Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T23:34:36.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Citizenship and the Welfare State: A Critique of David Miller's Theory of Nationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2008

Neil Hibbert
Neil Hibbert
Affiliation:
Queen's University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. For much of the post-war period of welfare state formation, T.H. Marshall's idea of shared entitlement to universal social rights of citizenship formed the theoretical foundations of social democratic political reforms and legitimacy. This approach has been updated by contemporary egalitarian theorists, such as John Rawls. The ongoing politics of restructuring have led to a growing number of arguments against the motivational capacity of an institutional account of social unity. This paper examines a particular argument against rights-based citizenship—David Miller's theory of nationality. Miller argues that “pure” citizenship rests on self-interest, and thus when differences in risk are explicit it can only legitimate minimal redistribution. Strong welfare states require pre-political ties and must be embedded in the ethical relations of shared nationality. Against Miller's position, it is advanced that shared citizenship has both effective motivational and moral dimensions. It can also address the problems the nationality thesis faces in reconciling its account of motivation with the moral diversity that is constitutive of pluralist societies.

Résumé. Dans l'après-guerre, au moment de la formation des Etats-providence, la mise en place et la justification des politiques social-démocrates s'appuyèrent en grande majorité sur la théorie de T.H. Marshall à propos du rôle joué par les droits sociaux dans l'intégration civique. Cette approche a été actualisée par des théoriciens égalitariens tels que John Rawls. Les politiques actuelles de restructuration de l'Etat-providence ont provoqué la multiplication d'un certain type de critiques soulignant les insuffisances de cette approche institutionnelle du lien social en termes de ressources motivationnelles. Cet article examine l'une ces critiques, formulée par David Miller dans sa théorie sur la nationalité. Miller soutient que la citoyenneté “pure” repose sur l'intérêt personnel et qu'elle ne peut justifier qu'une redistribution minimale, lorsque les différences engagées sont manifestes. Pour affirmer leur autorité, les Etats-providence ont besoin d'être fondés sur des liens prépolitiques et soutenus par les rapports de solidarité d'une nationalité commune. A l'encontre de la position défendue par Miller, on avancera que la citoyenneté possède de façon effective une dimension qui est à la fois morale et motivationnelle. En outre, elle est à même d'affronter les problèmes que soulève la thèse sur la nationalité, en réconciliant sa conception de la motivation avec la diversité morale inhérente aux sociétés pluralistes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 169 - 186
Copyright
© 2008 Canadian Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banting, Keith. 1995. “The Welfare State as Statecraft.” In European Social Policy, ed. Stephen Liebfried and Paul Pierson. Washington: The Brookings Institute.
Beland, Danil and Andre Lecours. 2005. “The Politics of Territorial Solidarity: Nationalism and Social Policy Reform in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Belgium.” Comparative Political Studies 38(6): 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, David. 1991. “Continuity and Change in French Social Policy.” In The French Welfare State, ed. John Ambler. New York: New York University Press.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1996. “Citizenship and Social Class.” In Citizenship Today: The Contemporary Relevance of T.H. Marshall, ed. Martin Bulmer and Anthony Rees. London: UCL Press.
Dryzek, John and Robert Goodin. 1986. “Risk Sharing and Social Justice: The Motivational Foundations of the Post-War Welfare State.” British Journal of Political Science 16(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1996. The New Golden Rule. New York: Basic Books.
Goodin, Robert. 1988. “What Is So Special about Our Fellow Countrymen?” Ethics 98(4): 663–86.Google Scholar
Greenfeld, Liah. 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Heath, Joseph. 2006. “The Benefits of Co-operation.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 34(4): 313–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Robert and Ross Miller. 2004. Before Norms. Anne Arbour MI: University of Michigan Press.
Keating, Michael. 1996. Nations Against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Klausen, Jytte. 1995. “Social Rights Advocacy and State Building: T.H. Marshall in the Hands of Social Reformers.” World Politics 47(2): 244–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhnle, Stein, Peter Flora and Derek Urwin and Derek Urwin, eds. 1999. State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, Will and Wayne Norman. 1995. “Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship.” In Theorizing Citizenship, ed. Ronald Beiner. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Marmore, Theodore, Jerry L. Mashaw and Phillip L. Harvey. 1990. America's Misunderstood Welfare State: Persistent Myths, Enduring Realities. New York: Basic Books.
Marshall, T.H. 1964. Class, Citizenship and Social Development. New York: Doubleday & Co.
Marx, Karl. 1978. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert Tucker. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
Miller, David. 1988. “In What Sense Must Socialism Be Communitarian?” Social Policy and Philosophy 6(2): 51–73.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, David. 2000. Citizenship and National Identity. Cambridge: Polity.
Moreno, Luis and Nicola McEwen. 2005. “Exploring the Territorial Politics of Welfare.” In The Territorial Politics of Welfare, ed. N. McEwen and L. Moreno. New York: Routledge.
Morrison, Bruce. 2003. “Transnational Democracy: The Pursuit of a Usable Past.” In Transnational Democracy in Critical and Comparative Perspective: Democracy's Range Considered, ed. B. Morrison. Burlington: Ashgate.
Myles, John. 1998. “How to Design a ‘Liberal’ Welfare State: A Comparison of Canada and the United States.” Social Policy & Administration 32(4): 341–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Offe, Claus. 1987. “Democracy against the Welfare State?” Political Theory 15(4): 501–37.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 2000. “The German Welfare State: Principles, Performance and Prospects after Unification.” Thesis Eleven 63(1): 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Gregg. 1994. “Locating the Canadian Welfare State: Family Policy and Health Care in Canada, Sweden and the US.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 19(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pogge, Thomas. 1989. Realizing Rawls. New York: Cornell University Press.
Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice (revised edition). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999a. “Social Unity and Primary Goods.” In Collected Papers, ed. Samuel Freeman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999b. “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus.” In Collected Papers, ed. S. Freeman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2003. Justice as Fairness, ed. Erin Kelly. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Reiman, Jeffrey. 1997. Critical Moral Liberalism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Rimlinger, Gaston. 1971. Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America and Russia. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2000. The New Social Question. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rothstein, Bo. 1998. Just Institutions Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schattschneider, E.E. 1935. Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Stephens, John. 1986. The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.
Swank, Duane. 2002. Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tam, Henry. 1998. Communitarianism: A New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Vernon, Richard. 1998. “Liberals, Democrats and the Agenda of Politics.” Political Studies 46(2): 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weale, Albert. 1990. “Equality, Social Solidarity and the Welfare State.” Ethics 100(1): 473–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Eugene. 1977. Making Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914. London: Chatto and Windus.
Wincott, Daniel. 2006. “Social Policy and Social Citizenship: Britain's Welfare State.” Publius: the Journal of Federalism 36(1): 169–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar