Talk:Welfare state

Inca Empire not mentioned

Please add Tawantinsuyu (the Inca Empire) to the historical examples. They had a system of public retirement pensions funded by the government, and rest stops along the roads for travellers. 2601:441:4400:1740:7CBB:F534:DB2F:42BC (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

so, you are hoping to add a historical empire with its complex and highly debated form of government\society that still isnt fully understood and probably never will be..... likely owing to an obvious lack of documentation that the Modern Welfare states have. 2603:6010:D007:9443:795A:B8A7:5278:8358 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A different perspective: The modern welfare state as a combination of traits of Beveridge and Bismarck.

To anyone reading the article, and to the editors of this article: I was slightly surprised to read the historical account of modern welfare states. When I was in university in Norway some ten years ago, we were taught that the modern welfare state was based on a combination of two pillars, one of which was not even mentioned here as far as I can see. The first pillar was Otto Bismarck, who the article mentions. Briefly: We were taught that Bismarck introduced a number of welfare services, but this was based on previous earnings, and that the function of these services were mainly to ensure political stability. But the second pillar was the work of Anthony Beveridge of the UK, who was the lead author of the Beveridge Report, as far as I can remember, it was published around WWII. Beveridge had more of a focus on alleviating poverty and its effects, and thus introduced universalist thinking into the welfare state. All modern welfare states contain a mixture of both types of thinking: Some rights, such as unemployment, you have to earn. Other, such as universal health care (of which NHS was a pioneer) are made to be available to everyone. It would take me some time to dig up all the sources again, write them up, and introduce them to the article. It would be a great idea for a student of sociology or political science to do this :-) KaldeFakta68 (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ashoka

The section on Ashoka contains some of the most egregious anti-history I have ever heard. To describe those who contest accounts of Ashoka's murder of Buddhist heretics and Jains as "fringe" is ridiculous.

For the record, historians regard the Ashokan edicts as the only reliable record of Ashoka, his life and deeds. All the later legends are highly unreliable, full stop. Given Ashoka's own words in his edicts, no historian would take seriously these claims. 49.186.33.235 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

So I haven't even been to a talk page in quite a while, but every 5 to 10 years i will see something so weird I will pop in. Now, for Today's offending trivia.

Why is there a strange love letter to a specific Indian Emperor from ancient times on an article that doesnt really need a mention of any specific ruler?

You do realize this is an article on Welfare states. A somewhat new concept in Human politics as back in the days of the nobility, the idea of lord of the land going out of his way to finance the random villagers financial, health, or whatever tragedy they were struggling with is nearly absurd. A ruler concerns themselves with the good of the community, while Welfare concerns itself with the good of the individual.

Why are all of his actions re-framed just like in modern propaganda, forming a narrative of "a welfare state". Truth is, I am extremely ignorant in the history of large swathes of Asia, not just the Indian Subcontinent.... With that said... just like later in Europe, when emperors, kings, and queens went around putting in new villages for villagers to live in or other infrastructure on THE LANDS THEY OWNED AND RULED OVER, no one really thinks of it as welfare. Making the people who literally SERVE you more efficient and less likely to immediately die doesnt seem to be in the same vein as a Modern Welfare state.

More importantly though, I simply dont see the need to add all this stuff about an ancient Indian Emperor's supposed, and apparently also disputed, thoughts and actions. Notice none of the Europeans have brought in their favorite past monarch and claimed a few quotes and some investments in infrastructure in the hopes that the peasants can work a little faster, counts as Blah Blah the Third! First name in Welfare!

To be fair.... this little China section isn't entirely innocent either....

If you must, Mention the country, the name of the agent of the divine who was supposed to have earned or been given his crown.... and one or two of the ground breaking policy changes that were made during their rule that fits your narrative. An international encyclopedia simply is not an appropriate place to overly propagandize your nations history or its Supreme ruler of all, and also man of the people who lowers taxes to look out for the little guy.

"In order to make the state serve the common people better *"

Who comes to an entirely unrelated wiki page and starts adding propaganda for their favorite part of history? 2603:6010:D007:9443:795A:B8A7:5278:8358 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2023 and 9 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gwugradstudent (article contribs). Peer reviewers: IsmaelEden, Mviva22.

— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the table in Welfare state#Social expenditure as a percentage of GDP belong there?

The data is looking 5-6 years out of date, so I was going to update it. Then considered whether it should be there at all. What value does it bring to the discussion of the effects of the welfare state? Wouldn't it be better off in "List of countries by social welfare spending" and then transcluded here if linking is insufficient? Komonzia (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dump it. It’s really just synthesis, and even if one thinks it’s not, it’s still tangential and distracting from the topic at hand. — HTGS (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed that subsection now. Komonzia (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)