Knowledge Clips
Week 1 - What is the tragedy of the commons?
Question afterwards: How can solidarity and / or social justice be used in
solving a tragedy of the commons?
Solidarity is seen in this theory because if everyone is only thinking about
themselves instead of thinking about the entire population, then it would not be
optimal for the long term. We would only be thinking in an individualistic manner
of speaking and according to our own benefit without taking other into account
which can negatively impact the entire world.
The tragedy of the commons (Garrett Hardin)
As many individuals share common interests. These situations pits common self
interest against the common good. Resulting in negative results.
Optimizing for the self in the short term is not optimal for the overall in the long
term.
Week 1 – Social Policy
Question afterwards:
a. Based on this knowledge clip, can you come up with an example of a social
policy? What/who is it targeting? How does it do so? And who is responsible
for providing this?
Regarding the student loans given by the government.
b. Are there other actors in society that also provide this type of support? If
yes, who and how? If no, do you think other actors should step in? Why or
why not?
I feel that there is a way we can look at education to make it cheaper and
more accessible for each social group in stead of only the rich ones.
Social policy address a wide range of inequalities like, race; gender; ethnicity.
Social policy can be defined in many ways. A crucial way of how welfare states
attempt to identify and address social inequalities as well as social risks that
have societal consequences.
Welfare provision is not limited to government.
Week 2 – Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity:
What holds society together
Durkheim focused on social rather than individual experiences.
Social facts = norms/values/ technology/ etc. They effect one another and
people.
Solidarity = cohesion in society. Feeling of part of a whole
- Mechanical solidarity
o Pre – modern
o People are bound together by collective consciousness.
, o Solidarity because of similarity.
o Everyone does the same work.
- Organic solidarity
o Modern
o Inter-dependence solidarity
Comes from greater dependence.
o They rely on each other.
o Individualism, mostly visible in consumerism societies.
o We are separate individuals bound together because of our
dependence.
o Division of labour.
Only know how to work our own thing. We are dependent on
each other but also can’t survive on their own.
Karl Marx wrote the conflict theory. This emphasizes that a society is founded on
domination, exploitation etc.
Week 2 – forms of solidarity
Solidarity can take many forms.
1. Human Solidarity
a. Earliest forms
b. Individuals were embedded in families and ties within them were
important. These ties were practical. Family ties are also normative
and this is still the case.
c. Human solidarity emphasizes these ties and later as norms.
2. Social solidarity
a. Emphasizes integrating aspects of solidarity within a society.
b. Durkheim and Kant.
c. We are interdependent and rely on others.
3. Political solidarity
a. Group of individuals connected by shared interests. And also
standing up for these interests.
b. Active form like protesting.
4. Civic solidarity
a.
, Literature
“Why Economic Inequality Should be Central to
Strategies for the Future” (Robeyns, 2025)
Robeyns argues that reducing economic inequality—especially extreme wealth
concentration—is a necessary condition for achieving a sustainable and just
global future. Her central claim is that focusing only on poverty reduction is
insufficient; the entire distribution of income and wealth must be addressed
directly.
The scale and nature of inequality: wealth is far more unequally distributed
than income, with a tiny global elite controlling the majority of resources.
These inequalities exist both within and between countries and are
reinforced by structural factors such as debt burdens in poorer nations.
Multi-dimensional case against inequality. The problem is
“overdetermined”: there are several independent reasons to oppose it.
First, inequality produces harmful social outcomes, including worse
physical and mental health, lower social trust, and weaker economic
performance.
Second, extreme wealth is morally unjustifiable because it largely depends
on different forms of luck—natural, social, and market—rather than
merit. Natural luck is the luck one has at birth (physical health), social luck
is the luck one has in the environment one is born in (income, education
parents), market luck is about your economic success, career choices.
Third, inequality generates inefficient “positional arms races,” where the
wealthy compete for status goods, diverting resources from socially
beneficial uses.
She further argues that inequality undermines democracy by allowing the
wealthy disproportionate political influence, and increasingly direct control
over governance.
It also conflicts with ecological sustainability: high levels of wealth
concentration are incompatible with staying within planetary boundaries
while meeting global basic needs.
A key conceptual contribution is her critique of common assumptions in policy
thinking. She rejects the idea that poverty can be addressed without tackling
inequality, showing that inequality itself is a driver of poverty.
She also challenges three dominant beliefs: that win-win (Pareto-improving)
policies are always sufficient, that the rich deserve their wealth, and that
governments are inherently ineffective. These assumptions, she argues,
legitimize inequality and obstruct redistributive policies.
In terms of policy, Robeyns advocates a dual strategy: raising the bottom and
reducing the top. This includes significantly higher taxation of the rich, closing
tax havens, restructuring ownership, and increasing public wealth. She also calls
Week 1 - What is the tragedy of the commons?
