This despite the fact that both economic theory and a growing body of empirical

This despite the fact that both economic theory and a

This preview shows page 40 - 42 out of 272 pages.

This, despite the fact that both economic theory and a growing body of empirical evidence suggest that individuals are better off with the freedom of choice that a cash grant brings. In-kind grant programs like SNAP (food stamps) persist in their present form not because they are effective but because they are the product of a classic Bootleggers-and-Baptists coalition: well-meaning members of the public like the idea that welfare recipients have to use their vouchers on food rather than alcohol and cigarettes, and the farm lobby likes that beneficiaries are forced to buy its own products. Poor people , meanwhile, are deprived of the opportunity to save that a cash grant would give them, and they are forced to waste time and effort trading what SNAP allows them to buy for what they really want.
Image of page 40
AT S’quo Solves There are systematic inequalities only alleviated by a universal income. Zelleke 2005 – associate professor of practice of political science [Almaz, December 2005, “Basic Income in the United States: Redefining Citizenship in the Liberal State,” Review of Social Economy, , accessed 6/28/17] AO [Premier] Both the paternalistic and civic republican arguments for work-conditioned welfare benefits attempt to justify selective work requirements in return for welfare benefits in order to support and advance dominant social norms, while conceding that these norms are not universally adhered to, nor can they be universally enforced. By focusing on poverty, its advocates are able to endorse work as a solution to the problem of poverty without affecting the lifestyle choices of more affluent citizens, or the underlying inequalities of a system that allows some to choose work or leisure and others to have no choice. The civic republican argument for selective work requirements is more attractive than the paternalistic argument because the ideal of reciprocity seems to treat all citizens as worthy of respect and care, and it avoids the illusion of an ideologized independence in favor of recognizing our mutual dependence across society. But reciprocity is too general a principle to specify particular obligations like paid employment in return for welfare benefits. It falls victim to two criticisms in particular. First, those who do unpaid work in the home or in the community certainly participate in the scheme of social cooperation and contribute to society's prosperity, whether the contributors are part of a household with a paid worker or not. And second, all members of society receive benefits from that membership; it is unclear why work requirements should be restricted to recipients of one particular kind of benefit only. The first objection can be answered by the substitution of participation requirements for work requirements. Advocates of participation requirements want to recognize the contributions to society made by some of those who choose not to work. Thus, they endorse the notion of enforcing, or at least promoting, reciprocity for society's benefits, but wish to expand the range of activities that count towards a social contribution beyond paid employment. Anthony Atkinson, a British economist, proposes abandoning welfare programs in favor
Image of page 41
Image of page 42

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 272 pages?

  • Summer '18
  • K
  • UBI, Guaranteed minimum income

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture