Introduction:
“The State came into being for mere life and
it continues for the sake of good life.”
------
Aristotle
The above statement of Aristotle, the great
political thinker, summarizes the whole process of evolution of the idea of
state and its maturation into the concept of welfare state. State came into
being to put an end to the chaotic life and instill rules into the otherwise
barbaric human society. In reaching its present form state has covered a long
journey and its journey continued over the centuries despite individualistic
considering it a necessary evil because it promised a better life. From ancient
Greek’s City states to medieval Roman empire state existed in various form but
at that time state was looked up as the end and human beings only as the means.
It was only with the advent of modern age and the wave of democracy sweeping
the world marking its beginning with the Glorious Revolution in Great Britain
in 1688 that the whole idea of existence of state reversed and the Social
Welfare State started taking shape whose guiding principle was:
“Welfare of Human Beings is the end and State is
only a means to achieve it.”
The Social Welfare State
A
Social Welfare State is one in which the government apart from performing its
compulsory functions of protection from external aggression, maintenance of law
and order and enforcement of contract, takes part actively in other economic
and social activities that promote
overall development of its individuals. Although the idea of a welfare
state had started evolving ever since the advent of modern age however, most of
the nations of world accepted this concept only after the Great Depression of
1930s proved that govt. indulgence is inevitable. The biggest Capitalist state
in the world i.e. USA accepted active involvement of govt. in the economic and
social life and kick started a no. of social security schemes to restore public
confidence and pull economy out of depression. Thus, the idea of welfare state
got a super power backing. The smaller capitalist nations weren’t late to
follow and the world had accepted the idea of social welfare state.
The case for Social Welfare
Programs
It
is the responsibility of government to promote overall development of its
citizens and it does so through its social welfare schemes. The haves of the
country can get all they want. It is the have-nots that need to be taken care
of. Govt. provides for food, education etc. of the poor. However, the question
that arises is that is it fair to tax the rich to subsidize the needs of poor
and the second one being is at all there a need for specific social welfare
programs when the benefits of growth in itself can trickle down to the lower
levels of society.
The
answer to both the questions is affirmative. There definitely is a need to tax
the rich to ensure minimum living conditions for the poor in the society. It is
because we live in a civil society and want to continue living in it. Thus,
living condition of masses needs to be improved in order to ensure that grieve
doesn’t prevail among them and they don’t revolt against the rich. The other
reason would be purely economic and that is because it is only when the whole
nation shares the benefits of growth that a nation actually prospers. The best
example can be India. We started poverty alleviation programs way back in 1970s
and our growth rate has definitely improved over the years. The growing Indian
middle class is inspiration for any big business and hence, quite a good
reason. Hence, only when we promote social welfare can economic welfare of a
nation be promoted.
The
second question is the need for direct social welfare schemes instead of
relying on trickle down. The need arises from the fact that the poor are
trapped in a vicious circle of poverty and they need an external stimulus to
come out of this vicious circle. Just like a nation a family to fall prey to
vicious circle and a person born in poverty may have to die poor if government
doesn’t provide him with opportunities to grow and develop.
The case against Social Welfare Programs
“There’s no such thing as free lunch.”
The
strongest opposition against social welfare programs is that it takes away hard
earned money from pocket of rich to pay the cost of living of poor and unemployed
who may be so because of their lethargy and incompetence. However this
opposition is negated by the fact that in most circumstances a person is poor
because he is born poor and even hardest of labor doesn’t change his situation
while on the other hand a person might be rich not because of his endeavors
but, because of inheritance.
The
second thing is that govt. uses deficit financing to pay for its social welfare
programs cost of which mounts every year. This breed inflation as there is too
much money in the economy but, the production capacity and hence, supply is
limited. The burn of inflation is also born most by the poor as rich have
enough money to pay for high priced goods but, inflation at times might reduce
real income of poor thus, leaving him worse off. That’s why inflation is
regarded as most regressive form of taxation. Thus, the cost of govt. social
welfare programs is ultimately born by the poor. This confirms the phrase that
‘There’s no such thing as free lunch’ and ultimately someone pays for it.
However, in reality the problem arises because of slippages from the govt.
welfare program. Most f the money doesn’t reach the poor or the actual
beneficiary and hence, there conditions worsen off while the slippages in form
of black money add to inflationary pressure in the economy.
Some
opponents of welfare program say that these programs incentivize people to
remain unemployed as the programs provide for their living without them doing
any work. This is called ‘Welfare trap’. This may be the case in some developed
countries where social security net is very strong and unemployment allowances
are high. But, in most of the developing nations this is not the case and
social welfare programs are rays of hope for the poor and under developed.
Conclusion
On
examining the pros and cons of social welfare programs we can conclude that
although it is true that governments have stretched their social security net a
bit too wide and corruption is dampening the situation but, this can’t
undermine the importance of social welfare schemes. These schemes support
people at times of need and provide the stimulus to break the vicious cycle of
poverty. Instead of abolishing these programs altogether a close look should be
given on their implementation and mechanism should be devised to implement them
in a way that benefits society the most.
No comments:
Post a Comment