PART VIII 

THE ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

Political Philosophies It lies in the nature of Politics that whatever is proposed as an end to be served, serves  as a means to move men, and that the noblest dreams figure jointly with lower motives as the inputs available to us movers of men. 

(Plato: Alcibiades.) 

The whole of Political Science springs from the logic of the law of correlation of Freedom and Authority. 

(George E.G. Catlin.) 

The spirit of modern progress and of the political renewal is rooted in the following principle: the world is continuously remade through, and thanks to thought. 

(Silvio Spaventa.) 
Chapter 38 

Ends and Functions of the State. 

Problem of Ends and Means. 

The views and theories about the end or purpose of the State varied from age to age, country to country, people to people and even thinker to thinker. Some regard the State as an end in itself, while others consider it as a means to an end-the end being the freedom, the well-being and happiness of the individual. Some believe that it is a power-system, a compulsiveorganisation, while others regard it as a welfare agency. Each of these groups is further divided into various subgroups and into various schools of political philosophy. Broadly speaking, we can divide these theories and thinkers into two main groups, that is, those who regard the State as an  end in itself and as a power system, and those who regard it as means to an end and as an agency for the welfare and freedom of the individual. The State as an end in itself. 

Historically, the view that the State is an end in itself is much older than the one that it is only a means to an end. The ancient Greek philosophers, the first people means to an end. The ancient Greek philosophers, the first people who consciously thought over the nature and purpose of the State, regarded it as an end in itself rather than as a means ft the realisation of an end. According to Plato and Aristotle, the State was A and the individual was the part of the whole, who could not live in A without the whole. The State existed for the good life, while an individual 

had no rights or freedom apart from his life in the State. Aristotle put t 

- thus: ”the State is prior to the individual”. It could regulate and control al 

the activities of the individuals who could have no rights apart from di 

collective rights ot society. lie turther sale that man was Dy nature ail 

- _ 

political animal. It means that an individual could be at his best, develop] personality and realise his good only when he lived in the State. Outside! 

State, he was either a beast or a god but not a human being. From 

followed that the interest of the State was the interest of the individual. 

could achieve his end only through the State and, therefore, no limits 

be put on the power or actions of the State. 

In modem times, the German Idealist philosophers and 

English followers, like Green and Bosanquet, also hold the same view 1 

the State. They too have glorified the State as an end in itself. Hegel, 

most important of the German Idealist philosophers, believes that the 
ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

569 

is a collective person, more real than the individuals who compose it. Its will represents prefect reason and therefore its acts are above criticism by the individuals. The individual exists for the State, while it does not exist for the individual. It has a life, a history of its own end. It is marching towards the fulfilment of its own end and purpose. The authority of the State is supreme and unlimited and cannot be restricted by the rights or freedom of the individual, by morality or religion or by the international law or rights of other nations Thus the Idealists idealized the State, or to be more exact, idolized the State as a supernatural and superhuman being, as a god whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways. 

In recent times, several collectivist philosophers also assert that the State is an end in itself. They are mostly influenced in one form or other by the idealist view. Among them, on the one side, are the Socialists and Communists who believe that the State is a collective whole, against which the individual has no rights. On the other side are the German Nazis and Italian Fascists who regard the State as a power-system ”with a life of its own. 

The theories which regard the State as an end in itself usually emphasise the following principles: 

1.     The State is a higher unity, a collective whole or a natural 

organism, whose life  and interests are quite different from the lives and interests of the individuals composing it. 2.     The individual has no life apart from the State; he has no 

right or freedom outside or against the State. 3.     The State is an eternal or permanent reality, while the 

individuals are temporary or transient beings; ”the tree stands but the leaves wither away.” 4.      Hence the power and authority of the State is unlimited. No 

limits can be placed on what it wills or does. The individual has only one right, which is also his duty, viz., to render unconditional obedience to the State. The part cannot be greater than the whole; the individual cannot have rights against the State. 5.     This view makes no distinction between the State and the 

society. It really believes that the two are one and the same thing. The State is the society. But the advocates of this view do not agree as to what that end is. For the ancient Greek philosophers the end was the moral perfection of human beings. To them the State was a moral being with an ethical end. To the Idealists the end is the Idea of the State, as an unlimited development of the nation. To the socialists, the end is the common welfare of the workers and for the communists; it is the establishment of a communist society in the world, based on the equality, liberty and fraternity of the whole 
570        POLITICAL SCIENCE 

mankind. To the Fascists and Nazis, the end is power and national aggrandisement. These theories are described in subsequent chapters. The State as a means to an end. 

