GLOBAL RISK DIALOGUE

Jayshree Pandya

To answer your questions first:

Do you think Social Welfare should be a role of government in your nation? Yes as well as the whole of society.

Do you think social welfare can be done better by Philanthropia and non government organizations? Everyone should behave towards their neighbor in a sociable manner.

I just completed a program at Walden University that focuses on social change. One point was made to me as an advancing student that sticks out to me in your post. When people earn a Phd they can make new definitions and thus create new words. The word philanthropia is not in the Webster Dictionary online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philanthropy, but I guess since you have a Phd you can make a new word. Is this from you or is Webster just not updated?

I suppose your intent has been to define goodwill to our fellow man as philanthropia as though it is an illness or an obsession in so much that social programs cause higher taxes.

Perhaps in our individual perspectives we may find a way to justify the plights of those less fortunate then ourselves. However, one perspective is definite in that social programs for the rich exist, also… just as they do for the poor …and in many forms (one is in college programs for higher education such as Phd programs). I am sure you were socially active in obtaining your Phd. Perhaps you paid for your education in every dollar that you earned honestly by hard work and without aid of any kind.

In what perspective does social welfare become, in definition, a program that raises taxes? When we think of social gatherings where people share meals and ideology of higher education there are higher taxes to pay for the services? You stated in your post: “Social welfare programs are directly proportional to higher taxes.” If we stop being sociable, we may actually become what? Being sociable is being pleasant and the opposite of that would then mean that we are unpleasant and anti-social. To refuse to pay taxes for social programs that are grossly needed is anti-social. Many mental illnesses are defined by the trait of anti-social behavior. Are we sure we want to refute the taxes? It is like refusing them because they are too high for the rich to have to pay… because poor do not pay taxes (you know) as no income means no taxation. If we continue to sit by refuting the need, the need just becomes greater because the cause is like fuel to the fire of poverty.

Everyone in society is involved in social affairs; if you do not supply for the poor with a means to become rich like you; they get poorer …and then your world becomes cluttered with poverty spreading like cancer. If you do not want cancer, then clean up the cause of the cancer and you will prevent the cancer…otherwise, then, keep looking at the poverty spread.

The lack of philanthropia is the true illness; and the fire that burns in the empty stomachs of every human that is denied their daily bread while others throw out the whole cow.

Non-partisanship could not be claimed by anyone that wants social programs to end; unless then the word non-partisanship becomes defined antisocial. Yet non-partisanship is defined free from party affiliation; if you debate the need for, or lack of need for, social programs may you do this in a non-partisanship manner? This non-partisanship manner may only be if we stay neutral to the problem in apathy for either side. However, if we find a place in our philanthropia perspectives; we will see only goodwill for others… unless the opposite be true… and our philanthropia overtakes us for ourselves only…then, we see only ill will for others and are, therefore, anti-social: hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm.

You stated: “Nations need to create an environment of growth, competition, education, employment, opportunity, innovation and adaptation over welfare and dependencies.” How are welfare programs leading to dependencies if they create environment of growth, education, employment, innovation, and adaptation? The welfare programs need to do that and that takes higher taxes and philanthropia from all in society including those making millions.

anti-social. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-social

Dear Jayshree Pandya,

Interesting to see that someone out there is asking questions about the things that I’m working on myself! Nice to read about it here on linkedin.

Let me share some of my thoughts, based on the research that I’ve been conducting so far. First, the question is whether globalization (the economic, social, and political openness of countries) affects welfare states. So far, most of the attention has been paid to the relationship between economic openness and social provision in countries. An overview of the empirical research shows that there is more evidence that the economic openness of countries and the size (and generosity) of the welfare state are positively related. So, rather than a race to the bottom, the compensation argument get support. Secondly, the question is how solidarity should be organized, formally through the state or informally through the community (or the third option: formally through private markets). I also investigated this, and this study shows that solidarity is nog lower in more open countries, but that they have a stronger preference for informal solidarity.

You can read the papers at my site: http://www.ferrykoster.nl

And, in April a book about this subject (with Paul de Beer) will be pusblished by Amsterdam University Press.

Hopefully, this helps a bit.
Ferry

i kind of disagree with the hypothesis that welfare is related to taxes.

governments need not get their money from taxes, but might charge for energy, or might monopolise banking or roads or communication or what not. much of this happens every day in france, somebody even called it a capitalist country with very few capitalists.

i live in amsterdam, and as most of the soil is property of the city, significant income is paid by those who use it.

also, i do not agree that welfare only costs money. because it maintains in good shape a part of the population that for the time being finds no paid work. times may change and misery is morally and also economically costly and some may be better poets than salarymen. and some say that a welfare state is inherently stable because demand is guaranteed.

also, governments can make life cheaper.
i know some of this sounds like orthodox communism, but that is not what i mean.

i think the welfare state is a reasonable proposition and that aggressive neoliberalism has probably led to the rather unstable economical situation that we are in today. everybody has come to expect too much.

so if i had my say, governments would prioritize on peace, justice, a cheap life for everybody.

Dear Jayshree;

A very interesting and challenging question, especially today. We are in the midst of a sea change in the global economy and the relations between states; between governments and their people; and between classes within states.

First, the global economy has evolved as the Post WWII planners of the United Nations hoped when they created the World Bank Group,and the GATT (replaced by the WTO). Economic integration creates mutual dependency and mutual dependency decreases the chances of major wars. It also increases the use of non-military methods of influence such as economic aid and diplomatic outreach (albeit – the USA has not been a good example of late).

In this context, government programs aimed at stabilizing class conflict within the developing and under developed state serves more of a national and international security purpose than as a humanitarian one. This is a lesson I learned years ago.

So to your question, .”Do you think Social Welfare should be a role of government in your nation?”

In the United States, in the current recession, yes! It is a matter of stabilization and restructuring that requires leadership and only the government has the resources and reach to provide that.

Second, between Governments and their people. the People live longer than their governments. Government is people. Your people or my people, or other people. When government supports institutions that enable the people to pursue their personal agendas in a secure environment, social welfare becomes the responsibility of everyone. When the government can not or will not provide the security — then even the best of intentions of NGO’s and charities will be less effective. Take Iraq as an example.

Third, class against class. Government can side with one class against another such that social welfare goes to one and is taken from the other. In this case it is a question of why? What is the policy purpose — political power (most often) or social equity (less likely). Government has proven very successful where the goal is political power. It often fails when it comes to social equity. NGO’s and charities can be more effective because they are focused and mission driven.Take Dafur relief efforts as an example.

So bottom line: As long as we have a global system of sovereign states competing with one another, government’s role and responsibility in social welfare will be paramount. How it choses to implement its responsibilities will be the question.this generation will have to answer. We must not forget that government is simply one tool human beings use to achieve personal and collective goals and desires.