MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163460594 · doi:10.1017/s0008423908080141

Citizenship and the Welfare State: A Critique of David Miller's Theory of Nationality

2008· article· en· W2163460594 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Hibbert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipNationalityWelfare stateMillerPoliticsSociologyPolitical scienceLegitimacyDemocracyLaw and economicsLawImmigration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract.For much of the post-war period of welfare state formation, T.H. Marshall's idea of shared entitlement to universal social rights of citizenship formed the theoretical foundations of social democratic political reforms and legitimacy. This approach has been updated by contemporary egalitarian theorists, such as John Rawls. The ongoing politics of restructuring have led to a growing number of arguments against the motivational capacity of an institutional account of social unity. This paper examines a particular argument against rights-based citizenship—David Miller's theory of nationality. Miller argues that “pure” citizenship rests on self-interest, and thus when differences in risk are explicit it can only legitimate minimal redistribution. Strong welfare states require pre-political ties and must be embedded in the ethical relations of shared nationality. Against Miller's position, it is advanced that shared citizenship has both effective motivational and moral dimensions. It can also address the problems the nationality thesis faces in reconciling its account of motivation with the moral diversity that is constitutive of pluralist societies. Résumé.Dans l'après-guerre, au moment de la formation des Etats-providence, la mise en place et la justification des politiques social-démocrates s'appuyèrent en grande majorité sur la théorie de T.H. Marshall à propos du rôle joué par les droits sociaux dans l'intégration civique. Cette approche a été actualisée par des théoriciens égalitariens tels que John Rawls. Les politiques actuelles de restructuration de l'Etat-providence ont provoqué la multiplication d'un certain type de critiques soulignant les insuffisances de cette approche institutionnelle du lien social en termes de ressources motivationnelles. Cet article examine l'une ces critiques, formulée par David Miller dans sa théorie sur la nationalité. Miller soutient que la citoyenneté “pure” repose sur l'intérêt personnel et qu'elle ne peut justifier qu'une redistribution minimale, lorsque les différences engagées sont manifestes. Pour affirmer leur autorité, les Etats-providence ont besoin d'être fondés sur des liens prépolitiques et soutenus par les rapports de solidarité d'une nationalité commune. A l'encontre de la position défendue par Miller, on avancera que la citoyenneté possède de façon effective une dimension qui est à la fois morale et motivationnelle. En outre, elle est à même d'affronter les problèmes que soulève la thèse sur la nationalité, en réconciliant sa conception de la motivation avec la diversité morale inhérente aux sociétés pluralistes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207