Photo courtesy of Roar Media
Sri Lanka stands at a pivotal moment in its social development. After weathering a profound economic crisis and decades of welfare policies that have created complex patterns of dependency, the nation must reassess the fundamental purpose and structure of its social safety net. This article examines how Sri Lanka’s current welfare mechanisms, while established with noble intentions, have gradually eroded traditional systems of reciprocity that once bound communities together. In their place have emerged relationships characterized by political clientelism, diminished personal agency and weakened social cohesion.
The traditional social fabric of Sri Lankan society formed by Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Islamic ethics of mutual responsibility emphasized karma, giving and reciprocity as foundations of community resilience. These ethical frameworks didn’t merely represent religious ideals but practical social insurance mechanisms that enabled communities to withstand hardship collectively. As formalized welfare systems have expanded, they have often supplanted rather than supported these indigenous social ethics, inadvertently reshaping society in ways that may prove unsustainable both economically and socially.
This article does not advocate for dismantling welfare systems that protect vulnerable populations. Rather, it proposes a fundamental reimagining of how welfare operates, transforming it from a transactional, politically-mediated distribution of resources into a vehicle for strengthening social bonds and reinforcing ethics of reciprocity that dignify both givers and receivers. The goal is a welfare system that not only addresses material inequalities but consciously builds social capital and collective resilience.
The erosion of reciprocity
Historically, Sri Lankan communities functioned through intricate networks of mutual obligation. The village tank system, for instance, required collective maintenance and equitable water sharing arrangements that bound farmers together in relationships of interdependence. The temple or kovil served as both spiritual center and community welfare institution where members contributed according to ability and received according to need. Within extended families, multiple generations shared resources and responsibilities, creating natural safety nets.
These systems operated on an implicit understanding: one’s security depended on building and maintaining social capital through ethical conduct and generosity. Individuals recognized that their welfare in times of hardship would depend on the strength of their social position cultivated through years of demonstrating trustworthiness, generosity and adherence to communal values. As the Buddha taught, “the world stands on reciprocity”, a principle reflected in the karma doctrine that permeates Sri Lankan religious thought.
The centralization of welfare provision through government mechanisms, while addressing critical needs, has gradually displaced these reciprocal arrangements. Consider the Samurdhi program, which provides direct financial assistance to low income households. While providing essential support, its implementation through politically appointed officers has transformed what was once community-mediated support into political patronage. Recipients often develop gratitude toward political entities rather than experiencing the dignity of reciprocal community relationships. Similarly, contributors -taxpayers whose resources fund such programs – remain anonymous, disconnected from recipients and often resentful of a system they perceive as inefficient or corrupt.
The consequences manifest in troubling social trends. Community participation in voluntary work initiatives has declined precipitously. Extended family support systems have weakened as younger generations, no longer perceiving the need for mutual support networks, pursue individual aspirations in isolation. Political polarization has intensified as welfare benefits become instruments of partisan competition rather than expressions of social solidarity.
The paradox of state welfare and individualism
A paradoxical relationship exists between expansive state welfare systems and rising individualism. When the state assumes primary responsibility for individual wellbeing, citizens are gradually liberated from the necessity of maintaining strong reciprocal relationships. Their physical and financial security no longer depends primarily on their reputation, trustworthiness or contribution to community welfare but rather on eligibility criteria established by distant bureaucracies.
This shift produces a profound transformation in social values. As individuals no longer need to invest in reciprocal relationships for security, they gain freedom to prioritize personal advancement, which can foster innovation and mobility. However, this same freedom can evolve into a more radical individualism that views both social obligations and the welfare apparatus itself with suspicion. The irony emerges: the welfare state inadvertently nurtures the individualistic values that will eventually seek to dismantle it.
The US offers a cautionary example of this phenomenon. Critics argue that extensive welfare programs have inadvertently fostered a culture where individuals rely more on state support than on personal community ties. Over time, this reliance has diminished incentives to maintain reciprocal relationships, leading to increased self-centeredness and societal fragmentation. As people became accustomed to external assistance, the natural bonds of mutual aid and ethical reciprocity, which historically held communities together, weakened, contributing to the polarization and social division now evident in US society.
In Sri Lanka, we observe similar patterns emerging unevenly across social strata. Urban professionals, whose security is largely guaranteed by formal employment benefits and accumulated assets, increasingly question the efficiency and necessity of welfare programs they view themselves as funding. Meanwhile, welfare recipients often develop dependencies that undermine rather than enhance their capabilities. Between these poles, the reciprocity-based middle ground where citizens participate in mutual support networks that strengthen rather than weaken agency steadily erodes. The US experience serves as a warning: while providing necessary social support is essential, welfare reforms must be carefully designed to strengthen, rather than undermine, community bonds.
The dignity dilemma
Central to this discussion is what might be termed the dignity dilemma in welfare provision. True dignity requires both the ability to give and the ability to receive within relationships of mutual respect. Current welfare mechanisms in Sri Lanka compromise dignity on both sides of the exchange.
For contributors, the compulsory and anonymous nature of tax funded welfare removes the social recognition and moral agency that traditionally accompanied acts of generosity. When a wealthy landowner in pre-colonial Sri Lanka contributed to temple welfare programs or directly supported vulnerable community members, they received public acknowledgment that enhanced their social standing. This recognition wasn’t merely ego-gratification but a form of social capital that could be drawn upon in times of their own need. Today’s taxpayer, by contrast, experiences taxation for welfare as an impersonal obligation disconnected from community relationships.
