Why Left Reciprocity Theories Are Inconsistent
-
José A. Noguera
The reciprocity objection is one of the most widespread criticisms against Basic Income (BI). In this article I challenge the consistency between the reciprocity principle and the preferred policy options of left reciprocity theorists. I argue that any consistent policy design for a reciprocity theory should satisfy two conditions: 1. Everyone who benefits from social resources contributes relevantly (reciprocally) to society’s efforts; and 2. Everyone who contributes relevantly to society benefits from social resources. BI is accused by reciprocity theorists of failing to satisfy Condition 1. But, surprisingly, their preferred policy pack also fails to satisfy Condition 1, and seems badly prepared to satisfy Condition 2. Significantly, left reciprocity theorists reject those options that would satisfy both conditions. I suggest that other normative values and intuitions may explain that inconsistency and indicate that the reciprocity objection to BI is wrong for principled reasons.
©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Front Matter
- Content
- From the Editors
- List of Contributors
- Research Article
- A NAFTA Dividend: A Guaranteed Minimum Income for North America
- Why Left Reciprocity Theories Are Inconsistent
- Streams, Grants and Pools: Stakeholding, Asset-Based Welfare and Convertibility
- Research Note
- Targeting Benefit Levels to Individuals or Families?
- A Monetary Reformist Road to Universal Basic Income
- Debate
- Basic Income and Labour Market Conditions: Insights from Argentina
- Basic Income and Employment in Brazil
- From Survival to Decent Employment: Basic Income Security in Namibia
- The Inconsequentiality of Employment Disincentives: Basic Income in South Africa
- Basic Income, Occupational Freedom and Antipoverty Policy
- Book Review
- Review of John W. Hughes, Major Douglas: The Policy of a Philosophy
- Review of Keith Dowding, Jurgen De Wispelaere, and Stuart White, The Ethics of Stakeholding
- Review of Guy Standing, Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America
- Review of Stuart White, The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship
Articles in the same Issue
- Front Matter
- Content
- From the Editors
- List of Contributors
- Research Article
- A NAFTA Dividend: A Guaranteed Minimum Income for North America
- Why Left Reciprocity Theories Are Inconsistent
- Streams, Grants and Pools: Stakeholding, Asset-Based Welfare and Convertibility
- Research Note
- Targeting Benefit Levels to Individuals or Families?
- A Monetary Reformist Road to Universal Basic Income
- Debate
- Basic Income and Labour Market Conditions: Insights from Argentina
- Basic Income and Employment in Brazil
- From Survival to Decent Employment: Basic Income Security in Namibia
- The Inconsequentiality of Employment Disincentives: Basic Income in South Africa
- Basic Income, Occupational Freedom and Antipoverty Policy
- Book Review
- Review of John W. Hughes, Major Douglas: The Policy of a Philosophy
- Review of Keith Dowding, Jurgen De Wispelaere, and Stuart White, The Ethics of Stakeholding
- Review of Guy Standing, Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America
- Review of Stuart White, The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship
