The Growing Problem of Inequality in the United Kingdom and
Alternatives to Capitalism:
How effective is participatory economics at addressing
inequality at work for both disabled and able workers?
Master’s Thesis in Political Science with a Specialisation Political Theory
Title: How effective is participatory economics at addressing inequality at work for both disabled and able workers?
Supervisor: Paul Raekstad Second Reader: Enzo Rossi Name: Lottie Lightfoot Student Number: 11770872 Date: 23rd August 2019
Abstract:
This thesis aims to assess what would be the most effective way of transcending capitalism in the UK. I intend to focus on two primary alternatives: social empowerment and participatory economics, as the two viable alternatives I wish to look at.
This thesis intends to argue that a model based on participatory economics would be the best solution for problems posed by inequality. I argue that inequality is directly caused by capitalism, and in order to effectively eradicate inequality, capitalism must be eradicated first. I will focus on disability rights, unemployment and workers’ rights to develop my argument, asserting that participatory economics will be the best model in order to protect these rights. The primary problem of capitalism is that it causes inequality, thus anything that wishes to replace capitalism must be able to address and reduce inequality. Social empowerment will be compared with participatory economics - I argue that social empowerment, whilst it may have some positive short term effects, will not be able to effectively eradicate the ills of capitalism. Participatory economics, on the other hand, will be able to address the root causes of where capitalism is going wrong - and while this may take a bit longer to develop, will have much more long standing benefits.
1.0 Introduction: 6
1.1. The Research Question and Motivation: 6
1.1. The Research Subject: Participatory Economics: 6
1.3 Workers’ Rights and Disabled Workers’ Rights: 7 1.4 Structure: 9
2.0 Literature Review: 10
2.1 Inequality in the United Kingdom: 10 2.2 Disability and Marxism in the Literature: 10
2.3 Capitalism and the continuing problem of inequality: 12 2.4 Participatory Economics: 14
3.0 Analysis: 17 3.1 Workers’ Rights: 17
3.2 The Division of Labour and the Balancing of Jobs: 17
3.3 Remuneration according to effort: 20 3.4 Remuneration according to need: 22
3.5 Participatory Economics and Disability Rights: 23 3.6 The balancing of jobs and disability: 24
3.7 Effort Ratings and Disability: 24
3.8 Idealistic or Realistic? Participatory Economics and Problems of Feasibility: 26 4.0 Criticisms and Counter Arguments: 29
4.1 The Market Socialism Critique: 29 4.2 The Social Empowerment Critique: 30
5.0 Concluding remarks: 32 6.0 Bibliography: 35
1.0 Introduction
1.1. The Research Question and Motivation:
My research question is “How effective is participatory economics at addressing inequality at work for both disabled and able workers?”
Austerity and income inequality have been continuing, pressing problems in Britain for a few years now. After being announced in 2010 by the leading Conservative Party, austerity was enacted through various funding cuts to public sectors including health, schools, and emergency services. Cuts to people’s benefits has had a damaging impact on their wellbeing, and the wellbeing of their children, with a significant rise in the use of food banks being documented in roughly the past decade. These food banks have been opening in areas that have received some of the more debilitating funding cuts, particularly to people’s benefits and local services spending, and in areas where there are much higher unemployment rates (Loopstra et al, 2015: 2). Unemployment continues to be a significant issue in certain areas of the UK, homelessness has been steadily rising, minimum wage, and the gender pay gap continues to be a problem.
These are problems that are not new however, and have highlighted a growing desire for change. Minimum wages may increase, but so does the cost of living. Capitalism continues to fail to address severe issues of inequality. Its main components are wage labour, private property, the division of labour, and competitive markets. These also happen to be the root causes of inequality. As traditional Marxism puts it, the harms caused by capitalism as “a system of production are attributed both to the pernicious effects of the market and to power and exploitation linked to the class relation between capitalists and workers” (Wright, 2006: 135).
In the midst of all of these issues, three major things stand out: unemployment, workers’ rights, and disability rights. Families and individuals with dealing with disabilities have been some of the worst hit by austerity and budget cuts, and this is shown in the rise of these individuals and families frequenting food banks in order to survive. In figures, “more than 1.6 million emergency food parcels were given to people going hungry across the UK last year”, with half of those that attend these food banks “are from households that have one disabled family member” at least (de Cordova, 2019).
1.1. The Research Subject: Participatory Economics
I chose to focus on participatory economics, specifically how it can be adapted for workers’ and disability rights. Marxism has been adapted and reinterpreted numerous times to incorporate or flesh out other ideas and visions, concerning the environment, feminism, and race. However, there is little focus on a significant portion of society, and that is Marxism and disability.
What we are looking for is a desirable alternative to capitalism. This research area is something that is not new, though it comes with heavy criticism. Those who disregard anti-capitalism see the proponents of it as merely exaggerating, and instead offer damage control as a much better solution. On the other
hand, there are anti-capitalists who, while they denounce capitalism and call for systematic change, do not offer any concrete solutions or ideas beyond requesting a more just and democratic economy, and for more consideration for the environment (Hahnel, 2005: 165).
Is “damage control” really the best way to approach this? Why is ameliorating the effects of something that causes harm better than addressing the problem at its root cause? When looking for future models of government and society that move away from capitalism, one particular model stands out:
participatory economics. Participatory economics focuses on creating a system that rewards people for their effort and need, rather than their contribution.
1.3 Workers’ Rights and Disabled Workers’ Rights
The American Socialist Workers Party in 1976 put forward their manifesto, outlining a proposed bill of rights for working people. They are as follows:
1) Right to a job;
2) Right to an adequate income; 3) Right to free education; 4) Right to free medical care; 5) Right to secure retirement;
6) Right to know the truth about economic and political policies that affect our lives; 7)Right of oppressed national minorities to control their own affairs;
8) Right to decide economic and political policy
(Socialist Workers Party, 1976).
Numbers three, four and seven, while being important morally and politically, will not be discussed in this thesis. The UK already has free medical care (though with some exceptions, including prescriptions and glasses), and education is free up until a certain age. it is the other five that I am most interested in discussing here. When I refer to workers’ rights (though these individual rights will be discussed in turn), I am referring to these particular rights.
After workers’ rights have been defined, I must also define disabled workers’ rights. The
aforementioned list above is also directly applicable to disabled workers. However, these rights outlined by the Socialist Workers Party cannot just be “copied and pasted” for disabled workers. In addition to these, disabled workers also different support to aid their different needs.
It is quite difficult to determine what exactly should these rights look like. I do not have any physical or mental disabilities, so I cannot offer any truly in depth insight on how I think these rights ought to look. There is also a worry I may overlook something that could very well be critically important to another human being.
