Paper presented at the GSSS Conference on Social Justice, University of Bremen, 10-12 March 2005,
Panel on “Social Justice and the Right to Welfare” and at the seminar “Welfare and Health Policies: An
International and Comparative Perspective” at the New School University, Robert J. Milano Graduate School f
Management and Urban Policy, New York, April 5, 2005
-- preliminary draft--
Complex Justice and Basic Income
Michael Opielka
Visiting Scholar, University of California at Berkeley, School of Social Welfare
and
Professor for Social Policy, University of Applied Sciences Jena, Faculty of Social Work
mail: opielka@berkeley.edu
The debate about the reform of modern welfare states by introducing a Basic Income--the
unconditional right of every citizen to a share of the national income before further distributions
through work and rents--has been climbing the higher ranks of academic debates. High profiled
journals as “Politics & Society” (No. 1, 2004) or the “Journal of Socio-Economics” (Issue 1, 2005)
offered special issues and in many other journals, conferences,(edited) books and web-pages alike
this idea is advocated for, discussed, or deconstructed.1 The debate is not restricted to academics
although they may be viewed as avant-garde. The reality is already filled with Minimum Income
Schemes--not only in Europe (Standing 2003), but if one takes the concept of a Basic Income
consequently up to now there exist only limited steps toward it i.e. basic pension systems in some
countries or child allowances if paid unconditionally.
The first real-world experiments with a Basic Income--employing the model of a Negative Income
Tax--have been conducted in the United States between 1968 and 1980. On the first conference of
the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network in 2002 the organizers convened four of the orginal
experimenters and one historian (Levine et al. 2004). Reading the document of this discussion it
becomes clear that the poor reality present concerning Basic Income has much to do with the
reception and interpretation of those experiments within the academic world as well as within the
For a brilliant overview on the debate since its beginnings in the early period of modernity and on the
acceleration of the debate since the 1980s see Parijs 2004. A solid compilation of timely papers one may find in
1
realm of politics--the U.S. experience can be clearly judged as “a failure to communicate”
(Widerquist 2005). Within the established structures of social policy the Basic Income idea suffered
an utopia syndrome. Poverty politics in the U.S. returned quickly to the traditional work-centered
paradigms (Danziger/Weinberg 1986) and remained there in spite of the very ambiguous--and partly
disastrous--results of the 1996 “workfare”-reform (Blank/Hastings 2001, Handler 2004).2 It fits into
this picture, additionally, that the debates on the development of social welfare on a global scale
mostly not even take notice of the Basic Income issue (i.e. Midgley 1997). So far the bad news for
Basic Income advocates.
Academics tend to differentiate. Their road leads to truth. However, social policy is a hard field for
keeping track on this road. The first disputes on the problem of value judgements in the social
sciences--the so-called “Werturteilsstreit” between Max Weber and his critics in the German “Verein
für Socialpolitik” at the beginning of the 20th century--went on social policy topics (Kaufmann
2003a, 59f.). Value judgements in social policy are today framed in discourses on “social justice”.
Unfortunately, they took place up to the 1990s mostly not inside the social policy and welfare state
debates but in discourses lead by social philosophers. This made them look quite often quite
abstract. One may expect that the debate on Basic Income offers a chance to broaden the discourses
on social justice by transcending their traditional patterns. Is it just to receive an income without
work contributions? Would such a reform destroy deeply rooted conceptions of reciprocity? First
efforts to tackle these questions explicitly from the point of compensatory justice (i.e. Groot 2004)
are very welcome. But they need still much elaboration.
The papers of De Wispelaere, Liebermann, Noguera and Caputo presented in a panel of a timely
conference on social justice3 offer four sophisticated contributions about justifications of a Basic
Income. Discussing justifications they focus, however, on different levels of social justice. It may have
turned out by fortune that the four papers cover those levels of social integration respectively
inclusion analyzed by Talcott Parsons as the four basic subsystems of modern societies: Economy,
Policy, Community and Legitimation, to make use of a neo-Parsonian reconstructed semantics
employed recently by the book “Community in Society” (Opielka 2004a).