For recipients, welfare often arrives as an entitlement determined by bureaucratic criteria rather than through relationships that affirm their value to the community. The eligibility assessment process frequently subjects them to scrutiny that feels dehumanizing rather than supportive. More problematically, because their receipt of benefits doesn’t establish or strengthen reciprocal community bonds, it fails to build the social capital that provides lasting security beyond immediate financial assistance.
Consider the older Sinhalese concept of attam wherein villagers would exchange labor during harvest times. This system wasn’t charity but reciprocity – each participant both gave and received, maintaining dignity through mutual interdependence. The harvested crop didn’t arrive as an anonymous handout but as the fruit of relationships that simultaneously addressed material needs and strengthened community bonds.
Learning from traditional wisdom
Sri Lanka’s traditional ethical frameworks offer conceptual resources for reimagining welfare provision. The doctrine of karma, central to Buddhist, Hindu and Jain traditions that have shaped Sri Lankan culture can be understood not merely as a metaphysical principle but as sophisticated social infrastructure.
At its essence, karma establishes a causal relationship between one’s actions and one’s experiences. In traditional communities, this manifested practically: individuals recognized that ethical conduct and generosity created social capital that would return to them when needed. This wasn’t merely supernatural belief but pragmatic social wisdom – communities observed how those who maintained strong reciprocal relationships fared better during hardships than those who pursued self-interest in isolation.
The concept of merit similarly functioned as a social accounting system that incentivized pro-social behavior. While modern interpretations often reduce merit making to ritualistic donations to religious institutions, its broader traditional function was to encourage investments in social welfare that simultaneously benefited recipients, enhanced the giver’s social position, and strengthened community resilience.
These traditional concepts offer a sophisticated understanding of sustainable welfare provision that modern systems might productively incorporate. They recognize that human wellbeing depends not merely on material provision but on the quality of social relationships and the moral frameworks that govern them.
How might Sri Lanka reform its welfare system to preserve essential support for vulnerable populations while strengthening rather than weakening the ethics of reciprocity? Several principles could guide this transformation.
Localization and transparency: Welfare provision should be relocated to the most local level feasible, where recipients and contributors can maintain visible relationships. Village level welfare committees comprising diverse community representatives could administer portions of nationally funded welfare resources, bringing transparency to both contribution and distribution. This visibility would allow contributors to receive appropriate recognition and enable recipients to establish relationships that enhance rather than diminish their dignity.
Reciprocal obligations: Welfare programs should incorporate appropriate reciprocal obligations that recognize recipients’ capacity to contribute. These needn’t be punitive work requirements but meaningful opportunities to contribute to community welfare according to ability. For example, elderly welfare recipients might mentor youth or maintain cultural knowledge, while ablebodied recipients could participate in community development projects. Such arrangements would transform welfare from unidirectional charity to mutual exchange that dignifies all participants.
Social recognition systems: Sri Lanka should develop formal systems for recognizing contributions to social welfare, whether through taxation or direct service. Annual community ceremonies could acknowledge major contributors to local welfare funds, while digital platforms could allow taxpayers to see (with appropriate privacy protections) how their contributions translate into community benefits. Such recognition systems would transform what is now experienced as impersonal taxation into acknowledged contributions to community resilience.
Community welfare funds: A portion of national welfare resources could be allocated to community managed welfare funds with significant local decision making authority. These funds would blend government resources with voluntary community contributions, creating hybrid institutions that maintain essential support while strengthening community ownership. Local business leaders, religious institutions and community organizations would participate in fund governance, ensuring that welfare provision strengthens rather than bypasses community relationships.
Intergenerational welfare contracts: Sri Lanka should establish explicit intergenerational welfare contracts that recognize the reciprocal obligations between generations. For example, pension systems could be explicitly framed as younger generations supporting elders with the understanding that they will receive similar support in turn. Educational subsidies could incorporate service obligations that make explicit the reciprocal nature of social investment in youth development. Such framing would transform welfare from entitlement to mutual obligation.
Towards a uniquely Sri Lankan welfare model
Sri Lanka has an opportunity to develop a welfare system that addresses material needs while consciously strengthening the ethics of reciprocity that bind communities together. This would not mean abandoning state responsibility for vulnerable populations but reimagining how that responsibility is exercised.
Rather than uncritically adopting Western welfare models premised on individualistic social contracts, Sri Lanka can draw on its rich cultural and religious heritage to develop welfare institutions that reflect traditional wisdom about sustainable social relationships. The concepts of karma, giving and reciprocity offer sophisticated frameworks for designing welfare systems that enhance rather than erode social cohesion.
The stakes of this reimagining extend beyond economic efficiency or fiscal sustainability. The social fabric itself – the intricate network of relationships, obligations and shared values that makes collective life possible – depends on institutions that reinforce rather than undermine reciprocity. A welfare system that fails to nurture this fabric may temporarily address material inequality while inadvertently creating deeper tears in the social bonds that sustainable development requires.
By consciously redesigning welfare provision to strengthen reciprocity, Sri Lanka can develop institutions that simultaneously reduce material suffering, enhance personal dignity and build the collective resilience necessary to navigate an uncertain future. In doing so, it would offer an alternative development path that honors traditional wisdom while addressing contemporary challenges – a uniquely Sri Lankan contribution to global conversations about sustainable social development.