The UK’s current laws surrounding the rights and protections of disabled workers covers these particular criteria outlined below.
1) Extending protection against indirect discrimination to disability;
2) Introducing the concept of “discrimination arising from disability” to replace protection under previous legislation lost as a result of a legal judgment;
3) Applying the detriment model to victimisation protection (aligning with the approach in employment law);
4) harmonising the thresholds for the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people; 5) extending protection against harassment of employees by third parties to all protected
characteristics;
6) Making it more difficult for disabled people to be unfairly screened out when applying for jobs, by restricting the circumstances in which employers can ask job applicants questions about disability or health;
(Equality Act, 2010).
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also contains a list of what it considers to be “reasonable accommodation”. In other words, changes or modifications to the workplace in order to accommodate for incoming workers who have either physical or mental impairments.
1) Flexible of modified work schedules;
2) Adjustment of training materials and employee policies; 3) Providing new or modifying existing equipment;
4) Making the workplace more accessible for people with disabilities; 5) Job restructuring;
6) Reassignment to another position; 7) Proving interpreters
(FindLaw, 2019).
From these criteria, we can begin to understand what a disability friendly workspace ought to look like, in addition to the rights applied to able bodied workers. One of the main facets that particularly stands out is the need to adapt workplaces to accommodate. Everyone has a right to work if they choose to, why should anything stop them from doing so? I want to stress here specifically that this is only in the case of those who want to and are definitely very physically able to. There are certain disabilities (often termed “invisible illnesses”) where people may look physically able, but do actually have a disability or disabilities that are not immediately noticeable or present, such as chronic fatigue or severe hyper mobility, where the person in question is at risk of dislocating limbs from doing simple acts.
However, what also appears to be strongly lacking in these laws and proposals is whether or not someone will be rewarded for the same amount of effort they put in. That effort may on the surface look to be a little less than their able bodied coworkers, for example, someone with chronic fatigue may only
put in four hours, while her co-worker clocks off after eight hours. Yet despite the disparity in work time, or the tasks each of them complete, there was still a significant amount of sacrifice put in from the worker with chronic fatigue, that either matches or exceeds the amount done by her colleagues. 1.4 Structure
The thesis will begin by looking at the literature surrounding income inequality and the issue rise of poverty in the UK. A lot of evidence regarding the latter is largely anecdotal, with this section relying predominantly on newspaper articles. I look at the rise of cuts to various forms of welfare, which has resulted in an exponential rise in poverty. The literature review is divided into four parts: inequality, disability and Marxism, capitalism, and participatory economics. The section on participatory economics delves more into the ideas suggested by Hahnel and Albert, while disability in Marxist literature is looked at in a separate section. What I conclude from the literature review is that participatory
economics overlooks a significant issue (disability rights). Once this facet is incorporated into the case for participatory economics, it makes the proposal overall stronger, more viable, and just.
For the analysis section of this thesis, it will be broken into six subsections. In the first two, I analyse workers’ rights in the UK and how they can be aided by participatory economics. In 3.2 I delve more deeply into this, by looking at the problem of modern work today and how the balancing of jobs can specifically help able bodied workers by creating less physically taxing or unpleasant work schedules. After that I will then look at remuneration according to effort and need, and how they can create a much safer living and working environment for all abilities, rather than remuneration based on contribution, which can severely hinder people who are less able than others, or less able to commit to a certain number of hours or days or certain types of work due to external factors, such as providing care to their families.
I then move on to specifically looking at how participatory economics can help people with disabilities. In 3.6, I start by looking at the aforementioned balancing of jobs but this time how it can specifically aid people with disabilities. I argue that the balancing of jobs in a ParEcon society can enable disabled people to enter the workforce with greater ease, and be able to find empowering work than can be better catered to their disabilities. Working hours and tasks can be altered for a disabled person, and they can be remunerated based on their effort rather than contribution. A disabled person may not be able to complete all the tasks, may need help, or may put in fewer hours than their able bodied workers, but it does not mean that they put in less effort. Stemming from this, the thesis then develops the idea of effort ratings, and how this can be altered to consider disabled workers.
The final part of the analysis, 3.8, will consider the practicality of a Parecon society, and whether or not it is desirable and achievable. I draw the conclusion that while it may be difficult and require a
significant amount of effort and time, it is an ideal that should be considered. 4.0 onwards is devoted to any counter arguments against Parecon. I choose to focus on two: a critique from a market socialism standpoint and a critique from a social empowerment standpoint. After assessing these two, I conclude the thesis.
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Inequality in the United Kingdom
Problems of inequality do not exist in a vacuum. For example, economic inequality is not always necessarily due to social inequality, there are a variety of other factors at play. Intersectionality is the term given for “all the ways people can be disadvantaged, oppressed, or exploited and given the fact that these relationships seem all to (sic) exist at the same time” (Brown, 2008: 188). I am only focusing on the inequality surrounding workers and people with disabilities, though I understand these two facets are part of a wider, intersectional problem of inequality that includes issues such as gender and race. For this thesis however, I will only focus on workers’ rights and disability rights.
Income inequality has continued to be a problem in Britain for multiple decades. In a report from the nineties, it was found that income inequality had continued to rise since the 1970s (Lindert, 1998: 3). This problem, instead of lessening, has appeared to have carried on into the 2000s. In 2004 to 2005, it was found that nearly two-thirds of the population had a household income that was below the “national average equivalised income of £427 per week” (Brewer et al, 2006: 1). It was also noted that overall, the distribution of these household incomes were somewhat skewed by a “relatively small number of people on relatively high incomes. Median equivalised income in 2004/05 was £349 per week – in other words, half the population had household income below this amount, after adjusting for family size” (Brewer et al, 2006: 1).
One thing can be noted during the early 2000s and that was the decrease in child poverty. This was primarily due to the increase in “the amount of cash transfers made to families with children and through welfare-to-work and other policies that have helped parents in previously workless families to find work and therefore increase their incomes” (Brewer et al, 2006: 1). However, since then this has apparently changed. Food insecurity and child poverty appear to have risen in roughly the last decade. Trussell Trust food banks between 2009 and 2010 were in operation in 29 local authorities across the UK, but by 2014 this had increased to 251 (Loopstra et al, 2015: 1). Soup kitchens and the like have long since been operating within Britain, but this stark and quick increase in numbers has highlighted a severe issue with food insecurity and poverty, with the Faculty of Public Health stating that the current welfare system in the country has consistently failed to “provide a robust last line of defence against hunger” (Loopstra et al, 2015: 1).
