-First Presentation, by Hugo Rajão (CEPS, University of Minho)
Title: Unconditional Basic Income or Workplace Democracy? A Comparative Analysis of two proposals for Advancing workers' Economic Power.
Abstract
It is commonly claimed that the implementation of Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) would enhance equity in labor relations, contributing for decommodifying labor, by augmenting the economic power of workers. Assuming everyone is given UBI, with an amount sufficient to cover a subsistence threshold, individuals would possess a genuine exit option from their current workplaces, thereby gaining increased bargaining power to negotiate cooperation terms aligned with their interests. Consequently, UBI alone might effectively elevate workers' economic power, obviating the need to reform workplace governing mechanisms, by giving employees the democratic right to participate in decision-making processes - as advocated by the Workplace Democracy proposals. This paper conducts an analysis of UBI's potential in comparison to Workplace Democracy, specifically examining their impacts on workers' economic power. The discussion is structured into three sections. Section I explores the drawbacks of UBI relative to Workplace Democracy, addressing: 1) Financial costs; 2) Reciprocity issues; 3) Reliance on other’s minds; 4) Faith in contingencies. Section II aims to demonstrate that two presumed advantages of UBI over Workplace Democracy are overestimated: 5) Implementation feasibility; 6) Potential to cope with automation and a potential shift to a workless society. In Section III, the paper highlights perceived limitations of Workplace Democracy that UBI, as a supplementary measure, could potentially address: 7) Promotion of economic freedom for non-workers; 8) Acknowledgment of non-market forms of work; and 9) Provision of an escape option even within a democratic workplace environment. Finally, despite the acknowledged advantages of both UBI and Workplace Democracy, listed in the previous sections, I conclude that potential challenges may arise in combining them. In a society characterized by workplace democracy and full employment, improved working conditions might make it challenging for individuals solely relying on UBI to justify their choice not to engage in traditional employment. This scenario necessitates a reconsideration of the principle of reciprocity.
Keywords: Workplace Democracy; Exit; Voice; UBI
-Second Presentation, by Thiago Souza (CEPS, University of Minho):
Title: The Different Concepts of Circularity: a central matter to the environmental effort and the Unconditional Basic Income
Abstract
The current environmental crisis has two fundamental pillars: productivist growth and unsustainable consumption cycles. These are both related to the economic north of capitalist societies, which promotes and pursues constant economic growth and consumerism through the exploitation of natural resources.
A solution that is often brought up by the literature is circularity, which represents an alternative that would oppose the existing unsustainable consumption cycles. Nevertheless, the concept of circularity is not singular. The present article considers two concepts of circularity: Circular Economy (CE) and Ecological Circularity (EC).
The concept of sustainable development arises from the need to align the current socio-economic structure with the environmental limits of resource extraction. Circularity is a key factor in the sustainability debate and is usually understood as circular economy (CE).
CE originated from eco-industrial development, which aims to balance economic growth and sustainable development (Geng & Doberstein, 2008; Geisendorf & Pietrulla, 2018). Circularity and sustainability are alternatives to address the environmental crisis while preserving current socioeconomic structures.
Ecological Circularity (EC), on the other hand, rethinks traditional capitalist accumulation, making space for socially transformative concepts. EC focuses on oppressive socioeconomic and environmental structures.
These understandings of circularity are reflected in the Environmental Ethics literature (Dobson, 2007; Mathews, 2020).
Nevertheless, even though normative debates are essential in the current environmental urgency, it is also imperative to bring about concrete proposals that address these challenges. In this sense, the Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) can be a powerful ally to aid society in a green transition toward more circular realities. The literature on Basic Income regarding economic, labor, and environmental perspectives is revised (Merrill et al., 2019; Pinto, 2020). The effects of the environmental and ecological proposals of UBI concerning productivism and economic development (Block, 1990; Offe, 1992; Standing, 2020) are essential in this article. Such policy can enhance labor conditions, foment green transition, and, concomitantly, promote circular forms of socioeconomic organization.
