Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C a n t i l l o n & V a n L a n c k e r - I n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. . . 131truancy. We however do believe that the concept of individual responsibilityis not always strong enough to support disciplinary measures againstfinancially vulnerable families, certainly so in cases where real opportunitiesare not equally guaranteed.Some final considerationsTruancy is a social phenomenon that deserves proper attention. Itproduces undesirable social consequences such as alcohol and drug abuse,early school dropout, nuisance, delinquency and, hence, damagingoutcomes detrimental for future opportunities in life. In fact it is a matter ofsocial justice: truancy affects vulnerable families with a low socio-economicprofile, whose children are generally enrolled in educational levels with lessfavourable labour market perspectives. The same families are entitled toschool allowances in the first place. We have argued that the use of financialdisincentives as a disciplinary measure – aimed at exactly those vulnerablegroups – is neither efficient nor ethically justified. Furthermore, we believethat the case of school allowances has broader implications, in the sense thatit is symptomatic for the current discourse on reciprocity and individualresponsibility as foundations of the social investment state.It seems that our society has freed itself from social class and traditionalbonds and transformed into a place where everyone has the opportunity tobe, in William Henley’s words, the master of his own fate. 5 This is what wecould call, following Ulrich Beck, the individualisation thesis (Ryckbosch &Van Lancker 2010). However, this thesis does not follow from the facts. Timeand again research shows that people are just as determined by theirbackground and origin as they were half a century ago, and – although to alesser extent - that also holds for new social risks (in which individual choicepresumably plays a greater role) (Pintelon et al. 2011). In other words, weobserve a discrepancy between the moral and the factual notion of merit andresponsibility (Raes 1997). Crucial in this respect is what psychologists callthe fundamental attribution error: people tend to overestimate individualexplanations and underestimate contextual and situational explanations forthe observed behaviour and decisions of others (Ross 1977). In such frame ofmind, adverse social behaviour such as truancy is more often ascribed toone’s own responsibility and failure. The same reasoning holds for the viewspeople have on redistribution and the welfare state (van Oorschot 2000).At this point we return to the crucial issue we discussed at the onset: doesthe government with its social policy has to go for the provision of real5See Henley's poem Invictus (1875).
132A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c eopportunities (capabilities) for people to live a valuable life, or shouldgovernment also ensure that people achieve socially desirable outcomes(functionings)? When the social policy paradigm grafts on the moral notionof individual responsibility whilst overlooking the factual one, thisinevitably leads to tougher policy measures and a more stringent standardof reciprocity, which the most vulnerable will not always be able to meet,despite formal equal opportunities. Because of the enormous gravitationalpull of social class, punitive measures to achieve desirable outcomes –justified under the mantra of individual responsibility – should beapproached with great circumspection. Disciplinary policy instrumentsshould only be deployed if they stand a good chance of achieving success, inaccordance with human dignity, in the service of self-fulfilment and socialjustice. That is why great modesty is called for in policy design andimplementation. Otherwise disciplinary policies risk encouraging new formsof exclusion.ReferencesCANTILLON, B. (2011), ‘The Paradox of the Social Investment State. Growth,Employment and Poverty in the Lisbon Era’. Journal of European Social Policy.Forthcoming.CLAES E., HOOGHE M. & REESKENS T. (2009), ‘Truancy as a Contextual andSchool-related Problem. A Comparative Multilevel analysis of Country andSchool Characteristics on Civic Knowledge among 14 year olds’, EducationalStudies, 35 (2): 123-142.Departement Onderwijs en Vorming (2010), Wie is er als de schoolbel rinkelt? Evaluatie2009-2010. Brussel: Vlaams Ministerie van onderwijs en vorming.ESPING-ANDERSEN, G., GALLIE, D., HEMERIJCK, A. & MYLES, J. (1999), Why WeNeed a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.GILBERT, N. (2004). Transformation of the welfare state, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.MOREL, N., PALIER, B. & PALME, J. (2009), What future for social investment?,Institute for future studies, Research Report, 2009/1.PINTELON, O., CANTILLON, B., VAN DEN BOSCH, K. & WHELAN, C. (2011),'The social stratification of social risks'. CSB Working Paper 11/04, HermanDeleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.RAES, K. (2007), Het moeilijke ontmoeten. Verhalen van alledaagse zedelijkheid. Brussel:VUBPress.RAES, K. (2003), Tegen beter weten in – Een ethische kijk op het recht. Gent: AcademiaPress.RAWLS, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Page 5 and 6:
© Presses universitaires de Louvai
Page 7 and 8:
6A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 50 and 51:
Marriages as assets?Real freedom an
Page 52 and 53:
A l s t o t t - M a r r i a g e s a
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
The guaranteed income as an equalop
Page 64 and 65:
A r n s p e r g e r & J o h n s o n
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 80 and 81:
Reflections on the limits of argume
Page 82 and 83: B a k e r - R e f l e c t i o n s o
Page 88 and 89: Taxation, fees and social justiceFr
Page 90 and 91: B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 92 and 93: B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 94 and 95: Real freedomfor all turtles in Suga
Page 96 and 97: B o u l a n g e r - R e a l f r e e
Page 106 and 107: Linguistic diversityand economic se
Page 108 and 109: B o w l e s - L i n g u i s t i c d
Page 116 and 117: Legitimate partiality, parents and
Page 118 and 119: B r i g h o u s e & S w i f t - L e
Page 124: B r i g h o u s e & S w i f t - L e
Page 127 and 128: 126A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 131: 130A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 136 and 137: Distributing freedom over whole liv
Page 138 and 139: C a r t e r - D i s t r i b u t i n
Page 144: C a r t e r - D i s t r i b u t i n
Page 158 and 159: Why do we blame survivors?Jean-Mich
Page 160 and 161: C h a u m o n t - W h y d o w e b l
Page 166: C h a u m o n t - W h y d o w e b l
Page 183 and 184:
182A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 230 and 231:
English or Esperanto:a case for lev
Page 232 and 233:
F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 262 and 263:
Should a Marxistbelieve in human ri
Page 264 and 265:
L a c r o i x - S h o u l d a M a r
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 284 and 285:
A universal duty to careIngrid Robe
Page 286 and 287:
R o b e yn s - A u n i v e r s a l
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
The ideological roots of inequality
Page 294 and 295:
R o e m e r - T h e i d e o l o g i
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Philosophers andtaboo trade-offs in
Page 306 and 307:
S c h o k k a e r t - P h i l o s o
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 322 and 323:
On genetic inequalityHillel Steiner
Page 324 and 325:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 326 and 327:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 328 and 329:
A federal electoral district for Be
Page 330 and 331:
S t o j a n o v i c - A f e d e r a
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 368 and 369:
Lamentationin the face of historica
Page 370 and 371:
V r o u s a l i s - L a m e n t a t
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 388 and 389:
Why we demand anunconditional basic
Page 390 and 391:
W i d e r q u i s t - T h e E C S O
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Linguistic protectionismand wealth
Page 398 and 399:
W i l l i a m s - L i n g u i s t i
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
In defense of genderlessnessErik Ol
Page 406 and 407:
W r i g h t - I n d e f e n s e o f
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423:
show all

Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?