The second view is that the State is only a means to an end, the end being the rights, happiness and freedom of the individual. This view emphasises the individual as against the State. It lays stress on these principles: 

1.        The State is nothing but a collection of individrials who compose it. It does not exist over and above them. 

2.        The individual has life of his own and has rights, interests and freedoms which may not be the same as those of the State. 

3.         Hence the individual has a sphere of life and activities, the boundaries of which should not be transgressed by  the State and interfered with by its action or power. Thus alone can the individual develop his personality and realise his real self. 

4.         The powers of the State are not unlimited. There are limits to what the State can do and what it should not do, if the individual is to develop his personality and realise his ends and aims of life and be his true self. The State is a means to this end or ends of the individual. 

5.         The State and society are quite distinct and the State cannot regulate and control the whole of human society. The State is government and, therefore, is not superhuman or supernatural. It consists of one, few or many rulers, who, as human beings, have their weaknesses and limitations. They cannot exercise unlimited power or authority over all other individuals.  Hence the advocates of this view assert that to regard the State as an end in itself is to sacrifice the individual at the alter of the power of the State. 

This view of the State was first dimly thought of by the ancient religious teachers and prophets. The early Christians taught ”to render unto 

Christ what was Christ’s and unto Caesar what was Caesar’s.” Islam also 

maintained the principle of limited sovereignty of the State. But these 

ancient thoughts did not become conscious political philosophies, as did the 

ancient Greek thought. The reason was very simple: the human individual had not yet come into his own. His life, his rights and interests were 

dependent upon the social group of which he or she was a part, namely, the 

family, the tribe, the caste or the estate. It was only in the modern times. 

first in the fifteenth-century Europe, and now all over the world, that the 

individual has come to acquire interests and rights of his own; hence he is now besieged with the problem of defining the sphere of the activities and 

powers of the State so that it does not interfere with the rights and liberty of 1 

the individual. This brings us to the need to make the State as a means fa 

the promotion of his interests and well-being. Individualism or the /aissezq 

fair philosophy was the first to proclaim the rights and liberty of tbel 
ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

571 

individual to live a life of his own and limit the authority of the State to the maintenance of such conditions of peace and order in which he can develop his personality and achieve his own interests as best as he can. The State is not all-important and therefore cannot be all-powerful to regulate the whole life of man. Man does not live by State alone. He is a unique being himself, which cannot express itself if regulated or interfered with or regimented by the State. 

But, like their opponents, the advocates of this view also do not 

agree as to what is the end of an individual. There are two difficulties here., 

As regards the end, some believe that it is individual’s happiness, and well- 

being, while others believe that it is social welfare. As regards the means, they differ greatly. The anarchists believe that the State should be scraped altogether as it is an evil thing. The individualists also dislike the State but regard it as a necessary evil—a necessary bad means to do some good, though the less of it the better. The present-day Pluralists seek to deprive it of its sovereignty as the only safeguard against the abuse of unlimited authority and power. The advocates of welfare State try to utilize the State as an instrument of social service. 

Conclusion. 

There is some truth in both views. But both are one-sided. Those 

who assert that the State is an end in itself neglect the rights of the individual. They believe that the will of the State is real, while the 

individual will is unreal, for he does not know his real interests, which the State knows. It may not be so. The State may be inspired by evil motives and its will may prove harmful to the individuals. Really there is no will of the State except what results from the conflict of the wills of the individuals, which contend with each other for the mastery of social control. 

On the other hand, State is not merely an instrument to preserve peace and order, but has a continuity which extends beyond the interests and lives of 

the individuals. It creates conditions in which alone the individual can attain the higher ends of life. The State may be compelled to impose restrictions 

on the individuals and even call upon them to make sacrifices either for its 

own preservation or in the interest of the future generations or for the common good. We should judge the value and importance of the State only 

by its results. A sound view of the end of the State is that it is a ”partnership 

in every virtue and in all perfection.” 

Sphere of the State activity or the Limits of political control. 

