by Yannick Vanderborght | Apr 3, 2012 | Research
In this opinion piece published by the French daily Le Monde (March 6, 2012), Philippe Van Parijs (Louvain University, Hoover Chair) compares the eurozone with the United States. Inspired by the works of Martin Feldstein and others, he argues that the eurozone will only be viable at the price of increased interpersonal solidarity. This solidarity, Van Parijs argues, should take the form of a modest individual income floor funded by VAT, i.e. a so-called “Euro-Dividend”.
The piece (in French) is online at:
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/03/06/pas-d-eurozone-viable-sans-euro-dividende_1652164_3232.html
A Dutch version has been published by the Belgian daily De Morgen: https://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/2461/De-Gedachte/article/detail/1400934/2012/02/28/Geen-duurzame-euro-zonder-eurodividend.dhtml
by Yannick Vanderborght | Apr 3, 2012 | Research
This special issue of the journal Academia Juris Booklet (in Japanese) is edited by Prof. Miyamoto Taro (Faculty of Law, Hokkaido University), one of Japan’s leading expert in social security reform.
It includes one paper by Yannick Vanderborght (Louvain University and Facultés Saint-Louis Brussels) entitled ‘Universal Basic Income and the Tensions of Welfare State Reform’; and one paper by Jorgen Goul Andersen (Aalborg University) entitled ‘Evolution of activation policies in Denmark’. Both papers are in Japanese.
In his introduction, Prof. Miyamoto stresses the fact that basic income and activation policies are not incompatible, and argues that both approaches could contribute to a more inclusive social security system.
Full references: MIYAMOTO, Taro (ed.) (2010), ‘Activation or basic income. Principles of welfare reform.’ Academia Juris Booklet, issue 30. Available online at: https://www.juris.hokudai.ac.jp/~academia/booklet/booklet30.html
by Yannick Vanderborght | Apr 3, 2012 | Research
The idea of guaranteeing every member of society an unconditional basic income is one the most innovative and powerful proposals for countering our growing economic inequalities and to sustainably prevent poverty. But would this be a just thing to do? In the last few decades, debates on the ethics and economics of basic income have become increasingly sophisticated and diverse. Basic Income Reconsidered provides an up-to-date assessment of these arguments, and works out a novel contribution based on the justification of unconditional universalism. Simon Birnbaum (Stockholm University, Sweden) studies the basic income proposal, and its main rivals, through the lens of John Rawls’ theory of justice and defends a radical-liberal interpretation of Rawls’ conception. It is radical in the sense that it demands far-reaching equalization of opportunities. It is, at the same time, liberal by insisting that people must be left free to use their resource shares for a much wider range of purposes and life plans than those typically accessible through existing welfare states.
According to Philippe Van Parijs, Birnbaum’s new book is “one of the most insightful and comprehensive treatments so far of the ethical foundations of radical welfare reform”.
Full references: BIRNBAUM, Simon (2012), Basic Income Reconsidered. Social Justice, Liberalism, and the Demands of Equality, New York: Palgrave Macmillan (“Exploring the basic income guarantee” series).
For further information, see the publisher’s page at: https://us.macmillan.com/basicincomereconsidered/SimonBirnbaum
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 31, 2012 | Research, The Indepentarian
Palgrave Macmillan, part of the Macmillan Group of publishers, is a global academic publisher of textbooks, journals, monographs, professional, and reference works. For several years now, the publisher been putting together a book series on the basic income guarantee. The new series, “Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee,” has released its first two books, Basic Income Reconsidered: Social Justice, Liberalism, and the Demands of Equality by Simon Birnbaum and Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model, edited By Karl Widerquist and Michael Howard (see the Recent Publications section below). Birnbaum’s book makes a social justice argument for basic income. Widerquist and Howard’s book considers the Alaska Dividend as model for basic income policies.
The series editors are Karl Widerquist, Associate Professor in philosophy at SFS-Qatar, Georgetown University; James Bryan, Professor of Economics, Manhattanville College; and Michael A. Lewis, Associate Professor, Hunter College School of Social Work. They aim to publish two-to-three books per year initially.
Upcoming books in the series include: The Political Feasibility of the Basic Income Guarnatee edited by Richard Caputo; Basic Income in Latin America, edited by Rubén Lo Vuolo; Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform Around the World, edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael Howard; Basic Income Guarantee: The Right to Economic Security, by Allan Sheahen; and Basic Income and the Free Market: Austrian Economics and the Potential for Efficient Redistribution, edited by Guinevere Nell.
For information about books available in the series go to: https://us.macmillan.com/series/ExploringtheBasicIncomeGuarantee
If you might be interested in writing or editing a book for the series, contact Karl Widerquist <Karl@Widerquist.com>.
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 24, 2012 | Research
Basic Income Studies is the only academic journal devoted entirely to examining basic income. In October 2011 it released a special issue, edited by Daniel Mosley, entitled, “Should Libertarians Endorse Basic Income?” The debate includes the following articles:
MOSELEY, DANIEL D., “Introduction: What is Libertarianism?”
Abstract – This article introduces the special Basic Income Studies journal’s debate issue on whether libertarians should endorse a universal basic income. The article clarifies some common uses of the term “libertarianism” as it is used by moral and political philosophers. It identifies some important common features of libertarian normative theories.
MOSELEY, DANIEL D. “A Lockean Argument for Basic Income”
Abstract – Libertarians should not reject the goal of establishing a global basic income program. There are strong Lockean considerations that favor such a program. This article explains a conception of equal share left-libertarianism that is supported by the rights of full self-ownership and world ownership. It argues that an appropriately constructed basic income program would be a key institution for promoting those rights.
