Welfare state

A welfare state is a form of government in which the state (or a well-established network of social institutions) protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens, based upon the principles of equal opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for citizens unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.[1]
There is substantial variability in the form and trajectory of the welfare state across countries and regions.[2] All welfare states entail some degree of private–public partnerships wherein the administration and delivery of at least some welfare programs occur through private entities.[3] Welfare state services are also provided at varying territorial levels of government.[3]
The contemporary capitalist welfare state has been described as a type of mixed economy in the sense of state interventionism, as opposed to a mixture of planning and markets, since economic planning was not a key feature or component of the welfare state.[4] Early features therein, such as public pensions and social insurance, developed from the 1880s onwards in industrializing Western countries.[5][2][6] World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II have been characterized as important events that ushered in the expansion of the welfare state.[5][7] The fullest forms of the welfare state were developed after World War II.[2]
Etymology
[edit]The term welfare is much older than the term welfare state. In enlightened absolutism, the ruler had an unlimited position of power, which he was to only utilize to the extent necessary for the "welfare" of his subjects. The content of the "welfare" or "good police", which limited the ruler's legitimate exercise of power, was defined by the authorities at their own discretion. This is also referred to as "welfare absolutism". The term welfare state is used in connection with princely absolutism, this is usually in conjunction with attributes such as absolutist, mercantilist or pre-modern.
The German term sozialstaat ("social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs devised by German sozialpolitiker ("social politicians") and implemented as part of Otto von Bismarck's conservative reforms.[8]
Today the term is used almost entirely for the "modern" welfare state, which emerged in the 19th century in the course of the socio-economic upheavals caused by industrialisation, the formation of nation states and democratization. While the corresponding English term welfare state is descriptively neutral, the term "Wohlfahrtsstaat" is often used in German as a fighting term with a pejorative connotation.[citation needed]
The literal English equivalent "social state" did not catch on in Anglophone countries.[9] However, during the Second World War, Anglican Archbishop William Temple, author of the book Christianity and Social Order (1942), popularized the concept using the phrase "welfare state".[10] Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to Benjamin Disraeli's 1845 novel Sybil: or the Two Nations (in other words, the rich and the poor), where he writes "power has only one duty – to secure the social welfare of the PEOPLE".[11] At the time he wrote Sybil, Disraeli (later a prime minister) belonged to Young England, a conservative group of youthful Tories who disagreed with how the Whigs dealt with the conditions of the industrial poor. Members of Young England attempted to garner support among the privileged classes to assist the less fortunate and to recognize the dignity of labor that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages.[12]
History
[edit]Ancient
[edit]India
[edit]Emperor Ashoka of India put forward his idea of a welfare state in the 3rd century BCE. He envisioned his dharma (religion or path) as not just a collection of high-sounding phrases. He consciously tried to adopt it as a matter of state policy; he declared that "all men are my children"[13] and "whatever exertion I make, I strive only to discharge debt that I owe to all living creatures." It was a completely new ideal of kingship.[14] Ashoka renounced war and conquest by violence and forbade the killing of many animals.[15] Since he wanted to conquer the world through love and faith, he sent many missions to propagate Dharma. Such missions were sent to places like Egypt, Greece, and Sri Lanka. The propagation of Dharma included many measures of people's welfare. Centers of the treatment of men and beasts founded inside and outside of the empire. Shady groves, wells, orchards and rest houses were laid out.[16] Ashoka also prohibited useless sacrifices and certain forms of gatherings which led to waste, indiscipline and superstition.[15] To implement these policies he recruited a new cadre of officers called Dharmamahamattas. Part of this group's duties was to see that people of various sects were treated fairly. They were especially asked to look after the welfare of prisoners.[17][18]
However, the historical record of Ashoka's character is conflicted. Ashoka's own inscriptions state that he converted to Buddhism after waging a destructive war. However, the Sri Lankan tradition claims that he had already converted to Buddhism in the 4th year of his reign, although it does not mention the conquest of Kalinga.[19] During this war, according to Ashoka's Major Rock Edict 13, with nearly 100,000 killed in the war and another 150,000 deported. Some sources (particularly Buddhist oral legends) suggest that his conversion was dramatic and that he dedicated the rest of his life to the pursuit of peace and the common good.[20] However, these sources frequently contradict each other,[21] and a few sources (like Ashokavadana, earliest versions ranging from 200 AD to 500 AD) describe Ashoka engaging in sectarian mass murder throughout his reign, and make no mention of the philanthropic efforts claimed by earlier legends. The interpretation of Ashoka's dharma after conversion is controversial, but in particular, the texts which describe him personally ordering the massacre of Buddhist heretics and Jains have been disputed by many scholars, since these are directly contradictory to his own edicts, and are legendary in nature.[22][23][24][25]
According to one study, Ashoka developed “a very comprehensive system of social welfare which included women’s welfare, rehabilitation of prisoners, rural development, free medical care, regulation of prostitution and provision of public utilities like roads, rest houses for travellers, wells, etc.”[26]
China
[edit]The Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang Emperor Wen (203 – 157 BCE) of Han Dynasty instituted a variety of measures with resemblances to modern welfare policies. These included pensions, in the form of food and wine, to all over 80 years of age, as well as monetary support, in the form of loans or tax breaks, to widows, orphans, and elderly without children to support them.