2.2 Disability and Marxism in the Literature
The representation of those with disabilities has generally been omitted from many political
philosopher’s visions, particularly pro-capitalist visions. In a capitalist society, where value is put on hard work and one’s output, where do disabled people fit into this? Marx introduced the relationship between people with disabilities and capitalism early on in his work, particularly noting the increase of those who had become “victims of industry, whose number increases with the growth of dangerous machinery, of mines, chemical works, etc,” (Brown, 2008: 187).
Marx recognised this as a form of inequality. He noted that some people may be superior to others either physically or mentally, and that from this can be able to supply “more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right” (Marx, 1891: 1).
In Marxist thought, creating an alternative economic ideal that is inclusive of people with disabilities is something that has been widely covered in literature. Michael Oliver has argued that Marxist economic theory has a “far greater transformative potential in eradicating the oppression that disabled people face throughout the world than the interactionist and functionalist theories that underpin normalization ever can have” (Oliver, 2017). Marxists have long since highlighted the connection between disability and capitalism, noting that the actual concept of disability arose during the move from feudalism to capitalism. As land became taken over and privatised and economic activity became more focused on industry rather than farming, it resulted in the masses being expected to secure “their means of subsistence primarily via wage labor, on pain of starvation” and that the only exceptions to this were people “who happened to possess impairments, whether physical or mental, which rendered them ill-adapted to the particular activities and norms associated with factory-based production for wages” (Rosenthal, 2017). These people were defined by their inability to conform to these labour standards, and were broadly cast under the term of “unemployable”, and hence were “cast aside to the caprices of charity, the asylum and the jail-like workhouse--in a word, to pauperism” (Rosenthal, 2017).
How does one go about defining disability today? What must at once be avoided when considering definitions is the capitalistic idea of understanding disability as the opposite of ability, that Rosenthal describes above. Capitalist notions of disability imply that it “has, to a large extent, ‘come to mean unable to work’” (2017). Disabled people are not just the polar opposites of able bodied people, which immediately implies that disabled people are already somewhat inferior to their able bodied
counterparts. Oliver defines disability in terms of “three criteria; (i) they have an impairment; (ii) they experience oppression as a consequence; and (c) they identify themselves as a disabled person” (Oliver, 2017). By using this interpretation I do not want to ignore the individual, often wildly differing, experiences of people with disabilities. Oppression comes in different forms for people with differing disabilities - no one experience is the same. However, in order to conduct a materialist analysis of disability, “an analysis of normalization must be included" (Chappell, 1992: 38).
People with disabilities can be, rather cruelly, seen as only an economic problem for a capitalist society because of the need to make “changes in the nature of work and the needs of the labour market within capitalism” Oliver, 2017). People with disabilities and impairments, both mental and physical, cannot fit in a capitalist framework of work, as it refuses to accommodate for their differences. This is particularly noticeable with factory work, or any work that requires a high level of physical exertion: “The speed of factory work, the enforced discipline, the time-keeping and production norms -all these were a highly unfavourable change from the slower, more self-determined methods of work into which many handicapped people had been integrated", (Ryan and Thomas, 1980: 101).
Not everyone can put in the same amount of time and effort as the next person. Disabilities, seen or unseen, and mental health problems, can have a varying degree of impact on a person’s work. In some cases, people need to take months off work to recover, or cannot work as much as someone who is able bodied. Returning to work after a bout of illness is also a difficult task, and may require shorter shifts and less taxing work in order to ease the person back into regular work and hours.
Some people with disabilities cannot work at all, and as such need to have governmental and financial support in order to live a high quality life. Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, there have been significant cuts to disability services and funding in the UK, which has had a devastating impact on people’s livelihoods. It was revealed by the Trussell Trust that in 2018, “more than 1.6 million
emergency food parcels were given to people going hungry across the UK last year”, with half of those that attend these food banks “are from households that have one disabled family member” (de
Cordova, 2019). It appears as though we have not changed since when Marx began writing. People with disabilities, unable to provide work up to standards, have found themselves in modern day pauperism.
It appears as though those who cannot work due to either physical or mental impairments have also been experiencing significant welfare cuts like the rest of the country - often with a far more devastating impact. In 2018, it was reported that there has been a reduction of disability benefit welfare of £5 billion in the past decade due to severe austerity (Disability Rights UK, 2018). This reduction is part of a wider problem - by 2021, “£37bn less will be spent on working-age social security compared with 2010, despite rising prices and living costs” (Butler, 2018). These cuts have only succeeding in making the poorest and most vulnerable in UK society worse off, and has caused income inequality to grow.
Specifically due to this reduction in welfare, people face extra costs totalling £570 to help manage living with their disabilities (Disability Rights UK, 2018). Welfare in a capitalistic setting has only resulted in welfare being substantially cut due to lack of profit. Capitalism, being focused entirely on production and property relations, has resulted in the “unaccommodating structuring of a given society”
(Rosenthal, 2017)
In a study on income inequality, and how it can impact people’s mental health, it was found a
“non-linear association between income and the common mental disorders, and the common mental disorders, and the statistically significant interaction between income inequality and income level in their associations with the prevalence of these disorders” (Weich et al, 2001: 224). Put more simply, those who experience stronger income inequality and income insecurity are far more likely to develop common mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression.
2.3 Capitalism and the continuing problem of inequality
There is, of course, a very divided opinion on capitalism and the presence of markets. For a long time, however, in a lot of literature surrounding political economics and social theory, the general consensus was that “the substantial use of markets is an appropriate and necessary means by which to allocate
goods and services, as well as determine prices within an economy” (Donnaruma and Partyka, 2012: 40).
Capitalism and markets have severe shortcomings which “lead to allocational and pricing inefficiencies and produce socially destructive outcomes” (Donnaruma and Partyka, 2012: 43). Donnaruma and Partyka define markets’ shortcomings as: “(i) markets’ failure to internalize externalities; (ii) markets’ underproduction of public goods; (iii) markets’ creation and exacerbation of inequalities; and (iv) markets’ inability to function under idealized conditions in the real world” (2012: 43). Of course, for this thesis, I am more preoccupied with and interested in the last two points they make.
Markets also have a tendency to underproduce public goods. Public goods do not encourage
exclusivity or rivalry. Donnaruma and Partyka use the example of the reduction of air pollution to make the point. Those who live in an area that has had the government reduce air pollution will benefit from it, even though they did not contribute to it financially in any way: “If other people paid for the reduction of air pollution, and if we could not be excluded from the benefits of these efforts, why would we be prepared to pay for it on the open market?” (2012: 45). As such, publicly funded goods and services remain critically underfunded, with welfare being a strong example.
