Should Governments Prioritise Social Welfare Above Overall Economic Growth

18 August 2017
GP Essay
Should governments prioritise social welfare above overall economic growth?
Key terms:
Should Should or should not; governing bodies/organisations of countries

governments
Prioritize Treat something as being very important
social welfare Social welfare - organized public or private social services for the assistance of
above overall disadvantaged groups
economic growth Overall economic growth - overall increase in the amount of goods and services in
the population over a period of time
Thomas Jefferson mentioned in The Declaration of Independence that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men In
the consideration of the fundamental reasons for the existence of a government based on Thomas
Jeffersons words, i would argue that governments should not prioritise social welfare above overall
economic growth. That being said, it does not mean that a government should perform the opposite,
which is, to prioritize overall economic growth, though it may be reasonable since it would help improve
quality of life and hence, level of happiness. Rather, i would argue that a government should achieve a
fine balance between the two factors in order to serve their natural functions to the best.
Counter argument - should -

Sustainable development can only come into play if the biophysical and social conditions needed to
support economic activity and human flourishing are maintained from each generation to the next.
Fundamentally, a country can progress sustainably only if its social conditions are well-developed. While
economic growth is a core driving force for development, horizontal growth which is based mainly on
expansion of inputs such as cheap labour, capital land and low technology cannot develop sustainably
and does not lend itself to sound social policies. For instance, the 2011-2020 Socio-Economic
Development Strategy reveals that successful achievement of rapid social developments such as Human
resource, educational reforms led to vertical economic growth in the generation of jobs and increase in
workers income. This shows that social conditions is paramount in boosting economic growth, and
hence, without a sturdy social foundation, the overall economic progress would be hampered and a
country would not be able to prosper economically.
Rebuttal - should not -

Overall economic growth is just as important for it would serve as a primary factor and material
condition for solving social problems. On the other hand, social welfare should not be prioritized over
economic growth. It is equally important since economic growth would serve as a primary factor and
material condition for solving social problems. In measuring happiness level of happiness, there are two
major aspects of happiness - one that is tangible and the other that is intangible. Tangible happiness
could be measured based on the materialistic fulfilments of a nations people and how affluent they are
based on Gross Domestic Product of a nation every year. Intangible happiness deals with how
comfortable it is to live within the country, correlated to the stress level, societal conditions, present
social issues, general psychological and mental well-being of a nation. In A.C. Graylings book titled The
Heart of Things, he mentioned that happiness, which is profoundly related lifes value, and no one
shares a uniform opinion since no one shares a uniform experience, which highlights the fact that the
idea of happiness could be so individualistic that it might be after all ineffective to dwell with social
conditions excessively. Furthermore, while social welfare would boost the intangible happiness level, it
would not be able to increase the overall level of happiness of a nation for it is unable to directly affect
the materialistic happiness of a nation, which overall economic growth is able to. Hence, in order for a
nation to progress, governments should aim to achieve a fine balance between the overall economic
growth and social welfare. As opposed to prioritizing social welfare in achieving a nations growth, more
essentially would be a countrys ability in amalgamating both factors to bring out the best of a countrys
potential.
Point 1 - should not -

In order to put forward the needs of future generation, we should not prioritize social welfare above
overall economic growth for the definition of happiness is relative to time. Debatably, we should not
prioritize social welfare above economic growth for the definition of happiness could be relative to
context. By focusing on social benefits and intangible benefits that are relevant to present conditions of
the society may not benefit a future context that we are more unlikely to accurately predict. On the other
hand, tangible concerns are more realistic and predictable through measures such as Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) which measures how affluent a country is on the average, GINI coefficient which
measures the economic disparity within the country, which makes implementations and considerations
in these areas more effective and useful. Hence, by putting forward the needs of future generations, we
should not prioritize social welfare above overall economic growth.
Point 2 - should not -

In contrary, governments should perhaps prioritize overall economic growth since it intangible
happiness is after all relative to each and everyone. Arguably, happiness is relative to every unique
individuals and hence it may be inefficient for a governing body to progress when it is infinitely
immeasurable. On the contrary, it would fit the role of a government more naturally to deal with the
tangible aspect of happiness level as it would be able to produce tangible results when productively
worked upon. For example, a studies have shown that with rising affluences that accompanies economic
growth, multidimensional poverty based on a set of dimensions does decline. Datas revealed that
decreasing rate of economic has a direct causation on the decreasing growth of social indicators. This
revealed that economic growth could have a correlation with social conditions, which hence shows that
economic growth could, perhaps, be the priority of a government instead. Furthermore, tangible
fulfilment would serve as an immediate solution to certain social issues and fuel a society which hence
shows that it might be more beneficial for a nations growth tangibly and intangibly.
Conclusion:
In prioritizing the social welfare of a nation, perhaps some of its people would be able to achieve some
form of happiness at the expense of overall economic growth and hence tangible gains. However, such
tangible compromises lead to materialistic constraints which inhibits the overall happiness level of a
nation. Hence, in order to bring out the best of both worlds, a government should perhaps achieve a fine
balance between the two so as to achieve its role best as a government.

Should Governments Prioritise Social Welfare Above Overall Economic Growth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Should Governments Prioritise Social Welfare Above Overall Economic Growth

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Should Governments Prioritise Social Welfare Above Overall Economic Growth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 August 2017

Should Should or should not; governing bodies/organisations of countries

Prioritize Treat something as being very important

Counter argument - should -

Rebuttal - should not -

Point 1 - should not -

Point 2 - should not -

You might also like