Perspectives, philosophies

Karen Seccombe is a sociologist, and approaches social welfare from a different disciplinary perspective than say, an economist would. Bradley Schiller is an economist. We'll start with some of what Bradley Schiller says.

How to explain poverty and inequality? He offers different views.

Human capital-what is it? Investment in abilities-you're developing human capital. A carpenter's apprentice, vo-tech student, DDE student, etc. We're investing in our futures, attempting to expand or enhance our own opportunity structures, and in most cases, hopefully, earning potential. The human capital line of reasoning says that those who invest in human capital are those that gain bigger slices of the economic pie. Everyone has opportunities to go to school, get training of some sort, etc. Those who are motivated to do so will succeed in the economy.

What do you think? Does everyone choose their vocation based on its income potential? Is human capital equally rewarded in the marketplace? Can everyone go to Harvard? Does everyone have the chance to go to the best public schools? To go to day care or preschool programs? Montessori school? Who benefits most in the human capital, market-based system?
Look at women and college enrollment. More women are enrolling in college than men. Some say this means men are being discriminated against. Could it mean that college isn't one of the opportunities available with the biggest payoff? Are there other better opportunities to which men are gravitating?

Essentially, from the human capital perspective, it's people's own faults if they don't succeed and work their way up the socioeconomic ladder (so we might support them through welfare, but we certainly don't want to make it too attractive).

Poverty as structural, a function of power relations
The first argument is that people are responsible for their own lots in life. The structural argument says the playing field isn't level. Access to good schools, jobs, etc. is not equitable (how do schools get funded, generally?). Discrimination may exist based on race, gender, class, ethnicity.

It's clear from Seccombe's chapter 1 that many people are trying very hard to escape poverty, but one misfortune can be their downfall, and that women are more vulnerable than men. Do single mothers bring misfortune on themselves? If they don't behave properly, have relationships with men, do they deserve cash assistance? They're raising the next generation of workers, leaders … we don't economically value that?? (women's work is often 'devalued')
By contrast-corporate welfare (tax breaks, subsidies) increases incomes of the wealthiest (who also happen to contribute to political campaigns …). The extreme view here is that society is to blame, and that people can't be held responsible for their social circumstances--they're practically pre-determined by the structures that shape our lives.

'Big brother'
This perspective also blames society. Well, government. It suggests that welfare programs create dependency (Charles Murray, George Gilder). They're so good, why should people bother to go out and get a job? Husbands sometimes leave because their presence complicates receiving welfare. Better to leave the money in the private sector (trickle down … or table scrap theory-evidence doesn't support it-less people on welfare rolls, not less inequality).

What about rational choice? Are people making good choices staying on welfare because the job opportunities are so poor?

---

Now . . .

What is welfare? Some related concepts include

In essence, welfare is a multi-dimensional concept.

Who should get it?

Here are two life histories (from Kerbo, 2003):

One is motivated and driven, the other lazy and lacking ambition?

Can we explain the differences in terms of individual traits?

Class; race; gender, geography (when Michael's mother got married, things improved for a time …)-questions:

Social inequality: unequal access to valued resources, services and positions--schools, for instance, or even decent voting machines, transportation services.
Economic inequality: unequal access to income, wealth (often influences social inequalities--for instance, living in the inner city, with low income, will likely mean going to inferior, poorly-funded schools)

Social stratification: We speak of stratification when these inequalities that have been institutionalized--they've become structural. Stratification addresses the questions of who gets what, when and how?
Of course there are exceptions, people who through sheer force of will pull themselves out of poverty. But usually, they've had a break here or there as well, or at least less bad breaks than their contemporaries. The Williams sisters (the tennis players) and their father come to mind.

Status

There are two kinds of status that can affect inequalities: Ascriptive status (race, ethnicity, gender, class)--your social positions you get at birth that stay with you--and Achieved status--for instance, a college degree, assistant manager, President--these things are not preordained at the time of birth (although it's difficult for non-white non-males to achieve certain positions, obviously).

Social mobility: Can people move around-do they have social mobility? Yes, but their degree of mobility depends in many cases on their ascribed status, and on structural forces. It is not easy to be born into lower income classes and rise to the upper class.

top of page

---

What is structure?

Structures persist-some are easier than others to conceptualize. For instance, buildings. They have a structure, and people come and go, furniture may come and go, but altering that structure may be difficult. As 9/11 showed us, it can happen in dramatic and tragic ways, but it takes great force and energy.