The État-providence is a design of the role of the State, which allots the duty to play to him an active role in the promotion of the Economic growth, to provide a Social protection to the Citoyen S, and to correct the social injustices resulting from the market economy. The Welfare state opposes the vision of a minimum State (or State Gendarme), in which the public intervention is limited to the functions known as kingly (police force, Armée, Justice) and further goes than the proposals usually defended by the liberals.

The original debate on the Welfare state holds in this question: does one have to give the economic management of the company to the Marché, or must one create institutions which limit the range of it?

The history of the role of the State since the Industrial revolution could be summarized with a slow passage of a statute of State gendarme to that of Welfare state, at least until the Années 1970, date on which the “visible hand” of the State started to be disputed. Some saw in this long evolution the realization of the prophecy stated by Alexis de Tocqueville in Of the democracy in America . It announced there that the Individu would tend to give his Liberté to the collective capacity, parking safeguard of the equality. From there is born a authorized constraint where individuality tends to disappear with the profit from a capacity which does not cease increasing for better protecting. Thus Tocqueville ends up wondering: “This State wants to be so benevolent towards its citizens that he intends to replace them in the organization of their own life. Will it go until preventing them from living for better protecting them from themselves? ” Disapproving this possibility, it will indicate: “The greatest care of a good government should be to accustom the people little by little to do without him. ”

History of the Welfare state

Etymology

The État-providence term was forged under the Second Empire by French republicans which criticized philosophy too individualistic of certain laws (as the Loi the Hatter which prohibited the trade unions), and recommended an alarming “Social state” of the interest of each citizen and General interest. The expression however would have been employed for the first time by the deputy Emile Ollivier in 1864, to devalue the capacity by the State to set up a system of solidarity national more effective than the traditional structures of solidarity (like the corporations prohibited by the Loi the Hatter).

It is towards 1870 that the German term Wohlfahrtsstaat was used by the “Socialists of the pulpit” (university) to describe a system which announces the policies Bismarckiennes on social matters.

The current concept of Welfare state corresponds at the end English of welfare state (literally: “state of the wellbeing”), forged in the Years 1940, and which coincides with the emergence of the policies keynésiennes of post-war period. The expression welfare state which wanted to strike the spirits while being opposed to the warfare state of the Nazi Germany, would have been created by William Temple, archevèque of Canterbury.

Laws on the Poor with the first social laws

The English Poor Laws

See also: Poor Laws

As of 1601 and the end of the reign of Elisabeth I, the English State deals with the poor ones in England and obtains a Législation, the “laws on the poor” creating an assistance with disinherited. Its organization is entrusted to the parishes on which the Poor Laws force to provide an employment to the valid poor. It is thus as of this time that is established the link between misery and Chômage. With this legal requirement, little by little the workhouses , “houses of work develop” where the poor are employed and lodged. She were quickly regarded as true “deposits of begging” ( cf description that makes of it Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist ) and of pure instruments of control of the poor ones. With XVIIIe, the classical economists fought against this industrial relations policy which they showed to slow down the development of the emergent industry. They obtained their quasi-abrogation in 1834 by an amendment depriving them of any substance. The British State discharged then from its old responsibilities to devote themselves to its only kingly functions (Defense, Police, Justice) and to let be always more reduced quality of life in the workhouses .

The social interventionism of the State at the end of XIXème

Throughout second half of the 19th century in the majority of the Western countries, the political pressure of the labor movements pushes the governments to adapt the Législation. That of the work and the Travail of the children is gradually installation. At the end of the century, in France the state education appears. One creates the first dwellings at a cheap rate (HBM) (1887), an obligatory insurance-retirement (1910), allowances for the large families (1913). In Great Britain is set up a system of pensions for the poor old men (1908), and an unemployment insurance for poorest of the farm laborers (1911).

The majority of these measurements however remain minimal, and it is in Germany that the first generalized system of social protection develops.

“The democrats will play vainly of the flute when the people realize that the princes are concerned with his wellbeing. ”
Bismarck, Memories

As of its come to power, Bismarck will fight the rise of the left social democrat German. After having prohibited it, it took up several ideas of them in order to satisfy the Working class and to prevent the return of its adversaries on the political scene. It goes thus, as of the end of the 19th century, to equip Germany with a modern system of Social protection.

  • It created thus in 1883, the obligatory first Health insurance for the Ouvrier S of the Industrie whose income exceeded the 2000 mark S. the management of the funds was entrusted at autonomous institutions in majority controlled by working representatives who had for the first time to manage an important collective inheritance.
  • In 1884, was voted a law on the industrial accidents which obliged the German industrialists with cotiser with co-operative cases intended to compensate the victims. Thus the workman become completely invalid continued to touch 66% of his income, and in the event of death the widow continued to perceive a part of it.
  • Lastly, an obligatory system of retirement was imposed in 1889 by the law on the old-age insurance and disability.

