Chapter 10

Equality, Social Justice and Welfare

Deberto, Nathaniel E., Dela Torre, Joel, Destor, Keyshamay P.

I. INTRODUCTION
In the realm of political theory, the intertwined concepts of equality, social justice, and welfare
hold significant relevance as they form the bedrock of discussions on governance, rights, and societal
well-being. Understanding the dynamics between these fundamental principles is essential for
analyzing the distribution of resources, opportunities, and power within a society. The exploration of
equality as a moral and political ideal, social justice as a framework for fairness and equity, and
welfare as a mechanism for promoting well-being sheds light on the complexities of modern
governance and the pursuit of a just and inclusive society.

This chapter delves into the intricate relationship between equality, social justice, and welfare,
offering a comprehensive examination of these core concepts in political theory. It delves into the
practical implications of striving for equality and social inclusion, the role of welfare systems in
addressing societal inequalities, and the various perspectives on achieving a just and equitable
society. By dissecting the evolution of welfare policies, the debate between egalitarianism and merit-
based principles, and the challenges in balancing individual interests with collective well-being, this
chapter provides a nuanced understanding of the complexities that shape political thought and
policy-making in contemporary societies.

II. OBJECTIVES
● Understand the theoretical and contextual underpinnings of the fundamental concepts and
theories that comprise Political Theory as a subdiscipline of Political Science.

● Analyze the ambiguities, contradictions, and overlap of the political thought presented by
significant political thinkers that serves as the basis for the fundamental concepts and
theories within political Theory

● Apply abstract ideas, extracted from fundamental concepts and theories of Political
Theory as a field, to past and current events that shape the political sphere.

III. MAIN DISCUSSION divided by subtopics

a.EQUALITY
What is equality?

● At first, the word "equal" was used to describe things that were exactly the same. For instance,
two cups can be said to contain ‘equal’ quantities of water; a runner is said to ‘equal’ the 100-
meter world record; and the price of a bottle of expensive wine may ‘equal’ the cost of a
television set. In politics, though, "equality" means something different. In political theory,
however, a clear distinction is made between equality and ideas such as ‘uniformity’, ‘identity’
and ‘sameness’ Even though people are different and have unique talents, the goal is to level
the playing field so everyone has equal opportunities for a satisfying life. There are many types
of equality, like moral, legal, political, social, sexual, and racial equality. Each type looks at
different aspects of life to see if things are fair.

3 MAIN TYPE OF EQUALITY:

1. Formal Equality:

● This means treating everyone the same under the law.

● This concept emerged from the natural rights theories of the 17th and 18th centuries, which
asserted that all individuals possess inherent rights simply by virtue of being human. This idea
 found expression in influential documents like the American Declaration of Independence and
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Their declarations that "all men are
created equal" emphasized the fundamental equality of humanity. It wasn't about everyone
being the same, but rather recognizing the intrinsic worth and dignity of every individual.
● This principle asserts that everyone should be treated equally under the law, without
discrimination based on factors like social status, religion, race, gender, etc. Legal equality, or
"equality before the law," exemplifies this by insisting that legal decisions should be based
solely on relevant evidence, without regard to personal characteristics. The goal is to ensure
fairness and impartiality in the legal system.
● In essence, while formal equality sets a legal framework for equality, achieving genuine
equality requires addressing deeper societal structures and systemic injustices that perpetuate
inequality.

2. Equality of Opportunity:

● This means giving everyone the same chances to succeed.

● Formal equality concerns itself with the equal status of individuals before the law, without
considering their circumstances or opportunities. Equality of opportunity, on the other hand,
focuses on providing everyone with a fair starting point in life, regardless of their
circumstances.
● Equality of opportunity often leads to the concept of meritocracy, where success and failure
are attributed to personal effort and ability. However, distinguishing between "natural" and
"social" causes of inequality is challenging, as social factors can heavily influence outcomes.
The idea of equal opportunities faces challenges, such as the difficulty in disentangling natural
talent from social influences and the potential for widespread state intervention in personal and
social life.
● Striking a balance between equal opportunities and individual liberties is crucial, as excessive
pursuit of equality may encroach upon personal freedoms.

