Talk:Welfare state/Archive 2

Arguments for and against the welfare state
I have attempted to balance this article by putting in a bullet-point list of arguments both for and against. This should offer contributors a basic structure for putting arguments on either side. Unfortunately, this insertion has been persistently vandalised. I ask contributors to watch the site and ensure the restoration of the balance whenever it is removed. Paul Spicker 1st December 2004.


 * It's not a matter of balance, since the disputed section does not add any POV; rather, it's an issue of whether or not a simplistic bullet-point list should be added. I believed it should not. However, I won't insist on the point if you really want the list to stay. It may cause a bit of confusion, but it doesn't do any serious harm to the article. I think we can declare this dispute closed. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize, but private healthcare in the US is pretty different from private healthcare in the rest of the world. For instance, around here, if someone falls, we don't CAT scan their heads. We also don't get sued really that much. Most of all, our health care system and insurances aren't as sturdily and heavily regulated as yours. So, if you want to make the argument that state-owned business is cheaper than private, you have to use another example, USA's won't do. Try Netherlands, for instance, where healthcare is done wholly private with private insurance companies, the coverage is 100% and they even have dental in it. Most of all, I think they teach in pretty much every economic school around here that private enterprise is cheaper than public. I believe this is pretty much an objective fact. --62.78.199.159 20:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Then I guess they don't teach about market failure in every economic school around there, do they? Privatized health care, in particular, often turns out to be a complete disaster due to the extreme inbalance of knowledge between buyer and seller (you don't know enough about medicine to be able to choose between the different treatments given by different doctors; in other words, the buyer of health care services cannot accurately determine the quality of the product he is buying). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that you have to be careful not to confuse the economic effects of high taxation and those of the welfare state. High income tax or corporation tax has a depressing effect on the economy whereas high land tax has a stimulating effect, so when you're talking about high levels of taxation it's important to describe which type of taxation you mean. However since this is article is about the Welfare state rather than taxation, it should be listing pros and cons of the welfare state, not of some unspecified form of taxation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:52, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)


 * In order to have a stable welfare state, you need money to provide for the welfare services, which is taken from citizens in the form of taxes. The tax code for welfare states is complex, since every industry that is nationalised has its own code. With each industry having their own tax, it would be difficult to explain which one has what, and impossible to do so in a bullet-point format. -- cold wolf 12:45, 8 December 2004 (UTC)

Of course you need the money. That's obvious. But you assume once again that the money must be taken from each citizen in the form of taxes (or insurance charges which amount to much the same thing). That does not have to be the case. The money can be raised in other ways which do not involve taxing citizens -- for instance resource taxes which are charges on resources rather than on citizens. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:09, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

The problem with separating out arguments for and against in different sections is that it denies contributors the opportunity to counter arguments. I propose in consequence to revert to the previous layout, unless there are reasoned objections. Paul Spicker


 * In re: Paul Spicker's point above, is there a reason that the article should contain arguments and counter arguments? Isn't a phenomenological and historiographical article enough? Or, if you can't even write a phenomenological and historiographical article on the topic, why should you consider the attempt desirable, and yourselves qualified, to write a disputational article on the subject? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but the article isn't very good. It would be far better if historiography and phenomenology were covered more thoroughly before turning it into a disputation. Jeff Medkeff | Talk 15:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Although I understand Jeff Medkeff's point, I don't think it's consistent with Open Source in practice. The content and balance of this article has been disputed by people occupying different political positions, and the article has been consistently prefaced by the NPOV symbol. Contentious arguments are constantly being inserted, deleted and re-inserted. Offering a structure for opposing arguments is the only effective way to achieve some balance. Paul Spicker


 * I have changed the wording of the Free market position under "Arguments Against" because it sounded akward, also it now more accuratley describes their position.- 67.169.170.140 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the arguments for and against the welfare state should be in a separate article to the welfare state itself. After all, the article on the Industrial Revolution doesn't have a list of arguments in favour and against it? Okay so it's got a few paragraphs on Karl Marx's observations, followed by a link to Marxism, and then a link to the article on the Romantic movement. And that's it. Why does the article on the welfare state need to be any different?

