Blue Labour, welfare and Catholic social teaching

This article examines whether Blue Labour’s critique of welfare states is consistent with Catholic social teaching on welfare, and, specifically, on welfare states, as has been argued by some of its founders, such as Maurice Glasman, John Milbank and Adrian Pabst. By examining their thinking on the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, it is argued that their interpretation is open to challenge. This is because of the need for the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity to be held in balance with Catholic thinking on solidarity when considering welfare provision. Further, it is argued that Archbishop William Temple’s thinking on welfare states was in no way inconsistent with either the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity or solidarity, and fully respected the need for strong, intermediate-level welfare providers to remain part of the overall welfare mix after a welfare state had been established – a view that William Beveridge also shared. The article argues that this is what occurred in Britain in the post-war period, when a partnership model of welfare delivery emerged between state and non-state sector welfare providers.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Theology
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571x251334743
Primary Topic
Religion, Society, and Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Blue Labour, welfare and Catholic social teaching

Joseph Forde
Theology
Religion, Society, and Development
article

Blue Labour, welfare and Catholic social teaching

Joseph Forde
article en

Abstract

This article examines whether Blue Labour’s critique of welfare states is consistent with Catholic social teaching on welfare, and, specifically, on welfare states, as has been argued by some of its founders, such as Maurice Glasman, John Milbank and Adrian Pabst. By examining their thinking on the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, it is argued that their interpretation is open to challenge. This is because of the need for the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity to be held in balance with Catholic thinking on solidarity when considering welfare provision. Further, it is argued that Archbishop William Temple’s thinking on welfare states was in no way inconsistent with either the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity or solidarity, and fully respected the need for strong, intermediate-level welfare providers to remain part of the overall welfare mix after a welfare state had been established – a view that William Beveridge also shared. The article argues that this is what occurred in Britain in the post-war period, when a partnership model of welfare delivery emerged between state and non-state sector welfare providers.

TheologyVol. 128(3)
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Religion, Society, and Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Blue Labour, welfare and Catholic social teaching — Joseph Forde · Theology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS