Jump to content

Welfare: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎United States: drop weird subsection to bottom of section
No edit summary
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Other uses}}
{{Refimprove|date=August 2010}}
{{Economics sidebar}}
'''Welfare''' refers to a broad discourse which may hold certain implications regarding the provision of a minimal level of [[wellbeing]] and [[social support]] for all citizens. In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government, in addition to [[Charitable organization|charities]], informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations. In the end, this term replaces "charity" as it was known for thousands of years, being the voluntary act of providing for those who temporarily or permanently could not provide for themselves.


'''Welfare''' is a general term which in most of the English speaking world means well-being, literally ''faring well'' or ''doing okay''. It is a very old term, originally ''wel faran'' or "wellness" in Old English, and cognate with Old Norse ''velferð'', modern Swedish ''välfärd'' and the Dutch ''welvaart''.
==Forms==
{{Expand section|date=January 2010}}


It is often used in association with the well-being of certain population classes such as [[child welfare]] and [[animal welfare]]. In modern times it is used mostly in connection to the [[Welfare State]], a term intended to describe a society in which the citizens experience a state of well-being, free from extreme hardship as a result of infirmity, old age, disability or unemployment. Welfare policies are intended to promote the well-being of citizens and welfare payments are simply [[transfer payments]] intended to bring a person or family to a minimum standard of living. Usually this has been through one or more organizations delivering a system of [[Social security]].
Welfare can take a variety of forms, such as monetary payments, [[subsidies]] and [[voucher]]s, or housing. Welfare can be provided by governments, [[non-governmental organization]]s, or a combination of the two. Welfare programs may be funded directly by governments, or in [[social insurance]] models, by the members of the welfare scheme.


In the United States, the terms '''welfare''' and '''Social Security''' do not have the same meaning as they do in the rest of the English speaking world. In the U.S., [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] is reserved for a specific social support program providing a [[pension]] income for the retired and unable to work through disability. [[Welfare]] in the United States means the general system of [[social security]]. The American meaning is modern, since Chambers dictionary published in 1913 recognized only the original meaning of the word welfare. <ref>http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=welfare&use1913=on</ref> Some crossover from American English into International English has occurred and thus terms such as welfare cheats and welfare fraud are understood and used in International English. However, the word welfare alone does not normally refer to a social program in most contexts except in the United States.
Welfare systems differ from country to country, but welfare is commonly provided to individuals who are [[unemployment|unemployed]], those with [[illness]] or [[disability]], the [[elderly]], those with dependent children, and [[veteran]]s. A person's eligibility for welfare may also be constrained by [[means test]]ing or other conditions.


Outside the United States, and particularly in mainland Europe, the word ''welfare'' has overwhelmingly positive connotations in most countries through its association with positive attributes of health and wealth, as does the term ''social security'' with its association with [[solidarity]] and [[social cohesion]], which are valued attributes. In contrast, in the United States the same terms ''welfare'' and ''social security'' have developed somewhat negative connotations through association with dependency, which is frowned upon because U.S. culture tends to value individual self sufficiency rather than co-operation and mutuality.
In a more general sense, ''welfare'' also means the well-being of individuals or a group - in other words, their health, happiness, safety, prosperity, and fortunes.


'''Subsidy'''
Subsidizing a good is one way of redistributing wealth to the poor. It is money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function. In a budget constraint between ‘all other goods’ and a ‘subsidized good’, the maximum amount of ‘all other goods will remain the same but the budget constraint will shift outward for the ‘subsidized good’ because the cost of the ‘subsidized good’ is reduced for the consumer and so they have the ability to consume more of said good. Some people do not want to use subsidies because they want the poor to consume the subsidized good or service in a specific way or because subsidizing goods (such as health care) can lead to an over consumption of the good.

'''Voucher'''
A voucher is like a subsidy that can only be consumed in a specific way like a school voucher or section 8 housing. For instance, families who receive school vouchers may only use them to send their children to schools to help pay tuition costs. Schools then exchange the voucher for cash. Similarly, in section 8 housing, families with this voucher can only use the voucher to pay a portion of their living costs in specified units or in a private sector. In a budget constraint between ‘all other goods’ and a ‘voucher good’ our budget constraint will shift out parallel to an amount equal to the amount of the voucher but the money we have to spend on ‘all other goods’ remains capped at the same amount we had to spend before the voucher. Voucher programs can make us worse off because of the cap on our ability to spend on ‘all other goods’ our indifference curves could limit us.

'''Direct Cash'''
This is straight cash with no restrictions on how it can be consumed. Direct cash may cause greater budget constraint because the recipient can spend the cash subsidy on all ‘other goods’ or on a ‘subsidized good’. Direct cash increases the entire budget constraint and shifts the indifference curves outward allowing us to maximize individual utility.

