CULTURAL JUSTICE, BASIC INCOME AND THE CAPABILITY APPROACH

Main Article Content

TORU YAMAMORI

Abstract

In this paper, we elaborate on a theory of an evolutionary political economy capable of accommodating the issue of cultural justice by taking seriously the redistribution–recognition dilemma, a normative analysis of which has been put forth by Nancy Fraser. While accepting Fraser’s articulation of the dilemma, we resist her concluding that Sen’s capability approach is insensitive to cultural justice or the recognition of difference. There is no automatic guarantee, yet an intermediate theory of recognition or cultural justice could in theory be brought to bear on what is, after all, ‘a framework’. We argue that Fraser’s analysis is well suited to be such an intermediate theory, and propose a theoretical device for an evolutional perspective on redistribution and recognition. We concentrate on identifying the stage of the market process at which policy intervenes to remedy redistribution, and the stage of the communication process at which policy intervenes to remedy recognition. Interventions at the entrance stages of both processes are relatively effective and one possibility for such an intervention is to propose Basic Income, which would make it not inconsistent with the capability approach, even though this approach neither directly suggests such a policy not excludes others.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
YAMAMORI, T. (2021). CULTURAL JUSTICE, BASIC INCOME AND THE CAPABILITY APPROACH. Society Register, 5(3), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2021.5.3.04
Section
Articles
Author Biography

TORU YAMAMORI, Doshisha University

Toru Yamamori is a professor at the Faculty of Economics, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan. He has been working at the intersection of heterodox economics, history and philosophy of economics, and oral history. His theoretical research on the concept of need in economics has been recognised with the award of the 2017 K. W. Kapp Prize from the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy. His oral historical research on the intersectionality between women’s liberation movements and claimants unions movement in the long 1970s Britain won the 2014 Basic Income Studies Best Essay prize.

References

  1. Baker, John. 1992. “An Egalitarian Case for Basic Income.” Pp. 101-127 in Arguing for Basic Income: Ethical Foundations for a Radical Reform, edited by P. Van Parijs. London: Verso.
  2. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
  3. Fraser, Nancy. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
  4. Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the Postsocialist Condition. New York: Routledge.
  5. Gilligan, Carol. 1981. In a different voice : psychological theory and women’s Development (1986 Japanese translation, Tokyo: Kawashima Shoten.)
  6. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1985-87 Japanese translation, Tokyo: Miraisha.)
  7. Honneth, Axel. 1992. Kampf um Anerkennung: Zur Moralischen Grammatik Sozialer Konflikte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
  8. Honneth, Axel. 2003. “Introduction to Japanese Version.” in Japanese translation of Honneth 1992. Tokyo: Hosei University Press.
  9. Jordan, Bill. 1973. Paupers: The Making of the New Claiming Class. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  10. Kelly, Paul, ed. 2002. Multiculturalism Reconsidered. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  11. Mani, Devyani. 2002. “Culture as a Key Element of Human Security.” Nagoya: United Nations Centre for Regional Development.
  12. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
  13. Robeyns, Ingrid. 2000. “Hush Money or Emancipation Fee?: A Gender Analysis of Basic Income.” pp. 121-136 in Basic Income on the Agenda: Policy Objectives and Political Chances, edited by R. van der Veen & L. Groot. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  14. Robeyns, Ingrid. 2001. Understanding Sen’s capability approach. Cambridge: Wolfson College.
  15. Robeyns, Ingrid. 2003. “Is Nancy Fraser’s Critique of Theories of Distributive Justice Justified?” Constellations 10(4): 538-554.
  16. Sen, Amartya. 1980. “Equality of What?” Reprinted in Sen 1982. Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Oxford: Blackwell.
  17. Sen, Amartya. 1985. “Goals, Commitment, and Identity.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1(2): 341-355.
  18. Sen, Amartya. 1987. The Standard of Living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Sen, Amartya. 1994. “Freedoms and Needs : An argument for the primacy of political rights.” The New Republic, January 10 & 17.
  20. Sen, Amartya. 1998. Reason before Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
  21. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
  22. Sen, Amartya. 2001. “Other People.” Proceedings of the British Academy 111: 319-35.
  23. Yamamori Toru. 2000. “Redistribution and Recognition: Normative Theories and Political Economy of Welfare States.” Pp. 227-243 in Competition, Trust and Cooperation: Comparative Study, edited by Y. Shionoya & K. Yagi. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  24. Yamamori Toru. 2003a. “Basic Income: on a second programmatic political demand of the multitude.” Revue de la Pensee d’Aujourd’hui 31(2). (the journal edited and written in Japanese).
  25. Yamamori Toru. 2003b. “Constructive Universalism : Sen and Sensivity to Difference.” Ethique Economique 1/2003.
  26. Taylor, Charles. 1992. “The Politics of Recognition.” Pp.25-75 in Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition, edited by A. Gutmann. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  27. Van Parijs, Philippe. 1995. Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) can justify Capitalism? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Van Parijs, Philippe. 2001. “A Basic Income for All.” Pp. 3–26 in What’s Wrong with a Free Lunch, edited by P. Van Parijs. Boston: Beacon Press.
  29. Woolcock, Michael, Vijayendra Rao & Sabina Alkire. 2002. “Culture and Development economics: Theory, Evidence, Implications.” Romanian Journal of Political Science 2(2): 39-62.