EC336 Readings in Political Theory (Note: Materials contained in this document were extracted from midterm examinations in Social Policy at the Graduate School of Social Work at Boston College Copyright is waived and EC336 students may copy and use these materials for examination preparation Copying for any other purpose is expressly forbidden) 3 of 5 EC336 Social Policy Analysis Woods College of Advancing Studies, Boston College Readings in Political Theory 3 of 5 Professor Ware Spring, 2006
" October 27, 1995 ~(cjw~~ L~~(9 ~~M ~ t~g) MIDTERM -- QUESTION #2 In an effective welfare state, living standards cease to be defined by wage and salary earnings or private charity Citizens can bully elected officials into providing increasingly lavish entitlements at the expense of the taxpayer As the public sector becomes overloaded with demands and responsibilities, society becomes ungovernable The moral and economic self-discipline ostensibly required for a viable democracy is jeopardized (Esping-Andersen, J983,p 29) Social welfare expenditures augment the national income by increasing human potential, providing jobs, and creating a more humane environment Keynesians hypothesize that social welfare expenditures are investments in human capital which ultimately increase national wealth and therefore boost everyone's net income (Karger and Stoesz, J 990, p J 0) Capitalism has functioned to set limits on the tendency of democracy toward egalitarianism in economic life and popular participation in politics It has generated hierarchical structures that have proved extraordinarily resistant to political intervention And it has produced among ordinary people a degree of passivity, a sense of their own incapacities, that makes it very difficult to mobilize large numbers of men and women for sustained and coherent political action Fearful and dependent in the workplace, they are unlikely to make forthright citizens Once again, this effect should not be underestimated It makes democracy in a capitalist society less meaningful than it might otherwise be (Etzkowitz, J980, p xxxii) Such disparities in views of the effects of welfare and the economic system in general on people's behavior and motivation are linked to different camps of political ~ ---~ ~ -- - --~
theory These theories, or ideologies, play an important role in society as they serve to describe, guide, and organize people, policy, and government Three of these ideologies-- conservatism, liberalism, and socialism -- derive from and operate on the principle of democracy, or a "government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled" (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1976, p 375) From this common root, they branch out into diverse paradigms of political thought The most fundamental difference between these ideologies is how they view human nature Conservatives believe that people are "relatively base and even somewhat sinister" (Baradat, 1994,p 22) Conservatives mistrust human nature, and doubt people's ability to use reason to control their animalistic impulses and emotions While the majority of conservatives believe that all people are born equally human, they contend that it is what one does after birth that counts (although one can be born into the elite) Life is one big competition and the more you accomplish or win, the better you are (Baradat, 1994, p 22-23) The elite are people who have either been born into the upperclass or have fought their way there, and therefore "are inherently better than others, and because of that superiority, should be the ruling class" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p xix) According to Etzkowitz then, because the elite have the greatest intellect they ought to rule the masses because they have the power and ingenuity to do so Thus, from the conservative standpoint, people are not equal, and in fact, "inequality is necessary for the proper organization and successful functioning of society" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p 281) -- ~~
m_- The liberals "believe that people are neither all good or all bad While most people are basically good, even good people have flaws They will act benevolently toward others much of the time but not necessarily in any and every situation" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p xxi) Liberals allow that people are physically and intellectually different from one another, and since they also believe in human competition, they recognize the results from that competition: differences in class, wealth, and prestige However, they argue that "these are only superficial differences The fact that all people are human -- equally human -- should be the condition that predisposes our conduct toward one another" (Baradat, 1994,p 23) "Liberals hold the position that inequality is acceptable only if every member of the society is given the chance to overcome inequality Liberals emphasize providing the means, such as education and health care, to enable those who start with a disadvantage to compete with those who have privileged backgrounds" (Etzkowitz, 1980, p 282) Liberals believe that these means are provided within a capitalist society, and in this respect liberalism is linked closely with the conservative perspective Both of these political paradigms tend "to regard capitalism as the 'best' economic mode of production because it affords, they argue, the maximum feasible individual freedom Each perspective envisions as its 'ideal' society a perfectly functioning capitalist democracy" (Gordon, 1977, p 14) --- -----