3.Equality of Outcome:

● This means ensuring that everyone ends up with similar results, regardless of their starting
point.
● Equality of outcome stands in contrast to the ideas of formal equality and equality of
opportunity. Socialists, communists, and some anarchists advocate for high levels of social
equality, while conservatives and liberals view it as immoral or unnatural. Unlike equality of
opportunity, which emphasizes fair starting points, equality of outcome focuses on ensuring
that all individuals achieve similar end results regardless of their starting conditions or efforts.
● Material equality, or equal social circumstances and living conditions, is often associated with
equality of outcome. Advocates of this view argue for redistribution of wealth from the rich to
the poor to reduce social inequalities. While some advocate for moderate forms of social
equality, such as social democrats who focus on distributive equality, others, like
fundamentalist socialists, aim for a far higher degree of social equality, even endorsing
absolute social equality.
● Proponents of equality of outcome argue that it's essential for securing individual liberty and
fostering social harmony. However, critics argue that it leads to stagnation, injustice, and even
tyranny. They contend that it stifles individual aspirations and imposes restrictions on personal
freedom. Thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Keith Joseph argue that the pursuit of equality of
outcome is based on envy and leads to the violation of individual liberty. They highlight the
inherent differences among individuals and the impracticality of achieving equal outcomes
without massive interference and coercion.

Overall, people have different opinions about how equality should work. Some may think giving
everyone equal opportunities is unfair if it means favoring the disadvantaged, while others might
argue that equal opportunities are necessary for true equality. So, equality is not just a simple idea
but a complex concept that touches many aspects of life and sparks a lot of debate.

b. SOCIAL JUSTICE
What is social justice?
The term ‘social justice’ is beset by political controversy. For some, it is inextricably linked to
egalitarianism and acts as little more than a cipher for equality.
● Needs: Social justice according to needs emphasizes that resources and opportunities
should be distributed based on individual needs. This principle recognizes that different
individuals or groups may have different needs, and these needs should be met to
ensure a fair and just society.
● Rights: Social justice according to rights focuses on the protection and promotion of
human rights. This includes civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The
principle of rights emphasizes that all individuals should be able to exercise their rights
without discrimination.
● Desert: Social justice according to desert suggests that individuals should be rewarded
based on their merits or contributions. This principle recognizes that individuals who
contribute more to society or who work harder should receive greater rewards.

SOCIAL JUSTICE
-It is ‘social’ in the sense that it is concerned not with legal penalties and punishments so much as
with social well-being. Social justice thus stands for a morally defensible distribution of benefits or
rewards in society, evaluated in terms of wages, profits, housing, medical care, welfare benefits and
so forth. Social justice is therefore about ‘who should get what’.

Hayek regarded social justice as a ‘weasel word’, a term used intentionally to evade or mislead. In
their view, social justice tends to be a cloak for the growth of state control and government
interference. Social-democratic and modern liberal thinkers, on the other hand, treat social justice
more favorably, believing that it refers to the attempt to reconstruct the social order in accordance
with moral principles, the attempt to rectify social injustice. However, there is no necessary link, either
political or logical, between social justice and the ideas of equality and state control.

In Social Justice (1976), David Miller accepted that the concept is essentially contested and socially
relative, but tried to identify a number of contrasting principles of justice. These are ‘to each
according to his needs’, ‘to each according to his rights’ and ‘to each according to his deserts’.

❖ ACCORDING TO NEEDS

The criterion of need can be said to be the basis of the ‘communist’ principle of justice, because,
according to Marx, it is appropriate only to a future society of such material abundance that
questions about the distribution of wealth become almost irrelevant.

Needs differ from both wants and preferences. A ‘need’ is a necessity, it demands satisfaction; it is
not simply a frivolous wish or a passing fancy. For this reason, needs are often regarded as ‘basic’ to
human beings, their satisfaction is the foundation of any fully human life. While ‘wants’ are a matter of
personal judgment, shaped by social and cultural factors, human needs are objective and universal,
belonging to all people regardless of gender, nationality, religion, social background and so forth. The
attraction of a needs-based theory of social justice is that it addresses the most fundamental
requirements of the human condition. Such a theory accepts as a moral imperative that all people are
entitled to the satisfaction of basic needs because, quite simply, worthwhile human existence would
otherwise be impossible.

