By Lawi Lawal Yusuf
The early solutions to poverty were based on the premise that poverty is an aspect of inequality and could only be solved by restructuring society. As a result, most of the policies explicitly aimed at its reduction were developed from the stratification theories. But quite the contrary, from the late 1960s, many social scientists felt that the war on poverty had failed.
Despite governments’ energy and resolve, the poor remained stubbornly poor. As a result, some sociologists of welfare increasingly predicated that poverty is merely a problem of the poor, and solutions must be crafted on the assumption that the issue of poverty lies with the poor themselves and need cultural reorientation.
Radical sociologists object to the welfare state by taking a more radical right-wing view than the left-wing socialists and social democrats as they argue for a freer, more open and more competitive economy and minimal state intervention. They were critical of much state intervention in welfare. They saw it as having a negative impact by discouraging self-reliance, creativity and entrepreneurship and promoting the dependency culture as people rely too heavily on state hand-outs.
Also, they further argued that as social problems progressively increase, the welfare state would become more and more expensive, leading to an excessive tax burden on private enterprises which prevents reinvestment. Hence, undermining economic growth and development.
Alternatively, they provided new impetus to changing welfare along neoliberal lines by defining poverty as a way of life and therefore developed solutions from the culture of poverty theories.
These three trends – the progressive increase of state financial burden coinciding with the stupendous rising cost of welfare administration, which had not equally extrapolate poverty. The emerging dependency culture on the welfare state results in what we might call a poverty trap, where the poor feel contented with the benefits available than taking low-paid work, giving them less incentive to work, which undermines their self-supporting abilities – have led to a pro-capitalist line of critique of the welfare and an alternative policy approach.
Arising in both the academic and policy fields, this critique and alternative approach pursue more explicitly a cause that prioritises individual initiative, economic competitiveness, encouraging responsibility and rewarding effort. But indeed, not isolated from a context where social justice and general fairness are being institutionalised.
The philosophical underpinning of this perspective is that even though all members of society are entitled to a reasonable minimum living standard regardless of their ability to work, welfare involves the moral expectation that people must take responsibility for their behaviour and the jobless must look for a job tirelessly and must accept any suitable one. Furthermore, individuals must be empowered to seize control of their future by being competitive, industrious and entrepreneurial, while the state is obligated to open up equal opportunities.
In context, these ideologues see poverty as a result of cultural influences on poor’s behaviour. They can be tackled by counteracting such behavioural dysfunction by changing faulty attitudes with universal moralities such as achievement orientation.
Thus, policies designed on this strand of thinking aim to undo the presumed effect of the culture of poverty by fostering ambition, hard work, initiative and motivation. Programmes are designed explicitly to change the social, psychological and vocational shortfalls of those bred to a life of poverty and are socialised to become more responsible and to remove such presumed deficiencies and bad attitudes by instilling work habits, character building and determination.
In the same vein, policies of job creation and encouraging people back to work and other measures that make work more attractive are introduced so that idleness could be significantly reduced to cut unemployment and increase the number of people working. Similarly, persons with defects are assessed to determine whether they are fit enough to do some work and in a position to help themselves, allowing them to fend for themselves.
It is gratifying to note that under this spectrum, measures coordinated to fight poverty are not formulated to displace it from society by providing more generous universal services (such as transport and social housing) or providing the poor with sufficient income to raise them above the poverty threshold, as direct aid is the least popular approach. Such brunt of benefits only cushion the misery produced by poverty but couldn’t dissipate it altogether. Contrarily, it was hoped that changing the poor would make them upwardly mobile on the social strata. To perfect this idea, the poor need a hand-up, not a hand-out to always depend on.
They needed the support and opportunities to help themselves rather than simply count on the state. And they must be willing to take these vantages once they have the education, training and work experience, while some have to be compelled to take advantage of the opportunities. In almost all circumstances, as experience has shown, significant benefits to the poor discourage many from taking a paid job.
Efforts are made to move away from universal benefits and services by reducing the huge government expenditure on welfare to a minimum for only those with genuine needs to avoid fraud. At the same time, resources are redirected towards training and development of the poor and other extreme societal needs. This helps the poor turn enterprising and therefore take care of themselves.
The solution to poverty rests on a broader range of coordinated measures. Therefore, it’s more efficacious to have an effective welfare state that cushions the harsher edges blunted by capitalism while rewarding individualistic efforts, encouraging responsibility and ensuring equal opportunities.
Lawi Auwal Yusuf wrote from Kano via laymaikanawa@gmail.com.