==Provision and funding==

{{Expand section|date=January 2010}}

Welfare may be provided directly by governments or their agencies, by private organizations, or by a combination. The term [[welfare state]] is used to describe a state in which the government provides the majority of welfare services; the phrase also describes those services collectively.

Welfare may be funded by governments out of general [[revenue]], typically by way of [[Redistribution (economics)|redistributive taxation]]. [[Social insurance]]-type welfare schemes are funded on a contributory basis by the members of the scheme. Contributions may be pooled to fund the scheme as a whole, or reserved for the benefit of a particular member. Participation in such schemes is either compulsory, or the program is subsidized heavily enough that most eligible individuals choose to participate.

Examples of social insurance programs include the [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] and [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] programs in the United States.<ref>[http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/pdf/asops/asop032_062.pdf "Social Insurance,"] Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 32, Actuarial Standards Board, January 1998</ref>

Some opponents of welfare argue that it affects work incentives. They also argue that the taxes levied can also affect work incentives. A good example of this would be the reform of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Per AFDC, some amount per recipeint is guaranteed. However, for every dollar the recipient earns the monthly stipend is decreased by an equivalent amount. For most persons, this reduces their incentive to work. This program was replaced by Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Under TANF, people were required to actively seek employment while receiving aid and they could only receive aid for a limited amount of time. However, states can choose the amount of resources they will devote to the program. Some people believe this is how we should reform Medicaid.<ref>{{cite book|last=Rosen|first=Harvey S.|title=Public Finance|year=2010|publisher=McGraw Hill|location=New York, NY10020|isbn=978-0-07-351135-1}}</ref>

== Ethnic heterogenity ==
{{Primary sources|section about ethnic heterogenity|date=February 2012}}
{{POV|section|date=February 2012}}
It has been argued that the main reason the United States does not have welfare state similar to that in Europe is the greater ethnic heterogenity in the United States. Reluctance to redistribute to other ethnic groups is argued to cause this. This has caused debate within the Left which has traditionally been both pro-immigration and pro-welfare. Research have found a statistically significant but relatively weak negative relationship between increasing ethnic heterogenity and support for redistribution and welfare as well as the degree of actual public spending. Increased ethnic heterogenity also causes a shift in public spending towards forms that can targeted towards specific ethnic groups ("ethnic patronage"). Related to this is that increased ethnic heterogenity is also associated with decreased [[Trust (social sciences)|social trust]] and social participation in the community.<ref>Stichnoth, Holger and Van der Straeten, Karine, Ethnic Diversity and Attitudes Towards Redistribution: A Review of the Literature (2009). ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 09-036. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1434847 or {{doi|10.2139/ssrn.1434847}}</ref>

==History==

In the [[Roman Empire]], social welfare to help the poor was enlarged by the Caesar [[Trajan]].<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/602150/Trajan#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Trajan%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopædia Britannica.com]</ref> Trajan's program brought acclaim from many, including [[Pliny the Younger]].<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/nerva_trajan.html PBS.org]</ref>

In Jewish tradition, charity (represented by [[tzedakah]]) is a matter of religious obligation rather than benevolence. Contemporary charity is regarded as a continuation of the [[Bible|Biblical]] [[Maaser Ani]], or poor-[[tithe]], as well as Biblical practices, such as permitting the poor to glean the corners of a field and harvest during the [[Shmita]] (Sabbatical year). Voluntary charity, along with [[prayer]] and [[repentance]], is believed to ameliorate the consequences of bad acts.
[[File:Abbey of Port-Royal, Distributing Alms to the Poor by Louise-Magdeleine Hortemels c. 1710.jpg|thumb|Distributing [[alms]] to the poor, abbey of Port-Royal des Champs c. 1710]]
The Song dynasty (c.1000AD) government supported multiple forms of social welfare programs, including the establishment of retirement homes, public clinics, and pauper's graveyards <ref>[[Song Dynasty]]</ref>

According to Robert Henry Nelson, "The [[medieval]] [[Roman Catholic Church]] operated a far-reaching and comprehensive welfare system for the poor..."<ref>Robert Henry Nelson (2001). "''[http://books.google.com/books?id=Rw-bHEGNqqcC&pg=PA103&dq&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false Economics as religión: from Samuelson to Chicago and beyond]''". [[Penn State Press]]. p.103. ISBN 0-271-02095-4</ref><ref>"[http://libro.uca.edu/charity/cw1.htm Chapter1: Charity and Welfare]", the American Academy of Research Historians of Medieval Spain.</ref>

