by Citizens' Income Trust | May 29, 2012 | Opinion
Tony Fitzpatrick, Welfare Theory: An introduction to the theoretical debates in social policy, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, xvi + 241 pp, pbk 0 230 27202 6, £19.99
The map with which political philosophers and social theorists are concerned overlaps, to a considerable extent, with the particular territory occupied by social policy. This book starts from the premise that you cannot properly understand the one unless you understand the other. (p.xiv)
This accessible and thoroughly researched book is also a vindication of Fitzpatrick’s conviction that ‘welfare theory’ – the philosophy of social policy – is a discipline in its own right. Welfare theory draws on both ‘social theory (the philosophy of sociology and social science) and political theory (the philosophy of politics and government)’ (p.xv), but it orders things in its own way and develops its own emphases. It is not insignificant that the first chapter is entitled ‘wellbeing’, now a focal concept for welfare theorists and social policy makers.
The book is structured around a number of concepts: equality, liberty, citizenship, community, state, power, poverty, society, and class. Fitzpatrick explores the histories of these ideas, the different ways in which they have been understood, and ‘recent developments’. Throughout, there is reference to social policy. For instance: the National Health Service’s achievements are judged against a variety of definitions of equality (p.39), the distribution and redistribution of income is the field on which a discussion of the relationship between equality and liberty is constructed (ch.3), new forms of ‘deliberative democracy’ are related to the idea of ‘democracy’ (p.79), and the chapter on ‘state, power and poverty’ is largely driven by the history and current state of the UK’s welfare state, the detail of current social policy, and measured outcomes (ch.5). The first three of these relationships fit the three types of relationship which Fitzpatrick lists in his introduction: ‘assessment’ (of practice by theory), ‘explanation’ (of practice by theory), and ‘reform’ (of practice by theory). But we can see that there is also a fourth relationship: practical policy’s influence on welfare and its concepts. To take a particular example: Beveridge’s ‘contributory’ and ‘social assistance’ welfare state was largely driven by previous government-supported co-operative insurance provision and by the Elizabethan Poor Law. The real-world relationship between welfare theory and social policy is a circular one, with each affecting the other. Fitzpatrick’s book is a text-book for students ( – the first edition was written for that purpose, and this second edition has benefited from the first edition’s use for that purpose), so we would expect it to concentrate on the ‘welfare theory forms social policy’ side of the relationship; but in his ‘concluding remarks’ Fitzpatrick suggests that
it is often necessary to take social policy themes and issues into account when discussing social and political theory. Social policy students do not simply debate how to translate principles into practical reality. Instead, they ask distinctive questions that enhance the method and assumptions of social philosophy. To explore social and political thought without substantial reference to the battles fought over social policies is to miss a key feature in the development of modern societies. (p.211).
Following the chapters on particular concepts, chapter 7 is entitled ‘ideologies’. Here Fitzpatrick describes the Radical Right, Conservatism, Social Democracy, Marxism, and Feminism. (Descriptions of the first two and of Marxism are followed by ‘criticisms’; descriptions of social democracy and of feminism are not.)
Chapter 8 is on ‘identities’: a recognition that social policy is often driven by the ‘recognition’ of an ‘identity’ (for instance, disability). Chapter 9 is on ‘globalization’, and shows how a global economy constrains national social policy; and this chapter in particular shows how economic policy has influenced both the idea of globalization and changes in social policy. The final chapter, on ‘global justice and environmentalism’, is new to this edition, and contains a useful taxonomy of types of global justice.
Finally, Fitzpatrick suggests that the utopian and the pragmatist need each other. The truth of this in relation to our tax and benefits system is obvious. Maybe it’s time for a second edition of his Freedom and Security, his book about a Citizen’s Income: a book which exemplifies the complex relationship between welfare theory and social policy which the book under review is all about.