This work explores the topics of circularity and Unconditional Basic Income, drawing parallels between them. The goal of this research is to provide insights into these two important concepts and their potential impact on climate change.
Keywords: Circularity; Environmentalism; Ecologism; Unconditional Basic Income; Climate Crisis
-Third Presentation, by Catarina Neves (CEPS, University of Minho):
Title: What are the aims of an Unconditional Basic Income? The problem with a ‘1 size fits all’ approach to UBI
Abstract
We are currently facing a range of challenges –rampant levels of inequality, the climate crisis, demographic changes and absence of efficient and effective safety nets in even the most mature welfare states. Most of them demand changes in economic systems, that might be accomplished by incremental policies, or by radical changes. And for a lot of them, a UBI is often argued as policy solution that could contribute to solve them (some of these proposals include Pinto, 2020; 2023; Birnbaum 2010; 2012; Widerquist, 2013). While a UBI can accomplish significant changes, it is riddled with feasibility constraints (financial, political), while it also challenges deep-rooted social norms on reciprocity (Neves, 2023) and deservingness. Moreover, in a lot of debates on UBI, advocates are left having to argue that a UBI is not a ‘panacea’ and that while it contributes to solving our most pressing challenges, when faced with objections, they claim that it is not that a UBI is limited, but rather that it needs to be coupled with other policies.
In this paper, I aim to show that these limitation on the UBI debate is a result of a problematic de-route in the debate, where a UBI is used as a «1 size fits all approach», instead of older debates where a UBI’s debates were based on its central normative commitments (Van Parijs, 1992; 1995; 1997). I will discuss why this de-route is problematic, before attempting the debate by focusing on what are the core features of a UBI which determine its central aims, which are in turn associated with concrete and limited normative commitments. I will close by arguing that this offers limitations to the political feasibility of a UBI, while opening up avenues to discussing it in tandem with other policy options, in combinations that offer more egalitarian solutions.
Keywords: UBI; Moral aims; Climate Crises; Welfare State; De-commodification.
Title: Unconditional Basic Income or Workplace Democracy? A Comparative Analysis of two proposals for Advancing workers' Economic Power.
Abstract
It is commonly claimed that the implementation of Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) would enhance equity in labor relations, contributing for decommodifying labor, by augmenting the economic power of workers. Assuming everyone is given UBI, with an amount sufficient to cover a subsistence threshold, individuals would possess a genuine exit option from their current workplaces, thereby gaining increased bargaining power to negotiate cooperation terms aligned with their interests. Consequently, UBI alone might effectively elevate workers' economic power, obviating the need to reform workplace governing mechanisms, by giving employees the democratic right to participate in decision-making processes - as advocated by the Workplace Democracy proposals. This paper conducts an analysis of UBI's potential in comparison to Workplace Democracy, specifically examining their impacts on workers' economic power. The discussion is structured into three sections. Section I explores the drawbacks of UBI relative to Workplace Democracy, addressing: 1) Financial costs; 2) Reciprocity issues; 3) Reliance on other’s minds; 4) Faith in contingencies. Section II aims to demonstrate that two presumed advantages of UBI over Workplace Democracy are overestimated: 5) Implementation feasibility; 6) Potential to cope with automation and a potential shift to a workless society. In Section III, the paper highlights perceived limitations of Workplace Democracy that UBI, as a supplementary measure, could potentially address: 7) Promotion of economic freedom for non-workers; 8) Acknowledgment of non-market forms of work; and 9) Provision of an escape option even within a democratic workplace environment. Finally, despite the acknowledged advantages of both UBI and Workplace Democracy, listed in the previous sections, I conclude that potential challenges may arise in combining them. In a society characterized by workplace democracy and full employment, improved working conditions might make it challenging for individuals solely relying on UBI to justify their choice not to engage in traditional employment. This scenario necessitates a reconsideration of the principle of reciprocity.
