---->
----
----
----
----
English --->
Español ---
Deutsch ---
Français ---
Italiano ---
Português
... If translation leaves the bottom of a page still English, copy and translate HERE.
Developed Democracy Government and the Poor ..
If democracies must have poverty, then they must at least treat their poor fairly.
- Site Search at bottom - v
Developed democracies have a highly developed industrial and technological base, and also have complex government systems.
And in such developed democracies, most of the population will be relatively affluent - but with some substantial
minority actually rich and some substantial minority relatively poor. Of course within and across the economic groups,
there will also be non-economic population differences including ethnic, religious, age, gender, disabled, housing-disadvantaged and other social groups.
What is social exclusion ? Some of such minorities are likely also to be excluded from obtaining many of the socially significant things that the majority can obtain (which might include reasonable work, education, or holidays etcetera or generally equal opportunity and fair treatment) - which is what 'social exclusion' is really about. It is a major continued failing of most developed democracies (allied perhaps to the 'international exclusion' of poor countries), and at the extreme may involve some minorities being treated as social Lepers and Scapegoats. Fixing poverty itself or disability itself (or changing the social groupings that people are in), may be social or political issues but they are not social exclusion issues - which are basically about treating low-income and other minorities reasonably.
Government in developed democracies depends on getting the support of some majority of the population, and so may simply tend towards following the 'middle class' majority on most of its policies - and disregard its minorities. But this simple approach to developed democracy government will generally not give the best results for such societies or such governments. Social cohesion and stability are maximised if all voters feel that government fairly considers at least some of their main concerns - and this also maximises voter support over voter apathy.
Voters in democracies may at times prioritise religious, nationalistic or other issues - but in developed democracies their support for government will largely be based on what they see as chiefly affecting their own financial wellbeing and this will become governments priority also. Hence the general level of taxation affecting themselves, and the level of public services affecting them, will be the two chief policy areas to chiefly determine the majority's government support. Public opinion and government responses on these will tend over time to swing between the 'less tax, less services' and 'more services, more tax' positions. While it will be reasonable for governments to follow such swings, developed societies and their government will prosper most if extremes are avoided. Democratic government will often need to follow, but also need to moderate, such voter fickleness if it and society are not to be adversely affected by extreme swings. And developed democracy voters who prioritise wellbeing, will reject the economic inefficiencies of both extreme central regulation which discourages personal achievement and extreme non-regulation which encourages exploitation.
The big weakness of central-planning government is that its target-making encourages lying about target-achieving, and the big weakness of democratic government is that its promise-making encourages lying about promise-achieving. Under both types of government more effort tends to be put into deceiving well than into doing well, and the same weakness can easily afflict many private businesses also.
Government for minorities.
Minorities in developed democracies will generally support government chiefly on the same basis as the majority - on the general level of taxation affecting themselves, and the general level of public services affecting themselves. This will often mean the rich minority being concerned chiefly about general wealth taxation and policing, with the poor minority being concerned chiefly about general state welfare benefits and consumer taxes. Both can be strongly affected by the particular ways in which a welfare state actually administers its benefits. These issues, like many other issues, may be of only secondary concern to the majority so that often democratic governments can reasonably formulate policy positions that do not follow the views of the middle class majority - but instead best suit social stability and economic prosperity.
Some minority issues will tend to impact on the major majority concerns. Hence, large changes in welfare benefit levels can affect the general level of taxation and in such policy areas some reasonable balance is needed. However, there will be minority issues that need have little or no impact on the major majority concerns. Merely having laws that supposedly protect some minorities on some issues, often ineffectively anyway, is not good enough.
Government by the majority.
Developed democracies with a highly developed industrial and technological base, will need more complex government systems which will need to be run by those more skilled and educated. While this can basically work well, it commonly involves some significant problems, chiefly in government by middle-class professionals tending to have little or no real knowledge of the poor. Government handling of the poorest and their children can then be very inadequate, causing substantial problems.
Government experts are imagined to be anybody with a classics distinction from Harvard or Oxford, or a social science degree from Downtown College - or even just if they work for a significant relevant body - though they have no experience of poverty. Of course the cleverest are entirely dumb about things they have no experience of. The middle-class have built up a theoretical 'false-expertise' on the poor, which they believe to be the truth though it is often far from it. Generally based on the idea that the poor and scapegoats are necessary to the prosperity of society, when they necessary only to a few selfish individuals who can prosper only by exploiting others. The main problems of the poor in advanced countries like the USA and UK today are often less about their poverty than about their mistreatment and misgovernment by middle-class society. Even where governments genuinely do 'recruit minorities', which can be of some limited help, they will generally recruit middle-class professional minorities and a middle-class Indian is likely to have little or no real knowledge of many of the problems of poor Indians. And where government tries to consult with the poor directly, which can also be of some limited help, it will generally be asking middle-class questions of poor who know little of the government systems needed. Many real poverty problems and solutions do not register with governments.
