Do generous Welfare benefits lead to dependence and laziness?

Résumé du document

Before 1945, the fight against poverty and social exclusion was organized around the concept of charity. Initially, the Church used to take care of the most destitute on the basis of donations. The institution succeeded in building some refuges in order to help people in need. Hence, poorest people were relieved from misery thanks to small groups which depended on contributions from individuals and private organizations. Subsequently theory of socialism claimed state intervention in the fight against poverty, through means such as social benefits, production of collective goods, market regulation, and a fight against external effects. The emergence of the welfare state was thus based on special needs and this social protection was meant to protect the individual from social risks such as age, unemployment, health, family and exclusion. This collective management of risks was aimed at anticipating unexpected changes linked to human activities that do not depend on the individual will. However, the concept of the welfare state has several strong critics.

Extraits

[...] But to be more specific, “welfare state dependency” could be understood as an excessive rapport of subjection, subordination to welfare benefits. In return, some point out that this dependency triggers off laziness and idleness. Hence, do we have to condemn totally generous welfare benefits insofar as they favour dependence and laziness? Aren't they necessary to the social cohesion and the carriage of a certain standard of living? By introducing activation policies, doesn't the welfare state is trying to overcome those critiques? [...]

[...] while lazy free riders abuse the system Thus, welfare state benefits may create unemployment and poverty traps. This can lead to an institutionalisation of the laziness culture because people profit from the system without participating in it. According to Rosenvallon, this critique is part of the crisis of legitimacy that welfare state has to face. Indeed, the RMI is seen today as a poverty trap that governments had implemented in order to shuffle of the social question. Moreover, the automatic social protection is a disincentive to work while the CMU favours the squandering of medical care. [...]

[...] Offering generous welfare benefits would encourage some to free ride on the productive efforts of others, threatening the very economy sustainability of society. Social protection is thus full of perverse effects that weigh on the productivity of the whole society. By putting away a part of able people because of too high benefits, the welfare state is weakening its own system. Unemployment trap, free riders are perverse effects that must be fought to reinforce the legitimacy of the system, all the more so as the welfare state relies on social justice's notion. [...]

[...] An introduction to the basic income debate, London: Macmillan Press Itd. ,1999; - GOODON R. E., Arguing for basic income. [...]

[...] In other words, welfare state must offer not only the right but the means to do whatever one might wish to do. Thus, as the social protection responds to the notion of social justice, it has got to overcome its internal defects in order to maximise its positive external effects. B. Overcome welfare-dependency: inclusion and self-determination The existence of a welfare trap depends on the small difference between welfare income and the typical income. Thus, the general solution is to make the difference larger, either by increasing the revenue of people in low-end jobs or by reducing welfare payments. [...]