World wars and the Crisis of 1929

See also: New Deal

If the First World War is not accompanied yet by the installation of a Welfare state, she however plays an important role by creating a precedent with the massive intervention of the State in the economy. Although it partly showed a relative capacity to direct the economy, the State however once will disengage the concluded armistice, but of many expenditure cannot be avoided: maintenance of the orphans and disabled ex-serviceman, or rebuilding of the areas devastated by the conflict. The faith in the mechanisms of the autolevelling market remains intact, until the economic crisis of the years 1930 and especially the novel ideas of John Maynard Keynes call into question the liberal dogmas.

Keynes considers that only the State, by its intervention “ is able to restore fundamental balances ”, and the Welfare state gives to the economic system a greater inertia, playing a part of shock absorber of the crises: thus the economic intervention and the social securities are doubly effective.

Whereas massive unemployment prevails, the liberal thought is fustigated by crowd which is ironical about the incapacity of the policies to solve the problem. In the United States, president Hoover is called “Mister Donothing” (Mr. I do not do anything). New Heads of State are elected on the basis of program openly interventionists; Franklin D. Roosevelt sets up her New Deal at the the United States since 1933 and the Popular front arrives at the capacity in France in 1936.

Reflection on the role of the State during the war

Whereas the war finally succeeded the crisis, a British member of Parliament, William Beveridge, submits in 1942 a first report to the British government, including/understanding many proposals aiming at redefining the role of the State of post-war period. He recommends, in this first report/ratio, a mode of social security aiming at “ to release the man of the need” by guaranteeing safety for the income, unceasingly threatened by the risks of the life: Maternity, Disease, Death, Unemployment, Industrial accident… With this intention, it proposes the installation of a system completely generalized, uniform (i.e. it benefits from an equal manner to all without distinction of income) and centralized.

In a second report/ratio, it is devoted primarily to the problem of the unemployment which it regards as the main risk in our companies, and like the final result of all the other risks (disease, maternity…). It assimilates the duty of the State to guarantee the full employment with the kingly functions: “It must be a function of the State to protect its citizens against massive unemployment, as definitively as it is now the function of the State which to protect its citizens against the attacks from the outside and the flights and violences from the inside. ”

The liberal answer to such proposals arrives since 1944 with the publication of the road of the constraint of Friedrich August von Hayek. In this book, Hayek explains why the socialization of the economy leads ineluctably to the Totalitarisme and that the Soviet modes and fascists are precisely the example. The Planification denies the individual Liberté and is done with the detriment of the democracy, which must then entrust the management of the economy to autonomous experts not having any legitimacy. It does not matter that the initial intentions of such a system is good, the negation of economic freedoms in the name of a virtuous purpose leads according to Hayek to the constraint such that it exists then in the enemy camp (powers of the Axis at the time).

The ideas of Hayek will mark the American preserving thought durably, but in this post-war period and the installation of the rebuilding, it is the thought of Beveridge which will be implemented in everyone Western. For many intellectuals, it is indeed the misery which was the cause of the rise of totalitarianism and the Welfare state then seems the best obstacle on its return. In France, in fact the recommendations of the National council of Resistance will be followed to the Libération.

The installation of the Welfare state in the western world after 1945

A traditional typology opposes the two models bismarckiens and beveridgiens:

One can also follow an analysis finer as that proposed by Gosta Esping-Andersen which distinguishes three great modes from Welfare state according to the degree of “die-marchandisation” of the companies. By order ascending of die-marchandisation, it is:

  • the Welfare State liberal of the Anglo-Saxons, where the State intervenes only as a last resort and seeks to force with a rapid return on the job market;
  • the modes conservative-supporters of corporatism (Germany or France for example) based on the model bismarckien and where the quality of the Social protection depends on the profession and the incomes, according to a logic of insurance;
  • and finally the social democrat modes with for example the Scandinavian countries, where social protection and various the services are universal, do not depend on the incomes and benefit as much the poor that with the rich person.

In the United Kingdom and the United States

See also: Social protection in the United States of America

The Great Britain sets up the first Family benefits in 1945, the insurance reprocesses, the insurance unemployment, sick leave, and the National Health Service (department of health public guaranteeing the exemption from payment of the care for all) the following year. It makes sure of the full employment of its population by a relative seizure of the State and trade unions on the activity.

As from the years 1960, the Welfare State starts to be largely criticized. The members of the Labor Party denounce the insufficiencies and claim of them a reform of the education going in the direction of a “single college” while blaming the indigence which survives. But it is especially on the right that one criticizes the logic of the social security benefits and the financial drift of an extremely expensive system. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher arrives at the capacity and will apply during more than ten years dismounting the building of the Welfare state. In 1982, the State enterprises accounted for 16% more of GDP in the United Kingdom, rate which will border the 5% at the beginning of Mrs Thatcher in 1991.