Veen/Groot 2000. The best homepages belong to academic networks within the “Basic Income Community”:
www.basicincome.org, in the U.S: www.usbig.net, in Germany: www.grundeinkommen.de.
2
That conservative workfare adherents to neither like nor discuss the Basic Income project (any more)-prominently the long-term workfare apologetic Lawrence M. Mead (Mead 2004)--seems understandable. Fred Block and
Margaret Somers show how that one-sided re-interpretations of Basic Income type welfare reforms have a long tradition.
A predecessor of modern Basic Income schemes--the Speenhamland model of 1795--has been connected with all-toosimple but powerful narratives of English Poor Law History (Block/Somers 2004).
2
By fitting the four papers into an analytical frame of reference this perspective opens the floor for
discussing the problems of “complex justice”--to pick up the famous notion of Michael Walzer
developed in his book “Spheres of Justice” (Walzer 1983). The analytical frame proposed deepens
Walzer in so far as it trust with Parsons in a sociological logic of differentiation and integration. The
four papers fit into the respective levels but they do not, off course, exhaust them. They are
examples limited as all human endeavours.
I will shortly summarize and, reluctantly, criticize the main arguments of the four contributions
within this frame of reference and, second, mention some open questions for further research and
debate.
humanitarian justice
participation
(Level 4)
political justice
citizenship
communitarian justice
+
(Level 2)
moral infrastructure
(Level 3)
economic justice
efficiency
(Level 1)
For the Neo-Parsonian reconstruction of Level 1 to 4 with reference to the societal subsystems economy - level 1-, policy - level 2 -, community level 3 -, and legitimation - level 4 -, see: Michael Opielka, Gemeinschaft in Gesellschaft. Soziologie nach Hegel und Parsons, Wiesbaden
2004, and ibid., Sozialpolitik. Grundlagen und vergleichende Perspektiven, Reinbek 2004.
Table 1: Four conceptions of justice within the Basic Income debate
The first draft of this paper has been written as a comment to the four papers presented at the Bremen
conference panel on “Social Justice and the Right to Welfare” in March 2005. They are listed at the end.
3
3
1.
Economic justice
De Wispelaere’s paper (Wispelaere 2005) argues in favour of effectiveness, robustness and resilience
of a Basic Income. He states that thin normative requirements would make it possible for different
strands of political ideologies--he mentions Lon Fullers concept of “polycentricity”--to support basic
income capitalism and its welfare arrangements. His procedural focus remembers Immanuel Kant’s
proceduralism that a good constitution can govern a “people of devils” taken up by Jürgen
Habermas and, to a certain degree, by John Rawls (Rawls 1971).
However, De Wispelaere wants to meet the common critic against Basic Income form the point of
efficiency at the labour market--free riding, idleness--by recalibrating the level of the grant according to
economic indicators. This is the classical line of arguments in the liberal concept of a Negative
Income Tax (NIT) already employed by Milton Friedman in 1962--although Friedman traces his
neoclassical utopia further with his twofold proposals to tie down social bureaucracies offering other
grants and to introduce voucher systems for educational institutions (Friedman 1962).4
The problem of achieving robustness by rendering the level of a Basic Income lies in the notion of
“basic”--shouldn’t a Basic Income avoid poverty as Richard Caputo (2005) argues strongly? Or
should the political project of a Basic Income be restricted to a new mode of distribution,
guaranteeing “real freedom” by the “highest sustainable” Basic Income as advocated by Philippe van
Parijs in his widely cited book “Real Freedom for All” (Parijs 1995)? De Wispelaere’s paper does not
really tackle this point.