I believe that the scope of each of the subjects is large enough to have two separate articles on it. Or maybe even three - a welfare state article, an arguments 'for' article, and an arguments 'against' article. An article can be a list of arguments in favour or against something, and still be NPOV. There's room for counter arguments in separate articles.

I also believe that separating the articles will reduce the vandalism. This is a subject that I think a lot of people feel quite strongly about, thanks to the inequalities of our divided society, and the suspicion people have that the grass is greener on the other side of that division. And when the arguments are dealt with in such a short, sharp, bullet-point format, I'm afraid it rubs people up the wrong way. Indeed, the very presence of bullet points might make some inexperienced people think that this is one of the subjects that Wikipedia doesn't care about, and would rather people didn't contribute on. I say create separate articles, get rid of the bullet points but turn their text into headers, and let people expand it naturally. Squashy 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I was considering adding "Giving individuals without the ability to support society payment is deprogressive and unefficient." or "Naturally people unable to support themselves would not survive, and therefore it does not help the working population to support them." under the Meritocratic idea of it, but I know there's several schools of thought that consider themselves Meritocratic. Would either of those fit in? (I'm not trying to pick fun or vandalize, I think it is actually part of the Meritocratic philosophy to which I support which, in essence, states "The harder one works, the more they should get in return. If one does not work, they should not get anything.") I'm asking this because I've seen that if the Authoritarian point of view is added then it is often considered a vandelism and is removed. (Sorry if this is worded oddly, unlike ussually when it's hard to explain something, there's too many ways to explain this so it was hard to pick which ways would best describe it.)

There is a philosophy about letting people unable to get work starve to death? Interesting... I'd counterclaim, according to your own (or that, if I misinterpreted) philosophy and say if they get their hands on a weapon and kill someone rich and took their property that'd be perfectly acceptable then. Since the stronger person clearly prevailed. This is supposed to be a discussion about pros and cons about social welfare right? Not just bullshit nutjobs spewing whatever they feel like. "Naturally people unable to support themselves would not survive, and therefore it does not help the working population to support them." By the way, killing off - wich you at least seem to indicate - part of the potential workforce doesn't seem garantee efficiency either? WHY cant they support society? When can they do so again? Can they make up for this temporary inefficiency? It's defenitely not so callous and simplistic as you seem to indicate. As I said, naturally I'd go kill you first. But we're not really that natural are we now? We actually abide to laws other than nature. We can see complexities beyond this absolute second, but not garantee them. You dont know if a junkie today could be a CEO tomorrow. Unlikely? Hell yeah.. garateed? No.   ---  To the poster above by me

One of the arguments in favor reads, "ethical - reciprocity (or fair exchange) is nearly universal as a moral principle, and most welfare systems are based around patterns of generalised exchange." I have absolutely no idea what this means. Also, I don't understand what "generalised exchange" is. Is that just regular exchange? If so, then no, I must full out disagree as welfare does not involve exchange as welfare pays people to not work. Matteo 07:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Welfare pays people to not work? NO! Welfare prevents people from not spending.

If I would deny PoorSodJoe his welfare-payments; then PSJ will not come into my shop and buy stuff. Not because he resents my decision (he may not even know i.e. it being (partly) mine / me having a vote in the question), but because he hasn't got the money. I have thus lost a potentially profitable economic relationship.

This applies regardless of the fact wether PSJ cannot or will not earn his money otherwise. Sintermerte (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintermerte (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Welfare, as far as a business is concerned, is just a convoluted way to give PSJ free stuff. You get taxed, the government loses a portion to overhead, and then the government gives the rest to PSJ. That's not economic activity - it's just you handing him stuff because you feel bad for him. Your business is no better off afterward - in fact, you could argue you are worse off, since you have less money to buy other goods on the market with, and some of the welfare was lost in the government's paperwork.


 * I don't mean to say welfare isn't valuable in other ways. But the 'pro business' idea is flawed mathematically. Government taxation != magic multiplication. -Captain Vimes (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Was Gaddafi's Libya a welfare state?
Also would like to know about Israel, Russia, Ukraine, China.--77.37.199.248 (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Potentially wrong info 'Effects on poverty'
At the section 'Effect on poverty' I think some information is wrong. When we look at The Netherlands, the table of the source says the pre-welfare and post-welfare absolute poverty rate is 20.5 % and 4.3 %, but in the table at the article, it's 22.1% and 7.3%. And also, the difference of the welfare expenditures without education and with education is for the Netherlands only 3%, while the CIA factbook says education expenditures in the Netherlands are 5,3% of the GDP. So can the contributer of this sections look very thoroughly to any mistakes? --Koenieboy9 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Economies of scale
"Some services can be more efficiently paid for when bought "in bulk" by the government for the public, rather than purchased by indivdual consumers. The highway system, water distribution, the fire department, universal health, and national defense are some examples." - Er, can someone explain this addition please. I have a grounding in economics but this criticism seems rather vague. Surely if a government "buys things in bulk" it has no information from individual consumers, as in a public market, there are no prices, and if there are no prices, then there is no way of determining supply and demand, and the subsequent distribution of such resources. This is hardly more efficient than the free-market, where, though information is limited, it communicates more information through price signals. --Knucmo2 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a separate (but valid) point. Economies of scale do indeed reduce government expenditures on resources which scale well; whether all the above resources do scale well, and whether the economy of scale is sufficient to override the inefficiencies that come with a non-market system, is another question. 66.7.249.82 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the contention against bulk purchasing by a state is only valid in a non-mixed market economy. In a mixed market economy, there are many "sources" of price information available from various purchasing "agencies" HMOs, discount suppliers, etc. daniel_palos@hotmail.com

The quote provided by Knucmo2 confuses "economies of scale" (wherein efficiency of production increases with size up to some asymptote - e. g., steel- and auto-making) with "natural monopolies" (wherein multiple providers would be grossly inefficient and there is no necessary relation to economy of scale - e. g., highways, water, fire dept., national defense). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No-welfare states
There should be a section (since there is no separate article) on states that are not welfare states. There are also a lot of welfare states that are not mentioned (Japan) and there is no mention of states that used to be welfare states, but now are moving away from that model (Sweden). 174.102.226.80 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First person intro
What on earth does this sentence mean?

"When reading this article about the welfare state keep in mind it is not only refering to non-entitlement or discretionary spending." -- I was going to simply edit out the first-person instruction to the reader (and fix the spelling) but I can't even determine what it's supposed to be saying about the article and what it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.197.113 (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

China is not a welfare state
Because China is not a welfare state and it is unknown if they will become one in the future, it is premature to have them in the history section at this time. I would be okay with creating a section called "Countries proposing welfare state reforms" or something like that. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What is an egalitarian welfare state?
some research papers mention the term "egalitarian welfare state". Can someone please add an explanation, what is the difference between an "egalitarian welfare state" and a normal "welfare state"? --188.120.156.40 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Colorscheme of photo
Despite previous comment regarding neutrality of colours - the red=danger association of the current scheme now biases article in opposite direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welfairstate (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Welfare state created by conservatives
"Historian Robert Paxton argues that the welfare state was created primarily by conservatives, and usually opposed by socialists and labor unions because they thought it would distract from their mission"

The part about socialists and labor unions sounds like pure right wing propaganda (most right wingers today oppose the welfare state and want to reduce it). The welfare state fits in nicely with the socialist idea that the State takes care of the people, (in this case the sick and old and unemployed), this is a redistribution of wealth between those that work and those that are unable to work and require care or medicine or unemployment benefits. Maybe SOME nutty people who happened to call themselves socialists opposed it (probably because some people are so political they oppose everything the other party does), but that does not mean the welfare state is not a part of the socialist ideal. Also the people Robert is referring to most likely opposed the implementation, but not the idea, of a welfare state. That's a very big distinction.