Keywords: Workplace Democracy; Exit; Voice; UBI
-Second Presentation, by Thiago Souza (CEPS, University of Minho):
Title: The Different Concepts of Circularity: a central matter to the environmental effort and the Unconditional Basic Income
Abstract
The current environmental crisis has two fundamental pillars: productivist growth and unsustainable consumption cycles. These are both related to the economic north of capitalist societies, which promotes and pursues constant economic growth and consumerism through the exploitation of natural resources.
A solution that is often brought up by the literature is circularity, which represents an alternative that would oppose the existing unsustainable consumption cycles. Nevertheless, the concept of circularity is not singular. The present article considers two concepts of circularity: Circular Economy (CE) and Ecological Circularity (EC).
The concept of sustainable development arises from the need to align the current socio-economic structure with the environmental limits of resource extraction. Circularity is a key factor in the sustainability debate and is usually understood as circular economy (CE).
CE originated from eco-industrial development, which aims to balance economic growth and sustainable development (Geng & Doberstein, 2008; Geisendorf & Pietrulla, 2018). Circularity and sustainability are alternatives to address the environmental crisis while preserving current socioeconomic structures.
Ecological Circularity (EC), on the other hand, rethinks traditional capitalist accumulation, making space for socially transformative concepts. EC focuses on oppressive socioeconomic and environmental structures.
These understandings of circularity are reflected in the Environmental Ethics literature (Dobson, 2007; Mathews, 2020).
Nevertheless, even though normative debates are essential in the current environmental urgency, it is also imperative to bring about concrete proposals that address these challenges. In this sense, the Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) can be a powerful ally to aid society in a green transition toward more circular realities. The literature on Basic Income regarding economic, labor, and environmental perspectives is revised (Merrill et al., 2019; Pinto, 2020). The effects of the environmental and ecological proposals of UBI concerning productivism and economic development (Block, 1990; Offe, 1992; Standing, 2020) are essential in this article. Such policy can enhance labor conditions, foment green transition, and, concomitantly, promote circular forms of socioeconomic organization.
This work explores the topics of circularity and Unconditional Basic Income, drawing parallels between them. The goal of this research is to provide insights into these two important concepts and their potential impact on climate change.
Keywords: Circularity; Environmentalism; Ecologism; Unconditional Basic Income; Climate Crisis
-Third Presentation, by Catarina Neves (CEPS, University of Minho):
Title: What are the aims of an Unconditional Basic Income? The problem with a ‘1 size fits all’ approach to UBI
Abstract
We are currently facing a range of challenges –rampant levels of inequality, the climate crisis, demographic changes and absence of efficient and effective safety nets in even the most mature welfare states. Most of them demand changes in economic systems, that might be accomplished by incremental policies, or by radical changes. And for a lot of them, a UBI is often argued as policy solution that could contribute to solve them (some of these proposals include Pinto, 2020; 2023; Birnbaum 2010; 2012; Widerquist, 2013). While a UBI can accomplish significant changes, it is riddled with feasibility constraints (financial, political), while it also challenges deep-rooted social norms on reciprocity (Neves, 2023) and deservingness. Moreover, in a lot of debates on UBI, advocates are left having to argue that a UBI is not a ‘panacea’ and that while it contributes to solving our most pressing challenges, when faced with objections, they claim that it is not that a UBI is limited, but rather that it needs to be coupled with other policies.
In this paper, I aim to show that these limitation on the UBI debate is a result of a problematic de-route in the debate, where a UBI is used as a «1 size fits all approach», instead of older debates where a UBI’s debates were based on its central normative commitments (Van Parijs, 1992; 1995; 1997). I will discuss why this de-route is problematic, before attempting the debate by focusing on what are the core features of a UBI which determine its central aims, which are in turn associated with concrete and limited normative commitments. I will close by arguing that this offers limitations to the political feasibility of a UBI, while opening up avenues to discussing it in tandem with other policy options, in combinations that offer more egalitarian solutions.
Keywords: UBI; Moral aims; Climate Crises; Welfare State; De-commodification.
