by Yannick Vanderborght | Oct 10, 2011 | Opinion
I graduated in Social Work in 1964 and back then, in Australia, we were three quarters of the way through the 23 years of unbroken conservative rule. The prevailing welfare ideology of the time was heavily influenced by the combination of providing assistance to those ‘in need’ whilst sifting out ‘malingers’ and others who could but wouldn’t work. There was a sense of noblesse oblige [nobility obliges one to assist others less fortunate than oneself]. Yet such ‘generosity’ was hedged around by a prevailing view that some people were ‘bludging’ on the system and this meant that social security officials were wary of being taken for a mug. Fortunately, the Labor Party had consolidated the social security legislation in 1947 in one Act and set out eligibility entitlements in clearly defined categories. The ideological biases of social security administrators only came into play at the edges. In church run and other not-for-profit organisations, which supplied many of the ancillary welfare services, such conservative ideologies were very much to the fore.
Competing welfare ideological circles
In tropical Australia on full and new moons [which create huge tidal flows] currents flow very strongly. Whenever such flows are constricted, for example, by the narrowing of passages between islands, ocean eddies are formed that are so powerful they can force boats off course. Such eddies form patterns which are as unpredictable as the turbulence created in a jug of boiling water. Whenever I listen to neo-conservative economic fundamentalists pontificating about the propensity of social security recipients to sink into the “mire of welfare dependency” I have a sense of deja vu. As I try to untangle the twisted amalgams of ideological thought, I am reminded of the turbulence of these ocean eddies. At the same time in my mind’s eye, I see a gatekeeper of an 18th century Poorhouse berating those who enter with warnings about impending ‘sloth and licentiousness’.
Some of the competing descriptions exhibiting such ideological constructions are:
socially approved/ deserving/ good moral character- including previously adequately supporting ‘his’ family. Married/ widowed/ unmarried mother/ separated/ divorced/ living in sin. Citizen/ permanent resident/ migrant/ refugee/ over stayers / asylum seekers/ boat people/ illegal arrivals. Worthy/ entitled/unworthy. Universalism/ individual/ targeted/ categorical. Able bodied/ disability /sick/ malingerer/ blind/ old/ worker/ unemployed/ skilled/ unskilled/ contributing/ productive/ unproductive/ dependent/ self-reliant/ adequate/ inadequate/ helpless / hopeless/ taxpayer/ dole bludger.
Many of these ideological conundrums and often several other arcane protestations pop up when neo-conservatives discuss welfare issues and they have been doing much the same for many centuries. Joel Handler (2002 p. 56, footnote No. 217) pointed to 1348 Statute of Labourers admonishing the provision of assistance to ‘sturdy beggars’. Guy Standing (2002, pp. 173-174) makes the point that: “the principles of workfare were enshrined in the English Poor Law of 1536 dealing with ‘sturdy vagabonds’, and in the French Ordonnance de Moulins of 1556. The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act in Great Britain, was designed to reach only the ‘deserving’ and desperate poor (italics in original)”. Jennifer Mays (forthcoming) notes that similar ideological constructions prevailed in Australia throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. There is little doubt that those who wish to limit the scope or generosity of income support provisions find the frequent repetition of dependency rhetoric useful. However, it should be noted that the veracity of an idea is not established by its longevity nor by how frequently it is asserted.
The distinctions which neo-conservatives attempt to make in these dependency/ self reliance debates are based on distortions of reality. They are, as Joshua Holland (2006) notes, “a ‘zombie lie’ – no matter how many times you shoot it in the face, it keeps coming back to haunt you.”
Currently, in Australia, the favourite prevailing welfare myths are:
- Australians pay high levels of taxation compared with the rest of the world,
- asylum seekers without visas arriving by boat are entering Australia illegally,
- Aborigines get exceedingly generous welfare payments compared with other citizens, and
- there is such a thing as a ‘self-funded retiree’.
The reality is that:
- “Australia has a low tax burden, both currently and historically. In 2003, Australia had the eighth lowest tax burden of the OECD-30 countries and has typically ranked in the bottom third of countries for the period since 1965” (Treasury 2003).
- Because Australia has signed and ratified the 1951 Convention on Refugees asylum seekers have every right to enter this country to seek protection.
