Abstract
AbstractThe universal basic income (UBI) has found its way into public debates and has prominent advocates across almost all political camps. In many debates, it is presented as a solution for the consequences of a large variety of current societal challenges, such as unemployment, over-education, ecological crises, gender inequality and issues related to digitalization and automatization. While UBI has been discussed broadly from an expert position, we know very little about the population’s perceptions of UBI. Thus, to shed light on the public legitimacy of UBI as a radically different concept of social justice and citizenship, our contribution uses data from large group discussions where participants explicitly refer to the UBI as an option for a future welfare state. By comparing debates in Slovenia and Germany, we unearth that the perspective adopted by the participants towards a UBI is strongly shaped by the welfare institutions of the countries in which they live and the social justice principles embodied in those institutions.
Highlights
Introduction1 During the last decade, the universal basic income (UBI)2 has gained massive prominence
Might people not fully understand the concept they are asked to judge, their point of departure is unknown by us: do they support the universalism of the approach? The unconditionality? What do they criticize? We argue that to understand the social legitimacy of the approach, it is vital to grasp what people’s understanding of the UBI is, what they expect from it, and why they reject or support it in light of their own perception of social justice – dimensions that are hard to capture with quantitative studies
To better understand the link between the social justice paradigms that are rooted in existing welfare institutions and the social legitimacy of the UBI, our study analysed group discussions in Slovenia and Germany where participants discussed – among other topics – the UBI
Summary
In order to study people’s perceptions of the UBI, we drew on qualitative data from large group discussions gathered in the context of the NORFACE-funded research project WelfSOC. The qualitative data allows for insights into people’s sense-making and justifications behind their attitudes towards the UBI – something which is most suitable for us as we seek to understand the link between judgements and perceptions of the UBI in light of institutional settings. The narrative of the active individual who should not put a burden on society by being lazy but instead contribute to the “common good” in exchange for receiving social support was very strong throughout the entire discussion and emerged in the context of UBI This results in a clear rejection of unconditionality in combination with a general (and not work specific) demand for proof of activity: The condition I would connect with that is if I’m going to be getting social support in the broadest sense, I should have to do something for the state. At the same time, a certain notion of reciprocity was applied in the participants’ judgements of the UBI, which we can link with the Bismarckian tradition of social insurance systems and meritocracy present in Slovenia This was different compared to Germany: Reciprocity in Slovenia was seen as a moral implication rather than a procedural expectation (as in the activity proofs in Germany) in the sense that people should give something back to society, like in community work. In the German debate, arguments referring towards need were not salient
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
