Social Protection
Reflections on the Role of the State in Protecting Citizens
by David Bamber
Summary
This paper considers some ways in which the state may seek to protect citizens from the
hazards of life: war, crime, sickness, old age, ignorance, danger and unemployment. Caring,
politically active Christians will always wish to ensure that those who suffer are helped
in the best way. The biblical basis for the state is considered first of all. This is to
help to define its role. Reflections are made on biblical teaching concerning helping
others who are in difficulties. Illustrations are taken from British history to illustrate
how social protection has functioned in the United Kingdom.
It is concluded that the state is not usually the best provider of social protection. Indeed,
the British experience is that the state has often destroyed much good work done by private
initiative. It is hoped that this paper will contribute towards issues considered in EPP-ED
EIN Working Group 1 'The Role of the Private Sector in Public Services' and to EIN Working
Group 5 'Demographic Change and Immigration' [1].
Why Does the State Exist?
The 'state' was not invented by man but ordained by God. God's purpose in establishing the
state was to create a structure in which law and order could be maintained. The institutions of
marriage and the family were not sufficiently strong to control man's violent behaviour and
sinfulness (Genesis 6:5). After the Flood, we see the first mention of 'nations' (Genesis
10:32). Moses, the first leader of the civil state of Israel, had responsibility for upholding
the law (Genesis 20ff). Subsequent national leaders of Israel also had responsibility for
maintaining an army. In short, one might say that the role of the state is primarily that of
protecting its people: protecting people against each other and against outside aggressors.
Since 'protection' is fundamental to the role of the state, the question may be asked 'how far
can we expect the state to provide protection against social ills such as infirmity, unemployment,
ignorance and the consequences old age?' The Bible contains a lot of teaching on our responsibilities
to those in need. What does it have to say about the role of the state in providing 'social protection?'
The Poor
It is natural for Christians to be concerned for the poor in society. There are many teachings in
the Bible telling us to help the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7,8, 24:19-21, Isaiah 58:7). Jesus habitually
used some of the money collected by the disciples to help the poor (John 13:29). It was also the
practice of the early church to collect for the poor (Romans 15:26, Acts 4). What these teachings
have in common is that it is the responsibility of individuals, families and communities to help
the poor. Provision of welfare at community level can be an expression of 'subsidiarity' and true
'social solidarity'.
There are some principles that stand out firmly both from the Old Testament and the New. The poor
are to be helped by those who employ them or who are in their community. The poor have favourable
financial treatment from those who loan money to them.[2]
A poor man not may be deprived of the means necessary for his survival (Deuteronomy 24:10-12).
The poor are expected to help themselves by taking whatever work is available. Those who are able
to provide work for the poor, however, must do so. The following observations are from British history
in helping the poor.
Until the 16th century, each parish in the United Kingdom provided social care for
its parishioners. The system worked well.Dduring the 1530's, however, Henry VIII closed the monasteries
and took all of their money. The consequence was a huge rise in poor people wandering the country
and begging for food.
For several decades various laws were tried to deal with the problem of the poor. Finally, the Elizabethan
'Poor Laws' were enacted. These forced each parish to raise money for the poor people who lived in the
parish. The 'modern welfare state' had arrived in Britain.
In 1832 the operation of the 'Poor Laws' was reviewed. They were condemned completely by a Royal Commission.
One of the investigators wrote,
'The experience of a very few weeks served to convince me that this evil [poverty], however great, sinks
into insignificance when compared with the dreadful effects which the system produces on the morals and
happiness of the lower orders'[3].
Several harrowing stories were cited of abuses of the welfare system.[4]
These included fraud and a total disincentive to find work. Some women even became pregnant to take advantage
of the system.
In 1834 nearly all Poor Laws were abolished. Very few 'state' benefits remained.
During the Victorian era which followed, many charities and 'Friendly Societies' were established.
The average level of giving to charity was 10% of income (today it is only 1%). The 'Friendly Societies'
were social groups founded to provide insurance against loss of work or illness. The system worked well;
moral virtues flourished, and self-reliance and prudence were practiced. Industry also flourished and
the standard of living rose.
