Revista (PDF) - Universidade do Minho

THE CASE FOR STAKEHOLDING 223
This is the basic philosophical motivation for Stakeholding. It is
a proposal to create a form of citizen inheritance to coexist with the
existing system of private inheritance. Rather than challenging the
legitimacy of private property, stakeholding seeks to reconcile a
property system with the fundamental requirements of claim to
social justice.
After all, liberals have always contended that private property is
fundamental to the realization of individual freedom. But if this so,
everybody should have a claim to property as they begins their project
of self-definition as adults. There is, in short, a better way to respond
to the problem of intergenerational justice than nationalizing the
means of production. Rather than eliminating private property, the
liberal solution is to universalize property by granting every citizen a
stake in the commonwealth created by the efforts of past generations.
But let us turn away from the traditional proposal – nationalization
– to a more contemporary idea that has received a lot of attention
recently. Philippe van Parijs, Claus Offe and others have been trying to
place a basic income proposal on the agenda of progressive thought. 5
Under this plan, each citizen receives a monthly stipend from the
state, without regard to the amount of money he makes on the market.
This proposal is similar to stakeholding, with one key difference –
proponents of basic income do not allow beneficiaries to go to their
neighborhood bank and capitalize their lifetime stream of income
payments into a single stake. To fix ideas, suppose that an insurance
company would sell a young stakeholder a lifetime annuity of $400 a
month in exchange for a stake of $80,000, and vice versa. Basic income
advocates refusse to allow beneficiaries to accept this deal – they are
stuck with their monthly payments of $400. In contrast, stakeholding
is less paternalistic – it allows the beneficiary to arrange for her own
basic income of $ 400 – but only if she wants to! The question, then, is
whether the proponent of basic income can defend this extra dose
of paternalism.
Consider a 21-year-old worker who aims to become a first-rate
auto mechanic. He needs $20,000 to learn the skills of this increasingly
technical trade. Under basic income, he will have to wait four or five
years to accumulate the money. Why require him to wait?
Or consider newlyweds who want to have kids and share parenting
responsibilities. In support of this decision, they would pour most
——————————
5 See Philippe Van Parijs, Real Freedom for All, Oxford University Press, 1995.