Developed democracy governments need to identify and use the very few middle-class professionals who may come from poor families and have maintained substantial real contact with the poor and so have the relevant street-wise knowledge of the poor's actual problems needed as well as understanding the government systems that could be used best. Older poor children treated ridiculously by governments will increasingly react against it badly. The young are often the most disbelieving of 'education' by government or by parents so actually mistreating them while telling them they are being treated fairly will not work but turn them to gangs, crime, drugs, violence and even guns. Some relevant actual fairness is actually needed.
Good government and poverty.
The relative poor minority in developed democracies have problems additional to poverty, but their chief poverty concerns are about general welfare benefit and consumer tax levels and the extent of demoralising means-testing. And a major concern of government will also be the undesirable social consequences of the poor becoming excessively welfare dependent with their demoralised children turning to drugs, crime and social disorder.
If the unskilled unemployed are welfare dependent to the extent of say £200 per week when the average unskilled wage is £100 per week, then they may have little incentive to work and government have little incentive to increase welfare levels. Hence a legal minimum wage system may be needed to ensure that wage levels are above welfare levels. But 2009 saw Europe having legal Minimum Wage levels varying from around £200 a month to around £1,200 a month, with some high wage unionised countries having no legal minimum wage as in Scandinavia.
Developed democracy governments need to deliver needed help to their poor more, but in ways that will promote welfare dependency less. Possible solutions include as follows :-
1. A universal right welfare, like the UK's Child Benefit where everyone with children (rich, poor, unemployed or working) has a right to a small state payment for each child. Such a universal right welfare helps the poor and needs no means-tests, and creates no welfare dependency problems as long as the amounts are well below the average wage - and even the rich take it as a welcome part tax-refund for them so everybody is relatively happy with it. Universal benefits tend to having better coverage, lower administration costs and less legal and other problems that attempted-targeting benefits. And while charities may need to use only attempted-targeting means-tested welfare, universal welfare for all better fits democratic government. Such a Universal Benefit approach could easily be extended further to all adults, and at a lower level to all older children also, to useful effect. Universal provisions like free education, free medicine and free school meals can be useful alternatives or additions to this approach, and can have some advantages or disadvantages of different kinds as against an equivalent amount of universal money benefit. (The UK government is now examining the possible benefits of free school meals and in Newham, Durham and Wolverhampton has started trials.)
2. A semi-targeted consumer taxation, with taxation concentrated on luxury goods consumed less by the poor and essentials like food having low or negative taxation. This again helps the poor but creates no welfare dependency problems, and needs no means-tests.
3. Targeted subsidised products for-the-poor-only (as often with social housing), or free-to-the-poor-only state provided or backed products (as often medicines). This needs means-tests, but done through non-profit bodies can be made to seem less like a state handout to the poor who hence feel less of a welfare dependency effect. Means-testing generally should always be the minimimum necessary, and should really be confined to adults and used only after considering any alternative possibilities.
4. A negative income tax system to help low-wage workers, as in the UK, does need means-tests but can seem less like a state handout to the working poor who hence feel less of a welfare dependency effect.
5. A means tested state handout of cash to the poor, like UK 'Income Support' and rent support, is the worst form of help for the poor for promoting welfare dependency and its undesirable social consequences - and is open to more benefit fraud than some of the above. If multiple approaches to dealing with poverty are to be used, then the extent of the welfare dependancy, and benefit fraud, produced by this handout approach can be reduced if combined with a greater use of some of the approaches above. of course governments do face real problems in trying to deal with poverty because the actual issues vary greatly. Hence even with two seeming equally poor neighbouring families, the poverty may in one family be equally spread between all family members but in the other family be concentrated on eg the wife or the children.
Trying to target poor people can create too many problems, so that often poor people can be helped more by targeting them less.
Democratic government will be supported that regulates and taxes its voters, only if it also gives them reasonable services and rewards in exchange. And can rely on voter support more if it also treats its minorities such as its poor, its children and its ethnic minorities fairly. But it is certainly unfortunately common that those offering help to the poor and other minorities, do it so inappropriately as to do more harm than good.
Fancy a SIP ?
Since it seems almost impossible to get developed professional middle class governments to take any notice of the real problems of the socially excluded, maybe a Social Inclusion Party (SIP) is needed for the poor and other socially excluded minorities ? Anyone thinking of setting up such a party, please let this site know.
It could be based on good government having 3 main aims in overseeing a society, so that the society ;
1. is good at wealth creation.
2. is good at handling the less able and minorities.
3. is good at not alienating its own citizens or others.
Some political theories, and some political parties declared policies, do not support these 3 aims. But there are certainly a number of political theories that appear to generally support this. And there are perhaps also a number of political parties whose declared policies appear to generally support this. Yet no government has ever seemed to actually deliver on all 3 aims.