With the the United States, the Welfare State had evil to be essential. To a large extent of the population, it means the reduction of individual freedoms and the encouragement of the poor to the idleness. Initiated by the president Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the years 1930, he however experienced an important development during the presidencies of John F. Kennedy then of Lyndon B. Johnson throughout the years 1960.

The democrats use the Budget deficit as means of economic revival to reduce the rate of Chômage from 7 to 4%. This policy is based on tax reductions intended to start again the economy. Then, president Johnson sets up his project of Great Society , of which one of the aspects is the creation of an health insurance for the most stripped elderly (the Medicare ) and (the Medicaid ). The strong related spending with the Guerre of Vietnam will prevent the continuation of this policy.

The Welfare State American was largely called into question in favor of a liberalism increased as from the years 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan then of George Bush to the presidency. The policy of Reagan causes a polemic, because although taking the form of tax relief for the companies such that the liberals of the Supply side recommend them, its direct effect was the use of the budget deficit like instrument of economic revival, which joined certain recommendations of the economists keynésiens. In 1993, Bill Clinton tries to found a cover universal health; after its failure, its social reforms are more timid and undergo the opposition of the Congrès.

In France

See also: French Model, Crisis and changes of the Welfare state in France

The France, with the creation of the Social security in 1945, sets up a social system inspired at the same time of the models beveridgien and bismarckien. Its originality lies in the fact that the State does not intervene directly in social protection: he legislates (Code of the Social security) but management, including the covering of the contributions, is delegated at equal institutions, Co-directed by the employers' trade-union organizations and of employees.

A more active role of the State and nearer of the traditional design to the Welfare state, appeared only very tardily, with the installation of the CSG (Generalized Social contribution) in 1991, which marks the beginning of the taxation of the financing of social protection.

The installation of the Welfare state did not await the release. As attests it the currency “Work, Famille, Patrie”, the government of Vichy had already largely left the liberal framework of the role of the State, by developing the family policy. The spirit of the French Welfare state holds of a certain mistrust with respect to the market economy. To take again the formula of the general De Gaulle, “the economy of France is not made with the basket” (the basket indicating the Bourse de Paris here). Considering that the delay accumulated by France until 1939 because its loss, the State wants to put a term at the “worship of small” and to operate a concentration of industry. Many companies amalgamate in order to become national champions and number of them is nationalized. In parallel, profiting from the basket released by the glorious Thirty, the State continues a policy of continuous extension of the social rights. The remainder of the economy is left to the private investors who must follow the official efforts: “the intendance will follow” explains also De Gaulle. First attempts at liberalization of the economy are tried at the end of the years 1970, in particular on the initiative of the government of Raymond Barre. They are stopped by the come to power of François Mitterrand in 1981. This one wishes to reinforce the Welfare state in order to fight against the crisis.

A revival program of inspiration keynésienne is set up by the Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy who hopes to stimulate the growth and to make decrease unemployment via a policy of budget deficit. Social progress is achieved, like the passage to the 39 hours, the fifth week of paid vacations, the retirement at sixty years, and an increase in SMIC without precedent. On an economic plan, the result is moderate: in 1982 the growth is only of 2%, the Exportation S Frenchwomen moved back and the deficit of the commercial Balance grew hollow (96 billion against 61 billion envisaged by the government). It would be external pressure ( cf lower : The Welfare state vis-a-vis the universalization) which would have made obsolete the policies of revivals keynésiennes. The socialist government will choose budgetary competitive Désinflation and austerity measures finally.

The questioning of the Welfare state and the “French Modèle” however remains problematic. The right governments as of left privatisent the state enterprises but the suppression of certain advantages or the liberalization of the economy cause always social conflict. For many observers, in particular foreign, the “model” to which French stick is a synthesis of the defects of liberalism and those of socialism and presents few qualities. For others, it is presented in the form of an alternative to liberal capitalism.

In Sweden

On the level of work and production, the Swedish model rests on the dialog between managements and labor and the research of the consensus. It is under the impulse of Gustav Möller, minister with the social Affairs social democratic of 1924 to 1951 with only one interruption between 1926 and 1932 that a system of important universal services is set up. In order to make function this system, Sweden knows the most rate of tax and social security deduction of OECD (more than 54% of GDP to the mileu of the years 1990).

