Week 1: Welfare

Welfare is:

...financial assistance paid by the government to certain groups of people who are unable to support themselves, due to unemployment, disability or other reasons.

Assistance may include tax credits for working mothers, and subsidies for farmers, ranchers, and others. Welfare is known by a variety of names in different countries, all with the fundamental purpose of providing an economic "safey net" for disadvantaged members of society. Almost all developed countries provide some safety net of this kind.

Welfare payments are typically low, and may fall below the poverty line. Recipients must usually demonstrate a low level of income (e.g. by way of "means testing") or financial hardship, or that they satisfy some other requirement (childcare responsibilities or disability), or regularly demonstrate that they are periodically searching for employment. Some countries -- and some U.S. states -- assign specific jobs to recipients who must work in these roles in order for welfare payments to continue (in the U.S. and Canada, such programs are known as "workfare").

Social security is a form of welfare -- in fact, it's the largest government program in the world. Arguably, agricultural and farm subsidies are forms of welfare.

There are arguments for and against welfare. Some arguments in favor include:

• humanitarian - the idea that people should not suffer unnecessarily
• democratic - voters in most countries have favoured the gradual extension of social protection
• ethical - reciprocity (or exchange) is nearly universal as a moral principle, and most welfare systems are based around patterns of generalised exchange. Altruism, or helping others, is a moral obligation in most cultures, and charity and support for poorer people are also widely thought to be moral.
• religious - most major world religions emphasise the importance of social organisation rather than personal development alone. Religious obligations include the duty of charity and the obligation for solidarity
• mutual self-interest - several national systems have developed voluntarily through the growth of mutual insurance
• economic - social programs perform a range of economic functions, including e.g. the regulation of demand and structuring the labour market.
• social - social programs are used to promote objectives regarding education, family and work
• the failure of the private sector - advocates of social provision argue that the private sector fails to meet social objectives or to deliver the efficient production that economic theory claims.

There are arguments against welfare:

• libertarian - state intervention infringes individual freedom; the individual should not be forced to subsidize the consumption of others
• conservative - social spending has undesirable effects on behavior, fostering dependency and reducing incentives to work
• economic - social spending is costly and requires high taxes. The welfare state has undesirable economic effects and thus, paradoxically, a negative effect on the welfare of its citizens
• individualist - social spending reduces the freedom of wealthy or successful individuals by transferring some of their wealth to others (this argument is important also for libertarians and conservatives)
• anti-regulatory - the welfare state is accused of greater state control over businesses, stifling growth and creating unemployment.
• the free market - advocates of the market believe that it leads to more efficient and effective production and service delivery than state-run welfare programs.
• Hayekian - the institutions of government are unable to collect knowledge to respond to specific circumstances as well as civil society is.
• Religious - Some Christians are opposed to a welfare state since it compels people to be generous, which is in opposition to the Christian concept of voluntary giving. The more people give in taxes, the less opportunity they have to give charitably of their own free will.

I'd suggest we spend less time debating the historical and political origins of welfare in the U.S., and focus more completely on the philosphical foundation(s), practical analysis, and future, of welfare programs. Try to remember we're talking about a broad range of government programs. Let me be more blunt: we're not simply discussing unwed, poor, black women in inner cities... we're discussing federal entitlement programs that derive their monies from taxes, and aim to provide social services and a "net" to disadvantaged individuals, however we choose to define those terms.

Discussion questions:

1. Does welfare need reform, is it fine "as is" or should it be dismantled completely?
2. Where do farm and agricultural subsidies fall (e.g., "welfare for farmers")?
3. Are welfare recipients being "lazy"?
4. Does welfare perpetuate or decrease poverty?

I'll be around to moderate. Have at it, Schmoliticians!