The objective of this article is to identify the differences among the various concepts of reciprocity in a social policy context in terms of their structures and to examine the potential of the theory of “diverse reciprocity,” which has been proposed by Tony Fitzpatrick as one of the new theories concerning reciprocity.
With the reconstruction of the welfare state system, the discourse on reciprocity in social policy has also changed. In the 1950-1970s, “the golden age of the welfare state,” reciprocity was thought of as a “gift-exchange,” which means gifts are given to strangers without receiving anything in return. This implies that citizenship rights were recognized very generously in this age. However, “welfare contractualism” has now become a dominant discourse of reciprocity, which insists that “there are no rights without responsibilities,” according to the increasing trend to restrict the execution of rights. In response, theories of “diverse reciprocity,” which are being proposed as a counter discourse to combat “welfare contractualism,” insist that “there are no responsibilities without rights” and therefore has become a strategy for claiming unconditional fundamental rights as preconditions for executing unconditional obligations.
Theories of “diverse reciprocity” have several implications for reconstructing social policy, including justification for delivering unconditional social security at the basic level and protecting “the vulnerable” as full and equal citizens, along with multiple options for choosing the contents of obligations. This means that “diverse reciprocity” could be the new theory of social design, with the potential for radical social reform.