Government help to economically and socially disadvantaged persons has been heavily criticised in recent years. In an inequitable society, it is society's obligation and practise to spread the general effect of social production not only to the grassroots, but also to all those affected by unequal economic growth. This is why various social security programmes exist, such as educational and government service reservations, pension plans, public distribution systems, free electricity, fertiliser subsidies, and loan forgiveness.

Welfare programme critics have been around for over a century. Following the Great Depression of the 1930s, welfare states arose in a number of countries, with the government playing a prominent role in the economy. To increase market demand and speed production and economic growth, governments pursued key economic policies such as promoting productivity through public works and sharing revenues with the poor. However, some economists were vehemently opposed from the start.

Their position is that the government should not intervene in the economy in any form, as this would result in a financial catastrophe for the government, as well as inflation and slowdown in industrial growth, which would impact everyone. They believe that these plans, which are launched with good intentions, would ultimately result in negative outcomes. Similarly, the minimum wage rule will both prevent and create unemployment in the job market.

When all markets, including the labour market, operate freely without government intervention, neoliberals like Friedman argue that all those who participate in those markets voluntarily engage in exchange; it is claimed that economic freedom is guaranteed to all by preventing the accumulation of economic power. However, it's similar to a collaborative archive. The truth, however, is rather different.

The implementation of government initiatives should be transparent, and all benefits should be routed directly to the beneficiaries using current technology. The use of middlemen will reduce once all transactions, including direct money transfers, are fully implemented. Political interference will absolutely remove allegations of bribes and corruption.

Such programmes boost rural cash flow, commodity consumption, and nutrition, as well as the gross economic productivity and livelihoods of innumerable small and micro businesses. Only a robust rural economy will ensure that people are available for agricultural employment; opponents of such schemes must recognise that they can prevent the destruction of free urbanisation while ensuring broader economic progress.

మరింత సమాచారం తెలుసుకోండి:

welfare schemes

S Venkateshwari

09/11/2021 11:17 AM