The entitlement to be selfish
17 August 2009
SUGGESTED
Economic Theory
7 August 2009
Regulation
12 August 2009
Lifestyle Economics
15 November 2024
Gordon Brown recently signalled a shift in public policy away from performance targets and towards entitlements. He argued we should place access to health, education, housing and welfare on the basis of entitlements, on the premise that this was what citizens should expect from the public services.
But this is a very dangerous idea, in that the the notion of entitlements acts to separate completely the funding of welfare from its consumption. To say we are entitled to something places a clear moral imperative on some agent to provide it for us. It also implies that we need provide no further justification for our access to the service, and that we should have these services regardless of the consequences to others.
Brown’s idea of entitlement simply assumes that the services – and the money to pay for them – is always there, and that if extra funding is needed then it should, and can, be found. But where, and from whom, does the money for these services come from? And why is it acceptable that the people paying have no say in what others may receive?
The problem of basing welfare on entitlements is that it assumes that people who are not party to private decisions – about having children, taking a job, taking drugs, not eating healthily – should eventually be held to account for sorting out the resulting problems. This might be justified by some on the basis of social solidarity and altruism, in that we should feel the need to help others less fortunate than ourselves. However, what is readily apparent is that the sense of solidarity only runs one way – from taxpayer to welfare recipient. There is no conditionality to ensure that welfare recipients’ entitlements are linked to any sort of behaviour. The result of this is the very opposite of solidarity: if we have entitlements we need not think of the needs of others (after all they have entitlements too!). Perversely, therefore, Brown’s attempt to broaden the role of the state as a provider of welfare merely has the effect of making us more selfish.
But this is a very dangerous idea, in that the the notion of entitlements acts to separate completely the funding of welfare from its consumption. To say we are entitled to something places a clear moral imperative on some agent to provide it for us. It also implies that we need provide no further justification for our access to the service, and that we should have these services regardless of the consequences to others.
Brown’s idea of entitlement simply assumes that the services – and the money to pay for them – is always there, and that if extra funding is needed then it should, and can, be found. But where, and from whom, does the money for these services come from? And why is it acceptable that the people paying have no say in what others may receive?
The problem of basing welfare on entitlements is that it assumes that people who are not party to private decisions – about having children, taking a job, taking drugs, not eating healthily – should eventually be held to account for sorting out the resulting problems. This might be justified by some on the basis of social solidarity and altruism, in that we should feel the need to help others less fortunate than ourselves. However, what is readily apparent is that the sense of solidarity only runs one way – from taxpayer to welfare recipient. There is no conditionality to ensure that welfare recipients’ entitlements are linked to any sort of behaviour. The result of this is the very opposite of solidarity: if we have entitlements we need not think of the needs of others (after all they have entitlements too!). Perversely, therefore, Brown’s attempt to broaden the role of the state as a provider of welfare merely has the effect of making us more selfish.
4 thoughts on “The entitlement to be selfish”
Comments are closed.
SHARE
What behaviour are we ‘entitled’ to expect from elected members of parliament?
For example, should we be entitled to expect political parties to keep promises in their election manifesto?
Should we expect individual politicians to put (what they genuinely perceive to be) the interests of the people before their own personal re-election prospects?
Should we expect politicians not to attempt deliberately to deceive people (even without ‘telling lies’)?
Should we expect British politicians’ allegiance to be to this country, not to some alien tyranny on the continent?
What behaviour are we ‘entitled’ to expect from elected members of parliament?
For example, should we be entitled to expect political parties to keep promises in their election manifesto?
Should we expect individual politicians to put (what they genuinely perceive to be) the interests of the people before their own personal re-election prospects?
Should we expect politicians not to attempt deliberately to deceive people (even without ‘telling lies’)?
Should we expect British politicians’ allegiance to be to this country, not to some alien tyranny on the continent?
Re: Entitlement Culture:
It’s interesting that ‘progressive’ intellectuals often praise the protest culture in France, as prove that the notion of ’solidarity’ was stronger developed there. What kind of ’solidarity’ is it when trade union members attempt to bully the taxpayer into providing them with special entitlements, such as a preferential pension formula?
It’s people attempting to reach their selfish aims through the political process, where the market process has been disabled. They shouldn’t be blamed, because they’re just playing the game – when resources are distributed politically, you have to get your share through political means. But it shouldn’t be romanticised either.
Re: Entitlement Culture:
It’s interesting that ‘progressive’ intellectuals often praise the protest culture in France, as prove that the notion of ’solidarity’ was stronger developed there. What kind of ’solidarity’ is it when trade union members attempt to bully the taxpayer into providing them with special entitlements, such as a preferential pension formula?
It’s people attempting to reach their selfish aims through the political process, where the market process has been disabled. They shouldn’t be blamed, because they’re just playing the game – when resources are distributed politically, you have to get your share through political means. But it shouldn’t be romanticised either.