- As a group, Aboriginal citizens are the least wealthy section of the society, who face the greatest health difficulties and they get less generous assistance than other Australians. This is sometimes because of the rural and remote regions in which they live. But mainly it is often due to Indigenous people’s lack of bureaucratic sophistication coupled with non-Aboriginal racism and governments’ determination to foist their ‘best intentions’ upon Indigenous citizens rather than to listen to Aboriginal peoples’ suggestions.
- The statement that, unlike age pensioners, ‘self-funded retirees’ don’t draw on the public purse’ is a nonsense – they get exceedingly generous tax waivers on their superannuation and, provided their income is below $50,000 annually, get government subsidised medicines. Some of the recently beatified ‘self-funded retirees’ get more assistance from the government (by way of tax concessions) than age pensioners get from the pension.
The left is left behind
The absence of logic, in many of the arguments propounded by rightwing ideologues about the need to force recipients of social security to meet onerous obligations in return for payment of benefits, should make it easy to destroy their arguments. But in Australia, as elsewhere, this is not the case. As George Monbiot points out:
rightwing movements thrive on their contradictions, the leftwing movements drown in them. Tea Party members who proclaim their rugged individualism will follow a bucket on a broomstick if it has the right label … Instead of coming together to fight common causes, leftwing meetings today consist of dozens of people promoting their own ideas, and proposing that everyone else should adopt them.
Australia in the 21st century
After the economic fundamentalist and thirdwayism of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments in the 1980s and 90s. John Howard came to power, in 1996, promising even more economic fundamentalism coupled with conservative social policies. He set out, with alacrity, to fight the ‘Culture Wars’ it didn’t matter whether it was winding back the Native Title legislation ‘to give pastoralists more certainty’, removing industrial award protection, enforcing individual work contracts, setting up Star Chambers which compelled building workers to give evidence, tightening disability support pension eligibility, enforcing ‘work for the dole’ provisions on ‘job snobs’ (by which he meant people who were unemployed), expanding mandatory detention of asylum seekers, introducing temporary protection visas for refugees (which did not allow family reunion), excising offshore islands from our migration zone, sending those who did not reach the Mainland to be processed on Nauru or Manus Island and launching the Northern Territory Intervention in 73 Aboriginal communities. This Intervention involved suspending the Racial Discrimination Act, compulsorily acquiring leases of town areas, quarantining half of people’s social security pensions and benefits on a Basics Card that could only be used for government approved purchases (Altman and Hinkson 2007).
Monbiot (2010, p.59) quotes with approval Thomas Franks 2004 book What’s the matter with Kansas? whose thesis is that the new conservatism systematically erases economic explanations by blaming the trouble of the poor not on corporate or class power, wage cuts and so forth but on cultural factors. In 2001, Brendon O’Connor argued that George Gilder and Charles Murray’s “central claim (was) that welfare causes dependency and thus unemployment and poverty – and that welfare reform therefore needs to focus on changing the behaviour of welfare recipients rather than providing employment opportunities (p.221).
In 2007, Kevin Rudd led Labor to victory – promising to wind-back the worst excesses of Howard’s Work Choices legislation and ending offshore processing of asylum seekers but maintaining the Intervention and other conservative social policies such as continuing the suspension of the racial discrimination legislation whilst leaving in place the prohibition of same sex marriage and euthanasia. In 2008-9, almost all developed countries experienced recession. Largely through counter-cyclical spending, Labor managed to avoid it. Rudd tried to introduce substantially increased mining taxes. The billionaire miners launched a massive anti-mining tax campaign that somehow convinced average Australians that the increased mining taxes, which Rudd was proposing, were not in their best interests. Just prior to the 2010 election, his Deputy, Julia Gillard, rolled Rudd. She immediately decreased the amount the mining taxes would add to Federal revenue and limited the types of mining that would attract a tax.
The subsequent election resulted in a hung parliament. Gillard’s minority government rules with the assistance of the Greens and three independents. Opinion polls put support for Labor in the high 20s. Gillard promised 2011 would be the ‘year of delivery’ when what we needed was a year of deliverance. Gone are the days when it could truly be said “Hope springs eternal in the human breast” (such as in the run up to Gough Whitlam’s 1972 electoral victory) when it seemed that grand improvements in social welfare were imminent: or in early 1975, when it appeared that the government was about to introduce a guaranteed minimum income. But, that was before the Dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor General on the 11th of November 1975; when progressive Australians realised that “Man always is but never To be blessed” (Pope 1733).
