Basic Income Debate Research Articles

Amartya Sen, Karl Polanyi, and Universal Basic Income

ABSTRACT This paper develops a Polanyian capabilitarian framework to understand and justify the universal basic income. I combine Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach with Karl Polanyi’s substantive view of economy to mount a normative case for basic income. Using this approach, I also ground the basic income debate in a relational ontology, the idea that the self and society are mutually constituted. By doing so, I problematise hegemonic assumptions underlying much of the basic income discourse and call for ontological and epistemic diversity. The paper both provides a critique of individualist ontology and offers an affirmative modification centred on relationality and interdependence.

Disentangling the normative justification of basic income from the structure of the capitalist wage relation and the culture of the work ethic

This article contributes to the literature on basic income and work by articulating the case for disentangling the normative justification of basic income from the structural and temporal imperatives of the capitalist wage relation and the work ethic. It begins with a survey of the major normative justifications of basic income and their respective orientations towards capitalist development and labour markets. Next it presents an argument against tying the justification of basic income to posited labour supply responses based on predicted technological change, the extant empirical evidence from pilots or technical policy simulations. It then addresses the politico-cultural barrier to basic income presented by the wage relation and the work ethic, and critically evaluates the ‘exit option’ argument for basic income. The article concludes that asserting a right to an ad vitam basic income is an ethically justified and politically astute step towards a necessary decentring of (capitalist) work in basic income scholarship and advocacy.

Metaphors, political knowledge and the basic income debate in Belgium

Abstract The framing impact of political discourses has long been attested for. Metaphors in particular are known to ease the understanding of complex concepts and processes. Yet, the question remains to what extent metaphors do work the same on different recipients? Based on an experimental design, we test a potentially key moderating variable in the study of political metaphors: political knowledge. Our experiment aims at determining the extent to which the confrontation of individuals to arguments and metaphors impacts their preferences regarding the implementation of a basic income in Belgium. In particular, we hypothesize that the marginal effect of metaphors as cognitive shortcuts decreases when political knowledge increases. Our findings suggest that some metaphorical frames are more successful than others, hereby supporting the idea that the aptness of the metaphorical frame is a key factor when conducting experiments. We conclude that political knowledge is an important variable when analyzing the framing effect of metaphors, especially when it goes about very low or very high levels of political knowledge. The insertion of metaphors in political discourses may easily succeed in rallying individuals behind a given cause, but this would only work if participants have a lower knowledge of politics.

Parading Utopia on the road to nowhere? An introduction to the special issue on the policy impact of the European basic income experiments

Basic income experiments have emerged across Europe in recent years, but until now analysis has focused on their design and the scientific interpretation of their results, rather than the subsequent policy impact of these projects. This special issue addresses this gap. The papers all focus on whether and how the European basic income experiments have made an observable impact on the basic income debate and social security reform more generally. The special issue includes country case studies of the three countries in Europe that have completed their experiments, Finland, the Netherlands and Spain, as well as a case study of Scotland, where a feasibility study did not result in a field experiment, and of Ireland, which is in the process of planning at least one experiment. Two papers then also examine the effect of these experiments on the debate at EU level and outside Europe, in Australia. The special issue provides a novel contribution that advances both the scholarly and policy debates surrounding basic income at a time when COVID-19 appears to have increased interest in the policy and equally seems to have propelled the idea of experimenting with basic income even further into the mainstream.

The Nordic Connection: The impact of the Finnish basic income pilot on the Australian basic income debate

This article examines the impact of recent European basic income experiments on the re-emergence of basic income in Australian public policy and political debate. We argue that while basic income experiments in general have garnered some attention in Australia, the Finnish basic income pilot has been particularly significant. We trace this influence back to the historical tendency of sections of the Australian Left to view Nordic industrial and social policy as an aspirational model, and to the stronger institutional and interpersonal connections between Nordic and Australian policy communities. Finally, we emphasise how the recent history of imposing welfare policy experiments on Indigenous communities complicates the perception and prospects of basic income pilots in Australia and the potential for successful policy transfer.

The Role of Research in the Basic Income Debate in the UK

This paper will explore a variety of aspects of the current debate on Basic Income in the UK. It will survey the different kinds of research that have been carried out, and will identify where research results have informed the debate, where they have been abused, and where they have been ignored. It will discuss the importance of clear definitions, and of choosing appropriate research methods. International comparisons will be offered where appropriate. Three different kinds of research that will be important to future debate on Basic Income will be discussed: microsimulation modelling, pilot projects, and public opinion surveys. JEL: I380

From Toilet Paper Wars to #ViralKindness?

By examining seemingly contradictory reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and relating these to the basic income debate in Australia, this article explores the potential that the socio-economic crisis provoked by COVID-19 presents for a transformation of welfare systems. Drawing on ethnographic observation, the article describes the emergence of grassroots forms of solidarity in response to the pandemic. Within the context of the increasing hardship experienced by Australians, ongoing failures of existing welfare systems, and inadequate government responses to COVID-19, the groundswell of solidarity may coalesce with increasing support for a basic income, creating a conjunctural movement that propels radical social transformation.

