Economic Justice as Moral Duty

Let me begin with my main claim: the fact that poverty continues to be found within America is an offence against the Gospel.  The existence of pervasive poverty—46 million people, according to the Census Bureau—in a country as wealthy as the United States is not something that is merely sad or unfortunate or unpleasant, but more than all these, it is something immoral: it violates norms, founded in Scripture, concerning how human beings living in stable societies should care for each other.

This is also an indictment of the Christian church.  Despite what the worriers among us might suggest, the role that the church plays in American society is still a significant one.  But with a few important exceptions, the church speaks far less prophetically on behalf of the poor than it should, preferring instead to concentrate its efforts on poverty relief.  While relief efforts are certainly vital to the church’s mission, far too often the church is silent when it should be speaking, or even worse, actively taking sides against the very people whose well-being should be its primary concern.  To put it plainly, those who are not poor have a duty not only to care for those who are poor, but also to speak for their cause, to advocate for change wherever they have influence, and in other ways to advocate—and vote—for economic justice for all.  This is a duty placed upon all persons, but for Christians it is especially clear. 

What responsibilities are contained in this duty?  Must the wealthy give and give until we reach a situation of equality?  To what extent should we consider the notion of desert (what each person deserves)? Does this duty fall on all people in the same way?  To what extent does office matter: are our duties different in our roles as church member, as family member, and as citizen?

These are important questions, and we need to consider them—but they are secondary.  Indeed, we would be making important progress in this conversation if we could agree that this duty even exists.  But let me consider one of these secondary, controversial questions: what is the role of government with regard to this moral duty to care for the poor?

I am wary of the view that suggests that government is the institution most responsible for carrying out this duty.  One reason is that it becomes too easy for other offices and persons to downplay their own responsibilities.  But another reason is simply that often governments aren’t very good at carrying it out.  Government programs are blunt instruments, and evidence suggests that other actors in civil society can be much more effective at providing material and non-material assistance to those in need.  Of course, even if we conclude that government as government may not be the most important agents for the delivery of services, that does not relieve the moral duty of other institutions or individuals.  And it may be up to government to remind these other actors of their responsibilities in this regard.

What about other dimensions to the government’s task with regard to poverty?  I see three sets of responsibilities stemming from the state’s basic justice task: establishing parameters, coordinating responsibilities, and providing resources.

First, I suggest that a central task of government, founded in justice, is to ensure that the prevailing social arrangements are not exploitative of those who are worst off.  Some of the causes of poverty are structural, and often it will take government action to deal with structural injustice.  Legal protections for workers, a minimum wage, and tax policies such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, or the progressive tax system more generally, are examples of ways that governments can establish justice in the basic legal parameters of the political community.

Second, I see distributive justice, like other forms of justice, to be properly restorative in nature—that is, it seeks to restore people to community.  This requires more than what we as a society are currently doing, particularly through our welfare system.  Here, the state’s role as coordinator of responsibilities comes to the fore.  The duty to care for the poor falls on all parts of civil society, but on the state falls the special challenge of finding ways to persuade schools, churches, charities, banks and other actors to take up their own responsibilities, particularly in the areas where governments acting alone cannot succeed.

Third, only governments have the power to tax, and so governments must often take the lead in providing financial resources for the fight against poverty.  Some of these are straightforward policy matters: increasing deductions for charitable donations or ending discrimination against faith-based service providers.  But the state may also need to use its taxing power to raise the funds that can be brought against poverty—or it may need to reallocate resources from other programs and initiatives so that our duty to the poor can be carried out. 

On all these points, there is more to be said.  Let me respond here to only one objection: namely, that a good way for governments to exercise their responsibility for the poor is to ensure and establish continuing economic growth.  Economic growth, it seems to me, can indeed be considered part of the governmental responsibility to keep order, and as such, is supported by a general norm of justice.  However, I would insist that the immediate task of government to provide justice for the poor must take priority over the pursuit of economic growth.  If the price of continued economic growth is the impoverishment of millions of our neighbors, then our duty seems clear.  Ultimately, I would seek to challenge the opposition itself.  It may be that it is precisely by seeing justice done for the poor that we find our way to sustained economic growth.   Similarly, we may discover that economic growth, even if necessary, will not solve the problem of poverty on its own.  Genuine economic progress requires economic justice along with economic success.