What is on the Gillard government’s agenda is revealed when she speaks about: wanting everyone to have a job ‘for the simple dignity that work brings’, or wanting to process asylum seekers, arriving in Australian waters, in Malaysia, or increasing the hurdles which those with disabilities have to jump-over before they will be considered eligible for a disability support pension, or maintaining many aspects of the Northern Territory Intervention, or moving to be able to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act by extending the quarantining of half people’s social security from just Northern Territory Aborigines to other disadvantaged groups in other parts of Australia (Tomlinson 2011) and at the same time increasing the compulsory superannuation levy from 9 to 12 per cent.
John Howard won the ‘Culture Wars’ and there is no-one in a leadership position within the Australian Labor Party with the ticker to take on the continuing conservative dominance of the of the ideological debate. The Parliament has literally become a coward’s castle. The words: equity, justice, equality, freedom, least restrictive, honour, decency, solidarity and ensuring everyone has an above the poverty line Basic Income have disappeared from the Australian lexicon.
Bibliography
Altman, Jon & Hinkson, Melinda (eds.) [2007] Coercive reconciliation, Arena, North Carlton.
Handler, J. (2002) “Social Citizenship and Workfare in the United States and Western Europe.” BIEN 9th International Conference, Geneva, Sept.12-14.
Holland, Joshua (2006) “Myth of the Liberal Nanny State.” AlterNet, June 8.
https://www.alternet.org/story/36895/myth_of_the_liberal_nanny_state/
Mays, Jennifer (forthcoming) Australia’s disabling income support system: Tracing the history of the Australian disability income support system 1908 to 2007 – disablism, citizenship and the Basic Income proposal. PhD thesis Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Monbiot, George (2010) “Bogus, Misdirected and Effective.” The Guardian, June 14.
O’Connor, Brendon (2001) “The Intellectual Origins of ‘Welfare Dependency’”. Australian Journal of Social Issues. Vol.36, No. 3, August pp.221-235.
Pope, Alexander (1733) “An Essay on Man, Epistle I”, Princeton.
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/magic3/paris/singles/eternal_spring.html
Standing, Guy (2002) Beyond the New Paternalism: Basic Security as Equality. Verso, London.
Tomlinson, John (2011) “Needs must when the devil drives.” On Line Opinion
https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11494
Treasury (2003) “International Comparisons of Australia’s Taxes.” Australian Government
https://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/05_Chapter_3.asp
by Michael Lewis | Jun 20, 2011 | Opinion
By Michael A. Lewis, Associate Professor
The Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College
After spending 15 years teaching about, writing about, and observing the U.S. welfare state, I believe that the policies that make it up are based on a questionable assumption. In general, U.S. residents think that there are two kinds of people who receive social welfare benefits—those who deserve them and those who don’t. This is sometimes stated as a difference between the deserving and undeserving poor but it goes beyond poverty. The deserving are those who are in need through no fault of their own, while the undeserving are those who are in need because of “bad” decisions they have made. Perhaps they chose not to work enough, to have a child too early and/or outside of marriage, not to finish school, etc. The key to becoming a member of the deserving group is to be a working person, someone who has worked, or someone who is thought unable to work. Here “work” is used to mean someone working for a wage in the “above ground” economy. For those who distinguish between the deserving and the undeserving this is the only kind of work that counts. Taking care of one’s kids or other worthwhile things people can be doing instead of working for a wage simply don’t “cut it.”
Those who are working, have worked, or are unable to work, have the earned income tax credit, social security, and unemployment insurance. The most infamous program for the undeserving is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF but more commonly called “welfare”). TANF recipients are usually single non-working mothers and typically receive less than recipients of unemployment and social security. TANF recipients are also subjected to a work requirement in order to continue receiving benefits. This requirement means that they have to do some type of work in order to receive benefits. Those who don’t may have their benefits reduced or eliminated. It would be laughable for someone to propose that recipients of social security be required to work in return for their benefits. This is because, so the reasoning would go, they already worked for them back when they were “going to work every day” and “paying into the system.” Even though many in the U.S. seem wedded to the idea that there are deserving and undeserving recipients of social welfare benefits, I think this idea may be way too simplistic.