We now turn our attention to the practical problem of what the 

State should do or should not do. It is question of the functions of the State. The functions of the State constantly change with the conditions and progress in the society. Mill has correctly remarked that the proper functions of the State are not a fixed thing, but vary in different conditions 
572           POLITICAL SCIENCE 

of society. In political philosophy, there have been two theories of State functions: (i) Individualism which limited the functions of the State to the bare minimum of such necessary activities as maintenance of peace and order, enforcement of contracts and the defence of the State, and (ii) Socialism which seeks to maximise the functions of the State to the utmost. Both are extreme views, as we shall discuss later. Here it is necessary to say that the actual functions performed by a modern government are constantly increasing and the sphere of State activity is ever widening, as we have described in chapter 30. Limits of State activity and political control. 

The problem of the sphere of State activity or of the limits of political control has two sides, negative and positive, i.e., what the State should do and what it should not do. Although no finality in theory or views of the functions of the State is found among various writers and politicians, we shall define the limits of State-activity as suggested by them, in both theory and practice. Things which the State should not do. (1)       Freedom of Opinion. 

The State should not control the expression of opinion, whether it is acceptable to it or not. The main purpose of the State is to develop the personality of its citizens. It can be attained when they have the freedom to think and express their opinions. Freedom of opinion is obviously the first thing which shall be outside the sphere of State control. Only such expression of opinion can be controlled by the State which incites others to break law, disturbs public peace or is a malicious slander and libel. But so long as a citizen obeys laws, he should be free to criticise a law to his hart’s content and agitate for its repeal or modification. Censorship by the State is not justifiable because, as Maclver says, ’it treats men as though they were children.” (2)       Religion and Morality. 

The State ishould not prescribe religion or morality. Religion arises really from the sentiments or hearts of the people, where the hand of the State cannot reach. Similarly, morality is a matter of conscience, or inner voice of a man which cannot be dictated by  the power of the State Law or the power of the State cannot enforce moral principles as legal commands_ It often happens that what is morally good may not be  legally enforceable_ Moreover, morality develops when one’s conscience is free to act. The moment the State makes a moral rule legally binding, its true spirit vanishes and it becomes a matter of outward observance. (3)      Customs and fashions. 

The State cannot directly create customs and fashions. They wile unconsciously among the people. Nevertheless, the State should endeavoir to suppress evil customs, child marriage, because they have deleterious 
ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

573 

1 

effects upon the social life of the nation and cause degeneration and demoralisation of the people.56 (4)       Culture. 

Like the customs and fashion, culture is also an unconscious evolution of popular mind. It is an expression of the spirit of the people or 

Ut Oil agc. Luc otai.cLOLIIIUL piutim.cIL. INU law UI Luc L./Laic uali w1/4.1.ai.c IL. Yet the State can influence its development and diffusion. 

What the State should do.                                - 

In the present times, there is a greater emphasis on the pOsitive role of the State, because it is now clearly realised that ”the influence of the State permeates all our relations, even those of the personal kind.” Accordingly, the State should do the following things: (1)        Free personality. 

First of all, the State should create conditions for the growth of free individuality and personality of its citizens. ”The business of the State,” said T H. Green, ”is not merely the business of a policeman, of arresting wrongdoers, or of ruthlessly enforcing contracts but of providing for men an equal change, as far as possible, of realising what is best in their intellectual and moral natures.” (2)       External conditions of peace, order and protection. 

Human personality in general cannot develop freely without ”those external conditions of social living which are of universal concern in view of the acknowledged objects of human desire.” These conditions are, as 

maciver mentione,a, peace ana oraer, protection, conservation ano development. The State must maintain peace and order, not because it is a          1 

sort of universal policeman but because in peaceful and orderly atmosphere alone each individual can rise to the full stature of his personality. In other words, man develops his individuality and personality only when the State regulates the dealings of the citizens with one another, prevents confusion and chaos, maintains the rights of its citizens and enforces their duties. The State should maintain order not for the sake of order but for the higher ends of protection, conservation and development. Modern State cannot become a mere police-State, as the laissez faire wanted it to be. It is a positive State, for it actively creates conditions of human development and welfare. ”The same reason,” writes Garner, ”which justified the State at first in protecting person and property against violation, justified it yesterday in abolishing slavery, justifies it today in abolishing ignorance, and will justify it tomorrow in abolishing other degrading conditions of life.” 

For a detailed study of the effects of the Purdah and such other insinuation on Muslim life, Family and Society see Purdah and Polygamy by Mazhar ul Haq. 
574        POLITICAL SCIENCE 

(3)       Social Welfare. 