The concepts of welfare and [[pension]] were put into practice in the early [[Sharia|Islamic law]]<ref name=Crone/>{{Failed verification|date=August 2010}} of the [[Caliphate]] as forms of ''[[Zakat]]'' (charity), one of the [[Five Pillars of Islam]], since the time of the [[Rashidun Caliphate|Rashidun caliph]] [[Umar]] in the 7th century. The [[tax]]es (including ''Zakat'' and ''[[Jizya]]'') collected in the [[treasury]] of an Islamic government were used to provide [[income]] for the needy, including the [[Poverty|poor]], [[Old age|elderly]], [[orphan]]s, [[widow]]s, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist [[Al-Ghazali]] (Algazel, 1058–1111), the government was also expected to store up food supplies in every region in case a [[disaster]] or [[famine]] occurred.<ref name=Crone>{{Cite book|url=http://books.google.com/?id=6u13vgHhSdgC&pg=PA308&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=''Medieval Islamic Political Thought''|first=Patricia|last=Crone|publisher=[[Edinburgh University Press]]|year=2005|isbn=0-7486-2194-6|pages=308–9}}</ref><ref name=Hamid>{{Cite journal|title=An Islamic Alternative? Equality, Redistributive Justice, and the Welfare State in the Caliphate of Umar|author=Shadi Hamid|journal=[[Monthly Renaissance|Renaissance: Monthly Islamic Journal]]|volume=13|issue=8|date=August 2003}} (see [http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augvipo2y3.html online])</ref> (See [[Bayt al-mal]] for further information.)

There is relatively little [[statistic]]al data on welfare [[transfer payment]]s before the [[High Middle Ages]]. In the [[medieval]] period and until the [[Industrial Revolution]], the function of welfare payments in [[Europe]] was principally achieved through private giving or [[Charity (practice)|charity]]. In those early times, there was a much broader group considered to be in poverty as compared to the 21st century.

Early welfare programs in Europe included the [[England|English]] [[Poor Law]] of [[1601]], which gave [[parish]]es the responsibility for providing welfare payments to the poor.<ref>[http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england The Poor Laws of England] at EH.Net</ref> This system was substantially modified by the 19th-century [[Poor Law Amendment Act]], which introduced the system of [[workhouse]]s.

It was predominantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that an organized system of state welfare provision was introduced in many countries. [[Otto von Bismarck]], [[Chancellor of the German Empire|Chancellor]] of Germany, introduced one of the first welfare systems for the [[working class]]es. In [[Great Britain]] the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] government of [[Henry Campbell-Bannerman]] and [[David Lloyd George]] introduced the [[National Insurance]] system in 1911,<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/britain/liberalreformsrev2.shtml Liberal Reforms] at [[BBC]] Bitesize</ref> a system later expanded by [[Clement Attlee]]. The United States did not have an organized welfare system until the [[Great Depression]], when emergency relief measures were introduced under [[President of the United States|President]] [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Even then, Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] focused predominantly on a program of providing work and stimulating the economy through [[public spending]] on projects, rather than on cash payment.

==Welfare systems==
===France===
[[Solidarity]] is a strong value of the French Social Protection system. The first article of the French Code of Social Security describes the principle of solidarity. Solidarity is commonly comprehended in relations of similar work, shared responsibility and common risks. Existing solidarities in France caused the expansion of health and social security.

===Germany===
{{Main|Hartz_concept#Hartz_IV}}

The welfare state has a long tradition in Germany dating back to the [[industrial revolution]]. Due to the pressure of the workers' movement in the late 19th century, [[Reichskanzler]] [[Otto von Bismarck]] introduced the first rudimentary state [[Otto_von_Bismarck#Welfare_state|social insurance scheme]]. Today, the social protection of all its citizens is considered a central pillar of German national policy. 27.6 percent of Germany's [[GDP]] is channeled into an all-embracing system of health, [[pension]], accident, longterm care and [[unemployment insurance]], compared to 16.2 percent in the US. In addition, there are tax-financed services such as child benefits (''Kindergeld'', beginning at [[€]]184 per month for the first and second children, €190 for the third and €215 for each child thereafter, until they attain 25 years or receive their first professional qualification),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bmfsfj.de/BMFSFJ/familie,did=31470.html |title=Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth |publisher=bmfsfj.de}}</ref> and basic provisions for those unable to work or anyone with an income below the [[poverty line]].<ref>[http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/society/main-content-08/social-security.html Tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de]</ref>

Since 2005, reception of full unemployment pay (60-67% of the previous net [[salary]]) has been restricted to 12 months in general and 18 months for those over 55. This is now followed by (usually much lower) ''Arbeitslosengeld II (ALG II)'' or ''Sozialhilfe'', which is independent of previous employment ([[Hartz_concept#Hartz_IV|Hartz IV]] concept).

Under ALG II, a single person receives €379 per month plus the cost of 'adequate' housing and [[health insurance]]. ALG II can also be paid partially to supplement a low work income.