In 1386, Zhu Yuanzhang issued an edict that stipulated that (as noted by one study) “the poor people aged above 80 will be granted with 30kg of rice, 2.5mg of meat and 1.8kg of wine each month; those aged above 90 will receive additional 33 m of silk and 0.6kg of cotton wool.”[27]
Emperor Wen was known for a concern over wasteful spending of tax-payer money. Unlike other Han emperors, he wore simple silk garments. In order to make the state serve the common people better, cruel criminal punishments were lessened and the state bureaucracy was made more meritocratic. This led to officials being selected by examinations for the first time in Chinese history.[28][unreliable source?][29][unreliable source?]
Various forms of social welfare also existed during the Zhou period[30] and under the Song dynasty.[31]
Ancient Rome
[edit]The Roman Republic intervened sporadically to distribute free or subsidized grain to its population, through the program known as cura annonae. The city of Rome grew rapidly during the Roman Republic and Empire, reaching a population approaching one million in the second century AD. The population of the city grew beyond the capacity of the nearby rural areas to meet the food needs of the city.[32]
Regular grain distribution began in 123 BC with a grain law proposed by Gaius Gracchus and approved by the Roman plebeian council (popular assembly). The numbers of those receiving free or subsidized grain expanded to a high of an estimated 320,000 people at one point.[33][34] In the 3rd century AD, the dole of grain was replaced by bread, probably during the reign of Septimius Severus (193–211 AD). Severus also began providing olive oil to residents of Rome, and later the emperor Aurelian (270–275) ordered the distribution of wine and pork.[35] The doles of bread, olive oil, wine, and pork apparently continued until near the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.[36] The dole in the early Roman Empire is estimated to account for 15 to 33 percent of the total grain imported and consumed in Rome.[37]
In addition to food, the Roman Republic also supplied free entertainment, through ludi (public games). Public money was allocated for the staging of ludi, but the presiding official increasingly came to augment the splendor of his games from personal funds as a form of public relations. The sponsor was able to cultivate the favor of the people of Rome.[38] Under Augustus (27BC – AD14), cash benefits were distributed and investments in the supply of water and housing were carried out for the benefit of the plebeians.[39]
Islamic Caliphate
[edit]The concept of states taxing for the welfare budget was introduced to the Arabs in the early 7th century by Caliph Umar, most likely adapted from the newly conquered Roman territories.[40] Zakat is also one of the five pillars of Islam and is a mandatory form of 2.5% wealth tax to be paid by all individuals holding above a basic threshold (nisab) to provide for the needy once a year after Ramadan. Umar (584–644), leader of the Rashidun Caliphate (empire), established a welfare state through the Bayt al-mal (treasury), which for instance was used to stockpile food in every region of the Islamic Empire reserved for Muslims in the Peninsula.[41]
Modern
[edit]
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
His Serene Highness Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg Early career Legacy
|
||
Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with social-welfare legislation, in 1880s Imperial Germany.[42][43] Bismarck extended the privileges of the Junker social class to ordinary Germans.[42] His 17 November 1881 Imperial Message to the Reichstag used the term "practical Christianity" to describe his program.[44] German laws from this era also insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace.[45]
In Switzerland, the Swiss Factory Act of 1877 limited working hours for everyone, and gave maternity benefits.[45] The Swiss welfare state also arose in the late 19th century; its existence and depth varied individually by canton. Some of the programs first adopted were emergency relief, elementary schools, and homes for the elderly and children.[46]
In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a version was set up by Count Eduard von Taaffe a few years after Bismarck in Germany. Legislation to help the working class in Austria emerged from Catholic conservatives. Von Taffe used Swiss and German models of social reform, including the Swiss Factory Act of 1877 German laws that insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace to create the 1885 Trade Code Amendment.[45]
Changed attitudes in reaction to the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, which brought unemployment and misery to millions, were instrumental in the move to the welfare state in many countries. During the Great Depression, the welfare state was seen as a "middle way" between the extremes of communism on the left and unregulated laissez-faire capitalism on the right.[47] In the period following World War II, some countries in Western Europe moved from partial or selective provision of social services to relatively comprehensive "cradle-to-grave" coverage of the population. Other Western European states did not, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and France.[48] Political scientist Eileen McDonagh has argued that a major determinant of where welfare states arose is whether or not a country had a historical monarchy with familial foundations (a trait that Max Weber called patrimonialism); in places where the monarchic state was viewed as a parental steward of the populace, it was easier to shift into a mindset where the industrial state could also serve as a parental steward of the populace.[49]
