(1) Plot summary
* His wife died, and he had no children and no income. He wanted help from social welfare, applied for social assistance, and hoped to get unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefit in the UK is a subsidy fund for people who are unable to work due to medical reasons. To be eligible for this subsidy, you will need to prove that you are unable to work. When Blake is applying for a job benefit, which is what we see in the opening scene, the clerk follows the procedure and asks something like "Can you walk more than 50 meters independently" "Can you put your hand in the pocket of your jacket?" ', they gave an assessment report that Blake was physically fit to continue working, and his application for employment assistance was rejected. If Blake appealed, he would have to wait a long time to set a date for his appeal. The relief center then gave him a compromise: let him apply for employment first, and then slowly wait for the appeal date.
* Blake had to apply for another grant: employment benefits. But the requirement of this subsidy is to prove to the government that you have seriously looked for a job. Requirements given in the film include mandatory participation in resume training sessions and proof that you spend no less than 35 hours a week looking for a job. So a very absurd thing happened. Blake was looking for a job and sending his resume, but he couldn't go to work because of physical reasons. He just wanted to prove that he was looking for a job seriously. He is obviously an honest man, but he has to be looked down upon as a welfare dependant by his employees. So he was kept in circles by the social welfare system.
* "I'm not a customer, I'm not a customer, I'm not a service user, I'm not a lazy person, I'm not a beggar, and I'm not a thief. I'm not a string of social security numbers, not a piece of data on the screen. Bow down to the dignitaries and treat the neighbors with sincerity. Do what I can, and lend a helping hand. I do not accept, let alone seek alms. It is my right and I ask you to treat me with respect, Daniel Black, a citizen with no extravagance and no compromise."
(2) Welfare state and institutional iron cage
*Daniel Black has a very strong, clear concept of rights and duties, and a concept of civil rights. This is also related to the tradition of British constitutional democracy that the teacher mentioned in the last lesson. Black believes that it is his duty to pay taxes honestly and in accordance with the law, so when he is in trouble, it is his right to give help from the state or the government through social welfare. Black used to be a carpenter and had to pay National Insurance contributions to pay for public health care and pensions. The amount of this fee is about 12% of the pre-tax salary.
* However, in the process of applying for social subsidies, they have definitely entered the trap of the system. We can feel that the design of the British social welfare system is still very delicate, including what questions they examine for applying for employment subsidies, which can be said to be an extremely rational design based on the "craftsman spirit". And all of them work as a technocrat in their own bureaucracy, and there are even some very sympathetic public servants. It's almost become a no one to blame puzzle for Blake to be in such a situation.
* This seems to be a Weberian metaphor for the substitution of instrumental rationality for value rationality to a certain extent. Everyone works according to the rules in the bureaucratic system and becomes a part of the huge welfare system, but people seem to have forgotten some important things, such as the original intention of designing the welfare system. As a result, welfare applicants like Blake are no longer seen as a citizen who has been left out of the safety net due to unpredictable risks and changes and who asks the state for his due rights, but is seen as a string of social security Numbers, pieces of information awaiting evaluation and discussion at meetings.
* This bureaucratic system is actually becoming more and more bloated, bureaucratic, and inflexible in the process of operation - the government is inefficient, welfare is useless, but it is disguised for people in distress Barrier. When problems arise, the perfect institutional arrangement seems to be an excuse: for example, Rachel was listed as a sanction object by the unemployment compensation department because she was not familiar with the environment here, took the wrong bus and was a few minutes late. Future grants to her will be cut by 40 per cent. After Rachel heard the news, she began to reason with the relevant personnel, but the result was that she was asked out by the security guard. From the staff's point of view, this is of course the consequence of her not trying to be there on time. As for the story behind it, it is naturally irrelevant. Rules are rules.
Combined with what we discussed in the last lesson, the neo-liberalism and welfare state reform led by Margaret Thatcher in the UK after the 1980s. The film accuses the government of cutting social welfare spending and the bureaucratic inefficiency of social welfare institutions.
In general, it is the role of advocating free market competition in the welfare field, reducing the government's financial burden, thereby stimulating economic development.
Two areas that are relevant to our film comparison:
* Pension field: vigorously develop occupational pension system and private pension system, and encourage enterprises and individuals to become the main body of pension insurance.
* Unemployment field: Strict the eligibility for unemployment benefits, reduce unemployment benefits, increase monitoring of those who receive unemployment benefits, and take strict sanctions against those who are not actively looking for work.
However, many problems have arisen in the process of social welfare marketization:
* Fairness issues. A theoretical basis for the reform of welfare marketization is that the market may be more efficient as a provider of welfare. But this efficiency may come at the expense of fairness, and it is very likely that the bottom group will be in a worse situation.
* Question about free riders of social security: How many people who receive social assistance are on free rides and do not work hard in order to defraud social welfare; how many really need social assistance to solve their immediate needs? I think this question is not only an important empirical question, but also a value judgment question. In the process of promoting the marketization of the welfare state, in order to reduce political pressure, it may be necessary to consider them more as free-riders, which indirectly leads to the social concept that receiving social assistance does not seem like a citizen should. A right to have, but a stigmatized thing. This indirectly leads to a worse social situation for the recipients of social assistance.
Quotes from the Beveridge Report
* Social insurance should be regarded as one of a series of policies to promote social progress. A mature social insurance system can provide income security, help to eradicate poverty (# and should not be a financial burden that is thrown away from time to time, or something that breeds social conflicts. Its original intention is to provide a social safety net for the bottom group.
* Social insurance implements the principle of consistent rights and obligations, and social insurance benefits should be the return of payment, not the free lunch provided by the government. (#emphasizes the principle of equality of rights and obligations. So in the reality reflected in this film, how many people treat social security with an attitude of equality of rights and obligations, and how many people just regard social security as a burden to society in a hurry Dump it.
View more about I, Daniel Blake reviews
