社会正义视角下全民基本收入的社会合法性:德国与斯洛文尼亚的比较分析

Q2 Social Sciences
Katharina Zimmermann, Urban Boljka, Tatjana Rakar, Maša Filipovič Hrast
{"title":"社会正义视角下全民基本收入的社会合法性:德国与斯洛文尼亚的比较分析","authors":"Katharina Zimmermann, Urban Boljka, Tatjana Rakar, Maša Filipovič Hrast","doi":"10.1017/ics.2020.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The universal basic income (UBI) has found its way into public debates and has prominent advocates across almost all political camps. In many debates, it is presented as a solution for the consequences of a large variety of current societal challenges, such as unemployment, over-education, ecological crises, gender inequality and issues related to digitalization and automatization. While UBI has been discussed broadly from an expert position, we know very little about the population’s perceptions of UBI. Thus, to shed light on the public legitimacy of UBI as a radically different concept of social justice and citizenship, our contribution uses data from large group discussions where participants explicitly refer to the UBI as an option for a future welfare state. By comparing debates in Slovenia and Germany, we unearth that the perspective adopted by the participants towards a UBI is strongly shaped by the welfare institutions of the countries in which they live and the social justice principles embodied in those institutions.","PeriodicalId":38249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/ics.2020.29","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The social legitimacy of the universal basic income from a social justice perspective: a comparative analysis of Germany and Slovenia\",\"authors\":\"Katharina Zimmermann, Urban Boljka, Tatjana Rakar, Maša Filipovič Hrast\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ics.2020.29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The universal basic income (UBI) has found its way into public debates and has prominent advocates across almost all political camps. In many debates, it is presented as a solution for the consequences of a large variety of current societal challenges, such as unemployment, over-education, ecological crises, gender inequality and issues related to digitalization and automatization. While UBI has been discussed broadly from an expert position, we know very little about the population’s perceptions of UBI. Thus, to shed light on the public legitimacy of UBI as a radically different concept of social justice and citizenship, our contribution uses data from large group discussions where participants explicitly refer to the UBI as an option for a future welfare state. By comparing debates in Slovenia and Germany, we unearth that the perspective adopted by the participants towards a UBI is strongly shaped by the welfare institutions of the countries in which they live and the social justice principles embodied in those institutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/ics.2020.29\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2020.29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2020.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

全民基本收入(UBI)已经进入公共辩论,并在几乎所有政治阵营中都有杰出的倡导者。在许多辩论中,它被视为解决当前各种社会挑战后果的解决方案,如失业、过度教育、生态危机、性别不平等以及与数字化和自动化相关的问题。虽然从专家的角度对全民基本收入进行了广泛的讨论,但我们对民众对全民基本收入的看法知之甚少。因此,为了阐明UBI作为一种完全不同的社会正义和公民概念的公共合法性,我们的贡献使用了来自大型小组讨论的数据,参与者明确将UBI作为未来福利国家的一种选择。通过比较斯洛文尼亚和德国的辩论,我们发现,参与者对UBI所采取的观点在很大程度上受到他们所居住国家的福利机构和这些机构所体现的社会正义原则的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The social legitimacy of the universal basic income from a social justice perspective: a comparative analysis of Germany and Slovenia
Abstract The universal basic income (UBI) has found its way into public debates and has prominent advocates across almost all political camps. In many debates, it is presented as a solution for the consequences of a large variety of current societal challenges, such as unemployment, over-education, ecological crises, gender inequality and issues related to digitalization and automatization. While UBI has been discussed broadly from an expert position, we know very little about the population’s perceptions of UBI. Thus, to shed light on the public legitimacy of UBI as a radically different concept of social justice and citizenship, our contribution uses data from large group discussions where participants explicitly refer to the UBI as an option for a future welfare state. By comparing debates in Slovenia and Germany, we unearth that the perspective adopted by the participants towards a UBI is strongly shaped by the welfare institutions of the countries in which they live and the social justice principles embodied in those institutions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信