The welfare-convergence dilemma

Why social insurance is objectionable in the convergence conception of public justification

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21498908
AutoresChris Man-Kong Li (0000-0002-9286-8717, Hang Seng University of Hong Kong), Bernard Wong (0000-0003-0724-1635, Hong Kong Baptist University, autor de correspondencia)
Año2025
Volumen41
Número3
Páginas441-464
Fecha de publicación2025-11-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaEconomics and Philosophy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0266-2671 • E-ISSN: 1474-0028
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0266267124000440
OpenAlexW4406193755
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas50

Recently, convergence liberals, such as Kevin Vallier, argue that the principle of social insurance could be publicly justified. Our paper challenges this marriage of convergence liberalism and welfare state. We begin by examining Vallier’s three reasons for the principle of social insurance: risk aversion, injustice and the promotion of political trust. We then argue that all these reasons are intelligibly objectionable. After examining five possible responses that convergence liberals may offer, this paper concludes that the principle of social insurance is not conclusively justified in the convergence conception of public justification

Dilemma · Economic growth · Economics · Epistemology · Law and economics · Market economy · Public economics · Sociology · Welfare · Critical Theory and Philosophy · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics