Had enough? Between the deepening environmental crisis, our ever-increasing economic inequality, the long list of underfunded (or unfunded) social needs, and a dysfunctional political regime in Washington, it’s more than obvious that our reigning political ideology has outlived its usefulness. The time has come to draft a new social contract that is grounded in the realities of the human condition and the challenges we face going forward. I call it the “Fair Society” model.
It may come as a surprise to learn that the collective survival enterprise in humankind entails no less than fourteen distinct domains of “basic needs.” These are absolute requisites for the survival and reproduction of each individual, and of a society as a whole over time. Furthermore, we spend much of our daily lives involved in activities that are either directly or indirectly related to satisfying these needs, including (not least) earning a living and contributing in various ways to help sustain the collective survival enterprise. In fact, our basic needs cut a very broad swath through our economy and our society. (All this is discussed in more detail in my 2011 book, The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice.)
Plato, in his great dialogue on social justice, the Republic, also recognized that societies exist to serve our basic needs. As he put it, “a city – or a state – is a response to human needs. No human being is self-sufficient, and all of us have many wants… [So] let us construct a city, keeping in mind that the origin of every real city is human necessity.” For Plato, social justice meant “giving every man his due.” But what is a person’s “due”? Plato did not spell this out in his writings. However, the emerging multi-disciplinary science of human nature in the 21st century provides us with some clear guidelines.
There are, in fact, three distinct normative principles that play a vitally important role in our social relationships. They represent the “goal posts,” so to speak, for achieving a fair society. These principles are (1) equality with respect to our basic survival needs; (2) equity with respect to “merit”; and (3) reciprocity, or giving back for the benefits we receive from others and society. As I explain in my 2011 book, these three fairness principles – equality, equity and reciprocity — must be bundled together and balanced in order to achieve a stable and relatively harmonious social order. It could be likened to a three-legged-stool; all three legs are equally important. Together they form the framework for what could be called a “biosocial contract.”
A biosocial contract must be grounded in a universal “basic needs guarantee” – a form of economic equality with a concrete but limited political agenda. This foundational requirement is based on four key propositions: (1) our basic needs are increasingly well-understood and documented; (2) although our individual needs vary somewhat, in general they are equally shared by all of us; (3) we are dependent upon many others, and our economy as a whole, for the satisfaction of these needs; and (4) more or less severe harm will result if any of these needs is not satisfied.
Our basic needs must take priority, but it is also important to recognize the many differences in merit among us and to reward (or punish) them accordingly. It is well documented that the principle of “just deserts” also plays a fundamental role in our social relationships. Our capitalist system at its best does a good job of providing rewards for merit, but this goal is often distorted or even subverted under the doctrine of “shareholder capitalism.” The reformist concept of “stakeholder capitalism,” in contrast, imposes the requirement that the interests of all the stakeholders, including society as a whole, must be included in corporate behavior and governance.
In addition, there must be reciprocity – an unequivocal commitment on the part of all of us (with some obvious exceptions) to help support the collective survival enterprise. We must all contribute a fair share toward balancing the scale of benefits and costs, for no society can long exist on a diet of pure altruism (or ever-increasing debt, for that matter). We must reciprocate for the benefits that we receive from society through such things as our labor, the taxes we pay, and public service.
This vision of a fair society is emphatically not an unattainable ideal. There are some real-world examples. What has been called the Nordic Model – including especially Norway and some other Scandinavian countries – encompasses full employment at decent wages, a relatively flat distribution of income, a full array of supportive social services, extensive investment in infrastructure, excellent free education and health care, a generous retirement system, high social trust, a strong commitment to democracy, and a government that is sensitive to the common good, not to mention having a competitive capitalist economy – yes, capitalist! — with high economic productivity and deep respect for the environment.
To top it off, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund (a financial reserve held in trust and earmarked for pubic needs) currently totals about $1 trillion, a huge nest egg for such a small country. Some apologists for American-style capitalism are dismissive about Norway, viewing it is an exception because it has the advantage of all those North Sea oil profits. Yes but, America was endowed with vastly greater oil deposits, which we have been exploiting for more than one hundred years. So where is our sovereign wealth fund? Nor does this explain away other welfare capitalist countries, like Finland and Denmark.
Some programmatic and policy implications for our own country include a national full-employment policy at a “living wage,” with government (or private sector contractors) as the employer of last resort (an idea that goes back to the Employment Act of 1946), along with a sharply increased minimum wage, upgraded job training programs, a vastly improved public education system, free public higher education, universal health and mental health care (with some co-pays and adequate controls of course), generous paid maternity and sick leave, excellent child care and pre-school programs that are available to all, sweeping infrastructure renovations and improvements, upgraded mass transit systems, beefed up retirement incomes, and more. Maybe we should also start our own sovereign wealth fund. It’s never too late.
To summarize the discussion in my new 2018 book, a positive way forward will ultimately depend on (1) a shift in our social values toward the adoption (and implementation) of a universal “basic needs guarantee,” (2) major changes in our capitalist economic system to include the interests of all the “stakeholders”, not just the shareholders, and (3) governments that are empowered (and constrained) to act for the common good on behalf of the “public trust” — an ancient legal principle that has recently re-emerged in our political dialogue as a legitimate government responsibility.
This new biosocial contract is a very tall order, needless to say. Some might say it’s too tall. But, in the long run, there may be no sustainable alternative. The Nordic Model (and, indeed, the American model back in the 1960s, before the great erosion of our middle class began) proves that it can be done. We have the means. It comes down to the social and political choices we make as a nation.