Well and Fair

 

Welfare

“Borders are the prisons we create for ourselves.” (attributed to Yehudi Menuhin)

In 2012 the BBC sponsored Professor Michael Sandel to lead a series of discussions at American Universities on political philosophy.  I very much enjoyed listening to Sandel’s skill in pin-pointing the essence of the sentiment being raised by these intelligent American young people.

But the conversation did not touch on the factors I feel are important when discussion ‘Welfare’, so here are my points.

Welfare in the West came out of the charitable tradition.  Hospitals and schools originated from monasteries and churches.  They were rooted in compassion. 

Welfare in the far East, namely Japan, comes from the need to create a harmonious society.  Where there is suffering, the whole body is affected.  Welfare attempts to redress conflict and discord to serve the purpose of the whole community, and bring it into balance. 

In the past most welfare functions were covered by ‘the family’.  Families were large and acted as mini social services, ensuring that the sick and vulnerable were cared for.  In many cases, in both the West and the East this continues.  The challenges arise when ‘the family’ does not perform its function.  This might be because families are smaller, and women are no longer expected to give up everything to provide for the vulnerable of their families.  If men are not prepared to do so, for little reward, why should women?

Welfare as a concept in the West is also evolving.  As Sandel discovered, there is a spectrum of views.  The first starts with ‘the right to be wealthy’.  Is the possession of wealth a right?  If you have earnt it, should it be taken from you to benefit others?  Some have inherited it.  If you are wealthy, do you have a responsibility to share your wealth with your community?  How far does your community extend?  One of the key functions of a police service is to ensure that private property is protected.

Some would say that the duty of a civilised society is to ensure that all have access to resources to meet basic needs.  This is defined as food, housing, clothing, education, and healthcare.  However, for those who are deemed to be able to work, a degree of pressure is applied to ensure that it is better to work than to claim benefits.  What is defined by ‘basis care’ is also difficult to identify.  How do we define the breadline?  What is a living wage? And how can people be incentivised to work when they live on ‘the poverty plateau’? (Poverty plateau defines the extent to which an increase in wages actually make no difference to wealth.)

Another way of viewing welfare is to use the language of ‘rights’.  Current systems of Welfare in the West are still based on charity.  Claimants feel ‘lesser’ for having to claim.  They have somehow ‘failed’ in society.   Charity retains the power over the poor.  It does not change the dynamic.  Rights is about establishing boundaries of power.  

The language of rights is based on ‘human rights’.  Just as every citizen of Kuwait receives an allowance based on the profits from the county, so the basic needs of a society can be met through a stipend.  This is accepted by society in the form of pensions, child allowance, or maternity pay.  What about extending this to all in society, and call it a right?

Eastern perspectives on society see that all are interdependent.  No ‘man’ is an Island.   In the West it’s the right of the individual that is held to be sacred.  But it was the American William Jennings Bryan (Secretary of State in 1896, and presidential hopeful) who first said “no one can earn a million dollars honestly.”  To be rich is based on the fact that someone has to be poor.  Riches are viewed as the contrast with poverty.  If we all have our needs met equality, we are neither poor nor rich.  This is the western paradox.

For me a healthy society is one where ‘worries’ are minimised, and people can feel confident that their needs for food, health, and shelter will be met.  From this, an increase in prosperity will be seen as a choice and highly desirable.  Most people are likely to make this choice freely. Let us make sure everyone has a basic level of income irrespective of work, and then earn a better living from this benchmark.