Finally, to answer the question of resilience as an ability of politics to withstand external pressures as
well as pressure arising from political processes after implementation De Wispelaere employs three
arguments. First, the overt simplicity a Basic Income scheme--here he refers to the social dividend
type paying a flat grant every month or so to each citizen--promises a dramatic reduction of
ambiguities within the citizenry. Drawing on social-psychological research (Daniel Kahnemann,
Amos Tversky among else) one may expect that the present ambiguities towards the Basic Income
idea would diminish or disappear if its functioning is evaluated in isolation. Second, the Basic
Income system would treat any welfare state client with respect which will in turn lead to an overall
positive image of welfare state administration. As third argument he puts a “logic of dispersion”:
This way of thinking inspired by regulation ideas of the liberal Friedrich von Hayek is still very much alive, see
i.e. a new and revised proposal by the German liberal party (FDP) for a “Bürgergeld” put forward by its Vice President
Andreas Pinkwart (see KoBÜNE 2005). He is a professor for economy trusting deeply in economic efficiency. Pinkwart
4
4
actually this logic prevents people from joining across party lines to support Basic Income; after
introduction it would work vice versa because “small but vocal minority in each faction that is able
to block any proposals to alter the states quo” (Wispelaere 2005, 17). The conservative and
positivistic tendency which hinders social reforms and leads to a more or less striking “path
dependency” (see Opielka 2004b for overcoming such dependencies) would keep Basic Income
capitalism on track, too.
De Wispelaeres’s final discussion of the resilience of a Basic Income arrangement sounds quite
convincing. However, it touches the problem of justice discussed here only with regard to the
simplicity argument. Confronting simplicity as principle of good economics (taking care of mental
and political resources and so on) with the efficiency and robustness arguments opens a speculative
debate on Basic Income models: Negative Income Taxes are efficient but hard to understand for the
public and insofar not simple (simply try to explain the effects of a NIT for multi-personhouseholds with different incomes!). Social dividend type schemes normally employ a low and
therefore poverty-like grant level--quite often a “partial” Basic Income--in order to keep the amount
of distributed money lower.
To discuss the economic justice aspects of a Basic Income it seems fruitful to add to the procedural
dimension of efficiency (as developed by De Wispelaere) the teleological dimension of “just pay”.
The debate on “decoupling of work and income” asks by the end whether the economical sphere of
production should keep its ascriptive role for income positions. Classical liberalism as well as neoclassical defenders of the healing function of market regulations will strongly defend the coupling of
work and income. The whole “welfare-to-work” wave since the early Reagan and Thatcher politics
in the 1980s leaves the “just pay” answer to the market. The explosive growth of manager salaries-12% in 2004 within the U.S. (see NZZ April 4, 2005)--and other forms of inequality are either
naturalized or viewed as unavoidable side-effect of a wealth-for-all strategy. However, if Basic
Income would reduce the ascriptive functions of the market mentioned the accompanying new
economic justice principle still needs some explication and theorizing (cf. Sesselmeier 1998, Opielka
2005b).
In another paper De Wispelaere (with Lindsay Stirton) made a point for extending the basic income
debate which is helpful for our review of economic justice. Both authors argue that “the debate has
now moved from defending universalism writ large to a dispute within the basic income community
lead a big and first-time commission of his party on the Bürgergeld proposal. The main focus is the integration of basic
income and tax system by a negative income tax model.
5
itself over the preferred form of basic income. The result is substantial disagreement at the level of
ideal-type policies: some scholars favour a negative income tax scheme, others advocate an
unconditional basic income or a participation income, and still others believe stakeholder or basic
capital grants are superior” (Wispelaere/Stirton 2004, 266). The latter type reserves a final mark
concerning economic justice. Yale professors Bruce Ackerman’s and Anne Alstott’s proposal of a
“Stakeholder Society” (Ackermann/Alstott 1999) has in fact shaken the Basic Income debate. By
proposing an amount (“stake”) of about 70.000 $ given to every (American) citizen at time of birth
the idea of a basic capital envisages a culture of property ownership--critics may be remembered of
George W. Bush’s (and, earlier, Margret Thatcher’s) plea for an “ownership society”. By and large,
this proposal is in line with a liberal project to overcome the overt inequalities of capitalism through
a one-time political influx into the sphere of economic statuses (remembering i.e. Adam Smith’s
argument in favour of a 100%-tax on heritages). Whether “stakeholding” may be welcomed as “new
paradigm in social policy” (Dowding et al. 2004) or whether the critics of this proposal--who fear
that the property ideology employed may weaken social reform and democracy at all (Wright 2004,
Pateman 2004)--will become successful cannot be judged without deeper analysis. The debate on the
stakeholder idea shows, however, that economic justice and the hopes for a “Egalitarian Capitalism”
stay controversial.5 Probably Philippe van Parijs’ critique at the stakeholder proposal--although
basically sympathetic to the idea of a basic endowment for all--brings it to point: “I have never
regarded it as belonging in quite the same league, in terms of either feasibility or transformative
power, as that of a universal basic income: either it is feasible but does not change much, or it would
change a lot but then it is not feasible, and rightly so” (Parijs 2005, 1). Parijs tries to overcome the
boarder-line of economic justice and we will do so, too.
