ADDISON
FALES
HORIZON
PROJECT
The Basis
Criticism of the Welfare State oft draws from three major areas of concern - concerns over the Efficacy of Welfare, concerns over the Ethics of Welfare, and finally, concerns over the Economic Impact of Welfare.
Efficacy,
/ˈefəkəsē/
The ability to produce a desired or intended result
Despite massive increases in funding across the last 80 years, the poverty rate has remained relatively steady - continuously hovering from around 10% to 15% since about 1970. Critics of the Welfare State argue that this inability to create a meaningful decrease in poverty is proof that the Welfare State is inefficient.
​
These critics might also argue that the Government is an inefficient means of distributing aid, and instead would favor a system of private charity. But before we dive into the Private vs Public debate, let's first consider the ethical repercussions of each system.
Ethical Dilemmas
Voluntary Contribution
The willing choice to give to the poor out of your own free will is ultimately far more noble than simply paying your taxes. On top of that, when you make the willing choice to donate to the poor - you become more attached to their wellbeing, and are more likely to help them in the future. This can lead to a shift in attitude towards the impoverished: one that focuses on recognizing them as equal in dignity to ourselves, instead of the current view that stigmatizes their lifestyles.
Unintended Discouragement
Government programs that fulfill a service that the public could provide themselves often discourage the public from providing that service. It should be noted that many countries in Europe with extensive welfare programs like France and the Scandinavian polities have populaces that give significantly less to charities - perhaps out of some apathy, supposing that the government will take care of the poor so that they, the individuals, don't have to.
Is Private Charity the answer?
Too many, Private Charity seems like a perfect solution to the problems previously discussed with the Welfare State. But is it all that it's chalked up to be?
Where Government fails, Private Charity thrives
First, let's look at overhead costs. In 2020, 97% of the Welfare budget went to operational expenses. However, private charities only spent about 10% on operational expenses - meaning they're able to help people more efficiently.
​
Private charities also don't have to deal with the ethical concerns that follow a government welfare program, as donations are voluntary.
​
But private charities aren't always perfect. During the Great Depression, due to the sheer amount of desperate Americans, many private charities simply couldn't handle their needs.
The Economics
Critics of welfare argue that, due to the safety net it provides, the poor are less likely to go out into the world and seek jobs - after all, why would they when the government will take care of their needs for them?
​
This hypothesis, that lowering welfare would raise employment, was popular during the conservative renaissance of the 1980s and would later be implemented during the Clinton presidency, where it worked almost entirely as intended.
Could a balance be struck?
While these listed criticisms of welfare programs are all valid, the total elimination of welfare programs could bring about greater problems than the ones it sought to solve - such as spikes in unemployment, and impoverishment of the elderly and disabled. In order to find such a balance between government charity and private charity, looking at Catholic social teaching would be a good start.
"It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due."
- Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum (1891)
The Catholic Solution
Leo XIII, rebuking both Capitalism and Socialism, calls upon us to remember the individual dignity of the human person. Welfare does not necessarily have to be bad - as long as it upholds human dignity and does not stumble into the moral pitfalls discussed previously.
​
Pope Francis, during an address to an Italian Welfare Office, called upon us to uphold the pension system that delivers unto the laborer that of which they are due - but not to forget the dignity of the human person, and that we all fall together.
Now, with all of this in consideration, what can we conclude about the central question proposed earlier?
No, the American Welfare is not only ineffective achieving in it's goals, but it is also ineffective in preventing the negative byproducts that may happen as a result of it's programs.
Is the American Welfare System effective in completing it's goals and minimizing negative byproducts?