Morally, the case against markets and capitalism is incredibly strong. Because of markets, unequal outcomes occur, primarily due to the exchange of products in competitive markets when actors begin with differing amounts of products: “if those who are initially better off capture a higher percent-age of the increased economic efficiency that results from exchange than those who are worse off, although exchange will be voluntary and mutually beneficial, it will also increase the degree of inequality in the economy” (Donnaruma and Partyka, 2012: 44). Income inequality has always been a longstanding problem. The presence of markets permits “those with greater abilities to reap greater economic reward than those of lesser abilities even when those of greater abilities exert less effort and sacrifice”
(Donnaruma and Partyka, 2012: 44). As Hahnel affirms, markets only reward “those who are the most efficient at taking advantage of his or her fellow man or woman, and penalize those who insist,
illogically, on pursuing the golden rule - do unto others, as you would have them do unto you” (Hahnel, 2007). The government can lessen the effects somewhat, through welfare and putting restrictions on the market so it is not completely laissez-faire, but it does not address the root causes, and these ameliorating effects can only go so far. Families continue to earn very little in comparison to billionaires who profit from markets. Moreover, markets do little for unemployment due to the appeal of outsourcing labour to third world countries, where workers can be “more easily exploited through non-living wages, unsafe working conditions, and not having to provide benefits” (Donnaruma and Partyka, 2012: 49). It is markets that also perpetuate the division of labour (Hahnel, 2007). The division of labour continues to be an ever growing issue in capitalist society. Adam Smith presented a rather picturesque vision of the division of labour. We are invited to imagine the art of pin-making. A man who has not done the work before and is certainly not familiar with the tools and equipment to make one, would be perfectly able to perform one simple task within the entire pin-making process once he has been shown how. As Smith puts it: “One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth
grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations…” (Smith, 1776: 8) and so on, and so forth.
The work is as straightforward as it is boring. Smith’s example of pin-making is outdated now, with no offence to pin-makers. However, despite the archaic example, we still find ourselves actually in this archaic example - different, but not. Factories and businesses still have a strong division of labour. Even in hospitality there is still a division of labour - those who do bar work, waiting, cleaning, porter work, and so on. The division of labour also strongly keeps the division of classes in place: the more rewarding, enjoyable work is frequented by the more well off classes, while the working class often find themselves in unpleasant or boring jobs (although this is not necessarily always the case).The division of labour is about efficiency only, creating an overworked, strung out workforce in order to maximise profit as much as possible. It organises people into “isolated, self-interested competitors, markets negatively influence the kind of people we become” (Donnaruma and Partyka, 2012: 44).
We have long since moved past the conception that Smith put forward that a division of tasks boosts productivity. In fact, it is quite the opposite; confining people to humdrum tasks actually damages productivity and overall leads to a rather unhappy workforce (Hahnel, 2005; 2012). And yet, we still find ourselves stuck in it. The division of labour continues to be a persisting problem because productivity is generally far more favoured over worker health and happiness.
2.4 Participatory Economics
At its core, participatory economics is an alternative to capitalism that focuses on having a planned economy. Participatory economics’ system runs on participatory decision making in a planned
economy, that focuses on common ownership and decentralised planning. It is closely associated and attributed to Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, who in 1991 published their book, The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, detailing their ideas. Since then they have both considerably “fleshed out” their visions and proposals.
Participatory economics focuses on “public ownership and a decentralized planning procedure in which workers and consumers propose and revise their own activities until an equitable, efficient plan is reached” (Albert and Hahnel, 1991). From here, Hahnel lays out some important goals that participatory economics strives for: that it achieves economic democracy, economic justice, solidarity, and all the while is environmentally sustainable (Hahnel, 2012: 15). There are three defining features of
participatory economics: income is relatively the same for everyone (with income depending on hours and effort put in), there is no hierarchy in the workplace whatsoever, and there is no market competition (Schweickart, 2006: 2). Replacing the market economy, consumers fill out forms each year that indicate what they think they will consume in the following year, and workers will respond with what they think is reasonable that they can produce based upon these requests. Should any discrepancies arise from this, “negotiation take place at various levels (sic), involving consumer councils, worker councils and facilitation boards until a coherent plan is compiled. If there are several such plans, voters choose the one they prefer” (Schweickart, 2006: 2).
Hahnel outlined the institutional goals for participatory economics, which are listed below.
(1)self-governing democratic councils of workers and consumers where each member has one vote, (2) jobs balanced for empowerment and desirability by the members of worker councils themselves, (3) compensation according to effort as judged by one’s workmates, and
(4) a participatory planning procedure in which councils and federations of workers and consumers propose and revise their own interrelated activities without central planners or markets, under rules designed to generate outcomes that are efficient, equitable, and environmentally sustainable.
(Hahnel, 2012).
Complete economic democracy will always be tricky. After all, as Hahnel points out, that there are simply “too many important situations where the economic freedom of one person conflicts with the economic freedom of another person” (Hahnel, 2012: 17). If everything conflicts with something else, where do we find a happy medium? It is important to note that participatory economics does not equate to economic freedom - otherwise the acts of one will impact the freedoms of another. Due to the varying ways economic decisions impact various people at different levels, Hahnel defines the core of
participatory economics as the “decision making in-put, or power, in proportion to the degree one is affected by different economic choices” (Hahnel, 2012: 19). He also notes that, “The other dominant conception of economic democracy is majority rule” (Hahnel, 2012: 18).
Supporters of participatory economics think that, according to Hahnel, that “economic democracy should be defined as decision making in-put, or power, in proportion to the degree one is affected by different economic choices” (Hahnel, 2012: 21).
Hahnel, in defence of participatory economics, had outlined four distributive principles (or what he refers to as maxims), which details exactly how people should be compensated for their contributions within this idea of economic cooperation. In theory, with these maxims, no one should have to suffer economic insecurity or face destitution.
They are listed as so:
“·Maxim 1: To each according to the value of the contribution of her human and physical capital. ·Maxim 2: To each according to the value of the contribution of only her human capital.
•Maxim 3: To each according to her effort, or personal sacrifice. And, ·Maxim 4: To each according to her need” (Hahnel, 2012: 21).
For the sake of clarity, and time and word constraints, I will only focus on three and four. These two maxims are particularly interesting to look at when comparing a capitalistic model to a non-capitalistic model. As per capitalist models of society, you are not compensated according to what you need, or how much it takes you to perform a particular task. You are compensated for the task you do and the
task you do alone. Hahnel and Albert note that while they believe maxim 4 is the only way that humane societies distribute (Hahnel and Albert, 2012).
A welfare and benefits system is, in theory, there to provide a sort of “compensation” to those who cannot commit to a full time work week, or what is generally considered to be a standard job. In these instances, they cannot commit to working, or not being able to work to a level generally expected, due to a variety of reasons, often including the rearing of children, and illnesses and disabilities.
