From the Welfare State to the Welfare Society: A Shift in Paradigm

The context

The Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath has made us realise how important, even today, is the welfare state. Despite earlier apprehensions about the retreat of the welfare state due to ‘fiscal and overload’ crisis in the wake of neo-liberalisation and a globalised world order, we find the welfare state prevailing unabated. Due to the sudden outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, like the Spanish flu almost one hundred years ago resulting into the death of millions of people worldwide, the governments had to play a proactive role of saviours at tremendous socio-economic costs despite having different types of constitutions, forms of government, institutional structures and leadership styles. No state can deal with such calamities on its own. It would need not only international cooperation on humanitarian ground but also local support from society on a day-to-day basis.

This pandemic has also made it clear how vast socio-economic inequalities prevail in most societies even today and how the weak and marginalised sections of society suffered more than the affluent ones due to the sudden onslaught of Covid-19 (Ghosh, 2020). It is quite obvious when we glance at the migrant workers moving to their hometowns on foot desperately and/or at the government and non-government organisations not being able to adequately help people, living in slum clusters like Dharavi in Mumbai, with food and other essential services, where even social distancing or isolation was not feasible. Covid-19 pandemic has put additional and substantial costs on social protection which they were not in a position to afford. No wonder, it raised the demand for creating a global fund to ensure universal well-being on sustainable basis (De Schutter, 2021, pp. 14–19).

In the aftermath of Covid-19, it has become imperative to recognise the need for a shift in paradigm from the narrow goal of economic efficiency to interdependence among ‘socio-economic and environmental resilience’. It has also made us realise how important is the role of good governance, technological innovation and social support to deal with sudden crisis, such as Covid-19, in a more de-globalised world today, making it necessary to rely on local support only for the timely help. It further highlights the need for releasing ‘people’s own agency for intelligence, hard work and motivation’ based upon not only on intelligent use of digital technology but also on recourse to ‘ethics, transparency, security and human values’. Surprisingly, in contrast to the 2008 financial crisis which resulted in ‘massive slump in demand’, Covid-19 pandemic led to a severe ‘supply-side recession’ the world over. This pandemic forced the workforce to work from home online amid tight restrictions on the movement of people and goods along with curtailment of transport and other logistics despite a surge in demand for the goods and services. Although the healthcare industry bloomed, there have been many reports of misinformation and conspiracies (Millard, 2020).

In April–June 2020, we found a decline of 32.9% in the GDP of the USA in contrast to mere 8.4% decline reported in the US economy in 2008 due to financial crisis (Rushe, 2020). However, in the Eurozone, the coronavirus led to the shrinking of economy by a record 12.1%, amounting to the ‘whipping out of almost one decade expansion’ (Elliott, 2020). Though the pandemic had started in the People’s Republic of China a few months earlier than the rest of the world, its GDP showed a growth by 3.2% in the second quarter, re-bouncing from the earlier contraction of 6.8% in the first quarter. The World Bank envisioned a contraction of 5.2% in global GDP in 2020, reflecting one of the largest economic shocks the world had to experience recently (World Bank, 2020). It definitely had a bad impact in terms of lower investment, erosion of human capital due to loss of work, fragmentation of global trade and supply chain and so on. Most states had to play a proactive role to cushion the health and economic consequences of Covid-19 pandemic, protect the vulnerable populations including not only the poor but also the middle class and promote ways of fast recovery.

The question that arises is how long such huge expenditure can be sustained by any state. Known as a welfare laggard, even the USA under its new President, Joe Biden, had to announce a bailout package of $1.9 trillion (The Hindu, 15 January 2021). It means we would have to think beyond the welfare state to be able to cope up with such drastic shocks, natural and manmade calamities in future not only in economic but also social, ethical and environmental terms. In future, we would have to give priority to ‘essential workers’, such as, people working in the healthcare, transport, maintenance, food and agriculture sectors, who keep the society and the economy functional even during the crisis like Covid-19. It would require conscious efforts towards the ‘development of people’s own agencies to function successfully within these structures and over which they have, at least partially, a good measure of control’ (Millard et al., 2017). It would also mean formal and informal reforms in response to ‘crisis shocks, inertia, cultural practices, vested interests, and even of course, corruption, cronyism and paternalism’ (Millard et al., 2017).

Though the governments had to spend lavishly beyond their capacities to be able to deal with Covid-19 crisis, they won’t be able to do so for long once the situation is under control. In 2020–2021, the governments were forced to give priority to saving human lives from the new virus almost on a war footing. Since most governments were involved in it, they were not in a position to help the other nations. It applied to the Western World and the Global South alike. According to a report by Oxfam (Business Today, 16 December 2020), $9.8 trillion were spent by 36 rich countries against just $42 billion by 59 low-income countries to cope up with the fallout from Covid-19 pandemic. But we can expect radical reversals and cutbacks in social spending soon. The policymakers are likely to tighten their belts in order to get out of the economic crisis and adverse populism. It would require them to move quickly from welfare states to welfare societies by involving people, charitable and non-government organisations in the process of providing welfare services to vast majorities. No state can meet the enormous costs involved and/or endure the huge workload involved in ensuring the well-being of its citizens without adequate social support, especially in aging societies such as the USA, Japan and China. In those countries where people are not technology-savvy, the old, people with disabilities and/or single parents might need food, medicines and essential services provided at home with the help of volunteers. Various grassroots initiatives, self-help groups and youth active on social media can be of great help in future by manifesting solidarity with the people, on the one hand, and ensuring quality of life, on the other (Sinyavskaya, 2020). Women can definitely play a more dominant role both as ‘providers of care’ and ‘consumers of care being provided’ (Gupta, 2018).

Can Welfare Society be a Substitute?

Time and again we find the question being raised by the researchers in the field of social welfare whether ‘welfare society’ can be a substitute for the ‘welfare state’ in future. A few decades away, Gunnar Myrdal (1898–1987), the Swedish Nobel laureate, had hoped for the ‘welfare world’ to transpire eventually (Myrdal, 1960). Before we discuss the appropriateness of welfare society, it is necessary to distinguish welfare society from the welfare state. All welfare states do not entail welfare societies and vice versa. In fact, the relationship between welfare state and welfare society has also been inconsistent.

Prior to the emergence of the welfare state as a consequence of Industrial Revolution, urbanisation, democratisation and economic growth in the mid to late 19th century, social protection was provided to the poor and the needy through family, community, feudal lords, Church or guilds. However, in the early decades of societal modernisation (from the late 19th century till the First World War), we find social unrest, labour conflicts and political movements rampant in the Western Europe which could not be mitigated by the ‘bourgeois philanthropic associations’. Rather, these factors led to the formation of political coalitions of the bourgeois and working-class parties all over Europe. It also led to the recognition of sociopolitical rights of the ‘workers as citizens’ and ‘institution of generous welfare programmes’. In fact, it was also the outcome of the bourgeois elite’s fear of radical politics and the revolution that occurred in Russia in 1917. They were also afraid of Hitler’s ascent to power in Germany in 1933 and the problems faced during the great depression from 1929 to 1939 in the United States of America.

Quite paradoxically, the welfare state which was supposed to be a new innovation under capitalist economy to look after the well-being of the society became the cause of eroding the social structures. By taking over the social obligations, it became responsible for weakening the intimate ties, commitment and trust. To Spicker (1986), the dependency on welfare state led to curbs in individual responsibility, care near the source, sense of empathy, on the one hand, and led to consumerism, inegalitarian and overuse of welfare services, on the other. Quite surprisingly, we find negative relationship between the ‘degree of social spending’ and ‘social capital and informal solidarity’. The reason is that the people living in high spending welfare states depicted generally a lower level of informal solidarity compared to those living in low spending welfare states. On the contrary, it was assumed that people with higher level of informal solidarity would have a higher level of social capital (van Oorschot et al., 2005, p. 36).

In a study conducted by Wim van Oorschot et al. (2005, p. 36) on the ‘Welfare state effects on social capital and informal solidarity in the European Union’ published in the Policy and Politics, the authors found many cultural and structural variables contributing to peoples’ informal solidarity, such as gender, age, income, status of employment, educational level, religiosity, political views and degree of ethnocentrism (ibid., p. 37). Quite surprisingly, they found women, older people and unemployed showing more support towards the welfare state than men, younger people and employed. Those who had higher educational level showed more concern towards the disabled, unemployed, sick and old as they showed a higher degree of moral enlightenment, and they were supposed to be culturally more progressive and open-minded.

Similarly, religious-minded people were supposed to be more solidaristic with needy people. However, people who were more ethnocentric were seen as less tolerant of the needs of the immigrants. It was also found that when the people had the realisation that the poor and the needy were well taken care of by the welfare state, the mutual aid groups, non-governmental organisations, civil society or the corporate sector ‘in the name of social responsibility’, those very people felt less concerned towards the needy at the individual level. Hence it can be said that the feeling of informal solidarity is likely to be lower in those cases where there is more ‘formally organised solidarity’. That is why welfare state is blamed for weakening informal solidarity by adopting a centrist, bureaucratic and mechanical approach towards social obligations (Eräsaari, 1987).

No wonder, we now find the focus shifting to the alternate devices, such as, welfare society comprising of various voluntary, charitable, non-government organisations (for-profit and non-profit), private financing, corporate sector and civil society and so on. Just as the idea of welfare state emerged to protect the capitalist political system from collapsing, the idea of the welfare society is now being propagated to save globalisation idea based upon neo-liberal philosophy. Just as the emergence of welfare state led to convergence by making the individuals tolerant of prevailing socio-economic disparities widespread at the national level, similarly the idea of participatory welfare society is being promoted deliberately to make people all over the world more tolerant of widespread diffusion prevailing in terms of sociocultural, ethnic, geographical, economic and/or political disparities.

Hence, we can say that mere economic growth and development is no guarantee of the well-being of an individual or the society. The welfare of a society depends upon the quality of life led by the individuals and the well-being of the humanity depends upon the well-being of all nations. To ensure the well-being of the humankind, it has become imperative to link welfare states with welfare societies. They can no longer be seen as antagonistic. By coming together, the welfare states and welfare societies can enhance welfare in order to minimise the need for such measures in future. They can also aim at not only increasing efficiency and productivity of their economies but also promote citizens’ self-reliance and capabilities. As such, in future, the focus would be more on activating the citizens than maintaining their income. In the knowledge-based and technology-driven modern economies, we find the citizens already becoming more organised and more vocal than ever before.

The concept of welfare society was first evoked by W.A. Robson (1980) in his landmark work, The Welfare State and Welfare Society. To him, ‘the welfare state is what parliament has decreed and the government does’, whereas the ‘welfare society is what people do, feel and think about matters which bear on the general welfare’ (ibid., p. i). To him, most of the problems arose earlier because the European states tried to become welfare states without becoming welfare societies (ibid., p. 3). Now it has been realised that a welfare society, based upon solidarity, mutual support and a sense of active community, is a prerequisite for a welfare state. So far, we have succeeded in building only a welfare state which had only limited success due to vast contradictions prevailing in our societies (ibid., pp. 215–216). In a country like Japan, attempts were made in the late 1970s and the early 1980s to move towards a welfare society by strengthening self-help mechanisms, mutual assistance at the community level, corporate welfare and so on. The Japanese policymakers tried to minimise state intervention and limit assistance to only those in ‘real need’ (Hori, 1981).

Soon, Japan earned the status of ‘superior society’ (Number One). Gradually, the concept of participatory welfare society was put forward by associating various volunteers and non-profit organisations in the delivery of welfare services. Even the elderly and disabled were associated in the process. Women’s action groups and people from the middle class started playing a proactive role through various non-profit activities. The idea of welfare society got public support because it was generally in line with prevailing pluralism. It was based on the idea that diverse actors in terms of gender, age, educational qualifications, occupation and political affiliation should be engaged in welfare activities. Instead of rejecting the welfare state as a laggard in providing relief to the people from market failure, it aimed at complementing it with welfare society by providing a wider scope for solidarity and harmony.

The Non-Profit Organisations Act was passed in Japan to create public space for self-help/mutual help groups (Melucci, 1989). They served as an important link between the state and the individuals. Today we find a shift in paradigm from the ‘welfare states based upon Central and local governments’ to ‘welfare societies based upon local communities and non-profit organisations’. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the ‘Big Society’ became a central feature of the Conservative Party policy during 2010 elections. This idea was promoted by the then British Prime Minister David Cameron as a vision rather than concrete reform programme. It allowed the citizens to take more responsibility towards solving local community problems with the help of the ‘third sector’ comprising of quasi-public organisations (Alcock, 2015, pp. 124–127). The concept of Big Society was based upon the principles of pluralism, voluntarism and localism.

According to the government manifesto, the prime goals of the Big Society in the United Kingdom were defined as (a) giving more power to communities, (b) encouraging people to take more active role in their communities, (c) transferring power from Central to local government, (d) provide support to cooperatives, charities and social enterprises and (e) publish government data (UK Cabinet Office, 2010). In 2011, the Localism Act was passed which paved the way for more opportunities for charitable trusts, voluntary and other organisations to carryout services which were earlier provided by local councils. Such organisations could also bid for playgrounds, pubs and shops. For instance, under the Big Society project, 174 pre-schools were opened in 2013. Two-third of the funding for the third sector came through the local government (Alcock, 2015, p. 125).

The Office for Civil Society in the United Kingdom formed a taskforce ‘to remove barriers to local community action’. It encouraged switching of public services to independent organisations under the ‘Right to Provide’ (earlier it was the Right to Request). It provided for about 2 million pounds for the training of local community organisers, and it contributed 50 million pounds to ‘co-fund local endowments’. In 2011, a White Paper on Open Public Services was published to increase the role of non-government providers. However, some serious contradictions were visualised during the course of action. Most of the public service contracts were given on the basis of market principles. Since the aim was to shift from bureaucratic state to smart, small and efficient state, the government hesitated in regulating the services provided by the third sector in a big way (Teasdale et al., 2012).

The idea of Big Society in the UK was, in fact, used to legitimise cuts in public services in the name of austerity (Bach, 2012). By austerity we imply ‘voluntary deflation’ to adjust an economy to restore its competitiveness by cutting state budgets debts and deficits (Blyth, 2013). We find the same austerity logic behind the idea of ‘participatory society’ gaining momentum in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, conscious efforts were made to shift responsibilities from national to local level authorities and engaging of the civil society in delivering welfare services (Hoekman et al., 2018, p. 132). Whereas the earlier economic crisis in 1980s led to deregulation, privatisation and withdrawal of the state from social services, in the Netherlands and other European countries, the recent crisis provoked by the neo-liberal tendencies have made it necessary to look forward to some innovative solutions by creating more public space for the citizens to participate actively at the societal level. For instance, in a Speech from the Throne on 17 September 2013, the King of Netherlands, Willem-Alexander had observed:

Undeniably, people in our modern network and information society are more outspoken and independent than in the past. Combined with the need to reduce the government deficit, this leads to a gradual change from the classical welfare state to a participation society. Everyone who is able, is asked to take responsibility for own life and environment. ¹

Willem-Alexander expressed great confidence in the abilities of Dutch people and assured the Members of the States General that his government was working hard to not only provide the public services which are affordable and meet the demands of the 21st century but also helpful in fostering solidarity between different income groups and generations. He showed faith in the people shaping not only their own futures but also the future of the society as a whole. He offered to provide ‘opportunities where possible and protection where necessary’ so that no one is left behind (ibid., p. 2).

The Chicago school too mooted the idea of a welfare society. Members of this school believe that the human behaviour is shaped by social structures and natural environment inhabited by the community. The cities function as a microcosm where all passions and energies of humankind are released and form the process of civilisation (Banfield & Wilson, 1963). To Frederic E. Clements (1916), an individual takes birth, grows, matures and dies, but the community continues to grow and shows properties that are greater than the sum total of the inhabitants. In the city of Chicago, some of the problems arose primarily because of the absence or breakdown of social control mechanisms.

In Causes of Delinquency (1969), Travis Hirschi held the variations in social bond in terms of ‘attachment to others’, ‘commitment to conventional goals’, ‘acceptance of conventional moral standards or beliefs’ and ‘involvement in conventional activities’ responsible for the delinquent behaviour amongst the youth. It holds true even today when we find the youth engaged in undesirable activities on social media ignoring the cultural values and societal pressures. The Chicago School favours the welfare society model based upon market economy unlike the welfare state model based upon mixed economic and social justice. According to Chicago School, perhaps the concept of the welfare society can better deal with socially differentiated groups having altogether different values, norms by granting more freedom and responsibility.

We already find some innovative ideas adopted in the form of ‘food bank’ or ‘time bank’ where welfare services are provided without involving the state. For instance, at St Gallen, a Swiss city, a novel banking system has been launched in which the retired ‘care volunteers’, disabled or women deposit hours spent in looking after the elderly people free of cost. In return, they earn credit hours which they can claim for their own care when needed later in their lives (Thoele, 2012). It happened when we found the ratio of aged people increasing in Switzerland and it became too expensive to provide care to a large number of people on long-term basis with a smaller number of the youths available due to demographic changes (Larcher et al., 2020, pp. 1192–1196). The high costs made even the rich and middle-class people vulnerable. The tremendous rise in the number of aging population has already become a big challenge for the welfare states in the advanced economies where the caring has become expensive, need has enhanced and resources available have declined.

Concluding Remarks

When we talk of a shift in paradigm from the ‘welfare state’ to the ‘welfare society’, it does not mean that we are looking for an alternate to the welfare state. Rather, we wish to supplement it with the welfare society to ensure the well-being of not only the poor, needy and downtrodden but also of the consumers, entrepreneurs and investors alike. A shift in paradigm occurs when the usual and accepted ways of doing or thinking about something changes completely. Earlier the welfare state was seen as an outcome of the political contest between the organised labour and capital over social wages. Gradually the new groups organised around gender, ethnicity, disability, unemployment, old age and so on. However, since 1970s, the effectiveness of welfare state came under scrutiny by both the Left and the Right. The diffusion of the sovereignty upwards in the form of supranational and downward in the form of sub-nationals in the wake of globalisation also affected the credibility of the welfare state adversely.

Now with the ascent of the new millennium, we find the welfare state based upon collectivist principles of solidarity drifting towards welfare society founded on the individualist assumptions rooted in family, community and market. Prior to the emergence of the welfare state, those who received support under the traditional system often showed gratitude towards their saviours. However, under the welfare state, the beneficiaries claimed benefits on the basis of entitlement without showing any loyalty or gratitude which resulted in ‘moral hazard’ and even ‘free riding’ in some cases. It also made the recipients of welfare benefits passive. No wonder, we find the focus of some of the policymakers today shifting towards pre-modern times when a sense of obligation and charitable virtues prevailed in abundance. In contemporary societies, the trend is to shift some of the welfare responsibilities concentrated in the state back to the individuals, families and community.

In the 21st century, individuals are even encouraged to buy private insurance to cover unemployment, sickness and old age. In future, the civil society is likely to play a more proactive role than the welfare state (Dey, 2020). Whereas under a welfare state, a range of goods and services are claimed as statutory rights and entitlements, under the welfare society, the individuals and social agents are supposed to fulfil the welfare responsibilities. Under this system, the welfare obligations form ‘an organic part of everyday life’ (Rodger, 2000, p. 8). As such, the trend today seems to be in favour of the declining role of the interventionist welfare state and ‘rise in the role of active and participatory societies’. The welfare states are no longer seen as panacea for solving complex social problems. Nor are social policies shaped merely by the political and economic forces because the prevailing sociocultural values also play an important role in framing them. Therefore, we not only find the nature of politics drastically changing in contemporary societies but also the welfare provisions.

Earlier, in the era of modernity, emphasis was laid on ‘progressive economic and administrative rationalisation and differentiation of the social world’ (Featherstone, 1988, p. 197). It was based upon the linear notion of progress with the application of scientific principles to the improvement of human conditions. The creation of the welfare state was seen as ‘a wonderful expression of social altruism’ (Korpi, 1978; Titmus, 1970). However, this view was challenged both by the ‘anti-modernists and postmodernists’. The anti-modernists gave priority to ‘pre-welfare system’ where self-reliance, charity and public virtues prevailed in abundance (Whelan, 1996). The postmodernists, on the other hand, rejected the very idea that there can be any ‘one superior way of understanding the world’ (Pinch, 1997, p. 146). In the field of welfare, the postmodernists look beyond ‘the markets’ and ‘work ethic’. They rely on a welfare system that recognises cultural plurality and socio-economic differences (Bauman, 1998).

However, there is no consensus among the modernists, anti-modernists and postmodernists over the nature of a welfare society. Moreover, we may find various welfare systems at various stages of development in terms of modernism. Some countries may be still at the stage of ‘pre-modernism’ while others may be at the stage of ‘late modernism’. Similarly, we may find the civil societies underdeveloped in some cases but proactive in other cases. Moreover, we may find conflicting tendencies in a society undergoing rapid socio-economic and cultural changes. Consequently, some sections of the society may become modern in the development process, whereas other sections may remain pre-modern. We may find highly rich and highly poor, highly advanced and highly backward, highly educated and totally illiterate people juxtaposed in the same society.

In fact, we cannot look at the concept of the ‘welfare state’ and/or ‘welfare society’ only from the perspective of political economy. We need to look at the future of the welfare state and the welfare society also from the perspective of sociology and culture as they may have ‘an imbrication of layers’ (Bagguley, 1994). It is like a house where the new slates are inserted along with the old ones to save it from collapsing. Similarly, we may find the modern, anti-modern and postmodern tendencies coexisting simultaneously within a state or society. Whereas the modernists view the welfare state as an embodiment of humanitarianism based upon rationality, the anti-modernists may view it as harmful for the society for undermining self-reliance. The anti-modernists may appeal to the past rather than to the future in order to shape their vision of a welfare society. They rely more on strong family values and community life based upon civic virtues than on benefits provided by the state.

On the other hand, the postmodernists can be seen as the critics of modernism rather than the exponents of a new philosophy. They are not same as anti-modernists as they do not seek answers in past traditions and values. They do not believe in pursuing consensus and certainty in contemporary societies. Nor do they believe in ultimate truth, rather they believe in multiple truths. They believe in reshaping the welfare states in the wake of post-Fordism, post-structuralism and postmodern politics (Rodger, 2000, p. 26). Whereas Fordism was based on mass production, mass consumption and mass trade unions with focus on universal social security, post-Fordism is ‘characterised by flexible working patterns, new management techniques … and limited trade union power’ (ibid., p. 27). Similarly, we find a shift from mass markets to ‘niche markets’. Under post-Fordism, we find the occupational structure divided among the core workers having the requisite marketable and technological skills and the peripheral workers comprising of the unskilled or semi-skilled.

The postmodernists find the welfare practitioners creating more problems than solving the existing problems by constructing ‘the identities of the client, the claimant, the victim, the deserving and the undeserving poor’ (Rojek et al., 1988). To them, the welfare state has resulted in partitioning the poor and the needy instead of including them into society. They challenge the bureaucratic welfare states found in most of the Western societies. Instead, they want to keep scope for ‘conflicting and competing truths’, ‘large scale uncertainties’, ‘fragmentations’, ‘relativism’ and ‘the need to acknowledge communitarian and local narratives’. It can be seen as a movement away from the state’s responsibility towards welfare to the individuals’, families and communities taking responsibility for their own welfare and that of the others (Rodger, 2000, p. 30). They reject the centralised planning for being clumsy and divisive. They have fascination for diversity and plurality (Leonard, 1997).

However, the biggest dilemma for the enthusiasts of welfare society is how to reconcile the ‘ethics of diversity’ while seeking ‘solidarity at the societal level’; how to reconcile the ‘growing individualism, amoral and atomised behaviour’ with the ‘need for altruism, virtuous and communitarian values’; how to reconcile ‘particularistic needs with universalist needs’ and so on. In the wake of contemporary politics of welfare, it is desirable to promote the spirit of communitarians and altruism in the name of humanitarianism and self-interest. As such, the welfare needs to be built upwards with the state playing the role of an enabler, facilitator and coordinator and not as a doer or provider. Also, there is no going back for the welfare state as we find public spending on social security rising all over the world including the USA, known as a ‘welfare laggard’. Rather, in an interesting parallel development, we find the philanthropic organisations, corporate sector and the civil society sharing social, economic, political and legal responsibilities with the welfare states (Zamfira, 2016).

Though it is difficult to revive the traditional society in the era of rapid innovations and mobility worldwide, nobody can deny the need for social entrepreneurship based upon mutualism and self-help activities to ensure well-being of all on universal and sustainable basis. For this the welfare state would be required to pave way for the welfare society. The welfare state came into being precisely because the society was found deficient in fulfilling its obligations towards the poor, needy, old, disabled or unemployed. It replaced charity with entitlement but now, in the wake of neoliberalism, even the welfare state is found inadequate to meet the needs of the vast majorities without support from the private, non-governmental organisations, family, civil society and philanthropy. In future, we would need to promote care, both paid and unpaid, as a profession to be able to create a just and egalitarian society. Unless and until, we take care of the needy (children, elderly, sick, disabled, unemployed and those deprived of livelihood and mental health) a shared and profitable enterprise at the familial level, we cannot expect freedom, equality, justice, fraternity at the societal level.

We are getting horrible news about the decline in human values and decency during the Covid-19 pandemic worldwide during 2020–2021. Most of the governments were found completely taken aback and unprepared to deal with the crisis that resulted in huge human and capital loss. It affected the very relationship between the welfare state and society adversely. In future, extreme calamities, natural or made by human beings would require not only immediate support from society at the local level but also willing cooperation at the international level. It would also require bridging the gap between men and women. Nobody can deny the hard fact that in most countries, women had to bear the brunt more during the Covid-19 pandemic than men as far as caring is concerned. They also had to manage the household somehow despite tremendous fiscal losses. This crisis was, in fact, bigger than the 2008 fiscal crisis and required spontaneous solidarity at the societal level beyond the state control.

Even in high income countries such as the USA, Canada or France, old people died of ‘hypovolemic shock’ in old homes, without food or water in the absence of essential staff due to Covid-19 pandemic. Even otherwise, the caring staff are not provided lucrative salaries or facilities. Most of the responsibilities fall on women for being seen as ‘natural nurtures’. It is high time now to appreciate the economic, social and humanitarian value of providing care to all those who need it. The state should provide universal basic income to all-men and women alike and make caring a paid work. Let men and women take the call on an equal footing. One such small step can help in paving the way for harmonious families and harmonious societies. It will save millions of men and women from the drudgery of ‘unwanted’ or ‘unsuitable’ paid work. Where there is will, there is a way.