CityNews
What can be an empathic (Stage 5) solution to the problems of homelessness?
Homelessness has been an issue for many cities in the world’s most socio-culturally advanced countries. Officials in these countries have had no clue how to solve the problem except to clear the streets by driving the homeless out, after which they would return. The irony is that people seem more generous toward stray cats and dogs to provide shelter for them.
We can imagine how other countries in the lower tier of socio-cultural development would also have issues with homelessness. However, there are some surprising findings from some collectivist countries.
However, this approach is challenging to implement in an individualist culture or country, seeking freedom as a core value. For example, even among Asian countries with relatively low homeless populations, Japan considered an individualist country among Asians, has many older adults dying without anyone noticing their time of death.
America is challenged by the conflict between two social values—people’s right to freedom and their right to a quality life.
The 5 stage solution, according to my model, involves an empathic approach to the problem. In other words, studying and understanding the emotional and socio-cultural state is the first step before embarking on any project to solve the issue.
Since every city’s homeless population may have its own unique reasons for being homeless in addition to more general causes such as mental health issues and addiction, each homeless population must be approached with the mindset of a new learning opportunity for policymakers.
Considering the homeless population as an ingroup family, we can approach each homeless person or family by imagining how any caring and concerned family would solve the issue if one of their family members were out on the street.
Before we can understand the status and condition of each homeless person, the critical step is to approach them as a part of the larger ingroup under the wings of care of the social system, which is the 5-stage approach. These can be done by the social workers or any other civil servants hired by the government who would like to participate in the project of including the homeless in our family.
Another stage 5 approach can be rewarding companies or states through public recognition and appreciation and letting them compete among them. In this effort, the government needs to lead those companies toward the stage 5 spirit of community building. The government in America has been leading the social climate, believing no companies will be interested in the welfare of the community unless monetary or tax incentives are offered. In other words, the pessimistic prophecy about the voluntary participation by American companies in social issues such as homelessness made by the government in America has been helping it to be fulfilled the way they have believed. Calling tax obligation as paying tax to Uncle Sam has been another example of the government’s assumption that no citizens will want to pay tax voluntarily.
In an advanced socio-cultural stage such as Stage 5, giving financial rewards such as tax breaks is unnecessary, as in Stage 2 culture, since citizens and companies are willing to collaborate or participate in the homeless project out of their empathic community concern.
Therefore, we need to apply the wisdom we can learn from the 5 stage model of compassion. Empathy involves emotional understanding of any unfortunate situation, even those considered outgroup members as part of the bigger family group. According to the 5-stage theory, Finland, in the stage 5 category, has been an excellent example of successfully implementing the policy to eradicate homelessness from the street.
The issue of homelessness cannot be resolved in a society or culture that values individual achievement or freedom more than sympathy or empathy. We need the paradigm shift from apathy or pity from valuing competition and achievement in Stage 2 or indifference from valuing individual freedom in Stage 4 to sympathy by valuing harmony among citizens in Stage 3 or empathy to share community concern in Stage 5.
Empathy over freedom can help us understand that the problem of homelessness happened because of the breakdown of our family system due to the emphasis on individual responsibility and discipline over empathy. In many individualist countries, family members are not interested in knowing where and in what condition their adult members live once they move out of their family system, regardless of whether they are emotionally and mentally ready to be independent and responsible.
We can learn the wisdom from Stage 1 cultures or countries where the problem of homelessness is immediately addressed and solved as a family issue under authoritarian leadership, as in Asian countries such as Bhutan, Kazakhstan, or Thailand, even if individual freedom is sacrificed. In these family-oriented countries, though the entire family may starve as a family unit, they may not allow any member left to starve without being noticed and intervened by a family member. Some countries, such as South Korea, have implemented these individualized approaches toward the indigent elderly population to check to prevent their death without being known to anybody.
The advantage of utilizing Stage 5 wisdom in tackling the problem of homelessness is to incorporate the family values of inclusiveness using Stage 5 compassion, i.e., empathy, to the situation without sacrificing the freedom we have upheld to reach the current Stage 4. The difference in the approaches between Stage 1 and Stage 5 cultures is that while Stage 1 culture may need to sacrifice their freedom and privacy to be included as a family, the Stage 5 culture can satisfy the needs for both freedom and quality of life with the use of empathy through education and persuasion by the leadership.
