scholarly journals Which Way Forward for Economic Security: Basic Income or Public Services?

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Malleson ◽  
David Calnitsky
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Social Stigma ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Basic Income ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
The Rich

Abstract Economic insecurity is an endemic problem across the rich countries of the Global North. What is the solution? This paper compares and contrasts two major proposals: the conventional welfare state package of public services and regulations versus a basic income. By comparing and contrasting these systems in three different contexts – a “nightwatchman” context, a neoliberal context, and a social democratic context – and carefully modeling the monetary equivalence between them, we are able to provide a more precise and compelling comparison of the two systems than has yet been accomplished. We evaluate the two systems on the basis of economic security as well as a number of other important criteria, including the economic well-being of oppressed groups, power, carbon emissions, the gender division of labor, free time, social stigma, and transformative potential. We find that without a welfare state background, services and regulations are generally preferable for most vulnerable groups. However, as the welfare state develops, into a neoliberal or a social democratic context, basic income becomes a generally superior option.

Social Democratic Capitalism

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lane Kenworthy
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Public Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Human Flourishing ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Democratic Capitalism ◽  
High Employment ◽  
Labor Market Regulations ◽  
The U.S

What configuration of institutions and policies is most conducive to human flourishing? The historical and comparative evidence suggests that the answer is social democratic capitalism — a democratic political system, a capitalist economy, good elementary and secondary schooling, a big welfare state, pro-employment public services, and moderate regulation of product and labor markets. Lane Kenworthy shows that this system improves living standards for the least well-off, enhances economic security, and boosts equality of opportunity. And it does so without sacrificing other things we want in a good society, from liberty to economic growth to health and happiness. Its chief practitioners have been the Nordic nations. The Nordics have gone farther than other rich democratic countries in coupling a big welfare state with public services that promote high employment and modest product- and labor-market regulations. Many believe this system isn’t transferable beyond Scandinavia, but Kenworthy shows that social democratic capitalism and its successes can be replicated in other affluent nations, including the United States. Today, the U.S. lags behind other countries in economic security, opportunity, and shared prosperity. If the U.S. expanded existing social programs and added some additional ones, many Americans would have better lives. Kenworthy argues that, despite formidable political obstacles, the U.S. is likely to move toward social democratic capitalism in coming decades. As a country gets richer, he explains, it becomes more willing to spend more in order to safeguard against risk and enhance fairness. He lays out a detailed policy agenda that could alleviate many of America’s problems.

Social Democratic Capitalism and the Good Society

2019 ◽  
pp. 19-71
Author(s):  
Lane Kenworthy
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Labor Markets ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Good Society ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Democratic Capitalism ◽  
The Many ◽  
K 12

Abstract: To this point in history, the most successful societies have been those that feature capitalism, a democratic political system, good elementary and secondary (K–12) schooling, a big welfare state, public services that are conducive to employment, and moderate regulation of product and labor markets. I call this set of policies and institutions “social democratic capitalism.” Social democratic capitalism improves living standards for the least well-off, enhances economic security, and very likely boosts equality of opportunity. It does so without sacrificing the many other things we want in a good society, from liberty to economic growth to health to happiness and much more.

The Welfare State

2020 ◽  
pp. 139-172
Author(s):  
Kevin Vallier
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Market Economy ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Economic Justice ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Free Market Economy ◽  
Redistributive Policies ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Welfare State

The market economy plays a central role in establishing trust for the right reasons. However, a completely free-market economy cannot be justified to nonlibertarians. Most people will endorse some regulations on market activity, and redistributive policies are necessary to improve well-being and deliver economic justice for all. For this reason, some institutions of the welfare state can be publicly justified. We will also see that welfare state measures meant to guarantee economic security have trust-generating properties in the real world, in part because they help spread economic prosperity and economic security to all. So certain aspects of the welfare state should promote trust for the right reasons.