The State protects and promotes the welfare and well-being of the individual by preserving law and order. But this is not enough. Mere protection of the rights of an individual and enforcement of his duties do not exhaust the list of its functions. Every State now espouses the cause of the economically and socially weak, ”so that the mere requisites of health and decency shall not be denied by accident or misfortune or incapacity to any member of the community” (Maclver). Furthermore, modern State now assumes the duty of promoting general welfare. It is now clearly realised that the State is a collective body and not a joint-stock company of the privileged fee. It should promote social conditions for the welfare of all. It is now universally recognised that society cannot be happy, prosperous and progressive if some people suffer from the pangs of hunger, or are illiterate and ignorant, or are unhealthy and miserable. Modern society is becoming collectivistic. Hence modern State can no longer be individualistic, as it was in the nineteenth century. It is now recognised that State should  interfere and regulate social life, if such interference and regulation will promote general welfare. Hence the sphere of State activity should extend to new fields of social and pational life, for there are many things of general wellbeing  which are not provided by the efforts of individuals  and associations either because their private efforts are insufficient or they are incapable of doing so. (4)       Conservation and development. 

The State is the custodian of the future of the nation. It must conserve what the nation has now and develop its resources for the future generations. ”The State with its command of resources and its universal reach can build for the future in ways that no partial organisation can exert.’ It can undertake many constructive plans and projects whose benefits will be shared by the future generations. Individual or private enterprise does not undertake them, because it is selfish, its resources are limited, its method haphazard and it aims at immediate gain. The State suffers from no such limitations or short comings. While private enterprise cannot risk its limited resources in long-term projects, the State can undertake ambitious plans and schemes of conservation and development, as it possesses abundant resources. It can develop national economy by planning and building industry, and agriculture, by undertaking industrial and scientific research and discovery, and encouraging such higher activities of life as science, literature and art. In short, it can promote culture and civilisation. Actual functions of the State or government. 

The functions of the State means the particular activities in which a State or government is  actually engaged. They vary from country to country and from time to time according to the underlying philosophy or ideology 
ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

575 

of the State, the sphere of its activity, and the degree of its political, economic and social development. 

Various authors have classified the functions of the State in different ways they may be classifieci as Essential and Optional functions. 

(1)         Essential, normal or constituent functions are those which must be performed by every government in order to preserve its existence against internal and foreign dangers. They are the sine qua non of the State’s existence and security. They are of four kinds. Firstly, the defence of the State against external enemies, aggression and internal rebels. This is its military function, for which it maintains armed forces and defence system. Secondly, the maintenance of law and order in the country for safeguarding life .and property of its citizens. This is its police function, for which it maintains a police force, and security department law-courts, jails, etc. Thirdly, foreign relations with other States for such purposes as international intercourse, diplomacy, alliances, and intelligence, and sends diplomatic representatives to other States and itself receives theirs and participates in inter-State and international conferences and organisations Lastly, the State has to collect taxes and dues to finance the fulfilment of its essential and non-essential functions. 

(2)         Optional or ministrant functions are those which a State may or may not perform without danger to its existence and security, but are natural to the higher ends and purposes for which the State exists. They are meant to promote the intellectual, moral, social, economic and cultural well-being and welfare of the people. Their performance is necessary if the State is a welfare State and not a police State. The individualist and laissez faire theory of the nineteenth century condemned the performance of these functions, but they are now indispensable for the present-day welfare or service State. Indeed, the State can achieve its supreme ends of protection, conservation and development only when it performs these necessary functions. Not only these functions are numerous but these are constantly increasing in numbers and importance. It is, indeed, difficult to enumerate them. We give here a bare enumeration of some of them: 

(i)         Regulation of trade, industry and agriculture. This implies such things as control of currency, fixing of weights and measures, issuing trade licences, factory legislation, control of imports and exports, trade policy, etc. 

(ii)        Regulation of Labour conditions: the State performs the functions by fixing working hours, settling labour-capital disputes, strikes and lock-outs, by dealing with such economic problems as unemployment, housing conditions of the working classes, relations of tenants and Landlords, improving conditions of work on farms and factories, etc. 
576       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

(iii)       Development of works of public utility, such as posts and telegraph, roads and railways, canals and bridges, water, electricity and gas supply, transport, parks and gardens, etc. 

