Basic Income and the Legitimization Crisis of Neoliberalism

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
TOM McDOWELL

Abstract This article conceptualizes recent momentum for basic income in the context of the legitimization crisis of neoliberalism and the dissolution of the ‘progressive neoliberal’ governing bloc that secured its hegemony for more than two decades. Through an assessment of the ideas of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, it argues that basic income is one of the few policy solutions in the mainstream discourse that improves social welfare and income security, while also remaining consistent with neoliberalism’s inner logic. Accordingly, it holds the potential to temporarily stabilize neoliberalism’s political crisis by offering a consensus issue around which a new centrist coalition could emerge. Although much of the basic income literature has focused on grassroots coalitions and synergies between left and right, it has largely overlooked the emergence of the historical forces that have pushed it onto the mainstream policy agenda.

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy A Smith-Carrier ◽  
Steven Green

AbstractDrawing from both theoretical and empirical research, the literature on basic income (BI) is now voluminous, pronouncing both its merits and its limitations. Burgeoning research documents the impacts of un/conditional cash transfers and negative income tax programs, with many studies highlighting the effectiveness of these programs in reducing poverty, and improving a host of social, economic and health outcomes. We consider possible avenues for BI architecture to be adopted within Canada’s existing constellation of income security programs, to the benefit of disadvantaged groups in society. Identifying key federal and provincial (i.e., Ontario) transfer and tax benefit programs, we highlight which programs might best be maintained or converted to a BI. While opponents decry the (alleged) exorbitant costs of BI schemes, we suggest that the existing approach not only produces an ineffective system—which actually engenders poverty and the health and social problems that accompany it—but an excessively costly one.


Just Property ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 58-80
Author(s):  
Christopher Pierson

This chapter begins with a brief discussion of what we mean by libertarianism. I explore the ways in which the forerunners of contemporary libertarianism came to justify a regime of minimally constrained individual private property, (often) grounded in natural rights and instantiating the maximum of personal freedom. Key thinkers in this respect are Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek. Murray Rothbard is a figure who belongs more unambiguously to modern libertarianism. The chapter ends with a substantial discussion of the debate that has surrounded the work of Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. I suggest that Nozick is a much more ambivalent figure for libertarianism than is usually supposed.


1999 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-396
Author(s):  
Hideo Otake

THE DECADE FROM THE LATE 1970s TO THE LATE 1980S, WHICH BEGAN with the birth of the Thatcher and Reagan administrations and concluded with the fall of communist regimes throughout Russia and Eastern Europe, and the concurrent rise of the Asian NIES states, was the renaissance era of laissez-faire economic liberalism or neoliberalism. ‘Privatization’, ‘deregulation’, and ‘small government’ became popular slogans globally, borrowed heavily from the policy proposals of neoliberal economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. It was best manifested in the world-wide trend towards privatization, involving more than one hundred countries.


2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1407-1429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Bernardi ◽  
James Adams

Issue ownership theory posits that when social welfare is electorally salient, left-wing parties gain public support by rhetorically emphasizing social welfare issues. There is less research, however, on whether left-wing governing parties benefit from increasing social welfare spending. That is, it is not known whether leftist governments gain from acting on the issues they rhetorically emphasize. This article presents arguments that voters will not react to governments’ social welfare rhetoric, and reviews the conflicting arguments about how government support responds to social welfare spending. It then reports time-series, cross-sectional analyses of data on government support, governments’ social welfare rhetoric and social welfare spending from Britain, Spain and the United States, that support the prediction that government rhetoric has no effects. The article estimates, however, that increased social welfare spending sharply depresses support for both left- and right-wing governments. These findings highlight a strategic dilemma for left-wing governments, which lose public support when they act on their social welfare rhetoric by increasing welfare spending.


Juncture ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 266-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joe Chrisp
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 546-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
RONNY ABOUDI ◽  
DOMINIQUE THON ◽  
MINGLI ZHENG

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-41
Author(s):  
Jaemin Shim

AbstractThis paper investigates elite-level partisan differences along the socioeconomic dimension in three developed East Asian democracies – Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. On the one hand, the mainstream literature in welfare studies and party politics expects left- and right-leaning parties should vary significantly in utilizing social policy promises. On the other hand, the path dependency logic tells us that left–right difference should be found over particularistic benefits, such as agricultural subsidies or construction projects, considering that these were central means for right-leaning parties to maintain their power during the developmental state period in the three countries. Using an original bill-sponsorship data set between 1987 and 2012, we find that there has not been any substantial difference in the agenda setting of conventional social welfare bills between left- and right-wing government periods. However, a clear elective affinity can be observed between established right-wing parties and particularistic benefits. The paper shows that contextualizing key political actors' preferences can lead to a more systematic understanding of political dynamics behind the socioeconomic dimension in non-Anglo-European countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document