Program

Abstract: Economic reciprocity is embedded in most of our everyday transactions, as a norm that guides our behaviour in the market, but has also inspired many policies within the welfare state, namely so-called workfare policies. In this paper, I argue that existing accounts of economic reciprocity fall within two views: the standard view, which determines that to receive benefits, one needs to take on a full-time employment, and the extended standard view, where benefits are conditional to a more inclusive view of what counts as contribution (i.e., including reproductive labour or civic work). In this paper I argue that both views fail to capture how individuals experience obligations of economic reciprocity. In doing so, policies who endorse such views, cannot avoid inflicting two wrongs in the least advantaged members of society, namely, a threat of domination from social services and social networks, but also imposing a burden by restricting their capacity to reciprocate.  I proceed to argue for a new conception which I am calling autonomous reciprocity, that aims to ensure that everyone can cooperate in society, in a non-dominating and meaningful way, hence fostering the basis of self-respect, and contributing to just outcomes.

Abstract: Recent contributions have advanced the case for workplace democracy, arguing that workers should have responsive control over managers to make them track their interests. This paper expands these arguments by further elaborating on the link between the economic sphere and democratic theory. The idea of responsive control highlights the need to establish institutional checks on potentially harmful interference from managers. However, workers' self-government requires not only "negative" protections from invasive managers but also "positive" influence and direction on the firm's purposes —altering workers' motivations in turn. In that way, workers can identify with the firm, its endeavours and its members. For that matter, empirical evidence suggests that workplace democracy transforms the firm's purposes and its member's motivations. On the other hand, contemporary approaches to political representation —such as Mansbridge's— can be fruitfully applied to the firm to elucidate in which distinct senses we can take managers to represent workers. Empirical evidence shows that democratic workplaces can make their members more alike and foster relations of trust, conditions relevant to assessing representation.

Abstract: This paper conducts a dual literature review on Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) and Workplace Democracy (WD), examining the intersections of these frameworks through the lens of Philip Pettit’s (1997) concept of freedom as non-domination. By focusing on economic and labor dimensions, the study explores how UBI and WD might converge to reduce domination in employment contexts. UBI, by ensuring a right to exit from labor, is posited as a tool to counteract employer dominance, while WD aims to democratize workplace structures, allowing employees meaningful participation in governance. When combined, UBI and WD could offer a complementary pathway toward empowering individuals to pursue occupations voluntarily, fostering healthier workplace relationships and a collaborative environment. This synthesis envisions a model of WD where UBI facilitates workers' ability to become stakeholders, aligning interests through structures such as bicameralism and stakeholding. While UBI addresses basic financial security and WD assures democratic participation, their integration may promote both individual autonomy and collective decision-making. The paper thus contributes to ongoing discourse on reducing workplace domination and enhancing freedom, while underscoring the potential of UBI and WD to jointly cultivate more equitable labor relations and societal cohesion

Abstract: Does scientific information shape support for policy proposals? Or rather, are prior beliefs more influential? Motivated reasoning theories posit that scientific information has a limited impact on public opinion, given that individuals typically strive to confirm beliefs. This view radically contrasts with the rationality implicit in political economy literature on preferences. We bridge these two strands of scholarship to argue that, under some conditions, the benefits of updating beliefs may outweigh the cognitive costs of doing so. This is likely to be the case if individuals are directly affected by an issue or care strongly about it. We test this using comparative experimental data on universal basic income (UBI). Scientific information does not have an impact on policy support or seeking further information, and neither does belief-congruent information. Even when individuals face incentives to draw accurate conclusions, they rely on prior beliefs rather than scientific information. The findings presented in this paper have far reaching implications to the study of motivated reasoning, welfare preferences and the politics of UBI.

Abstract: In recent decades, there has been a growing call in the literature to democratize the workplace. Scholars have highlighted how the persistence of hierarchical relationships in work environments effectively results in the isolation of a significant dimension of individuals’ lives from demands for political equality. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the role of reproductive labor in this debate. This paper argues that this oversight stems partly from an excessive focus on politically and legally sanctioned forms of labor, such as wage labor. Although approaches to workplace democracy suffer from a number of limitations, I propose that viewing democratization primarily from the perspective of the workplace—rather than from a broader societal perspective—creates significant blind spots for the problem of reproductive labor. To address this gap, I draw on Marx’s critique of Hegel’s political philosophy. Marx’s concept of society emerges from his critical examination of Hegel’s notion of the modern state and its failure to recognize its foundation in civil society. While Marx does not extend his critique to include the institution of the family as a site of socio-economic reproduction, this paper suggests that his method provides valuable insights into the limitations of current calls for workplace democratization.