In modern society, the term “Social welfare” has been regularly misinterpreted and judged in many levels. The society often believes that social welfare is only specifically referring to programs such as social assistance for the poor. Truth is, everyone in the society is a recipient of some form of social welfare program. It includes tax benefits, public services, and even Canada Pension Plan along with many other beneficial programs. On one hand, such system should be regulated and modified accordingly in order to maximize the benefits it could provide to the public. Given the previous statement, it ties closely to the institutional perspective of social welfare where it views the system as a necessary tool in order to meet essential needs
…show more content…
& Turner J., 2009) On the other hand, law and order is how the government currently operates in order to keep the system under control. However, the government intervention should be minimized only to those who are in need. It shouldn’t have control over the economic structure of the country to benefit one class over another. Furthermore, the articles provided describe various ideologies stating how the social welfare system should be. Although all of them are showing interest for the people, most of them share diverse views which oppose each other.
In Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, the article shows concepts of how the government should improve in order to lower income inequality. The general view of the article is an example of a reluctant collectivist approach which is the same as the institutional view stated earlier. This includes limit down government intervention and only provide what is needed. In relation to the period of decline, the approach …show more content…
The Fabian socialists suggest that a free market is unable to meet people due to values of competition, individualism and inequality. (Turner F. & Turner J., 2009) The article strongly supports the idea of an equal society in contrast to one that may have an extreme imbalance. For example, it provides evidence that living quality of people at the same level of income/education would be better in country that is more equal. (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010) This includes fields such as health condition, living standards and purchase power of an individual. However, the degree of government intervention would be significantly higher to create such balance. This may not necessary be a bad thing if it creates benefits for a larger group versus the wealthier minority. Additionally, the period of decline in social welfare and the increase in income inequality in Canada seems to have a large connection. During the period of decline, the income inequality rises significantly (4%) and follows the trend as the social welfare programs decrease. (The Conference board of Canada, n.d.) It is hard to pin-point the exact impact from the link but the effects have been shown. In general, it can be interpreted that the Canadian government follows more of the Fabian socialist approach to regulate social welfare
& Turner J., 2009) On the other hand, law and order is how the government currently operates in order to keep the system under control. However, the government intervention should be minimized only to those who are in need. It shouldn’t have control over the economic structure of the country to benefit one class over another. Furthermore, the articles provided describe various ideologies stating how the social welfare system should be. Although all of them are showing interest for the people, most of them share diverse views which oppose each other.
In Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, the article shows concepts of how the government should improve in order to lower income inequality. The general view of the article is an example of a reluctant collectivist approach which is the same as the institutional view stated earlier. This includes limit down government intervention and only provide what is needed. In relation to the period of decline, the approach …show more content…
The Fabian socialists suggest that a free market is unable to meet people due to values of competition, individualism and inequality. (Turner F. & Turner J., 2009) The article strongly supports the idea of an equal society in contrast to one that may have an extreme imbalance. For example, it provides evidence that living quality of people at the same level of income/education would be better in country that is more equal. (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010) This includes fields such as health condition, living standards and purchase power of an individual. However, the degree of government intervention would be significantly higher to create such balance. This may not necessary be a bad thing if it creates benefits for a larger group versus the wealthier minority. Additionally, the period of decline in social welfare and the increase in income inequality in Canada seems to have a large connection. During the period of decline, the income inequality rises significantly (4%) and follows the trend as the social welfare programs decrease. (The Conference board of Canada, n.d.) It is hard to pin-point the exact impact from the link but the effects have been shown. In general, it can be interpreted that the Canadian government follows more of the Fabian socialist approach to regulate social welfare