The commitment of states to welfare can be seen as a direct corollary of their claim to sovereign authority. ‘State sovereignty’, an international commission argued, ‘implies responsibility’.

This is a defensible moral position, but too many states have bent or broken moral codes in the past for references to moral obligations to be altogether compelling or convincing.

Some actions might perhaps be interpreted as an act of self-interest by governments. ‘Well organised states and wise princes’, Machiavelli tells us, ‘have always taken great pains not to make the nobles despair, and to satisfy the people and keep them content’. Clientelism, and support of the powerful, can partly explain an initial acceptance of responsibility: some governments direct services mainly to people who they expect to support them. The operation of democracy offers another partial explanation: accountability to an electorate can be seen as a mechanism that requires governments to be responsive to their citizenry. Both of these might be interpreted in terms of the pursuit of self-interest by the rulers, and in that respect they may seem to be similar motivations. The material difference between them lies in how many citizens are included.