Normally when you hear the word security, what do you think of? I know my first thought is homeland security or a security guard. Generally it connotes bodily safety, but in this chapter Stone uses a broader definition of security. This is the same type of security that we use when we discuss Social Security or the goal of financial security. Basically, it's the idea that different dimensions of need are met.
Stone tries to challenge us on our decisions about the degree to which government should meet the basic needs of its citizens. There are some policy analysts and policymakers who think that government is responsible for providing only defense and some who think government should be assisting individuals in their goals of self-esteem and self-actualization. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. This chapter should remind you of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Unlike Maslow, however, Stone does not discuss the dimensions of need as a hierarchy where needs are met in succession, but as a group of needs that everyone must fulfill. Surely, Stone would not argue that one cannot survive without basic food, shelter, and water, but I think she would also argue that companionship, respect, and self-esteem are crucial to long-term human survival.
Taking needs one step beyond the extreme libertarian ideal that government should only provide for the basic defense, most Americans believe that we do not want people starving and dying on the streets. They would agree that either through direct services or support of non-profit efforts government should make sure that people have basic food and shelter. This seems simple, but defining what we mean in this case is difficult. Is it acceptable to provide citizens with the cheapest basic nutrition they need to function or do we want to make sure that they can be productive? Should we only provide them with one type of food, day in and day out or should we make sure that they can have a balanced diet? Should we allow enough so they can participate in cultural traditions like turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and BBQs at fourth of July? What about those people with dietary or religious restrictions on what they can and cannot eat? We have the same problems when we think about basic shelter. Is a shack okay because many poor individuals around the world live in shacks or do we need to provide our citizens with running water and safe, stable, indoor housing?
Much of our political disagreement about these basic needs has to do with a divide over whether absolute needs are the most important dimension of need or whether relative needs matter too. Some policy analysts who believe that only absolute need matters argue that poverty does not exist in America because the poorest in America are better off than most residents of developing countries. They also point out that America's poorest citizens are far better off than many of the wealthy were 100 years ago. In contrast, scholars who focus on relative needs find it unacceptable that in a country of such wealth, children still grow up hungry living in rat infested housing. Of course, for the first time since the turn of the 20th century in America the youngest generation of adults is not predicted to do better than their parents. It will be interesting to see how the debate between relative and absolute need is framed in the future.
Most of our social policies address the issue of relative need. The same can be said for defense policy. It does not matter how powerful our weapons are in comparison to the past or in absolute terms. What matters is how powerful our weapons are relative to other nation-states. It's interesting to think about education needs in these terms. The number of comparisons we make between our education system and that of Japan or the European Union illustrates that once again we define relative needs as most important.
Increasingly, we have decided that government needs to go beyond providing for current needs and actually attempt to prevent our future needs. Many of the safety regulations government has in place are there to prevent our future needs. For example, food regulations are meant to prevent our future need for medical care due to ingesting rotten food. When we talk about communities or individuals "at-risk", we are engaging in a discussion about the degree to which they need to be protected so that they will not need services X,Y, or Z in the future.
Of course, returning to Maslow's pyramid, humans also have relational needs. We are social beings. Dignity, respect, self-esteem, and belonging are important to us. Many government programs have been criticized because while they may meet all the other needs, they reduce the relational security of participants. The idea that we should have policies that empower citizens and build community has been around since the 1960s, but we have struggled to create programs that do this in any meaningful way.
One of the paradoxes of public policy (and of human behavior in general) is that needs can never be completely fulfilled. Once one need is met, new needs are created. Interestingly, this is one point on which Marxists, Liberals, and Conservatives all agree, though of course they differ in their explanation of the causes. Because we cannot define an objective level of need that must be met, we engage primarily in argument, debate, and as Stone puts it, "Claims-making" (p. 98). On pages 98-104 Stone walks us through how this "claims-making" plays out in different stages of the policy process.
Stone ends her chapter with a question about trade-offs, this time between security and efficiency. If you believe there is a trade-off you would argue three points: 1) humans are motivated by basic needs and making them secure removes their motivation to be productive, 2) providing security relies on the service sector which is the least efficient sector of the economy, and 3) technological changes necessarily make some people worse off. Instead, Stone would argue that 1) basic needs are not what motivates us and providing security makes us more productive, 2) the service sector is deemed inefficient only because of the way we have defined efficiency, and 3) macroeconomic policies can and should mitigate any suffering due to advancements in technology that create economic change (p. 107). Here's a nice little video from RSAnimate about human motivation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc.
I leave it to you to decide if you are convinced by Stone's argument. Are humans driven by basic needs, or do we need to know those basic needs are satisfied before we can be productive? Does relative poverty matter or should we only be concerned about absolute poverty? Do we need to concern ourselves with the symbolic, goal actualization, and community needs of the poor? What should government's role be in all of this?
Devon Kirschmann
ReplyDeletePAF 340
I think I would say that I agree with the argument that says basic needs have to be met before someone can be productive. This seems to be the most logical argument, however, I think some might argue that everyone has their own variation of "basic needs". For example, someone's basic needs may change based on their income level or way of life. I think that is why there is so much gray area on this matter, because there are so many ranges of classes of people in this country particularly, it is hard to define exactly what the government should have a responsibility over and where the line should be drawn.