Abraham Maslow (1908–70), who proposed that there is a ‘hierarchy of needs’. The most basic of
these needs are physiological considerations like hunger and sleep, which are followed by the need
for safety, belonging and love, then there is the need for self-esteem, and finally what Maslow referred
to as ‘self-actualization’. In A Theory of Human Need (1991), Len Doyal and Ian Gough identify
physical health and autonomy as objective and universal needs, arguing that they are the essential
preconditions for participation in social life.
Conservative and sometimes liberal thinkers have tended to criticize the concept of ‘needs’ on the
grounds that it is an abstract and almost metaphysical category, divorced from the desires and
behaviour of actual people. They argue that resource allocation should instead correspond to the
more concrete ‘preferences’ which individuals express.

The question of social justice therefore concerns how these primary goods, or needs-resources, are
to be distributed. Rawls proposed a theory of ‘justice as fairness’. This is based upon the
maintenance of two principles:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar
liberty for others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged; and
(b) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.

The first principle reflects a traditional liberal commitment to formal equality, the second, the so-
called ‘difference principle’, points towards a significant measure of social equality. By no means,
however, does this justify absolute social equality. Rawls fully recognized the importance of material
inequality as an economic incentive. Nevertheless, he made an important presumption in favour of
equality in that he insisted that material inequalities are only justifiable when they work to the
advantage of the less well-off. This is a position compatible with a market economy in which wealth
is redistributed through the tax and welfare system up to the point that this becomes a disincentive to
enterprise and so disadvantages even the poor. Rawls’ egalitarianism is, however, based upon a kind
of social contract theory rather than any evaluation of objective human needs. He imagined a
hypothetical situation in which people, deprived of knowledge about their own talents and abilities,
are confronted by a choice between living in an egalitarian society or an inegalitarian one. In Rawls’s
view, people are likely to opt to live in an egalitarian society simply because, however enticing the
prospect of being rich might be, it would never counterbalance the fear people have of being poor or
disadvantaged. Thus, Rawls started out by making traditionally liberal assumptions about human
nature, believing individuals to be rationally self-interested, but concluded that a broadly egalitarian
distribution of wealth is what most people would regard as ‘fair’.

Example: Access to Education

In the Philippines, children from low-income families often have less access to quality education
compared to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. This is due to a variety of factors, including
lack of resources, poor infrastructure, and inadequate teaching staff.

To address this issue, a government or non-profit organization might implement a program that
provides additional resources to schools in low-income areas. This could include funding for new
textbooks, technology, and teacher training programs. The program might also offer scholarships to
help students from these areas pursue higher education.

This is a practical example of social justice according to needs because it recognizes the specific
needs of children from low-income families and takes steps to address these needs. The goal is to
reduce educational inequalities and ensure that all children, regardless of their socio-economic
background, have the opportunity to receive a quality education.

❖ ACCORDING TO RIGHTS

‘Rights’ are moral entitlements to act or be treated in a particular way. In distributive theory, however,
rights have usually been regarded as entitlements that have in some way been ‘earned’, usually
through hard work and the exercise of skills or talents. This can be seen, for instance, in the classical
liberal belief that the right to own property is based upon the expenditure of human labour.

The most influential modern rights-based theory of justice is that of Robert Nozick, often interpreted
as a response to Rawls’s theories. Nozick distinguished between historical principles of justice and
end-state principles. Historical principles relate to past circumstances or historical actions that have
created differential entitlements. In his view, end-state principles like social equality and human
needs are irrelevant to the distribution of rewards. Nozick’s objective was to identify a set of historical
principles through which we can determine if a particular distribution of wealth is just. He suggested
three ‘justice preserving’ rules. First, wealth has to be justly acquired in the first place, that is, it should
not have been stolen and the rights of others should not have been infringed. Second, wealth has to
be justly transferred from one responsible person to another. Third, if wealth has been acquired or
transferred unjustly this injustice should be rectified.

Individuals are seen to be the sole possessors of their own talents and capacities, and on this basis
they are thought to be morally entitled to own whatever their talents produce. The weakness of such a
notion is that it abstracts the individual from his or her social context, and so ignores the contribution
which society has made to cultivating individual skills and talents in the first place. Some would go on
to argue further that to treat individuals in this way is, in effect, to reward them for selfishness and
actually to promote egotistical behavior.

EXAMPLE: voting rights

Imagine a country where certain marginalized communities are systematically disenfranchised due to
restrictive voting laws. These laws might include stringent voter ID requirements, limited early voting,
and reduced polling locations. As a result, members of these communities face significant barriers to
exercising their right to vote.

