Are women satisfied with welfare state goods and services? By Pol Colomer

In the first place, we have to consider that we are living in a patriarchal politic system.  As we know, patriarchy can be defined as the set of social relations between men who  have a material basis and that, although they are hierarchical, establish or create an  interdependence and solidarity between men that allow them to dominate women  (Hartmann, 1980).

As we can see, the relations between men and women are unequal because, as Carole  Pateman explains, the position of men as breadwinner-workers has been built into the  Welfare State (Pateman, 1989). Furthermore, exist a division of sex in the labour market  which harms the political position of women in the society. They may not governing
themerselves because don’t have a full labour power as a workers and don’t have full  citizienship in continental, liberal and southest Welfare States. In theirs systems they  depends of men, who’s providing for wives and their families. On this point of view, we  have an explicative variable of gender which explains the differences of men and
women in the labour market. But we have another variables like “social class” and  “kind of job” which also explains this fact. All of this variables explains a highly degree  of stratification.

In this context, are women satisfied with Welfare State goods and services? As Pateman  explains, the structure of the Welfare State presuposes that women are men’s  dependant, but the benefits help to make it possible for women to be economically  independent of men (Pateman, 1989). However, the Welfare State consider that the  women who have to receive the goods and the services are the “wives” and the  “mothers”. Is not recognized the independent political role of woman. The patriarchal  understanding of citizenship means that exist two demands which are incompatible because it allows two alternatives only: either women become like men, and so full  citizens; or they continue at women’s work, which in of no value for citizenship  (Pateman, 1989).

The relationship between capitalism and patriarchy has been highlights as the first  which inherited the primary characteristics of the dominant group, which has made it  possible to perpetuate the oppression of women. The accumulation of capital is  accommodated to the patriarchal social structure and contributes to perpetuate it. The family wage demonstrates how capitalism adapts to the Patriarchate. Instead of fighting  for equal pay for men and women, the worker ask for “family wage”, since it wished to  retain the services of his wife at home (Ruiz-Mercedes, 2013).

Social policies, instead of encouraging the participation of women and minorities in  decision-making and in the configuration of the State itself, do not but subordinate to  the woman to a patriarchal model and depend on the breadwinner. With respect to the  development of the Welfare State, this is the need to control and transform relationships  between classes and sexes by imposing laws that may be even advantageous for  subaltern classes or for women, but is only a provisional and exceptional convergence  of interests (Del Re, 1998).

In north of Europe, the social policies are oriented to provide more resources to women  than other democracies because the scandinavian countries, as says Esping-Andersen,  have a basis socialdemocratic. When we talk about this countries, we talk also about a  high degree of responsiveness and more sensitive to demands of women. Have a lot of  services developed like chlidren’s school (from 3 years old), low maternity, free  education, Health services, etc. These services in Spain, for example, are not very  developed because presents the characteristics of a mediterranian democracy. Women in  north are more satisfied with Welfare State services than in south. Vicenç Navarro says  that in the Democrat tradition of the Welfare State the work of man has been the key  element of the welfare of the family through their social security contributions. While in  the conservative tradition, exist a great family overload and women overload at work  (Navarro, 2004).

I suggest a number of things. First of all, change the principals dimensions of labour  market that allow the explotation and the domination of women. If we search a labour  conditions more equals and a real equal wage to both we’ll advance to more democratic  system. Secondly, we have to direct the social policies in a similar dimension like the  northest Welfare States because they are more democratics and women are more  satisfied with public goods and services. This way will promote a more independent  role of women. These countries (socialdemocratics) have to be a mirror for our interest  as State (Welfare State). And third, more expenditure in this social policies because we
are underdeveloped in mediterranian tradition.

Bibliography:
DEL RE, A. (1998): “El Estado del Bienestar, las mujeres y las políticas sociales en el  seno de la Unión Europea”, in the book “Las mujeres y la ciudadanía en el umbral del  siglo XXI”.

ESPING-ANDERSEN, G (1993): “Los tres mundos del Estado del Bienestar”.

NAVARRO, VICENÇ (2004): “El subdesarrollo social de España”.

HARTMANN, H. (1980): “Un matrimonio mal avenido: hacia una unión más  progresiva entre marxismo y feminismo”.

