In the present day, the consequences of COVID-19 that have substantially contributed to economic instability, unemployment, poverty, and the deterioration of the quality of people’s lives require efficient responsive actions. That is why G-7 proposed measures to improve people’s lives, prevent climate change, and contribute to the creation of a greener and more sustainable future. This paper will examine the Build Back Better plan and the expediency of its implementation. It will argue that although the plan supports the stability of social order through the functioning of the society’s parts, it may provoke social conflicts, increase poverty, and contribute to inequities as well. In the first part of the paper, the Build Back Better plan and its main initiatives will be described. It will be followed by the advantages of the plan and its major disadvantages from the position of several sociological theories.
The Build Back Better plan is a particular framework of a large government-funded economic revitalization promoted by G-7 for the recovery from the economic consequences of COVID-19 and the improvement of predominantly middle-class people’s lives. On the international scale, it presupposes the donation of COVID-19 vaccines to developing countries with middle and low income, commitment to the reduction of CO2 emissions, the strengthening of international trade rules, and increased taxes for large companies (Widakuswara, 2021a). Paid for by taxes from the wealthiest people and the largest corporations, the Build Back Better plan is expected to contribute to economic growth, global society’s re-design, and a more sustainable and greener future.
Although the Build Back Better plan is expected to be global in scope, initiatives in different countries will cover the same issues. First of all, it presupposes transformations in several areas, including child care and caregiving, climate, health care, and the strengthening of the middle class. For instance, large investments will be made to cut families’ spending on child care and cover essential costs, expand free education and community college training, and provide access to affordable health care services. In relation to climate initiatives, the plan includes the development of clean energy technologies and natural solutions and resilience to climate change through investments in forest management, coastal restoration, and soil conservation (Widakuswara, 2021b). In general, the plan supports sustainable growth, openness, inclusiveness, connectivity, and beneficial cooperation between nations across the globe.
On the one hand, measures proposed by the plan for the improvement and support of the society’s structure seem effective. In general, the Build Back Better plan aligns with the paradigm of functionalism based on Emile Durkheim’s works. According to it, society may be regarded as “a stable social structure, in which different institutions perform unique functions that contribute to the maintenance of the whole” (Thompson, 2016, para. 4). Subsequently, the theory of Durkheim was developed by Talcott Parsons who stated that society is organized and structured as a system on the basis of physical, social, and cultural aspects (Ormerod, 2019). This means that society is viewed as an organism in which all parts operate altogether without independence. In addition, when one part faces a crisis, others should adapt to fill the void. The functionalist theory states that society is composed of various social institutions, including government, economy, education, media, religion, and family, designed to fill various needs. They exist as they have vital roles in social functioning, evolving when necessary and dying away when roles are no longer essential.
From the perspective of functionalism, in a prevalent number of societies across the globe, the government provides access to health care, child care, and education for children from taxes paid by families. In turn, schools and universities support children and adolescents and help them grow up and be employed in the future. Thus, they become stable tax-payers who take care of their families and societal well-being as well. These realities are supported by Khan et al. (2016), who state that education and access to health care contribute to the reduction of poverty. According to functionalism, when all parts function conjointly, they produce stability, productivity, and order. Thus, the Build Back Better plan proposes the functional scheme of how social institutions will operate to support the middle class. In addition, the functionalism is represented in the initiatives of the plan that presuppose cooperation in the case of crises. According to Turk (2021), efficient COVID-19 response implies the cooperation of multiple social elements, including patients, their families, health care providers, and policymakers. Thus, the involvement of various social institutions is essential for goal achievement and common well-being.
On the other hand, this plan and its efficiency raise several serious concerns. First of all, it presupposes integration and cooperation on the basis of common economic rules and goals. However, according to Michie and Sheeran (2021), globalization on the basis of “capitalism unleashed”, increased inequities and led to environmental, social, and economic crises (p. 114). Moreover, Michie (2020) states that globalization, trade promotion, and international economic liberalization have a negative effect on poverty and child labor in developing countries. The same issue is related to countries’ cooperation in relation to programs for the prevention of global climate change. In other words, global cooperation does not guarantee equal opportunities for countries with different potential and capacities.
At the same time, the major problem of the Build Back Better plan lies in its targeted population. In other words, this framework that aims to improve people’s well-being may be regarded as an inefficient response to multiple social issues, including unaffordable housing, underemployment, and poverty, as it does not target the most vulnerable population groups. As a matter of fact, various social institutions and government agencies, such as schools, public assistance, child welfare, or courts, are aware of this problem but cannot provide a comprehensive solution as their power is limited by their spheres. Thus, people with middle income have more opportunities to reach supportive government programs, especially while they are designed for them, while disadvantaged families are not addressed by this multi-faceted approach. During the pandemic, these inequities have become even more obvious – social isolation was easier for people with areas for walking outside, reliable fast Internet, and spacious homes in comparison with people who live in unsafe and over-crowded areas with a lack of running water and unstable Internet connection (Barneveld et al., 2020). As a result, low-income families have fewer chances to resolve other institution-related barriers in order to participate in supportive programs. Thus, the Build Back Better plan is connected with the risk to drive poverty instead of its minimization.
