In our research, we find that there is something of a convergence of both philosophical ethicality and practical economy that emphasizes the value of the Neo-Classical approach. This may be said to draw its perspective from the utilitarian school of philosophical thought. According to the text by Albert & Hahnel, "by utilitarianism is here meant the ethical theory that the conduct which, under any given circumstances, is objectively right, is that which will produce the greatest amount of happiness of the whole; that is, taking into account all whose happiness is affected by the conduct." (Albert & Hahnel, 1)
This seems to espouse a view of social welfare which states that the degree to which the poorest amongst a nation's citizens are pulled up to the standards established by the rest of society is the degree to which the society itself can be said to have achieved a certain economic health and progressive cultural context. In this model, we consider an important principle that discounts the veracity of New Welfare ideologies. Accordingly, this approaches the subject with the understanding that those modes of individual welfare which actively serve to deprive the welfare of other individuals are regressive from the perspective of the state and its people. In other words, a system whereby wealth is aggressively concentrated into the hands of a select few inevitably results in difficulties with respect to resource distribution, with respect to collective living standards and with respect to the individual utility to society of those who are in the deprived classes and demographics.
Where this idea of deprivation of utility is concerned, we find that there are determinable economic consequences for a whole nation and society of failing to maintain or protect the utility of the disenfranchised, impoverished or otherwise culturally disadvantaged sectors of a population. Their diminished productivity and heightened needs in the areas healthcare, education, job placement...
The cross-section of these parties is generally entrusted with the responsibility of either deregulating or intervening with free-market competition through the interests of greater social welfare. Indeed, most developed and industrialized nations will support some form of public assistance for the impoverished. But our research speculates as to the motives or suitability of governments for this responsibility. So is this argument posited by Besley (2002), who indicates that "welfare economic approaches to the policy process have been criticized by those operating in the public choice tradition, for failing to consider how actual policy choices are made. Thus, even if we were able to understand what optimal policies are, there is no guarantee that the kinds of decision making institutions that we observe in reality will bring them about. The public choice critique of welfare economics says that, by failing to model government, it provides a misleading view of the appropriate role for government." (p. 1)
It is here from that many modern social welfare theorists have authored their harshest critique of utilitarian theories, arguing that the natural market science of a free economy is ultimately far better suited to defining individual and collectivity utilities and valuing them accordingly.
Works Cited:
Albert, M. & Hahnel, R. (?). Traditional Welfare Theory. A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics.
Besley, T. (2002). Welfare Economics and Public Choice. London School of Economics and Political Science.
EEA. (1994). Definition of Welfare Economics. .
WAU. (?). Neo-Paretian Welfare Economics: Misconceptions and Abuse. .
