Democratizing Citizenship: Some Advantages of a Basic Income

Abstract

If the focus of interest is democratization, including women's freedom, a basic income is preferable to stakeholding. Prevailing theoretical approaches and conceptions of individual freedom, free-riding seen as a problem of men's employment, and neglect of feminist insights obscure the democratic potential of a basic income. An argument in terms of individual freedom as self-government, a basic income as a democratic right, and the importance of the opportunity not to be employed shows how a basic income can help break both the link between income and employmentand the mutual reinforcement of the institutions of marriage, employment, and citizenship.

Whatever happened to Work: from the centrality of shoes, ships and sealing-wax to the problems posed by flying pigs

“…Guaranteeing that every person on reaching a certain age will be able to draw on a minimum income both adds on to and radically revises the idea of citizenship as a collective concept. It might not provide the famous "level playing field" but it at least would provide the great majority of people, both men and, most importantly, women (Pateman, 2004) with a different starting point for answering the question: "what do you want to be when you grow up? ".…”

All Things Considered, Should Feminists Embrace Basic Income?

“…First, it ignores the downside of such schemes. Unlike means-tested benefits, participation income does not stigmatise recipients, but it certainly stigmatises non-recipients, many of whom may engage in forms of care work that are too invisible or unusual to be reflected in bureaucratic rules (Pateman, 2004). The bureaucratic surveillance involved in assessing whether someone qualifies for participation income is itself a form of power inequality that we should resist, not embrace (De Wispelaere and Stirton, 2007).…”

“…The bureaucratic surveillance involved in assessing whether someone qualifies for participation income is itself a form of power inequality that we should resist, not embrace (De Wispelaere and Stirton, 2007). Moreover in traditional households, participation income would reinforce the idea that care is the woman's "job" and would thus legitimate male withdrawal from care work (Pateman, 2004). Precisely because basic income is not conditional on identifying worthwhile occupations, it can serve not as a payment for care work but as a universal support for care work, providing everyone with a more effective opportunity to engage in it, whether by partial or complete withdrawal from the labour market.…”

Core Support for the New Economy

“…7 http://pubs.lib.umn.edu/ijps/vol4/iss1/7 childcare, household management, etc., receives no direct monetary compensation when it is performed by family members, while only the well-to-do can afford to put this work into the market context, hiring nannies, cooks, or housecleaners. While some basic income proposals recognize the greater need for support in households with young children (Pateman, 2004;Baker, 2008;Robeyns, 2014), the point is too rarely made that such income is a reward for socially necessary -indeed essentialwork, rather than a handout.How the Core Support proposal is presented is important, for two reasons. One is that it emphasizes the value of the now unpaid work that is done in households, which is essential for human thriving and surviving.…”

“…While some basic income proposals recognize the greater need for support in households with young children (Pateman, 2004;Baker, 2008;Robeyns, 2014), the point is too rarely made that such income is a reward for socially necessary -indeed essentialwork, rather than a handout.…”