My question is; when a government introduces a policy that may benefit the country in the long run but puts immediate pressure on on people’s daily lives, what responsibility should it have towards those who cannot cope barely afford the transition?
IMO, it's as simple as this, a policy that is supposed to affect everybody in the long term shouldn't be mostly affecting those with the thinnest margins.
Take a look at France in 2018. The government hiked fuel taxes, in part for climate issues, and this is a reasonable objective. However, it affected rural folks who relied on their cars and who didn’t have a choice, and it triggered the Yellow Vests protests. The government ended up suspending the increase. It was the same in Ecuador in 2019, when they eliminated fuel subsidies. Big protests followed, and the decree was withdrawn less than two weeks later.
Meanwhile, the Philippines 2018 tax reform (TRAIN law) included unconditional cash transfers for millions of poor households. Not perfect, as prices continued to increase and critics complained about a lack of support, but at least it included the concept of paying the poor to begin with.
My lesson, the good kind of reform is gradual, compensates people in advance, and offers real alternatives, not just a tax bill. Otherwise even a good policy goes awry, and no one benefits from it.
