Online Training Study Guide Material
SOCIAL PROTECTION AND
THE CARE ECONOMY IN
AFRICA
Module 2: THE RATIONALE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION
Course Director : Parfait M. Eloundou-Enyegue
2025
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL DEBATES:
As part of a broader course on "Social Protection and the Care Economy in Africa," this
course module outlines the justifications for investing in social protection (SP) in Africa.
At issue is why contemporary African societies must worry about social protection. Why
can’t they simply focus on macroeconomic growth, and let every person fend for
themselves? Why can’t they assume that growth, when it occurs, trickles down? Are they
any special benefits from devoting specific attention to the care of the most vulnerable
members of societies?
The debate on whether and how societies should care for their most vulnerable
members has deep roots. It has been central to philosophical, economic, and political
thought throughout history. From traditions of mutual aid to contemporary welfare, it
continues to raise profound questions about the hallmark of a good society. Below, we
examine contributions to this debate, as made by prominent thinkers and how they
negotiate the tension between moral obligation, economic practicality, and individual
responsibility.
Ancient societies often prescribed mutual aid through communal or religious
mandates. Such mandates are found in the Judeo-Christian principle of “tzedakah”
(charitable giving), the Christian ethos of caring for “the least of us” and the Islamic
principles of “zakat,” a mandatory almsgiving system designed to reduce inequality.
Beyond these religious precepts, philosophers like Confucius emphasized the importance
of social harmony and collective responsibility. He argued that the strength of a society
lay in its ability to uphold the humanitarian impulse, which includes supporting those in
need. These early frameworks positioned social protection as a moral duty tied to the
collective well-being of the community.
Subsequently, enlightenment-era thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau expanded this mandate to the responsibilities of governments to their citizens.
Locke’s view of natural rights—including life, liberty, and property—implied that
governments had a duty to protect individuals from destitution and exploitation.
Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762) highlighted the need for collective responsibility to
ensure equality and justice. In his view, social inequalities erode the moral fabric of
society, and societies must take steps for redress. A new turn occurred during the
Industrial Revolution, when industrialization and urban life created new vulnerabilities for
the poor, as they exposed the adverse consequences of capitalism. Leading this critique,
Karl Marx in Das Kapital (1867) argued that a capitalist economy exploits the workers,
pushing many workers to the brink of poverty. In that perspective, social protection was
no longer an ethical concern but a tool of fair redress, a view that (as described in our
review) was popularized under the Robinhood ethic. Even proponents of free-market
[Date]
Social Protection and the Care Economy
principles such as Adam Smith recognized this potential for exploitation, arguing that
markets alone could not address all social needs, hinting at the necessity of external
interventions.
In more modern times, industrial nations began to formalize social protection. In
the United Kingdom, William Beveridge launched state-led efforts to curb social
insecurity. He envisioned a full assault on five main dimensions of insecurity, including
want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. In the US, Roosevelt New Deal and
much later, Johnson’s Great Society, shared similar ambition. Contemporary scholars
have continued this debate. Amartya Sen for instance sees social protection as key in
expanding human capabilities. In his view, freedom goes beyond a mere absence of
oppression to include the presence of opportunities, which social protection can advance.
Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013) likewise underscores the role
of redistributive policies in mitigating inequality and ensuring social stability.
Yet, as will be reviewed within this module, the social protection ethic has its fierce
critics. These critics argue that strong welfare systems can overreach and create
dependency and stifle individual initiative. The mildest critiques seek to limit the scope
and terms of social protection. More profound critiques, such as Milton Friedman’s
highlight the bureaucratic inefficiencies and perverse effects of social protection on the
initiative and drive of private citizens and on the national culture. More radically, critics
like Herbert Gans argue that poverty and economic insecurity are “functional.” Not only
do they promote efficiency and the fuller operation of the entire economy including low-
end jobs, but they sustain social hierarchies and the lifestyle of the middle class.
Ultimately, social protection has its advocates and critics. Indeed, the divide
between critics and advocates of social protection can be taken as a litmus test of political
ideology. In other words, if you want to know if someone is conservative or liberal (political
left or political right), all you have to do is ask them if they support social protection
programs. Those on the left are likely to be advocates and those of the right are likely to
be critics of these programs. Rather than debating choosing a single side, the challenge
in this course is twofold. One is to strike a middle ground that covers the conditions and
scope of social protection. A second is to identify best practices for efficiently achieving
SP for the populations in need.
The Rationale for SP: Key arguments
The classic arguments in favor of social protection run the gamut from intrinsic to extrinsic
arguments, based on whether SP is considered worthy in its own right or because it
achieves other social goals that are deemed worthy of interest. They likewise range from
individual-level (focused on the benefits for individual recipients of social protection) to
macro-level arguments (focused on benefits for the entire society). This two-dimensional
matrix of criteria can be summarized as in Figure 1. These various arguments are listed
as below.
Social Protection and the Care Economy
Figure 1. Summary matrix of the arguments for SP
1. The moral argument.
This argument largely presumes that poverty and inequality are not accidental or
natural but the result of exploitation of the poor by the rich. From that perspective,
social protection is a much-needed means of economic redress and restitution.
