Social State

Discussion

Justice and the Social State

(On the Differences between Market Liberalism and Social Liberalism)

From the reading notes of Michel Bauwens, 2007. Unfortunately, I cannot locate the author nor the source but the topic is interesting by itself:

The different forms of the social state are founded on different moral visions regarding social justice: they answer the question: what should citizens do for each other.

The social state made assistance to the needy obligatory, as compared to the premodern voluntary charity. Such assistance is framed as a right, but dependent on conditions, which set a guaranteed minimum. These conditions not only concern material poverty, but also human dignity. The social state therefore also insures self-esteem. An additional step is preventive: rather than helping the poor, the state should put in place systems which prevent its emergence.

Liberal doctrine agrees that the state should protect the 'negative liberties' of the citizens, and protect them from arbitrary power. But there is disagreement as to what extent the conditions of such liberties should be nurtured. Thus the contrast between market liberalism and social liberalism.

Market liberalism aims to make everyone fit for an autonomous life in the market, and is opposed to redistributive justice, as a violation of existing property. This approach is problematic for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Social liberalism wants to insure that the conditions of liberty as such, i.e. that everyone can use their freedoms equally. The approach is criticized for being slient on rights that are not related to freed, but to the equality of justice.

Thus it is important to integrate the egalitarian principle. But the principle is not absolute, and requires a respect for difference. Some persons may need more than others. Egalitarian liberalism aims to create the equality of conditions, but accepts unequal treatment which results from personal choices. Non-deserved handicaps need to be compensated however.

Initiating a Right to Income

J.L. Ferry:

The 'passive' social state could no longer respond to the illimited demands for redistribution. Hence, 2 answers emerge as a response to the crisis:

1) the neoliberal 'conservative revolution', i.e. the privatization of social insurance

2) the neo-socialist 'workfare' response, which is conditioned on a active response from the recipients, but offer help in achieving it

Both approaches converge by their appeal to strengthen the conditionality of assistance.

But the two visions also diverge:

- a focus on the flexibilization towards the global market

- a belief in the possibility in full employment.

But in the context of delocalization and automatization, these are illusions.

Ferry proposes to transform 'ex post' redistribution, in a 'ex ante' securitization of autonomy.

There are two types of justification for such a unconditional income:

- the moral justification: a dignified existence cannot be dependent on a imperfect marketplace

- from the point of view of the good life: to provide for a stabilized moral life.

The social income must follow these principles:

1) primary

2) unconditional

3) universal

4) substantial

5) irrevocable

Seen from the angle of the past, the income is a gift from the civilizational build-up, a rent for all (the return of a debt).

Seen from the future, it opens a creditline as investment in a new quaternary sector consisting of non-mechanizable activities. It would have a personal aspect (intellectual, manual or affective expertise), as well as a socializing one. This sector would be autonomous in search of a economic or reputational return, and the base income is what would enable it by mitigating risk.

Ferry foresees a role for the banking system. Why ? Because, while the fiscal system needs balance, the credit-based banking system need only to have a fraction of the created money, as reserve.

Peter Ulrich on Civilizing the Market Economy

Peter Ulrich:

The article starts from a polemic in Germany: though the social democrats have been catering to neoliberal demands, it's never enough to have employers actually create jobs. The problem is no longer productivity or efficiency.

Rather, the focus should now be on the social consequences of a highly productive economy. Neoliberal competition is not the solution, but what causes the social problems. What matters is the management of the consequences thereof, the re-integration of the economy in society.

Contemporary Swiss liberals no longer defend their civil state, but have started opposing freedom and equality and blame the costs the latter imposes on the state, while blaming the state. But rather than just defending the state, progressive forces should start from the notion of civil society, and rethink the concept of freedom.

This concept contains two principles:

1) the equal right to liberty, i.e. political equality

2) this freedom must be real: it cannot be restrained by economic lack, thus requiring a social state.

The focus must change from compensation assistance, to emancipatory policies which insure dignity in a priori fashion.

The just society must allow its dignified members to autonomously pursue their life's project, but this is hindered by the structural bias of the market, which favors the holders of capital. This means that market forces must be civilized and subsumed to the civil rights of the citizens. We need to develop a third generation of socio-economic rights!

(Generation 1 was the right of persons, Generation 2 were the civic political rights)

In the end, a dignified life is only possible through non-conditional assistance, i.e. a univeral allowance. It can be implemented gradually until it reaches a balance (too high and there is no motivation to join the market, too low and it does not resolve the unemployment crisis).