Where Hahnel misses out on personal sacrifice is the importance of disabilities and abilities. For maxim number 3, he does ask to what extent are different people able to put effort, dependent on their
personal situations: “Or is it easier for some to make sacrifices than it is for others, just as it is easier for some to perform difficult and valuable physical or mental tasks than it is for others?” (Hahnel, 2012: 29). It is a question he, frustratingly, does not answer. Yet considering disabilities and abilities is a valid point, and would arguably make the call for maxim number three much stronger.
There are of course strong critics of participatory economics, namely David Schweickart, a supporter of market socialism, and Erik Wright, who favours social empowerment. These two are other, opposing theories of alternatives to capitalism, which I will colour in later during the analysis. The main criticisms levelled at participatory economics are that the fastidious planning has some heavy complications, that the balancing of jobs would lead to a loss of specialisation, and that participatory economics just is not that desirable in the first place (Hahnel and Wright, 2016; Hahnel, 2012; Schweickart, 2006).
3.0 Analysis:
3.1 Workers’ Rights:
3.2 The Division of Labour and the Balancing of Jobs:
The division of labour continues to be an ever growing issue in capitalist society. Adam Smith presented a rather picturesque vision of the division of labour. We are invited to imagine the art of pin-making. A man who has not done the work before and is certainly not familiar with the tools and equipment to make one, would be perfectly able to perform one simple task within the entire pin-making process once he has been shown how. As Smith puts it: “One man draws out the wire, another
straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations…” (Smith, 1776: 8) and so on, and so forth.
The work is as straightforward as it is boring. Smith’s example of pin-making is outdated now, with no offence to pin-makers. However, despite the archaic example, we still find ourselves actually in this archaic example - different, but not. Factories and businesses still have a strong division of labour. Even in hospitality there is still a division of labour - those who do bar work, waiting, cleaning, porter work, and so on. The division of labour also strongly keeps the division of classes in place: the more rewarding, enjoyable work is frequented by the more well off classes, while the working class often find themselves in unpleasant or boring jobs (although this is not necessarily always the case).
We have long since moved past the conception that Smith put forward that a division of tasks boosts productivity. In fact, it is quite the opposite; confining people to humdrum tasks actually damages productivity and overall leads to a rather unhappy workforce (Hahnel, 2005; 2012). And yet, we still find ourselves stuck in it. The division of labour continues to be a persisting problem because productivity is generally far more favoured over worker health and happiness.
What possible ways are to overcome this then? The division of labour is unique to capitalism and capitalism alone, so it is clear it is something that must be moved beyond in order to eradicate the issue. It is here that I want to argue here that I see the balancing of jobs to be the best way to eradicate inequality, far more than the greater policy decision making offered by social empowerment can. The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of jobs that are unempowering, tedious, and sometimes rather unpleasant. As Hahnel writes of hierarchical economies, the majority of work consists of “similar, relatively undesirable, and relatively unempowering tasks, while a few jobs contain a number of relatively desirable and empowering tasks” (Hahnel, 2012: 55).
The mention of balancing jobs and dividing tasks to create a more equal workforce attracts the usual rebuttal that this initiative will put an end to specialisation. Hahnel has been rather frank addressing this criticism: “The proposal is not that everyone perform every task, which
is impossible and ridiculous. Each person will still perform a very small number of tasks in her particular balanced job” (Hahnel, 2012: 55). It is also best that workers in question should only have a small number of tasks to do - certainly not performing every task possible within the company. This merely
runs the risk of staff not being trained properly, and being unsure of what to do and what their role within the company actually is. It is imperative that specialisation remains within the participatory economic framework.
Critics of participatory economics may also point out that if every job was levelled out for desirability, would anyone be motivated to study and train to achieve jobs that require more skill, time, and effort such as medicine and engineering? The rebuttal to this potential claim is thus: firstly, participatory economics maintains that there ought to be remuneration based on effort. Those who have more complex, stressful, time-consuming, and training heavy roles will be compensated at a higher level for the effort that has gone in. Secondly, people do not choose professions simply because they find it pays off better than other jobs. If say I wanted to work as a teacher, it is because I want to work with children and help them develop and share the joy of education, not because I think it is better paid or more rewarding than anyone who does anything different and regarded as a “lesser profession”. And nor would I want to aim for a CEO role because it paid more than my teaching profession, simply because it is a not a teaching role which is what I wanted to do in the first place.
The concept of balancing jobs has been criticised by Wright simply due to whether or not people find certain types of work burdensome. He writes that some people may enjoy “sitting at a desk and writing intensively for eight hours exhilarating; others find it torture”, not necessarily because due whether they find it difficult or not, but also whether or not they actually find it enjoyable, and that this can also apply to physical jobs, “depending on one’s level of fitness and one’s endorphins, intense physical labor can be a greater or lesser burden” (Hahnel and Wright, 2012: 32). Yet does the balancing of jobs not take this into account? It would not be unreasonable, at any stretch, for my to voice my personal opinions in the workplace when it comes to what work I have to do. I particularly despise mopping and would like to avoid it as much as I can. On the other hand, I find vacuuming and brushing fairly enjoyable as far as tasks go. It would not be unreasonable for me to put my hand up in the workplace and tell my
colleagues. After all, I may very well have colleague that absolutely abhors brushing and vacuuming, but rather enjoys mopping. And from there we find balance.
“The tasks each person performs only need to be balanced for empowerment and desirability over a reasonable period of time. Jobs do not have to be balanced every hour, or every day, or every week, or even every month. The balancing is also done in the context of what is practical in particular work situations. Technologies and worker capabilities and preferences must all be taken into account when balancing jobs in any worker council. Finally, the balancing is done by committees composed of workers in each workplace, and done as they see fit” (Hahnel, 2012: 57).
Another way to look at balanced jobs is this: often, those doing the groundwork have a much better understanding of processes, what works and what doesn’t, and so on. These people have an in depth knowledge of how their job works, what needs to be done, and more than likely what can be done better. If anything, they can provide insightful and important information and help make stronger, more informed decision making.
On a smaller level, such as bars and restaurants, there would be a shared ownership of the
establishment - each worker has a share of the company, whether they clean, cook, or serve. There of course will be specialisation - those who can bartend will bartend, and those who specialised in cooking will be chefs. However, all will be expected to “pitch in” for the more menial tasks, such as cleaning and maintaining and office work which will be divided, allocated, and swapped round as is needed. No one person will have to be merely confined to unpleasant work, and the load of the tasks is lightened. This is also preferable on a practicality issue: if a particular person with a particular job is not able to come to work for whatever reason, say illness for example, there is often a struggle to find someone who will be able to take over the task competently. In a participatory economic model, this issue is erased.