In response to this injustice, a coalition of civil rights organizations might launch a campaign to
challenge these restrictive laws and advocate for more inclusive voting policies. This could involve
legal action, public awareness campaigns, and lobbying efforts.

Additionally, the coalition might implement programs to assist those affected by these laws, such as
providing transportation to polling locations, assisting with voter registration, and offering resources
to help individuals meet voter ID requirements.

This scenario illustrates how social justice according to rights can be applied in a practical context.
The goal is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the
opportunity to exercise their fundamental right to participate in the democratic process

❖ ACCORDING TO DESERTS

A ‘desert’ is a just reward or punishment, reflecting what a person is ‘due’ or ‘deserves’. In this wide
sense, all principles of justice can be said to be based upon deserts, justice itself being nothing more
than giving each person what he or she is ‘due’.

Conservatives have been attracted to the notion of deserts precisely because it appears to ground
justice in the ‘natural order of things’ rather than in principles dreamt up by philosophers or social
theorists. To hold that justice is somehow rooted in nature, or has been ordained by God, is to believe
that its principles are unalterable and inevitable.

Herbert Spencer (1820–1904), the British social philosopher, also developed a theory of distributive
justice that relies heavily upon ‘natural’ factors. Spencer was concerned to develop a new social
philosophy by relying on ideas developed in the natural sciences by Charles Darwin (1809–82). In
Spencer’s view, people, like animals, were biologically programmed with a range of capacities and
skills which determined what they were able to make of their lives. In The Principle of Ethics ([1892–
3] 1982) he therefore argued that ‘each individual ought to receive the benefits and the evils of his
own nature and consequent conduct’, a formula that underpinned his belief in the ‘survival of the
fittest’. In other words, there is little point in defining justice in terms of abstract concepts such as
‘needs’ or ‘rights’ when material benefits simply reflect the ‘natural’ endowments of each individual.

Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), who warned that all attempts to relieve poverty were pointless. In An
Essay on the Principles of Population ([1798] 1971), he argued that all improvements in living
conditions tend to promote increases in population size which then quickly outstrip the resources
available to sustain them. War, famine and disease are therefore necessary checks upon population
size; any attempt by the government, however well-intentioned, to relieve poverty will simply court
disaster.
The idea that justice boils down to natural deserts has, however, been subject to severe criticism
There is no room for justice in nature, and to base moral principles upon the workings of nature is
simply absurd. Indeed, to do so is to distort our understanding of both ‘justice’ and ‘nature’. To portray
something as ‘natural’ is to suggest that it has been fashioned by forces beyond human control, and
possibly beyond human understanding. In other words, to suggest that a particular distribution of
benefits is ‘natural’ is to imply that it is inevitable and unchallengeable, not that it is morally ‘right’.
Moreover, what in the past may have appeared to be unalterable may no longer be so. Modern,
technologically advanced societies undoubtedly possess a greater capacity to tackle problems such
as poverty, unemployment and famine, which Burke and Malthus had regarded as ‘natural’. To portray
the prevailing distribution of material resources in terms of ‘natural deserts’ may therefore be no
more than an attempt to find justification for ignoring the suffering of fellow human beings.

EXAMPLE: workplace fairness

Imagine a company where employees are rewarded based on their contributions. This could be in the
form of bonuses, promotions, or other forms of recognition. In this company, an employee who
consistently performs well, meets all their targets, and contributes positively to the team is
recognized and rewarded for their efforts. This could be in the form of a promotion, a bonus, or some
other form of recognition.

On the other hand, an employee who does not meet their targets, performs poorly, or negatively
impacts the team does not receive these rewards. They might even face consequences such as being
passed over for promotion or receiving a smaller bonus.

This scenario is an example of social justice according to desert because it recognizes and rewards
individuals based on their merits and contributions. It’s a system that aims to ensure that everyone
gets what they deserve based on their actions.

However, it’s important to note that while desert-based justice can be a powerful motivator and can
help to ensure fairness, it also has its limitations. For instance, it might not take into account the
different opportunities and resources available to different individuals. Therefore, it’s crucial to
consider other principles of social justice, such as equality and need, in conjunction with desert.

