Abstract

Is there a universal right to access some form of monetary income? And if so, what exactly does this right entitle one to? In the debate between establishing a right to work versus a universal basic income (UBI), defenders of the former sometimes appeal to the additional nonpecuniary benefits of work. In this article, I argue that the nonpecuniary benefits of work cannot serve as grounds to justify establishing a right to work rather than a UBI. To show this, I propose that rights must pass tests of efficacy and efficiency if we are to be justified in recognizing them. I then set aside the efficacy and efficiency of the right to work relative to our pecuniary interests and ask instead whether it displays these features in relation to a particular set of nonpecuniary interests. Ultimately, I show that the right to work is both ineffective at promoting these interests and inefficient when compared against a right to contribute without remuneration. As such, the nonpecuniary benefits of work give us little reason to prefer the establishment of a right to work when compared against some combination of a UBI and a right to contribute. The remainder of the article makes a positive case for recognizing a right to contribute by demonstrating the efficacy and efficiency of such a right in relation to certain nonpecuniary interests.