It is easy to imagine in detail how participatory economics would work on a small scale, like a
restaurant or bar that I have described above. When it comes to realising participatory economics on a much bigger scale, it also becomes much more difficult. The very basic prerequisites for participatory economics is: “Production is carried out by workers’ councils where each member has one vote, individual work assignments are balanced for desirability and empowerment, and workers’ efforts are rated by a committee of their peers” (Albert and Hahnel, 2002: 8).
More often than not, most workers will be aware of the sacrifice and effort their colleagues around them will be putting in. wright argues that while this is “sometimes” the case, there are “many kinds of work in which it is very difficult to really know how much effort someone is expending (sic),” (Hahnel and
Wright, 2012: 34). Would this really be the case however? In a working environment where jobs are balanced and the work is shared, it is not difficult to imagine that the group in which you work would be somewhat close knit. Everyone within that working group would be aware of the work and effort that was put in from all their colleagues, as you would either see them doing it, or see the results, at some point in time.
Perhaps one of the largest fears amongst workers is the availability of work and, quite often, the lack of it. In certain jobs, usually zero hour jobs such as service and hospitality, if you do not work, you do not get paid. In a capitalist structure, that makes sense, surely? Why should a business owner pay his staff for when they are not in? He would lose money, and why should someone get paid for not doing anything? It is what proponents of capitalism would claim is “fair”.
The problem with zero hour contracts is explicitly the fact that if a member of staff does not work, she
does not get paid, and this can have troubling consequences for the worker in question. For example,
let us look at the hospitality industry. In the summer, workers are expected to work four to six days a week, often on weekends and bank holidays. It is exhausting, and they earn minimum wage an hour. However, they are guaranteed shifts due to the demand. Come the winter, bars and restaurants often suffer from lack of custom. The amount of staff on shift is no longer needed, and managers cut shifts at their discretion. Those who face their hours being cut do not get paid their regular summer wages; after all, they only get paid for what they work. As many experience a dip in their income, workers often have to source work elsewhere, which is difficult as many other hospitality places are experiencing the same problem. Staff can also have their shifts removed with little notice. If a day is not particularly busy,
managers can contact their employees who are due to work that day and inform them that they are not needed. And so, they lose out on a full day’s pay.
Hahnel writes that, “One advantage of planned economies compared to market economies is they can more easily provide full employment” (Hahnel, 2012: 75). With everything being ordered and planned ahead, it would allow for work schedules to be prepared well in advance, ensuring no insecurity over lack of shifts or missing out on pay.For participatory economics, it is easy (as everything is pre-ordered and calculated) to organise a factory, for example. At a factory that makes board games, the yearly order comes in requesting to make an approximate number of board games. From there, the workers can begin to designate their tasks and split working hours fairly amongst themselves. The goal is immediately clear. Yet what of those who work in hospitality, as mentioned above? They do not know the amount of patrons that will come in over the course of the year, and will struggle to plan as effectively.
Would not budgeting and planning help aid hospitality workers in the disparity of shifts and pay? For instance, staff would be able to organise a timetable for their workers that spans over an entire year. It would allow for the workers to designate roles and hours accordingly, with a higher degree of fairness. Everyone, who is able to do so and would like to, would have equal amounts of shift work over the entire year to ensure that there is no worry and anxiety come the more troublesome months during business. It is expected that there will be some instances in which people must be sent home from work earlier than expected, or have shifts cancelled. However, rather than the zero hour pay scales, as the workers manage the business themselves, as yearly wages can take over the zero hour contracts.
This can also be extrapolated to unemployment. “No "cyclical unemployment" due to too little demand for goods and services to warrant hiring everyone. No "structural unemployment" because people's skills do not match job qualifications. These reasons that labor is often unemployed or underemployed in market economies are ironed out during the participatory planning process, rather than left to chance to be sorted out imperfectly in "real time:'” (Hahnel, 2012: 75).
Quite simply, social empowerment cannot offer the same type of security in this scenario. Wright criticises the planning procedure, particularly when it comes to consumers making decisions on things that are particularly hard to judge: “If I estimate how much of the value of my consumption will be in restaurants, does it matter that some of these might be in Paris or New York rather than in the city where my neighborhood consumption council is located?” (Hahnel and Wright, 2016: 18). It is a fair criticism. I simply do not know how much in a given year I will find myself sick of cooking and decide to order in or go out to a restaurant. I also do not know where my preferences lie at any given point in the year.
Hahnel himself admits that he would not find himself too bothered with pre-ordering, stating that producers would be able to go by what he has requested in previous years.
The welfare system in the UK, while once highly praised and commended, has since been struggling to adequately provide for those who receive welfare. Studies on the rise of food bank use has stated that a driving reason behind this is predominantly due to welfare cuts (Loopstra et al, 2015).
Participatory economics maintains two particular maxims for when it comes to remuneration that have the potential to tackle inequality the best. The first one is that remuneration according to the person’s effort or personal sacrifice, and also each according to the person’s need (Hahnel, 2012: 21).
Remuneration according to effort is a difficult thing to actually realise. Effort will vary from person to person, depending on their physical capabilities, whether or not they find particular things difficult that others do not, whether or not they have something on their mind, and so on. How does one go about rewarding their workers according to personal effort, sacrifice, and need?
Hahnel states that in order to adequately remunerate workers according to effort and sacrifice, it is imperative that worker councils provide their members with something he terms an “effort rating”; the effort rating will in theory be able to allow for those who make greater sacrifices and put in more effort in the workplace are recognised and are compensated accordingly (Hahnel, 2012: 59). Perhaps a
problem that Hahnel and others have failed to have foreseen is that sometimes, people are not quite willing to reveal their personal sacrifices. This can be for any reason. Some people are not willing to disclose any particular illnesses they may have. For instance, any particular “embarrassing” illnesses may lead to the sufferer in question not to reveal it to their peers. Workers may also be reluctant due to them suffering from mental illness, particularly when it comes to ailments such as personality disorders which come with severe stigmatisation. I will come to this in the next section, where I focus on illnesses and disabilities and how it fits into a Parecon society.
Wright argues that it would be nigh impossible for all workers to assess their peers. A particular criticism is that how would workers be able to give decent effort ratings to their peers (Wright, 2012; Schweickart, 2006). At first, it does sound somewhat cumbersome and tricky to have workers fill out effort ratings for their colleagues. It is true that workers do not know what everyone in a workspace will be doing, and if they are doing it sufficiently. In a factory of say, 200 people, how is anyone supposed to fill out an effort rating form on their other 199 coworkers?
I do not think that effort ratings ought to be given out to every single person in a workspace by
everyone. At work, people tend to work in teams - under a Parecon society I do not see why this should be any different. A person can work a multitude of balanced jobs, but can belong to a particular group that shares the shame shifts and task rotations. It would not work entirely well if people are sent all over with varying shift and task patterns so they do not get to feel comfortable in the job they are in, as that will only cause distress and listlessness. Task rosters can be adapted so an individual can be part of a team from several to twenty. This seems immediately like a more manageable number to work with when doing effort ratings. In jobs where a single person must do a shift (for example, a night guard who works alone), then completing effort ratings may be rather tricky, but any effort can be deduced from the output.
