Drafting of welfare rights pitted flexible standards against state obligations

Evidence

The strongest supporters of social and economic rights contested the flexibility of the ‘standard of living’, arguing that the state should take responsibility for welfare functions that had previously been relegated to the home. The Chinese delegate P. C. Chang and the Soviet delegate Alexei Pavlov fought hardest to ensure that rights to food, clothing, housing and medical care in Article 25 were not subsumed under a right to a standard of living, but were turned into obligations on the state. When the UK delegate objected to these rights, Chang responded that he ‘did not see what possible objection there could be to that phrase when millions of people throughout the world were deprived of food and clothing’. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 196

Categorization

• XREF: P.C. Chang’s role connects to Amartya Sen’s and the capabilities approach lineage, and to debate on whether welfare rights impose enforceable duties vs. aspirational standards. — connects to: States can owe obligations to the poor without granting them corresponding rights — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 414; The US turned redistribution demands into flexible, nonbinding standards. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 152; Neoliberal thought framed welfare rights as contradicting rather than completing civil rights — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 162 (+2 more)
• ADDENDUM: The tension between flexible ‘standard of living’ frames and concrete state obligations echoes the sacrifice-piece’s concern with what institutions actually owe — here over food, clothing, housing.
• QUESTION: How did the ‘standard of living’ language ultimately function — as a loophole that let states off the hook, or as a genuine floor?

Broader Connections

• The US turned redistribution demands into flexible, nonbinding standards. #exemplifies (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 152
• States can owe obligations to the poor without granting them corresponding rights #qualifies (0.80) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 414
• Neoliberal thought framed welfare rights as contradicting rather than completing civil rights #expands (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 162
• Neoliberals framed welfare states as existential threats to individual rights and civilisation #expands (0.78)