The way out of Basic Income’s utopia trap. Making sense of the basic income debate

Culture, Practice and Europeanization (CPE) is an open access peer reviewed platform for publishing research-based articles predominantly dealing with research into the multiplicity of social processes, interactions, and policies relating to Europeanization and international encounters in Europe. Perspectives may be interdisciplinary. Empirical, theoretical and conceptual texts of significant originality will be considered for publication. CPE publishes foremost full-length original articles, but will also consider original reviews, conference speeches, and notes in order to inform the research community of most recent developments. CPE welcomes contributions that seek to enhance understanding of social processes relating to internationalization and further trans-national activities and processes in Europe.

Islamic Perspectives on Basic Income

The aim of this research is to present the Islamic perspective on the concept of Basic Income, and examine its emergence with the first Islamic society established at the time of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). The scope of this research is to provide a historical account of Islamic society’s and Qur’anic foundations of social justice, provide Islamic definitions of the concepts involved in the Basic Income debate (such as wealth, poverty, and work), and discuss the Islamic approach to Basic Income. Finally, the research will consider Islamic perspectives on the role of charity and the use of natural resources as sources of revenue to fund Basic Income.

Basic Income: The Potential for Gendered Empowerment?

Basic income is likely to gain momentum as the next social welfare trend to sweep over the world with ideas of how to improve the fairness and efficiency of distributing money. Other earlier movements with similar ambitions to transform societies, ranging across the political spectrum from socialism to neo-liberalism, have led to very different consequences for strata of citizens, but have in common that they have de-prioritised gender equality in favour of other interests. Advocates of basic income suggest that in addition to pragmatic gains, such as a more efficient state administration, primarily a basic income will empower citizens, leading to the potential for greater human flourishing. Our question is whether this empowerment will be gendered and if so, how? So far, the basic income debate addresses gender only in so far as it would raise the income of the poorest, of whom a larger proportion are women. However, it is less clear how it might contribute to a transformation of gendered behaviour, making possible divergent shapes of life where binary and set notions of gender are not a restriction. We discuss the idea of basic income from a perspective of gender equality in the Swedish context.

A Policy Comet in Moominland? Basic Income in the Finnish Welfare State

Finland is widely considered a frontrunner in the European basic income debate, primarily because of the decision by Juha Sipilä’s centre-right coalition government to design and conduct the first national basic income experiment (2017–2018). The Finnish basic income experiment builds on several decades of public and policy debate around the merits and problems of basic income, with the framing of basic income over time changing to fit the shift of the Nordic welfare state to embrace the activation paradigm. Underlying this discursive layer, however, we find several discrete, relatively small and unintended institutional developments that have arguably aligned the design of Finnish unemployment security closer to a partial basic income scheme. While the latter may suggest Finland has important stepping stones in place, important stumbling blocks remain and the jury is very much out on whether Finland would be the first European country to fully institute a basic income.

Resisting Biopolitics

Hannah Arendt’s support for the “right to have rights” arises as a critical response to the modern biopolitical human condition. While Arendt’s reflections on human rights have received broad recognition, the question concerning the economic preconditions of citizenship in her work remains an unduly neglected subject. This article takes up this issue and argues that, for Arendt, the fulfillment of basic social rights is the sine qua non without which the fulfillment of political rights is impossible. Thinking with and against Arendt, I show that her famous distinction between the private, the social, and the political can be fruitfully reinterpreted as an argument for basic income. When Arendt’s reflections on human rights are read in the light of her ideas concerning technology and automation, she no longer appears as a theorist who ignores social justice, but as a thinker who seeks to counter the modern biopolitical human condition and open up new realms for democratic political action. Instead of ignoring social questions, Arendt argues that with the help of technology, we can strive to politicize fundamental social questions in a way that they would achieve a self-evident stature as human rights, and as fundamental human rights, rise above political debate, even though we would remain conscious of their political origins. Arendt does not simply exclude “the social questions” from politics but argues that this is what all technologically developed societies can strive to do. In Arendt’s futuristic vision, the private life of citizens will be politicized through technological intervention: ancient slaves will be replaced by machines. By comparing Arendt with Foucault and Agamben, I maintain that a critical reading of her work can provide us with a pathway toward understanding the right to life’s basic necessities, to zoe, as a future human right.

