PPE Assignment H2A PDF

Preview

Summary

H2A - had to discuss best way of defining welfare...

Description

What is the most plausible way to think about 'welfare', when it comes to policy-making? Defend one, against at least one other, of: welfare as happiness; welfare as hedonism; welfare as displeasure-minimization; welfare as one of Esping-Anderson's 'worlds'

Providing ‘welfare’ for individuals is key for promoting peace, wellbeing, safety and health within a society. However, the term’s intrinsic complexity has prompted contestation of what ‘welfare’ specifically entails, meaning it is often challenging to derive an agreed definition. Accounts have focused on individuals achieving optimal happiness alongside Gosta Epsing-Andersen’s assessment of the three “worlds” of welfare states within expansive and complex historical directions which have received criticism for its simplistic approach by philosophers including Daniel Buhr and Jane Lewis. This will be contrasted with a utilitarian approach of displeasure-minimisation which offers greater adaptability to changing socio-political contexts with reference to Orsola Lelkes and Daniel Kahneman in the context of COVID-19. It will ultimately be demonstrated that a perception of welfare that focuses on displeasure-minimization is significantly more holistic and consequently effective at identifying core human needs.

Esping-Andersen’s macro-economic steering fails to acknowledge the significance of satisfying individual needs. Anderson primarily firstly gender-dimensions as Gelisson (2002, p. 138) contends that Esping-Andersen severely lacks a family focus and does not adequately consider the extent to which women are excluded from, or included in, the labour market. Jane Lewis (1992, p. 164) affirms Esping-Andersen’s construct intended to consider the relationship between work and welfare but overlooked the significance of unpaid work and that women play an integral role in performing unpaid

work. Kolberg (1992, p. 24) supports this by articulating that families play the largest role in welfare and urges Esping-Anderson to consider the critical relationship between paid work, unpaid work, and welfare. Lewis (1992, p. 165) therefore stresses the need to incorporate unpaid work such care and domestic labour as macroeconomic models too readily prioritise the needs of the greater economy at the expense of individuals. Additionally, Buhr (2015, p. 275), argues Esping-Andersen has paid insufficient consideration of the interplay between welfare services and the industrial sector as his theory appeared to positively consider welfare’s inherent complexities but instead prompts a mushrooming of alternative classifications (Buhr 2015, p. 278). Considering the inextricable link between welfare and economic wellbeing, Esping-Anderson sought to integrate the welfare regime into the whole economy but instead associated it to the service sector which significantly narrowed its scope (Buhr 2015, p. 280). It is imperative for Esping-Andersen’s classifications to be connected and prioritise individual needs which can create a more holistic perception of welfare.

Achieving maximal happiness lacks adequate normative content and is greatly insensitive to evolving socio-economic conditions.

Consequently, such theories flounder with the realities of basic needs.

Happiness as a concept itself is vague, multifaceted, and a subjective phenomenon, which creates complications in receiving effective measurements and quantitative results (White 2015, p. 2). Lelkes (2013, p. 3) asserts that happiness is challenging for policy-makers to identify due to its private nature which is undoubtedly shaped by an individual’s goals, strategies and attitudes. Happiness is essentially a qualitative concept that is difficult to quantify and is harder to measure with confidence in a way that allows for a meaningful comparison between individuals and different society groups (White 2015, p. 2). This lack of uniformity creates barriers in identifying individual needs across society, and can also impose ethical complexities that complicate policy implementation and cannot be fixed by improving measurements (White 2015, p. 2). Moreover, the differing and unpredictable interpretations of happiness

make it increasingly problematic to respond to unprecedented socio-economic situations and implement a standardised approach to address people’s wellbeing. As a result, happiness is an inherently subjective and qualitative nature, meaning that a more pragmatic definition of welfare is needed to create a more uniform approach that can better identify objective needs.

Enabling policy-makers to focus on displeasure-minimization ultimately allows welfare to be increasingly adaptable and holistic. Displeasure can be regarded as an undesirable personal condition as such poverty or social exclusion which prevents someone from fulfilling potential (Kahneman 2011, p. 392). The utilitarian approach recognises the role of pain and suffering in an individual's life with a consequentialist perspective. This means that there is a greater focus on individual emotional distress. Kahneman (2011, p. 394) asserts that a significant minority of the population experiences considerable emotional distress for a long duration of their life. As a result, the social patterns of dissatisfaction suggest a significant inequality in the distribution of pain in society as those groups who typically experience social exclusion tend to suffer the most: the disabled, the unemployed, the poor, ethnic minorities and those who are socially isolated, and thus to have greater probability of being dissatisfied (Lelkes 2013, p. 4). There is, therefore, a focus on addressing extreme life adversities and empowering minority groups to be able to participate in society to the same degree as groups who are more included. This model is significantly more effective in identifying objective needs as well as vulnerable goods, meaning that basic needs are better targeted.