2.
Political Justice
Liebermann’s contribution starts at a totally different point of analysis (Liebermann 2005). He rests
on a frame of reference developed by the German sociologist Ulrich Oevermann, combining Talcott
Parsons’ logic of differentiation with a theory of socialization based on psychoanalysis (which has
been an important reference for Parsons, too). The political argument is twofold, a positive as well as
a negative one: the democratic nation-based welfare state rests on “autonomy” as center of modern
citizenship which is at odds with any implementation of work obligations by the body politic. His
It is interesting that the German “Heinrich Böll Foundation”--the foundation close to the German Green party-actually funds a study by Gerd Grözinger, Michael Maschke and Claus Offe (“Die Teilhabegesellschaft”) which tries to
apply the Ackerman/Alstott concept to German case. Referring to the multidimensional concept of “complex justice” it
may turn out that this concept does not cover the dimensions beyond the economic one.
5
6
second--negative--argument stems from a refreshing view of political economy: any policy of full
employment must hinder politically the evolution of the economy which in turn hinders the
identification of the workers with their jobs. Jobs are now and still more in the future as mere
income resources and as fields of probation (Max Weber) and real service for my fellow citizens.
One could interpret Liebermann’s paper as a plea for a strictly liberal policy in a sense that politics
should promote autonomy of the citizens and avoid state regulation of the production process.
Critical comments to this approach may question the full rebuttal of labour market policies as liberal
policies eventually tend to overestimate the inclusive functions of a Basic Income guarantee.
Furthermore this concept of welfare politics grounded in radical political liberalism lacks an explicit
focus on special needs i.e. the disabled or of persons from groups which experience social exclusion
since generations. On the other hand side an apologetic of real political liberalism could argue that
his concept of political justice is just a part of complex justice, however, an unavoidable one.
3.
Communitarian justice
One may wonder that within the whole debate between liberalism and communitarianism taking
place academically in the 1980s and politically in the 1990s did very seldom include the Basic Income
topic. This may have to do with the anti-etatist or anti-state affect which bound both camps in this
debate closer together as most of its protagonists realized. John Rawls “Theory of Justice” as starting
point (Rawls 1971) can be viewed as a big effort to conceptualize the lowest level of welfare state
intervention as possible. The communitarian camp mostly attracted people who were more sceptical
of the side-effects of welfare state interventions (bureaucracy and so on) but extended this
scepticism especially towards positive state interventions (cf. Opielka 2004a, ch. 8).
However, since the end of the iron curtain and the breakdown of classical Leninist concepts of
socialism an emerging part of the socialist, or leftist, camp rediscovers the normative impacts of
communitarian thinking as close to utopian communism and tries to recombine leftcommunitarianism with the Basic Income project. One radical and deconstructive approach may be
found in Hardt’s and Negri’s book “Empire” where the authors combine a somewhat cloudy
“multitude” of autonomous and individualized communities with a Basic Income as ethical and
political critic of capitalism (Negri/Hardt 2000). A similar but much more empirically based
argument can be found at André Gorz concept of a community-like state organization--starting
7
from strong socialism (without Basic Income) in the early 1980s (“Paths to Paradise”) towards a
mixed model (with Basic Income) in the late 1990s (Gorz 1999).