RUIZ GARRIDO, MERCEDES (2013): ”Mujeres y Estado de Bienestar”.

PATEMAN, CAROLE (1989): “The Patriarchal Welfare State”.

Can the Gender Pay Gap be explained by welfare state models? By Laura López Ortells

Which is the concept that explains the 16,4% (in 2012, last data update) difference in salary between two people that are equivalent in every aspect except their gender?

The so-called gender pay gap.

The core idea of this concept is related to this inequity, but it can based on the average difference in monthly earnings or in hourly wage rates between men’s and women’s pay. In Europe, where we will focus more on, it’s measured as gross hourly earnings of all employees. Gross earnings are the salaries before dedutions for income tax and social security contributions.

An important issue to consider is a variation of this concept, the ‘unadjusted’ gender pay gap which means that factors (like education, labour market experience or hours worked) that have also an influence in salary have been controlled and that the resulting number is referred only to gender difference. In Europe, this number, having taken in consideration these other factors, is the half of the gender pay gap.

Facts in Europe, 2013

–   Men are more employed than women, having an overall employment rate (15 to 64 years) in Europe of 69,4% compared to 58,7% for women.

–  Women tend to work more in part-time jobs (32,8%) against only 9,8% of men.

However, in the EU women do better at school and university, tend to pass on average more than men least upper secondary school education and also represent more than 60% of university graduates. In fact, it can’t no longer be said that gender pay gap is the consequence of the more qualification of men.

What’s more, it’s not only a current grievance for women, but they will also suffer its consequences in the future, especially resulting in lower pensions and in a higher risk of poverty in old age.

Which are the main causes?

There are several causes that explain gender pay gap, buy it’s necessary to understand that they are interrelated factors. The European Union has identified the most important ones:

a)    Discrimination in the workplace: having the same or equal work women are paid less. It could be just as a ‘direct discrimination’ or as a result of a policy that was not designed to discriminate. Both practices are forbidden.

b)    Different jobs, different sectors: the sectors dominated by women (p.e. health or social work) have lower wages than those in which men are in the majority. In addition, women also usually work more in unpaid work and childcare than men, what reduce their paid work hours. As a consequence, women work more part-time, are more in low-paid jobs and take less management positions.

c)       Workplace practices and pay systems: include different methods of rewarding employees that usually result in different rates of pay for men and women. They are caused by the so-called ‘glass ceiling’, historical and cultural factors, which prevents women from reaching the high­est paid positions.

d)      Undervaluing of women’s work and skills. What the European Union argues is that the sectors dominated by female workers (cleaning, nursery) tend to have lower wages than male dominated sectors with comparable skills which are more valued and hence more rewarded.

e)      Few women in senior and leadership position. What I find new to consider regarding this issue is that even in the sector where women are in the majority they are under-represented in senior positions.

f)       Gender roles and traditions. They affect, for example, the educational path taken by young men and women.

g)      Balancing work and family responsibilities. It has an effect in the hours worked in paid work, but also in the employment rate, being in 2010 the employment rate for women with dependent children of 64,7% while men’s rate was of 89,7%. In addition, on average women spend more time carrying out domestic and care work than men.

 

Its impact in Europe and around the world

Focusing on Europe, we can see a huge variability of gender pay gap. We could have thought firstly that countries like Scandinavian where women have high employment rates and have more easiness to work more hours in paid work would be where the gender gap was lower –because as we have seen, several factors are related to time spend in paid work–. What’s more, we would have predicted that in Southern countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) the gap would be moderate. But, in fact in the latter it’s where are the smaller differences in salaries between men and women.

In relation to the classification of the countries by welfare state typologies, the one that explains more carefully (with less variation and more homogeneity among countries of the same group) the situation of gender pay gap is the explained by Leibfried, who differentiates four groups: Anglo-Saxon, Bismarck, Scandinavian and Latin Rim. These are the groups and the gender pay gap by country, to prove that even there’s a variation, it’s acceptable:

–          Anglosaxon:

o   United States (15-20%)

o   Australia (10-15%)

o   New Zealand (0-5%)

o   United Kingdom (15-20%)

–          Bismark:

o   Germany (20-25%)

o   Austria (15-20%)

–          Scandinavian:

o   Sweden (15-20%)

o   Norway (5-10%)

o   Finland (15-20%)

o   Denmark (10-15%)

–          Latin Rim

o   Spain (5-10%)

o   Portugal (10-15%)

o   Greece (10-15%)

o   Italy (10-15%)

o   France (10-15%)

Nevertheless, the explanation of the differences between these groups has to be argued. As we have remarked, the gender pay gap must be looked at in conjunction with other indicators linked to the labour market, in particular those ones that reflect the different working patterns of women, as by itself is not an indicator of the overall inequality between women and men since it only concerns salaried people.

As a matter of fact, the factor that has more correlation with gender pay gap is female employment rate. In countries where the female employment rate is low, the gender pay gap is lower. The main cause is that there is a small proportion of low-skilled or unskilled women in the workforce of these countries which are concentrated on the South of Europe (which Leibfried named Latin Rim group). In contrast, high gender pay gap is characteristic of labour market which a significant proportion of women working part-time (as are Germany and Austria, the Bismark group for Leibfried) and also those which are highly segregated, so the women are concentrated in a restricted number of sectors or professions (that’s the case of Finland and other Scandinavian countries).

In other words, even there are several factors that influence women to been paid less than men, these can affect differently in each country, specially, as the origin of the gender inequality lies in the culture and institution of countries. In fact, as countries can be classified in groups with similar culture and institutions (as Leibfried did), we can see how Europe is affected differently by gender pay gap, depending on the welfare state model of the country people live in.

REFERENCES:

European Commission (2013). ‘Tackling the gender pay gap in the European Union’, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

 

Official website of the European Commision of Justice

 

Welfare State “ de-patriarched” by U.A.G.

Carole Pateman’s “The Patriarchal Welfare State”, written in the 1980’s raises important issues on the current nature of welfare states in Western democracies and what that means for women.

Women as “full citizens”

To begin with, the concept of welfare state Pateman is selling is that of a patriarchal structure that enforces the position of women as men’s dependents[1]. It’s an argument she develops broadly and supplements with continuous insistence on woman’s inability to obtain full citizenship as the concept of citizenship is based on societal recognition of one’s  paid work  ( when many women do unpaid work such as child rearing or care of elderly relatives)[2].  Examples are given of different forms of female subjugation throughout the course of history which is no surprise to anyone: women as property as opposed to property owners, women as dependents of their breadwinning husbands,etc. Pateman is sceptical that women could ever be “full citizens”[3] but this is far from the truth. The surge in female participation in the labour market has meant that women have been able to attain financial independence.

Feminists everywhere should be cheering…

According to statistics Canada, women have higher home ownership rates than men and half of single parent households lead by women are also home owners, which contrasts Pateman’s view that the creation of a state in which women are autonomous would be challenging[4].  It’s actually not such a challenge but a reality in countries like Canada where women represent half of the 4.5 million members of defined benefit pension plans[5]. These women make their own contributions as citizens and therefore will not need to depend on men or state handouts later in life.

 … but why isn´t Pateman satisfied?

 

From her perspective, women actively participating in the workforce still does not solve the problem of the patriarchal welfare state[6]. It simply produces a dilemma she refers to as the ‘Wollstonecraft´s Dilemma’. While admitting that welfare state has enabled women to emacipate themselves from male domination through its assistence programs, so we can be considered ‘citizens’ just as men, we also then shut the door to the aknowledgement of another type of citizenship which would recognise the ‘unpaid’ work womenperform in society[7]. It’s the classic “equality vs difference” debate of contemporary feminism. Should we fight for gender-neutral,equal society or recognition of our differences? The problem with this dilema is that it shifts attention from the obvious question of whether or not the current social changes have resulted in the de-patriarchation of the welfare state to the extent that it can no longer be considered as such.

Is the welfare state today patriarchal?

 

To apply Pateman’s method, it must enforce the position of women as men’s dependents and as we know, the pattern of most western democracies has been gender neutrality, especially in those which have accepted same-sex marriage. One of the reasons why it’s so easy from an administrative perspective to incorporate same-sex couples is because gender has stopped being the basis for eligibility of government transfers/services. What matters instead is your individual or combined income, whether it’s between a man and a woman or two men and two women.