In addition, the Build Back Better plan may increase inequality and social tension due to targeting particular population groups and making other groups responsible for it. According to the conflict theory of Karl Marx, continuous competition between classes for limited resources is the basis of society. Conflict theory emphasizes power and domination as a source of social order instead of conformity and consensus. Thus, a group that holds power and wealth aims to keep them by any means traditionally suppressing powerless and poor classes. In addition, individuals within society try to maximize their wealth and power, conflicting with others (Egobueze & Ojirika, 2017). As previously mentioned, the Build Back Better plan aims to improve the well-being and economic opportunities of low and predominantly middle classes. In this case, the generation of financial stability of one people by the resources of others and the ignorance of the third group or the provision of unreachable opportunities for it may lead to tension and conflicts between all of them.
At the same time, the Build Back Better plan may presuppose inequities on the basis of gender. Perceiving the modern world as the dominance of hegemonic and subversive power, the feminist perspective has occurred (Levitt, 2019). It explores psychological, sexual, cultural, and interpersonal domains of gender inequities for their elimination. On the one hand, providing equal political, social, and economic rights for all people regardless of their gender is reasonable for the transformation of the future into more fair and inclusive. On the other hand, according to Boris Johnson, G-7 is “building back better, building back greener, building back fairer, and building back more equal and in a more gender-neutral and perhaps more feminine way” (Widakuswara, 2021, para. 4). Thus, prioritizing one population group on the basis of gender, the Build Back Better plan does not reduce gender inequality but contributes to it. According to Barneveld et al. (2020), while women were heavily affected by COVID-19 economically, men were affected physically constituting the major population of mortality and morbidity rates. Therefore, the plan should be reviewed and improved to address the individual needs of all people to promote equality and equal rights.
Proposed by G-7, the Build Back Better plan may be defined as a particular framework of measures for the prevention of economic instability caused by COVID-19, poverty, and climate change. From a personal perspective, its implementation is generally a good idea as it aligns with the principles of functionalism that states that the interaction of all parts within society leads to its stability and order. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the positive impact of collective activities and cooperation on people’s well-being and the improvement of living conditions (Child, 2021). All in all, the coordinated efforts of people from different countries to work altogether for the achievement of common goals in social and economic spheres should be implemented.
At the same time, this plan should be improved as its current initiatives may contribute to the growth of poverty instead of eliminating it and cause social conflicts and inequalities due to a lack of equal opportunities for social classes. In general, the Build Back Better plan targets middle-class people and women to a greater degree, leaving a wealthy class responsible for initiatives’ successful implementation and limiting the opportunities of disadvantaged individuals to access supportive measures. In addition, globalization does not guarantee equal distribution and equal efforts and may lead to benefits for ones on the basis of others’ labor. In this case, the plan should be reviewed to include initiatives that will be beneficial for all population groups regardless of their socioeconomic status. For instance, it should address the underlying reasons of inequities. For this, common measures will be inapplicable – the needs of every population group should be considered individually. Thus, with particular improvements, the Build Back Better plan should be implemented.
References
Barneveld, K., Quinlan, M., Kriesler, P., Junor, A., Baum, F., Chowdhury, A., Junankar, R., Clibborn, S., Flanagan, F., Wright, C. F., Friel, S., Halevi, J., & Rainnie, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons on building more equal and sustainable societies. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 31(2), 133-157.
Child, J. (2021). Organizational participation in post-covid society–its contributions and enabling conditions. International Review of Applied Economics, 35(2), 117-146.
Egobueze, A., & Ojirika, C. (2017). Electoral violence in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Implications for political stability. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 13(2), 1-11.
Khan, A. U., Iqbal, T., & Rehman, Z. U. (2016). Impact of human capital on poverty alleviation in district Karak, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Dialogue (Pakistan), 11(2).
Levitt, H. M. (2019). Applications of a functionalist theory of gender: A response to reflections and a research agenda. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(3), 309-316.
Michie, J. (2020). ‘Building back better’ following the global covid-19 crisis. International Review of Applied Economics, 34(6), 697-698.
Michie, J., & Sheehan, M. (2021). Building back better?International Review of Applied Economics, 35(2), 111-116.
Ormerod, R. (2020). The history and ideas of sociological functionalism: Talcott Parsons, modern sociological theory, and the relevance for OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 71(12), 1873-1899.
Thompson, K. (2016). Functionalism – An introduction. ReviseSociology.
Turk, E. (2021). International experiences with co-production and people centredness offer lessons for covid-19 responses. BMJ, 372, 1-4.
Widakuswara, P. (2021a). G-7 summit kicks off with ‘Build Back Better’ message. Voa News.
Widakuswara, P. (2021b). ‘Build Back Better World’: Biden’s counter to China’s Belt and Road. Voa News.