But Sweden also knew to make benefit from its model at the private large companies which knew to acquire a world dimension: Volvo, Electrolux, Ericsson. It is thanks to an economic strong growth that Sweden managed to finance its model of Welfare state without to asphyxiate its economy. But this viable system for one period of strong growth suddenly weakened during the years 1990. In 1995, a report/ratio of OECD explained:

“The strong tax pressure and the social generosity of the security system inflict with the economy losses of efficiency which could be very heavy by discouraging work and the saving. ”

One thus attended throughout the years 1990 a certain questioning of the Swedish model which was characterized by the reduction of the generosity of the State and by the adoption of a monetary policy of rigor (in rupture with the Swedish tradition) in a European logic. The system of the retirements was reformed, the allowances unemployment were decreased, the budget of the hospitals was amputee. The Scandinavian model remains however envied and is sometimes presented like specimen by politicians of many countries.

A tendency of long run which accelerates at the XXème century

The weight of the public expenditure in the economic activity thus increased throughout the 20th century. This growth is not regular and it is marked by effects of pawl , i.e. it knows of strong accelerations related to particular historical contexts the such wars and the economic crises. These increases appear generally irreversible, although certain booms make it possible to reduce the public taking away appreciably.

In 1867, in its Bases of the political economy , Adolf Wagner explains why “ more the company is civilized, plus the State is expensive ” (law of Wagner). In its eyes the increase of the public expenditure is explained by the appearance of two categories of new needs: The more the economy develops, the more the State must invest in public infrastructures and in addition, the more the standard of living of the population increases, plus this one increases its consumption of goods known as higher, like the leisures, the culture, education, health… which are goods whose income is higher than 1. In other term, the consumption of these goods increases more quickly than the income of the population.

This historical movement finds many explanations in the economic theory:

According to A.T Peacock and J. Wiseman and them theory of the effects of displacement , the increase in the role of the State in the economic life following exogenic events (wars for example) cannot be completely corrected thereafter, and this for two reasons. On the one hand the “tax tolerance” is modified, namely that the population is accustomed ata tax rate which it would have formerly found intolerable, on the other hand the wars and the crises cause new public expenditure on the long run (dealt with of invalids, of excluded, rebuilding,…).

The theory of the goods collective establishes a distinction between the goods consumed by the individuals, the divisible goods, and those used by the whole of the company (infrastructures and Public services), the indivisible goods. The difference between the two types of goods causes a distinction between an individual request (taken of load by the market economy) and a socialized request (taken of load by the State). According to this theory the share of the socialized request increases with the detriment of the individual request, because of the failures of the market economy, also called “negative externalities” (the Pollution for example). The share of the expenditure of State in the total economic activity is thus increasing.

Then, according to the theory of the differential productivity , the State provides primarily “services of labor”, i.e. services requiring more work that of capital. It is for example the case in education, where the infrastructures compared represent a very weak cost to the wages of the professors. On the contrary, the private activities know productivity gains beucoup faster. The differential of productivity enters the private one and the constrained public the public sector to take an increasingly important weight within the economy to maintain the quality of its services, while the private sector produces on the contrary at always less cost.

More skeptic, the analyzes liberal is ironical about the pseudo effectiveness of the public intervention and the satisfaction at the “experts” of the public office, the bureaucrats. About them, Friedrich Von Hayek written: “are always in favor of the development of the institutions of which they are experts”. The dependence of the politicians with respect to the large body of the State prevent them from stopping the development of the public services. In addition the bureaucracy functions according to absurd rules from a managerial point of view. The managers of the public office are tempted for example to maximize the costs so that the budget which is allocated to them either renewed rather than to minimize them. The absence of sanctions or rewards to the production prevents the motivation of the personnel in addition…

Another of the most severe criticisms comes from the theorists of the public choice according to which the State, or rather its leaders, has their particular own interests which diverge from the general interest. According to this theory, the politician carries out economic arguments aiming at maximizing his personal interest: its goal is then to more promote its re-election the general interest. The growth of the national expenditure is then due to the need for the policies to satisfy many minorities and of lobbies in order to guarantee their re-election. The politicians then may find it beneficial to multiply the government orders and the forms of Redistribution S. the behavior of the civils servant can be analyzed in similar terms: namely that like any economic agent, they seek to maximize their personal interest and disguise their individual claims in search of the general interest.

This approach is comparable with that of Joseph Schumpeter ( Capitalisme, socialism and democracy , 1942), for which the capitalism led to the democratization of manners which involves the egalitarian aspirations, with the concentration of the production which causes the disapproval of the citizens and of the intellectuals, with the limitation of the capacity of the middle-class which must entrust the business management to the bureaucracy - this evolution was theorized in the principal work of John Kenneth Galbraith, the New industrial State into 1967 which depicts the rise of the Technostructure -. It allows the massification of education and causes the birth of an important class of dissatisfied intellectuals. According to Schumpeter, all these phenomena lead towards socialization of the economy and, with its regret, the retreat of liberal capitalism.

