Public Choice and Burnout

The revolutionary assumption of public choice is that those in power serve their private interest. Previous scholarship assumed that public figures acted in the public interest. By passing through the apse of the state building, a person is transformed from a mostly rational, mostly self-interested person into a perfectly rational, publicly-motivated servant. A casual glance at Washington DC or your local statehouse shows the fallacy of that illogical idea. People are who people are. This logic trickles down to the staff members, bureaucrats, and regulators, as well.

As someone who works in an industry entirely dependent on government assistance, I feel that there is a subliminal lie told to social workers that they too act largely in the public interest. I don't consider myself a bureaucrat, but I don't see why the same assumptions should not apply to me. I can think of countless things I do each day because my incentives are to do them or not to do them. There is an infinite number of things that would benefit my clients, other staff, or the general public that I do not do because there are disincentives for that behavior. Just the same, there are some things I do in my job that are not good for certain clients, other staff, or the public that I engage in because the system incentives me to do it (or sometimes outright requires it).

When a person's belief in government is shaken by some of the conclusions of public choice theory and a critical examination of policy, politics, and results (as it well should be), people generally withdraw from government. Talk to any hill staffer who has burned out, and you will hear the voice of a semi-libertarian. They instinctively dislike government and will largely stand clear of it. Once you know how the sausage is made, you really don't want to eat it.

But what happens to a person who grapples with the same problems, toiling in a system that is flawed for the same reasons, but who has made a life choice to dedicate themselves to this career? What happens when a person realizes they are serving their own interests, not those of the public or their clients? Burnout is a phenomenon that is not well-understood in mental health literature. It is often brought up as secondary to job stress and difficult client interactions. I believe that those cause vicarious traumatization and deleterious stress effects; however burnout is an almost spiritual affliction. It robs a social worker of their very drive.

Perhaps if we were taught to embrace our own self-interest, to approach this work for our own various interests--be they financial, psychological, political, or what have you--we would suffer from less burnout because that conflict between public interest and private interest would be obviated. That conflict robs the individual of their sense of duty or calling when they are forced to act in their own self-interest and to reflect upon and relive that fact every day.

Redefining Social Justice

One of the core values of social work is a commitment to social justice. Social justice, in it's current form, is generally a province of the political left. There is, in fact a great deal of animus on the Right side of the aisle towards the idea of social justice. But, they commit the same fallacy of Bastiat's quote about socialism (I posted it earlier in the blog), that just because government should not do it doesn't mean it should not be done. It is an aspect of the social sphere, which while it can enter the realm of politics, it doesn't mean that the government has to be involved. There may be better ways of achieving the ends of social justice without the current means. At the very least, turning a critical eye towards the implementation of social justice is important.

But when we examine the redistributive system of economic justice, we find that marginalized populations receive a smaller share of benefits from the government than do middle and upper class people. This is not a system we should support. The aims of social justice have been used to provide advancement for people who do not genuinely need it. Furthermore, their distorting effects have lead to increased investment in these programs, taking more money from not only the present poor but the future poor we are borrowing from. Our clients do benefit from the welfare state, but they do so at a reduced rate, because spending (social, and spending in general) is spent on those who are better off financially than those who actually need assistance.

One of the more surprising things, when I speak to my more liberal friends about my views, is that there can be a libertarian case for social welfare spending. Most assume that people who identify as libertarian or hold similar beliefs automatically ascribe to the more radical side. But there are many libertarian icons who are in favor of social spending. In the Road to Serfdom, Hayek makes his case while maintaining a sizable welfare state. Milton Friedman advocated for a reverse income tax, whereby income would be redistributed with minimal cost and with little bureaucracy.

An incremental approach to a libertarian social system demands that we make compromises along the way to what we want. If we grant that social spending on the poor should stay as is, how much of the welfare state would continue to exist? Corporate welfare, the mortage interest tax deduction, medicare and social security spending on the upper classes, etc. The welfare state shrinks considerably when the aims of social justice are well-defined and basic.

In the end, the argument comes down to how to best administer aid to the poor. From working in my city, I see that the services provided by government are not achieving the ends of social justice. The decisions for funding and the administration of services is made far away from the target population. Services exist in a structure that makes less and less sense every day. Though the government does provide my clients with a steady monthly payment to subsist on (once they get it), the services supporting that spending have little control over their funds. They cannot direct them in the most efficient and just manner. Instead, my clients are forced to submit to a system of social control, of limiting the costs of social problems, and a general indifference towards the life experience of those in need. Funding for these programs is constantly at risk because it is inextricably tied to the overall financial health of the government. How much did spending on the financial crisis and overseas war outpace spending on those in need? What is spent in one area cannot be spent in another. The government does a poor job of allocating resources. When you see Obama advocating for green jobs or nationalizing a car company or Romney cheer for war with Iran or defend farm subsidies, think of what that money could be better spent on.

We all generally agree that more money should be spent on the social safety net. We are hesitant to cut spending because of the values of helping others and social justice. What if we were to control that spending more directly? Many a clever comedian has posed to direct their social spending in better directions. Perhaps itemizing spending and letting us pick which areas we would like to support. Well, we can do that if we are the ones administering the funds. When people control that spending, they will do so with greater involvement in their efforts. They will ensure quality and promote community. The depth of help offered will be much greater, as spending will be closer to the client and to those administering the help. Organizations will be allowed to take interesting forms. In our current system, organizations that help those in need are confined to one of a few prescribed roles because of regulations tied to funding. If these organizations are liberated, how much better could they get? The libertarian values of choice and competition could flourish and allow for more innovative and effective practice.

Finally, once social spending is removed from the government sphere, it ceases to become a matter of controlling social problems. That motive towards social order is the will of the majority, the general population. The organizations and their donors have a greater purpose, individual liberation. In my work, that is liberation from intrapsychic and extrapsychic problems. Allowing them to voluntarily engage with the help they need and truly design their own recovery.

Working in harm reduction, I saw how the aims of social justice can be perverted by politics and ideology. The vast majority of people support these efforts, but many of these compassionate policies are denied funding or are downright illegal in some states. Needle exchange, housing-first, wet shelters, high-dose opiate therapy, medical marijuana for sick people--how can these interventions exist in a political climate? Meeting people where they are at is not something that can be done on a federal level. By devolving the power to people themselves, spending will be given by people who can take political risks. It's their money, and they may have an useful idea.

I don't know enough yet to know if this system will serve the interests of social justice better than our current social spending programs. I need to know more about the time when social spending was not directed by government in this country, economic arguments showing its solvency and adequacy, and a positive argument for why a private system would at least be as adherent to the ethics of the helping progressions as our current system.

Social justice is a value that almost everyone holds. Libertarians, just as much as progressives, should direct themselves towards policies that serve these ends. And the competition between the methods of these two forces will hopefully create a better system than the one we have today. The points these two ideologies agree on is already large--drug legalization, ending corporate welfare, ending war. If achieved, those would be true victories for social justice. Maybe some liberals would be willing to cut social spending to the wealthy, as well. To then argue over how best to delegate funding from there is an argument worth having and one which will only lead to the better service for those who need help.