Yet back to the groups. Schweickart and Wright are also critical that, numbers aside, anyone would be able to know what their colleagues are up to. Workers do not work singularly and in a vacuum. They work together and talk to each other, so they will already have a sufficient idea of who is doing what. They work in teams, where it is quite easy to deduce how much effort is actually being put in. If working on a task solo, people would still be able to gauge how much effort is being put in from talking to each other and checking on each other, which is more or less what workers currently do anyway. Workers should thus be able to make meaningful effort-ratings of fellow workers. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that once in a Parecon society, there is already an incentive to participate in effort ratings: “work mates will monitor each other sufficiently because otherwise they must pick up the slack” (Van
Hoomissen, 1992: 335). Allowing for effort ratings will also relieve far more pressure than having superiors analyse a worker’s effort.
3.4 Remuneration according to need:
There is of course, aside from remuneration for effort, the principle of remuneration for need. This principle is put into motion by having the worker council makes a decision on whether there are any exceptional circumstances or differences of their members, particularly including families and from there, “tasking neighborhood consumption councils with deciding if there are any differences in the needs of their members which should be taken into account” (Hahnel, 2012: 73).
This principle can provide a safety net for families that is not currently available in the UK. As
mentioned, there are millions of children living below the breadline (with breadline being the term used to describe living at subsistence level). In recordings taken from the previous year, “30% of children, or 4.1 million, were living in relative poverty (after housing costs)” and that “70% of children living in poverty were in working families” (Inman and Booth, 2019). Bear in mind that these are children in families whose parents work. This already highlights an urgent problem, but it only seems to be getting worse, with a prediction that “the proportion of children living in relative poverty is on course to hit 37%” by 2023 (Marsh, 2019).
There are a number of reasons for the rise in child poverty, including severe welfare cuts as I previously mentioned. The rising cost of living, the price of private renting, and by a recent “freeze in the value of working-age benefits, made worse by a spike in inflation to 3% in late 2017” (Inman and Booth, 2019). There is also, more chillingly, the introduction of a two-child benefit cap, where parents do not receive any welfare for any subsequent children after the first two. This benefit cap is set to have a growing impact within the next couple of years (Marsh, 2019).
Remuneration according to need can target child poverty and other social ills far more effectively than having a capitalist society with welfare being used as damage control. This can be achieved through the use of consumer councils:
“Every individual, family, or living unit belongs to a neighborhood consumption council. Each neighborhood council belongs to a federation of neighborhood councils the size of a precinct. Each precinct federation belongs to a city ward, or rural county federation. Each ward belongs to a city
consumption council, each city and county council belongs to a state council, and each state council belongs to the national federation of consumption councils,”
(Hahnel, 2012: 79). Worker members receive consumption credits in relation to their effort and sacrifice at work. Those unable to work for whatever reason (significant disabilities, underage, pensioners, etc) will receive consumption credits fitting to their situations. Families and individuals retain a right to “consume an amount which costs society an amount equal to the sum of the consumption
allowances of all its members” (Hahnel, 2012: 81). Employing an allowance to each individual child would be extremely effective in eradicating child poverty. It will directly benefit families who have more than two children, rather than punishing them. The money will be instrumental in providing the children with food and school supplies.
3.5 Participatory Economics and Disability Rights:
This section of my analysis is concerned with how participatory economics can help those with disabilities - both of those who can work and those who cannot. People with disabilities in the UK are amongst the poorest and most oppressed. In 2017, the UN released a damning report of the treatment of disabled people in the UK and the impact austerity has had on the population. It found that disabled people in a variety of areas including: “employment, housing, education and social security, disabled people are hugely disadvantaged” (Roberts, 2019).
7.6 million people who are of the UK’s working age (from ages 16 to 64) reported that they had a disability in early 2019, which is 18% of the working population in Britain (Parliament, 2019). With such a significant portion of society dealing with personal disabilities, it is vital that disability is considered in alternative capitalism theories. Yet the potential impact participatory economics can have for disabled people is overlooked heavily, which is a concerning flaw. However, the case for participatory economics can be made far more stronger when we think of how it would best fit disabled people in order to
improve their quality of life in the UK.
Currently, accessible and welcoming workplaces are few and far between for disabled people. There are nearly 4 million disabled people in the UK who work (Parliament, 2019). Currently, over a third of people with learning disabilities or autism specifically in England fear they “would be victimised in a new job by colleagues because of their learning disability” (HR News, 2019).
A frequent issue is that those living on disability benefit are unable to participate in certain types of work if they are able to do so, for fear of having their benefits completely removed. Disabled students are also not permitted to receive welfare due to their student status (Ryan, 2019). This highlights a lack of flexibility for those who would like to work, but finds that workplaces are unwilling to accommodate. Moreover, disabled people find it far more difficult to find work than those without disabilities, due to prejudice and again and unwillingness to accommodate an employee with special needs. In one instance, a member of the Young Disabled Persons’ Working Group reported the issues they faced
when applying for jobs: “I did an experiment with a friend with an identical (sic) CVs and cover letter other than disability I disclosed I was disabled. I didn’t even get an interview and my friend got the position” (Renke, 2019).
Often, various workspaces do not have the facilities to accommodate those with certain disabilities. These much needed facilities can range from anything to having adequate bathroom facilities, ramps, and lifts, to providing specialist office equipment, or mental health support. The UK government currently does offer an Access to Work system that gives grants to companies in order for them to make “reasonable adjustments” to the workspace in order to make it accessible for disabled workers. However, the Access to Work grant only goes some of the way in covering specialist equipment and support but another barrier is that many people “aren’t sure what support employers should supplement and Access to Work is only available for paid employment – those working on a voluntary base do not receive any help” (Renke, 2019).
3.6 The balancing of jobs and disability:
With participatory economics also, the balancing of jobs is something that can directly benefit those with physical disabilities in the workplace. Hahnel stresses that the balancing of jobs does not need to be done every minute, of every hour, of every week (Hahnel, 2012; Hahnel, 2016). Essentially, tasks are counted up and divided across the year, so every employee has a chance to do “empowering” and “non-empowering” tasks. This can be instrumental in helping those with disabilities, as the individual’s “task roster” can be tailored to fit their needs far better than just being given a job description with basic tasks that need to be fulfilled. Anything that they find particularly daunting can be shared with
colleagues.