===Canada===
{{Main|Social programs in Canada}}

Canada has a [[welfare state]] in the European tradition; however, it is not referred to as "welfare", but rather as "social programs". In Canada, "welfare" usually refers specifically to direct payments to poor individuals (as in the American usage) and not to healthcare and education spending (as in the European usage).<ref>[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp379-e.htm Parl.gc.ca]</ref>

The Canadian [[social safety net]] covers a broad spectrum of programs, and because Canada is a [[Canadian federalism|federation]], many are run by the [[Provinces of Canada|provinces]]. Canada has a wide range of government [[transfer payments]] to individuals, which totaled $145 billion in 2006.<ref name=govtransfers>[http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt05a.htm Government transfer payments to persons], [[Statistics Canada]], 8 November 2007, URL accessed 4 December 2007</ref> Only social programs that direct funds to individuals are included in that cost; programs such as medicare and [[public education]] are additional costs.

Generally speaking, before the [[Great Depression in Canada|Great Depression]], most social services were provided by religious charities and other private groups. Changing government policy between the 1930s and 1960s saw the emergence of a welfare state, similar to many [[Western Europe]]an countries. Most programs from that era are still in use, although many were scaled back during the 1990s as government priorities shifted towards reducing [[debt]] and [[Government budget deficit|deficit]].

===Italy===
{{Main|Italian welfare state}}

The Italian welfare state's foundations were laid along the lines of the [[corporatist]]-[[conservative]] model, or of its [[Mediterranean]] variant. Later, in the 1960s and 1970s, increases in public spending and a major focus on universality brought it on the same path as [[social-democratic]] systems. These policies proved to be financially unsustainable, as public debt and [[inflation]] grew alarmingly, preventing the welfare state from developing completely. In the 1990s, efforts moving towards [[decentralization]] and [[privatization]] were used in an attempt to cope with European pressures for economic stability, which were finally reached by 2001.

===Sweden===
{{Main|Swedish welfare|Social Security (Sweden)}}
[[Sweden]] has been categorised by some observers{{Who|date=February 2010}} as a middle way between a [[capitalist economy]] and a [[socialist economy]].{{Citation needed|date=February 2010}} Supporters of this system assert that Sweden has found a way of achieving high levels of [[social equality]], without stifling [[entrepreneurialism]]. The perspective has been questioned by supporters of [[economic liberalization]] in Sweden.

Government pension payments are financed through an 18.5% pension tax on all taxed incomes in the country, which comes partly from a [[tax]] category called a public pension fee (7% on [[gross income]]), and 30% of a tax category called employer fees on salaries (which is 33% on a netted income). Since January 2001 the 18.5% is divided in two parts: 16% goes to current payments, and 2.5% goes into [[individual retirement accounts]], which were introduced in 2001. Money saved and invested in government funds, and [[individual retirement account|IRAs]] for future pension costs, are roughly 5 times annual government pension expenses (725/150).

===Japan===

{{Main|Social welfare in Japan}}
In Japan, the Oita district ruled on October 18, 2010, that foreigners with permanent residency have no rights to welfare benefits.<ref name="Mainichi">[http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20101018p2a00m0na013000c.html Mainichi news]</ref>{{Dead link|date=April 2011}}

===United States===
====Modern welfare system====

{{Refimprove|date=March 2011}}
{{Main|Social programs in the United States}}
[[Image:Welfare Benefits Payments Graph.gif|thumb|250px|Overall decline in welfare monthly benefits (in 2006 dollars) <ref>[http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apa.shtml#ftanf2 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence] Figure TANF 2.</ref>]]

The welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the [[Great Depression]]. After the [[Great Society]] legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive aid from the American government.<ref name="'70s 72">{{cite book |title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|authorlink= David Frum|coauthors= |year= 2000|publisher= Basic Books|location= New York, New York|isbn= 0-465-04195-7|page= 72|pages= |url= }}</ref> Aid could include general welfare payments, health care through [[Medicaid]], [[food stamps]], special payments for [[pregnant]] women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits.<ref name="'70s 72"/> In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, the percentage increased to 10%.<ref name="'70s 72"/> In the 1970s, [[California]] was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system.<ref name="'70s 325">{{cite book |title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|authorlink= David Frum|coauthors= |year= 2000|publisher= Basic Books|location= New York, New York|isbn= 0-465-04195-7|page= 325|pages= |url= }}</ref> Virtually all [[food stamp]] costs are paid by the federal government.<ref name="nytimes tanf">{{cite news |title = Welfare Aid Isn't Growing as Economy Drops Off
|work = The New York Times |date = 2009-02-02 |url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all|accessdate = 2009-02-12 | first=Jason | last=Deparle}}</ref> In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.<ref>[http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ NPC.umich.edu]</ref>

