The partnership process is heavily dependent on a shared understanding of the key mechanisms and relationships in any given policy area;
• The government has a unique role in the partnership process. It provides the arena within which the process operates. It shares some of its authority with social partners. In some parts of the wider policy process, it actively supports formation of interest organizations;
• The process reflects interdependence between the partners. The partnership is necessary because no party can achieve its goals without a significant degree of support from others;
• Partnership is characterized by a problem-solving approach designed to produce consensus, in which various interest groups address joint problems;
• Partnership involves trade-offs both between and within interest groups;
• The partnership process involves different participants on various agenda items, ranging from national macroeconomic policy to local development(Hudson and Lowe).

As the outcome, partnership in social policy refers to collective consensus, which suits interests of all sides mostly. In this regard, it is connected to the process of decisions making, which further should  be legitimized and properly implemented through executive and legislative authorities.

Speaking about the roles of Government ministers, Civil servants and Interest groups in partnership, the concept of “four rooms” should be reminded”. The first room is constituted by main employer and trade union organizations, such as ICTU and IBEC, as they negotiate the pay components of the agreement. The second “business” room consist of employer organizations, for example  Small Firms Association or Commerce of Ireland. This room is not involved into “pay negotiations”. The third room includes representatives of agricultural community. Voluntary and community sectors are represented in the fourth room.  As Mary C. Murphy writes, the negotiating process starts with an open session where the participants set out the matters that they wish to see covered in an agreement. Then a multitude of bi-laterals are held involving the different rooms on different subjects. The Department of the Taoiseach holds together this complex and fast-moving chain of negotiations. It is also responsible for turning the variety of individual deals that are made into a coherent document that is the basis of the envisaged social partnership agreement (Teague and Murphy). One of the brightest outcome of appropriate partnership is ‘hub and spokes’ deals, which addressed the issues of payment determination in public and private sectors.

To sum up, the social policy-making process of Ireland is really outstanding in the aspect of international experience. However, it seems that it is not similarly applicable to all spheres of social policy. For example, such field as Child protection does not require agreement of interests. This sphere needs imperative adjustment through legislative and executive authorities, as it is implemented with The Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998. On the other hand, partnership benefited economic sphere of social policy. In this regard, partnership became the tool to realize direct democracy’s principles. Pluralism, consensus and development of civil society are features that make Irish policy-making process advantageous in comparison to other states. Still there is no ground to say that appropriate model reached the greatest values of democracy and liberalism. In this order, we may remind claims of some others about unequal position of voluntary and community sectors in partnership process. For example, Rosie Meade provided next statement: “It would be trite, and probably offensive, to suggest that community and voluntary sector organizations can cheerily abandon the corporatist project. Groups have dedicated so much of their energy to the task of winning the ear and approval of the state, that to sacrifice those gains now would be a betrayal of the constituencies that have invested hope in this recognition strategy. Another significant obstacle to withdrawal relates to the apparent absence of alternative outlets within and through which the community and voluntary sector might articulate a more dissident political vision” (Meade).  To response previous quote, it should be noted that social partnership, with all its imperfections, is the only available way for communities to take part in decision making process. Thereby, the absence of alternative does not allow to get more sufficient way to present and defend own  interests. It should be clear that social partnership is the unique model to involve voluntary. This model has no similar analogues  in world experience, thus, it should be treated like a right choice on the way of effective democracy.