Welfare state

[[File:Otto von Bismarck.JPG|thumb|right|165px|Otto von Bismarck, creator of the world's first modern welfare state.]]
{{cquote|We cannot protect a man from all sickness and misfortune. But it is our obligation, as a society, to provide assistance when he encounters these difficulties... A rich society must care for the poor.|||Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck.<ref name="R-ch5">"Chapter 5 - Germany: "Applied Christianity." ''The Healing of America: a Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care:'' by T. R. Reid, Penguin Books, 2010. </ref>}}
{{economics}}

In the strictest sense, a '''welfare state''' is a [[state]] that has assumed complete responsibility for the welfare of all its citizens or residents. Presently, the term is primarily used in a looser sense to refer to a state that provides certain services to all that state's residents, regardless of their wealth, or contributions, simply because they are certain 
inferior
 [[Human|animals]] thought to be entitled to [[Human rights|certain rights]].

"Welfare state" is often used as a [[snarl word]] and taken to be a synonym for "[[socialist]]." This is erroneous; although socialist states offer welfare programs if they are not too broke to do so, most modern welfare states are quite [[Capitalism|capitalist]].<ref group="note">For example private companies such as Electrolux, Saab, Volvo, Metro News, IKEA, and Ericsson originated in Sweden.</ref> [[Conservapedia]] 
argues
 states: "Big government [[liberal]] Welfare state leads to [[socialist]] [[Nanny state]], leads to [[communist]] [[Police state]]."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Nanny_State</ref>

Throughout the centuries, there has been much speculation as to how such a state could be brought into existence. Hope was strongest in the first half of the twentieth century, and many countries became "welfare states," but in the later half of that century, many of these found their models to be economically [[Inflation|non-viable]] and instituted [[Neoliberalism#Economic neoliberalism|reforms]] that relieved the states of some responsibility.  In some cases, those reforms [[Great Recession|went too far]].

==The good==
Typical candy offered by welfare states include:
*[[Universal health care]]
*Free or subsidized [[education]] (at least until the end of high school)
*Social insurance, such as the "[[Social Security]]" plan for the elderly in the [[United States]]
*Payments to the unemployed so they can still eat and pay rent
*Higher personal assessment of well-being across all income levels<ref>[http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/4/1241.abstract Assessing the Impact of the Size and Scope of Government on Human Well-Being]</ref>

Present-day welfare states include:
*The [[United Kingdom]], who invented the phrase
*[[Sweden]]
*[[Norway]]
*[[France]]
*Most other civilized nations

==The bad==
If for [[Greece|some reason]] a welfare state that has taken on the responsibility of providing certain free services to its citizens is suddenly unable to provide one of the said services to one of the said citizens, costly lawsuits generally ensue and the welfare state is forced to pay out even ''more'' money.{{fact}} If a welfare state has ''really'' bitten off more than it can chew, this can lead to economic woes.

Other worries include:
*High [[tax]]es (up to 57% in [[Belgium]]<ref>[http://www.expatica.com/be/finance_business/tax/taxation-in-belgium-8618_8286.html Taxation in Belgium], Expatica</ref>)
*Lower economic growth,<ref>http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/10/the-welfare-state-and-economic-growth.html</ref> though usually not by much, and said growth tends to be more stable.{{fact}}
*Reduced incentives to work, <ref>https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7220/economics/should-welfare-benefits-be-increased-to-reduce-inequality/</ref> or subsequent risk of [[welfare queen|welfare dependency]] (aka welfare trap). (More of an issue if there exists no mechanism for re-integration, as opposed to being a fault of welfare in general; see the [[Nordic model]] and its "flexicurity" approach.)