The argument is rooted in Marxist theory in which the vulnerability of the proletariat
is the result of abusive exploitation by the bourgeois. No working/ contributing
person would be poor in the first place under a fair economic system that
recognizes the contributions of labor to economic production. Retribution can thus
be seen as a restoration of what is essentially a dysfunction of capitalist economy.
2. The altruistic / humanitarian argument.
This argument does not presume poverty to be the result of exploitation by the
rich. Yet even if some people are occasionally not able to provide for themselves,
a good society should be sensitive to the plight of other people. The fundamental
idea here is the humanitarian impulse: we must, individually or collectively, strive
to be “good Samaritans” and help our fellow human beings
Social Protection and the Care Economy
3. The economic argument.
This argument does not invoke the intrinsic value of SP but the extrinsic benefits
from extending social protection. One such extrinsic effect is on economic
performance, which is arguably spurred by SP’s ameliorative effects on economic
inclusion that draws everyone into the world of work. Benefits accrue at the
production and consumption ends.
At the production end, Amartya Sen’s concept of capabilities implies that
“many Mozarts” fail to blossom in a society that restrict opportunities to cultivate
one’s talents. Where any person can nurture their talents, society as a whole will
benefit. The illustrative story (see Power Point) is told of a gifted Congolese teen
whose extraordinary gifts for radio-broadcasting would have been lost to the world
had the International Football Federation (FIFA) accidentally not discovered him.1
At the consumption end, Keynesian theory suggests that markets and
consumption shrink when many of the potential consumers remain insolvent. One
can spur economic production and demand is by economically empowering these
potential consumers. Again, support for SP is not justified on moral grounds but
on practical principles of economic returns.
4. The social argument.
Sociologists often invoke social capital, i.e., the networks of productive and useful
relationships that can facilitate social transitions. They represent a form of capital
insofar as they help produce private and public goods for a common purpose,
because of the sense of mutual trust, shared identity, cooperation and reciprocity.
Where social capital is abundant, people have each other’s back and they trust
each other; community life is vibrant, economic transactions easier, and personal
safety guaranteed.
This sense of common destiny and reciprocity is nurtured by strong
evidence of social protection. Although the value of social capital is most common
gauged by its potential economic contributions, it has social benefits as well.
Sociologist Robert Putnam thus suggested that people may well build
economically successful lives but still lead empty social lives (bowling alone) if they
live in communities lacking in solidarity.
5. The political argument.
Without social protection and the sense of common destiny it entails, the poor feels
alienated. At the minimum, there will be class envy. More problematically, there
will be class warfare and sociopolitical instability. Social capital makes it easier for
communities to mobilize for a common goal. Conversely, its absence leads to
fractionalization and conflict along class lines.
1 [Link]
Social Protection and the Care Economy
6. The existential argument.
Societies are only as strong as their weakest link. Keeping a segment of the
population vulnerable renders everyone vulnerable. Pandemics illustrate how
inequality and the vulnerability of a few can accelerate the transmission of
infectious diseases. Everyone is at risk unless the most vulnerable are willing and
able to protect themselves. This is in part because the herd immunity that can be
gained through vaccination is compromised. This existential argument can also
pertain to other mass threats, including international conflicts or national
conservation efforts.
The Counterarguments
Compelling as the y may be, the arguments in support of SP meet with equality
diverse and compelling counterarguments. These counterclaims cover a similarly
large spectrum from intrinsic to extrinsic factors, and from micro and macro-
impacts. The discussion of these counter-arguments can thus be organized along
the same rubric that was used for supportive arguments.
1. The moral counterargument.
Contrary to proponents who see social protection as a moral obligation, a popular
counterargument holds that society should consider a reverse moral obligation; in
this case the obligation to avoid the moral hazard that comes from unduly shielding
people from the responsibility of their actions. SP distorts people’s economic
calculus and their decisions about work, spending, and saving, if they now have
reason to believe they will not bear the full consequences of their actions. Thus, a
driver may grow more careless in driving or maintaining their vehicle. A patient
may neglect preventive medical care if the costs of treatment are fully covered.
Like the grasshopper in Aesop’s fable, consumers may become less diligent in
saving for a rainy day. The morality of SP is questionable in these cases if the full
promise of SP is not met or if society shifts the burden of responsibility for a
person’s prodigality onto the rest of society.
2. The humanitarian counterargument.
The humanitarian argument invites all citizens to voluntarily help the less fortunate.
A good society is expected to be sensitive to the plight of other people and seek
to lift them up. As a counter to this argument, some may argue that the best way
to durably uplift people is to teach them how to pull themselves by their own
bootstraps. Rather than solving people’s problems, the true humanitarian teaches
people how to solve their own problems. Rather than giving someone a fish, it is
far better to teach them how to fish. Only by so doing can one preserve the
Social Protection and the Care Economy
receiver’s pride while breaking the cycle of dependency and learned helplessness
that comes from overreliance on public assistance.
