The Case Against Participation Income—Political, Not Merely Administrative

Abstract

AbstractThis article develops the position we have taken in debate with Anthony Atkinson that a participation income (PI) would be problematic from an administrative and political point of view. We argue that Atkinson remains far too optimistic about the magnitude of administrative difficulties a PI would face. Negotiating these difficulties will inevitably involve the sort of political trade‐offs PI is supposedly able to avoid when compared to its more controversial cousin, the unconditional basic income. The enduring significance of ‘The case for a participation income’, we argue, lies in the often neglected point that Atkinson intends a PI as a supplement to an eroding contribution‐based welfare state. In the current political and fiscal environment, the case for a universal support scheme set below the rate of subsistence, and supplemented by other forms of welfare support, deserves careful re‐examination.