We also have to recognise that many different types of welfare state exist, not just one. Kimberly Morgan points to Sainsbury’s research which found that Scandinavian social democratic welfare states, such as Sweden, were more effective than liberal or conservative/familial models in promoting female equality because they recognise and compensate gender differences[8]. However, she adds that this model is not necessarily “ideal for women” as the benefits are still tied to work force participation[9]. The most patriarchal model is the conservative/familial one found in countries like Italy, Austria and Spain which continues to enforce traditional gender roles[10]. By tying female eligibility to that of their husbands, women are still ‘dependants’ in the patriarchal sense.

 

Beyond Theorising

The role of women has changed and continues to change. Women today still earn less than men do for the same work, although this gap is declining in countries like Canada[11].  It would be misleading to label all welfare states as patriarchal as this is not the case. The problem with contemporary feminist literature goes back to their inability to resolve “equality vs difference” dilemma. Weak research design has meant too much theorising without having a clearly defined research question and methodology. It could be that in certain places where employment levels are high among men and women and pension contributions take care of the elderly, that gender neutral social policies are better. If this is not the case and female integration into the workforce is made difficult by the weight of ‘traditional family responsibilities’ then perhaps social policies which recognise these differences is better. The answer does not have to be one or the other, but could be a mixture as we see in the social democratic welfare state.

Another problematic issue is that men are considered to occupy just one position in relation to the welfare state when this is not necessarily the case[12] and there are many other factors such as race and social status which could offer alternative explanations yet are completely ignored by Paterson.

Social science research needs to be more rigorous than this. We need to do more than theorise and provide empirical evidence of our claims.

 

Bibliography

Curran, L. and  Abrams, L.S., 2000. Making Men into Dads: Fatherhood, the State, and Welfare Reform. Gender and Society, 14 (5), pp. 662-678.

Pateman, C. ,1988. The Patriarchal Welfare State. In: A. Gutmann, ed. 1988. Democracy and the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.134-151.

 

 

[1] Pateman, C. ,1988. The Patriarchal Welfare State. In: A. Gutmann, ed. 1988. Democracy and the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.136.

[2] Idem.

[3] Idem.pp.140.

[4] Idem.pp.145.

[5] Ferrao , V., 2011. Women in Canada: A Gender-Based Statistical Report. [ online ] Statistics Canada. Available at : http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11387-eng.htm#a12

 

[6] Pateman, C. ,1988. The Patriarchal Welfare State. In: A. Gutmann, ed. 1988. Democracy and the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.pp.141.

[7] Idem.pp.143.

[8] Morgan, K., 2001. Gender and the Welfare State: New Research on the Origins and Consequences of Social PolicyRegimesSocial Capitalism… Comparative Politics. 34 ( 1 ), pp.120.

[9] Idem.

[10] Idem.pp.110.

[11] Ferrao , V., 2011. Women in Canada: A Gender-Based Statistical Report. [ online ] Statistics Canada. Available at : http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11387-eng.htm#a12

[12] Curran, L. and  Abrams, L.S., 2000. Making Men into Dads: Fatherhood, the State, and Welfare Reform. Gender and Society, 14 (5), pp. 664.

 

Why Women Again? By Maria Antònia Cantallops

Everything seems to indicate that, in certain circumstances, there is always someone who stands to lose.  Sometimes it is a man and others, a woman. However, when we are talking about the lacks of Spanish  welfare state, women are always the principal losers. And, if we add a socioeconomic crisis to this  unfavourable situation, their probability of being it increases radically.

The socioeconomic crisis affects women more than men for two main reasons. On the one hand, the cut  backs on the budget are being made in relation to public social spending (health, education or social care) which, traditionally, has been benefiting, directly or indirectly, women. What is more, these occupations employ the highest percentage of female workforce (Castaño, 2012). On the other hand, the crisis is  reinforcing the labour and family roles and responsibilities assigned to women and men (Castaño, 2012;  Ruiz Garijo, 2013).

According to Ana Herranz Sainz-Ezquerra, Confederal Secretary of Women and Equality of  Comisiones Obreras, women are affected much more than men by the cut backs on the welfare state  owing to, traditionally, they assume more family responsibilities.