(v)       Education. Spread of education and knowledge from kindergarten to the university level has become one of the most important functions of the modern government. State opens schools colleges, universities, technical and professional colleges and institutions, looks after such educational needs as adult education, female education, public libraries, etc., and encourages fine arts, sciences, literature, etc., sets up zoos and museums, libraries, art galleries, physical culture centres, parks, etc. 

(vi)      Public Health, Sanitation and Medical Relief. The State seeks to protect public health by fighting diseases, epidemics, enforcing laws of health (e.g., against adulterated food), and sanitation and providing medical relief by opening hospitals, dispensaries, vaccination centres, etc. 

(vii) Social Security. In the past, private charity and family care looked after the aged, the sick, the needy and the poor or distressed But now many advanced States have assumed responsibility for them. They provide security for them by undertaking various plans and schemes of social care and insurance, e.g., old age pensions, unemployment insurance, 

old people houses etc. 

(viii) Moral and Social Reforms. Modern State endeavours to 

enhance the moral tone of the society by undertaking various moral and social reforms, such as regulating family life, marriage, divorce, giving 

property rights to women, prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic 

drinks and drugs, etc. 

STATE AS POWER 

Some writers regard the State as a power-system and exalt pow, 

coercion and violence as the ends of the State. They subordinate the rights 

and freedom of the individual to this end. They declare that the will of the State is supreme over the wills of the individuals. They regard the exercise of power as the characteristic expression of the State and coercion as tht 

primary condition of social control and organisation. Ancient Sparta.; 

Napoleonic France, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are examples of Statc* 

which made power and domination their main aims and ends. Such a 

of the State is based old belief that it is the ”natural law that the s 

rules.” Modern German writers are the most outspoken in defining State 

a power-organisation. Treitschke, the Prussian historian, defined the SI 

as ”the public power of offence and defence, the first task of which is 

making of war and the administration of justice.” Another German 

General von Bernhardi, said, ’The first and paramount law is the assertion 

one’s own independent existence. Might is the supreme right, and 

dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrament of war. War gi 

biologically correct decision, since its decisions rest on the very nadir 
ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

577 

things.” Herr Hitler, the Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, declared that the ultimate object of the State, organised as a power-system, is the utter destruction and extermination of all rival power, nations and races, for, as he said, ”the strong is the strongest when alone.” Criticism. 

There is an element of truth in the conception of the State as power. Power or force and coercion do play a role in the evolution, organisation and maintenance of the State, both inside the State and outside, with other States. Power, is indeed, necessary to organise social life. It is, as Bertrand Russell says, as necessary to politics as energy is to physics. Political relationship between the rulers and the ruled are really power relations, actual or potential. Viewed thus, the State appears as the mechanism by which the will of the rulers or government is able to influence the wills of the individuals and determine their behaviour through its orders, and laws, even against their wishes. The State is the regulating power of the society. It has the monopoly of the coercive power, for thus alone can the unity, peace and security of the society be preserved. It enforces laws to maintain peace and justice. According to Laski, ”Men moves differently to the attainment of conflicting desires; a coercive authority is therefore necessary to define the terms on which that movement may legitimately proceed, to lay down the rules of permissible social behaviour.” 

Although power is a necessary weapon in the hands of the State, it 

is, however, not its essence and basis. Paradoxical though it may seem, the less the State uses actual coercive power, the stronger it will become and 

le better it will be for all concerned. It will make the State stable and it will spe freedom to the individuals. It will afford greater opportunity for the 

velopment of human personality. It will promote general welfare. 

Kessive and unintelligent use of power will destroy not only ”material 

is but also the cultural gains, the spirit of truth, the work of the mind, 

fertility of thought.” Hence, instead of extolling the State as power- 

Dm, the need is to see that it uses power to enhance the common welfare 

I promote common interest. In a true theory of State’, the use of power, as 

diver says, ”comes to be adjudged by its value to the society rather than 

value to the ruler.” In fact, the advocates of the State as a power- 

believe that the State exists only to perform the essential functions 

peace and order, defence and security. They neglect its optional 

lions. Modern view regards the State as a welfare State. We judge a 

not by what it is or claims to be, but what it actually does for the good 

lie people. 
578      POLITICAL SCIENCE 

STATE AS SERVICE: WELFARE STATE State as Service: concept of the Welfare State. 

