Suchergebnisse

"Advocated (and attacked) by commentators across the political spectrum, paying every citizen a basic income regardless of their circumstances sounds utopian. However, as our economies are transformed and welfare states feel the strain, it has become a hotly debated issue. In this compelling book, Louise Haagh, one of the world's leading experts on basic income, argues that Universal Basic Income is essential to advancing freedom and democracy in the twenty-first century. She shows that, far from being a silver-bullet that will transform or replace capitalism, or a sticking plaster that will extend it, it is a crucial element in a much broader task of constructing a democratic society that will promote human development and economic justice. She uses her unrivalled knowledge of the existing research to show how it can be implemented in a range of different contexts across the globe. This book will be essential reading for anyone who wants to get beyond the hype and properly understand one of the most important issues facing politics, economics and social policy today"--

This article argues that the COVID-19 crisis has brought to light the importance of state democratic capacities linked with humanist governance. This requires securing individuals' silent freedoms as embedded in the way "developmental" institutions that constitute social relations and well-being are governed. I argue health and well-being inequalities brought out by the crisis are but a manifestation of the way, in the context of the competition paradigm in global governance, states have become relatedly more punitive and dis-embedded from society. The answer lies in providing a more explicit defence of the features of a human development democratic state. An implication is to move democratic theory beyond the concern with redistributive and participatory features of democracy to consider foundational institutional properties of democratic deepening and freedom in society.

This article will situate public debates about – and experiments in features of – basic income within European countries in the context of welfare state crisis and change. Treating access to basic income security as a policy problem, I argue basic income policy debate highlights the need for multi-level and multifactorial analysis of public governance capacity as a key factor in driving the relationship of basic income with welfare state transformation. Drawing on the cases within this themed section, I attempt to tease out what comparatively are long-run conditionsforbasic income within state and society, and what are the political and institutional trade-offs at the current juncture. Exploring contributing determinants of governance corrosion and adaptation of public economic security structures under globalisation contributes to deepen our understanding of contemporary patterns of institutional change.

In this article, I discuss why steps towards basic income (BI) 'from within' the state are institutionally plausible in Denmark, yet this 'inside-out' transition is contested in Danish society. I argue that implementation since the 1990s of the flexicurity regime – labour flexibility with social transfers and training – has stretched the developmental tradition that historically has fed the case for broadly inclusive reforms. An 'Equality Paradox' is shaped by two relationships, between high social equality and feasibility of basic income, on the one hand, and high social equality and developmentalism, on the other. The upshot is basic income rests on developmentalism indirectly, as state-promotion of economic equality, cooperative public finance, and human development-oriented governing of core institutions all contribute to the feasibility of a BI reform. The 'Equality Paradox' explains why rising inequality and precarity in Denmark make a case for basic income within the public sector but the source of this inequality – neo-liberalism – also puts it at risk.

This essay points to an institutional account of our existential interest in work as a missing piece in welfare analysis. In contrast with social liberals in the postwar era, both liberal economic and egalitarian discourses today espouse a narrowly atomistic account of human nature and the modern economy. Therefore they are unable to take account of the institutional bases of economic development, individual autonomy and social order, and the way these connect. The essay shows that a patterning of distributional outcomes is a reality in both deregulated and densely governed capitalist economies, but that only the latter offers real scope for social and individual choice. The influence of the atomistic account on liberal egalitarian thought however has produced an unambitious, imprecise, and in the case of welfare contractualism, a coercive, account of both individual freedom and social community. What is needed is a more explicit inclusion of a temporal dimension in welfare and economic analysis and a more differentiated framework of pluralist governance.

Abstract This article critically assesses the marketization of income security, and identifies links between equality, self‐reliance and welfare reform. Marketization in emergent economies is distinguished by a strong separation between the use of insurance for the mainstream economy and relief for the poor. The impact of this model on the shaping of working lives and on market rigidity is discussed through a review of implications in the areas of subsistence, integrity interests and employment transitions. The broad faith in insurance solutions is argued to derive from a highly abstract approach to welfare reform and to result in a lack of attention to uneven and unstable markets, and to self‐government as a motive to work. Evidence of this emerges from a comparison of insurance in its more ideal form (in Chile) with modified models (Brazil and Korea). In the last two cases a developmental orientation has aided in the provision of broad‐based security. Other factors that appear to enhance the importance of direct assistance are also discussed, including aspects of state administration and labour services that limit work opportunity and individual autonomy in uneven economies. The segregated dual approach to income security is argued to be broadly deficient, but not because insurance is inherently wrong. Countries as diverse as Barbados and Denmark show that more cohesive economies are a better foundation for integrating insurance with general welfare and for income security and individual enterprise broadly conceived.