Employment Promotion

2021 ◽  
pp. 588-605
Author(s):  
Lane Kenworthy
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Wage Inequality ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Employment Protection ◽  
Subjective Well Being ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Welfare State ◽  
Employment Promotion

Social scientists and policymakers traditionally have viewed the welfare state as a means of achieving economic security, equality of opportunity, and redistribution. In the past three decades, an additional goal has become prominent: employment. Policy has more and more aimed to increase paid work. The turn towards employment promotion has a number of causes: funding the welfare state, fairness, poverty reduction, social inclusion and subjective well-being, women’s independence and fulfilment, and external encouragement by the OECD and other institutions. Policy tools include benefit conditionality, assistance with job search and placement, assistance with transportation, employment-conditional earnings subsidies, employer subsidies, public employment, promotion of part-time work and flexible work schedules, tax incentives for second earners, adjustment of wage levels and wage inequality, reduction of non-wage labour costs, moderation of employment protection regulations, family-friendly policies, support for human capital, and career ladders. Has employment promotion succeeded? Since 1990, the overall employment rate, the rate for women of prime working age, and the rate for fifty-five-to-sixty-four-year-olds have increased in most of the rich democratic nations, and in some instances the rise has been quite large. These countries’ experience over the past several decades suggests there is little, if any, trade-off between low inequality and high employment.

scholarly journals The Political Economy of Governance Capacity and Institutional Change: The Case of Basic Income Security Reform in European Welfare States

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Haagh
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Basic Income ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Governance Capacity ◽  
Income Security ◽  
Trade Offs

This article will situate public debates about – and experiments in features of – basic income within European countries in the context of welfare state crisis and change. Treating access to basic income security as a policy problem, I argue basic income policy debate highlights the need for multi-level and multifactorial analysis of public governance capacity as a key factor in driving the relationship of basic income with welfare state transformation. Drawing on the cases within this themed section, I attempt to tease out what comparatively are long-run conditionsforbasic income within state and society, and what are the political and institutional trade-offs at the current juncture. Exploring contributing determinants of governance corrosion and adaptation of public economic security structures under globalisation contributes to deepen our understanding of contemporary patterns of institutional change.

Squatting: The Fight for Decent Shelter, 1970s–1980s

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-50
Author(s):  
John Marsland
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
Housing Policies ◽  
The West ◽  
The World ◽  
Housing Needs ◽  
Post War ◽  
Second World

During the twenty years after the Second World War, housing began to be seen as a basic right among many in the west, and the British welfare state included many policies and provisions to provide decent shelter for its citizens. This article focuses on the period circa 1968–85, because this was a time in England when the lack of affordable, secure-tenured housing reached a crisis level at the same time that central and local governmental housing policies received wider scrutiny for their ineffectiveness. My argument is that despite post-war laws and rhetoric, many Britons lived through a housing disaster and for many the most rational way they could solve their housing needs was to exploit loopholes in the law (as well as to break them out right). While the main focus of the article is on young British squatters, there is scope for transnational comparison. Squatters in other parts of the world looked to their example to address the housing needs in their own countries, especially as privatization of public services spread globally in the 1980s and 1990s. Dutch, Spanish, German and American squatters were involved in a symbiotic exchange of ideas and sometimes people with the British squatters and each other, and practices and rhetoric from one place were quickly adopted or rejected based on the success or failure in each place.

Rank Status and Happiness in India: A Panel Ordered Probit Estimation of the Effect of Ordinal Relative Comparison on Well-being

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Lakshmanasamy ◽  
K. Maya
Keyword(s):  
Life Satisfaction ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ordered Probit ◽  
Probit Regression ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Comparison Income ◽  
Average Reference ◽  
The Rich

Most often the social comparison or relative income hypothesis has been used as an explanation for the lack of systematic relationship between income and happiness, using the ordered probit regression method. The identification of relevant reference group and the estimation of the differential effects of comparison income have been controversial. To overcome these twin issues, this paper uses an ordinal comparison income approach based on rich/poor dichotomy and rank income. The rank income of an individual is defined as his relative position in the income distribution within the reference group and the average income of the reference group is used to define the rich/poor classification. The differential effects of ordinal incomes across life satisfaction distribution is estimated by the panel fixed effects ordered profit regression model using the WVS data for India. The estimated results show that ordinal income comparison, rather than cardinal average reference income, is a better predictor of life satisfaction levels. Raising income level is relatively important for less satisfied people while increasing rank status is important for highly satisfied people in India.

