Abstract:
The article aims to assess the neo-republican debate on basic income policy, focusing on the normative dimension of disputes over the suitability of this policy for a political economy designed to guarantee the material bases of freedom as non-domination. After addressing the connection between freedom and property in the republican tradition and exposing the arguments of neo-republican theorists in favor of basic income, I present the main objections formulated by supporters of more radical strands of republicanism. Such objections are based on the supposed deficits in reciprocity and collective action resulting from the association between basic income and “exit”, to the detriment of “voice”, in strategies to curb domination. Without failing to recognize the pertinence of the critics’ questions, I conclude that the possible negative impacts in terms of reciprocity and collective action are not sufficient for excluding basic income from a republican political economy, since there is no necessary incompatibility between exit and voice in the configuration of the strategies against domination. On the contrary, as a rule, the credible threat of exit operates as an efficient means for empowering voice.
Keywords:
Freedom as non-domination; Basic income; Reciprocity; Collective action; Exit; Voice