Reconsidering the reciprocity objection to unconditional basic income

Abstract

This article reconsiders the reciprocity objection to unconditional basic income based on the idea that reciprocity is not only a duty but a limiting condition on other duties. If the objection were that unconditionality invites people to neglect contributory obligations arising from a duty of reciprocity, people could ask to opt out of eligibility for the benefit so as to avoid liability to contribution. While market failure provides a reason for mandatory participation in social insurance, it will not justify the generous (if conditional) income support egalitarians favour. To sustain the objection, we need to think of reciprocity a limit on duties of assistance and fair-sharing. In this form, the objection resists the inherited assets response, which holds that we can’t have a duty reciprocate benefits we receive from nature or from previous generations.

Participation Income

“…The social protection schemes are based on an efficiency rationale, where there are large gains to be reaped from pooling risks, and individuals may not be able to pool risks on a purely voluntary basis (Lister 2020). The benefit of pooling risks is linked to economic uncertainty.…”

“…As for private insurance, the asymmetries of information between consumers and providers lead to adverse selection. Since consumers of insurance are better off in anticipating their likelihood of needing it than the providers, those with greater need will want to purchase more insurance while those better off may want to opt out from the schemes (Lister 2020). The insurance companies know this, but they do not know who these riskier consumers are.…”

“…The efficiency rationale of public social protection schemes is based on mandatory enrolment (Lister 2020). You can refuse to claim social assistance, but you cannot effectively demand the government stop spending your tax receipts on social assistance.…”

“…According to Lister (2020), within the public risk pool, the receipt of protection from involuntary economic hardship counts as a benefit that ought to be reciprocated.…”

Lowering the Consumption of Animal Products without Sacrificing Consumer Freedom – A Pragmatic Proposal

“…In this paper, we opted against a discussion in terms of animal welfare, as this political category is too elastic, and in the usage of most industry representatives certainly far too weak. 12 According to the reciprocity objection (see, e.g., White, 1997;Lister, 2020), an unconditional basic income violates the normative principle of reciprocity in that it allows some people to obtain an income without requiring them to contribute to society in return. In our proposal, the basic income is constrained to, and motivated by, a particular societal goal: the reduction of consumption of animal products, which is in turn motivated by the recognition of animal rights and ecological concerns.…”