 * "Sounds like right wing propaganda". Why? Robert Paxton is not a right winger but a historian who has written many books about the Vichy regime. This is why I previously identified him as a "historian of fascism" but someone has decided to take that out. Perhaps it is confusing to cite him at all, but whoever put his name in found him convenient and readable, so that is why he is there. In any case, it is no secret that the welfare state originated in the newly united German state under Bismarck, who was a conservative and militarist (and remember, welfare measures originated as a way to help veterans and war widows and orphans). In the United States right-wingers have opposed the welfare state, but this has not been true in Europe or in Britain. European conservatives always thought that the upper classes (i.e., the aristocracy) had a responsibility for the welfare of poorer citizens. This had been the rationale of feudalism since the middle ages (See the "Three worlds of the welfare state" section further down). Germany's reforms were so successful that they were emulated by British liberals (including Winston Churchill) who were alarmed that Germany's young men were healthier and better nourished than their British counterparts and hence would make better soldiers. In addition Germany at this time led the world in science and manufacturing, due to its state support of public schools and universities. Eventually, progressive parties everywhere came to support the welfare state because it was shown to be workable and effective wherever it was tried. However, in the US anti-German feeling and the tradition of state's rights combined to block attempts by Theodore Roosevelt and others to implement universal social and medical insurance. 173.77.14.63 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Upgrade to C-class
This article is pretty long, with several sections, covers the topic pretty well, and it has 67 references I don't think it's still a start class article, I'm upgrading it to a C-Class article. I hope no one opposes, but if anyone does, we can discuss the issue here.  Carl wev   15:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Image Contradicts Table of Values
It seems that the data used to generate the image at the top of the page is significantly more recent than the data used in the table of Welfare Expenditure (%GDP). Unless I've missed something, shouldn't these two show the same data? They both seem to be from OECD sources, which is great, but the table seems to still be using 2001 data. Any particular reason why this shouldn't be changed? Prymal (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Church schools etc in Britain
The present article claims that "As part of the reforms [the post-war welfare state in Britain], the Church of England also closed down its voluntary relief networks and passed the ownership of thousands of church schools, hospitals and other bodies to the state". This is (almost) pure nonsense. The Church of England (and other denominations) continue to run numerous relief organisations and to own thousands of church schools. The position of church schools is that in general they are 'voluntary aided' schools. The church owns the schools, provides capital funding and maintenance, and is responsible for staff and pupil recruitment, while the Government pays for running costs and exercises a general supervision of standards. (There are also a smaller number of purely independent schools runs by churches without state funding.) As for hospitals, I don't know a great deal about them, but I have never heard it claimed that a large number of hospitals were transferred from Church to State. Unlike the position in many Catholic countries, I don't think the Church of England had much involvement in hospital provision. Most of the large hospitals (Guys, Barts, etc) were charitable foundations. The only source quoted in the article is a passing remark in an Economist article, which wouldn't stand close examination. As I'm not an expert on these subjects I'm not going to attempt revising the text myself, but I suggest someone more qualified should do so.81.157.69.50 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Social Security and Fair Labor Act
Hi. I reverted 's reversion of an edit which removed verbiage regarding African-Americans being the major group affected by the exclusion clause of this act. While I agree with Rjensen's thought that this fact is important, it would only be important if it was accurate. While Blacks were one group affected by this, they were not the only group, and while data is sketchy, were perhaps not even the largest group. Other groups which were affected included Hispanics (particularly Mexican-Americans), Filipinos, Chinese, and Whites. A great discussion of this can be found HERE, (go to the section "Examining the Race Explanation", in particular). Onel5969 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Onel5969 is correct and I was wrong and I appreciate his link to that valuable article. Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Radcliff
Hi. While peer-reviewed, without inclusion of opposing views, this presents an NPOV issue.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add an appropriate opposing viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV rules do NOT apply to RS; they only apply to Wiki editors. The WP:NPOV rule states: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." Rjensen (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just plain wrong
"Historian Robert Paxton observes that on the European continent the provisions of the welfare state were originally enacted by conservatives in the late nineteenth century and by fascists in the twentieth in order to distract workers from unions and socialism, and were opposed by leftists and radicals"

Please remove the point above. Either someone misunderstood Paxton or the author knows next to nothing about the history of labour legislation and the role played by socialists. In the point above, you can see how confused the writer is. On the one hand he claims provisions were "opposed by leftists and radicals" but on the other hand, provisions were introduced to distract workers from "socialism". Leftists and radicals are socialist and subscribe to the philosophy of socialism. Duh!

Any way don't take my word for me. See the references below.

Left wing/communist/socialists were the first to advocate for labour rights (especially the right to form trade unions). These parties gave rise to trade unions in Europe (except in England where the trade unions gave rise to the party). Trade unions were the principal force behind the introduction of labour legislation.