With a more down-to-earth approach Noguera’s contribution centers on the moral infrastructure as
precondition and result of welfare policies (Noguera 2005). His arguing hits a left-communitarian
debate which has come to political visibility within the “Third Way”-concept of the Clinton and esp.
the Blair administration of the 1990s. Noguera tackles their moralism of reciprocity and welfare-towork policies. Two big lines of criticism are brought against this reawakening of the traditional work
ethic found in the labour movement and the socialist tradition. First, the exclusion argument: the
politics of “activation” do not succeed in avoiding social exclusion but, on the contrary, delegitimate
the social position of underachievers. Second, he argues that those politics are backed by a concept
of egoistic reciprocity which can be refused by empirical and theoretical reasons.
However, Noguera’s criticism of left-communitarian assumptions leaves aside the rightcommunitarians better known as “neo-conservatives” i.e. within the current Bush-administration.
Their underlying assumptions of “moral politics” and “moral talk” as the Berkeley linguist George
Lakoff has shown clearly are traditional patriarchal ones--simply extended to society as a whole
(Lakoff 2002). Patriarchalism is the classic frame of reference within the community level of society
to be found as authoritarianism and so on. Probation and “calling” in Max Weber’s sense praised by
Liebermann join in a specific marriage with patriarchal traditionalism which fosters the simple
reciprocity of “activation” politics. So one may wonder whether Basic Income advocates will have to
integrate some notions of reciprocity within their policy proposals--at best for a transformation
period from a work-centred to a rights-centred welfare state (cf. Opielka 2004b).
4.
Humanitarian justice
This leads immediately to the last paper in our row by Richard Caputo (Caputo 2005). His paper
criticizes the Rawls-like approach of Philippe van Parijs mainly because it lacks a serious concept of
poverty elimination. Caputo uses mainly “secular humanitarian terms” although he mentions
religious legitimations for welfare policies as well. The focus of legitimation turns him to employ a
hierarchy of welfare values (which remembers methodologically to Isaah Berlin’s “two concepts of
liberty”). Pretending that his analysis is mainly directed to the situation in the U.S.--he refers to
Alesina’s and Glaeser’s helpful comparison of European and American poverty politics
8
(Alesina/Glaeser 2004)--his recommendations for Basic Income politics are strongly to put poverty
reduction first.
But one may be critical that his U.S. focus undervalues the middle class perspective which guaranteed
the enormous expansion of the European welfare states and, to be honest, which guarantees the
U.S. welfare polity as well as one can observe at the actual debate over the privatization of “Social
Security” as pushed forward by the Bush camp.6 Any perspective which narrows social policy to
welfare respectively social assistance fails the systemic and societal function of social policy.
However, academic debates on the value dimension of the American welfare state are quite often
limited that way, either from the inside (i.e. Bane/Mead 2003) or from the outside (Adloff 2003).
With respect to the development of strong ethical--insofar humanitarian--arguments towards a Basic
Income it could be recommendable to search for a human (and social) rights approach of the
modern welfare state at all (cf. Kaufmann 2003b, Opielka 2004b).
5.
Some conclusions
Let me summarize my remarks as discutant of the four papers and as a veteran of the Basic Income
debate:

all four papers show the academic elaboration of the Basic Income debate at present;

they cannot explain, however, why this debate is still restricted to academic and small political
circles;

all papes argue as advocates of a debate and less as analysts of welfare reforms. The
commodification/recommodification topic of the running politics of “activation” is not really
worked through;

the transformation strategies towards a “Basic Income world” are mentioned in at least two of
the papers--critically by Noguera, positively by De Wispelaer but only with reference to poverty
reduction. However, I would propose to invest more analytical and creative power into this
field--unless we want to meet twenty years from now with more footnotes but no Basic Income
anywhere.
The debate started by the end of 2004, directly after George W. Bush took office for a second term. Although it
is still running by the time when this paper has been written the debate shows that the Bush camp itself is quite divided
on this topic. The reasons are twofold at least: first, the increasing relevance of senior citizens in the democratic process
by improving their lobbying capacity and simply by numbers; second, the middle classes intuition that “Social Security”--a
pension plan modelled after the “garantist” peoples insurance principle known within in Europe only in some countries
as the Netherlands and Switzerland (see Opielka 2004b)--reflects the insecurities of a market society life course quite
adequately.
