Est-il juste que l’Université soit gratuite ?

Est-il juste que l’Université soit gratuite ? D’un côté, bien sûr que oui. De l’autre, bien sûr que non. J’explique brièvement les considérations qui sous-tendent ces deux réponses. Puis je les réconcilie au profit — essentiellement — du statu quo, en argumentant que la gratuité d’un privilège ne peut se justifier que si elle sert l’intérêt de ceux qui n’y ont pas accès. Je termine en examinant quatre objections, dont seule la dernière est susceptible de me faire vaciller.

An Egalitarian Argument in Favour of Free Access to Healthcare and Rationing

La pensée égalitariste a traditionnellement promu l’idéal d’un système de santé universel, gratuit et accessible à tous les membres de la société. J’appuie cette position en répliquant tout d’abord à la critique qui prétend que les riches tireraient plus d’avantages que les pauvres de la gratuité du système de santé. J’ouvre ensuite la réflexion sur ce qui me semble être un enjeu crucial pour l’avenir des systèmes modernes de santé : le rationnement de l’offre. Cette idée ne plaît généralement pas à la population, aux décideurs politiques et à de nombreux égalitaristes. Je considère pourtant que les principaux arguments invoqués contre le rationnement sont incohérents ou faussement égalitaristes. La gratuité des services de santé n’est pas incompatible avec la limitation de l’offre publique.

‘Bringing the Middle Classes Back In’ An Egalitarian Case for (Truly) Universal Public Services

Some egalitarians argue against public services that are free for all, on the grounds that free access appears to primarily benefit the middle classes. I advocate, instead, the inclusion of the middle classes in public services, arguing that only truly universal intake of public services prevents the inegalitarian effects of economic segregation. Such universal participation in public services is achieved, partly, through subsidies for, and regulation of, privately produced services.

L’accès gratuit à l’eau potable bénéficie-t-il nécessairement au plus défavorisé ? Une discussion critique à l’aune du cas de la Flandre

This article discusses the 1997 Flemish reform in the domestic water sector (Belgium). It abolished a previously existing social correction of the wastewater charge. Instead, a tax exemption for some disadvantaged categories was introduced. Moreover, water consumers receive 15 m3 of drinking-water per person per year for free. This policy change was assumed to contribute better to social equity. However, the reform led to changes in the drinking water tariffs by the water companies. Furthermore, a study conducted by Van Humbeeck (1998) shows that the distributive impact of the new water regulation is negative. As a matter of fact, the water reform increased the regressivity of the total wastewater and drinking water expenses. The Flemish example shows that ex ante evaluation of any reform of public services is a prerequisite for more social justice in the provision of basic goods to underprivileged citizens.

Justice coopérative et gratuité des transports en commun

Cooperative Justice and Free Public Transit - Urban transportation is a central issue for theories of urban justice. The current car culture is unjust because it discriminates against those who cannot afford to be a part of it, and it is inefficient because it creates a collectively disadvantageous situation. In this paper, I will first argue that public policies should encourage a modal transfer from car to public transit. Drawing on a theory of cooperative justice, I will then argue that free public transit is mutually advantageous and can be defended from both the perspectives of equality and efficiency.

Social Opportunities and Individual Responsibility: The Capability Approach and the Third Way

The fashionable widespreading of Sen’s ideas coincides with a new mood in the shaping of public policies in affluent societies. In Europe indeed, an “opportunity”-based approach to social security has been implemented through the European Employment Strategy. Public action tends to rely on a procedural concern with individual opportunities or potentialities in the labour market. The underlying ethics is that individuals are then responsible to use these background opportunities in order to lead the kind of life they value most. More broadly, the discourse and practice of the so-called “Third Way” shares with the capability approach an appeal for a procedural and enabling depiction of the role of the State. The paper intends to clarify the relation between procedural and opportunity-based approaches to social justice, among them the capability approach, and these new patterns of public action. Our vision goes in the way of a yet renewed, but deeper action of the welfare state, where social agency is envisaged as the very condition of individual agency. Drawing on the various critics of mainstream equality of opportunity, two opposed approaches to responsibility are identified: on the one hand, responsibility is conceived of as i) a “luck vs. choice” fixed starting point, ii) a backward-looking conception and iii) a highly individualistic framework. On the other hand, responsibility is envisaged as i) an outcome of public policies rather than a starting point, ii) a forward-looking conception, and iii) a combined institutional-individual framework. We situate here Sen’s capability approach, as well as critics of the luck egalitarianism path. The Third Way rhetoric is assessed against both these perspectives. The issue eventually boils down to an ethical reflection on the articulation of responsibilities, and to a pragmatic and substantial concern for the content of what providing security should mean in practice.