Behind this proposal lies an old idea: the distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Some are seen as victims of circumstance; others are perpetually suspected of laziness.
Ricardo Cardoso
Social Worker, Visiting Assistant Professor
The recent proposal to create the Single Social Benefit has introduced a measure that warrants serious public consideration: the possibility that beneficiaries could be required to perform up to 15 hours per week of social solidarity activities as a condition for accessing or maintaining financial support. At first glance, the measure may seem reasonable. After all, who could be against community participation or against valuing each citizen’s contribution to society?
The problem isn’t participation. The problem is the obligation. And, above all, the way this obligation applies only to those who are poor. Behind this proposal lies an old and persistent idea in the history of social policy: the distinction between deserving and undeserving poor. Some are seen as legitimate victims of circumstance; others are permanently suspected of laziness, dependence, or an unwillingness to work. Over the centuries, this logic has served to justify mechanisms for controlling, monitoring, and moralizing poverty. The implicit message is clear: it is not enough to be in need. One must constantly demonstrate that one deserves help.
However, research conducted in recent decades demonstrates precisely the opposite of what this view assumes. Poverty does not, in most cases, result from poor individual choices or a lack of effort. It stems from job insecurity, low wages, inadequate pensions, educational inequalities, difficulties in accessing housing, illness, disability, discrimination, or critical life events. When a person needs social support, what is at stake is not merely a lack of financial resources. What is at stake is the exercise of a right of citizenship in a state that recognizes the inherent dignity of all its members.
That is why making community service mandatory as a form of restitution raises serious ethical concerns. If there are social needs to be met in local governments, institutions, or public services, then decent jobs must be created—with pay, labor rights, and social protection. Turning poverty into a source of unpaid labor risks creating a category of citizens whose labor can be mobilized without the protections afforded to other workers. Furthermore, this measure ignores an often-overlooked reality: many people living in poverty are already working. Others are actively seeking employment. Many care for family members, face health problems, or deal with situations of excessive debt, housing instability, or psychological distress. Social exclusion is rarely resolved through coercive measures. It is resolved through opportunities, support, capacity-building, and effective access to rights.
