Welfare is a type of government support intended to ensure that members of a society can meet basic human needs such as food and shelter.[1] Social security may either be synonymous with welfare,[a] or refer specifically to social insurance programs, which provide support only to those who have previously contributed (e.g. most pension systems), as opposed to social assistance programs, which provide support on the basis of need alone (e.g. most disability benefits).[6][7] The International Labour Organization defines social security as covering support for those in old age, support for the maintenance of children, medical treatment, parental and sick leave, unemployment and disability benefits, and support for sufferers of occupational injury.
. HISTORY
In the Roman Empire, the first emperor Augustus provided the Cura Annonae or grain dole for citizens who could not afford to buy food every month. Social welfare was enlarged by the Emperor Trajan.[14] Trajan's program brought acclaim from many, including Pliny the Younger.[15] The Song dynasty government (960 CE) supported multiple programs which could be classified as social welfare, including the establishment of retirement homes, public clinics, and paupers' graveyards. According to economist Robert Henry Nelson, "The medieval Roman Catholic Church operated a far-reaching and comprehensive welfare system for the poor..."[16][17]
In the Islamic world, Zakat (charity), one of the Five Pillars of Islam, have been collected by the government since the time of the Rashidun caliph Umar in the 7th century, and used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058–111), the government was also expected to store up food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.[18][19] (See Bayt al-mal for further information.)
Likewise, in Jewish tradition, charity (represented by tzedakah) is a matter of religious obligation rather than benevolence. Contemporary charity is regarded as a continuation of the Biblical Maaser Ani, or poor-tithe, as well as Biblical practices, such as permitting the poor to glean the corners of a field and harvest during the Shmita (Sabbatical year).
There is relatively little statistical data on transfer payments before the High Middle Ages. In the medieval period and until the Industrial Revolution, the function of welfare payments in Europe was achieved through private giving or charity, through numerous confraternities and activities of different religious orders. Early welfare programs in Europe included the English Poor Law of 1601, which gave parishes the responsibility for providing welfare payments to the poor.[20] This system was substantially modified by the 19th-century Poor Law Amendment Act, which introduced the system of workhouses.
It was predominantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that an organized system of state welfare provision was introduced in many countries. Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, introduced one of the first welfare systems for the working classes.[21] In Great Britain the Liberal government of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and David Lloyd George introduced the National Insurance system in 1911,[22] a system later expanded by Clement Attlee.
Modern welfare states include Germany, France, the Netherlands,[23] as well as the Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland[24] which employ a system known as the Nordic model. Esping-Andersen classified the most developed welfare state systems into three categories; Social Democratic, Conservative, and Liberal.[25]
A report published by the ILO in 2014 estimated that only 27% of the world's population has access to comprehensive social security.[26] The World Bank's 2019 World Development Report argues that the traditional payroll-based model of many kinds of social insurance are "increasingly challenged by working arrangements outside standard employment contracts."[21]
.EFFECT
The welfare-to-work intervention programme is unlikely to have any impacts on the mental and physical health of lone parents and children. Even when the employment and income rates were higher in this group of people, the poverty rate was high which could lead to persistently high rates of depression whether they were in the programme or not.[63]
Income transfers can be either conditional or unconditional. Conditionalities are sometimes criticized as being paternalistic and unnecessary.
A 2008 study by welfare economist and Brown University Professor Allan M. Feldman[64] suggests that welfare can achieve both competitive equilibrium and Pareto efficiency in the market.[65]
Some opponents of welfare argue that it affects work incentives.
PerceptionEdit
According to a 2012 review study, whether a welfare program generates public support depends on:[66]
whether the program is universal or targeted towards certain groups
the size of the social program benefits (larger benefits incentivize greater mobilization to defend a social program)
the visibility and traceability of the benefits (whether recipients know where the benefits come from)
the proximity and concentration of the beneficiaries (this affects the ease by which beneficiaries can organize to protect a social program)
the duration of the benefits (longer benefits incentivize greater mobilization to defend a social program)
the manner in which a program is administered (e.g. is the program inclusive, does it follow principles?)
Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.
- Helen Keller
বাড়িয়ে দিন আপনার হাত🤝
™Billal Shikder
1.Sohel Talukder
2.Rasel Talukder
3.Rony Talukder
4.Sojib Talukder
5.Rana Talukder
6.Raihan Talukder
7.Konok Shikder
8.Rakib Shikder
9.Abdullah Talukder
10.Mohashim Talukder
11.Rubel Talukder
12.Monir Talukder
13.Sabbir Talukder
14.Milon Talukder
15.Rasel Talukder
16.Eleyas Talukder
17.Sazzad Talukder
18.Rubel Talukder
19.Yeamin
19.Ahashan Talukder
20.Romjan Talukder
21.Washim Talukder
22.Abu Sayed Talukder
23.Soruj Talukder
24.