Contemporary crisis and questioning of the Welfare state

detailed Article : Crisis and changes of the Welfare state in France

Three crises of the Welfare state

This evolution of long run however is opposed since the years 1970. Following the Oil crisis, the Welfare state was strongly called into question whereas the liberal economic theories made the reason of the crisis of it. With the the United States and the the United Kingdom, the Welfare state almost disappeared following the eras Reagan and Thatcher. In other countries, as in France, the Welfare state survives but seems more and more pains some to fill its objectives while many crises are profiled which could call into question the capacity of the State to provide certain functions, like the problem of the permanent deficit of the Social security, or the very great difficulties of the system of Retraite by distribution…

According to Pierre Rosanvallon the Welfare state knows since the years 1970 triple crisis.

It must initially face financial problems: the end of the strong growth of the Glorious Thirty calls into question the way of financing of the State while the catch in social contribution and economic of the victims of the recession increases its expenditure. The taxes touch an always increasing share of the population and become increasingly unpopular.

Then its effectiveness is disputed more and more. Indeed, the State does not manage to solve the socio-economic problems as it seemed to reach that point before. Unemployment increases, the social mobility decreases. The economic theory calls into question the compromise keynésien and the effectiveness of the State.

Finally it undergoes a crisis of legitimacy. The opacity of the public expenditure causes questions as for the use of the national solidarity. The Welfare state is in front of the question of its social limit and its measurements are more perceived like additional taxes that redistribution appropriatenesses.

Rosanvallon disputes for as much the liberalization of the economy which it compares to a social regression. For him it is necessary to reduce the weight of the State by transmitting the missions of solidarity to the civil society and by developing the local initiative. In order to make it possible the civil society to deal with these new functions it is necessary to reduce the duration of the working time which will allow the development of the social activities. It is also necessary to rationalize and débureaucratiser the State to increase the effectiveness by it. Lastly, to give again its legitimacy to him, it should be increased the visibility that the citizens of the operation of the State have.

The Welfare state vis-a-vis the Universalization

In addition, of many authors think that universalization durably reduced the capacity of the State to play an active role in the Economic growth, and this for several reasons.

Initially, the State cannot support any more the Entreprise S main roads in incentive with consumption because in the context of the Libre-échange, this additional consumption could be transformed into Importation S of foreign products which would destabilize the Balance of the payments.

Then the risk of Inflation inherent in the policies of economic revival and fight against the Chômage is harmful for the world Compétitivité of the national companies, because it involves a rise in the salary costs and intermediate consumptions.

Lastly, the " Social dumping " practiced by the emergent countries constitutes an increasing competition threatening the systems of Social protection of the rich countries. Overall, the universalization of the exchanges and information makes it possible to the economic actors to compare the Labor costs and to put in competition various spaces in order to reduce the costs and to answer the pressures of competition and the Western consumers claiming of the price drops.

Vis-a-vis its political arguments, certain economists estimate that universalization is not guilty. The purpose of it is in particular the analysis of Daniel Cohen in Richesse of the world, poverties of the nations (1997) according to which criticisms addressed to universalization are to hide the essential constraint that of the national Debt is that, or the tacit rejection of the Welfare state by a company where the falls of taxes from now on are accommodated better than the industrial relations policies.

Effectiveness of the Welfare state

In the economic analysis, the various currents of thought justify various degrees of official intervention.

Economic interventionism

Traditional functions of the State according to the classical theories

See also: Economic liberalism

For the classical economists then neo-classic, the intervention of the State in the economy takes several forms.

It must deal with the construction of large the Infrastructure S, useful for the company which private initiative cannot deal with. It is with him which returns the management of the collective goods that the mechanisms of the market cannot manage.

It is in the State that it returns to regulate the activity in order to guarantee the good walk of the Concurrence constantly threatened by inclinations of agreement and Monopole S of the large companies. In addition, there exist spheres of activity where competition is not desirable and the monopoly justified by the obvious advantages that it gets. One can for example quote the case of the railroads whose neo-classic economist Leon Walras proposed the nationalization.

Lastly, the liberals recognize the existence of the negative Externalité S. According to Arthur Cecil Pigou their treatment requires the public intervention. For this reason, he recommended the installation of taxation (known as taxes pigouviennes) of the activities producing of the negative externalities, and, on the contrary, of the Subvention S for those causing of the positive externalities. One of the negative externalities of which the description is oldest is the disastrous effect of the division of the labor on the intellect of the workmen. She was explained since 1776 by Adam Smith which, convinced of the possibility infinite of the division of the labor in term of production of richness, invited the State then to deal with the education of the workmen to compensate for of them the misdeeds thanks to a Education system.”

A rather simple objection was brought to the thesis of Laffer. Admittedly the State discourages the activity by taking taxes, but on another side, the tax is used to finance the public expenditure (education, Recherche, Infrastructure S…) who are themselves creative of richnesses.

