I enjoy studying the welfare state. It is a fascinating topic. This is because, although the details are boring and technical, underlying the welfare state are principles of compassion and humanity. Another reason for my interest is that, as so frequently happens, there is a conflict between the stated, noble, intentions and operation in reality.
Every area of the welfare state has examples of this dichotomy between reality and intention. Take child protection. We condemn the welfare state as a meddling nanny when happy families are broken; we condemn it for not doing enough when tragedies, such as the case of Baby P, happen. Yet we accept the principle that the state should have a role in helping vulnerable children.
There is, in other aspects of the welfare state, a conflict between the wish to help and the need to prevent making people dependent on state help. Take the case of financial help given to the unemployed. A perpetual challenge has been how to help those who need it, without, especially for those lacking skills, making people think hard and fast before accepting jobs that would make them only marginally better off ( or not better off at all, or, taking everything into account, worse off).
If the state is contributing significantly towards your mortgage payments, and you are not a skilled professional, you will think hard before accepting a job that could make you worse off. It is natural to make such calculations; it is totally unreasonable for there to be an expectation not to think in this way. Similarly, there is a huge disincentive to taking on short term contract work.
I am not sure what the solution is to these problems. Means testing, or targeting help to those who need it most, sounds great in principle, but for it to work, we all need to be saints.
No comments:
Post a Comment