Two responses to poverty
In last Saturday's NRC Handelsblad was a special feature on poverty in Holland. Both dealt with the quewstion: what is the problem with the Dutch poor and how to redress the situation? The contributions to the NRC special featured two extreme reactions.
On the one hand there was one author who believed that what is necessary is more or better targeted welfare. We are disenfranchising (to use the PC term) the poor. Their poverty means that they are more or less permanently excluded from participating fully in society. And there is something to this: I hear stories of children in my son's school who are not allowed to go to birthday parties of classmates because there is no money to buy a present, or are denied the opportunity of joining the local soccer club because the fee is too high. Or consider the fact that
some people are still too poor to afford internet and as a result cannot read this beautiful blog (to mention just one particular benefit they are missing out on). Our societies are such that a modicum of means (i.e., money) are necessary to participate and, as Adam Smith put it "...to appear in public without shame..." So while the poor in our society are not starving (though greatly helped with regular handouts from the food bank!), the main damage inflicted upon them is their more or less permanent exclusion. Thus, we need more money for welfare.
The opposite side, two emergency psychiatrists, argued that the poor lack responsibility. Furthermore, because of the way in which welfare is distributed (in cash), an attitude of regarding themselves as victims keeps a strong hold on the poor. Their problem is not one of
disenfranchisement (I promise this will be the last time I use that horrible word), but attitudinal. They should bring back structure in their lives and take responsibility as much as possible for their own fate. They should not regard themselves as victims, but instead make the
best of a difficult situation. The problem is not disenfanchisement (OK, OK, so I lied...), according to the authors, because the permanent poor have no difficulty finding access to many of the opportunities our society offers. They point to the fact that many, if not all, have significant debt with mail order companies. Many of the poor have no difficulty finding money for drugs, alcohol or silly acquisitions like DVD players, but come up short when the rent is due. In addition, they have children who in turn get encultured in this passive, 'victimized' way of life. They argued for mandatory work in special places. Not with a view of one day entering the 'normal work force', but simply to get structure and responsibility in their lives. Nobody should be allowed to refuse work even if it is something as meaningless as putting screws in individual plastic bags (like my local hardware store has). And there is something to this view as well. My sister used to work for a municipal welfare office and she saw these people on a daily basis, just like those psychiatrists. Like them, she absolutely abhorred the passive, irresponsible life styles they led and the knee-jerk response to ask for assistance whenever something happened. To some extend the continuation of poverty is attributable to the behavior and attitude of the poor.
Both sides represent two extremes on a scale. The first calls for more money and more welfare. The second wants welfare funds to be spend on special projects to activate the poor. However, there is also something that unites these approaches. Both have responsibility for one's own
life as one of the highest values. While the first wants to extend the poor more money precisely to give them the means and opportunities to take charge of their lives, preferably within society, the second seeks to do this through more paternalistic means.
I find myself in disagreement with both responses and I suppose that this is due to my changing views on responsibility for one's own life. I find the first view to 'soft', but the second view far too paternalistic for my tastes (it is not surprising that the authors are both psychiatrists - this is a profession that deals in medical paternalism!). However, what is really bugging me is this idea of
responsibility for one's own life. Why is that the guiding ideal in poverty alleviation? (More later...)
posted by Bruno at Monday, January 09, 2006
2 Comments:
No thought on what is really bugging you. However, I wonder how the general idea of 'basic income - as e.g. proposed by van Parijs, of which I am sure you are well aware - would fare as between the two extreme positions sketched here. Perhaps you could comment.
Additional thought: if the basic income proposal can be thought of as an intermediate position - it is worth wondering whether the guiding thought there is that of 'responsibility for one's own life'. Rather, it seems a type of scheme designed to put into place certain incentives to participate socially and economically, while creating a very large extent of freedom.
The basic income proposal is very interesting and I am sympathetic to it (though I also have some serious reservations). However, contrary to Michiel, a basic income (or for that matter a 'stake' like Ackerman and Alstott defend) seems to me to be the quintessential institutional arrangement to enhance taking responsibility for one's own life. Under a basic income scheme citizens (and perhaps some others) receive an unconditional grant. It is up to them what they do with the opportunities such a grant gives. However, it is also up to them if they squander these opportunities or take risks that turn out badly.
Both Van Parijs' defense for the basic income and Ackerman and Alstott's work are indebted to Ronald Dworkin's work on equality (no need to link to Dworkin's work is there!?!). All three stress the importance of not burdening the community with the expensive tastes of some of its members. Elizabeth Anderson has written a very interesting critique ( "What is the point of equality?" -- I am sure you have seen it) of these left-libertarian ideas and has argued that it is exactly the stress on responsibility that allows for some very unpalatable consequences.
In short, though I am sympathetic to the basic income or the stake, it is very much in the same continuum as the two extreme responses I discussed in the original post.
Post a Comment
<< Home