3.7 Effort Ratings and Disability:
Remuneration according to effort is a fundamental aspect of participatory economics that can have significant benefits for disabled people. To date, this has not been covered adequately in any of the literature surrounding participatory economics. In Of The People, For The People, Hahnel asks how much effort a person can put in, and what would it cost for that individual: “But are all people equally able to sacrifice? Or is it easier for some to make sacrifices than it is for others, just as it is easier for some to perform difficult and valuable physical or mental tasks than it is for others?” (Hahnel, 2012: 29). Frustratingly, he does not answer these questions.
Remuneration is based on effort and sacrifice, not productivity or output. Effort in the workplace can take various different forms, including “longer work hours, less pleasant work, or more intense, dangerous, unhealthy work. Or, it may consist of undergoing training that is less gratifying than the training experiences of others, or less pleasant than time others spend working who train less” (Hahnel, 2012: 28). Or it could be someone doing, on average, the same tasks as everybody else but at a much greater cost to their physical or emotional wellbeing.
People have some degree of control of how much they are able to sacrifice, but for a disabled person to put in a “similar looking” amount of effort as their peers then greater sacrifice is required. I start work at nine in the morning. I wake up, get ready, eat, then I cycle to work, or get public transport if I am feeling particularly lazy that day. At work, I complete all my tasks. Some rely on a certain amount of physical exertion. Some involves a lot of reading and writing and dealing with numbers. Some parts of my day involves giving presentations or having meetings with colleagues. Once the working day is done, I head home via my transportation method of choice. I have exerted a lot of energy and effort, and managed to be reasonably productive.
For most, this sounds like a normal working day. For others, my day is a lot more imposing and taxing than it may appear to able bodied people. My start to the day is straightforward. I get myself out of bed, shower, get dressed, have breakfast, and then head out the front door. The process takes me about twenty to forty minutes, depending on how much time I have. For people with moderate to profound physical disabilities, starting the day requires much more effort than I. For some, it is far harder to get out of bed, for example, if the person has chronic fatigue or severe mobility issues. From this point, it also requires much more effort showering and getting dressed. Then there is the task of travelling from home to work. Travelling while disabled in the UK is a strenuous task, particularly if you are in a
wheelchair. Most buses can accommodate wheelchairs, but the space can be often taken up by people with pushchairs. The problem is not just with buses either. As of 2017 in London, there were still only “71 out 270 tube stations accessible by wheelchair or mobility scooter from street to platform” and that “21 of those require ramps and staff assistance to board trains”, making the actual total of wheelchair accessible stations people can use independently only fifty (Van Mead et al, 2017). Even for those who do not need a wheelchair, but still have a physical disability that causes problems with movement, public transport is still a daunting, difficult experience. Already a significant amount of effort and energy has been expended and the working day has not even begun.
Once at work, people with disabilities find themselves posed with a variety of tasks that may take a higher degree of effort depending on what needs to be done. For those with any physical disabilities, the physical tasks require more effort. Those with learning disorders such as ADHD, ADD, and
dyslexia, or those with eyesight problems, will find tasks centered on reading, writing, and dealing with numbers need a greater deal of concentration and effort. Presentations and meetings would be far more imposing for those with anxiety, or any disabilities pertaining to speech and social interaction. During these tasks, various workers can be giving their all, but the outcomes may vary. They should still be entitled to the same, if not more, compensation as their colleagues. Their colleagues will recognise the effort their disabled coworkers are putting in, and will make a note of this in their effort reports. When it comes to visible disabilities, the effort rating is fairly straightforward. If they have a wheelchair, walking stick, or white probing cane (for those who have problems with sight), then colleagues can safely assume the person has a disability. However, there is the problem of unseen disabilities, which covers learning disorders and mental health issues. These are not always visible, especially at first. Workers may also be reticent to divulge information concerning their invisible disabilities to employers and coworkers. Learning disorders and mental health issues can have a strong stigmatisation in the workplace. Some prefer keeping these parts of their lives private, particularly if they are dealing with
problems such as anxiety and a fear of alienation. Yet if we are to remunerate those based on their effort, how do we navigate this area and successfully understand the level of effort given, but also respecting the individuals involved? Issues regarding disability and effort ratings are scarcely mentioned, but are paramount when making the actual case for participatory economics as it is supposed to target these kinds of inequality and stigmatisation around invisible illnesses.
One can hope that as a nation steps towards participatory economics, and a more egalitarian society, social stigma will disappear and people will feel comfortable to share their invisible illnesses freely with their colleagues. This could take years however, and unfortunately there will always be people who do not react well to things like this. So protecting the rights and privacy of disabled people, while also having an effort rating system that is fair and inclusive is a must. But how do we do this? On the one hand, privacy and wellbeing is a must, and on the other, workers need to have a good understanding of personal ailments in order to give an accurate effort rating.
As mentioned, all workers must give an effort rating on their colleagues. This will be done regularly, though worker councils are free to choose on the frequency - whether this is weekly, monthly, quarterly, and so on. They are also capped to prevent any sort of inflation or outlandish ratings. Workers fill out the effort rating forms, which are then separately reviewed by an effort rating committee (he is not clear whether this is separate or part of the business or company in question). Work committees usually take into consideration of the “co-workers' contributions as one piece of evidence in estimating how hard a workmate is trying to be effective, the difference is that in a participatory economy they will take other factors into account as well, because simply rewarding the value of someone's contribution is not fair” (Hahnel, 2012: 65). If a colleague’s effort has been downrated enough for the committee to notice something is wrong, then they can call the worker in question to have a meeting and to discuss whether or not anything is wrong, disabilities, problems at home, etc. from there, the worker can announce if they have any disabilities that has been hampering their work effort. The committee can then readjust and remunerate far more accurately and fairly, given the circumstances. Another way to preserve privacy is if the worker in question makes it clear during the hiring process that they have any disabilities that might conflict with their effort.
3.8 Idealistic or Realistic? Participatory Economics and Problems of Feasibility:
Participatory economics and social empowerment can be treated as “ideal theory”, with ideal theory, along with its counterpart non-ideal theory, focusing on the “proper nature of political philosophy, and its ability to guide action in real-world circumstances” (Valentini, 2012: 1).
Ideal and non-ideal theory has three interpretations. The first interpretation is focused on the idea of compliance, which focuses on what “duties and obligations apply to us in situations of partial
compliance as opposed to situations of full compliance” (Valentini, 2012: 1). However, ideal and non-ideal theory has a second interpretation, which “focuses on the question of whether feasibility considerations should constrain normative political theorizingand, if so, what sorts of feasibility
constraints should matter” (Valentini, 2012: 1). The final interpretation focuses on “end-state” (i.e. ideal) and “transitional” (i.e. non-ideal), whereby “normative political theory should aim at identifying an ideal