The dispute of the theory keynésienne

August 1st

The monopolistic capitalism of State

See also: monopolistic Capitalism of State

For the néo-Marxists and unquestionable anarchistic, the Welfare state is a “crutch of the capital”. To compensate for the inefficiency of capitalism, the State must support it by reorganizing the distribution of the richnesses and by supporting the request and the profits. Thus, the Welfare state would constitute a kind of therapeutic eagerness aiming maintaining the profits of the capital artificially and at preventing the emergence of the Communisme.

Social effectiveness

Controversies on the redistribution of the incomes

The Redistribution of the incomes by the State follows two logics:

  • with the horizontal redistribution , the social security benefits is provided independently of the incomes. The credit pays for the pensioners, the people in good health for the patients, the single people for the large families…
  • in the vertical redistribution the richness is transmitted of a social category to another.

The figures show that the share of the horizontal redistribution is largely higher than that of the vertical redistribution. Also can one wonder whether the redistribution carried out by the State does not profit it more with the middle-classes with the underprivileged classes. It is the opinion of Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974). Indeed the first more know the legislation which the seconds and are thus more capable to claim their due. It is enough to take the example of the exemption from payment of the Higher education to include/understand the phenomenon. The young person who gives up making long studies starts to work earlier than that which chooses contrary to continuing its formation. Thus the first pay of the taxes, while the second receives a free teaching financed by the taxation. However, it is known that the children of the middle-classes go more to the university that those resulting from the disadvantaged classes, one can thus quickly conclude from it that the redistribution is done with back.

The figures cancel these arguments partly, because although the rich person benefit almost as much as the poor from the public transfers, they are despite everything the source of the two-thirds of the taking away. However these figures do not take into account the noncommercial services provided by the State, like the expenditure of education.

}} " ! table en% ! colspan=" 3" | Public transfers (payments) ! colspan=" 3" | Taking away |- bgcolor=" #cccccc" | Country | the poorest 30% | 40% intermediaries | the richest 30% | the poorest 30% | 40% intermediaries | the richest 30% |- | France |35.6 |39.3 |25.1 |8.7 |23.5 |67.9 |- | the United States |41.4 |35.5 |23.0 |6.3 |28.4 |65.3 |- |Mean level OECD |36.2 |37.9 |25.9 |8.0 |32.7 |59.4 |- | colspan=" 7" | Figures of OECD for France (1994), the United States (1995)… for the working-age population |}

}} " |- bgcolor=" #cccccc" ! table en% in the OECD countries ! Incidence of poverty before transfers ! Incidence of poverty after transfers |- |Selon OECD en 2000 ! 26.5 ! 10.5 |}

Some condemn what they compare to “ Assistanat ” (i.e. social security benefits) of the population, because it diverts the citizens of the effort, to see worsens their situation. It is the resumption of old arguments as those of Malthus for which the assistances brought to the poor enables them to increase their number involving an impoverishment even more important of the population. It thus suggests a birth control only capable controlling the requirements in population for the economy, and thus condemns any assistance system. The current critics of the Welfare state in general any more do not propose this type of solutions, but think that the disengagement of the State can only support the total enrichment of the company (on the basis of the liberal principle according to which the intervention of the State is almost always more expensive than that of a person or a private company).

Need for social cohesion

Social cohesion is by definition one of the objectives of the State, because it makes it possible to the members of the company to live in community, to coexist. This social cohesion is disturbed, since whole fringes of the population think more of being able to hope to draw some advantage from the social system. When social cohesion is not ensured any more, then the discord, criminality, even the civil war can occur. Thus to cement the company in order to guarantee the order and stability, the State must worry about the overall of the company, and prevent setting with the variation, dangerous coherence, individuals even of whole groups.

Legitimacy of the Welfare state

Welfare state and freedom

The egalitarianism, major tendency of the democracy

In Of the democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville makes walk towards equalization the major result of democratization. The equalization of the conditions is one of the slogans of all the revolutions. Thus the request for equalization of the rights is frequent in the Registers of grievances in 1789. For Alexis de Tocqueville, the democracy thus tends to create an egalitarian individualism marked by the disappearance of the ideologies and the absolute preference of the equality on freedom. One finds a similar vision at Joseph Schumpeter in Capitalisme, Socialisme, and Democracy where the progress induced by the Histoire of capitalism allows the emergence of an important intellectual class sensitive to the social problems and pushes the company towards the Socialisme.

