“A Feminist Critique of Reciprocity and Conditionality,” paper presented at the plenary panel on Women, Family, and the Basic Income Guarantee, at the Fourth Congress of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network, New York, March 4-6, 2005.

Abstract: The ideal of reciprocity has been used by advocates of a conditional basic income to justify work requirements as an answer to the exploitation objection to an unconditional basic income. But the reciprocity principle and the exploitation objection rely on a male-centric, ideologized view of paid employment as the paradigmatic form of social contribution, and fail to account for many of the social contributions made by women (and men) who perform caregiving, volunteer, and other unpaid but socially useful activities. The substitution of participation requirements for work requirement is one answer to this problem, but a feminist critique suggests a more comprehensive rethinking of the way we assess distributive justice, property rights, and redistributive policies, and provides support for the argument for unconditionality.

“Distributive Justice and the Argument for an Unconditional Basic Income,” Journal of Socio-Economics, 34:1 (February 2005), 3-15.

Abstract: The defense of selective work requirements depends in part on a belief in the fairness of the capitalist economic system, in which property can be acquired, concentrated, and handed down in ways that lead to vast economic inequality. This belief supports the enforcement of work requirements on recipients of redistribution. But a problem inherent in theories of distributive justice, the inability to apply the same criteria of fairness to subsequent generations, undermines the legitimacy of this belief. I argue that an unconditional basic income is preferable to work-conditioned income support on distributive and political grounds.

“Basic Income in the United States: Redefining Citizenship in the Liberal State,” forthcoming in Review of Social Economy 63 (2005), and Michael Lewis, Steven Pressman, and Karl Widerquist, eds., The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee (Ashgate 2005).

Abstract: This paper examines citizenship-based arguments for work-conditioned welfare and basic income. I argue that the most common citizenship-based justifications for work requirements—the paternalistic and civic republican arguments—are flawed because of their selectivity, and that the only defensible citizenship-based justification for work requirements is the socialist model, which enforces work requirements universally on all. I offer as a liberal alternative a radically pluralist notion of citizenship, with a kind of universal economic suffrage at its core, to justify an unconditional basic income in the U.S.

“Radical Pluralism: A Liberal Defense of Unconditionality,” paper presented at the Ninth International Congress of the Basic Income European Network, Geneva, Switzerland, September 12-14, 2002.

Abstract: Advocates of a conditional basic income often point to the reciprocity principle as justification, but its implications extend far beyond basic income, and if taken seriously lead to a paternalistic society at odds with liberal ideals. I present a liberal defense of unconditional basic income based on a radically pluralist notion of citizenship that considers the economic sphere to be as important an arena of citizenship as the political sphere.

“Old and New Property Rights in Supreme Court Doctrine.” Harvard University Seminar Paper, 1989.

“Property and Rationality in Locke’s Two Treatises of Government.” Harvard University Seminar Paper, 1989.

“Foundations of Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory in the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men.” Harvard University Seminar Paper, 1991.

“Hunger and Human Rights," alumni profile in Harvard Magazine, March-April 1996, 88G.

“Legislative Watchdog,” alumni profile in Harvard Magazine, January-February 1996, 83.

“Learning is Part of the Job,” alumni profile in Harvard Magazine, September-October 1995, 85.