Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:27:29.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Basic income, unemployment and job scarcity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Loek Groot*
Affiliation:
SISWO/Netherlands Institute for the Social Sciences and ASSR/ Amsterdam School of Social Research
Get access

Summary

The main claim of this paper is that in a world of equal entitlements to work rights the justification for a basic income is stronger, and that its level should be higher, the higher the level of unemployment or job scarcity. Point of departure is an economy with job scarcity. A fair way to deal with job scarcity is to grant everybody an equal right to work, where these rights can be freely traded. It turns out that such a Labour Rights scheme and a basic income scheme are equivalent. The equivalence is that the price of Labour Rights and the unemployment benefit corresponds to the income tax rate and basic income respectively. The tax rate can thus be considered as what workers have to pay to appropriate scarce job assets. Both schemes allow that some people voluntarily abstain from doing paid work, in return for a financial compensation. Therefore, the advantages in terms of equity and efficiency of a Labour Rights scheme equally apply to the basic income proposal. This analysis provides an argument against cutting unemployment and social assistance benefits during economic downturns and it offers new insights to evaluate the parasitism and exploitation objection raised against basic income.

Résumé

Résumé

La principale thèse de cet article est que dans un monde ou le droit au travail est équivalent pour chacun, la justification d'un revenu de base est plus forte, et que celui-ci devrait être plus élevé au plus élevé est le niveau de chômage et la rareté de l'emploi. Le point de départ est une économie avec rareté de l'emploi. Une juste manière de traiter la rareté de l'emploi consiste à gratifié chacun d'un droit égal au travail, droits qui sont librement négociables. Il apparaît qu'un tel plan de Droits au Travail et un plan de revenu de base sont équivalents. L'équivalence réside dans le fait que le prix des Droits au Taravail et le bénéfice d'être sans emploi correspondent respectivement au taux de taxation du revenu et au revenu de base. Le taux de taxation peux donc être considéré comme ce que les travailleurs doivent payer pour obtenir un emploi rare. Les deux plans permettent que certains individus s'abstiennent d'avoir un travail rémunéré, en échange d'une compensation financière. Par ailleurs, les avantages en terme d'équité et d'efficacité d'un plan de Droits au Travail s'appliquent de manière équivalente à un plan de revenu de base. Cette analyse fournit un argument contre la diminution des aides aux chômeurs et d'assistance sociale en cas de mauvaise conjoncture et offre de nouvelles voies d'évaluation du parasitisme et des objections levées contre le revenu de base.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor Groot's article as reproduced here is a correct version of his article initially published in vol. 70 n°2, which was beset by printing mistakes for which the Publisher apologizes.

References

Atkinson, A.B. (1995), Public Economics in Action. The Basic Income/Flat Tax Proposal, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1986), “Comment on Van der Veen and Van Parijs”, Theory and Society, 15, pp. 709722.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1989), Solomonic Judgements, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Groot, L. and van der Veen, R. (2000), “Clues and Leads in the Policy Debate on Basic Income in the Netherlands”, in Robert van der Veen, and Loek Groot, (eds.), Basic Income on the Agenda : Policy Objectives and Political Chances, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 197223.Google Scholar
Groot, L.F.M. (2002), Basic Income and Compensatory Justice, Journal of Social Philosophy, 33(1), pp. 141161.Google Scholar
Hamminga, B. (1992), Could Jobs be like Cars and Concerts ?, unpublished.Google Scholar
Hamminga, B. (1995), “Demoralizing the Labour Market : Could Jobs be like Cars and Concerts?”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 3, pp. 2335.Google Scholar
Schmidtz, D. and Goodin, R. (1998), Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandenbroucke, F. (2001), Social Justice and Individual Ethics in an Open Society : Equality, Responsibility, and Incentives, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Van der Veen, R.J. (1991), Between Exploitation and Communism. Explorations in the Marxian Theory of Justice and Freedom, Groningen, Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Van der Veen, R. and Groot, L. (eds.) (2000), Basic Income on the Agenda : Policy Objectives and Political Chances, Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Van Parijs, Ph. (1995), Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism?, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Parijs, Ph. (2000), “Delivering a Basic Income : Philippe van Parijs Responds”, Boston Review: New Democracy Forum, Oct/Nov.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M.L. (1984), The Share Economy: Conquering Stagflation, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, S. (1997), “Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic Income”, Political Studies, 45, pp. 312326.Google Scholar