by Yannick Vanderborght | Apr 5, 2012 | Research
In order to celebrate its 10th anniversary, Red Renta Básica (Spain’s basic income national network, officially recognized by BIEN) has coedited (with the publishing house Montesinos) a volume with chapters written by some of its members and friends:
Jordi Arcarons (“Financing Basic Income”), Borja Barragué (“Basic Income and the Bank of Justice”), Sara Berbel (“An Income for Gender Equality”), David Casassas and Jurgen De Wispelaere (“Basic Income and Social Emancipation: Principles, Designs, and Coalitions”), Mònica Clua-Losada (“Basic Income on the Political Agenda: The Catalan Experience”), Rubén Lo Vuolo, Pablo Yanes, and Daniel Raventós (“Economic Crisis, Targeted Schemes, and Basic Income”), Gorka Moreno (“What Does Basic Income Contribute to the Debate on Citizenship? A Synthesis Proposal”), Francisco Ramos (“Active Employment Policies and Basic Income: Substitutive or Complementary Solutions?”), Daniel Raventós (“What Do We Mean When We Say That Basic Income Is (or Is Not) Just? On Liberalisms and Republicanisms”), Sergi Raventós (“Crisis, Mental Health and Basic Income”), José Luis Rey (“Basic Income and 21st Century Democracy”), Luis Sanzo (“Basic Income and Social Protection in Spain”), and Camila Vollenweider (“Employee Domestic Labor and Gender Equity: An Inescapable Problem for the Feminist Discussion on Basic Income”).
Full references: CASASSAS, D. and RAVENTÓS, D. (eds.) (2011), La renta básica en la era de las grandes desigualdades [Basic income in the age of great inequalities], Barcelona: Montesinos, 343 pp, ISBN: 978-84-15216-27-8.
For further information: https://www.editorial-montesinos.com/detalleLibro.php?idLibro=284.
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 Yannick Vanderborght | Mar 26, 2012 | Opinion
Most readers here will agree, that Basic Income would be a good way to solve many problems which exist in our societies, but why is the idea not supported by the populace? Even worse! It seems there is a strong resistance against.
Isn’t it strange, that an idea, which suggest to benefit every individual, cannot find broad support? For instance: more than 311 million people in the United States live, but the USBIG-Network has only around 300 Facebook-fans and roughly 250 official members – and not all of them are from the States. In other countries the situation is similar. The portion of people who are active BI-supporters seems to be in the scope of one thousand or even less…
Of course, we could say, quantity does not equal quality – it is better to have some hundreds of high qualified scholars than millions of followers believing in their personal advantage. But this view misjudges the reality of our democratic systems with their majority voting.
At all times every great thought, every good idea which shook the world later, had to walk a hard and sometimes dangerous way against existing resistances. But the democratic system makes it even more difficult. While to contradict a monarch requires some courage, to disagree with a current opinion, the risk of being considered as insane or in the worst case, to be banned, extends the needed courage ad infinitum.
In the past, Basic Income had many more supporters – for instance in the time of Martin Luther King and the citizens’ movement of the 1960s. But we still have nowhere a country-wide Basic Income scheme and maybe hence only orthodox believers kept the idea alive.
Does it mean we who support Basic Income are all brave and open-minded heroes, because we fight the good fight? Or does it rather mean, we are only too dense to find a way of making people more interested in the idea?
I think, this does not reflect the truth. Of course, it would be great to have catalysts in terms of people like Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Lady Gaga or George Clooney who are publicly known for their social commitments and who represent a kind of authority for many youths.
But globally people are searching for alternatives to the current systems. And the number of BI-supporters grows slowly, but steadily. More and more supporters suggest how to bring the idea into the general public, out of the often so called “ivory tower of science.”
One of the main problems is that there is no specific target group which is essential for marketing strategies. Another problem is that those who are affected by poverty are too busy to survive. And other people can choose between countless leisure activities. Most of them do not want to think about social solutions in their rare spare-time. Much less if the idea sounds utopian and for the near future not practical. Furthermore they elected a government exactly for the reason that it would deal with such issues.
Now we could say, it is the fault of governments not implementing a Basic Income scheme. But frankly speaking, governments are not elected to make trials. And there should be no doubt that Basic Income for all would change a lot; it might even cause people to begin to rethink the purpose of their life.
Further I want to question the necessity for governments to promote Basic Income. They got the mandate to maintain their respective society and not to affect the life of millions of potential voters.
As long as their is no insight into the necessity of the end of Basic Income, there is no reason to support this idea. The strongest resistance against Basic Income is the current situation which is considered as unchangeable and while we are powerless it is not wanted, but accepted with all its injustice.
However, the more people get acquainted with alternatives, often caused by their own circumstances, the more they question the given condition.
Maybe we should take this quote from Chekov to heart:
It is unfortunate that we try to solve the simplest questions cleverly, and therefore make them unusually complicated. We should seek a simple solution.