See Busche 1983 The Political Role of Trade Unions p. 6

"Elsewhere in europe, it was the parties who created the unions"

https://books.google.ca/books?id=gC6uCwAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&lpg=PP3&dq=the+political+role+of+trade+unions+busche&source=bl&ots=9BBY9uvNvO&sig=k9i2-wsjpPbcwRI13X5IQVj_EOo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipss6Rw9PLAhVU72MKHZrHB2sQ6AEIJjAB#v=snippet&q=elsewhere%20in%20europe&f=false

Also in the nineteenth century, the International Workingmen's Association (1864-1872) under Marx's guidance advocated for labour reforms and supported a number of unions and numerous strikes. The IALL was made up of communists, socialists, trade unionists and anarchists (although the anarchists did not support trade union or labour rights advocacy)

see here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/08/instructions.htm#06

and here https://books.google.ca/books?id=pTcQkQZbersC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=to+counteract+the+intrigues+of+capitalists+always+ready,+in+cases+of+strikes+and+lockouts,+to+misuse+the+foreign+workman+as+a+tool+against+the+native+workman,+is+one+of+the+particular+functions+which+our+Society+has+hitherto+performed+with+success.+It+is+one+of+the+great+purposes+of&source=bl&ots=22bXVQEzNB&sig=EGhoYPQH6dHacHMPY_s8hf6tP2U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp-ODExNPLAhVC9WMKHU_FDswQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=to%20counteract%20the%20intrigues%20of%20capitalists%20always%20ready%2C%20in%20cases%20of%20strikes%20and%20lockouts%2C%20to%20misuse%20the%20foreign%20workman%20as%20a%20tool%20against%20the%20native%20workman%2C%20is%20one%20of%20the%20particular%20functions%20which%20our%20Society%20has%20hitherto%20performed%20with%20success.%20It%20is%20one%20of%20the%20great%20purposes%20of&f=false

and here https://books.google.ca/books?id=GC1Y7Meabi4C&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=to+counteract+the+intrigues+of+capitalists+always+ready,+in+cases+of+strikes+and+lockouts,+to+misuse+the+foreign+workman+as+a+tool+against+the+native+workman,+is+one+of+the+particular+functions+which+our+Society+has+hitherto+performed+with+success.+It+is+one+of+the+great+purposes+of&source=bl&ots=0wCM4UO_7T&sig=TGLwexEcOe9qHpqIHVAYtQ6qUu4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp-ODExNPLAhVC9WMKHU_FDswQ6AEIKzAE#v=onepage&q=to%20counteract%20the%20intrigues%20of%20capitalists%20always%20ready%2C%20in%20cases%20of%20strikes%20and%20lockouts%2C%20to%20misuse%20the%20foreign%20workman%20as%20a%20tool%20against%20the%20native%20workman%2C%20is%20one%20of%20the%20particular%20functions%20which%20our%20Society%20has%20hitherto%20performed%20with%20success.%20It%20is%20one%20of%20the%20great%20purposes%20of&f=false

There was also Robert Owen who was the pioneer of labour rights. In 1819 he secured the passing of a law which limited working hours for children in textile factories see here https://books.google.ca/books?id=1e_x5BvwX94C&q=robert+owen#v=snippet&q=robert%20owen&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Labor unions until WW2 showed little interest in government welfare programs and emphasized instead the building up of labor unions, (they did pass related hours-of-labor laws.)  Their goal was to prove that only through labor union based political power could the workers gain real benefits.  To head them off Bismarck, the leading conservative of the 19th century, introduced the main features of the welfare state. It became operational in Germany in the 1870-90 era. His goal was to show workers that conservatives could produce better results than unions could. In Britain, the main elements were introduced by the Liberal Party in the 1910 era, At a time when unions were politically weak. France was well behind the other two, but key elements were introduced in the cities c 1930. By conservatives. see  So Paxton is basically correct.  the left was spending its attention on labor unions & strikes, primarily because it was not interested in the welfare state before 1945 -- it was interested in gaining power through the votes of the working class. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Kverndokk's comment on this article
Dr. Kverndokk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I think this article can be improved in at least two ways:

