Canada should Adopt Workfare

Answer

Canada should Adopt Workfare

Thesis Statement: Canada should adopt Workfare to reduce public expenditure and overdependence on social welfare as well as screen the beneficiaries of social welfare and ensure that they meet the requirements.

1. Theories

A social welfare system is one that offers aid to the needy families and individuals in a particular region. The amounts and types of welfare differ on the basis of the region, state or country. Usually, social welfare puts a strain on the government expenditure of a particular country. Hence several nations seek ways to reduce this kind of seemingly unwarranted expense. In relation, workfare refers to a welfare system that mandates those who receive social welfare benefits to perform some types of jobs or partake in job training. Notably, the workfare program is oftentimes used as a way of discouraging people from seeking social welfare, but to find employment and cater for their own needs. Canada is one of the countries with a vested interest in the workfare program. Regardless, there have been controversies on the wisdom and humanity of initiating such a program. Therefore, in support of the workfare program, there are certain theories that promote the adoption of workfare.

1. Screening Argument

Topic sentence: The screening argument defends workfare as a basis for differentiating those who meet the requirements for social welfare from those who do not.

The screening argument is proposed by Beasle and Coate. It is driven by the need to direct the support for the poor towards those who are truly needy. Particularly in nations that are still developing, it is rather expensive for the government to establish an intricate administrative operation to identify the people that are truly in need of social welfare. Basically, the data on people’s incomes is usually concealed and hence difficult to access. A circumstance such as this prompts a change in the welfare system whereby governments can make it self-targeting by formulating conditions required to claim support. Workfare constitutes one of the most effective tests in this case. “As Jean Dreze makes clear, this logic lay behind British administrators’ reliance on public works to relieve famines in colonial India. Moreover, it was also a common theme in early arguments for work requirements in the USA” (Besley, T., & Coate, 1992, p. 249). Recent developments indicate that the screening argument is not only applicable in developing countries but also developed ones. For instance, developed countries may adopt this method particularly if their administrative infrastructure eases the assessment of the situation of people’s cases. There are certain technicalities involved in the screening argument. However, basically it allows governments to spend social welfare expenses only on those nationals who truly need the help by assessing every applicant’s work situation.

1. Deterrent Argument

Topic sentence: The deterrent argument supports workfare as a method of discouraging social welfare beneficiaries from being over dependent on social benefits.

This argument is mainly focused on the roots of poverty. Essentially, it pegs the question of whether people are poor simply because of misfortunes or choices that they made while they were younger. “If the latter is true, then public assistance may lead individuals to make choices that increase the likelihood that they will have to draw on such support in future” (Besley, T., & Coate, 1992, p. 250). In the previous discussions of the American social policy, the deterrent argument has frequently been mentioned. According to conservatives, enhanced expenditure on social welfare since the 1950s has only generates a larger dependence on public support. In addition, the argument is that social welfare projects have minimized people’s motivations to obtain their own capital and avoid being poor. The proposed solution for this problem is to make social welfare less desirable by imposing workfare. Fundamentally, the poor dependents of social welfare should be set up in workhouses and create a situation whereby wages are more attractive than social welfare. The deterrent argument makes it necessary for individuals who are beneficiaries of social welfare programs in their country to hold a certain kind of job rather than remain complacent in their situation by depending on public support indefinitely.

1. Neoliberalism

Topic sentence: Neoliberalism proposes reduced public spending by the government. The implementation of workfare is emphasized.

Basically, the neoliberal perspective is that no individual should receive something for nothing’ (Hinton, 2012). On the basis of this statement, it is evident that majority of the beneficiaries of social welfare in several countries, and particularly the developed countries such as the USA and Britain, usually prefer not to indulge themselves in doing any work of raising their status from below the poverty line. On the contrary, these people opt to rely completely on social welfare for sustenance. A situation such as this is unacceptable since it encourages a large portion of the population to become freeloaders who feed off the money of taxpayers without making attempts to give back to the society as well. Subsequently, the policy that no one should receive something for nothing encourages workfare, which is a requirement for social welfare beneficiaries to also work like the rest of the society and earn their own living in due time.

2. Canada should adopt Workfare

Since the year 1995, several Canadian provinces have adopted workfare policies with regards to social welfare. For instance, the Ontario works is one of the most prominent programs of this nature. The Ontario Works Act and Regulations was established in 1998 and purposes to help people who are employable find employment and attain independence from social aid (Evans, 2017). Notably, the people who are social welfare beneficiaries and meet the requirements for Ontario Works are considered to be employable, and should therefore partake so as to proceed receiving this social aid. Essentially, they must fill a ‘Participation Agreement’ whereby they indicate the activities that they are willing to participate in as part of workfare. Some of the workfare activities encompass: starting a business, completing education, employment placement and community placement (Evans, 2017). Based on this example, it is evident that the adoption of workfare is an enlightened and progressive idea for the country.