6
9
The debate on Basic Income takes places within a period of a worldwide “Transformation of the
Welfare State” (Gilbert 2002) which promotes privatization and labour force participation. Off
course, it can take the stand that this transformation should be opposed consequently. A passionate
policy perspective could alternatively take a more dialectical stand towards a transformation of the
transformation: by looking at those complex concepts of justice which can be found within the
citizenry aside and evolving the traditional patterns of work ethic and distribution (i.e. Liebig et al.
2004); by arguing that a Basic Income is a central element to thicken civil society and not to reestablish state regulation of society; and, furthermore, by including the emerging strand of family and
care policy (because women are by far the largest group of excluded citizens) through the argument
that work and service policies alone--as promoted by feminists and social democratic scholars alike
(i.e. Esping-Andersen 2002)--will not lead to the inclusion needed (Ostner/Lewis 1995; Opielka
2003; Pateman 2004).
References
Ackermann, Bruce/Alstott, Anne, 1999, The Stakeholder Society, New Haven/London: Yale University
Press
Adloff, Frank, 2003, Im Dienste der Armen. Katholische Kirche und amerikanische Sozialpolitik im 20.
Jahrhundert, Frankfurt/New York: Campus
Alesina, Alberto/Glaeser, Edward L., 2004, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe. A World of Difference,
Oxford u. a.: Oxford University Press
Bane, Mary Jo/Mead, Lawrence M., 2003, Lifting Up the Poor. A Dialogue on Religion, Poverty & Welfare
Reform, Washington: Brookings Institution Press
Blank, Rebecca M./Haskins, Ron (eds.), 2001, The New World of Welfare, Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press
Block, Fred/Somers, Margaret, 2004, In the Shadow of Speenhamland: Social Policy and the Old Poor Law,
in: Politics & Society, Vol. 31, 2, 283-323
Caputo, Richard K., 2005, Redistributive Schemes that Skirt Poverty. Reconsidering Social Justice in Light of
Van Parijs and Zucker. Paper presented at the GSSS Conference on Social Justice, University
of Bremen, 10-12 March 2005, Ms.
Danziger, Sheldon H./Weinberg, Daniel H. (eds.), 1986, Fighting Poverty. What Works and What
Doesn’t, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press
Dowding, Keith/Wispelaere, Jurgen de/White, Stuart, 2003, Stakeholding - an New Paradigm in Social
Policy, in: ibid.(eds.), 2003, The Ethics of Stakeholding, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, 1-28
Friedman, Milton (with Rose D. Friedman), 1962, Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Gilbert, Neil, 2002, Transformation of the Welfare State. The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Gorz, André, 1999, Reclaiming Work. Beyond the Wage-Based Society, Cambridge: Polity Press
Groot, Loek F. M., 2004, Basic Income, Unemployment and Compensatory Justice, Heidelberg et al.: Springer
Handler, Joel F., 2004, Social Citizenship and Workfare in the United States and Western Europe. The Paradox
of Inclusion, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press
10
Hardt, Michael/Negri, Antonio, 2000, Empire, Cambridge, Ms.: Harvard University Press
Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver, 2003a, Sozialpolitisches Denken. Die deutsche Tradition, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp
Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver, 2003b, Varianten des Wohlfahrtsstaats. Der deutsche Sozialstaat im internationalen
Vergleich, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp
KoBÜNE (Kommission Bürgergeld/Negative Einkommenssteuer der FDP), 2005, Das Liberale
Bürgergeld: aktivierend, transparent und gerecht. Ergebnisbericht der Kommission, Berlin
Lakoff, George, 2002, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 2ed., Chicago/London:
University of Chicago Press
Levine, Robert A. u. a., 2004, A Retrospective on the Negative Income Tax Experiments: Looking Back at the
Most Innovative Field Studies in Social Policy. USBIG Discussion Paper No. 86, June 2004,
www.usbig.net
Liebermann, Sascha, 2005, Strengthening Citizenship. How and why an Unconditional Basic Income reinforces
democracy and the autonomy of citizens. Paper presented at the GSSS Conference on Social Justice,
University of Bremen, 10-12 March 2005, Ms.