A descriptive study of the prevalence of psychological distress and mental disorders in the Canadian population: comparison between low-income and non-low-income populations

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Caron ◽  
A. Liu
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Canadian Community Health Survey ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
High Psychological Distress

Objective This descriptive study compares rates of high psychological distress and mental disorders between low-income and non-low-income populations in Canada. Methods Data were collected through the Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being (CCHS 1.2), which surveyed 36 984 Canadians aged 15 or over; 17.9% (n = 6620) was classified within the low-income population using the Low Income Measure. The K-10 was used to measure psychological distress and the CIDI for assessing mental disorders. Results One out of 5 Canadians reported high psychological distress, and 1 out of 10 reported at least one of the five mental disorders surveyed or substance abuse. Women, single, separated or divorced respondents, non-immigrants and Aboriginal Canadians were more likely to report suffering from psychological distress or from mental disorders and substance abuse. Rates of reported psychological distress and of mental disorders and substance abuse were much higher in low-income populations, and these differences were statistically consistent in most of the sociodemographic strata. Conclusion This study helps determine the vulnerable groups in mental health for which prevention and promotion programs could be designed.

Managing Decentralization: The Strategy of Institutional Differentiation in German Industrial Relations

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 52-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schroeder ◽  
Rainer Weinert
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Collective Bargaining Agreement ◽  
The Political ◽  
Process Of Change ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Institutional Differentiation ◽  
The Welfare State

The approach of the new millennium appears to signal the demiseof traditional models of social organization. The political core ofthis process of change—the restructuring of the welfare state—andthe related crisis of the industrywide collective bargaining agreementhave been subjects of much debate. For some years now inspecialist literature, this debate has been conducted between theproponents of a neo-liberal (minimally regulated) welfare state andthe supporters of a social democratic model (highly regulated). Thealternatives are variously expressed as “exit vs. voice,” “comparativeausterity vs. progressive competitiveness,” or “deregulation vs.cooperative re-regulation.”

scholarly journals The European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) Endorses the Milan Charter on Urban Obesity

Obesity Facts ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Michele O. Carruba ◽  
Luca Busetto ◽  
Sheree Bryant ◽  
Antonio Caretto ◽  
Nathalie J. Farpour-Lambert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Social Stigma ◽  
National Level ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Communicable Diseases ◽  
Urban Environments ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Access To Treatment ◽  
Non Communicable Diseases ◽  
Health Goals

The Milan Charter on Urban Obesity highlights the challenges of urban environments as a battleground for human health, as cities are often organized to subvert public health goals, and promote rather than prevent the development of obesity and consequent non-communicable diseases. The Charter articulates ten principles which detail actions and strategies through which general practitioners, diverse medical specialists, related healthcare professionals, administrators and healthcare practice managers, policy actors – within health systems and at a national level – along with experts across disciplines, and citizens, can work in cooperation to meet this challenge and improve public health. The Charter urges the adoption of decisions that deliver the following: (i) policies which enable our cities to become healthier and less obesogenic, more supportive of well-being and less health-disruptive in general, and (ii) policies that fully support primary prevention strategies, that address social stigma, and that ensure fair access to treatment for people living with obesity. The Milan Charter on Urban Obesity aims to raise awareness of our shared responsibility for the health of all citizens, and focuses on addressing the health of people living with obesity – not only as a challenge in its own right, but a gateway to other major non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document