LAYMAN DANIEL “Locke on Basic Income.” This essay was runner-up for the 2011 BIS Essay Prize
Abstract – Perhaps the strongest attempts to derive support for basic income policy from John Locke’s political philosophy hinge on Locke’s view that the world and its resources were originally owned in common by all persons. This world ownership, many have supposed, gives all persons a natural right to equal shares of resources and thus a right to an equal basic income under conditions (like our own) in which nearly all resources have been appropriated. This reasoning betrays a misunderstanding of Locke’s conception of original world ownership and, once this understanding is corrected, it becomes clear that there is no natural right to equal shares of resources, although there is a natural right to sufficient shares. Consequently, although governments must guarantee sufficiency for their citizens, there is no Lockean reason why this guarantee must take the form of a basic income or a scheme of equal and unconditional payments.
BOETTKE, PETER J. AND ADAM MARTIN, “Taking the ‘G’ out of BIG: A Comparative Political Economy Perspective on Basic Income”
Abstract – Basic Income Guarantee proposals aim at, among other objectives, the salutary goal of providing a minimum income floor beneath which individuals cannot fall. We analyze this family of proposals through the lens of comparative political economy, arguing that politics is not an appropriate institutional environment for pursuing the end of an income floor. Once the notion of a guaranteed income is cast in realistic, probabilistic terms, it becomes a live question whether the market or the polity can better secure a Basic Income. Actual markets must be compared to real-world political processes rather than idealized policy proposals in order to ascertain their desirability. Drawing on the extant literature on the failure of political processes to realize the goals of other redistributive programs, we argue that Basic Income proposals likewise ignore politics as practiced and are thus equally subject to critiques both of their means-ends coherence and their vulnerability to political opportunism.
ZWOLINSKI, MATT, “Classical Liberalism and the Basic Income”
Abstract – This article provides a brief overview of the relationship between libertarian political theory and the Basic Income (BI). It distinguishes between different forms of libertarianism and argues that at least one form, classical liberalism, is compatible with and provides some grounds of support for BI. A classical liberal BI, however, is likely to be much smaller than the sort of BI defended by those on the political left. And there are both contingent-empirical and principled-moral reasons for doubting that the classical liberal case for BI will be ultimately successful.
MUNGER, MICHAEL C. “Basic Income Is Not an Obligation, But It Might Be a Legitimate Choice”
Abstract – A distinction is made between libertarian destinations and libertarian directions. Basic income cannot be part of a truly libertarian state unless it could be accomplished entirely through voluntary donations. But basic income is an important step in a libertarian direction because it improves core values such as self-ownership, liberty, and efficiency of transfers while reducing coercion and increasing procedural fairness. Practical approaches to achieving basic income are compared to proposals by Milton Friedman and Charles Murray.
POWELL, BRIAN K. “Two Libertarian Arguments for Basic Income Proposals”
Abstract – For those familiar only with libertarians on the economic right, it seems obvious that libertarians will oppose basic income proposals. However, there are a variety of ways to argue for basic income proposals from within a “left” or “egalitarian” libertarian framework. In this article I argue that such a framework ought to be preferred to the alternative right-libertarian framework. Then I look at a simple left-libertarian argument for basic income proposals that is inspired by Thomas Paine and Henry George, and at another, more complex, argument offered by Phillipe Van Parijs.
VALLENTYNE, PETER, “Libertarianism and the Justice of a Basic Income”
Abstract – Whether justice requires, or even permits, a basic income depends on two issues: 1. Does justice permit taxation to generate revenues for distribution to others? 2. If so, does justice require, or even permit, equal and unconditional distribution for some portion of the tax revenues? I claim the following: 1. although all forms of libertarianism reject the nonconsensual taxation of labor and the products of labor, all but radical right-libertarianism allow a kind of wealth taxation for rights over natural resources, and 2. some versions of libertarianism allow the equal and unconditional distribution of such revenues and some do not.
The October issue also includes the following book reviews:
Pérez, Jose Luis Rey, “Review of Gijs van Donselaar, The Right to Exploit: Parasitism, Scarcity, Basic Income
Vick, Andrea,, “Review of Doris Schroeder, Work Incentives and Welfare Provision: The ‘Pathological’ Theory of Unemployment”
Online at: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bis.2011.6.issue-2/issue-files/bis.2011.6.issue-2.xml
by Yannick Vanderborght | Jan 19, 2012 | Research
BIRNBAUM, Simon (2011), ‘Should surfers be ostracized? Basic income, liberal neutrality, and the work ethos’…
Neutralists have argued that there is something illiberal about linking access to gift-like resources to work requirements. The central liberal motivation for basic income is to provide greater freedom to choose between different ways of life, including options attaching great importance to non-market activities and disposable time. As argued by Philippe Van Parijs, even those spending their days surfing should be fed. This article by Simon Birnbaum (Department of Political Science, Stockholm University) examines Van Parijs’ dual commitment to a ‘real libertarian’ justification of basic income and the public enforcement of a strong work ethos, which serves to boost the volume of work at a given rate of taxation. It is argued (contra Van Parijs) that this alliance faces the neutrality objection: the work ethos will largely offset the liberal gains of unconditionality by radically restricting the set of permissible options available. A relaxed, non-obligatory ethos might avoid this implication. This view, however, is vulnerable to the structural exploitation objection: feasibility is achieved only because some choose to do necessary tasks to which most people have the same aversion. In light of these objections, the article examines whether there is a morally untainted feasibility path consistent with liberal objectives.
Full references:
BIRNBAUM, Simon (2011), ‘Should surfers be ostracized? Basic income, liberal neutrality, and the work ethos’, Politics, Philosophy, Economics, November 2011, vol. 10, no. 4, 396-419. See: https://ppe.sagepub.com/content/10/4/396.abstract
