Search

Much of the current philosophical debate concerns the ethics of adoption as it pertains to the level of personal choice, such as prospective parents deciding to adopt instead of procreate. Very little philosophical analysis is devoted to evaluating the background policies informing people’s choices to adopt rather than procreate, and many related ethical issues. The purpose of this chapter is to remedy this lack of ethical analysis of adoption regimes – understood as the different ways in which the state simultaneously regulates the demand and supply side of the adoption process, and its normative justification for doing so. In this chapter we critically examine the unequal treatment of procreative and adoptive routes towards parenthood and argue that the use of screening and monitoring in current adoption policy and practice in fact causes harm to some children.

Tuloa kaikille? Tutkimus perustulon politiikasta Viimevuosien aikana ehdotus perustulosta on saanut osakseen lisääntyvää huomiota niin poliittisissa kuin akateemisissa piireissä. Idea siitä, että jokaiselle kansalaiselle myönnettäisiin henkilökohtainen vastikkeeton tulo, on herättänyt vakavaa keskustelua yhteiskunnallisissa liikkeissä, eturyhmissä, työmarkkinajärjestöissä, puolueissa ja tutkijoiden keskuudessa. Idea on saanut kannatusta jopa joidenkin Euroopan maiden hallituksilta, mukaan lukien Suomen hallituksen ehdotus testata perustuloa ensimmäisenä kansallisella tasolla. Samalla kun perustulo on hiljalleen saavuttamassa hyväksyttyä asemaa poliittisissa piireissä, myös akateeminen kiinnostus perustulon politiikkaa kohtaan on kasvanut. Tutkijat ovat keskustelleet perustulon etiikasta, taloudellisista ja sosiaalisista vaikutuksista jo useita vuosia, mutta vasta nyt on herätty niihin vaikeisiin poliittisiin kysymyksiin jotka liittyvät perustulon ideaan ja sen toteuttamiseen. Jurgen De Wispelaere tutkii väitöskirjassaan perustulon politiikkaa. Hänen mukaansa niin tutkijat kuin perustuloaktivistit usein puhuvat perustulosta ikään kuin se olisi yksi yhtenäinen idea. Todellisuudessa perustulon politiikka muodostuu useista erilaisista ehdotuksista. Perustuloon liittyvät odotukset ja ennen muuta politiikkaratkaisut voivat erota radikaalistikin toisistaan, ja tällä on merkittävä vaikutus perustulon kannatusperustaan, perustuloa kannattavien liittoumien muodostumiseen ja liittoutumien poliittisiin strategioihin. De Wispelaere paljastaa miten vasemmistolaisten ja oikeistolaisten perustulon versioiden välinen kilpailu tuottaa erilaisia ratkaisuja ja seurausvaikutuksia. Väitöstutkimus osoittaa, että poliittiset erot perustulomallien välillä tulevat tätäkin näkyvimmiksi silloin kun harkitaan perustulon toteutusta. Poliittiset koalitiot voivat saada aikaan kompromissin koskien perustulon yleistä ideaa, mutta kun yleistä ohjelmaa ryhdytään toteuttamaan, poliittiset erot tulevat uudelleen esiin käytännön yksityiskohdissa. De Wispelaere esittää, että perustulon ja hallinnon välisen kytköksen tutkiminen voi antaa ratkaisuja erilaisten perustulomallien ja niiden kannattajien välisen kamppailun ymmärtämiseen. Tutkimuksen mukaan perustulon kannattajat ja tutkijat ovat väärillä raiteilla sivuuttaessaan hallinnon tärkeän roolin perustulosta käytävässä keskustelussa. In the last five years the basic income proposal has become more prominent in social policy and research circles. The idea to grant each citizen an individual and unconditional grant is being seriously discussed in social movements, advocacy groups, trade unions and employer organisations, political parties and academic researchers. The idea has even gained traction amongst various governments in Europe, including of course the Finnish government’s proposal to conduct the first national basic income pilot study. With basic income slowly gaining legitimate standing in policy and political circles, academic interest in the political analysis of basic income too is growing. Scholars have been discussing the ethics and economics of basic income for many years, but are only recently waking up to the difficult political questions that surround the basic income idea. In his doctoral dissertation, Jurgen De Wispelaere examines the politics of universal basic income. He observes that scholars as well as activists typically talk about basic income as if it constitutes a single idea. In reality, however, basic income policy is made up of different proposals. Practical basic income policies may differ quite radically from one another, and this will have a major impact on the political strategies for building allegiances and coalitions in support of basic income. De Wispelaere shows how competition between left- and right-wing versions of basic income will produce different practical effects. The dissertation argues that political differences between basic income models are most visible when we consider the practical implementation of basic income. Political coalitions can compromise on the general basic income idea, but once the proposal needs to be implemented political differences will reemerge in the practical details. De Wispelaere argues that examining the link between basic income and administration may hold the key to understanding the political battle between different basic income models and their political allies. Basic income advocates and scholars are wrong to ignore the importance of administration in the basic income debate.

Tese de doutoramento em Philosophy (especialidade em Social and Political Phiosophy), O republicanismo recebeu um interesse renovado nas duas últimas décadas. No centro da sua definição estão as noções de liberdade como não-dominação, contestação, virtudes cívicas, participação cívica, interesse público sobre privado, combate à corrupção e também a defesa do Estado de direito. Apesar desse interesse, o republicanismo não deu ainda atenção suficiente aos desafios ecológicos do presente. A intenção dos cinco artigos que, juntos, constituem esta tese é ajudar a preencher essa lacuna na teoria política republicana. A tese compara diferentes conceções de liberdade e como estas respondem à implementação de limites ecológicos que, na minha opinião, são necessários para nos afastarmos da in sustentabilidade ecológica atual. A conclusão é que a conceção republicana de liberdade como não dominação está melhor posicionada para justificar a implementação de limites ecológicos. Esta é uma discussão importante, uma vez que muitas vezes os limites ecológicos são recusados com argumento de que estes representam um ataque inaceitável à liberdade. O conceito de republicanismo verde é discutido e apresentado como a interceção da teoria política republicana e da teoria política verde. O republicanismo verde é não-neutro e está interessado em promover a convivialidade, tendo como aspeto fundamental a promoção do pós-produtivismo. Um rendimento básico incondicional (RBI) é assim um elemento importante da teoria republicana verde. Para que isso seja verdade, no entanto, algumas condições na definição do RBI devem ser observadas. Assim, são comparadas duas justificações verdes de um RBI, argumentando que a situação atual de múltiplas crises ecológicas exigirá a mais radical delas e que outras medidas paralelas ao RBI são necessárias. Em relação ao objetivo do republicanismo verde de promover o pós-produtivismo, um RBI é comparado com os sistemas de segurança social existentes e com um rendimento participativo verde. Conclui-se que, dependendo de como é definido, um RBI poderia contribuir para o pós-produtivismo e, ao mesmo tempo, ser não-arbitrário, obedecendo às condições republicanas., Republican political theory has received renewed interest in recent decades. Central to the definition of republicanism are the notions of freedom as non-domination, contestation, civic virtues, participation in the political life of the community, public over private interest, combatting all forms of corruption, and also the defence of a state based on the rule of law. Despite this renewed interest, republicanism has so far not given enough attention to the ecological challenges of the present. The intention of the five articles that, together, constitute this dissertation is to help fill that gap in republican political theory. The dissertation compares different conceptions of freedom and how they allow room for the implementation of ecological limits that, as I argue, are required to move away from ecological unsustainability. The conclusion is that the republican conception of freedom as non-domination is better positioned to justify the implementation of ecological limits. This is an important analysis as ecological limits are often refused on the grounds that they are limiting freedom in an unacceptable way. The concept of green republicanism is discussed and presented as the subset of republican political theory that overlaps with green political theory. Green republicanism is non-neutral and interested in promoting conviviality, having as a key feature the promotion of post-productivism. An unconditional basic income (BI) is an important element of green republican theory. For this to be true, however, some conditions in the design of the BI need to be true. I thus confront two green cases of a BI, arguing that the current situation of multiple ecological crises will require the more radical of the cases and that parallel measures are required. Regarding the green republican goal of promoting post-productivism, a BI is compared with existing welfare regimes and with a green participation income. The conclusion is that depending on how it is defined, an unconditional basic income could contribute to post-productivism while being non-arbitrary, thereby obeying the green republican conditions.

Universal basic income (UBI) is emerging as one of the most hotly debated issues in development and social protection policy. But what are the features of UBI? What is it meant to achieve? How do we know, and what don’t we know, about its performance? What does it take to implement it in practice? Drawing from global evidence, literature, and survey data, this volume provides a framework to elucidate issues and trade-offs in UBI with a view to help inform choices around its appropriateness and feasibility in different contexts. Specifically, the book examines how UBI differs from or complements other social assistance programs in terms of objectives, coverage, incidence, adequacy, incentives, effects on poverty and inequality, financing, political economy, and implementation. It also reviews past and current country experiences, surveys the full range of existing policy proposals, provides original results from micro–tax benefit simulations, and sets out a range of considerations around the analytics and practice of UBI.

Introduction\ud Is childhood good? Who benefits from childhood, and how? Are there goods that children experience or bring into existence which would not exist if we were to somehow eradicate childhood? Are children’s lives to be judged by the same or different standards from adults’? In this chapter I want to investigate these questions, but before I do, I wish\ud to first separate off some questions about the value of childhood from some questions about the value of new or additional people.\ud