Dear list members,
I wonder if you know of any studies that both lend support to AND contest the following provocative statement made by David Willetts, yes as in the Conservative politician!!, a few years back:
"The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests."
Obviously it's way too simple to claim that homogeneity and less social diversity leads to the inability of governments to sustain a strong welfare state. Great if you knew of any studies that explictly address this issue.
Many thanks,
Gareth
|