Before the [[Welfare Reform Act of 1996]], welfare was "once considered an open-ended right," but [[welfare reform]] converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs."<ref name="wash post edelman">{{cite news |title = Welfare Rolls See First Climb in Years
|work = The Washington Post |date = 2008-12-17 |url = http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=328930&rc=&p=1&all=1|accessdate = 2009-02-13 }}</ref> Prior to reform, states were given "limitless"<ref name="wash post edelman"/> money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old [[Aid to Families with Dependent Children]] (AFDC) program.<ref name="heritage">{{cite web |title = Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending |work = Heritage Foundation |date = 2009-02-11 |url = http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm|accessdate = 2009-02-12 }}</ref> This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare (the state lost federal money when someone left the system).<ref name="national review">{{cite news |title = Ending Welfare Reform as We Knew It |work = The National Review |date = 2009-02-12 |url = http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY3NzZhNDBkNjU5MjAzZTE4YmQ4MmU5MTk2YTIxNTQ=n |accessdate = 2009-02-12 }} {{Dead link|date=September 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> Nationwide, one child in seven received AFDC funds,<ref name="heritage"/> which mostly went to single mothers.<ref name="nytimes tanf"/>

In 1996, under the [[Bill Clinton]] [[Clinton administration|administration]], [[United States Congress|Congress]] passed the [[Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act]], which gave control of the welfare system back to the states. Because welfare is no longer under the control of the federal government, there are basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. Still, most states offer basic assistance, such as health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"<ref name="nytimes tanf"/> amounts from the federal government were given out in a [[flat rate]] per state based on [[population]].<ref name="national review"/> Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called [[Temporary Assistance for Needy Families]] (TANF).<ref name="heritage"/> It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.<ref name="nytimes tanf"/><ref name="heritage"/><ref name="nytimes clinton">{{cite news |title = From Welfare Shift in '96, a Reminder for Clinton
|work = The New York Times |date = 2008-04-11 |url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/politics/11welfare.html?fta=y|accessdate = 2009-02-12 | first=Peter S. | last=Goodman}}</ref> The bill restricts welfare from most legal [[immigrant]]s and increased financial assistance for child care.<ref name="nytimes clinton"/> The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.<ref name="heritage"/>

Following these changes, millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),<ref name="nytimes clinton"/> employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.<ref name="nytimes tanf"/> A 2007 [[Congressional Budget Office]] study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.<ref name="nytimes clinton"/> The reforms were "widely applauded"<ref name="nypost">{{cite news |title = Change for the Worse |work = New York Post |date = 2009-01-30 |url = http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302009/news/columnists/change_for_the_worse_152723.htm|accessdate = 2009-02-12 }} {{Dead link|date=August 2010|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}</ref> after "bitter protest."<ref name="nytimes tanf"/> ''[[The Times]]'' called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."<ref name="the times">{{cite news |title = Obama warned over 'welfare spendathon'
|work = The Times |date = 2009-02-15 |url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5733499.ece|accessdate = 2009-02-15 | location=London | first=Tony | last=AllenMills}}</ref> However, critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls during the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, was due almost exclusively to their offloading into [[workfare]], giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient. The late 1990s were also considered an unusually strong economic time, and critics voiced their concern about what would happen in an economic downturn.<ref name="nytimes tanf"/>

In a 2011 article, ''Forbes'' reported, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)".<ref>{{cite news |title = America's Ever Expanding Welfare Empire |work = Forbes |date = 2011-04-22 |url =http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/|accessdate = 2012-04-10 | first=Peter | last=Ferrara}}</ref>

====Aspects of American welfare programs====

Aspects of the program vary in different states. [[Michigan]], for example, requires recipients to spend a month in a job search program before benefits can begin.<ref name="nytimes tanf"/> Saying that it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction", [[Florida]] Governor Rick Scott signed the Welfare Drug-Screen Measure which requires welfare applicants to undergo drug screening. The law went into effect on July 1, 2011. It was later revoked by a Federal Judge.

''[[National Review]]'' [[editorial]]ized that the [[Economic Stimulus Act of 2009]] will reverse the [[welfare-to-work]] provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s, and will again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.<ref name="national review"/> One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history.<ref name="the times"/> The [[United States House of Representatives|House]] bill provides $4 billion to pay 80% of states' welfare caseloads.<ref name="heritage"/> Although each state received $16.5 billion annually from the federal government as welfare rolls dropped, they spent the rest of the [[block grant]] on other types of assistance rather than saving it for worse economic times.<ref name="wash post edelman"/>

Eligibility for welfare depends on a variety of factors, including gross and net income, family size, and other circumstances like pregnancy, [[homeless]]ness, unemployment, and medical conditions.

;Arguments on the social and economic benefits of welfare

Welfare is a form of [[social protection]], as it is concerned with overcoming adverse situations that affect needy individuals. Although social protection was established to assist the working classes and to address transient poverty, it has come to encompass a greater variety of issues surrounding poverty.

The purpose of welfare is to assist individuals in need. The ultimate goal is to lift welfare recipients out of poverty and make them self-sufficient. Séverine Deneulin and Lila Shahani <ref name="Deneulin, Séverine 2009 pp. 23">Deneulin, Séverine, and Lila Shahani (2009). An Introduction to the Human Development and Capability Approach: Freedom and Agency. Human Development and Capability Association. pp. 23.</ref> have considered welfare as a mode of economic development, terming it the human development and [[capability approach]]. The capability approach focuses on people and not simply on economic growth. While this approach still considers economic growth and [[macroeconomic]] stability, the aim is to "expand what people are able to do and be".<ref name="Deneulin, Séverine 2009 pp. 23"/> This people-centered focus is "one that enables people to enjoy a healthy life, a good education, a meaningful job, physical safety, democratic debate and so on".<ref name="Deneulin, Séverine 2009 pp. 23"/>

[[Amartya Sen]] argues that enhancing an individual’s capabilities results in the greater likelihood for individual success and society's success.<ref name="Sen, Amartya 1999">Sen, Amartya (1999). "The Perspective of Freedom." In Development as Freedom, by Amartya Sen, 13-34. New York: Anchor Books.</ref> Enhancing freedoms is one means for development. Sen discusses "unfreedoms," <ref name="Sen, Amartya 1999"/> which can include [[famine]], lack of healthcare, and [[gender]] [[gender discrimination|discrimination]]. In this regard, welfare provides individuals with the basic needs necessary to live a healthy life with the capability to enjoy the freedoms that are inherently available to all. Therefore, it is essential to note the importance of welfare for underprivileged individuals who need governmental assistance in the form of welfare.

;Welfare stereotypes

Welfare has come to be associated with poverty. Additionally, [[African-American|blacks]] have overwhelmingly dominated images of poverty over the last few decades.<ref name="GilensMartin">Gilens, Martin (1996). "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media." Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, pp. 515-541.</ref> As Martin Gilens, assistant professor of Political Science at Yale University, states, "white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare".<ref>Gilens, Martin (1996). "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media." Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, p. 516</ref> This perception possibly perpetuates negative [[racial stereotype]]s and could increase Americans’ opposition and racialization of welfare policies.<ref name="GilensMartin" />

In FY 2009, African-American families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, [[Non-Hispanic Whites|white]] families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were [[Hispanic]].<ref>"[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/fy2009/indexfy09.htm Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients - Fiscal Year 2009]". United States Department of Health and Human Services.</ref> Since the implementation of TANF, the percentages of black and Hispanic families have increased, while the percentage of white families has decreased.<ref name="Schram, Sanford F 2005 pp. 253-268">Schram, Sanford F (2005).
"Contextualizing Racial Disparities in American Welfare Reform: Toward a New Poverty Research." Perspectives on Politics 3, no. 2, pp. 253-268.</ref> In 1992, blacks represented 37% of those on welfare; by 2002, this number increased slightly to 38%. In that same time period, the percentage of Hispanics rose from 18% to 25%. On the other hand, the percentage of welfare recipients who were white decreased from 39% to 32% in that same time frame.<ref name="Schram, Sanford F 2005 pp. 253-268"/>

;Timeline

1880s–1890s: Attempts were made to move poor people from work yards to [[poor houses]] if they were in search of relief funds.

1893–1894: Attempts were made at the first unemployment payments, but were unsuccessful due to the 1893–1894 [[recession]].

1932: The Great Depression had gotten worse and the first attempts to fund relief failed. The "Emergency Relief Act", which gave local governments $300 million, was passed into law.

1933: In March 1933, [[President of the United States|President]] [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] pushed Congress to establish the [[Civilian Conservation Corps]].

1935: The [[Social Security Act]] was passed on June 17, 1935. The bill included direct relief (cash, food stamps, etc.) and changes for unemployment insurance.

1940: Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) was established.

1964: [[Lyndon Johnson|Johnson’s]] [[War on Poverty]] is underway, and the [[Economic Opportunity Act]] was passed. Commonly known as "the [[Great Society]]"

1996: Passed under Clinton, the "[[Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act]] of 1996" becomes law.

<ref>"Welfare Reform History Timeline - 1900s to current United States." SearchBeat. Web. 12 Oct. 2009. <Http://society.searchbeat.com/welfare9.htm>.</ref>