Liebig, Stefan/Lengfeld, Holger/Mau, Steffen (eds.), 2004, Verteilungsprobleme und Gerechtigkeit in
modernen Gesellschaften, Frankfurt/New York: Campus
Mead, Lawrence M., 2004, Government Matters. Welfare Reform in Wisconsin, Princeton/Oxford:
Princeton University Press
Midgley, James, 1997, Social Welfare in Global Context, Thousand Oaks et al.: SAGE
Noguera, José Antonio, 2005, Unconditional Welfare Rights? A Defence of Basic Income vs. Welfare-to-WorkPolicies. Paper presented at the GSSS Conference on Social Justice, University of Bremen, 1012 March 2005, Ms.
Opielka, Michael, 2003, Gendering the Welfare State: The Issue of Carework Salaries in Germany, in: Journal of
Societal and Social Policy (JSSP), Vol. 2, No. 3, 1-20
Opielka, Michael, 2004a, Gemeinschaft in Gesellschaft. Soziologie nach Hegel und Parsons, Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Opielka, Michael, 2004b, Sozialpolitik. Grundlagen und vergleichende Perspektiven, Reinbek: Rowohlt
Opielka, Michael, 2005a, Wohlfahrt und Gerechtigkeit. Ideenanalysen in der Soziologie der Sozialpolitik, in:
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 2 (forthcoming)
Opielka, Michael, 2005b, Dreigliederung und Grundeinkommen, in: Rundbrief Dreigliederung, 1, Vol. 16, 5-10
Ostner, Ilona/Lewis, Jane, 1995, Gender and the Evolution of European Social Policies, in: Leibfried,
Stephan/Pierson, Paul (eds.), European Social Policy. Between Fragmentation and Integration,
Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 159-193
Parijs, Philippe van, 1995, Real Freedom for All. What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism?, Oxford:
Clarendon Press
Parijs, Philippe van, 1999, Jenseits der Solidarität. Die ethischen Grundlagen des Sozialstaats und seiner
Aufhebung, in: Althaler, Karl S. (ed.), Primat der Ökonomie? Über Handlungsspielräume sozialer
Politik im Zeichen der Globalisierung, Marburg: Metropolis, 31-55
Parijs, Philippe van, 2004, Basic Income: A Simple and Powerful Idea for the Twenty-first Century, in: Politics
& Society, Vol. 32, 1, 7-39
Parijs, Philippe van, 2005, Basic Income versus Stakeholder Grants. Some Afterthoughts on How Best to
Reinvent Distribution, in: Ackermann, Bruce/Alstott, Anne/Parijs, Philippe van (eds.),
Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Designs for a more Egalitarian
Capitalism, London/New York: Verso (forthcoming)
Pateman, Carole, 2004, Democratizing Citizenship: Some Advantages of a Basic Income, in: Politics and Society,
2, Vol. 32, 89-105
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Ms.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Sesselmeier, Werner, 1998, Negative Einkommensteuer und Gerechtigkeit, in: Blasche, Siegfried/Döring,
Diether (eds.), Sozialpolitik und Gerechtigkeit, Frankfurt/New York: Campus, 356-383
Standing, Guy (ed.), 2003, Minimum Income Schemes in Europe, Geneva: ILO
Veen, Robert van der/Groot, Loek (eds.), 2000, Basic Income on the Agenda. Policy Objectives and Political
Chances, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
11
Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice. A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, New York: Basic Books
Widerquist, Karl, 2005, A Failure to Communicate: What (if Anything) Can we Learn form the Negative
Income Tax Experiments, in: Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 34, No. 1, 49-81
Wispelaere, Jurgen De, 2005, Basic Income: Effective, Robust, and Resilient? Paper presented at the GSSS
Conference on Social Justice, University of Bremen, 10-12 March 2005, Ms.
Wispelare, Jurgen de/Stirton, Lindsay, 2004, The Many Faces of Universal Basic Income, in: The Political
Quarterly, Vol. 75, 3, 266-274
Wright, Erik Olin, 2004, Basic Income, Stakeholder Grants, and Class Analysis, in: Politics & Society, Vol.
32, 1, 79-87
12