Grijalva Maza, Luisa Fernanda - Capítulo 5. Conclusion- A Rawlsian Analysis of Pension Privatization in North America Reportar como inadecuado




Grijalva Maza, Luisa Fernanda - Capítulo 5. Conclusion- A Rawlsian Analysis of Pension Privatization in North America - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.


Grijalva Maza, Luisa Fernanda
- Capítulo 5. Conclusion-
A Rawlsian Analysis of Pension Privatization in North
America
-- Maestría en Estudios de
Norteamérica. - Departamento de Relaciones Internacionales
y Ciencias Políticas. - Escuela de Ciencias Sociales, - Universidad de las Américas
Puebla.


Introducción



CONCLUSIONS The privatization of state-run pension schemes should not be seen as a modification or renewal of some ancient social policy.
Even though it seems like a much needed and anticipated reform for pension programs, it is critical to understand that this reform entails a change of the philosophical guidelines that underpin social policy.
State-run PAYG pension programs had followed the precepts of Rawlsian liberalism, requiring social cooperation to identify the least advantaged by economic income and natural endowments, and therefore benefit these individuals in the least advantaged position.
Responsibility lies on the individual, and also on the collective.
It is a responsibility-sharing system.
On the other hand, pension privatization as Individual Accounts finds its guidelines-roots, in Nozickean libertarianism.1 The new program requires the cancellation of social cooperation by which the least advantaged where identified and benefited. The least advantaged continue to be disadvantaged; the difference lies in that they are no longer a morally relevant group subject for aid or benefit through redistributive mechanisms.
Individuals are, therefore, considered the first and last source of responsibility. The arguments of the two theories were presented in the first chapter.
I argued that Nozickean libertarianism is a theory that relies on individual responsibility and on the universal right of self-ownership.
The problem with Nozick’s understanding of self-ownership is that it is too limited, and does not yield self-determination.
Therefore, the theory allows levels of slavery, where only some advantaged or lucky individuals will be able to have self-determination, meanwhile, others will be slaved to their unfortunate circumstances.
Rawlsian liberalism, on the other hand, is a much more inclusive theory.
Its main objective is to avoid selectiveness, on the basis of natural and social contingencies, that are no fault of the individual.
Rawls’ principles of...






Documentos relacionados