Modernism has tended to offer us only two approaches through which to address human social and economic problems: Individualism and state control. Individuals and the state both have a role in addressing these problems but there is another alternative: Mulitple societal operating according to the principle of subsidiarity. What is subsidiarity?
The subsidiarity article at wikipedia gives a good short description:
Subsidiarity is the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.
The subsidiarity principle was first explicitly articulated as part of Catholic thinking by Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, although elements of it are present at least as far back as Thomas Aquinas. Federalism has a strong element of subsidiarity in it as we can see in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
We can also see shades of subsidiarity at work in the Old Testament law where there was a progression from family, to clan, to tribe, to nation in resolving problems.
But even in natural law and in classic philosophy we see elements of subsidiarity at work. Aristotle took a position of kin altruism. Aristotle observed (and it has been confirmed throughout the ages, including through scientific inquiry) that parents are inclined to give their biological offspring greater attention and care than others are inclined to. Mothers will obviously know which children are their’s but fathers will not know if social institutions are not in place that regulate sexual behavior. Marriage and sexual exclusivity are critical for bonding fathers to their children so kin altruism can do its work. The Western concept of marriage and family, founded on a covenantal relationship between a man and woman, sprang not only from Judeo-Christian values but also from classical philosophy.
The institution of the family makes certain that the people who give life to a child are also the ones most responsible for caring for the child. This greatly improves the odds that children will be cared for by people with the children’s best interests at heart. Extended family is a cocoon around the nuclear family, supporting it in times of need.
From a biblical perspective, the family is the only institution ordained by God prior to humanity’s rebellion. While expanding and filling the earth anticipates the formation of other human relationships, the family is prior to them all. The state may choose to give legal recognition of families but the family does not exist at the pleasure of the state.
It has always been true that institutions and relationships beyond the family are needed, but as societies become larger and ever more complex, this reality becomes more pronounced. However, the purpose of other human institutions is to supplement the family, not replace it. The family is independent of the state. Excessive individualism weakens the commitments of families and puts the most vulnerable in society at risk. But so does excessive state involvement. When the state begins to do what families should be doing for themselves, the ability of the family to provide those functions atrophies. Children are increasingly cared for by bureaucratic structures and laid evermore bare to the whims of the state rather than having altruistic kin seeking their best interests. The family is essential to a healthy society living in abundance.
To illustrate the impact of the family on the issue of poverty in America, let’s break down the poverty by household family configuration. The rate of poverty in America was 20% in the early 1960s. After the Great Society programs of the 1960s that rate dropped to an all time low of 11.1% in 1973. It climbed to 15.2% in 1983 and again to 15.1% in 1993. As of 2005 the rate was 12.6%. After countless hundreds of billions of dollars and more than thirty years later, the rate of poverty is 13% greater. Yet the poverty rate has dropped significantly for every household configuration! How is this possible?
In the table below, I use four household types: Male headed households, female headed households, independent males and independent females. (1) Independent households are adults living alone or with others to whom they are not related. I compared 1974 data to 2005 data. (2) Here is what I found. (3)
Individual Poverty Rate by Household Living Arrangement |
|
1974 |
2005 |
% Change |
Male Headed |
6.2% |
4.4% |
-29.2% |
Female Headed |
36.6% |
31.1% |
-15.0% |
Male Independent |
19.5% |
17.9% |
-8.2% |
Female Independent |
27.3% |
24.1% |
-11.7% |
Total Population |
11.2% |
12.6% |
+12.5% |
When we look at the poverty rate by household arrangement we see that some significant headway has been made against poverty, particularly in the traditional husband and wife household arrangement. But how could the poverty rate decline for each type of household and yet the overall rate went up? The answer is quite simple. The percentage of people living in the various household arrangements has changed.
Percentage of Individuals in Household Living Arrangements |
|
1974 |
2005 |
% Change |
Male Headed |
80.0% |
69.1% |
-13.6% |
Female Headed |
11.1% |
14.4% |
+29.9% |
Male Independent |
3.7% |
7.9% |
+114.3% |
Female Independent |
5.3% |
8.7% |
+64.6% |
Total Population |
100.0% |
100.0% |
--- |
Had the same percentage of people lived in each of the household arrangements as they did in 1974, the present poverty rate would be 8.9%! People have shifted into household arrangements with higher levels of poverty. This shift also explains why poverty among seniors is very low but poverty among children has been slowly increasing in recent years. An increasing number of children are being reared in single parent homes and these homes are more susceptible to poverty.
Explaining why this shift in household arrangements has occurred is a complex discussion, but it underscores what social scientists have been telling us many years now: The two most important things you can do to avoid poverty are to live in a household with a husband and wife have at least a high school education. Families are critical to having a society with widespread communal abundance.
Now we know that not everyone lives in a two parent home with children. About 40% of persons over 15 years old are single, divorced, or widowed. Furthermore, we know that families, even with extended family support, are not capable of isolated independent existence. They must be integrated into a broader community. So what people in non-traditional families? And what is the role of broader social institutions?
Notes:
(1) Male headed households would include families without a mother. I could not devise a way to disaggregate this information from the data I was using but they are a relatively small percentage of the total.
(2) I used 1974 data when the rate was 11.2% because the 1973 Statistical Abstracts was not available online.
(3) Data is from The Statistical Abstracts for the United States, page 415, “Table 673: Persons Below Poverty Level, by Family Status, Race, and Sex of Head, 1959-1974”; and The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007, page 66, “Family Status, Sex, and Race, 1986-2005.”
[Index]