==The ugly==
A claim from those of a [[rugged individualism]] bend is that empires institute various welfare/charity schemes and that this shows the inherent faults of welfare schemes. However, this does not necessarily tie into a criticism of [[imperialism]], but may instead serve as a means of decrying such initiatives as a sign of the [[Social degeneration|increasing decadence, weakness and decline of these empires]]. This was indeed the approach taken by {{wpl|John Bagot Glubb|John Bagot Glubb/Glubb Pasha}} (very much a product of the [[British Empire]] and its dissolution) in his 1977 essay on imperial decline. Here he lumped together such disparate entities as the waning British Empire of his day and its post-WWII comprehensive welfare initiatives with the Spanish and [[French colonial empire]]s, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, Assyria, Babylon, the Byzantines, pretty much every Chinese Dynasty, the Japanese Empire, and Persia. To compare various antique and medieval public charity schemes (e.g. the poor relief, religious charities, the Roman bread dole, etc.) with the more or less universal welfare states of the post-WWII era is rather tenuous, to say the least, and seems to be a way to attack such comprehensive welfare initiatives as a sign of a decadent polity and a feckless {{wpl|Hoi polloi|hoi polloi,}} heading for the historical ash heap in contrast with the [[good old days]] of vigorous imperialism.

Along these lines, they also make such arguments as "there is no such thing as a free lunch," and insist that welfare states are like stage magicians, offering citizens candy with one hand to [[Slippery slope|distract them while they snatch away the citizens' liberties with the other hand]]. (If someone gave one of these people a cake, their first response would probably be to call the bomb squad.) Theoretically, this is based on [[Friedrich August von Hayek|Friedrich Hayek]]'s ''Road to Serfdom'', the traditional anti-[[John Maynard Keynes|Keynes]]ian bible. Now, "free" may sound like music to the ears of the recipient but not the ones paying for it. However, "free" in this context means "funded by a combination of tax money and government loans and thus available at no further costs." Of course, this ceases when the government runs out of money and cannot afford to borrow more.<ref group="note">Thank you, [[Margaret Thatcher]]! </ref> Another criticism may be that the welfare state incentivizes dependency on government and discourages individual responsibility and self-reliance. Whether this makes sense depends on your personal philosophy. Would you prefer a more communal or individualistic society? How much trust do you have in government actions?

The idea that the body politic can eventually degenerate into a police state if the welfare state is maintained was somewhat validated by the [[Populism|populist]] [[authoritarianism]] of [[New Labour]], and the encroaching threats to liberty it represented.{{fact}} But while "welfare state" policies have facilitated large increases in the size of the state across [[Europe]], the jury is out as to whether this will necessarily lead to the rise of authoritarian governments as a consequence. Probably not, given that even at the height of New Labour populism, citizens could still buy [[car]]s and read [[news]]papers and stuff...

And, for completeness' sake, here is the [[Democracy Index|2023 Democracy Index's]] top ten nations for responsible government:
{{collist|2|
#Norway (9.81)
#[[New Zealand]] (9.61)
#[[Iceland]] (9.45)
#Sweden (9.39)
#[[Finland]] (9.30)
#[[Denmark]] (9.28)
#[[Ireland]] (9.16)
#[[Switzerland]] (9.14)
#[[Netherlands]] (9.00)
#[[Taiwan]] (8.92)
}}
These are all welfare states.<ref group="note">For the curious, the US was ranked 29th.</ref> For how long they will stay that way remains to be seen.

In 1981, [[Ronald Reagan]] became [[POTUS]] on a platform that opposed welfare, and government more generally. At the time, Canadians lived 1.5 years longer than Americans. By 2021, where no such significant political position, the life expectancy of Canadians was 5 years greater than Americans. Multiplied across the two populations for that timespan, that's 1.5 billion years of American life lost.<ref>''On Freedom'' by Timothy Snyder (2024) Crown. ISBN 9780593728727.</ref>{{rp|132}}<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20231023182151/https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/ How does U.S. life expectancy compare to other countries?] by Shameek Rakshit et al. (October 12, 2023) ''Peterson-KFF'' (archived from October 23, 2023).</ref>

==See also==
*[[Entitlement program]] &mdash; an alternative name, often used as a [[snarl word]].
*[[Libertarianism]] &mdash; the exact opposite [[political philosophy]] to welfare statism.
*[[Poverty]] &mdash; it sucks.
*[[Republican Party]] &mdash; a [[political party]] in the United States which works to prevent the establishment of a welfare state there.
*[[Welfare queen]] &mdash; a [[snarl word]] that [[dog whistle|deploys]] both [[sexist]] and [[racist]] language to paint welfare recipients as crooks.
*[[Corporate welfare]]

==Notes==
<references group="note"/>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Political terms]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Social justice]]
[[Category:Economic philosophies]]

Categories: Government, Political terms, Economics, Social justice, Economic philosophies