- The selection of countries in section 3.1 seems very arbitrary and do not cover most of the modern welfare states mentioned in the introduction. Some of the countries are not even mentioned in the general text as far as I can see (e.g., China and OPEC counties). The Nordic countries, the Netherlands and France should be on the list. - The text is very influenced by historians, sociologists and political scientists, while there is not much about the influence of the welfare state on the economy, e.g., what incentives does the different forms of welfare states create and how does this influence the different macroeconomic outcomes. I have not been working on this myself, but I suggest that you contact economists that know this literature."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Kverndokk has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Brekke, Kjell Arne & Grunfeld, Leo A. & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2011. "Explaining the Health Equality Paradox of the Welfare State," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2011:3, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Early welfare states
From this section it seems that the origins of welfare state are in Islam. This is very confusing because it is known that even in the Roman Republic state pensions and alimentary system for any citizen existed. This was modeled after ancient Greek cities which existed even earlier. The Islam's own customs of charity were borrowed from Judaism.--MathFacts (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The entry on the purported Islamic origins of welfare states is dubious at best. I am deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.139.96 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * MathFacts is a confirmed sock puppet so should not be taken seriously. 70.51.84.138 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Technical problem when editing the page?
I have been trying to edit this page but can't see the changes that I have done after editing. 70.51.84.138 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you define a welfare state? Iceland vs. Estonia
How do you define a welfare state? Iceland is considered a welfare state in the article, while Estonia is not mentioned. But Estonia's social expenditure % to GDP is larger than in Iceland. OECD social expenditure data. I would like to know if I can define Estonia as a welfare state. JonSonberg (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Welfare state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030901100155/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augvipo2y3.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augvipo2y3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Map inccorrect?
I checked the USA 2013 values from the linked page, they are not above 20% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.133.45.142 (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Welfare state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/welfarebrief
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928055320/http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/188.pdf to http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/188.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050512000410/http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/ to http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does the US spend so much on welfare but is widely considered not to have welfare?
Hi,

I'm not an economist. I'm trying to educate myself as to the benefits and dangers of welfare. From reading the news especially opinion pieces in the BBC I get the impression that the US has no welfare system at all and leaves poor people to be poor etc. However I see in the list that the US spends quite a lot (among the highest) on welfare. Why the discrepancey, could the article address this ?

thanks -kghose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kghose (talk • contribs) 15:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The premise in your question is mistaken. If you look at the table in the article, which comes from OECD figures, you will see that the USA spends less proportionately on social expenditure than nearly all other OECD countries, and less absolutely than many. The system in the US is highly decentralised, and different rules apply in different states. Beyond that, such expenditure as there is not effectively spent. Supporting health care in a largely marketised system, which the USA does for elderly people, people on low incomes and psychiatric patients, is much more expensive than it is in non-market systems.

Most welfare "systems" have a range of different support networks. Many welfare systems offer support to people with established records of work and contribution, but support for people on low incomes is mixed. The system in the UK has good coverage but leaves a "poverty gap", or shortfall between support and minimum income standards. Germany - the world's top exporting economy - has nominally better coverage than the UK but a higher poverty gap for those who are not covered. The US performs particularly badly both in terms of coverage and the poverty gap.

PS

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Spicker (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

So the metric used is not the expenditure per person, but the percentage of GDP. Why is this considered a good measure ? Where does welfare spending in the US go, dole, healthcare etc. where would I find the break up

thanks -kg

Note that in Australia, it's relatively difficult to be destitute. It requires an addiction to something (like drugs or gambling), an inability to get cheap accomidation, an inability/choice to follow a few social norms (usually due to mental illness), or a choice to live in very remote places (usually because your family has for thousands of years). It really is a great country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kghose (talk • contribs). — Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Three welfare models, not two.
The paragraph titled "two forms of the welfare state" should be rewritten for accuracy. In fact, there are three welfare models (forms of welfare states if you please): The residual welfare system, such as that of Britain or the US, the universal, also known as the Scandinavian welfare system, and the selective, Central European welfare system. (Obviously the English terms are a bit off here - my source is foreign.)
 * Agree with this user. Per Gøsta Esping-Andersen's work, there should be at least three welfare systems. The english names for them would be "Liberal", "Social-Democratic", and "Conservative", respectively according to the above typology Meangreenbeanmachine (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the confusion in this page runs deeper than reflecting inaccurately on reference models accepted in WS studies. From an economics' or public policy standpoint WS is the ensemble of social policies, whatever they are and for whatever purpose the law sets in any given country and time. From a sociological, political, or theoretical perspective, WS can be used to mean a form of State which pursues social/progressive political goals, so it can take a normative meaning. In the page, the second perspective seems to prevail among the contributors, thence the pro and against views and the at times rather fuzzy presentation. IMHO the page needs a bit of tiding up teasing out the issues. Tytire (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignorant map
The map is just awful. Most of the territory is uncharted. Do you just

