Conflicts on Providing Welfare
It would be surprising to note how providing welfare is a very contentious issue. Political, economic and social thoughts and visions of different hues have had strong and varied views on the constitution and administration of welfare. A view that people have good intentions but only differ in it the details of execution is prevalent in some groups like salaried middle class or in business gatherings. In most cases it would also be clubbed with a claim of being non-political to avoid a detailed discussion on the same. This only exposes the belief, actually due to pent up frustration and helplessness, that a solution is not possible through a reasoned debate. An understanding of the origins and basis of this conflict would help in trying to bring out a workable solution which thought not perfect would be much better than none at all. This article is an attempt towards that objective in very succinct manner.
The basic one in this regard is an understanding of what it means by “providing welfare”. However, this itself remains a contentious one. If we see around there are a lot of debates around the provision of welfare. The primary reason for this is because of the lack of uniform view on the components, and quantity of each, that constitutes welfare. It includes a wide swathe of things from material welfare, access to food, health care, mental wellness, housing, education etc. A seemingly common sense approach that everyone should be fed, clothed and housed itself is a highly contested one when actually being put into practice. More details like what type of clothes, what and how much food, size/type/location of housing etc get very contentious. Even in medical care which is seen as a much more important the bundle of diagnostics and treatment that needs to be provided free or at subsidized rates is one of continuous debate. These cannot be simply brushed aside as questions of mere details which is not related to larger abstract ideologies. Such differences lie at the crux of the ideological fault lines and needs to be acknowledged.
Get Senthil Kumar Natarajan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
If everyone is able to earn enough to afford what they require then there is no need for something called “welfare” to be provided. Making this more complicated is that what one requires is also dependent on the society they live in and also idiosyncratic needs of individuals. A policy on welfare provision would be a blunt one and would not event attempt a bespoke provision of welfare for individuals. The way to go about tacking this is evolving a common societal view on needs that are seen as basic that everyone is entitled regardless of whether they are good/bad, slacker/enterprising, criminal/law abiding etc. There would be no debate on whether one should earn it and the huge paraphernalia of morality and ethics built around it as these would be considered fundamental for everyone. The bunch of these would form the lowest possible welfare to be made for a person that a society would agree to provide without any questioning. This would be a middle ground between everything for everyone and nothing being provided to anyone. But what is meant by this middle is the most interesting part. It is not the exact center of the spectrum as misunderstood in general but something that lies between the two extremes. So it is more a proposition based on exclusion rather than a definite prescriptive solution and does not solve the problem. So coming to some common understanding on this as a society becomes imperative.
The mode of delivery of welfare is also under serious debate. This would seem ridiculous to many who just assume that to be a government function. However, it need not be so and can be driven by individuals or groups without govt. intervention also. For example, orphanages, schools, food can be run/provided by charities run by concerned citizens. It could be argued that there is nothing sacrosanct in govt. being the sole organizational intermediary for provision of welfare. Human nature, where one is inherently driven to action by looking at others in misery, is seen to be a powerful driving factor for this. More circuitous explanations like the rich need to do this spend for them to remain safe and prevent pushing those in misery to a violent revolt or revolution are also there. Once we are on this path, the debate gets lost into arguments on efficiency in public sector and private sector. Apart from this a social issue also pointed out here. One man’s dependence on another man’s charity is seen to make him look more inferior than when its provided by the govt. In the case of receiving welfare from govt., especially when backed by legislation/policies in this regard, one would see it as an entitlement and may not create a sense of indebtedness to any individual. This kind of anonymity by govt. is believed to provide much better confidence and reduces sense of anxiety amongst those receiving welfare support. Going beyond this, it can be said that the funds for govt. comes from taxing the rich and so it’s not much of a difference apart from the fact that politicians claim the credit instead of charities. This circles back to the earlier arguments on the mode of intermediation.
Let’s look at an example to put the complexities explained above for a real life debate. Universal Basic Income is one of the highly debated one in recent times. From the perspective of mode of intermediation and arguments centered around it, the need for this initiative itself can be questioned. Going beyond this if govt. needs to implement this more issues arise. While everyone would without much difficulty and any significant difference agree on the what universal and income would mean, the whole plethora of differences would arise with regards to what is meant by basic. Everyone would understand the literal meaning of basic and would in fact claim to support it. The fault lines would emerge based on what has been discussed on what constitutes welfare. It would mean the setting what would be that income. More importantly the bundle of goods and services that would be constitute basic based on which an amount can be calculated. For example, should movie tickets be included in the bundle of calculation? As there can be an argument that entertainment is a critical part of basic human living. On a more mundane note, should only rice, dhal and oil be included or vegetables, dry fruits etc needs to be included in the bundle? What level of medical procedures and treatment needs to be included? Can we accept that those at this income can afford only rice with dhal? As a society we are drowned in these discussion around us with a motley crowd of politicians, academics, think tanks etc having very strong and loud views. The most important thing in this is not to become an audience as each one should play a role in coming to an understanding on this.
This article was an attempt to showcase the issues in involved in arriving at a conclusion on welfare to be provided. At the outset, it may sound defeatist where debate has replaced action, instead of leading to it. However, many decisions on welfare have been taken in the real world like free medical care, food for children in schools etc. this has not put to rest the debate on this topic and this article is an attempt to make some sense out of what seems to be very complicated and vexed topic.