Dangers to the Freedom

Schumpeter initially, fears that in socialism a dependence of the people towards the State develops, dependence which, without inevitably calling into question the bases of the democracy, is likely to put them at evil. For him capitalism is more democratic than socialism:

“A class whose interests are best been used by a policy as non-intervention puts democratic discretion more easily into practice than classes could not do it which tend to living with the hook of the State. ” Joseph Schumpeter Qualities, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1942

Tocqueville worries for the safeguard about the individual Liberté S because the democracy tends in its ideal of equality and good being to give a capacity increasingly larger to the official authority. This official authority to which the mass entrusts the duty to preserve the wellbeing and especially the equality becomes a capacity “absolute, detailed, regular, far-sighted and soft” which can become worse than the Totalitarisme, always threatened by the spirit of freedom. Indeed, in this quite attentive democracy, the man does not want to be free even any more: the State degrades it at the point to be made some like!

Nietzsche as for him describes us paradoxically this egalitarian company as largely favourable at the “forts” to which will return this absolute capacity that the “weak ones” do not dispute any more.

“The new conditions which will involve approximately the appearance of very similar men and pareillement poor - men gregarious, useful, hard, variously usable and skilful - are eminently specific to give rise to men of exception of the most dangerous kind and most tempting. ” Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond the good and the evil

Finally the liberals, in dissension of course with Nietzsche, often consider that the equalization of the conditions by the official intervention is completely illegitimate and dangerous. Thus Friedrich August von Hayek does not hesitate to declare:

“There are all the differences of the world between treating people in an equal way and trying to make them equal. The first is a condition for an free society whereas the second is only one new form of constraint. ”

Freedom and misery

Many liberals, among most eminent like Milton Friedman or Friedrich von Hayek recognize however that freedom is null for that which cannot “have a vital minimum for its subsistence, to feel with the shelter of the elementary physical deprivations” (Friedrich August von Hayek, the road of the constraint, 1944). Refusing the systems handicapping the companies like the minimum wage, Milton Friedman then recommends the introduction of a “negative Impôt” for poorest.

Social justice, legitimation of the Welfare state

See also: Social justice

Charity, insurance and justice

If one is interested in the morals sources of the Welfare state, one notes an evolution from where three principal justifications with its action emerge. In its oldest interventions, the official intervention takes the form of a Charité organized to fight against the extreme poverty and intended the most stripped for. More generalized systems appeared at the end of 19th return as for them to the concept of solidarity: the Insurance S against the great dangers of the life at William Beveridge, the Retirement by distribution in France, or the various insurances imposed by Bismarck are done in a assurancielle and interdependent logic. Nobody pays for the others, everyone contributes to insure himself against the risks of the life. One gives not to other by charity or because it is estimated that his situation is unjust, it gives him by hoping that it will make in the same way if the positions had been suddenly reversed.

Assurancielle logic is not however enough to justify the intervention of the State. It is indeed possible to set up private systems which will benefit only the individuals cotisants. Accordingly, each one to its own responsibility, but is this is returned really practicable? Let us must let itself die of the disease an individual who will have made the irresponsible choice refuse the system assurantiel? For this reason the system is imposed on all and then dealt with by the State. This logic, which takes forms as concrete as the obligation to fasten its seat belt in the car, is often denounced because it would allow the installation of what the Anglo-Saxons call the “ nanny State ” (“State nanny”). It is thus a call to the individual responsibility which the liberals launch, Milton Friedman going for example until asking the free sale of drug.

It remains that the system assuranciel comes only to answer the risks of the life and does not solve the Inégalité S. the idea then developed that the socio-economic inequalities could concern an social injustice of which the victims had right to claim repair.

Utilitarianism against individualism

See also: Utilitarianism, Individualism

During the 19th certain economists and philosophers like John Stuart Mill ( utilitarianism , 1861) call into question the convergence of the private interests and the general interest such as she is thought by Adam Smith in the Richesse of the Nations . For Smith, the private interests, by the set of their interactions, lead to the social harmony. The liberals try in fact to explain how the unlimited enrichment of the ones is done with the profit of all, even poorer. The liberal objection with social justice as a research of the equality holds in fact in a question. Why refuse the rise of the inequalities if this one reduces the poverty of most underprivileged?

But for the utilitarian of the medium of 19th, the observation of the social consequences of the industrial revolution causes the rejection of the liberal dogma. Thus for John Stuart Mill, liberalism is undoubtedly the best manner of creating the richness but the question of its best distribution remains open. In the utilitarian vision, justice is not founded on the concepts of merit but on the concept of Utilité, i.e. of Bonheur. What is right it is what maximizes happiness in the company. It is then right that a richness which does not bring that little with its owner is given to another who will benefit from it much more. In fact, morals orders the research of collective happiness more than personal success. The altruistic individual has the desire to live in peace and harmony with his similar.