CONCLUSION:

Social justice according to needs, rights, and desert are interconnected in the sense that they all aim
to promote fairness and equality in society. For instance, meeting individual needs often involves
protecting their rights, and rewarding individuals based on their merits can help to meet their needs
and protect their rights.

However, it’s important to note that these principles can sometimes come into conflict with each
other. For example, rewarding individuals based on their merits (desert) might conflict with the goal
of meeting individual needs if those who contribute less (perhaps due to circumstances beyond their
control) have greater needs. Similarly, protecting individual rights might sometimes require limiting
the rewards that individuals receive based on their merits

c. WELFARE

Central debates in welfare revolve around the concept of welfare itself, the role of the welfare
state, and the approaches to welfare provision. These debates include:

● Collectivist vs. Individualist Approaches: The debate between collectivist welfare,

where the government is responsible for promoting social well-being, and individualist
welfare, which emphasizes individual self-interest regulated by the market.
● Welfare State's Objectives: Discussions on whether the welfare state should focus on
providing a safety net for those in need (liberal welfare states), offering a range of
services linked to jobs (conservative welfare states), or providing universal benefits and
maintaining full employment (social-democratic welfare states).
 ● Role of Government: The extent to which the government should be involved in welfare
provision, with arguments ranging from welfarism advocating for government
responsibility to criticisms from the New Right about welfare creating dependency and
hindering individual initiative
These debates highlight the complexity and diversity of perspectives surrounding welfare,
encompassing ideological, economic, and social considerations.

WELFARE

-refers to happiness, prosperity, and general well-being, going beyond mere survival to include
health and contentment

The contentious aspect of welfare arises from its association with a specific method of
promoting well-being: government-provided welfare through the 'welfare state.

Welfare State - is a system where the government provides support and services to ensure
that all citizens have access to basic needs like healthcare, education, and financial assistance
when needed. It aims to promote social well-being, reduce inequality, and improve the quality
of life for everyone in society.

Who is entitled to our welfare? Who should manage our welfare

Collectivist vs. Individualist Approaches: The debate between collectivist welfare, where the
government is responsible for promoting social well-being, and individualist welfare, which
emphasizes individual self-interest regulated by the market.

● Collectivist Approach (Government-funded Healthcare): In countries like Canada, the

United Kingdom, and many others, healthcare is predominantly funded and managed by the
government. In this system, citizens pay taxes, and in return, they receive access to
healthcare services regardless of their ability to pay. The government plays a significant
role in regulating healthcare providers, setting standards of care, and ensuring equitable
access to services for all citizens. The emphasis is on collective responsibility, where
everyone contributes to and benefits from the healthcare system, regardless of individual
wealth or health status.
● Individualist Approach (Privatized Healthcare): On the other hand, in countries like the
United States, healthcare is primarily provided by private entities, and individuals are
responsible for purchasing health insurance or paying out-of-pocket for medical expenses.
The market dictates the pricing and availability of healthcare services, with limited
government intervention. The emphasis is on individual responsibility, where individuals are
expected to make choices based on their own self-interest and ability to pay for healthcare
services.
To better understand these approaches, let's consider a hypothetical scenario:

Imagine two individuals, John and Sarah, both of whom need medical care:

● In a collectivist system, John and Sarah would both have access to healthcare services
regardless of their financial situation. They would not need to worry about whether they can
afford medical treatment because the government ensures access to healthcare for
everyone based on their needs, not their ability to pay.
● In an individualist system, John and Sarah's access to healthcare would depend on their
ability to pay for health insurance or medical expenses out-of-pocket. If John has a high-
paying job with excellent health insurance coverage, he may receive prompt and
comprehensive medical care. However, if Sarah is unemployed or underinsured, she may
struggle to afford necessary medical treatment or face significant financial burdens.
By comparing these two approaches, we can see the fundamental difference in philosophy:
collectivist approaches prioritize social well-being and equitable access to services for all citizens,
while individualist approaches prioritize individual freedom and market-based solutions,
potentially leading to unequal access to healthcare based on socioeconomic status.

The 'Third Way' Approach to Healthcare in Switzerland

Switzerland's healthcare system provides an insightful example of the 'Third Way' approach,
which aims to strike a balance between collectivism and individualism. It recognizes that citizens
have both welfare rights to access healthcare and moral responsibilities to contribute to the
system.

