Citizenship and Stake Holding - Essay Example

CITIZENSHIP AND STAKE HOLDING By Citizenship and Stake Holding Introduction I was very interested in the design of an essential income some existence ago intended for two major reasons. Firstly, because part of that income might play to further democratization, i.e. the establishment to a more self-ruled society where individual sovereignty as well as citizenship contributes equal worthiness to everyone. The second, closely associated, reason is its latency in advancing gender freedom. My argument is, in radiance of these reasons, a basic-income is preferable towards a stake. A basic-income is a crucial element of every strategy for independent social transform. One reason surrounding the democratic ability of basic income is, it would make available important prospects; to list but a few, the freedom not to acquire employment. Stakeholders tend to evade round the distinct implication, albeit I shall differ, it is vital to the democratizing possibility – provided the income can be pre-determined within most preferred level. Not even ideas of basic-income or capital funding utter anything regarding the level to be set. The level so proposed depends on the reasons behind this proposal. We shall assume that, for a basic-income to become significant for democratization, it ought to be adequate to make available what we call a humble but honest standard of living .This level is sufficient, as it allows individuals to have control over course of their lives. According to Ackerman et al. (2006, p 27), the disagreement among Ackerman, Alstott and Van Parijs in their essays is under the latter’s prevention on capitalization of basic-income into a units of payment. Van Parijs converges the differences between basic-income and capital grant, and explanation that disparity between them as collateral, for example; a mortgage on a house, and concentrate on prohibition against conversion of a basic income into a single lump sum. The question is whether this constitutes a significant limitation on individual freedom. As provided by Ackerman et al. (2006, p 16), Ackerman and Alstott argument is that, basic income is an obstacle to individual freedom. Young people find it hard to achieve their goal if they fail to choose to capitalize their basic-income at the same time as a capital grant. Ackerman and Alstott, consequently, see a basic- income as the constraint on change, they carve in to the Stakeholder Society, they are paying attention in opportunity and not outcome, and they present basic-income to mitigate failure, while as a stake is initiation path for success.” Nevertheless, this instigate might well stop in a huddle. Equity of chance is a democratic rule, but the liberty involved in the youth being capable to alter a basic-income to capital stake barely looms largely from the viewpoint of democratization as well as entity freedom as autonomy. Ackerman and Alstott in their review also censure basic-income on grounds that it is an encouragement to short-term entrepreneurial perspective. The only logic in which, a basic-income can do is when it is introduced to a level lower than required for a self-effacing but decent set of lifestyle. An expense lower than subsistence level capacity, is often experienced among persons whose financial status is far much above the poverty index. All the while that a basic-income is provisional, an opportunity not a guaranteed right, the issue of second-class and minor citizenship cannot apparently be prevented. How citizens make use of their autonomy is close to no guarantee. Egalitarian self-government entail that they make a decision for themselves on how and when to contribute, or not to contribute at all. Concept Analysis Stakeholders By definition, stakeholders, is a term used to define several parties or participants in a project, and usually include affected persons who are also interested and subsequently play roles in the project until its completion. As noted by Dillabough (2014, p. 7), primary stakeholders are acknowledged as injured, or, those persons who are directly affected when their natural resource or ecological setting is adversely affected especially by major activities without their consultation. On the other hand, the interested parties, are defined as the morally, and ethically concerned ecologist and other scientist acting on the public’s behalf. (Dowding et al. 2003, p14). In addition, the term role player often refers to someone who engages in every available role in the context of participation, and can be identified as the facilitator otherwise mediator in any situation. In policy reform political context, a role player will be introduced to cater for the political aspects of the ecology and the general environment, which is relevant to action such as power distribution, and the range of organizations involved. Political context is the determinant factor in the feasibility, appropriateness, and effectiveness in executing their actions. As clearly provide by Braddon (2003, p. 87), a stakeholder is a person, or, group of persons, or, an organization, which has some percentage of interest in a particular business enterprise. Stakeholders are undoubtedly an important of an organization, and are either bound to affect or be affected by the actions; objectives; and policies of the organization in which they have interests. Stakeholders, especially in the public policy exist inform of creditors, directors, governments and their agencies, owners or shareholders, employees, unions, suppliers, and communities. Usually, the stakeholders are the main financiers of many businesses or organizations, as they often draw their resources from them (stakeholders). It is equally a given that not all stakeholders are equal, or rather have equal influence on the overall operations of the business or organization