Selectivity

Selectivity as it relates to poverty occurs when people are the recipients of benefits based on their needs. Means testing is used to determine if an individual or family is eligible for government assistance. The decision is ultimately based on whether or not the individual or family has the “means” to exist without the help. Different countries use disparate approaches to this. In the United States, means testing is employed to test for eligibility for Medicaid and relief from debts through bankruptcy. Its use can be traced back to the Depression era and was again popular in the 1960s to decide worthiness for the Food Stamp Program.

When Ross Perot was running for president in 1992 he suggested the use of a means test to screen for Social Security benefits. This was met with conflicting responses. Some believed it would help intercede and slow down the impending Social Security crisis, whereas others thought it would stigmatize the program. Means testing was added to bankruptcy legislation in 2005 to prevent wealthy filers from avoiding responsibility for their debt. The stipulations were easily sidestepped, causing experts to claim that there was nothing fair or equitable about the means-test in cases of bankruptcy.

Selectivity and means testing are often treated as equivalents, a notion dating back to the early 1970s; however, selectivists do not necessarily agree with this. That is to say that selectivity may only imply means testing and, in cases of obvious need, such as those with physical disabilities, the application of non-means testing is suitable although selective. Selective social benefits are also complicated by the fact that they are automatically associated with a residual welfare model. This is a concept that claims governments should be limited in the act of distributing social welfare. It is based on the idea that the public, no matter its needs, is capable of locating its own sources of assistance, which means that the needy can find charitable resources through family, church, or similar circumstances. The government should only step in when these measures have failed and there is extreme and dire need.

There are several problems with this. First, it is a wholly incorrect notion. Persons and families who are struggling often lack the emotional stamina to pursue means of support on their own. They are also usually members of a group that lacks the educational and material needs, such as access to a telephone or automobile, that would allow them to interface with the public in pursuit of benefits that would put them “back on their feet.” In addition, they face the real problems of social stigma that many needy people encounter when they are “down on their luck.” Poverty is an authentic trap, and those who dwell in it face the constant battle to climb out of their circumstances. There is often resentment toward those who require these benefits because it is not a matter of equal distribution, and because the needy do not tend to vote, they are not a part of the political landscape that has a voice.

...