One of the predominant reasons why Canada should adopt workfare is to reduce the overdependence on social welfare in the country. Based on the theories provided, when people keep receiving ‘something for nothing’ they tend to become complacent with their situation of poverty and therefore make no attempts to improve their circumstances. A situation such as this encourages laziness among some of the country’s nationals who would lose the drive or motivation to strive for anything more substantial in their lives. After all, their basic needs would be catered for by social welfare. The widespread adoption of workfare in the country will ensure that people who are already on social welfare are given a chance to earn their aid from the government as opposed to merely waiting to receive free and undeserved benefits. Additionally, for those Canadians who fall below the poverty line, the workfare program ensures that they remain employable by enhancing their skills through education and training. Consequently, the social welfare beneficiaries are given an opportunity to do something substantial with their lives as opposed to merely existing and waiting for benefits.

Another reason for the adoption of workfare in Canada is to ensure that social welfare aid is only provided to those individuals and families in the country that truly require assistance. Fundamentally, social welfare is aimed at providing assistance to the individuals who are poverty-stricken. This context denotes that there may be cases whereby people who do not meet the requirements to receive social welfare actually find ways to accrue the benefits anyway. Evidently, this is an undesirable circumstance as it places needless strains on taxpayers to produce more money for the ‘needy’ in the society. Perceptibly, it would denote a form of stealing from the nation’s resources by certain citizens. The adoption and implementation of workfare in Canada will enable the government to keep track of all its beneficiaries and assess those who meet the requirements from those who do not, that is, the people who fall above the poverty line but assume the positions of those who fall below the poverty line (Weaver, 2012). The screening argument provides the required evidence and methods of practice that will ensure that the government is able to assess people’s situations from an economic or financial perspective.

The final reason why Canada should adopt workfare is to reduce government expenditure. The adoption of workfare will certainly make wages more attractive than social welfare benefits. Hence, individuals will prefer to get off social welfare benefits and seek actual employment to earn their own money. It is a noteworthy fact that workfare is not particularly appealing to any individual despite its attachment to social welfare benefits. Any reasonable individual would be able to assess the benefits and drawbacks of partaking in workfare and opt to seek actual employment if one is able. At least through employment one is able to earn a decent living through wages.

Moreover, workfare involves training and educating individuals in the country to make them more employable. The workfare program is not only about ensuring that social welfare beneficiaries work for their benefits; it also involves training programs whereby the individuals that are interested in acquiring certain skills can have the opportunity to learn from specialists who are employed by the government. In addition, education is also a major part of the workfare program. In this case social welfare beneficiaries receive the opportunity to prolong their education, hence making them more marketable as prospective employees in the job market.

Ultimately, when these people get employed they will automatically get off social welfare when they rise above the poverty line. Subsequently, the Canadian government will reduce its public expenditure on social welfare since a larger portion of the population will be employable (Weaver, 2012). From a long term perspective, the reduction of government expenditure on social welfare benefits will give the Canadian government a chance to spend the money on other relevant issues to the country’s development such as education, health, infrastructure and tourism among others.

In relation to the Canadian government, the adoption of workfare would improve the country’s general status. Canada is a developed country. However, there are still high levels of poverty reported in the country, with numerous individuals living below the poverty line. The collective advantages of a workfare program would subsequently increase employability of several Canadians and advance them above the poverty line. This would create a situation whereby more Canadians are financially capable of sustaining themselves and hence the poverty level in the country would reduce significantly. In the long run, Canada may earn the status of one of the most economically capable countries in the world.

Conclusively, the workfare policies that would be adopted in Canada are designed to help people and families that are currently in need of social welfare to explore their opportunities and reach for a better life that goes beyond dependence on social welfare. Primarily, these individuals would have the opportunity to attain upward mobility since they are receiving financial aid from the government while being enlightened on the value of work in their lives. Moreover, the workfare program will also enable the government to asses and identify those who meet the requirements of receiving social welfare benefits. Importantly, through the adoption of workfare programs the Canadian government will register reductions in public expenditure on social welfare programs since many people will predictably get off social welfare and seek actual employment. Eventually, the level of poverty in Canada would reduce substantially and subsequently raise the country’s status globally.