Welfare policy and social justice : policy result and attitude toward policy change

Abstract

The extent and substance of social welfare policy have been a contentious issue. Academic discipline, culture, and values all contribute to the argument for and against it. Within the issue is also the question regarding the amplitude of government’s role in social welfare policy, which is a form of state intervention. The issue is not only philosophical, but also requires resource relocation. Since the social resource is scare, its relocation means taking some from certain individuals and giving it to others. Since the appropriate level of welfare is hard to determine, this study proposes to examine, on the global scale, the empirical effect of state’s social welfare policy on equality and social well-being as forms of social justice. Secondary data are compiled for the study. The second objective is to study a group of people’s attitude by surveying the attitude of some Thai students from middle class families or above toward social welfare policy, as politicians in a democratic society like Thailand must be responsive to citizens, especially their constituents. The finding suggests impressive result of social welfare policy on equality and social well-being, when it is compared to political, economic, and social factors. Urbanization, as a social factor, is also associated well with equality and quality of life, hence, supporting the Convergence Thesis. The survey of Thai university students shows their favorable attitude toward social welfare policy and social equality, although the type of equality that requires more extensive resource relocation receives less support. The study introduces the New Convergence Thesis from the finding and literature, while proposing two main arguments. One, the impressive result of social welfare policy still pushes the non-welfare states to conform with or converge to some features and substance of state welfare of the Western, developed countries. Two, the finding and welfare literature tend to suggest that the welfare states and non-welfare states converge to each other in the use of non-state sector, a form of privatization, in delivering welfare services. Of course, the state still assumes the role of financing or budget subsidization to the non-state sector, as well as the role of service arranger and regulator, ensuring the existence, adequacy, and quality of social welfare services.