To see what I mean, consider the stereotypical “lazy” welfare mother. She is poor and needs “welfare” because she has chosen not to work and, because of this choice, doesn’t really deserve assistance. Perhaps we should support her for the sake of her children or simply to be “charitable” but, morally, she has no right to help. I think this view may be wrongheaded for reasons that will soon become clear.
As I understand it, geneticists believe that any observable trait that differs among people can be valid to study genetically, including behavioral traits. They also believe that complex observable traits result from a complicated interaction of genes with other genes and with the environment. They don’t claim to understand these interactions completely but think that what’s going on is that the effects of some genes depend on other genes as well as the environment and that the effect of the environment depends on genes.
As some readers may be aware, there is currently a controversial area of genetics called, behavioral genetics, that focuses on how genes and environment interact to affect behavior, including human behavior. Based on having read some of this work, I think that those working in this field regard human behaviors, such as the choices we make, as complex traits. If choices make up a pattern that some would call laziness, I think this laziness would be regarded as a complex trait too. The problem for the deserving/undeserving distinction is that people don’t choose their genes nor do they choose their environments, at least not completely. This is why it is such a complex process in learning how to analyze social behavior when you have to consider all of these different factors.
I’m the father of a young daughter, half of whose genes came from her mother and half from me, but this is not something she chose. All of her life we’ve chosen the environments she’s spent time in. Since she is still pretty young, this will still be the case for a few years to come. Even as she starts playing more of a role in deciding where she’ll spend her time, the interaction among her genes and between her genes and our earlier environmental choices for her may affect these “choices” too. What I’ve said about my daughter, of course, applies to all of us, whether we are “hard working” or “lazy”.
If genes and environment interact to affect human behaviors, including “laziness,” then the problem it raises for the deserving/undeserving distinction should be clear. In a sense the mother on welfare who has chosen not to work hasn’t really chosen not to work at all. She hasn’t chosen her genes, she hasn’t chosen much of her environment, and she hasn’t chosen how these interact to help create her “laziness.” So is it really fair to deny her the help she needs, on moral grounds, because she has “chosen” not work?
What I’m saying here might be troubling for several reasons. Some might think my argument is similar to the long held view that the average black is not as smart as the average white and that this difference is due, in part, to genetic differences between these two “races.” This is not the case at all. The racial difference in smartness argument is an argument about genes helping to explain differences between groups. What I’m saying is that interactions among genes and between genes and environment may explain differences within a group, where that group is the entire human race. To say that genes and environment interact to affect human behavior doesn’t mean that supposed differences between blacks and whites are partly due to racial differences in genes. An example should help make this clear.
Suppose that blacks and whites differ, on average, for a trait and that genes and environment interact to affect this trait. It’s logically possible for this to be true and for blacks and whites to have identical genes. This is because even though they have identical genes blacks and whites may, on average, have grown up in very different environments. The interaction of identical genes with different environments may be what explains the racial difference in the trait.
Others might be bothered by what I’m saying because they view the idea that human behavior may be influenced by genes as very suspicious. They might say that human behavior is caused mainly by social factors, especially oppressive ones. To this I would say that it is hard to read the work of geneticists and come away believing that genes play almost no role in influencing human behavior—there just seems to be too much evidence that suggests the possibility of such influence. Also, to say that genes may influence behavior is not to say that the environment, even an oppressive one, doesn’t. Remember that what I’m saying is that genes interact with the environment to influence our behaviors. Part of that environment may be racist, sexist, homophobic, neighborhoods ignored by investors and other powers that be, “crappy” schools, lacking in employment opportunities, etc. All I’m saying is that these kinds of environmental factors may interact with our genes to result in certain behaviors being more likely than others.
Still others might have problems with what I’m saying because they believe it means that people cannot be held accountable for their bad decisions. If people make such decisions because of their genes and environments and they have no control over these, how can we hold them responsible for their choices? I have to admit that this even troubles me, especially when one leaves social welfare policy and considers criminal justice. But if behaviors differ among human beings, if behaviors are examples of complex traits, if all such traits are influenced by genes and environment, and if we don’t completely choose our genes or environments then it’s very hard to see how we can fairly be held completely responsible for our “choices,” good or bad.