Question afterwards: How can solidarity and / or social justice be used in
solving a tragedy of the commons?
Solidarity is seen in this theory because if everyone is only thinking about
themselves instead of thinking about the entire population, then it would not be
optimal for the long term. We would only be thinking in an individualistic manner
of speaking and according to our own benefit without taking other into account
which can negatively impact the entire world.
The tragedy of the commons (Garrett Hardin)
As many individuals share common interests. These situations pits common self
interest against the common good. Resulting in negative results.
Optimizing for the self in the short term is not optimal for the overall in the long
term.
Week 1 – Social Policy
Question afterwards:
a. Based on this knowledge clip, can you come up with an example of a social
policy? What/who is it targeting? How does it do so? And who is responsible
for providing this?
Regarding the student loans given by the government.
b. Are there other actors in society that also provide this type of support? If
yes, who and how? If no, do you think other actors should step in? Why or
why not?
I feel that there is a way we can look at education to make it cheaper and
more accessible for each social group in stead of only the rich ones.
Social policy address a wide range of inequalities like, race; gender; ethnicity.
Social policy can be defined in many ways. A crucial way of how welfare states
attempt to identify and address social inequalities as well as social risks that
have societal consequences.
Welfare provision is not limited to government.
Week 2 – Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity:
What holds society together
Durkheim focused on social rather than individual experiences.
Social facts = norms/values/ technology/ etc. They effect one another and
people.
Solidarity = cohesion in society. Feeling of part of a whole
- Mechanical solidarity
o Pre – modern
o People are bound together by collective consciousness.
, o Solidarity because of similarity.
o Everyone does the same work.
- Organic solidarity
o Modern
o Inter-dependence solidarity
Comes from greater dependence.
o They rely on each other.
o Individualism, mostly visible in consumerism societies.
o We are separate individuals bound together because of our
dependence.
o Division of labour.
Only know how to work our own thing. We are dependent on
each other but also can’t survive on their own.
Karl Marx wrote the conflict theory. This emphasizes that a society is founded on
domination, exploitation etc.
Week 2 – forms of solidarity
Solidarity can take many forms.
1. Human Solidarity
a. Earliest forms
b. Individuals were embedded in families and ties within them were
important. These ties were practical. Family ties are also normative
and this is still the case.
c. Human solidarity emphasizes these ties and later as norms.
2. Social solidarity
a. Emphasizes integrating aspects of solidarity within a society.
b. Durkheim and Kant.
c. We are interdependent and rely on others.
3. Political solidarity
a. Group of individuals connected by shared interests. And also
standing up for these interests.
b. Active form like protesting.
4. Civic solidarity
a.
, Literature
“Why Economic Inequality Should be Central to
Strategies for the Future” (Robeyns, 2025)
Robeyns argues that reducing economic inequality—especially extreme wealth
concentration—is a necessary condition for achieving a sustainable and just
global future. Her central claim is that focusing only on poverty reduction is
insufficient; the entire distribution of income and wealth must be addressed
directly.
The scale and nature of inequality: wealth is far more unequally distributed
than income, with a tiny global elite controlling the majority of resources.
These inequalities exist both within and between countries and are
reinforced by structural factors such as debt burdens in poorer nations.
Multi-dimensional case against inequality. The problem is
“overdetermined”: there are several independent reasons to oppose it.
First, inequality produces harmful social outcomes, including worse
physical and mental health, lower social trust, and weaker economic
performance.
Second, extreme wealth is morally unjustifiable because it largely depends
on different forms of luck—natural, social, and market—rather than
merit. Natural luck is the luck one has at birth (physical health), social luck
is the luck one has in the environment one is born in (income, education
parents), market luck is about your economic success, career choices.
Third, inequality generates inefficient “positional arms races,” where the
wealthy compete for status goods, diverting resources from socially
beneficial uses.
She further argues that inequality undermines democracy by allowing the
wealthy disproportionate political influence, and increasingly direct control
over governance.
It also conflicts with ecological sustainability: high levels of wealth
concentration are incompatible with staying within planetary boundaries
while meeting global basic needs.
A key conceptual contribution is her critique of common assumptions in policy
thinking. She rejects the idea that poverty can be addressed without tackling
inequality, showing that inequality itself is a driver of poverty.
She also challenges three dominant beliefs: that win-win (Pareto-improving)
policies are always sufficient, that the rich deserve their wealth, and that
governments are inherently ineffective. These assumptions, she argues,
legitimize inequality and obstruct redistributive policies.
In terms of policy, Robeyns advocates a dual strategy: raising the bottom and
reducing the top. This includes significantly higher taxation of the rich, closing
tax havens, restructuring ownership, and increasing public wealth. She also calls
