Question

There has been a lot of debate recently regarding the level of public assistance that should go to the poor and the related question of personal responsibility. Should we move in the direction of less public support for the poor? If so, what are the implications? If not, what should be done? How do the different perspective of poverty, as discussed in Kraft and Furlong, affect policy decisions in this situation?

Answer 1

                        The given circumstance demands an analysis on whether the provision of providing less public support should be the way forward in the making of public policy by provision of inculcating more personal responsibility in the economic sphere of the existence of a society. As it is known, the provision of welfare measures for providing public support for the poor makes up a good portion of the budgetary allocation of a state. This goes in hand with the welfare measure of the state which is a part of good governance in an economy. The poor sections of the society are given the kind of support that makes them feel like a part of the society in which they live and hence moves them forward in the sphere of life making them a part of the economy in the later stage. Considering the above fact, the following points may be discussed so as to conclude on whether welfare measures should form the part of the governance mechanism

· The provision of welfare measures constitutes the responsibility of a state and should not be cut down as such

· If the budgetary allocation of the state is not able to withstand the allocative machinery, then important welfare measures should be given the primary importance and others may be cut down in emergency budgetary conditions

· The provision of basic support makes sure that they are not left out of the society in which they live and hence they will form a part of the productive economy at a later stage.

· Most of the productive youth and unemployed people could be brought under productive mechanisms with the help of similar provisions in an economy.

· Provision of support to the poor sections not only gives them a chance of empowerment but also makes them confident of being productive in the society.

· Although there are benefits of providing support to the poor sections of the society, it may be also understood that once such provisions are misused in an economy, it may lead to downfall of an economy as there would not be any returns out of the revenue forgone for the same. Thus, the opportunity cost must also be a concern for the provision of public support through welfare mechanisms.

Kraft and Furlong discusses eight criteria for the evaluation of public policy proposals which are effectiveness, efficiency, equity, liberty, political and administrative feasibility, social acceptability and technical feasibility. They state that despite the stigma associated with the provision of public policy measures, they provide benefits such as food, housing etc and specific problems like nutrition, education etc. At times when cash benefits are given, there may be trade-offs between various evaluating criteria in order to evaluate whether to extend or limit the public policy and welfare mechanism. Thus, according to them all the trade-offs must be analysed properly before making such provisions in the public sphere.