The utilitarian theory of the Social justice claims whereas it is necessary to ensure “greatest happiness the greatest number” (Jeremy Bentham), even if it means to sacrifice a minority of individual. According to the utilitarian ones, the State must maximize the social utility, i.e. the sum of individual happinesses. The private interests do not converge spontaneously and it is with him artificially to harmonize the economic relationship between the individuals. It must set up new social reports/ratios and worry about equity. Without reducing freedoms, one needs for example that the State sets up a system of education, of birth control… the whole financed by taxation of not gained fortunes.

The individualistic thought refuses this vision which sacrifices the individual to the group. Happiness is regarded as individual above all and the idea that the State is in load of collective happiness appears absurd. With the economists Neo-classic S, criticisms of utilitarianism, develops the concept of economic equilibrium optimal. The Pareto's optimum is for example defined as the most powerful economic situation at the same time but especially that where the condition of no individual can be improved without that not harming that of another. However, according to the individualists, the State cannot intervene in favor of certain individuals, so in addition his intervention harms others. By doing this, it would thus become partial and unjust. Thus contrary to the utilitarian theory, Vilfredo Pareto recommends “the least risk for more the small number”. If the State wishes to intervene, it must systematically compensate the individuals, rich person or the poor, which would feel injured by his decision.

Social justice at Rawls

See also: Theory of justice

According to John Rawls ( Theory of justice , 1971) the economic Inégalité S can be legitimate provided that they are arranged so that:

  • the access to the rights gotten by the citizenship must be guaranteed;
  • the distribution of the richness and the incomes does not need to be equal, it must be with the advantage of each one;
  • the positions of authority and responsibility must be accessible to all (equal opportunity).

The first point constitutes a principle of Liberté , priority with respect to the two following points which form a principle of difference . These three points constitute the social Contract established between the individuals brought together within the same state. Thus if the market economy cannot guarantee these three points, then the existence of a Welfare state is essential.

The realization of the principle of social justice is in the second point: any inequality can be justified only if it benefits more handicapped. Finally, this principle of the minimax thus returns to questions of economic order since, to make in short, the liberals will explain that the extreme enrichment of the ones can allow a reduction of the misery of the others, while the keynésiens will explain why the redistribution, by guaranteeing economic stability, is not only advantageous with poorest, but also to the rich person.

Critical morals of the Welfare state

In certain liberals, the factor income of production (work and capital), in a saving in pure competition and perfect, combines at the same time effectiveness and justice. According to the neo-classic theory , each one deserves and receives the equal one of what it produces, and this spontaneously thanks to the laws of the market. However of many liberals, such Friedrich Von Hayek or Milton Friedman is opposed to this vision things. They point out that many advantages or economic disadvantages are completely unmerited: heritages, handicaps…, but especially that the saving in pure competition and perfect does not exist.

The Libertarien S estimate that the economic inequalities are voluntarily agreed by the individuals. Indeed, the economic exchange on the market is always voluntary and the State does not have any legitimacy to intervene. Wilt Chamberlain, an American player of basketball, briefly summarized this point of view in what one calls from now on the objection Wilt Chamberlain: if the spectators want to pay a supplement to see it playing, then its colossal incomes are the fruits of a free assent. One can thus see no social injustice there. Thus for Robert Nozick ( Anarchy, State and Utopia , 1974) “according to the design of the justice based on the rights to the assets, it is not argument based on the two principles of distributive justice - principles of acquisition and the transfer - in support of a wider State”. It is not at the State to impose its vision of the Juste to the individuals. He denounces the phenomenon of the Envie and the Jalousie which mask partly the concept of social justice and wonders: “Why certain people they prefer whom others rather do not have of better results in some field that it is, than to be happy of what another person is at ease or has of the chance? ”. He is regarded as the principal opponent with John Rawls.

However the libertariens are opposed about the justice of the initial equipments, i.e. of the historical study of the appropriation of the richnesses before the advent of the market economy (colonialism, slave system, feudalism…) and which always constitutes sources of inequalities inherited in the modern societies. For the same reasons the question of the heritage also is very discussed by the libertariens and the liberals. Perhaps the State would have it there a role to play.

F. Hayek, in Droit, legislation and freedom , note that the everyday usage of the word injustice can return to the bad luck. Thus one speaks about injustice when an effort méritoire, a brilliant idea are not precisely rewarded, because the fate decided some differently. In such a situation, the men are indignant, but nobody is responsible, and nothing can be made so that it is differently

“Social justice” derives from this same feeling of injustice with respect to the distribution of the richnesses in an market economy, without it not having there for as much somebody to blame. Insofar as nobody is in load of the fixing of the incomes in an market economy, there exists nobody against which feeling sorry for it could require justice. No one cannot then be constrained with repair. The principle of “social justice” is thus stripped of direction

Random links:Welded | Vincent Lindon | Bored | Nissan-lez-Ensérune | Pierre-Gaston Stone