Socialists, who of the three fall the furthest to the left of the political spectrum "believe that people are basically good They naturally feel concern for fellow human beings" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p xxiv) Socialists recognize that people are different, but they differ from liberalists and conservatives in that the society they envision is not based on capitalistic competition that accentuates these inequalities, but cooperation that emphasizes equality "In general, radicals envision that socialism can provide a better basis than capitalism for transition toward an 'ideal' society in which people could be free to develop themselves as human beings and at the same time to cooperate with others in developing their potential together" (Gordon 1977,p 8) Socialists argue that people have the right to be treated equally within society regardless of their differences -- they should have equal input (production) and, consequently, the right to equal output (distribution) Everyone should participate in their equitable share of society's work and everyone has the right to the products of that collective work: material goods and social services necessary for ensuring individual well-being However; just as conservatives and liberals assume discrepancies in wealth in their society, so do socialists Socialist agree that people should be encouraged to improve their individual talents and can be rewarded for their expertise in these areas (Etzkowitz, 1980, p xxv - xxiv) - ------- ~
Only the most fanatic socialist wants to eliminate all differences in material status Most socialists recognize that people are different: some are more talented or hard working than others and should be rewarded for their extra contributions Still, they believe that all people have a right to a reasonably comfortable life, given the economy's ability to produce enough for all Consequently, they want to eliminate poverty Extreme wealth is not necessarily incompatible with a socialist state (Baradat, 1994, p 179), as long as this accumulation of wealth does not preclude someone else from their fair share of the distribution Hence, all three ideologies reward citizens who are deserving However, the definition of deserving citizens differ widely Socialists believe that the "hard, dirty, physical labor such as coal mining and housework merit society's rewards in the form of good pay and high status" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p 281) In contrast, conservatives would reward people's corporate ingenuity and managerial expertise with better jobs, more money, and greater social status and whilecleavingthe menial jobs to the country's poor Liberals reward corporate ingenuity as well, but believe that these rewards should not be given at the expense of the rest of society Unequal incomes would still determine who can buy beachfront condominiums, second cars and college slots for academic underachievers But they would not block access to first homes, first cars and college slots for solid students; or would they confer vastly unequal power over legislators andjuries As the British egalitarian R H Tawney once stated his reasonable goal: "Differences of remuneration between different individuals might remain; contrasts between the civilization of different classes would vanish" (Gordon, 1977, p 33) Liberals assert that these contrasts between the elite and the impoverished would -
diminish through government regulation of industry and increased government support for social services (Etzkowitz, 198O,p 255) They believe that government responsibility should be focused in three important areas: redistributing income, ensuring that the market satisfies consumer preferences, and providing certain basic goods that the market is incapable of providing (Gordon, 1977,p 13) However, liberals believe that while the government is obliged to carry out these necessary social functions, government power should not become so centralized and powerful that it interferes with basic human rights "While most Americans desire a socially protective government, they do not desire a iarge government" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p 257) Conservatives, who are against a large government as well, agree that the government serves a protective function, although it's not a socially protective function as in the liberal view Since conservatives have a basically negative view of human nature, they believe that strong social institutions are necessary to impose social order (Etzkowitz, 198O,p xix) They favor impersonal, "authoritarian controls over the individuals in society" (Baradat, 1994, p 22), and "desire a strong government and military to protect the security of the United States" (Etzkowitz, 198O,p 255) Since "they believe that human reason is severely limited and cannot be relied upon to find solutions to ponderous problems, they tend to place great importance on institutions and traditions that have evolved over time They value longevity for its own sake and resist change in social institutions" (Baradat, 1994,p 23)
However, because even the ruling class has these irrational tendencies, conservatives argue that the government should stay out of the marketplace, which is the "fundamental institution" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p xix) in society "Conservatives tend to have greater faith than liberals in the efficiency and optimality of the private market mechanism, and to have greater fear than liberals do of both government inefficiency and government infringement on personal liberties" (Gordon, 1977,p 13) The economy therefore, should be self-regulating (Karger and Stoesz, 1990, p 11), and the business corporation, whose primary goal is to expand the economy, should be viewed as a model social institution (Etzkowitz 1980p xx) If the marketplace is the primary institution in a conservative society, private property is the "inalienable right" (Baradat, 1994,p 24) derived from that institution This right to private property dominates virtually every other human right, and just as government should limit interference in the marketplace, the government has no legitimate power to interfere with the individual's right to accumulate property (Baradat, 1994, p 24) Socialists andfree-market conservatives begin with fundamentally different ideas of what engenders social solidarity To the laissez-faire mind, the good society results when each individual is given maximum opportunity to fulfill his or her own talents The presence of "free" social income is a wicked wrench in the wheels of a free society, because one person's benefit becomes an imposed burden on someone else Whereas socialists view solidarity in terms of a collectively shared responsibility for personal misfortunes, laissez-faire ideology insists that the optimal human community must spring from an absolute minimum of imposed burdens and responsibilities" (Esping-Anderson, 1983, p 30) - -