When Basic Income Meets Professor Pangloss: Ignoring Public Administration and Its Perils

AbstractBasic income advocates propose a model that they believe will dramatically improve on current welfare programmes by alleviating poverty, reducing involuntary unemployment and social exclusion, redistributing care work, achieving a better work–life balance, and so on. Whether these expected social effects materialise in practice critically depends on how the model is implemented, but on this topic the basic income debate remains largely silent. Few advocates explicitly consider questions of implementation, and those that do are typically dismissive of the administrative challenges of implementing a basic income and critical (even overtly hostile) towards bureaucracy. In this contribution we briefly examine (and rebut) several reasons that have led basic income advocates to ignore administration. The main peril of such neglect, we argue, is that it misleads basic income advocates into a form of Panglossian optimism that risks causing basic income advocacy to become self‐defeating.

Reimagining Equity and Egalitarianism: The Basic Income Debate in Australia

Reimagining equity and egalitarianism calls for rethinking traditional welfare responses to poverty and economic security in Australia. Similar to other advanced Western democracies, Australia has pursued over the past three decades policies underpinned by neoliberal economics in an effort to curtail perceived excesses in public expenditure. In response to these policy settings has been increased attention by commentators and policy activists on the potential of a universal and unconditional basic income scheme to address economic insecurity. This paper positions basic income within the context of Australia’s welfare state arrangements and explores the potential of the scheme to respond to economic insecurity, particularly precarious employment and poverty traps created by a highly targeted social security system.

Basic Income in the Capitalist Economy: The Mirage of “Exit” from Employment

AbstractA widespread argument in the basic income debate is that the unconditional entitlement to a secure income floor improves workers’ bargaining position vis-a-vis their employers. Basic income effectively grants all (potential) workers an

Alternative Social States and the Basic Income Debate: Institutions, Inequality and Human Development

AbstractThis essay explores how institutional responses to human development differentiate capitalist systems and shape developmental dimensions of stratification and freedom. I advocate differentiating the analyses of systems of institutions and freedom, including by setting out their developmental dimensions. Doing so allows me to analyse ethical and political problems of high inequality capitalism that Piketty highlights as they relate to the cooperative and developmental character of public services, and to set the BI project in relation to human development.

Piketty’s Capital, His Critics and Basic Income

AbstractAmong other merits, Piketty’s book puts the topic of inequality and income/wealth concentration in the public agenda. His analysis concludes that aggregate income and wealth have tended to concentrate in the top few percentiles of the population. His research as well as the policy and political debate it has brought about, is relevant for the progress of the Basic Income movement. The tendencies for income and wealth concentration, the importance of inheritance for inequality, the weak foundations of current welfare state institutions, and the relevance of the tax structures for redistribution, all are central themes on the Basic Income debate. In this article, the author discusses certain aspects of Piketty’s

Radical liberalism, Rawls and the welfare state: justifying the politics of basic income

In response to recent policy trends towards linking social rights more tightly to work requirements, this article argues that those sharing Rawlsian commitments have good reasons to prefer a radical‐liberal policy agenda with a universal basic income at its core. Compared to its main rivals in present policy debates, the politics of basic income has greater potential to promote the economic life prospects of the least advantaged in a way that provides a robust protection for the bases of social recognition and non‐subservience. The argument seeks to establish that these concerns should be ascribed priority in the most plausible balancing of Rawlsian objectives and that doing so generates a strong case for basic income. As recent arguments for basic income have suggested that Rawls’ theory is insufficient to make the case for such a reform, this analysis also demonstrates that a powerful argument for basic income can be built on Rawlsian foundations alone.

Introduction: Revisiting the Feminism and Basic Income Debate

In this issue of Basic Income Studies, six philosophers and social scientists answer the question of whether, all things considered, feminists should embrace basic income. Basic income proposals have always had strong defenders and critics among feminists. Some feminists have argued that basic income will finally deliver the long-awaited recognition of unpaid work and caregiving, work that is primarily performed by women. Other feminists have worried that a basic income would function as hush money, discouraging women from striving for more far-reaching gender equality. Both views are prima facie plausible. Both views have also been defended in the growing body of gender analyses published in the last decades. The first published views by basic income advocates stated that basic income was a good thing for women: unpaid work would be socially recognised, women’s autonomy would be strengthened, women’s bargaining position within the household would improve, and men would be encouraged to share more in the

Basic income, liberal neutrality, socialism, and work

Liberal critics often object to basic income (BI) on the grounds that it violates reciprocity and is biased toward those who choose voluntarily to opt out of work and thus violate the principle of liberal neutrality toward conceptions of the good life. In the first part of this paper I argue that liberal neutrality favors BI. Marxist critics of BI are less likely to accept liberal neutrality, but I argue in the second part that the argument for BI in the first part applies with equal force to Marxist objections that BI is unfairly exploitative of workers. Marxists are also less likely to accept current labor market trends, seeing socialism as affording more opportunity for guaranteeing everyone a right to decent work, and suspecting BI of making the unfair inequalities of capitalism a little more palatable while diverting attention from a more equitable socialist alternative. I argue that BI is not incompatible with socialism or Marxism, and should not be opposed to but rather combined with strategies for full employment.