From Assistance to Guardianship: The Drift of the Welfare State

The welfare state was created to help individuals. Its success should have been measured by the fact that people needed it less and less. As it has evolved over time, it now produces dependent citizens.

Western governments regularly boast, without batting an eye, about the increase in the number of benefit recipients and present budgets marked by «record spending.» Yet this increase in resources is not accompanied by a comparable improvement in living conditions or the services provided. This raises a simple question: Does a system that spends more while making a growing number of people dependent truly fulfill its mission? Should we increase resources even further, or should we start by using them more effectively?

This paradox applies particularly to the European social model, whose crisis has been foretold since the last quarter of the previous century. Only a few countries have undertaken to reform it thoroughly—Sweden being the best-known example. Most are still seeking a solution in increased funding. Yet the problem is not merely financial: it stems from the system’s purpose and its very design. Until this diagnosis is accurately made, the situation will continue to worsen.

From Assistance to Guardianship

Historically, the first social protection measures were not motivated by altruism. In the 19th century^th In the 19th century, Otto von Bismarck, Minister-President of Prussia and later Chancellor of the German Empire, did not enact legislation out of compassion, but out of political calculation: he feared revolts—with the precedent of the French Revolution in mind—and recognized that the Church’s charitable works were no longer sufficient in the face of industrialization.

It was in this context that the foundations of the welfare state were laid—a concept that the German legal scholar Hermann Heller would later name. Shortly thereafter, the legal scholar Ernst Forsthoff articulated the idea of the Essential Services – ensuring basic living conditions. In both cases, the state was required to prevent a situation of need from depriving a person of the opportunity to flourish or advance. But—and this is the essential principle that should never have been lost sight of—this assistance was intended to be provided only as a last resort. It was not intended to make individuals equal or to act on their behalf, but to give them the means to provide for their own needs. In other words, the benefit was the means; self-reliance, the end.

However, this principle eroded after World War II. The model gradually changed in nature as benefits accumulated and rights expanded. As a result, it has turned certain situations into sources of subjective rights—that is, legally enforceable individual entitlements—even though they should never have given rise to such rights.

The assistance framework has thus become a framework of guardianship. Aid has given way to continuous and increasing dependency: citizens are no longer viewed as individuals who need help regaining their autonomy, but as long-term recipients of benefits whose provision depends on political decisions. The result—whether intended or not—is to make them increasingly dependent.

The Incentive System

This trend is also reflected in the institutional design of social protection systems across much of Europe. These systems struggle both to reach everyone who needs them and to help their beneficiaries achieve self-sufficiency. In countries where data are available, the number of people entering the system continues to exceed the number leaving it.

The Spanish case clearly illustrates this. Every month, the government of Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez touts as a success the fact that the minimum living income is benefiting a growing number of households: 879,225 in July 2026, or 16.9% more than a year earlier. In its fifth assessment, however, the Independent Fiscal Responsibility Authority notes that 52 % of eligible households do not apply for the benefit and that 46 % of those who do apply are still receiving it five years later.

A comparison with poverty rates also shows that its impact remains limited. Although Spain’s system is among the most generous in Europe, its effect on poverty reduction remains nearly seven percentage points below the European average. More money, fewer results.

These figures suggest that the system is struggling to help people transition out of care and return to independence. Compounding this challenge are the growing pressures on the system caused by an aging population and immigration. As a result, spending is rising without a corresponding improvement in the quality of services.

The Institutional Framework at the Heart of the Debate

The problem, however, does not lie with the benefit itself, but with the institutional framework within which it is provided. Yet this framework is not neutral: in the absence of limits, the state’s actions naturally tend to expand. No one disputes that power must be limited in a liberal democracy. It is therefore striking that this requirement disappears as soon as social benefits are involved, as if the legitimacy of their purpose exempted us from it.

This trend was well described by the American economist James M. Buchanan: in the absence of constitutional limits on redistributive decisions, the system tends to grow out of control and shift the burden onto future generations, who inherit it without having chosen to do so. The economist Mancur Olson shed light on the mechanism behind this: the benefits are concentrated and visible, while the costs are dispersed and deferred.

Such a system also shapes behavior. When leaving the system exposes people to greater uncertainty, regulatory constraints, or tax burdens than remaining in it, staying on welfare can become, for many, the most rational choice. Social policy thus transforms into a “soft power” that governs through needs—whether real or manufactured. It takes on the characteristics of that protective, meticulous, and benevolent power that Alexis de Tocqueville feared: a power that does not oppress, but accustoms.

Back to the Roots

To return to its original purpose, social protection must ensure basic living conditions while promoting independence. This requires a fundamental reform of the model—a reform that only a few countries have partially undertaken.

First and foremost, individual responsibility must be the foundation: without it, personal development is impossible.

Second, every social policy must be evaluated before, during, and after its implementation, in terms of both its effectiveness and its efficiency. In particular, this evaluation should make it possible to distinguish between temporary benefits and those intended to guarantee a minimum standard of living over the long term. It should also track an indicator that is largely overlooked today: how many beneficiaries facing temporary hardship manage to regain their independence?

Third, the provision of services should not be the exclusive domain of the public sector. The public sector must play a truly supplementary role, complementing the efforts of families and institutions.

Finally, government intervention must be limited: it is justified only when it guarantees a minimum standard of living that cannot be ensured otherwise, without ever making its beneficiaries dependent. This also requires a reevaluation of the incentives that drive the public sector itself, which is naturally inclined to make itself indispensable and, in doing so, to restrict autonomy.

The success of the social model should therefore be measured not by the number of people it serves, but by its ability to help its beneficiaries regain their independence. Its purpose is to step in when support is needed and then step back as soon as it is no longer needed.

Irene Correas Sosa is an associate professor of constitutional law at CEU San Pablo University.

You have just read an open-access article published in our print edition (Le Regard Libre No. 130). Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!