Give and Take

Balancing security and responsibility

The Dutch welfare state was built on a simple but powerful idea:
that no one should fall through the cracks.
Benefits such as the WIA, WAO, Wajong and unemployment insurance (WW) form the safety net beneath society; they guarantee dignity where fortune strikes harder than merit.
But a safety net that becomes too comfortable slowly turns into a hammock.
And that, precisely, is the tension of our time — the tension between giving and taking.

We live in a prosperous country where solidarity is still widely cherished, yet increasingly questioned.
How fair is a system that pays for non-participation, especially in an era of labour shortages?
It is a valid question — not if it is born of resentment, but if it is driven by care for balance.

The welfare state as a moral contract

In his Theory of Justice, John Rawls argued that a just society may only permit inequality if it benefits the least advantaged.
That principle legitimises our welfare system: it protects those who cannot contribute, temporarily or permanently.
But as Hannah Arendt reminded us, freedom is not the absence of constraint —
it is the capacity to act, to take part in the world.
A system that keeps people on the sidelines for too long erodes precisely that capacity.

Justice therefore demands not only protection, but also participation.
Solidarity loses its meaning when it flows in only one direction.
The art lies in creating a system where giving and taking reinforce one another.

A shared responsibility

In this reformed middle model, the welfare state remains intact,
but becomes more active — and more reciprocal.

• Employers take a larger role in reintegration: they cover 70 % of wage costs for people on benefits who can still work, even partially.

• The government pays the remaining 30 %, providing guidance, training, and a social safety margin.

• Under the unemployment scheme (WW), after six months of benefits, people are expected to participate in temporary work placements in essential sectors — healthcare, education, public transport, energy, environmental maintenance — financed 50/50 by business and government.

• The maximum WW duration is shortened to one year, shifting the focus from passive compensation to active participation.

Economically, this could save € 1–2 billion per year,
but the deeper gain is symbolic: work is once again recognised as a social good, not merely a source of income.

Working according to ability, with room for balance

The foundation of a just welfare state is not that everyone does the same,
but that everyone does what they are capable of.
A renewed system should not punish those who can do less, but activate people according to their ability.
Those who are partially disabled can still contribute — through part-time work, supported employment, or social functions measured not by productivity but by meaning.

The system must be flexible, not dogmatic.
There are times of labour shortage, when every hand counts,
and times of labour surplus, when not everyone can be employed immediately.
A mature society recognises this rhythm of the economy
and builds a safety net that moves with it —
not a permanent entitlement, but a dynamic right to reintegration when opportunity arises.

Such a system does not require coercion, but trust —
trust that people wish to contribute when given the chance.

A partnership between government, people, and market

In this model, the employer is not a debtor but a partner.
They do not simply bear the cost;
they also receive labour, commitment, and social recognition in return.
In times of labour shortage, this is not charity but mutual necessity:
businesses need workers, society needs participation,
and individuals need purpose.

Thus solidarity becomes a circle of contribution and support, not a one-way flow.
The government assists the employer, the employer assists the worker,
and the worker contributes according to ability.

This three-way symbiosis makes the welfare state sustainable for the future.
It prevents social security from calcifying into bureaucracy
and restores it to what it was meant to be:
a living system of reciprocity.

The measure of justice

Aristotle taught that virtue lies in the mean between extremes —
between excessive leniency and harsh punishment.
A welfare state that only gives risks moral complacency;
a system that only takes loses its humanity.
The path of reform is therefore not compromise but moral balance:
those who can, contribute;
those who cannot, receive;
and society carries both.

As B.M. de Gaay Fortman once wrote, justice is “the institutional form of compassion.”
In that sense, reform is not austerity but a renewal of compassion itself —
no longer a transfer of money alone, but participation as a form of care.

Epilogue – The balance restored

“Give and Take” is not an economic model but a moral rhythm.
It restores equilibrium between protection and duty, between self and society.
It says: freedom is precious, but only meaningful when paired with the responsibility that sustains it.

By engaging people according to what they can do,
by treating employers as partners rather than payers,
and by maintaining a safety net that adapts to the times,
solidarity becomes once again a living force —
not an obligation, but a choice that continually justifies itself.

In such a society, solidarity is not a burden but a cycle:
what we give returns to us — in dignity, in belonging,
in the simple truth that no one truly lives by themselves.