====Demographic changes====
The United States population has experienced substantial changes over these two centuries. The population growth was influenced by high birth rates and fair levels of mortality, but also immigration. More than 34 million persons entered the United States between the 1790s and 1920 and an additional 29.4 million between 1921 and the present. The population has also aged significantly, moving from a median age of about 16 in 1800 to about 35 in 2000. Accompanying this has been a shift from a majority male to a majority female population. In 1800, about 51 percent of the population was male, but in 2000 it was only about 49 percent. These days, the United States display an older marrying age and growing numbers of divorce. <ref>{{cite journal|last=Heines|first=Michael|title=Population Characteristics|journal=Historical Statistics on the United States|year=2006|issue=Millenial edition|doi=10.1017/ISBN-9780511132971.Aa.ESS.01|accessdate=30 March 2012}}</ref>
Americans also changed from a rural nation to a more urban and mobile lifestyle. At least three fourths of the population was living in officially designated urban places in 1990. In recent years, about 15–20 percent of the population has moved to a different house each year. People switched from the Atlantic coast to the center of the nation and later to the Pacific and Mountain states.
Even though immigration has been restricted by the legislation in the 1920s, the great number of immigrants from all over Europe moving to the US in response to growing business opportunities, influenced the increase in population. In consequence, these factors affected the economy and society of the United States, paving the road for the welfare system. <ref>{{cite journal|last=Heines|first=Michael|title=Population Characteristics|journal=Historical Statistics on the United States|year=2006|issue=Millenial edition|doi=10.1017/ISBN-9780511132971.Aa.ESS.01|accessdate=30 March 2012}}</ref>

===Latin America===
{{Refimprove section|date=March 2010}}

====History====
The 1980s marked a change in the structure of [[Latin American]] social protection programs. Social protection embraces three major areas: social insurance, financed by workers and employers; social assistance to the population’s poorest, financed by the state; and labor market regulations to protect worker rights.<ref name="test">Barrientos, A. and Claudio Santibanez. (2009). "[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=4454868&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=&aid=4454864 New Forms of Social ,Assistance and the Evolution of Social Protection in Latin America]". Journal of Latin American Studies. Cambridge University Press 41, 1–26</ref> Although diverse, recent Latin American social policy has tended to concentrate on social assistance.

The 1980s had a significant effect on social protection policies. Prior to the 1980s, most Latin American countries focused on social insurance policies involving [[formal sector]] workers, assuming that the [[informal sector]] would disappear with [[economic development]]. The economic crisis of the 1980s and the [[liberalization]] of the [[labor market]] led to a growing informal sector and a rapid increase in poverty and inequality. Latin American countries did not have the institutions and funds to properly handle such a crisis, both due to the structure of the social security system, and to the previously implemented [[structural adjustment]] policies (SAPs) that had decreased the size of the state.

New welfare programs have integrated the multidimensional, [[social risk management]], and capabilities approaches into poverty alleviation. They focus on income transfers and service provisions while aiming to alleviate both long- and short-term poverty through, among other things, education, health, security, and housing. Unlike previous programs that targeted the working class, new programs have successfully focused on locating and targeting the very poorest.

The impacts of social assistance programs vary between countries, and many programs have yet to be fully evaluated. According to Barrientos and Santibanez, the programs have been more successful in increasing investment in [[human capital]] than in bringing households above the poverty line. Challenges still exist, including the extreme inequality levels and the mass scale of poverty; locating a financial basis for programs; and deciding on [[exit strategy|exit strategies]] or on the long-term establishment of programs.<ref name=test />

====Latin America’s most recent shift in social policies====
The economic crisis of the 1980s led to a shift in social policies, as understandings of poverty and social programs evolved (24). New, mostly short-term programs emerged. These include:<ref name="test1">[Barrientos, A. and Holmes, R. (2007) Social Assistance in Developing Countries database, version 3.0, available from www.chronicpoverty.org]</ref>
*[[Argentina]]: ''Jefes y Jefas de Hogar''
*[[Bolivia]]: ''Bonosol''
*[[Brazil]]: ''Bolsa Escola and [[Bolsa Familia]]''
*[[Chile]]: ''Chile Solidario''
*[[Ecuador]]: ''Bono de Desarollo Humano''
*[[Honduras]]: ''Red Solidaria''
*[[Mexico]]: ''Oportunidades'' (earlier known as ''Progresa'')
*[[Panama]]: ''Red de Oportunidades''
*[[Peru]]: ''Juntos''

====Major aspects of current social assistance programs====
*'''[[Conditional cash transfer]] (CCT) combined with service provisions.''' Transfer cash directly to households, most often through the women of the household, if certain conditions are met (e.g. children’s school attendance or doctor visits) (10). Providing [[free education|free schooling]] or healthcare is often not sufficient, because there is an opportunity cost for the parents in, for example, sending children to school (lost [[labor power]]), or in paying for the transportation costs of getting to a health clinic.
*'''[[Household]].''' The household has been the focal point of social assistance programs.
*'''Target the poorest.''' Recent programs have been more successful than past ones in targeting the poorest. Previous programs often targeted the working class.
*'''Multidimensional.''' Programs have attempted to address many dimensions of poverty at once. Chile Solidario is the best example.

====Critiques====
Income transfers can be either conditional or unconditional. There is no substantial evidence that conditional transfers are more effective than unconditional ones. Conditionalities are sometimes critiqued for being [[paternalism|paternalistic]] and unnecessary.

