Arguing for Basic Income: Ethical Foundations for a Radical Reform

by Philippe van Parijs

The idea of providing a basic income for all, paid to each individual without means tests or work requirements, is not a new one. But it is only in the past decade, with the emergence of a permanent underclass of unemployed, that politicians and academics have begun to argue seriously for minimum income as a route to stability in societies riven by the grotesque inequalities of modern capitalist economics. The central objection to basic income is there is a widespread feeling that a basic income would be unfair because hard workers would be exploited by loafers. In these pages, a group of specialists describe the type of society in which unconditional income would be legitimate. In so doing they question and clarify some of the central principles of modern political philosophy. The contributors are John Baker, Brian Barry, Alan Carling, Michael Freeden, Robert Goodin, André Gorz, Bill Jordan, Richard Norman, Claus Offe, Guy Standing, Hillel Steiner and Philippe Van Parijs.

248 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1992

Reviews

[Emmie]

Van Parijs is maybe the most prominent writer in favor of universal basic income- withc the added bonus of actually writing well, which isn't a given in academic lit. Very readable and interesting.

[Otto Lehto · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting collection of arguments for and against basic income, from a moral and economic perspective (or rather, a plurality of perspectives). From Philippe van Parijs to André Gorz, the selection of writers is impressive, and almost every aspect of the theoretical underpinnings (or "ethical foundations") of a workable and justifiable social security - and, more specifically, of guaranteed basic income - is explored and debated.

The fact that it dates back to 1992 might suggest the book is dated; far from it. The arguments still hold, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. It is a good thing, because the book is still as relevant as back when it was released. It is a bad thing, because much of the opposition to basic income is still pretty much the same, and as strong, as it was twenty-plus years ago, which is a sign that the case for a basic income hasn't, on the whole, yet been accepted by mainstream society. So, the counter-arguments must also repeat old arguments and trod the beaten path. Luckily nowhere have the arguments been as lucidly collected into a single volume as in this book.

Neither is the proposed solution outdated: we still live in the same world of bad (i.e. morally reprehensible and market-inefficient) social safety nets. One might even say that today, more than ever, there exists a fertile ground - from a combination of increased political feasibility and a timely economic crisis - that could foster, in the collective mind of the populace and the politicians, a new kind of social welfare policy. That would be both just and market-friendly.

Indeed, Guaranteed Basic Income is still the proper solution to the much-needed welfare state overhaul of advanced industrial countries. To understand why, read the book or join the debate elsewhere.

[Jacques · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting idea - and rather convincing