The activities of present-day welfare states extend to the provision of both cash welfare benefits (such as old-age pensions or unemployment benefits) and in-kind welfare services (such as health or childcare services). Through these provisions, welfare states can affect the distribution of wellbeing and personal autonomy among their citizens, as well as influencing how their citizens consume and how they spend their time.[50][51]
Analysis
[edit]In Europe, the idea of the welfare state was mainly championed by socialist and social-democratic circles, although it also had supporters in the centre (the concept of the “welfare state” was coined by the liberal William Beveridge) and even among conservatives.[52]
Historian of the 20th-century fascist movement, Robert Paxton, observes that the provisions of the welfare state were enacted in the 19th century by religious conservatives to counteract appeals from trade unions and socialism.[53] Later, Paxton writes "All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states… They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."[53] In Germany, Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party maintained the welfare state established by previous German governments, but restructured it so as to help only Aryan individuals considered worthy of assistance, excluding "alcoholics, tramps, homosexuals, prostitutes, the 'work-shy' or the 'asocial', habitual criminals, the hereditarily ill (a widely defined category) and members of races other than the Aryan."[54] Nevertheless, even with these limitations, over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare by 1939.[54] However, Adam Tooze (in his book The Wages of Destruction) downplayed the importance of Nazi social policies, as most resources were concentrated on rearmament. The promised low-cost consumer goods, such as the Volkswagen car, only became available after the war, with the exception of the Volksempfänger radio, since it was useful for propaganda purposes.
A theoretical addition from 2005 is that of Kahl in her article "The religious roots of modern policy: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Protestant traditions compared." She argues that the welfare state policies of several European countries can be traced back to their religious origins. This process has its origin in the "poor relief" systems, and social norms present in Christian nations. The example countries are categorized as follows: Catholic (Spain, Italy and France); Lutheran (Denmark, Sweden and Germany); Reformed Protestant (Netherlands, the UK and the USA). The Catholic countries had a late adoption of welfare benefits and social assistance, the latter being splintered and meagre, due to several religious and social factors. Giving alms was an important part of Catholic society as the wealthy could resolve their sins through participation in the act. As such, begging was allowed and was subject to a greater degree of acceptance. Poverty was seen as being close to grace, and there was no onus for change placed onto the poor. These factors, coupled with the power of the church meant that state provided benefits did not arise until late in the 20th century. Additionally, social assistance was not done at a comprehensive level, each group in need had its assistance added incrementally. This accounts for the fragmented nature of social assistance in these countries.[55]
Lutheran states were early to provide welfare and late to provide social assistance but this was done uniformly. Poverty was seen as more of an individual affliction of laziness and immorality. Work was viewed as a calling. As such these societies banned begging and created workhouses to force the able-bodied to work. These uniform state actions paved the way for comprehensive welfare benefits, as those who worked deserved assistance when in need. When social assistance was delivered for those who had never worked, it was in the context of the uniform welfare provision. The concept of Predestination is key for understanding welfare assistance in Reformed Protestant states. Poor people were seen as being punished, therefore begging and state assistance was non existent. As such churches and charities filled the void resulting in early social assistance and late welfare benefits. The USA still has minimal welfare benefits today, because of their religious roots, according to Kahl.[55]
Also from 2005, Jacob Hacker stated that there was "broad agreement" in research on welfare that there had not been welfare state retrenchment. Instead, "social policy frameworks remain secure."[56]
Forms
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Christian democracy |
|---|
| Part of a series on |
| Social democracy |
|---|
| Part of a series on |
| Liberalism |
|---|
| Part of a series on |
| Progressivism |
|---|