Presenters: Tsutomu Hashimoto, Nao Saito, Kazutaka Kondo

Environmental Welfare Policy and Social Common Capital: Yuichi Shionoya and Hirofumi Uzawa
Nao Saito

From the 1950s to the 1970s, Japan experienced a period of rapid economic growth. On the one hand, during those 20 years, the quality of people's lives improved as they benefited from the market economy. On the other hand, the distortion of economic growth became apparent in the form of pollution problems and economic disparities. In such a period, Yuichi Shionoya (1932-2015) and Hirofumi Uzawa (1928-2013) both developed their own economic ideas. Although they differed in their approaches and other aspects, there were commonalities in their philosophies. In practice, they criticized neoliberal laissez-faire policies toward the market from the perspective of the environment and welfare, and believed that the economy should be regulated from the perspective of justice. The two men were active at the same time, and there are many conversations between them.
A reading of Shionoya's writings reveals the influence of Uzawa, at least in Shionoya's thought. Although both share the same problem of how environmental issues should be tackled, they differ in the way they respond to them. On the one hand, Shionoya argues that environmental issues should be addressed as part of the nation's welfare policy. On the other hand, Uzawa supports local autonomy and argues that the natural environment should be managed by the parties concerned as a commons. Why have such differences arisen? The purpose of this report is to compare Shionoya's and Uzawa's responses to environmental problems, to point out the problems of responding to environmental problems through welfare policies, and to present the idea of the commons to overcome these problems. By doing so, it will be possible to examine management entities and institutions that can appropriately respond to environmental problems. Such a comparison will also reveal that behind economic policies for environmental problems is the issue of justice theory, i.e., whether the welfare of the state is considered justice or the guarantee of the quality of life of local residents is considered justice.
The structure of this report is as follows. First, we clarify Shionoya's argument that environmental issues should be part of the welfare system. However, we point out that his argument has two limitations: the problem of the compatibility of policies for the welfare of the state and the interests of local residents, and the fact that the method of calculating welfare indicators and the social cost of pollution is unclear (Section 1). Next, we clarify Uzawa's theory of social common capital and show that Uzawa answers the first problem from the perspective of defending local autonomy and the commons, and shows how to address the second problem through economic analysis (Section 2). The paper then compares their ideas and points out that their theories of justice differ in terms of whether they center on the welfare of the state or the guarantee of the quality of life of local residents, and that even in Uzawa, the problem of the conflict between national wealth and local autonomy remains (Section 3).

Fiscal Policy and Justice in Xenophon
Kazutaka Kondo

In general, ancient Greek economic thought is regarded as critical of the pursuit of individual gratification and the material prosperity of the state, as typified by Plato and Aristotle. On the other hand, when Xenophon, who belongs to the same Socratic school, is discussed in the field of ethics, his role as a chronicler of Socrates is emphasized, and although the differences in his understanding with Plato are noted, his own original theories are not often considered. In the midst of this trend, this report will focus on Xenophon's "Poroi," in which he speaks of justice in the form of a proposal for a financial restructuring of Athens. The purpose of this report is, first, to show the characteristics of Xenophon's justice-based fiscal policy by comparing it with the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, and second, to evaluate these policy proposals as a developmental development of Socrates' ethical thought.
Xenophon's policy proposals were anti-imperialist. In the face of Athens' financial crisis following its defeat in a war triggered by the revolt of the allied cities, Xenophon criticized the city for earning income from the injustice it had committed against other countries, and insisted that the best way to earn a living was to earn it from one's own land. What was needed to realize this was the promotion of trade by improving the treatment of foreign merchants and the development of silver mines based on a bold entrepreneurial spirit. Xenophon depicts Athens as an economically prosperous city in a peaceful international order.
Such Xenophon's theory of justice contrasts with Plato Aristotle's theory of the state and economy, which holds up the ideal of a closed agricultural community for the purpose of virtue cultivation. Plato sees the pursuit of virtue and wealth as opposites and severely restricts the acquisition and possession of wealth for the construction of a just state, as seen in the negation of private property in The State. Similarly, Aristotle also argues negatively against the unlimited desire for acquisition that commerce stimulates. Both are also reluctant with regard to trade with foreigners. This is because a state that aims to cultivate virtue must be closed for the education of its citizens, and interaction with foreigners with different values may damage the educational outcome. In contrast, Xenophon promotes the attractiveness of the commercial city of Athens by giving honor and rights to foreigners, thereby promoting the acquisition of wealth.
Nevertheless, Xenophon's theory of justice does not deviate from Socrates' concept of virtue, which was inherited by Plato and Aristotle. In the Memorabilia, Socrates defined justice as "not doing injustice" and argued that it is beneficial in terms of confidence building with other nations. The anti-imperialist and open to foreigners theory of justice in the Polloi is within the framework of these Socratic arguments.Xenophon's theory of justice can be seen as a concrete application of Socrates' concept of justice to fiscal policy in the historical context of postwar Athens.
Through this discussion, I would like to place Xenophon's argument, which upheld economic prosperity and coexistence with others through Socratic virtue (justice), in the history of ideas, and open an opening for reinterpreting ancient theories of justice and their influence.