(1) Don't care about the Untermensch (in which case you are a Nazi, no offense, just a fact) or

(2) You don't know what is going on in the "here be dragon" land (in which case this is a hasty and sloppy map; never rush a publication like that) or

(3) You know, but the results suggests that the life in those "barbarian" countries is not all that bad (so you are faking the data by hiding it) or

(4) You have some other (hopefully noble) excuse

The map should be deleted or fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.199.82 (talk • contribs) 20:02, March 23, 2014


 * I made that map, actually. It was made using data from the OECD, I only included the countries for which there was any data. If you have another reliable source with more social expenditure statistics I would be glad to edit them in. Please also note that accusing someone of being a Nazi probably falls under WP:TALK and you should refrain from doing so again. Oh, and next time please put issues about a particular file in that file's talk page. Fuebar (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that the welfare state affects productivity"
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/03/the-impact-of-government-spending-on-economic-growth

There has been a negative correlation between social spending and growth which has held since the beginning of time, statistically speaking. You can call that "no evidence" if you want, but that's not evidence of absence, its simply because economics isn't a rigorous science that can calculate the costs of welfare state policies.

Most people are aware of this so I see no need to add it to the article, I'm just posting it on the talk page. 71.114.5.223 (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy question
Sorry if this is the wrong way to do something, I just want to let you know that the picture with the colored countries is wrong. According to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States - 21% of the US's GDP is pure public welfare with an additional 10% being a publicly supported private charity, yet the map clearly says we have less than 17%. one of them is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.34.184 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Move away from "social democracy" series?
It does not seem right to have this ar a part of the series on social democracy. Welfare states have been established by a number of political regimes, including liberal/social liberal and conservative regimes. It is not a social democratic concept altogether --Glirhuin 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Christian democracy is also supporting the idea of a (moderate?) welfare state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.248.192 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

True, it isn't exclusive of social democrats, but social democrats always defend the welfare system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.152.51 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Welfare, as described in this article, is not exclusive to democratic, Christian, or liberal states. The oldest systems of social welfare described here are under the Mauryan, Han, and Roman Empires and an early Caliphate. They weren't democratic, nor Christian. The question is whether the article should be part of a Series when for the inclusion of one section of the article, or if the whole article must belong to the Series to put it in that category. I don't know which policy is more consistent with general Wikipedia policies, but it is a valid question. 2601:441:4400:1740:7CBB:F534:DB2F:42BC (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Different Comparisons
Instead of comparing GNP (which is an outdated statistic in my opinion anyways, at least use GDP?) with %government expenditures, wouldn't it make more sense to compare GDP growth with %government expenditures? --Fephisto 19:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea of "welfare"
If anything this article is biased in favor of the welfare state. See 'Arguments Against' and then a personal opinion attached to one of these arguments. That is really wild. thewolfstar

This article looks heavily biased against the idea of welfare state. Furthermore, why should it be kept separate from Social welfare? David.Monniaux 17:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason to keep it apart might be something like not confusing the European understanding of "Welfare" (when translated to English, that is) and the American meaning of the same word. ...or is it the US meaning, maybe? ...or have I got all wrong?

--Ruhrjung 21:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * One problem is that the concept of "welfare" does not really exist in some European countries! I cannot translate "welfare" into French. I can translate "welfare state", "social security", but welfare, per se... David.Monniaux 21:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that you in fr.wikipedia could have an article with the title "Welfare" to introduce francophone readers to the American usage. ;-)
 * It's surely not without reason that there yet are no interwiki links from Welfare.
 * --Ruhrjung 21:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is the American meaning for 'welfare'? It translates directly to finnish: 'Hyvinvointi', where 'Hyvin' in this context means 'comfortable/good' and 'vointi' means "the condition of health" or just "health". This is probably why the parts of the article edited by me used to have reference the antidepressants and (the lack of) mental health. I think "welfare state" as being a paradoxical expression in much the same way one could say "war is peace" or "slavery is freedom". Finlander 23:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In American English, the literal meaning of "welfare" is equivalent to that of "well-being", but the connotation of "handouts" implicit in the idea of social welfare has come to dominate the literal meaning of the word. I hope that answers your question. Andrew Rodland 01:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marc.Lévesque Note: I'm really not sure why David is claiming that there is no equivalent for the word "welfare" in french. Its actually "bien-être" which can be literally translated as "being-well" in english. No offense to the finnish language, but I think that the french and english notions of welfare (to fare well) and bien-être (being well) can be more evidently traced back to either greek or latin than finnish. We need a translator! (March, 2005)

