The Property-Owning Democracy vesus the Welfare State
The Property-Owning Democracy vesus the Welfare State
复制标题
有产民主与福利国家
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Weale
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Weale
有产民主的政治理论可以看作是克服个人主义与集体主义意识形态冲突的一种方法。罗尔斯为这一理论提供了当代的参照点。罗尔斯将财产所有制民主的理想类型与资本主义福利国家的理想类型进行了对比。然而，这种对比的术语并没有很好地描绘出来，并提出了一些问题，特别是关于罗尔斯对福利国家的先验说明。归纳得出的理想典型福利国家的规范表明，水平再分配，符合社会储蓄的原则，比垂直再分配更重要。罗尔斯对社会红利或负所得税计划的偏好可以与社会保险的使用形成对比，但后者比社会红利更能体现罗尔斯的理想。在福利国家中，私人储蓄的优先购买权存在一个潜在的问题，但这在经验上或概念上并不麻烦。这场讨论的讽刺之处在于，那些将罗尔斯的理论解释为福利国家正当化的人占据了优势，尽管罗尔斯自己也有自己的观点。
Abstract The political theory of the property-owning democracy can be seen as a way of overcoming the ideological conflict between individualism and collectivism. Rawls offers the contemporary reference-point for this theory. Rawls contrasted the ideal-type of the property-owning democracy with the ideal-type of a capitalist welfare state. However, the terms of that contrast are not well drawn and raise a number of questions, in particular regarding Rawls’s a priori specification of the welfare state. An inductively derived specification of ideal-typical welfare states suggests that horizontal redistribution, in line with the principle of social savings, is more important than vertical redistribution. Rawls’s preference for a social dividend or negative income tax scheme can be contrasted with the use of social insurance, but the latter has a claim to instantiate Rawlsian ideals better than a social dividend. There is a potential problem with the pre-emption of private savings in the welfare state, but this turns out not to be troublesome empirically or conceptually. The irony of the discussion is that those who have interpreted Rawlsian theory as justifying the welfare state have the better of the argument, despite Rawls’s own views.