Citizenship Trading and Wellbeing
Tsutomu Hashimoto

There is a system under which one can acquire citizenship in return for a certain amount of investment in a certain country. This is the "Immigrant Investor Program" called the Golden Passport (or Golden Visa in the case of residence only). In 1952, the U.S. began issuing "E-2 visas" to wealthy individuals from certain countries, and in 1990 it began issuing EB-5 visas (visas that entitle the holder to obtain a "green card"), both of which can be called "immigrant investor programs" in the current expression, in that they grant citizenship in exchange for a certain amount of investment. Similar programs have emerged in a number of countries in recent years. Similar programs have been adopted by many countries in recent years; EU member states have institutionalized them since 2010, as well as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Immigrant investor programs can generate significant wealth in the country concerned through investments and donations by investors. The trading of citizenship is already a reality in the global community, and even many positions that oppose this have created a situation where certain transactions are allowed.
The term "citizenship" refers to a bundle of rights and benefits, such as the right to residence for a limited or permanent period, the right to social security, the right to education, the right to international mobility, the right to vote, or the right to safety, comfort, health, and culture. Citizenship is a bundle of rights and benefits, and even partial bundles of rights and benefits may be called citizenship. Citizenship rights can be sold off, or the components of the bundle can be changed and traded. To what extent can we trade citizenship rights with these characteristics? In what follows, we examine the principles and policies surrounding the trading of citizenship rights. The halfunintended consequence of that examination will be a new understanding of our wellbeing.
Governments have room to introduce private transactions of citizenship rights in terms of governing technology. What is interesting here is the phenomenon that through the private transaction of citizenship, a price is placed on our citizenship rights, which have traditionally been regarded as "birthrights. That price sheds new light on the vested nature of citizenship. Citizenship cannot be justified as "natural" in the face of global disparities.
One approach is to calculate the value of citizenship on the basis of the "hypothetical market price of citizenship". The value of citizenship can be calculated using that hypothetical market price. On the other hand, people have been fostered to become citizens of a country, and citizens bear part of this cost. The price of citizenship minus this cost of childcare (let us call it the "birthright price") would be the subject of a citizenship tax to be imposed on inherited citizenship. Although it is difficult to calculate the cost of providing for a child, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the cost of childcare would be the cost of providing for a child if the child were outsourced in the market. With such a calculation, we can calculate the price of birthright citizenship. That price then raises the issue of global citizenship disparities.
Estimates based on surveys would indicate a hypothetical price of citizenship. Suppose the average price of citizenship in each country were expressed in U.S. dollars through willingness-to-pay amounts. We could use this calculation as a basis for addressing the issue of global inequality. We have traditionally been concerned with global income inequality, but from a wellbeing perspective, we would need to problematize the vested nature of birthright citizenship. A virtual market price for citizenship could also be an indicator of wellbeing. It would require extensive calculations and research, but the work would open up new ways of thinking about building a free and equal world.