Current programs have been built as short-term rather than as permanent institutions, and many of them have rather short time spans (around five years). Some programs have time frames that reflect available funding. One example of this is Bolivia’s Bonosol, which is financed by proceeds from the privatization of [[utilities]]—an [[unsustainable]] funding source. Some see Latin America’s social assistance programs as a way to patch up high levels of poverty and inequalities, partly brought on by the current economic system.

Others argue that the effectiveness of the programs relies on the ability of mostly free-trade oriented economic systems to address poverty.


==See also==
==See also==
* [[Welfare (disambiguation)]]
{{Wiktionary}}
* [[Bet Tzedek Legal Services – The House of Justice]]
* [[Bet Tzedek Legal Services – The House of Justice]]
* [[Cloward–Piven strategy]]
* [[Cloward–Piven strategy]]
* [[Constitutional economics]]
* [[Corporate welfare]]
* [[Corporate welfare]]
* [[Economics terminology that differs from common usage]]
* [[Economics terminology that differs from common usage]]
Line 219: Line 26:


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist}}
* R.M. Blank (2001). "Welfare Programs, Economics of," ''[[International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences]]'', pp.&nbsp;16426–16432, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7MRM-4MT09VJ-3SM&_rdoc=12&_hierId=151000138&_refWorkId=21&_explode=151000131,151000138&_fmt=high&_orig=na&_docanchor=&_idxType=SC&view=c&_ct=12&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=75e01354776c336e00d82c11a3535461 Abstract.]
* Sheldon Danziger, Robert Haveman, and Robert Plotnick (1981). "How Income Transfer Programs Affect Work, Savings, and the Income Distribution: A Critical Review," ''Journal of Economic Literature'' 19(3), p [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0515%28198109%2919%3A3%3C975%3AHITPAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&size=LARGE p. 975]-1028.
* R.H. Haveman (2001). "Poverty: Measurement and Analysis," ''International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences'', pp.&nbsp;11917–11924. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7MRM-4MT09VJ-2M5&_rdoc=8&_hierId=151000138&_refWorkId=21&_explode=151000131,151000138&_fmt=high&_orig=na&_docanchor=&_idxType=SC&view=c&_ct=12&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1d54bfb6c524fa5f7809d7c52670426f Abstract.]
* Steven N. Durlauf et al., ed. (2008) ''[[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics]]'', 2nd Edition:
:"social insurance" by Stefania Albanesi. [http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000494&q=Public-assistance%20programs&topicid=&result_number=8 Abstract.]
:"social insurance and public policy" by [[Jonathan Gruber (economist)|Jonathan Gruber]] [http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000525&q=social%20welfare%20provision&topicid=&result_number=5 Abstract.]
:"welfare state" by [[Assar Lindbeck]]. [http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_W000053&q=Social%20welfare%20provision&topicid=&result_number=3 Abstract.]
* Nadasen, Premilla, Jennifer Mittelstadt, and Marisa Chappell, ''Welfare in the United States: A History with Documents, 1935–1996''. (New York: Routledge, 2009). 241 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-98979-4


==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}


[[Category:Welfare| ]]
[[Category:Welfare| ]]

Revision as of 09:44, 19 April 2012

Welfare is a general term which in most of the English speaking world means well-being, literally faring well or doing okay. It is a very old term, originally wel faran or "wellness" in Old English, and cognate with Old Norse velferð, modern Swedish välfärd and the Dutch welvaart.

It is often used in association with the well-being of certain population classes such as child welfare and animal welfare. In modern times it is used mostly in connection to the Welfare State, a term intended to describe a society in which the citizens experience a state of well-being, free from extreme hardship as a result of infirmity, old age, disability or unemployment. Welfare policies are intended to promote the well-being of citizens and welfare payments are simply transfer payments intended to bring a person or family to a minimum standard of living. Usually this has been through one or more organizations delivering a system of Social security.

In the United States, the terms welfare and Social Security do not have the same meaning as they do in the rest of the English speaking world. In the U.S., Social Security is reserved for a specific social support program providing a pension income for the retired and unable to work through disability. Welfare in the United States means the general system of social security. The American meaning is modern, since Chambers dictionary published in 1913 recognized only the original meaning of the word welfare. [1] Some crossover from American English into International English has occurred and thus terms such as welfare cheats and welfare fraud are understood and used in International English. However, the word welfare alone does not normally refer to a social program in most contexts except in the United States.

Outside the United States, and particularly in mainland Europe, the word welfare has overwhelmingly positive connotations in most countries through its association with positive attributes of health and wealth, as does the term social security with its association with solidarity and social cohesion, which are valued attributes. In contrast, in the United States the same terms welfare and social security have developed somewhat negative connotations through association with dependency, which is frowned upon because U.S. culture tends to value individual self sufficiency rather than co-operation and mutuality.


See also

References

  1. ^ http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=welfare&use1913=on
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welfare&oldid=488144625"