Analytical Example: Swiss Healthcare System

● Universal Coverage (Collectivist Element): Switzerland's healthcare system ensures

universal coverage by mandating that all residents have health insurance. This universal
coverage reflects the collectivist element of the 'Third Way' approach, emphasizing the
government's role in guaranteeing access to healthcare as a fundamental right. Health
insurance is compulsory for all residents, and the government regulates insurers to ensure
that basic healthcare services are covered for everyone.
● Individual Choice and Responsibility (Individualist Element): Despite the requirement for
universal coverage, the Swiss healthcare system also emphasizes individual choice and
responsibility. Residents have the freedom to choose their health insurance provider and
plan, allowing for competition and consumer-driven innovation in the healthcare market.
Additionally, individuals have a financial stake in their healthcare costs, as they are
responsible for paying premiums, deductibles, and co-payments. This aspect aligns with
the individualist element of the 'Third Way' approach, recognizing the importance of
personal autonomy and accountability in healthcare decisions.
Balance Between Collectivism and Individualism:

Collectivist Element (Universal Coverage): The Swiss healthcare system ensures that all residents
have access to essential healthcare services, regardless of their income or health status. This
reflects the collectivist principle of solidarity, with the government mandating universal coverage
and regulating insurers to ensure equitable access to healthcare for all citizens.

Individualist Element (Choice and Responsibility): At the same time, the Swiss system promotes
individual choice and responsibility in healthcare decision-making. Residents have the autonomy
to select their health insurance provider and plan based on their preferences and needs.
Additionally, individuals bear financial responsibility for their healthcare costs, encouraging cost-
conscious behavior and personal accountability.

Conclusion:

The Swiss healthcare system embodies the 'Third Way' approach by integrating both collectivist
and individualist elements. It guarantees universal coverage while also promoting individual
choice and responsibility. By striking a balance between collectivism and individualism, the Swiss
system achieves a comprehensive approach to healthcare that upholds both welfare rights and
moral responsibilities of citizen.

The term "welfare state" emerged in the twentieth century to describe the increased social
responsibilities taken on by governments.
Welfare State's Objectives: Discussions on whether the welfare state should focus on providing a
safety net for those in need (liberal welfare states), offering a range of services linked to jobs
(conservative welfare states), or providing universal benefits and maintaining full employment
(social-democratic welfare states)

United States (Liberal Welfare State)-

Example: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

The welfare system in the United States is often characterized as a liberal welfare state, focusing
on providing a safety net for those in need.

● Safety Net: The U.S. welfare system provides targeted assistance to individuals and
families facing economic hardship, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Medicaid. These
programs aim to alleviate poverty and provide essential support to vulnerable populations.
● Limited Services Linked to Jobs: While some programs may include work requirements or
job training components, the overall emphasis is on providing assistance to those who are
unable to support themselves financially, rather than offering a comprehensive range of
services linked to employment.

DENMARK (CONSERVATIVE WELFARE STATES)

Denmark's conservative welfare system, with a focus on promoting self-reliance and providing
services linked to jobs, can be seen in the country's active labor market policies and vocational
training programs.

Example: Danish Active Labor Market Policies and Vocational Training

● Active Labor Market Policies: Denmark's active labor market policies are designed to
assist unemployed individuals in finding and retaining employment. These policies include
job search assistance, counseling, skills assessments, and training programs tailored to
the needs of job seekers. For example, the Danish government offers subsidized
employment programs where unemployed individuals can gain work experience and skills
while receiving financial support.
● Vocational Training Programs: Denmark places a strong emphasis on vocational education
and training (VET) as a means of equipping individuals with the skills needed to enter the
workforce and pursue meaningful careers. Vocational training programs in Denmark are
often closely linked to industry needs and provide practical, hands-on learning experiences.
Additionally, apprenticeship programs allow individuals to gain valuable on-the-job training
while earning a salary.
These examples demonstrate how Denmark's welfare system promotes self-reliance and active
participation in the labor market by providing services linked to jobs. The emphasis on vocational
training and active labor market policies aligns with the conservative welfare state model, which
prioritizes individual responsibility and reducing dependency on welfare. By balancing welfare
support with initiatives aimed at enhancing employability and fostering a strong work ethic,
Denmark seeks to create a system that encourages self-sufficiency and economic independence
among its citizens.

