Daily Times

Presently, the welfare system in Pakistan comprises public provision of health and school education services, a limited coverage of social security for a segment of labour and a provision of post retirement pension mainly for the public-sector employees. It excludes workers in informal and agrarian sectors of economy. After witnessing some initial positive results of cash transfer programmes in Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, the international financial institutions have actively supported such programmes in other developing countries including Pakistan. This is how Pakistan too came up with a cash transfer programme. But the problem with such means-tested cash transfer programmes is that they may succeed in some specific social policy objectives but they neither cement citizen-state relationship nor they promote any sense of social solidarity, shared responsibility and empathy due to the ‘programme’ nature of intervention. This is what makes a citizenship rights based approach to human welfare all the more desirable.

Recently, the Ehsaas policy statement has mentioned that the provisions of article 38 (d) of the Constitution of Pakistan (presently in the chapter which defines principles of policy) will be made a part of the chapter titled Fundamental Rights. We can recall that this article says that the state shall provide basic necessities of life including food, clothing, housing, education and health if any citizen permanently or temporarily becomes incapable of work. If such a constitutional amendment is made it will be a radical shift from a weak residual welfare system to a more substantial citizenship rights based welfare model. This will create a dignified space in which citizens would be able to make claims and negotiate without suffering stigma and humiliation which is a hallmark of charity-looking public programmes.

If welfare measures like income support are criticized on assertions like they create a habit of dependence on state than it should not be overlooked that in many cases the rich benefit much more from an access to state resources than the poor

According to T.H. Marshall, citizenship is a balanced mix of civil, political and social rights. Social rights are termed as an articulation of human needs. Once made part of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of Pakistani citizens, education, health, housing and income maintenance would be claimable as an inalienable part of the rights of citizens. Rather than becoming passive recipients of welfare provisions doled out as noblesse oblige, the citizens would be able to actively claim fulfilment of their social rights.

Indeed, such a radical step of making material welfare of citizens their fundamental right would require a reordering of public expenditure priorities. The counter argument against welfare state activation in a developing country is generally that it puts higher burden on tax payers and creates disincentive for the recipients of welfare support to actively participate in market. Of course, taxation constitutes a major source of state revenue and it should not be oppressive. But still while pursuing a better Tax to GDP ratio through broadening of tax net, the sources of non-tax revenues need a fresh appraisal. The Child Money Programme (CMP) in Mongolia is an example of a developing country which now provides a monthly allowance to all children up to 17 years of age financed by taxes on mineral resources.

Another interesting example comes from the nucleus of modern capitalism. Almost every individual resident of Alaska in the USA receives an annual dividend from the Alaska Permanent Fund generated by state oil revenues. This dividend amount was 1606 US dollars in 2019. Even more radical measures like an inheritance tax may be evaluated for possible adoption at some point in time. These are just a few examples of tapping unconventional sources of financing welfare of citizens. Such kind of welfare measures not only economically help the citizens but simultaneously forge a strong welfare nationalism.

If welfare measures like income support are criticized on assertions like they create a habit of dependence on state than it should not be overlooked that in many cases the rich benefit much more from an access to state resources than the poor. Guy Standing in his book Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen published in 2017 writes that the wealthiest 20 percent of households in Pakistan receive six times more benefit from fuel subsidies than the bottom 20 percent because they consume more. Export subsidy to sugar exporters is another example of the tax money flowing towards the rich. People want to move up the social ladder provided they get an equality of opportunity. It is absence of such opportunities which causes both despondency and dependence.

The principle of sufficiency must not be ignored when bringing the debate of social rights in policy discourse. Ideally, provision of social services and support should not look like a token gesture. It should be of adequate quality. If it is not easily affordable to follow this principle, at least an acknowledgement of such rights can create normative reason to continuously remind policy makers of the need of qualitatively and quantitatively better welfare schemes. Amartya Sen aptly says that the current ‘unrealizability’ of any accepted human right does not convert that claim into a non-right.

It would be hard to deny that opposition to any demand seeking redressal of social injustice almost always comes from the elites because of a lack of empathy as well as an abhorrence of anything even slightly hinting at altering the power relations. A welfare state which promises civil, political and social rights to citizens can potentially challenge this status quo. In this perspective, the intent of Ehsaas policy statement to make article 38 (d) a part of fundamental rights of citizenship is a promising development though with a potential of elite resistance.

Acknowledgement: The contents of this article are based on works of T.H. Marshall, Karl Polayni, Gosta Esping-Anderson and Hartley Dean.

The writer is a development policy analyst