In the US, the term "Welfare state" has very specific connotations. Translating connotation into another language isn't always possible. Would it help to modify the intro "Welfare state describes a nation... it is frequently used as a pejorative political term."? I think the pejorative label would definitely help non-native English speakers. Feco 01:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The term is used negatively no more frequently than positively, thus "pejorative" label would be both inaccurate and biased. 69.119.232.155 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Welfare states
How many/what kind of social welfare programs are required before you can call a country a welfare state? Is there a more specific definition? Mdchachi|Talk 20:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that Canada should also be included in the welfare states list.


 * In the last 13 years, Canada has been eroding its status as a welfare state. Jean Chrétien and the liberal governments of the recent past--and conceivably the Conservative government of today will continue this trend--have slowly been eroding away social programmes, cutting transfer payments to provinces, etc. This is not to say that it shouldn't be included, but it should be noted that Canada has been demonstrating a move away from various levels of support of the welfare state.

Comparative research on the welfare state (in particular the work of esping-andersen and many other researchers following on his line of argumentation) provided us with excellent typology to explain differences in welfare state development and also to understand the effects of these differences. I think that a reference to this literature would partially solve the problem of this article.

The important question is not so much whether their is a 'small' or a 'big' welfare state. What has to be taken into account is that the type and degree of government involvement in the provision differs. In particular these differences relate to the power-distribution and the prevalence of particular ideological views at certain critical moments when social security programs were adopted: States that had a strong presence of Social Democracy chose highly redistributive, universal social security measures (e.g. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries). Christian democratic political forces relied on measures that protect the income and status of the breadwinner (e.g. Germany, Italy...). In countries that had neither strong Social Democrats nor strong Christian Democrats tended to rely on lean state involvement providing basic social security nets and delegating the generation of welfare primarily to the market, private initiatives and families (e.g. USA).

Each welfare regime has particular effects (e.g. on social stratification or on the labour market). (1) The Social Democratic regimes due to the highly redistributive schemes do best in terms of reduction of inequality, this comes at the cost of high taxes. Because of the universality of the welfare system, international labour mobility (e.g. in the context of the Single European Market)causes problems. (2) The Christian Democratic regimes, although much money is transfered through the state, do not have the same equalizing effects than the universial regimes. Because welfare contributions and benefits mainly depend on the wage level, these transfer have status preserving effects. The strong protection of the (mostly male) breadwinner in the labour market has the problematic side-effect of higher levels of unemployment among the non-protected (mostly the young and to a certain degree also  women). On the other hand, the high protection of the employees also incites them to invest in highly speicalized skills, which in turn has effects on the structure of the economy. (3) The liberal regimes have more or less neutral effects on social stratification: neither is inequality reduced nor does the state contribute to preserve the status of an individual. The labour market is characterized by high mobility and the individual is largely self-responsible for coping with social risks (illness, unemployment, old age...).

Guys who call Finland one: -Have you ever been to Finland, calling it a welfare state? If so, look around you. The homeless wait in breadlines in freezing cold, collect cans to get some food, try to find some warm place to be during winter etc. The politicians' propaganda is pitiful. The politicians make "research" calling it one, yet it never been one. At best, at level with Britain, now far less a welfare state than Britain. At least Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Greece have more of a welfare state than Finland. --Kaualiemenee (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Google search (pictures) for leipäjono and you get the idea. Politicians put money into "welfare state", but it often goes back to them.


 * Finland is a welfare state, It can be discussed how successful it is, but it even if it is bad at it, it is stilla welfare state. Also: Take a look at the other countries. Do you really think it's any different there? Don't be naive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)