It is the socialist position that society's institutions often subvert people's good nature and their equality when they neglect to satisfy human needs Hence, the goal of socialism is to create social institutions that allow for the greatest fulfillment of human needs Private property, they argue, should not be the fundamental institution of society as it promotes inequality between the classes (Etzkowitz, 1980,p xxiv) Socialists argue that inequality is "fundamentally unacceptable and that society should be reorganized to eliminate distinctions based on inherited property The basic form of inequality derives from the fact that members of one class control the means of production in a society, thereby making all others subservient to them To eliminate inequality, the means of production of a society must be socialized and controlled, directed and coordinated by those who work" (Etzkowitz, 1980,p xxiv) As the above notes, a major concept in socialism is placing ownership of production with the public Socialists believe that a free society needs to be cautious about centralized power, and/or placing all their productivity in the hands of the government But much more important than the production of goods is the distribution of goods within society (Baradat, 1994,p176-177) Socialists believe that real social welfare is structural and can only be accomplished through a redistribution of resources In a just society -- where all goods, resources, and opportunities are made available to everyone -- all but the most specific forms of welfare (health care, rehabilitation, counseling, and so forth) are unnecessary In the context of a radical framework, poverty is inextricably linked to structural inequality Therefore, people need welfare because they are exploited and denied opportunity to resources In an unjust society, welfare functions as a substitute, albeit a puny one, for social justice (Karger and Stoesz, 1990,p13) --~- --
In contrast to this structural view of poverty, "in the conservative view, poverty is the result of an individual's lack of success in improving his or her economic condition; it is not the responsibility of society or a result of existing social arrangements" (Etzkowitz, 1980, p xx) In fact in the conservative viewpoint, poverty is essential for efficient market functioning Poverty ensures that the menial jobs are done, creates social service and other relatedjobs, and helps guarantee the status of the elite The poor as a class also serve a necessary role in a conservative society They help subsidize affluent people, buy goods that others don't want, uphold social norms by being punished as deviants, serve as shock absorbers to the affluent when they are made to cushion economic and political change and growth in society, among other things (Gordon, 1977,p 312-316) Conservatives believe that the forces of the free marketplace, or, in essence, "survival of the fittest" -- ensures society's general welfare Ronald Reagan's stance on welfare exemplified this conservative view of poverty The key, Reagan believed, "to solving the welfare problem was not only cutting back on assistance but also removing the responsibility for the needy from the vast federal bureaucracy, where, in his opinion, waste and inefficiency abounded, and returning it to the states and localities" (Trattner, 1994, p 364) In other words, Reagan did not believe that welfare should be implemented from so many different bureaucratic levels at one time as this was a waste time, resources and money; there should only be one institution responsible (ie the state), not two or more
Liberals would argue that to let the unregulated economic market work to solve poverty is to wrong While poverty may be the result of lack of motivation or laziness on the part of some people, the underlying cause for most of the poverty-stricken is the environment Hence, liberals believe because it is partly society's fault that people are pocr, the federal government needs to play an active role in helping to eliminate or at least alleviate poverty A liberal believes "in more government action to meet individual need" (DiNitto, 1995, p 22) The American political-bureaucratic complex must be restructured so that it will attend to the demands of average citizens rather than of those best organized to apply maximal political pressure or the largest campaign contributions The right combination of centralization and citizen control has to be found to make this complex both effective and democratic, responsive to the majority rule as well as to the rights of minorities, at state and inferior levels as well as at the federal level some basic services, such as health, education, legal aid, and housing, should be available to everyone at a decent level of quality, so that for example, the poor would not be confined to slums or public housing projects but could choose from the same kind of housing as everyone else (Etzkowitz, 1980,p 300) Socialists, who take this a step further and demand the creation of the welfare state declare that "only eliminating class differences through a radical restructuring of society would solve the problem of poverty" (DiNitto, 1995,p 84) The state is a welfare state when it guarantees a decent standard of living to all, as a citizen's right For this kind of commitment to be serious, the welfare state must be founded on three basic principles First, it must vest each individual to entitlements that do not directly depend on work performance, the marketplace, or for that matter, the Protestant ethic of self-reliance All citizens are in effect guaranteed basic economic security Second, it entails a commitment to - - --