If the advocates of the view of the State as a power-system emphasise the role of power of the State to perform its essential functions, the advocates of the welfare State emphasise its role as an agency of social service, for performing the ministrant or optional functions of the government. In fact, both these views of the State arise from the age-old and yet unsolved question of the interrelation between the State and society. While the theory of the State as power denies this distinction and asserts that the State has full control over the society, the theory of welfare State asserts that it exists to promote the general welfare of the society or community as a whole. It exists for social service. It possesses power to serve and command. It ”does not posses power without condition,” as Laski remarks. ”It possesses power because it has duties. It is judged, not by what it is in theory, but by what it does in practice.” It is, therefore, the business of the State to find the needs of society and to satisfy them by providing conditions and opportunities for them. The conditions are those whicb enable all classes and sections of the society to achieve the fullest development of their life and personality, happiness and well-being. The State commands only because it serves and owns only be-cause it owes. Ii has become an agent of service and welfare of the society. 

Rise of the Welfare State. 

The rise of the welfare State can be traced to several causes and 

conditions of the modern age. First of all, it is a result of the breakdown oil 

the laissez faire system of the Nineteenth Century. Laissez faire requind I 

the State to con fine its functions and activities to mere protection al defcnce of the State from internal and external disturbances. It was not 

interfere in anyway in the economic and social activities of the individu 

in which they were to be left alone to their individual efforts, initiative 

intelligence. The State was to be a ’police State’, to maintain law and 1 But this view of the State action, or rather inaction, resulted in much 

and economic distress, especially for the working classes and 

sections of the society. Secondly, the total nature of the modern 

especially of the world wars, with their mass-destruction during the wan 

in its after-effects on the national economy and society, also requiredi 

better redistribution of national resources and wealth. The danger cil 

new world-war, the so-called ”third world war,” also compels the 

States to do social justice at home in order to fight the future war, a na 

war, with the wholehearted support of all classes and sections of the 1 

Discontented classes in the nation are a source of weakness and a 1 

times of war. Hence the nation State must become a welfare State fcr 

common good of all classes, and not of the privileged few, if it is tol 

wars successfully. ”The waging of modern war presupposes,” writes I 
ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

579 

R. Titmus, and imposes a great increase in social discipline; moreover, this discipline is only tolerable if-and only if—social inequalities are not intolerable.” Hence Great Britain and other Great Powers adopted a programme of social service both before and after the World War H. The third factor in the rise of the welfare State is the challenge of the new ”communist States”, life that of the Society Union, etc. They can be well described as ”total welfare States” for they profess to harness or plan all the national resources  of the country not for the profit of the few but for the service or welfare of all. Thus the ”communist challenge” becomes at once a political, social, economic, ideological and military challenge to the industrially advanced Western States. It has compelled them to undertake social and economic planning for the general welfare of their unprivileged classes and sections of the society. With the collapse of the communist system, as at present, this challenge, will decrease and even vanish. Lastly tremendous,   epoch-making advances   in science,   technology and engineering have placed at the disposal of the modern States, especially highly industrialised countries, such huge economic resources in money, energy and power, that it is now possible to produce and distribute unlimited and abundant wealth and material goods among all classes and sections of the society. ”As the wealth created by modern industry increases 

it is contended that there is enough to assure everyone, including the 

physically and mentally handicapped, of adequate support without unfairly penalizing or impairing the initiative of the talented and enterprising. An income large enough to provide the basic necessities of life in adequate measure is regarded as the right of every member of society. If income of some body falls short, it should be supplemented not as an act of charity, 

but as an act of social justice.” What private enterprise could produce fitfully and meagrely can now be produced by planned and socialised or nationalised industry, science and technology in abundance. Hence it is the 

duty of the welfare State not only to harness modern resources of science, 

industry and technology by proper use of manpower but also to distribute it 

equitably and justly for the welfare of all people, without any regard for the privileged classes, as it was in the past. Aims of the Welfare State. 

The welfare State is first and foremost a social service State. It ks to free the unprivileged classes, the workers, the unemployed, the 

Dr and the needy, from the fear of want and from the fear of social 

misery, lace unemployment, mseases, iii-neaun, tact( or eaucation, or 

lical care. In other words, it seeks to protect the weak from the 

wetition and exploitation of the economically strong, e.g., the workers 

their employers. The goal is a better life for every individual, by 

Itecting the weaker members of the society from the worst effect of 

lomic distress and pressures of the private enterprise and capitalist 
580       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

economy. For this purpose, the welfare State undertakes such activities and functions, duties and responsibilities as the national health schemes, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, a national system of employment exchange, free meals for needy school children, free compulsory education at primary and secondary stages, maternity and child welfare services, etc. 