Sweden's social-democratic welfare system, with its focus on providing universal benefits and
maintaining full employment, can be seen in the country's healthcare system and labor market
policies.
Example: Swedish Healthcare System and Labor Market Policies

● Healthcare System: Sweden's healthcare system is built upon the principles of universal
access and comprehensive coverage. All residents have equal access to healthcare
services, including preventive care, hospital treatment, and specialist consultations,
regardless of their income or employment status. The system is funded through taxation
and provides extensive coverage for medical treatments, prescriptions, and hospital stays.
This ensures that all citizens can access high-quality healthcare services without facing
financial barriers, aligning with the objective of providing universal benefits in the social-
democratic welfare state model.

● Labor Market Policies: Sweden's labor market policies are designed to promote full
employment and ensure that all citizens have access to meaningful employment
opportunities. The government implements active labor market programs, vocational
training initiatives, and job creation measures to support individuals in finding and
maintaining employment. These policies aim to reduce unemployment rates, address skills
mismatches, and create a dynamic and inclusive labor market. Additionally, Sweden
emphasizes the importance of work-life balance and gender equality in the workplace, with
policies such as generous parental leave and flexible working arrangements.

Through its healthcare system and labor market policies, Sweden exemplifies the principles of a
social-democratic welfare state, providing universal benefits and promoting full employment. The
combination of universal access to healthcare and proactive labor market interventions reflects
Sweden's commitment to social equality, economic prosperity, and the well-being of its citizens

Role of Government: The extent to which the government should be involved in welfare provision,
with arguments ranging from welfarism advocating for government responsibility criticizing New
Right thinkers about welfare creating dependency and hindering individual initiative.

New Right Thinking on Welfare

● New Right perspective emphasizes on individual responsibility and the belief that self-
reliance, hard work, and personal initiative are key factors in overcoming poverty

● The New Right argues that overly generous welfare support can create a dependency
culture where individuals rely on state assistance rather than actively seeking employment
or opportunities for self-improvement, advocating for limited government involvement.

Third Way thinking

● Acknowledges the state's role in personal well-being but aims to empower citizens and
reduce reliance on traditional welfare systems
● focuses on rethinking traditional approaches to social welfare by emphasizing a balance
between individual empowerment and social responsibility.

d. CONCLUSION
 This chapter underscores the ongoing debate and evolution of ideas related to social justice,
equality, and welfare, showcasing the complexities that influence political theory and policy-
making in contemporary societies. It encourages us to critically engage with these concepts
and consider their implications for fostering a more just, equal, and inclusive society for all
individuals.

Furthermore, the chapter sheds light on different approaches to distributing material rewards,
the debate between egalitarianism and merit-based principles, and the challenges of achieving
a just and equitable society. It emphasizes the importance of balancing individual self-interest
with collective well-being, recognizing the market's role in wealth distribution while highlighting
the need for welfare policies to protect vulnerable members of society.
Overall, this chapter explores how equality is not just a theoretical concept but a practical
pursuit to ensure fairness and opportunities for all individuals in society. It discusses the
evolution of welfare systems and the diverse ideological perspectives on the government's role
in promoting social well-being and addressing inequalities.

e. REFERENCES (APA 7TH ed.)

(2014, September 30). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193322/

FROM WELFARE TO WORK IN DENMARK. (n.d.). FROM WELFARE TO WORK IN DENMARK.

https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/downloadpdf/journals/pp/26/2/article-p147.xml

Healthcare Systems Around the World. (n.d.). Healthcare Systems Around the World.
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Healthcare-Systems-Around-the-World.aspx

Norman, R. (2001). Criteria of Justice: Desert, Needs and Equality. Res Publica, 7(2), 115–

136.

https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011926403555

Political Theory: An Introduction by Heywood .Political Theory: An Introduction by Heywood.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1909638.Political_Theory

SOCIAL AND LABOUR MARKET POLICY IN SWEDEN. (n.d.). SOCIAL AND LABOUR MARKET POLICY IN

SWEDEN. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/w13/summary_en.htm

Switzerland | International Health Care System. (n.d.). Switzerland | International Health Care System.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/switzerland

Siebel, M., & Schramme, T. (2020). Need-Based Justice from the Perspective of Philosophy.

In

Springer eBooks (pp. 21–58). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44121-0_2