What is the Government’s Social Responsibility?
Howard Husock, a Manhattan Institute scholar, wrote an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal asking the question; should the role of government in providing or paying for social services be a topic considered beyond debate?
[From The Wall Street Journal]
No matter whose priorities prevail in this year’s budget debate, it is a certainty that the federal government will continue to devote billions to activities known as “social services.” These include support for everything from foster care to drug abuse prevention; indeed, the Administration for Children and Families alone supports no less than 60 such programs at an annual cost of nearly $13 billion, in addition to the cash welfare payments it handles. Billions more are spent on such purposes by state and local governments, often through contracts with private “providers.” Robust public debate has developed as to whether other parts of the New Deal legacy still make sense, but the central role of government in providing or paying for social services appears settled — with the only question being how best to achieve efficiency and effectiveness.
But should this role be considered beyond debate? It is a question worth pondering today because of a historic confluence of circumstances: an impending wave of charitable giving at an unprecedented level; long-term projections of federal deficits, undermining the assumption that social programs can best be funded by government; and a new generation of so-called social entrepreneurs, looking to try creative approaches to help those in need, and to do so on a large scale. These circumstances, moreover, emerge in the context of heightened, post-Katrina public dissatisfaction with the quality of government-provided public services. Together, they suggest the possibility of imagining a modern society where major social service efforts are provided on a large scale outside the government, through privately funded, not-for-profit charitable organizations.
In the 1930’s Roosevelt’s New Deal provided many services to the American public to help recover from the economic disaster of that decade. Since that time the size and scope of government has only continued to increase. Does the American public need these programs and services? Sure, but is it the role of government to provide them? It may have been; but, according to Mr. Husock perhaps the time is right for a shift from governmental oversight, to privatization of these programs
In his article, Mr. Husock gave five specific reasons why he thinks that it should not be beyond debate, and that perhaps the private sector could offer these services more efficiently.
#1 - The government has a poor record of quality with its programs
…In terms of quality, however, it is hard to argue that things have worked out the way reformers intended…
[For example] there’s Head Start, whose potent name, and the fact that it provides grants to local organizations in every state, has made it immune to budget cuts. Yet a 2005 federal study involving 383 sites and 4,600 children found it led to no gains in math learning, oral comprehension or motivation to learn.
#2 - The culture of philanthropy is growing
the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy estimates that philanthropic giving will total some $6 trillion between 2003 and 2050. Already, over the past 10 years, there’s been an 88% increase in the number of foundations. Over the last decade there has been a 67% growth in the overall number of U.S. nonprofits.
#3 - An increasing number of capable individuals are establishing quality service organizations
Indeed, it can be argued that we are now in an unprecedented period for the emergence of such people, who have started new types of job training, mentoring and immigrant-assistance efforts. The term “social entrepreneur” — for those who establish such organizations — has entered the language and become current on college campuses, where courses and research centers (Harvard, Duke, Stanford) on the topic have been established.
#4 - Private service organizations do a better job attracting and maintaining committed employees and volunteers
This was certainly the case pre-New Deal. More to the point, the willingness of Americans to answer a call to service continues to be strong, as reflected by the emergence of major new “brand name” nonprofits such as Teach for America, Prison Fellowship and Habitat for Humanity.
#5 - Private organizations are held more accountable for their performance than government programs are
Indeed, the possibility of organizations being punished for poor performance was demonstrated by the sharp drop in donations to the national United Way organization following corruption charges involving its executive director. In contrast, public employee unions, influential with legislatures, make it more difficult to discipline public social service agencies similarly.
He concludes by saying the following:
The transition to a diminished government role in social services would be complex, as Americans have been conditioned for several generations to view government as the provider of first resort. And the substitute for government could not be small, volunteer-based organizations, 19th-century style — although small, voluntary groups will, and should, always be with us. Rather, large-scale, professionally staffed brand name agencies of proven effectiveness would be needed — much as brand name chains of charter schools are now emerging. This would require the development of sophisticated tools to match the coming wave of philanthropy with the places where it will do the most good.
[taken from "Privatize the Welfare State", by Howard Husock, Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2006; page A14]
The biggest argument that I have heard against shifting responsibility for social programs from the government’s to the private’s hands is that these programs are too important, too critical, too needed to be provided by anyone other than the government. I think this article makes it clear that Mr. Husock shares the opinion of the high importance of these programs, and that is the very reason the private sector, and not the government, should administer them. The stage is set for this type of change, and doing so would increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and benefit of these programs.
Do you agree with Mr. Husock that the majority of social services should be administered by private efforts? If you think it is better left in the hand of government, do you think the government does an effective job of allocating its resources effectively? Does the government have the ability to deliver the same level of quality that another organization would in a competitive market? Why is it so easy to start new government programs, but so difficult to eliminate ineffective ones? If you disagree with this op-ed, what do you think is a better solution? Or are you content with the status quo?
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
From CNN.com: Only 36 percent of workers in 2004 participated in 401(k)s and similar accounts when offered, [according to] the most recent data available What do people...A quick survey of Hillary Clinton's website led me to this prescription for "strengthening" the middle class. These sweeping promises sound great, but it...[In Defense of Capitalism.pdf] Because the organization of a capitalist economic system necessitates self interest pitted against self interest, many antagonists believe it, therefore, breeds selfishness...From The Wall Street Journal: What's the matter with Social Security? The fundamental problem is demographic. In 1960, there were five workers for every Social Security beneficiary....
March 10th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Everyone knows that the government is the least efficient way to get anything done. You hear things like it costs the government $2 to give away $1. Government employees have no incentive to be more efficient.
I don’t believe that the government even has the right to provide social services from a philisophical standpoint. The goverment gets its authority from the people, and since no one has the right to go to their rich neighbor and forcibly take their money so they can give it to a poor neighbor, neither does the government.
But we live in a world where the government assumes powers it doesn’t have, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.
May 4th, 2006 at 12:26 am
[...] First of all, capitalism is a form of freedom. Consumers are free to choose to a large extent where they work, how much they make, and what they spend their money on, whether savings or consumption. This freedom, along with ownership, which both are integral parts of capitalism, are, ironically, what allow people to have charity. It would not be possible to have charity if the government took whatever it needed to give to the poor and the hungry and the sick. We wouldn’t have the choice; we would all be charitable by default. We’d also be lazier by default, because we wouldn’t have any incentive to innovate, or work hard, or achieve. While there are many who use that freedom for their own selfish ambitions, while completely neglecting those less fortunate, there are also many who use that freedom for the good of all of society. () Capitalism also does a better job than most systems of discriminating between those who are less fortunate (i.e. do not have the physical means of advancing their position) and those who are lazy (i.e. those who have the means, but not the will) It is argued that businesses are breeding grounds for greed because of the underlying purpose of a business: to make money. A business is a tool for making money the same way a car is a tool for transportation. But really, what does that mean? What it means is that the market will naturally find the areas of highest productivity to put these tools of business to work to turn our natural resources into useful things. Money simply acts as the incentive to fill these voids. Because of business, we are a much more productive nation (as measured by total output, or GDP). There are wasteful side effects, of course, but we also enjoy, by far, the highest standard of living. As the standard of living increases and the economy does better the people who benefit most are the middle and lower class. These groups see the most dramatic difference between a stagnant economy and a thriving one. An economy that encourages business innovation and competition will produce higher employment, higher standards of living, and greater satisfaction and happiness than any system based on compulsion or complete equality of resources. [...]