Secondly, the welfare State aims at the socialisation or nationalisation of some ’key industries’. This is done partly  to find money to finance the increased budget expenditures of the ”welfare” programmes and schemes, but mainly to conserve and develop the natural resources of nation in industry and trade. This necessitates a new attitude towards public finance and towards the capitalist system of free enterprise. The welfare State is an expensive State, as compared to the Laissez Faire State of the past. It has to spend more and, therefore, has to tap new sources of income and revenue. This can be done to some extent and for some time by increase in taxes. But it needs really an increase in national production, which means more production and better distribution of national wealth. ’The two chief conditions.” as Hugh Dalton puts it, ”of an increase in the economic welfare are, firstly,    improvement in productive powers,   and, secondly, improvements in the distribution of what is produced.” Social security and social welfare schemes places a heavy burden of expenditure upon the State: they are ”cheques which the nation has drawn on the future.” Only a healthy and prosperous economy can carry such a burden. That is why the ’welfare State’ has to concern itself with the development and reorganisatica 

of national economy. It has to keep farms, business and industry in souM condition, so that the whole economy function at a high level of production, 

and consumption. This is done, firstly, by aiding private enterprise 

increase production by such methods as price support schemes, guarantee ail 

secure markets, creating cartels and monopolies for capturing foreign] 

markets, etc. The second method is nationalisation or socialisation of 

privately-owned industries. Here the government itself becomes a pre 

and itself undertakes the process of production and distribution. It does 

merely confine itself to the traditional responsibilities of regulating 

promoting private economy. It becomes itself the owner of ec 

enterprises and the producer of economic goods. But the ’welfare State’ 1 

not undertake ’total nationalisation, as the communist State does. 

nationalises or socialises only a few selected industries and enterprises, 

as the coal mines, rail ways and transport, central 

telecommunication and aviation, gas and electricity and the like. It 

leaves the bulk of the national economy in the hands of the 

ownership and free enterprise. Hence the Welfare, State’ is also descriE 

a ’mixed State,’ for its national economy contains both private and ownership and enterprise. 
ENDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 

581 

Finally, the welfare State has to undertake social and economic planning, because by planning alone can it keep private and public—owned industries and enterprises at full employment and production and the standards of living at high level. Here again it does not undertake ’total’ planning of a communist State, but only a partial one, although it may be difficult to devise a scientific policy of planning with its ’mixed’ economy. Merits of the Welfare State. 

Many modern States have become social service and welfare States of one form or another. The ’police State’ of the laissez faire period is dead. The functions of the State have multiplied and are, constantly increasing.  The sphere of State activities is becoming ever wider. But this increase in  State action does not lessen or restrict the sphere of individual liberty and democratic rights and processes. The aims of the welfare State are to be achieved through democratic parliamentary methods. The freedom from want and freedom from fear are secured along with freedom of expression and ”association, at least in Great Britain. Welfare State is a socialised State, based on ”constitutional socialism.” So great is the urgency and importance of the welfare State in modern conditions that the industrially backward and under-developed countries, like India and Pakistan, have proclaimed their ideal to be ”welfare States”, although they do not possess enough economic resources and wealth to do so. This ideal of the Welfare State was laid down in the ’directive principles of State Policy’ in the Pakistan Constitution of 1973. Arguments against the Welfare State. 

The ’welfare State’ as it exists in England, France and other Western countries, has been criticised for its weaknesses and dangers. It is said to threaten the democratic rights and freedoms of the individual, restrict free enterprise by introducing planning and regimentation of private industry. The ’mixed’ economy of the welfare State is economically a ”conspicuous waste” of national resources and energy, initiative and enterprise. ”Such a ’mixed’ State becomes like a dog in a barnyard. It cannot lay eggs, and it will not let the hens (that is, the private enterprise and the capitalists) do so. As the standards of law, order, value or money and social obligation decline, the hope of individuals in the future of such a State declines. All spend what they earn.” Thus capital formation stops  and the society becomes static. Moreover, the ”welfare State’ can exist only in industrially advanced and rich countries, which can maintain their artificially enhanced standards of living. It divides the world into have and have—not nations of the developed North and the underdeveloped South.