3. The economic counterargument.
Herbert Gans has proposed a radical argument that upends Keynesian logic to
boost employment and consumption among the poor, or even the notion that
society should take special steps nurture its budding Mozarts. In his view, poverty
and vulnerability are not ills to frantically eradicate. Rather they are functional in
the sense that they facilitate the full and efficient functioning of an economy. Rather
than being a crush on the soul, poverty can spur unique forms of creativity and
resilience, with entire music genres or literature for instance borne out of the
experience of deep hardship. More broadly, Gans listed 13 functions of poverty,
including the following:
First, the existence of poverty ensures that society's "dirty work" will be
done.
Second, because the poor are required to work at low wages, they
subsidize a variety of economic activities that benefit the affluent.
Third, poverty creates jobs for a number of occupations and professions
that serve or "service" the poor, or protect the rest of society from them.
Fourth, the poor buy goods others do not want and thus prolong the
economic usefulness of such goods - day-old bread, fruit and vegetables
that otherwise would have to be thrown out, secondhand clothes, and
deteriorating automobiles and buildings.
Fifth, the poor can be identified and punished as alleged or real deviants
in order to uphold the legitimacy of conventional norms.
Sixth, and conversely, the poor offer vicarious participation to the rest of
the population in the uninhibited sexual, alcoholic, and narcotic behavior in
which they are alleged to participate and which, being freed from the
constraints of affluence, they are often thought to enjoy more than the
middle classes.
Seventh, the poor also serve a direct cultural function when culture
created by or for them is adopted by the more affluent.
Eighth, poverty helps to guarantee the status of those who are not poor.
Social Protection and the Care Economy
Ninth, the poor also aid the upward mobility of groups just above them in
the class hierarchy.
Tenth, the poor help to keep the aristocracy busy, thus justifying its
continued existence. "Society" uses the poor as clients of settlement
houses and beneficiaries of charity affairs; indeed, the aristocracy must
have the poor to demonstrate its superiority over other elites who devote
themselves to earning money.
Eleventh, the poor, being powerless, can be made to absorb the costs of
change and growth in American society.
Twelfth, the poor facilitate and stabilize the American political process.
Because they vote and participate in politics less than other groups, the
political system is often free to ignore them.
Thirteenth, the role of the poor in upholding conventional norms (see the
fifth point, above) also has a significant political function.
Ultimately, these functions should cast doubt on the official pronouncements about
the political will to eradicate poverty. In that perspective, the vulnerable and poor
are routinely sacrificed at the altar of real politics and practical policy
considerations.
4. The social counterargument.
For SP proponents, social capital is built, and social life is enriched in societies
where the needy are embraced by the fortunate. Yet powerful counter-arguments
suggest a variety of social ills including the rise of a culture of entitlement and the
erosion of civic, community and family life, along with resentment and
stigmatization of SP recipients. For instance, as expectations of government help
are normalized, this swings the cultural pendulum away from personal
responsibility. Because families, local communities and civic participation have
traditionally been the means to address community problems including those of
the needy, the establishment of national bureaucratic institutions of social support
erodes an important function of these community institutions. Finally, social
protection and transfers to the poor require taxing the middle classes and as such
they can breed resentment against, and stigmatization/stereotyping of, entire
groups whose representatives are perceived as depending disproportionately on
public assistance.
Social Protection and the Care Economy
5. The political counterargument.
According to SP proponents, the poor’s economic and social exclusion lead to
increase class envy and reduce social cohesion. From that standpoint, inclusion is
expected to be politically beneficial. Critics do not necessarily question the
potential benefits for SP recipients but will worry about effects on political
clientelism, corruption and waste/ embezzlement of public resources. Under the
guise of providing for the poor, corrupt bureaucrats will direct public resources to
benefit private interests or narrow political interests.
6. The existential counterargument.
To counter the argument that societies are only as strong as their weakest link, SP
critics argue that a greater source of societal weakness is failure to heed natural
selection. Collective support of a group’s “weaker” members disrupts the social
Darwinian processes by which this group would have become stronger over time,
through “positive” selection. Yet this counterargument itself can be critiqued for
failure to consider the loss in diversity that can guarantee resilience in the long run
and for a wider range of external threats.
On balance
There are indeed strong arguments in favor of SP and for policies to evolve formal
protection mechanisms in Africa. These arguments range from moral imperatives to
existential threats. Yet, there are equally powerful counterarguments that highlight a
slew of potentially perverse effects of social protection or of positive functions of
poverty. There is however a sensible middle ground that rejects both indiscriminate
embrace and wholesale rejection of social protection. This middle ground, which is
pursued throughout this course, requires nuanced consideration of sensible targets and
optimal conditions of SP.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Beveridge, William. Social Insurance and Allied Services (1942). London: His Majesty's
Stationery Office (HMSO).
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom (1962). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gans, Herbert J. The Positive Functions of Poverty (1972). American Journal of Sociology,
78(2), 275-289.
Social Protection and the Care Economy
Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936).
London: Macmillan.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government (1689). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, Karl. Das Kapital: Critique of Political Economy (1867). Hamburg: Verlag von Otto
Meissner.
Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000).
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract (1762). Paris: Marc-Michel Rey.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom (1999). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Social Protection and the Care Economy