In 1911, the 'Social Security Act' was introduced. This brought back some of the 'Poor Law' principles.
The state took money for 'national insurance'. The state paid money to those who were out of work or
ill. The impact of this was to destroy the Friendly Societies. People no longer saved for difficult
times - they relied on the state. Another impact was to take away the incentive to find work. A clear
connection between levels of unemployment benefit and numbers of unemployed developed over subsequent
decades.[5] National Insurance was brought in for reasons of
political expediency, not social necessity.
After the Second World War, a more comprehensive system of 'social security' was established in the
United Kingdom. There is not sufficient space here to describe all of the problems that this created
in detail. However, all of the previous evils of the Poor Laws have since returned. It is not financially
worthwhile for those normally on lower incomes to find work. Fraud is a major problem (once again) with
about 25% of welfare claimants making fraudulent claims.
Pensions
What does the Bible have to say about retirement and old age? In the Bible there is no such thing as
retirement. Man is meant to work for as long as he is able.
The Commandment 'You shall honour your father and your mother' is directed to adults and speaks of their
obligation to take care of elderly parents (see Matthew 5:4-6, 1 Timothy 5:4-16). Ironically, we have
laws requiring parents to take care of their children but not laws requiring children to take care of
their parents. Instead, we rely on the state to take care of them. In neither the New Testament nor the Old is
the state required to finance people in their old age. Indeed, Proverbs 6:6ff and 20:4 require each
person to make his own provisions for future known needs.
In the United Kingdom a person who does not receive a pension can claim other benefits. If he has saved more
than £3,000, the level of his benefits is reduced. This takes away any incentive to save or to declare
his savings honestly.
In the United Kingdom the assumption was made early on that each generation of taxpayers would fund the
same generation of pensioners. However, this system is breaking down. Pensions in the United Kingdom are among the
lowest in the EU. The ageing population and mediocre economic performance mean that a pension crisis is looming.
On Continental Europe the problem is much worse, particularly in Italy.[6]
The state has no incentive to invest money on behalf of its citizens. Investments put money out of the reach of the
state, money that might otherwise be spent on services. Each government is only in power for a few years, so it has
no incentive for long term planning. Taxation on pensions and other savings is increasing. This is clearly wrong.
Protection of Employment
It has already been shown that the primary role of the state is that of protection. To what extent is the state
responsible for protecting its citizens from unfair commercial activity? This can take the form of trade barriers
and subsidies to foreign manufacturers, and the 'dumping' of surplus produce. 'Dumping' has the effect of destroying
the recipients' native industry, and thus destroying employment.
Clearly, collective action on the part of trading blocks against unfair competition makes sense. The European Union
could certainly use its influence at the World Trade Organisation to this end. There are, however, some moral issues
that need to be raised. Does the EU engage in these sorts of activities itself?
There are also moral problems connected with trying to protect jobs by controlling 'trade' and
industry. The Bible is clear that in all aspects trade must be fair. (See Proverbs 20:22, 23,
Deuteronomy 25:13 concerning equal weights and measures.)
The major biblical principle concerning trade is that standards must be applied consistently. The same rules must apply
in all transactions. Where import restrictions or state subsidies are applied to some goods rather than others, economic
inequality is established. These constitute the use of 'uneven weights' and 'unequal measures'.
The fairest way of ensuring equity to all participants in the industrial sector is the free-market price mechanism.
Although this approach has its weaknesses, it does start from a level 'playing field' and avoids the moral problems of
state support for one industry (trade) rather than another.
Looking After the Sick
Christian charity has always placed an emphasis on looking after the sick. It would seem natural for a Christian
government to reflect charitable virtues by ensuring that the sick receive appropriate support through the state.
A National Health Service was established in the United Kingdom in 1948 by the British Labour (socialist) government.
Up until then, private medical care prevailed. Even the Labour Party's election manifesto of 1943 did not criticise
the level of care available, but only spoke in terms of a need for central control of health provision.
The person most responsible for the establishment of the National Health Service was Aneurin Bevan. He was not a
Christian but a Marxist. His motivation was not charitable concern but political engineering. His attempts to impose
the National Health Service were fiercely resisted by the medical profession. He got his way through bribery, bullying,
and intimidation. He was responsible for reducing a world-class health service based on voluntary support and good
will to a centralised bureaucracy providing the worst service in the developed world.
