Introduction

This concluding chapter aims to address several issues. Initially, the major findings of the study are reiterated and the central themes of provision, conditionality and membership are reconsidered in light of the empirical findings generated in the analysis of the data. Some other relevant findings from recent studies of citizens’ attitudes to welfare are also included. In this way an attempt is made to take an overview of the opinions offered by the welfare service users who took part in the research, and see what their perspectives may have to offer in terms of a more general consideration of citizenship and welfare. Next, moving beyond simply recording what the users had to say, a more explanatory approach looks at some of the major principles and moral values which the users use when legitimating their views. This considers why they choose specific policy options above other alternatives, and may also go some way towards illuminating the kind of citizenship status and welfare provision that they expect to enjoy in the future. This chapter then goes on to explore the extent to which it may be possible to account for the differing views of users by relating these to the philosophies of liberalism and communitarianism, while the penultimate section looks at some of the key findings of this study and discusses some of the implications that they may have in terms of New Labour's welfare reform agenda. Finally, a concluding comment is offered.

The state and welfare provision

A significant finding of the fieldwork that informs this book is that the users endorse a notion of citizenship which includes civil, political and social rights. It is clear that the social element (ie social rights) is seen as a valid and valued part of the citizenship package, and that the users believe that individuals who properly enjoy the status of ‘citizen’ should have a right to call on the state to provide an extensive range of services to meet their welfare needs. This is in line with evidence from other studies (Dean, 1999; Dean with Melrose, 1999; Dean and Melrose, 1996; Conover et al, 1991; Taylor-Gooby, 1991).