Is there a non-perfectionist justification for workfare?
I. Introduction
In 2014 The Conservative Party introduced the Help to Work scheme in the United Kingdom; long-term unemployed people were expected to work in return for their benefits. Prime Minister David Cameron made the claim that “a key part of our long-term economic plan is to move to full employment, making sure that everyone who can work is in work. (...) [W]e need to look at those who are persistently stuck on benefits.” However, Jonathan Wolff contends that such welfare-to-work policies “rest on strong perfectionist claims about the good life, claims that are controversial and may even be “deeply insulting”. (White, 2003) As a response to Wolff’s objection to workfare policies, …show more content…
Why do contributions to society have to be in the form of wage labour, when unpaid dependant-care also contributes to the system of cooperation? (Anderson, 2004, 243) Whereas White seems to be implying that unpaid work is not sufficient for making a contribution, Anderson contends that unpaid work is indeed sufficient for making a contribution, as well as paid work. Anderson argues quite convincingly that White’s conception of the work ethic undermines unpaid work undertaken by caretakers. White’s assumption that being employed is necessarily related to making a contribution seems to indicate that White’s justification for workfare is perfectionist, given that he considers that “being employed” or doing “paid work” is ideal for contributing. A logical consequence of this is that if we take wage labour to be equivalent to making a contribution, we would have to say that caregivers do not work in the sense that their work does not have a market value. Consequently, Anderson contends that if, in designing workfare schemes, policy-makers give arbitrary preference to some forms of productive contribution to society over other forms, such as care work, we encounter the problem of perfectionism. (White, 2004, 273) Hence, Anderson’s criticism based on the example of caretakers questions the very definition of “contribution” and what it precisely …show more content…
On White’s account people have a moral duty of fairness to make a decent, productive contribution and the long-term unemployed fail to make a decent productive contribution. This is grounded on the premise that paid work is intrinsically linked to making a contribution to the social product. However, I have presented an objection to White’s account, for it seems to indicate that only work that has a market value suffices the idea of what it means to contribute to society. What seems to follow from this is that work that does not have a market value, such as that of non-wage-earning dependent caretakers, does not contribute to society. Based on Anderson’s criticisms, I have argued that if we accept White’s argument, we fail to give equal status to those “non-work contributors”. This would be a violation of fairness understood as demanding equal standing for all. Consequently, I conclude that White’s fairness argument fails to succeed in offering a non-perfectionist justification, for his concept of work as intrinsically linked to the idea of making a contribution is an expression of perfectionism, given that it considers “being employed” or “paid work” as ideal and therefore neglects the fact that unpaid work is also sufficient for contributing to society. Hence, given that White’s fairness argument, which meant to offer a non-perfectionist justification for workfare as a
I. Introduction
In 2014 The Conservative Party introduced the Help to Work scheme in the United Kingdom; long-term unemployed people were expected to work in return for their benefits. Prime Minister David Cameron made the claim that “a key part of our long-term economic plan is to move to full employment, making sure that everyone who can work is in work. (...) [W]e need to look at those who are persistently stuck on benefits.” However, Jonathan Wolff contends that such welfare-to-work policies “rest on strong perfectionist claims about the good life, claims that are controversial and may even be “deeply insulting”. (White, 2003) As a response to Wolff’s objection to workfare policies, …show more content…
Why do contributions to society have to be in the form of wage labour, when unpaid dependant-care also contributes to the system of cooperation? (Anderson, 2004, 243) Whereas White seems to be implying that unpaid work is not sufficient for making a contribution, Anderson contends that unpaid work is indeed sufficient for making a contribution, as well as paid work. Anderson argues quite convincingly that White’s conception of the work ethic undermines unpaid work undertaken by caretakers. White’s assumption that being employed is necessarily related to making a contribution seems to indicate that White’s justification for workfare is perfectionist, given that he considers that “being employed” or doing “paid work” is ideal for contributing. A logical consequence of this is that if we take wage labour to be equivalent to making a contribution, we would have to say that caregivers do not work in the sense that their work does not have a market value. Consequently, Anderson contends that if, in designing workfare schemes, policy-makers give arbitrary preference to some forms of productive contribution to society over other forms, such as care work, we encounter the problem of perfectionism. (White, 2004, 273) Hence, Anderson’s criticism based on the example of caretakers questions the very definition of “contribution” and what it precisely …show more content…
On White’s account people have a moral duty of fairness to make a decent, productive contribution and the long-term unemployed fail to make a decent productive contribution. This is grounded on the premise that paid work is intrinsically linked to making a contribution to the social product. However, I have presented an objection to White’s account, for it seems to indicate that only work that has a market value suffices the idea of what it means to contribute to society. What seems to follow from this is that work that does not have a market value, such as that of non-wage-earning dependent caretakers, does not contribute to society. Based on Anderson’s criticisms, I have argued that if we accept White’s argument, we fail to give equal status to those “non-work contributors”. This would be a violation of fairness understood as demanding equal standing for all. Consequently, I conclude that White’s fairness argument fails to succeed in offering a non-perfectionist justification, for his concept of work as intrinsically linked to the idea of making a contribution is an expression of perfectionism, given that it considers “being employed” or “paid work” as ideal and therefore neglects the fact that unpaid work is also sufficient for contributing to society. Hence, given that White’s fairness argument, which meant to offer a non-perfectionist justification for workfare as a