in question. For instance, in as much as both the customers and employees are important stakeholders of any firm, customers are entitled to fair practices of trading, yet are not entitled to similar or equal consideration as the employees of the firm. In addition, the shareholders of an organization, who have more shares in the operations of the firm, are often more influential, and their decisions subjects to respect and approval by the management more than the decisions of their counterparts who have negligible or insignificant percentage of organization’s shares. Moreover, shareholders are entitled to the benefits of the company in form of dividends. However, in case of the liquidation of the company, it is as well a given that these same shareholders bares the losses on their shoulders, as they assume the ownership of the company in terms of profits and losses. (Paxton et al. 2006, p. 22) With reference to White & Leighton (2008, p 34), the stakeholders are the propagators of the operations of any organization, as they are mostly the major sponsors of the organizations. Within the society of the United States of America and many other countries across the world, stakeholders of any public entity, more so, the shareholders are entitled to the benefits of them, and forms part of the ownership of all the assets of the firms. The being the primary source of capital for the organization through the purchase of the organization’s shares, are key decision-makers on critical matters affecting the firms. They form a part of the executive boards of their respective organizations, and have massive say on the policies of the firms. Their opinions, suggestions, and interests are of great regards to the organizations in questions, and the management cannot afford to overlook them. Furthermore, Van (2010, p. 45) has it that the stakeholders of the firm, especially the shareholders are entitled to have a share on the assets of the firm. In case the organization goes under or is liquidated, all key shareholders of the firm have the right to demand for a share in the assets of the organization. Nevertheless, the distribution of the assets bases on the level of shares of the organization one owns. As such, those stakeholders with the highest percentages of the organization’s shares are eligible for the lion’s share of the assets, and vice versa. Essentially, the distribution of the assets, dividends, and even losses of the organization is done based on proportionality with the amount of shares a shareholder has. The higher the shares one has the higher the benefits in form of dividends, and on the worst, the higher the loss to which one is entitled. This whole system of income as well as asset redistribution at the end of a financial year or in case of the liquidation of an organization respectively, aims at ensuring all stakeholders receive what is due to them. Like any other form of entrepreneurship, stake holding has two sides of it, with one being the benefit side and the other one being the loss side of it. Paxton et al. (2006, p 8) provides that stakeholders being the owners of the company have to enjoy the benefits when necessary and endure the loss in case it appears. However, this should be done in such a way that is appropriate with the amount of shares one has. It is extremely injustice give equal financial benefits to persons with lesser shares and those with more shares, and vice versa. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the shareholders receive benefits as well as losses in accordance to the value of the shares they own. This is the objective, and the idea behind the basic income and asset redistribution in firms within the United States and the rest of the world. (Sherraden 2005, p. 27) Just like Raventos (2007, p. 51), I do agree with the basic income and asset redistribution policy, which provides that all stakeholders are entitled to benefits and losses proportional to the levels or amount of company’s shares they own. This policy is undisputedly on point, as it gives all shareholders of an organization an appropriate level of profit and loss. If one has more shares, then he or she is entitled to more benefits in terms of dividends and asset value. The same applies to situations where the company records losses, those shareholders with larger percentages of shares will certainly bare the greatest weight of the loss than those with lesser percentages Reference List Ackerman, B. & Alstott, A., ‘Why Stake holding?’, in Ackerman, B., Alstott, A. & Van Parijs, P. (eds), 2006. Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Cornerstones for an Egalitarian Capitalism, Verso, London. Braddon, D., 2003, Stake holding and the New International Order, Ashgate Publishers, Farnham, United Kingdom. Clarke, P., 1996, Deep Citizenship, Pluto Press, London, United Kingdom. Dillabough, J., 2014, Challenging Democracy: International Perspectives on Gender and Citizenship, London, United Kingdom. Dowding, K., De Wispelaere, J. & White, S. (eds), 2003, The Ethics of Stakeholding, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Paxton, W. & White, S. with Maxwell, D. (eds), 2006. The Citizen’s Stake: Exploring the future of universal asset policies, Policy Press, Bristol. Raventos, D. 2007. Basic Income: The Material Conditions of Freedom, Pluto Press, London. Sherraden, M., ‘Assets and Public Policy’ in Sherraden, M. (ed), 2005. Inclusion in the American Dream: Assets, Poverty and Public Policy, Oxford University Press. Van Parijs, P. 2010. ‘Basic Income, Globalization & Migration’, Paper presented to Sustainable Utopia and Basic Income in a Global Era: Proceedings of the Basic Income International Conference, January, South Korea. White, S. & Leighton, D. (eds), 2008. Building a Citizen Society: The Emerging Politics of Republican Democracy, Lawrence & Wishart, London. Read More