And it might be noted that actual political practice is rarely good at following political theory or policy for 3 main reasons ;
A. Government never has full knowledge of (or control over) everything - so its best attempt to achieve an aim may fail.
B. Government attempts to achieve one aim can often to some extent oppose its attempts to achieve another aim.
C. Government often has actual priority aims that oppose its declared priority aims.
HIGH SOCIETY DREAMER, by John A Silkstone.
Walking, with medals on his chest
A man of no fixed abode.
"He's a tramp." I heard someone say
"Just an old man of the road."
But he's a high society dreamer.
Years ago he did his best,
Now those five years of bloodshed
Will not let him rest.
Little lad sits on his doorstep
In a derelict City Street.
From a single parent family
With barely enough to eat.
But he's a high society dreamer
Aspiring for the day
When he and others like him
Can stand and have their say.
On a lamp lit corner
Lips and dress of red.
Most despised profession
Still it kept her family fed.
But she's a high society dreamer
Yearning for the time
She can stop selling herself
And leave this life of crime.
So listen legislators
And people of Whitehall,
Stop thinking only of the few,
Try to think of all.
Those high society dreamers,
The ones that dream and scheme,
And when you sweetly sleep tonight,
Have a low society dream.
OR as the song Electric Avenue says,
Now in the street there is violence
And then there's lots of work to be done.
No place to hang out our washin'
And then they can't blame all on the sun.
Oh no,
We gonna rock down to
Electric Avenue
And then we'll take it higher.
Oh we gonna rock down to
Electric Avenue
And then we'll take it higher.
Workin' so hard like a soldier
Can't afford the things on T.V.
Deep in my heart I abhor ya
Can't get food for the kid.
Good God,
We gonna rock down to
Electric Avenue
And then we'll take it higher.
Oh we gonna rock down to
Electric Avenue
And then we'll take it higher.
Hear a bit ...
Global politics.
Globally the professional middle classes of developed democracies are increasingly establishing a global politics as in extending their human rights related baselines for governing. This again rests on the assumption that the professional middle class can successfully alone govern very mixed societies. In fact the resulting policies incline to being desk-theory stereotype policies with serious inconsistencies and holes, because governing by a professional middle class really needs the help of a genuine mix of others being involved also. Modern political and legal developments have not helped here, and undoubtedly poverty and social exclusion affects the lives of so many children so badly as not to be decent to publicly discuss.
A practicable solution that would help democratic governments be more truely representative of their electors, would be having a third of representatives chosen randomly by computer from eligible elector lists. These randomly selected representatives could go for a second term only by election. They would be able to turn down the job, and if three draws produce no acceptance then political parties could nominate representatives in proportion to the numbers of their elected representatives. Randomly selected representatives, unlike professional politicians, would include some average Joes and some from the poor and other rarely represented minorities - and political parties would have to seek to attract them to their ranks. This should do a real bit of good for democracy, and further improvement could come from increasing direct consultation with the people as through the internet. Voting in itself is boring to many, and elections would be more of an exciting spectacle if they included 'Lottery Selection'. (This idea recently put on a local web forum got only support.)
Lotteries have proven that the one thing that millions do fully trust computers to do reliably is random selection, even those without computers, so it certainly looks a better first in electronic democracy than e-voting. And improved internet use could also help the various branches of government and other bodies to identify those people whose contributions might be the most informed in particular issues ? Many working in government jobs have several skills but their job uses only one of their lesser skills, and for them it may be too hard to find and to move to their best job in another department or section. Their managers just want to get the jobs they cover done. A referral payment of say £5,000 to a department that successfully refers any worker to another department who stays 1 year (shared with that department if they helped) could be very useful ?
NEWS. With around 80 million estimated to be living in relative poverty in the EU, the European Union has made 2010 the European Year For Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. There will be conferences and other events to raise public awareness, but as yet no new commitment to action by governments. see EU Poverty Year 2010.
PS. A classic poem on the failings of government, at least when they were religion dominated, written around 1670 was 'Satire Against Reason And Mankind' by John Wilmot Earl of Rochester though that interesting work was maybe just anti-science anti-religion and anti-government ?
Some websites you may like to visit ; World Poverty . UK Child Poverty . Childrens Rights . UK School Truancy . UK TV Licence Facts
And see our How The Poor Were Lost.
For a website with an actually interesting forum, online puzzles and educational store - or if you or your children are into learning, poetry, stories or song or if you suspect that your childrens school is not being really honest in saying your child is doing fine, visit :- Learning, poetry, story and song forum with online store.
IF you like this site then
otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on this site, please contact,
(PS. This website is being especially well used by colleges and universities, so maybe academics must be relied on to get these social exclusion issues dealt with - though most of them may well consider that to be outside their customary role !?)
You can do a good search of this website, or of the web, below ;
Custom Search
Custom Search
You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.social-exclusion-housing.com/government.html
© Social Exclusion Housing, 2010 - taking care with your privacy, see sitemap.