[7] Surely, 'A bad tree cannot bear good fruit'.
Education - Protection from Ignorance
Prevention is better than cure. Clearly, education is a means of enabling people to avoid economic hazards and
provide equality of opportunity. Education was provided entirely by private means up until the end of the nineteenth
century in the United Kingdom. Private schools were acknowledged to be very successful. School attendance was near
100% - from all social backgrounds. The standard of education was high. The government took over the running of schools
from the beginning of the twentieth century. It was not the intention of the politicians to undermine or close private
schools by giving free education. But that is what they did.
At the beginning of the twenty first century, standards of state education are low and truancy is a major problem.
The biblical teaching on education is to make parents primarily responsible for ensuring that it is provided to an
appropriate level of quality. [8] The responsibility for providing education
is shared between the church[9] and parents. Church schools are generally far
more popular and more successful in the United Kingdom than state-run schools, probably due to their better moral
framework.
The role of the state in education is that of ensuring that people know about civil
law. [10] There is no biblical requirement for
the state to provide this service itself.
Conclusion
This paper has considered the subject of 'Social Protection' by using some of the insights provided in the Bible
and by drawing from some experiences within British history. This paper has established that the role of the
state - according to scripture - is essentially one of protecting its citizens. The state exists to protect
citizens from one another (reduce crime, punish criminals) and to protect citizens from external aggressors.
It is not clear from scripture that the state should have a direct role in providing social protection apart
from law and order, and defence. The weight of biblical teaching, however, is that of placing the responsibility
for insuring against predictable problems (such as illness, unemployment, and old age) rests firstly on the
individual, secondly on the family and thirdly on the local community.
British history has shown that, when people feel a need to, they can and do find ways of insuring themselves
against illness and unemployment by establishing 'Friendly Societies' or by taking out insurance. This has
traditionally helped to establish attitudes of self-reliance and personal responsibility. Privately operated
schemes based on charitable giving flourished in nineteenth century Britain, so those unable to afford insurance
were not left out. Indeed, nineteenth century charitable giving was ten times the present UK levels.
[11]
State operated 'National Insurance' schemes have created a significant proportion of welfare dependents and fraudsters.
The financial incentive to find work has been taken away. People do not feel responsible for themselves or others.
The National Health Service in the United Kingdom was not founded on Christian principles and has not been as
successful as other health services in developed countriesr.
If the state tries to control the economy by controlling trade or industry then moral problems arise.
This is because the Bible requires equal treatment in all transactions.
Government primarily exists to ensure the protection of its citizens against one another and against aggressive
acts by outsiders. Society, rather than the state, has always provided the best protection against life's other
hazards.
David Bamber
Christian Peoples Alliance
January 2005
Copyright © Christian Peoples Alliance, 2005. Reproduced here by permission of David Bamber.
[1] See European Ideas Network, European Parliament web site.
[2] Credit: Exodus 22:25, Civil justice: Exodus 22:3, Leviticus 19:15.
Fair taxation: Exodus 30:15 Concessions for services: Leviticus 4:21 Social protection: Leviticus 25:25,
25, 39, 47, Deuteronomy 15:7ff, Fair treatment of indebtedness: Deuteronomy 24:12. Preference towards own
people: Deuteronomy 24:12, Fair wages: Deuteronomy 24:12.
[3] Quoted in 'The Welfare State We're In' by James Bartholomew.
[4] Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1834.
[5] Ibid.
[6]
'Europe Yes Euro No' - Pensions Briefing
[7]James Bartholomew, 'The Welfare State We're In.'
[8]Responsibility of parents: Proverbs 1:8ff, 3:1ff,
4:1ff, 5:1ff
[9]Responsibility of church: Ezra 7:10,
[10]Moses was required to instruct in matters of civil law as well
as give judgements: Exodus 18:20, Leviticus 10:11, Deuteronomy 4:1.
[11]Sources: The Times survey of middle class donations in the late
nineteenth century, and NCVO and Social Trends for Modern Times.
|