What does all this mean for social welfare policy? The main thing we should do is stop trying to make policy decisions based on who is deserving of help. Instead of trying to figure out if people are deserving of help we should simply try to figure what they need and how to provide it. If people need housing, how do we get them that? If they need food, how do we get them that? The question “do they need food or housing because they’ve made bad choices and don’t deserve help?” should be seen as irrelevant, since it is so hard to separate the choices they’ve made from the ones that were made for them. Yet we should be careful. Even as we focus less on whether people deserve help, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t still care about incentives.
Incentives may be very important parts of our environments that interact with our genes and other parts of the environment to influence our behavior. Thus, whether a policy might result in people working less, spending a longer time looking for a job, family “break-up”, etc. could still be relevant questions to ask. The point is that these questions can be asked and policies based on our best guess answers to them can be proposed without blaming people for their bad choices. A policy that is “in the spirit” of what I have in mind is the basic income (BI).
BI is a proposal that for many would be a better way to deal with poverty than we do now, at least in the U.S. It would set a minimum income in the sense that no one’s income would be allowed to fall below that minimum, whether or not they worked. Those who did work would pay a tax on their earnings but the tax would be set so that those working would always have a net income higher than those who stayed home and lived only on the BI. If it were possible to get this minimum income high enough, poverty could be better dealt with and people would still have a clear incentive to work. Doing both of these things together is how BI considers the incentive to work without also withholding help from people in need because of their “bad” choices. I think that the more we can move toward policies like BI, the better off we’ll be. Such policies would allow us to go beyond the terribly outdated practice of trying to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Carole Schiffman, Steven Strogatz, Eri Noguchi, Jennifer Waldman-Green, Joel Blau, Mimi Abramovitz, and Yuko Kawanishi for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Credit picture: CC Gino Zahnd
by Yannick Vanderborght | May 19, 2011 | News
Palgrave-MacMillan Publishers has announced a new book series on the Basic Income Guarantee. They expect to publish two or three books per year starting within the next year or so. Books will be nonfiction monographs and edited volumes. They are currently accepting proposals from authors and editors with ideas for books for the series. The series announcement is repeated in full below:
Basic Income Guarantee Series
Series Editors: Karl Widerquist, Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown University-Qatar James Bryan, Professor of Economics at Manhattanville College, Michael A. Lewis, Associate Professor at Hunter College School of Social Work
Basic income is one of the most innovative, powerful, straightforward, and controversial proposals for addressing poverty and growing inequalities. A Basic Income Guarantee is designed to be an unconditional, government-ensured guarantee that all citizens will have enough income to meet their basic needs. The concept of basic, or guaranteed, income is a form of social provision and this series examines the arguments for and against it from an interdisciplinary perspective with special focus on the economic and social factors. There will be contributions from individuals in the fields of economics, philosophy, sociology, history, and social policy studies as well as from activists and practitioners in the field. By systematically connecting abstract philosophical debates over competing principles of basic income guarantee to the empirical analysis of concrete policy proposals, this series contributes to the fields of economics, politics, social policy, and philosophy and establishes a theoretical framework for interdisciplinary research.
The series will publish both high-quality monographs and edited collections. It will bring together international and national scholars and activists to provide a comparative look at the main efforts to date to pass unconditional basic income guarantee legislation across regions of the globe and will identify commonalities and differences across countries, drawing lessons for advancing social policies in general and BIG policies in particular. The series editors additionally are open to considering proposals that address other policy approaches to poverty and income inequality that relate to the Basic Income debate.
Karl Widerquist is a Visiting Associate Professor in philosophy at Georgetown University-Qatar. He is co-editor of The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee and co-author of Economics for Social Workers. He has published more than a dozen scholarly articles in the fields of economics, political theory, and philosophy. He is also an editor of the journal, Basic Income Studies. James Bryan is Associate Professor of Economics at Manhattanville College specializing in Microeconomic analysis of public policy, public finance, and economic education. Michael A. Lewis is Associate Professor at Hunter College School of Social Work with specific expertise in Quantitative Methods, Social Policy, and Civic Engagement. He is co-editor of The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee and co-author of Economics for Social Workers.
We strongly encourage scholars, practitioners, and activists to send us proposals for books to be added to the series. Contact the series editors for the series proposal guidelines.
Karl Widerquist
karl@widerquits.com
Laurie Harting
Executive Editor Palgrave Macmillan 175 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10010 (USA) Laurie.Harting@palgrave-usa.com
Distributor of Berg Publishers, I.B.Tauris, Manchester University Press, Pluto Press and Zed Books
