IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-03474895.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Des parasites au paradis ? Revenu universel, minima sociaux et réciprocité

Author

Listed:
  • Guillaume Allegre

    (OFCE - Observatoire français des conjonctures économiques (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po)

Abstract

Should society feed surfers? The question has arisen in these terms since Van Parijs suggested to Rawls that a basic income would be in line with his theory of justice. Rawls replied that those who surf should find a way to support themselves. Most Western countries have guaranteed minimum incomes which have conditions in terms of social or professional integration efforts, in a logic of reciprocity. The refusal that others live voluntarily at their expense, in a parasitic relationship, is a value widely shared value across countries, religions and belief systems. For Van Parijs, basic income can be justified by the common ownership of exogenous resources (land, raw materials). From a non-perfectionist perspective, respecting everyone's conceptions of what a good life is, the fact that people using one's resources pay income to those who do not use them, maximizes the real freedom of all. It is argued here that this argument uses a specific conception of co-ownership (right equal to the income of the property), but that there is another conception (equal right to the use of the property). This later conception can be seen when co-owners of a tennis court can usually use it at leisure, but not rent the slots to an outside person. The idea of co-ownership of exogenous resources is therefore not a definitive argument for basic income. We conclude by discussing the characteristics of a guaranteed minimum income that would minimize various forms of injustice.

Suggested Citation

  • Guillaume Allegre, 2021. "Des parasites au paradis ? Revenu universel, minima sociaux et réciprocité," Working Papers hal-03474895, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-03474895
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03474895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03474895/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Véronique Simonnet & Elisabeth Danzin, 2014. "L'effet du RSA sur le taux de retour à l'emploi des allocataires. Une analyse en double différence selon le nombre et l'âge des enfants," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 467(1), pages 91-116.
    2. Marc Fleurbaey, 2014. "The facets of exploitation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(4), pages 653-676, October.
    3. Van Donselaar, Gijs, 2009. "The Right to Exploit: Parasitism, Scarcity, and Basic Income," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195140392.
    4. Michel Forsé & Maxime Parodi, 2002. "Homo œconomicus et spectateur équitable," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 82(3), pages 165-230.
    5. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Reciprocity, Self-Interest and the Welfare State," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 33-53.
    6. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Urs Fischbacher & Simon G�chter, 2005. "Heterogeneous social preferences and the dynamics of free riding in public goods," IEW - Working Papers 261, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Tobias Hahn & Noël Albert, 2017. "Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-524, October.
    4. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2005. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 66, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    5. Makowsky, Michael D. & Wang, Siyu, 2018. "Embezzlement, whistleblowing, and organizational architecture: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 58-75.
    6. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    7. Bereket Kebede & Daniel John Zizzo, 2011. "Envy and Agricultural Innovation: An Experimental Case Study from Ethiopia," CSAE Working Paper Series 2011-06, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    8. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    9. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    10. Markus C. Arnold & Eva Ponick, 2006. "Kommunikation im Groves-Mechanismus — Ergebnisse eines Laborexperiments," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 89-120, February.
    11. Kamei, Kenju, 2016. "Information Disclosure and Cooperation in a Finitely-repeated Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 75100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Christian Thöni, 2014. "Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 529-545, April.
    13. Decker, Torsten & Stiehler, Andreas & Strobel, Martin, 2002. "A Comparison of Punishment Rules in Repeated Public Good Games - An Experimental Study," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    14. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    15. Pierre Koning & J. Vyrastekova & S. Onderstal, 2006. "Team incentives in public organisations; an experimental study," CPB Discussion Paper 60, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    16. Ingela Alger & Jörgen W. Weibull, 2013. "Homo Moralis—Preference Evolution Under Incomplete Information and Assortative Matching," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2269-2302, November.
    17. Gonzalo Olcina & Vicente Calabuig, 2015. "Coordinated Punishment and the Evolution of Cooperation," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(2), pages 147-173, April.
    18. Angelsen, Arild & Naime, Julia, 2024. "The mixed impacts of peer punishments on common-pool resources: Multi-country experimental evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    19. Judith Kas & David J. Hardisty & Michel J. J. Handgraaf, 2021. "Steady steps versus sudden shifts: Cooperation in (a)symmetric linear and step-level social dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 142-164, January.
    20. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    basic income; minimum income schemes; reciprocity; revenu universel; minimum social; réciprocité;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-03474895. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.