distributive justice and substantive equality Beyond assuring minimum standards of decency, the welfare state in principle and practice will seek to correct the gross maldistributions of incomes and wealth produced by the market Third, and this is perhaps the most important, the welfare state must be based on "social solidarity" (Esping-Anderson, p 28) The way in which each of these three different views see humanity and equality dictates how they view social problems (or if they even see an issue as a problem) and how they envision institutions playing a role in the solution to these problems From their foundation on how they view human nature, they obviously look at society and its problems very differently, but fairly consistently within their own paradigm Conservatives see individuals as responsible for their own well-being, arguing that institutions can impose social control, but economics should be the ultimate governor because the market is the primary institution and competition is the primary human motivator Liberals work within the capitalist system, however, they believe that humans are influenced by the environment For this reason, their personal situations are often not their fault, and so society has a responsibility to offer support The government plays a key role in organizing society to help the poor Socialism, on the other hand, demands a complete restructuring of society Socialists state that capitalism is fundamentally wrong, as the competition it creates breeds human inequality Humans should cooperate with each other, and ensure that everyone has equal and adequate access to all human necessities, -
With regard to health care, one can see these opposing views plainly Etzkowitz says that health care is an important part of the economic security that socialists want to guarantee all citizens Socialists believe that access to good health care is a basic human right, and that the only way that America could offer health care to all citizens would be to completely overhaul the system and arrange for everyone to have a say in how it would be reorganized The system would need to be democratized and deprofessionalized (Etzkowitz, 1980,p 221-223) I believe this means that in a socialist system, each and every citizen would be insured and guaranteed quality health care under a comprehensive insurance plan, ie if health care is believed to be a basic human right, then each and every citizen ought to have access to quality care In addition, each and every citizen would be involved in the decision making regarding the administration of that health care In essence, the system would be controlled by the people -- it would truly be their health care system Liberals also believe that health care is a basic human right, however, they argue that guaranteeing a comprehensive health care plan can be accomplished within the existing system through better coordination and financing While consumers should have a say in the improvements, that input would be limited Health care would continue to be administered and controlled by doctors and professionals (Etzkowitz, 1980,p 221-223) Although I do not know too much about what Hillary Clinton was proposing with her health care plan, I believe it closely mirrored the liberal view outlined above She wanted --- - - ---
to guarantee health care to all people, but she believed it could be done through our established system (albeit with revisions) She envisioned that the system would continue to be run by doctors and professionals, and in fact consulted these professionals on their ideas for change Citizens, or consumers of health care, would have had very little say in the changes that were proposed, in fact, I believe that had the plan been passed into policy, consumer choice in doctors, clinics, etc would have been severely limited Therefore, while liberals believe that health care is a basic human right, it is the government's job to administer that right, and so, the government ought to make health care decisions for the people Conservatives also argue that health care is best left under the control of doctors, who then should compete for their business Government should not interfere with the individual's choice of health care provider Health care, like most other issues in the conservative paradigm, is the individual's choice and responsibility (Etzkowitz, 1980, p 221) Hence, because individuals are free to choose, health care ought to be a free choice, and because competition is a driving force in human nature, doctors ought to be able to compete for their business This conservative viewpoint allows that many people will not have access to health care, but it is accepted as a fact of competition '" " r,ftm ~ ~ \h<,,,), 1- U) Like many Americans, my own political views are a mostly a mix of the liberal and conservative paradigms I believe in some of the socialist ideas, however as Baradat -- -~ -
REFERENCES Baradat, Leon P (1994) PoliticalIdeologies: Their Origins and Impact New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc DiNitto, Diana M (1995) Social Welfare: Politicsand Public Policy Boston: Allyn and Bacon Esping-Andersen, Gosta (Winter, 1983) After the Welfare State Public Welfare, 28-34 Etzkowitz, Henry (1980) Is America Possible? S1 Paul, MN: West Publishing Co Gordon, David M (1977) Problems in PoliticalEconomy: An Urban Perspective Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Company,; Karger, Howard t and Stoesz, David (1990) American Social Welfare Policy: A StructuralA,pproach White Plains,NY: Longman Trattner, Walter 1 (1994) From Poor Law to Welfare State NY: The Free Press Webster's New World Dictionary (1976) New Jersey: William Collins & World Publishing Co -- ---