💉 A healthy, trained workforce
Free healthcare and education keep workers fit and skilled. Employers get a better workforce without paying the full cost themselves.
Reducing Inequality » Has It Worked? Marxist, Feminist and NGO Criticisms
What you'll learn this session
Study time: 30 minutes
Cambridge spec: 3.2.4
- Why Marxists say the welfare state helps capitalism more than it helps the poor
- Why some sociologists criticise the work of NGOs
- Why feminists say equality laws have not delivered real equality
- How to reach a judgement on whether attempts to reduce inequality have worked
🔒 Unlock Full Course Content
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseThe other side of the argument
In the last lesson, Has It Worked? New Right Views and the Culture of Poverty, the critics said the welfare state does too much. This lesson looks at critics who say the opposite: the help given so far has not gone far enough, or it does the wrong job. We look at three groups of critics: Marxists, people who question NGOs, and feminists.
Key terms:
- Donor: a person, company or government that gives money to an NGO.
- Accountable: having to explain your actions and answer to the people affected, for example voters.
- Root causes: the deep reasons why a problem exists, as opposed to its symptoms.
- Equality legislation: laws that make unfair treatment of people because of their sex, ethnicity, age or other characteristics illegal.
Marxist criticisms of the welfare state
Free healthcare looks like pure help, but Marxists argue it mainly keeps workers fit enough to keep capitalism running
Marxists believe society is divided between the bourgeoisie, who own businesses and land, and the proletariat, who sell their labour (see Marxism and Inequality). Because of this, they ask who really benefits when the state provides welfare. Their answer is the capitalist system.
🕴 Keeping people calm
Benefits and pensions make life bearable, so people are less likely to demand deep change. Marxists see welfare as a way of buying off anger and avoiding revolution.
💰 Workers pay for it
Marxists argue that much of the cost is paid through taxes on ordinary workers, not by the owners of wealth. So wealth is moved around within the working class rather than taken from the rich.
🏢 The system stays the same
Welfare softens the effects of exploitation but leaves private ownership of business untouched. Marxists say it treats the symptoms, not the root causes.
Marxists also point out that benefits are usually set at a low level and that the rich keep their wealth and power. In their view, real equality would need a change in who owns the means of production (the businesses, land and factories used to create wealth), not just a safety net.
Criticisms of NGOs
NGOs such as Oxfam and Save the Children do valuable work, as you saw in NGOs and Global Inequality. Sociologists still raise several concerns.
- Dependence on donors: NGOs need money, so donors, including governments and companies, may steer what they do. An NGO may avoid criticising a powerful donor.
- Not accountable: NGOs are not elected. The people they help usually have no vote on how the NGO is run.
- Root causes untouched: an NGO can provide food, medicine or a loan, but it rarely changes the unfair trade rules, low wages or political systems that cause poverty. Critics call this a sticking plaster.
- Creating dependency: if communities rely on outside help, they may not build their own institutions, and the help can stop when funding ends.
- Outsider values: some NGOs come from richer countries and may impose their own ideas about what local people need.
Remember
These are criticisms, not proof that NGOs fail. Many NGOs do help millions of people. Good answers say both.
Feminist criticisms of equality legislation
Equal pay laws exist, but feminists point out that women still often earn less and do more of the unpaid caring at home
Many countries have passed laws against sex discrimination, for example laws requiring equal pay for equal work. Feminists welcome these laws as a start, but argue that they have not ended gender inequality. Their main criticisms are below.
📜 Laws do not change attitudes
Patriarchy is deeply rooted in culture and socialisation. A law can ban unequal treatment but cannot easily change what people believe.
⚖ Hard to enforce
Discrimination is often hidden. A woman may not know she is paid less, or may fear losing her job if she complains.
🏠 Home life is untouched
Laws about work do not change who does the housework and childcare, which affects the jobs women can take. Many women still work fewer hours or take lower-paid jobs.
Feminists also point out that in some societies equality laws are weak or are ignored by custom. As a result, a gap in pay and in positions of power remains in many countries.
Reaching a judgement
Attempts to reduce inequality have clearly done some good. In many societies, free education and healthcare have raised living standards and women have legal rights they once lacked. But inequality has not disappeared. Evidence from this lesson and the last one gives you arguments on both sides.
✅ It has worked because...
It has protected many people from the worst poverty, widened access to schools and hospitals, and made discrimination illegal.
❌ It has not worked because...
It leaves the structure of society unchanged (Marxists), deals only with symptoms (NGO critics) and does not change attitudes (feminists). The New Right also say it creates dependency.
To judge, say what each side claims, give a piece of evidence for each, and then decide which is stronger and why. A sensible conclusion is often that these measures have reduced the worst hardship but not removed inequality.
Worked example
A question asks you to evaluate the view that welfare has reduced inequality. A good paragraph: "Marxists argue that welfare mainly helps capitalism because a healthy workforce is useful to employers, and benefits keep people from demanding change. However, free healthcare and education do give poorer families chances they would not otherwise have, so welfare has made some difference. On balance, it has reduced hardship, but not the unequal ownership of wealth."
Common mistakes
Saying Marxists want to scrap welfare (they say it is not enough, and that it helps the system). Mixing up the New Right, who say welfare does too much, with Marxists, who say it does too little. Saying NGOs do no good at all. Writing only description and never reaching a conclusion.
Exam-style question
(a) Define the term equality legislation. [2 marks]
(d) Explain three criticisms that sociologists make of attempts to reduce inequality. [6 marks]
Model answer
(a) Laws that make unfair treatment of people illegal (1), for example because of their sex or ethnicity (1).
(d) First, Marxists argue that welfare helps capitalism because it keeps workers healthy and calm, so the unequal ownership of wealth continues (1). Second, critics of NGOs say they depend on donors who may control what they do, and they deal with symptoms rather than the root causes of poverty (1). Third, feminists argue that equality laws do not change attitudes or who does the childcare, so gender inequality in pay and power remains (1). Each point developed with a reason earns the further marks (3).
Exam tip
For "explain three" questions, name the group of critics (Marxists, feminists, critics of NGOs) and then give their reason. Each point should show who says it and why.