A concept of welfare that focuses on displeasure-minimization is significantly more responsive and sensitive to contextual variations, allowing for a more pragmatic response to welfare. Lelkse (2013, p. 2) asserts through her 2013 cross-sectional cross-national dataset with 57,000 participants that there exists observable personal characteristics that predict unhappiness more than happiness due to its universality. Consequently, it is easier for quantitative researchers to derive results and trends on a macro scale as

misery also tends to strongly relate to broader social issues such as unemployment, poverty and social isolation (Lelkse, 2013 p. 2). Therefore, welfare would be significantly more efficient by targeting displeasure and would be able to meaningfully draw comparisons and trends across different societal groups. Welfare would thus empower minority groups by targeting addressing human suffering such as poverty which would lift them to a closer level of satisfaction to that of the majority which can then enable them to pursue a path of self-actualisation (Larsen 2007, p. 89). This effectively aligns with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and dominant philosophical accounts whereby achieving optimal happiness (e.g self-actualisation) requires firstly addressing basic needs such as security, warmth, shelter (McLeod 2020). Equating welfare with happiness-maximisation disregards basic needs which means that welfare would only focus on the majority who do not experience significant life adversities (Kahneman 2011, p. 389). Similarly, Esping-Andersen’s focus on the bigger-picture would have a similar neglect of minority groups which experience significant displeasure which would fail to empower the most vulnerable groups (Kahneman 2011, p. 389). As a result, displeasure-minimization provides a definition which better targets significant adversities and prevents further suffering.

To

understand

the

effectiveness

of

displeasure-minimization,

it

is

critical

to

apply

displeasure-minimization to the current socio-economic context of COVID-19. A definition of welfare that focuses on reducing human suffering has enabled pragmatic solutions such as JobKeeper to safeguard people from unprecedented social-risks which become central to policy during a crisis (Spies-Butcher 2020, p.156). This has prevented unemployment increasing by 5.5% as of July 2020 by keeping people employed by their existing firms under the implementation and extension JobKeeper and JobSeeker, costing $130 billion (Hamilton 2020). The significantly high expenditure in welfare openly defies the ‘Three Worlds’ model where Esping-Andersen demonstrated that Australia traditionally was not a high-taxing and high-spending welfare state which falsifies his assumption of ideological-adherence and

fails to consider changing responses to exceptional social contexts (Ramia 2020). Similarly, a model of happiness-maximisation would have overlooked individual needs of keeping employed, and financial security across the general population, meaning that it would have floundered on COVID-19’s inherent socio-economic complexities (Ramia 2020). Displeasure-minimization therefore enables the concept of welfare to be highly adaptable in addressing core-needs during unprecedented times.

It has been argued that a pragmatic and receptive definition of welfare is integral to preserving people’s needs and ensuring ‘welfare’. This would aid those who are experiencing significant disadvantage and create

a

welfare model more

sensitive to contextual variations that are overlooked by

happiness-maximisation and Esping-Andersen’s classification of welfare states. Targeting people’s basic needs and reducing human suffering significantly empowers marginalised groups which is an integral stepping-stone towards achieving self-actualisation for the greater population.

1326 Words

References Adereth, M 2020, Phenomenal World  M  ay 14th, 2020, The Postindustrial Welfare State , Phenomenal World, New York, viewed 18 September 2020, .

Bonoli, G 1997, ‘Classifying Welfare States: a two-dimension approach’, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 351-372. Borland, J 2020, Were it not for JobKeeper, unemployment would be 11.7%, up from 5.2% in one month.  he University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Here’s how the numbers pan out, T Newsroom, Melbourne, viewed 17 September 2020, . Buhr, 2015, ‘More than just Welfare Transfer? A review of the Scope of Esping-Andersen’s Welfare Regime Typology’, Social Policies and Society, vol. 1 4, no. 2, pp. 271-285.

 rinceton. Esping-Andersen, G 1990, Three worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press, P Gelissen, J 2002, ‘Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report’, Journal of European social policy, vol. 12, no. 2 , pp. 137-158.

 he Hamilton, S 2020, Bowing out gracefully: how they’ll wind down and better JobKeeper, T Conversation, Canberra, viewed 17 September 2020, . Kahneman, D 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Allen Lane, London.

 ampus Verlag, Frankfurt. Kohlberg, J 1992, Social Policy in a Changing Europe, C

Larsen, CA 2007, 'How Welfare Regimes Generate and Erode Social Capital: The Impact of Underclass Phenomena', Comparative Politics , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 83-108.

Lelkes, O 2013, ‘Minimizing Misery: A New Strategy for Public Policies instead of Maximizing Happiness’, Policy Brief at European Centre For Social Welfare and Policy, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 1-5. Lewis, J 1992, ‘Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 2 , no. 3, pp. 159–73. McLeod, S 2020, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Simply Psychology, London, viewed 18 September 2020, . Ndunda, T (2016), A Review of Esping-Andersen’s Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Europa-Universitat Flensburg, Flensburg.

Ramia, G 2020, J obSeeker, JobKeeper policies a chance to see unemployment on different terms, Canberra Times, Canberra, viewed 18 August 2020, .

Spies-Butcher, B 2020, ‘The Temporary Welfare State: The Political Economy of Job Keeper, Job Seeker and Snap Back’, Journal of Australian Political Economy, v ol. 1, no. 85, pp. 1 56-162.

White, M 2015, The Problems with Measuring and Using Happiness for Policy Purposes, Mercatus Research at George Mason University, Arlington....