EXTENDED FAMILY SUPPORT, THE STATE AND POLICY: ASSUMPTIONS, ATTITUDES AND ACTUALITIES(1).

• Author: McPherson, Mervyl
• Position: Statistical Data Included

INTRODUCTION

In recent years in New Zealand economic policy has dominated social policy as we have moved away from the welfare state to an increasingly market-based society. In the area of social support, this involves increasing reliance on the self or one's family where neither the market nor the state are providing. There are numerous indications of this in policy documents in the areas of welfare (Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, Dept Social Welfare 1996a, 1996b, Shipley et al. 1991), health (Upton 1991, Shipley and Upton 1992, Ministry of Health 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, Central Regional Health Authority 1996, Boddy 1992, Mental Health Services Research Consortium 1994, Mental Health Commission 1997, Belgrave and Brown 1997, Moore and Tennant 1997) and education (Education (Student Allowances) Notice, New Zealand Regulations 1997/51), as well as general commentaries (Kelsey 1993, Cheyne et al. 1997, New Zealand Treasury 1991).

For example, in 1991 the Ministers of Social Welfare, Health, Housing and Education in a joint document stated that a major element of their new policy initiatives is "to encourage people to move from state dependence to personal and family self-reliance" (Shipley et al. 1991:17). Specific instances include the continuance of family income testing for single students aged up to 25 years, and the 1996 post-election briefing papers on "strengthening families" and the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act's inclusion of the extended family or kinship groups.

Such policy relies on assumptions about the existence and operation of families that may not be based on the reality of how families in New Zealand function today, or in keeping with the belief systems of members of our society about the role of the family. It is important to know whether our families are able to fulfil this support role or, indeed, whether they accept it. Without both availability and willingness of family support, policies may be ineffective and result in vulnerable people falling through the cracks.

In 1984, New Zealand sociologists Koopman-Boyden and Scott concluded that:

Cutbacks in government expenditure carry the implicit assumption that families will take over; but it could well happen that no-one takes that responsibility, and that the quality of life is thereby the poorer. If policy makers can identify what families are unable and unwilling to provide, state resources could then be targeted to complementing informal support.

This paper discusses theoretical models of roles of the state, the market and the family(2) in the provision of support to individuals, and presents preliminary empirical findings on an investigation of assumptions underlying present policy direction that:

(a) families have the resources to provide support to their members, and

(b) families accept this responsibility;

and explores the areas where families see state assistance as necessary.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The theoretical model or context for the empirical research is drawn from writings on the roles of the state, the market and the family in the provision of support to individuals. Wicks (1988:32) of the Family Policy Studies Centre, London, says that family policy questions need to be considered in the context of three institutions: family (private sphere), and the public spheres of paid work/market and the state, all three of which are experiencing change. He identifies a need, as a result of this change, to "renegotiate relationships within these three spheres".

The issue for family social policy is where the line is to be drawn between state responsibility and family responsibility. Moroney (1976:9) noted that:

"The structure of the welfare state depends on a set of assumptions concerning responsibilities which families are expected to carry for the care of the socially dependent and a set of conditions under which this responsibility is to be shared or taken over by a society". Deakin (1988:4), also of Family Policy Studies Centre, London, says these assumptions underlying family policies are "deep-rooted and vary according to the political ideology of the government of the day". Harding (1996) and Finch (1989) note that problems arise where these assumptions become out of step with public perceptions of family roles and obligations.

Moroney (up cit.) goes on to classify the two basic types of state help as;

(1) help which supports the family

(2) help which replaces the family.

He identifies the key debate in the family policy area as being whether the role of the state is residual -- that is, a crisis management function, picking up the pieces when the market fails to provide and families (particularly women) collapse under the strain of the demands placed on them -- or preventive, operating in an institutional manner to support and strengthen functioning families, so they can continue to provide an essential welfare service to their members.

There is a pervasive belief underlying current policy that it was the rise of the role of the welfare state in taking over family roles that weakened the family, affecting its willingness or capability to provide social care. (Inherent in this assumption is a second assumption -- that family care is a positive thing, the best form of care.) The counter argument is that the family has been weakened by demographic, social and economic change, and thus the state has a necessary role in supporting families in their caregiving and assistance role, and providing alternatives where families are unable or unwilling to support their members.

Deakin, (1988) says there is no clear conception of the relationship between family and economy.

(T)he importance of the family in caring, and the government's approach to the personal social services is founded on the simple fact that the front line providers of social care always have been and always will be the family and the community -- it is crucial that those claims should have been questioned and criticized. If family support is so good, why did the welfare state come into being? We do know that demographic change means families are smaller, have been through a period of high marital disruption, and that the population structure is aging. Geographic mobility is also an issue, physically distancing extended family members from one another. My previous macro-level demographic research shows demand for family support is increasing at a time when potential supply is decreasing (McPherson 1993).

At the same time, social change, particularly in the role of women shifting from the traditional one of unpaid caregivers into the market economy of the paid labour force, is likely to have had an effect on both attitudes towards accepting responsibility for providing support to family members, as well as the availability of that support. Cass (1994) points out that family policy cannot be separated from economic policy as it is central to it: the unpaid sector is a vital component in the performance of the formal economy. Conversely, Bryson (1995) identifies the cost to women of their caregiving role in being denied the chance to participate equally (and adequately) in the market.

It is women who do most of the family and community networking and support. What may be at issue for them is a conflict between duty or obligation, and rights. How can women exercise their rights to both economic independence and participation in the market economy, and fulfil their duties or obligations as members of families?

Another model I use is Harding's (1996) "Hypothetical Continuum Model of the Relationship Between Family and State", which identifies a top-down approach to the family-state relationship at one end of the continuum, and bottom-up approach at the other end:

1. The state enforces family responsibilities in specific areas (coercive).

2. The state uses incentives -- penalties and rewards -- to shape familial behaviour.

3. The state uses assumptions to create constraints on the boundaries of familial behaviour.

4. The state provides alternative forms of support where families malfunction.

5. The state responds to the needs and...