A lot of women see themselves forced to leave their jobs in order to take care of their children or disabled relatives. But, this is not something new. The higher female unemployment is inherent to the  Spanish labour market. However, the austerity policy and the cut backs on the basic public services, like  health service, education or social care, have worsened this situation. These actions will prevent women  from obtaining employment under the same conditions in which men can do it. Despite the fact that  caring for and educating children and caring for elderly and disabled relatives should be carried out and  guaranteed by the State, these functions are mainly taken care of by women. As a consequence of these  cut backs, a lot of women are thrown out of the public sphere in order to return to the private sphere. For  that reason, it is clear to me that they cannot take part completely in the citizenship.

For instance, the «Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal y Atención a las Personas en Situación  de Dependencia» (Law of Personal Autonomy Promotion and Attention to Dependent People) (39/2006,  of 14th of December) contained important aids for the disable people and their caregivers, who are,  greatly, women. Nowadays, the budgetary problems have supposed a cut back on the budget of this policy  which is added up to 1.108 millions of Euros in 2013 (Ruiz Garijo, 2013).

Caring is a problem again and women who sacrifice their lives again, too. The work-life balance is  complicated by the reduction of the social services offer and, consequently, women face the danger of  their jobs. With much more family responsibilities, a lot of women see themselves pushed to work in the  private sphere without any kind of social or/and economic recognition. Spanish society is going back in  time to an invisible non-remunerated domestic female work. According to these assertions, the austerity  policy affects female employability (Ruiz Garijo, 2013).

In Sweden, if one senior citizen has a hip fracture, he or she will receive medical public care at the  hospital and at home. In contrast with this, facing that same situation, in Spain, the most likely thing is  that one women of his or her family setting (daughter, sister or daughter in law) has to leave her job in  order to look after her relative.

Changing the rules is easier than changing the customs of a society. In this sense, Spain is still a  patriarchal society. The scarce presence of women in the senior positions of the companies, the  difficulties of the work-life balance for women, the lack of interest shown by the Government in the fact  that men develop their parenting role or the high number of victims of gender or domestic violence are examples that can confirm this characteristic of Spanish society (Herranz Sainz-Ezquerra, 2013).

The Spanish welfare state has still a patriarchal structure, too. The welfare state attributes even today  different roles to women and men. In spite of the fact that women contribute to family economic livelihood with their wages, taking care of their families and educating their children are seen as the main  female responsibilities. In contrast, despite the fact that men are concerned with the education of their  children, men’s identity is still seen as the principal breadwinner of the family. The current  socioeconomic crisis has reinforced the family and labour roles and responsibilities assigned to men and  women (Castaño, 2012; Ruiz Garijo, 2013). In Spain, the work-life balance is still a female issue and the  joint responsibility has not been achieved. For instance, Education Department has removed its  willingness to expand educational offer up to the age of 3. So, it is evident to me that the current  Government is defending the maternity as an exclusive element of women’s identity (Castaño, 2012).

From my point of view, I feel very strongly that the Government should invest more money in the  development of the welfare state with the objective of improving their social services. In addition, not  reinforcing detrimental roles for specific social groups is one of the responsibilities of the Government. It  is clear to me that the cut backs on the welfare state could be replaced by cut backs on other budgetary  items which do not condition the lives of citizens so much. Establishing a new welfare state model which  is characterized by an equal participation of men and women is absolutely necessary. Moreover, women  should stop being seen exclusively as mothers, daughters or wives. If we do not do that, women will  continue being responsible for the most of family workloads given that the welfare state does not provide  and guarantee these services. This is tremendously unfair and it takes us to ask ourselves why women  have to be the most harmed of a situation which we have not chosen. Why do women have to be the  losers again? Why women again?

 

 

Painting the Brick Wall White: why the current welfare state is a brick house for women and a Taj Mahal for men by Anonymous

As welfare systems attempt to respond to feminist demands, it appears to me a somewhat hopeless task, like trying to paint a brick wall white and calling it marble. True, women are no longer doomed to depend upon their husbands, but instead are given the “choice” to also depend upon the state. Yet I use this word “choice” with a most begrudging reluctance, for although it is a choice, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils, and for one to proclaim that a woman has the “freedom” to “choose” between whether she is dependent upon her husband or the state is to me an entirely warped conception of both “choice” and “freedom”. Here in the 21^st century, we have progressed so far from the ‘he-man she-woman’ days of cavemen, we have broken the space barrier landing men on the moon and cured endemic plagues and illnesses, but a barrier we cannot seem to break and an ailment we cannot seem to rid are the patriarchal power relations that penetrate the very foundations of our societies. We have in recent years made reforms and enacted legislation, but this is only a superficial solution; we can try to reform and paint the brick foundations in pretty colours, but until we break down and rebuild with the wall with marble stones, it will always be a brick wall. Here I will explain the inherent patriarchal nature of the welfare system, and thus why in its current form, women will always be penalised by it.   Though there are a plethora of ways in which one can take analysis of the welfare state, I focus particularly on the argument that the welfare system is built upon a framework in which social rights are attached to labour-market contributions. Social rights, as defined by T. H. Marshall, are rights to a modicum of economic welfare and security, through access to the education system, healthcare, social services etc., yet in the prevalent system of the welfare state, theses social rights are allocated according to one’s contribution to society –contribution which has essentially been valued in terms of labour-market or public sphere contribution. The problem with this of course, is that women have for the large part of history, been excluded from both the labour-market and public sphere, and thus inhibited from fully actualising their social rights as equal citizens. Labour-market or public-sphere work is a patriarchal definition or valuation of contribution; it is based on masculine values, attributes and abilities and fails to recognise the value of unpaid work in the private sphere – the work predominantly undertaken by women. The inability of women to hence prove their contribution through labour-market or public-sphere work has meant that women have historically had to access their social rights through their male counterparts, as “wives” or “mothers” or “daughters”, but rarely as individuals in themselves, thus creating this inherent dependency as mentioned earlier.   At this point one may be keen to highlight the growing stock of equal rights reforms and female labour-force participation statistics, and this is indeed valid. However, statistics also show a global trend in that the average salary for women is less than the average male salary, in some countries as low as 41% (OECD Education at a Glance, 2006). Although legislation has been put in place to ensure equal pay for the same job between sexes, again this is only painting the brick wall with marble-coloured paint – it does not solve problem. Yes, a male engineer and female engineer can receive the same pay for 8 hours of work, but what the statistics are showing is there is a lack of female engineers working 8 hours a day. This is because, firstly, fewer women are going into high-paid professions such as engineering, but instead into social care work or jobs that provide them with flexibility to work fewer hours or part time.  Therefore, despite all this talk of equal-pay legislation and increased female participation in the work force, on average women are working less hours and in lower-salaried professions, usually to provide time for their unpaid private-sphere work. This is what has led to the strong feminisation of poverty in old age; not only is the welfare system built on female dependency upon men, leaving them desolate once widowed, but the system does not account for the nature of women’s public-sphere work – lower-salaried, part-time work. It thus leaves them with much lower pensions as their professions pay lower salaries and they work fewer hours, and on top of this, receive no pensions for all the decades of unpaid domestic work they do.   Indeed, the problem still remains that contribution is still valued in terms of labour-market contribution whilst ignoring, or at least undervaluing, private sphere unpaid work. Wollstonecraft therefore suggests that domestic work should be what entitles women to citizenship, but this again only painting the brick wall – it opens way for greater discrimination and subjugation to the private-sphere rather than moving towards equality. What is needed is a drastic upheaval of societal norms regarding gender biases that have for too long infested the framework of our society. Women have thus far been solely responsible for private welfare work as mothers and carers, and so have always been, and will always be, penalised by the existing welfare system so long as it continues to attach social rights to labour-market contribution. However, societal norms needs revolutionising in a way that neither women nor men feel a societal expectation to undertake private or public sphere work according to their gender, and so the system would not be bias towards penalising either gender.  Nonetheless, even with this change the problem of penalisation still occurs; the system still penalises those who pursue private domestic work over public labour-market work. A solution would be to incorporate unpaid private work into the realm of valuable contribution worthy of societal rights. Yet this is perhaps an equally difficult task as upheaving patriarchal thinking, since it is not only logistically difficult to measure and value private-sphere work, but may indeed face fierce objection as it entails the state going beyond its role of involvement.   Either way it is clear that there lies a long and difficult road ahead for welfare state reform and social equality, and while it is good that we push for reforms that paint the brick wall white, we should not lose sight of the long term goal – a society built upon a marble foundation, a welfare system equal for all.