The latest tantalising nostrum from the Conservatives is a move to prepaid benefit cards: a system designed to limit the scope of individual spending in order to eradicate “destructive habits” and elevate families from poverty through prohibitive safeguards.
Of course, the belief that money should be spent on necessities is, in essence, a noble one; but such a linear consideration of need is ethically problematic. Is playing God with the finances of the disadvantaged likely to tackle cyclical poverty, or will it only deepen the void that limits social mobility?
The idea is not a novel one. America’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly and more commonly known as food stamps, harks back to 1939, and has recently transitioned to electronic benefit transfer cards. Despite the longevity of the system, its critics point out that recipients are more likely to experience food insecurity, as well as being unable to use allowances to buy basic personal hygiene items. And should we be concerned that this may benefit big business? The funnelling of personal spending will be a boon for companies on the approved list, giving them a vested interest in the programme, an interest that could see them opposing reforms if the system is deemed a failure.
When the state makes judgments about necessities and enforces it on the vulnerable, we create a “peasant” and “benevolent benefactor” dichotomy. This is neither progressive nor morally sound. The welfare state is a safety net to which we all contribute so that if circumstance dictates, we may use it: something those least likely to ever need it conveniently forget. When we start incorporating punitive addendums, we lose sight of the wider issue. The poor are instantly stigmatised through a caricature of recklessness and fecklessness: the undeserving lumpenproletariat in need of correction through fiscal imprisonment.
We have to remember that many are born into deprivation without choice. If we begin to make moral arbitrations over the spending of certain demographics, we should also remember that the wealthy are just as capable of poor decision-making and fiscal indiscretion. Responsible conduct needs to be based on example; and, frankly, no one is leading the way here.
Welfare is already a dirty word in this country, and punitive policy will only ratify that sentiment in the hearts of the public. When we raise our hands and ask for help, should we surrender our basic human rights? You cannot expect anyone to claw their way out of poverty through personal grit when we vilify their social status with unilateral diktat. Financial hardship already limits choice.
When we exclude people from normal spending, we create a bubble. No one can learn self-determination if they’re not allowed to fail.
This is nothing more than snake oil for an anecdotal narrative. If left unchecked, it will continue to stratify society. It lambasts those in need for exogenous circumstances, and draws attention away from far more damaging economic gambles than the occasional minor indulgence. If the government is serious about tackling poverty, it should focus on teaching meaningful skills, rather than expecting an ethically shonky Pavlovian miracle.
Reproduced courtesty of the Guardian Newspaper
