Welfare State

IN PRAISE OF THE WELFARE-STATE
Olaf Palme, Prime Minister, Sweden
1984
In times of economic difficulty, conservatives attack the welfare state with the
argument that the efforts of the community should be directed toward only its weakest
members---the very poor.  As reasonable as this approach might seem, it is fundamentally
unsound.  For the resulting social programs, based typically on means tests, encourage
taxpayers to think in terms of us and them.  We---the middle class ---have to pay the
state, but get nothing in return.
 The ground is thus prepared for the disintegration of social solidarity, which in
turn encourages tax revolts.  The fact is that it is not the weight of the tax burden that
causes such revolts but rather the feeling among taxpayers that they do not get anything
for their money.  People who derive some benefit from a welfare system are its greatest
supporters and will pay taxes without feeling exploited.
 An efficient and stable welfare state must be based on universal social programs,
such as health insurance, pensions, and child-support allowances----programs extended to
all citizens.  Official poverty lines or means tests would not be used to define the poor
(which would eliminate the need for bureaucratic controls).  At the same time, people in
difficult financial circumstances would not have to put up with the degrading
classification of the poor.  And, because the poor would have the same rights as others to
social services, they would enjoy services of a much higher standard----services that
would be acceptable to the rich.  Moreover, universal programs would help eliminate the
poverty trap, in which the poor are discouraged from increasing their earnings since to do
so, decreases their benefits.
 The point I am trying to make is that the weak members of society are best
protected not by being given special treatment but by being included in programs that
extend to all members of society.
Opponents of the welfare state say that a large public sector leads to inefficiency
and slow economic growth.  There are no data to support such assertions.  It is impossible
to establish any connection between a large public sector and low economic growth.
Many countries are, of course, struggling with budget deficits.  And it goes without
saying that the expansion of social programs depends upon general economic
development.  But we in Sweden have come to the conclusion that the problem is not that
the public sector is too large but that the industrial sector is too small, and that industry is
not operating at full capacity.
 In our efforts to improve society we must always keep in mind the invariables of
human life.  I am speaking of those few great challenges that are the same for all of us,
everywhere:  to grow up and be educated for our roles as adults; to find friends; to find a
place to live and turn it into a home; to raise a family; to cope with illness and any other misfortunes that  may beset us; to make a decent living and prepare for the inevitable
frailty of old age; to live as free citizens equal to the other members of society; and to
take a share of responsibility for the common good.
 All of our material and technological advances have done nothing to change these
life projects.  We may deal with them, practically speaking, in different ways, but they
remain the same.
 When we discuss the kind of society we want to create, we must remember that
the purpose of society is not to realize any particular idea.  Our goal should not be to
manifest the greatness of a nation or state, nor to champion the interests of any one group
or class.  Society should not be built to conform to any blueprint of utopia.  Rather,
society and its institutions should serve people here and now, and help them to realize
their life projects---in short, to live their lives.