25.
The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.
"What can I do to make sure that middle-class families are feeling more secure, that more young people are able to access opportunity, that we are safe, that we are working with our international partners to try to create more order at a time when there's a lot of chaos? How do we deal with terrorism in a way that's consistent with our values? As long as I stay focused on those north stars, then I tend not to get too rattled." ~ Barack Obama
knowledge clear. My definition of knowledge is facts or opinions which are generated through the help of the ways of knowing and the process itself, and I narrow personal life down to mean social, physical, and emotional wellbeing outside of profession. The combination of the two is personal experience. Explicitly defined, ‘purpose’ is an objective or goal, and ‘meaning’ is the passion or driving force behind it, as well as the significance towards persons.
Credit: Paul McGee Getty Images
ADVERTISEMENT
“I do not accept any absolute formulas for living. No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man’s life. As we live, we grow, and our beliefs change. They must change. So I think we should live with this constant discovery. We should be open to this adventure in heightened awareness of living. We should stake our whole existence on our willingness to explore and experience.”—Martin Buber
What does it mean to live a good life? This question has been debated and written about by many philosophers, thinkers and novelists throughout the course of humanity. In the field of psychology, two main conceptualizations of the good life have predominated: A happy life (often referred to as “hedonic well-being”), full of stability, pleasure, enjoyment and positive emotions, and a meaningful life (often referred to as “eudaimonic well-being”), full of purpose, meaning, virtue, devotion, service and sacrifice. But what if these aren’t the only options?
In recent years, a long-neglected version of the good life has been receiving greater research attention: the psychologically rich life. The psychologically rich life is full of complex mental engagement, a wide range of intense and deep emotions, and diverse, novel, surprising and interesting experiences. Sometimes the experiences are pleasant, sometimes they are meaningful, and sometimes they are neither pleasant nor meaningful. However, they are rarely boring or monotonous.
ADVERTISEMENT
After all, both happy and meaningful lives can become monotonous and repetitive. A person with a steady office job, married with children, may be generally satisfied with their life and find many aspects of their life meaningful and still be bored out of their mind. Also, the psychologically rich life doesn’t necessarily involve economic richness. For instance, consider Hesse’s character Goldmund, who has no money but pursues the life of a wanderer and a free spirit.
Recent research on psychological richness has found that it is related to, but partially distinct from, both happy and meaningful lives. Psychological richness is much more strongly correlated with curiosity, openness to experience and experiencing both positive and negative emotions more intensely. But is the psychologically rich life one that people actually want?
In a new study, Shigehiro Oishi and his colleagues propose that psychological richness is a neglected aspect of what people consider a good life and set out to assess how much people around the world actually desire such a life. The researchers asked people living in nine diverse countries the degree to which they value a psychologically rich life, a happy life and a meaningful life.
They found that many people’s self-described ideal lives involve psychological richness. When forced to choose a life, however, the majority chose a happy life (ranging from 49.7 percent to 69.9 percent) and a meaningful life (14.2 percent to 38.5 percent). Even so, a substantial minority of people still favored the psychologically rich life, ranging from 6.7 percent in Singapore to 16.8 percent in Germany.
These numbers went up when the desire for a psychologically rich life was measured indirectly. To fully understand what a person wishes their lives might have been, it is important to explore what people wish they had avoided in their lives. Therefore, Oishi and his colleagues asked people what they regret most in their lives and whether undoing or reversing this regrettable life event would have made their lives happier, more meaningful or psychologically richer.
ADVERTISEMENT
They found that about 28 percent of Americans said that undoing the regrettable event would have made their lives psychologically richer. For instance, one person wrote that they regretted “not going to a four-year college to get a degree. I feel like I missed out on some interesting experiences.” In Korea, the percentage was even higher, which 35 percent of participants saying that undoing the regrettable event would have made their lives psychologically richer [compared to happier (27.6 percent) or more meaningful (37.4 percent)].
These findings suggest that while most people do strive to be happy and have meaning and purpose in their lives, a sizable number of people are content merely living a psychologically rich existence. Indeed, other emerging research suggests that for a lot of people, the intensity of the experience matters more than merely how “positive” or “negative” it was. As Oishi and colleagues conclude, “we believe that taking the psychologically rich life seriously will deepen broaden, and yes, enrichen our understanding of well-being.”
At the end of the day, there is no one singularly acceptable path to the good life. You have to find a path that works best for you.
OH HEY, FOR BEST VIEWING, YOU'LL NEED TO TURN YOUR PHONE