Akst: Pooling resources, pulling together

Daniel Akst is a member of the Newsday editorial board.

One of the many barriers to recovery from a financial crisis is that prudent people end up having to pay for the greed and stupidity of others. It's not fair. But it's inevitable.

When the federal government launches a big stimulus package, for example, it must sooner or later tax the lucky and the prudent (the only people with money) to pay for it.

Similarly, when the Federal Reserve drives interest rates down near zero to keep the economy afloat, savers find that they are earning almost nothing on their nest eggs. It's as if we imposed a tax on prior thrift, and sent the proceeds to reckless banks and profligate consumers.

Of course, some in need of help are victims of misfortune. But often it's hard to sort the culpable from the blameless. Are homeowners to blame for borrowing too much? What if they didn't understand the loan? Or got laid off? The prudent feel entitled to be resentful, but perhaps they too are merely lucky in their prudence.

Ultimately it makes no difference. There's just no getting around the need to have some people pay for others at times if we're to head off a complete economic collapse. As it turns out, that's especially problematic in America. Indeed, even before the financial crisis, Americans have been less willing than voters in other affluent countries to approve social safety-net programs.

Why? Americans traditionally believe that people's economic troubles are of their own making. In a famous study entitled "Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?," the economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote pointed out that in Europe, the poor are overwhelmingly considered unfortunate. In America, they are perceived as lazy.

The American notion that we each make our own fate is probably useful in motivating us to work hard. But it's not so helpful when there is no work.

Sadly, our racial and ethnic diversity probably makes us particularly unwilling to bail one another out. Diversity is often seen as an American strength, and there is evidence that it promotes innovation and productivity, which makes all of us richer. But the political scientist Robert Putnam has found that diversity also undermines trust, voluntarism, political engagement and community involvement.

Even members of the same ethnic group reported lower trust in more diverse areas. These findings were a source of anguish to Putnam, who struggled to see if they could be explained by other factors. But they couldn't, and other studies yield similar results. Greater diversity is linked with lower census response rates, for instance, and lower school funding -- both indicators of civic-mindedness.

America, like Long Island, is growing more ethnically and racially diverse. It is already a lot more diverse than it was a generation ago. And in all likelihood, this plays a role in our reluctance to help one another with a more extensive social safety net. As Alesina and his colleagues put it, "Racial heterogeneity within the United States is one of the most important reasons why the welfare state in America is small."

But why don't people like to help those who are different? It's not just racism. Humans probably evolved to make sharp distinctions between those in the clan and those not. Red Sox and Yankees fans do the same, regardless of race. In the long run, intermarriage may turn the American mosaic back into a melting pot.

For now, voters are more likely to support the kind of universal programs they perceive as insurance rather than welfare, which is reserved for the neediest. Social Security is an example. We pay for one another. Yet we support it anyway, because we're all in it together.