| Country | Homeless (avg. day) | Data year | Homeless per 10k | Unsheltered per 10k | Main article, other notes |
| Liechtenstein | 0 | 2004[40] | 0 | ||
| Jordan | 0 | 2010[37] | 0 | ||
| 2017[38] | |||||
| Bhutan | 0 | 2015[8] | 0 | 20 | |
| Japan | 3,992 | 2020[36] | 0.3 | Homelessness in Japan | |
| Thailand | 2,700 | 2020[59] | 0.4 | ||
| Kazakhstan | 5,500 | 2020[39] | 0.6 | ||
| Iran | 15,000 | 2015[32] | 1.9 | ||
| South Korea | 11,340 | 2016[55] | 2 | ||
| Hong Kong | 1,800 | 2018[28] | 2.4 | ||
| Switzerland | 2,200 | 2022[58] | 2.55 | Homelessness in Switzerland | |
| Russia | 64,000 | 2010[52] | 4 | Homelessness in Russia | |
| Spain | 30,000 | 2021[56] | 6.4 | Homelessness in Spain | |
| Grenada | 68 | 2011 | 6.4 | 6.4[24] | Homeless in the national census seems to mean unsheltered. High variance after hurricanes. |
| Costa Rica | 3,387 | 2020[13] | 6.6 | ||
| Romania | 15,000 | 2004[51] | 7 | ||
| Norway | 3,909 | 2016[45] | 7 | ||
| Croatia | 3,000 | 2018[14] | 7 | ||
| Chile | 14,013 | 2019[6] | 7.4 | ||
| Portugal | 8,209 | 2020[50] | 8 | 3.3 | Homelessness in Portugal |
| Poland | 30,330 | 2019[49] | 8 | ||
| Italy | 50,724 | 2016[35] | 8.4 | ||
| Turkey | 70,000 | 2021[61][62][63] | 8.5 | ||
| Finland | 4,886 | 2020[17] | 8.8 | 0.1[18] | Homelessness in Finland |
| Canada | 25,000-30,000 | 2021[11] | 10 | Homelessness in Canada | |
| Brazil | 222,000 | 2020[9] | 10 | ||
| Iceland | 349 | 2017[13] | 10.3 | ||
| Denmark | 6,431 | 2019[13] | 11 | Homelessness in Denmark | |
| New Zealand | 5,031 | 2006[43] | 12 | 3.1 | Homelessness in New Zealand |
| India | 1,800,000 | 2020[30] | 12.6 | Homelessness in India | |
| Lithuania | 4,024 | 2017[41] | 14.1 | ||
| Estonia | 2,000 | 2018 | 15.2 | Citation/website link is blocked. | |
| Ireland | 8,014 | 2021[33] | 16 | Homelessness in Ireland | |
| Vietnam | 162,000 | 2020[4] | 16.6 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| United States | 580,466 | 2020[69] | 17.6 | 5.9 | Homelessness in the United States |
| Netherlands | 32,000 | 2021[42] | 18 | Homelessness in the Netherlands | |
| China | 2,579,000 | 2011[12] | 18 | Homelessness in China | |
| Slovenia | 3,799 | 2019[13] | 18.3 | ||
| Czech Republic | 23,830 | 2019[15] | 22 | ||
| Austria | 22,580 | 2019[6] | 25.4 | ||
| Serbia | 20,000 | 2017[53] | 28.5 | ||
| Germany | 237,000 | 2018[22] | 28.6 | 4.9 | Homelessness in Germany |
| *Does not include “around 441,000 asylum seekers and refugees in temporary accommodation”. Only 4.9/10000 people are without any shelter | |||||
| Israel | 25,000 | 2019[34] | 29 | Homelessness in Israel | |
| Hungary | 30,000 | 2018[29] | 30.7 | Homelessness in Hungary | |
| Ghana | 100,000 | 2020 | 32.9 | Citation/website link is blocked. | |
| Haiti | 37,867 | 2018[26] | 34 | ||
| Latvia | 6,877 | 2017[13] | 35.3 | ||
| Mexico | 456,000 | 2020[4] | 35.4 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Sweden | 34,000 | 2011[57] | 36 | Homelessness in Sweden | |
| South Africa | 200,000 | 2015[54] | 36 | Homelessness in South Africa | |
| Greece | 40,000 | 2016[23] | 37.1 | Homelessness in Greece | |
| In citation, the population figure is found under Table 12. | |||||
| Luxembourg | 2,059 | 2014[13] | 37.5 | ||
| France | 300,000 | 2020[19][20] | 45 | 4.5[21] | Homelessness in France |
| Australia | 100,568 | 2016[5] | 49.1 | Homelessness in Australia | |
| United Kingdom | 365,535 | 2019 [65][66][67][68] | 54.4 | 0.9 | Homelessness in the United Kingdom |
| Kenya | 394,000 | 2020[4] | 73.3 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 308,070 | 2020[4] | 117 | ||
| Indonesia | 3,000,000 | 2004[31] | 136 | Homelessness in Indonesia | |
| Uganda | 500,000 | 2014[64] | 143 | ||
| Mali | 332,700 | 2020[4] | 164 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Ukraine | 734,240 | 2020[4] | 168 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Chad | 342,680 | 2020[4] | 209 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Togo | 100,000 | 1999[60] | 211 | ||
| Peru | 700,000 | 2017[47] | 223 | ||
| Ethiopia | 2,693,000 | 2020[4] | 234 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Mozambique | 769,000 | 2020[4] | 246 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Iraq | 1,224,000 | 2020[4] | 304 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Bangladesh | 5,000,000 | 2019[7] | 307 | ||
| Guatemala | 475,000 | 2012[25] | 315 | ||
| Burkina Faso | 700,000 | 2020[10] | 335 | ||
| Cameroon | 1,033,000 | 2020[4] | 389 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Libya | 278,000 | 2020[4] | 405 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Philippines | 4,500,000 | 2018[48] | 424 | ||
| Congo DR | 5,332,000 | 2020[4] | 595 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Sudan | 2,730,000 | 2020[4] | 623 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Azerbaijan | 735,000 | 2020[4] | 725 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Georgia | 304,010 | 2020[4] | 760 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Zimbabwe | 1,200,000 | 2013[70] | 848 | ||
| Pakistan | 20,000,000 | 2018[46] | 943 | ||
| Colombia | 4,943,000 | 2020[4] | 971 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Afghanistan | 4,660,000 | 2020[4] | 1180 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Egypt | 12,000,000 | 2020 [16] | 1200 | Homelessness in Egypt | |
| Honduras | 1,000,000 | 2013[27] | 1235 | ||
| Yemen | 3,858,000 | 2020[4] | 1294 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| South Sudan | 1,542,000 | 2020[4] | 1378 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Central African Republic | 686,200 | 2020[4] | 1421 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Nigeria | 24,400,000 | 2007[44] | 1658 | ||
| Somalia | 2,968,000 | 2020[4] | 1867 | Internally displaced, per IDMC | |
| Syria | 6,568,000 | 2020[4] | 3753 | Internally displaced, per IDMC |
Wikipedia (2022). List of countries by homeless population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population