Summaries 2017/18

Lesson 1. Arguing about Citizen Income, by Paulo Pedroso and Philipe Van Parijs, 28.09.2017

Paulo Pedroso is a sociologist of ISCTE. He was minister of the government at the time, 20 years ago, Minimum Income Guarantee start working in Portugal. To inform the design of this policy, Pedroso studied the ideas that Van Parijs developed since, more than 30 years ago, the idea of pre-distribution, assuring income to every person for life, cross his mind. Pedroso argue against and Parijs for the benefits of implementing Citizen Income.

The more dramatic argument was used by Pedroso when he referred his vison of a civil war caused by Citizen Income, opposing those how work and pay taxes for the non-working people and the rest of the people who lives from the Citizen Income. Van Parijs answered explaining that, as it happens today, there will not have a clear cleavage between those who work all life and those who never work. The new trends – without Citizen Income – is to develop even more mixed lives. Each one change occupation and sector of activity several times during a life time, separated by time to raise kids, to study, to travel. The war exists, all right, from other causes.

The working ethos argument were used by both sides. Pedroso argued that Citizen Income will neglect the prestige of working ethics that links income to hard work. Van Parijs argued that female domestic work, voluntary work in the neighbourhoods, making company to ill or incapacitate people, are some of the kind of work do not get any value and do deserve it. Plus, the way now a day unemployment aids work get people into the trap of poverty, since if they accept to work they will lose their income and, so, it becomes irrational start working for so few reward (wage – unemployment aid). Van Parijs also argue that the merit of the wage of most people depends not in personal merit but, instead, in the luck of getting, or not, the results of the former social and economic organization inherited from the past generations. This heritage is not fair to be exclusive for those who actually get bigger income. That is a big reason for pre-distribution.

Pedroso argue that the utopia of a new born man is a dangerous path, as history of the communism did show. Van Parijs answer that the Citizen Income policy do not presuppose any special kind of people. The reverse is true: CI accept any kind of people each one decide to become, for its own sake. Both, Pedroso and Van Parijs agree that CI will improve individual freedom.

Pedroso said that it would very expensive for the state budget to add 30% or so more to pay CI. Van Parijs answer that it a dividend scheme from robots and financial transactions will do.

Pedroso argue that the state should be careful in order to avoid destroying the recent achievements of social support to people in need, since Bismark and Humboldt develop their social security institutions. Van Parijs answered that, for him, there is three main processes of deliver modern social support to people: the assistance developed first locally in Nederland, Germany and England, in the 16^th century (the parish help those in difficulties, against the will of the Church); the insurance system applied to social needs, presented by Condorcet in Paris; the pre-distribution used for children, for old people, for families and must become universal and unconditional, under the name of Citizen Income. Those policies are not incompatible. They overlap today and will overlap in the future; in different mix shapes, in different countries and groups of people.

It is not an abstract of the conferences. It is only a record of some argument expended.  

1.