Monday, January 4, 2021
Can people with vastly different political beliefs support a Universal Basic Income?
Olga Lenczewska, a fellow with the Stanford Basic Income Lab and 5th PhD student at Stanford looks at a how universal basic income (UBI) has a rare potential to gather supporters who hold vastly different beliefs and ideological commitments.
I am a fifth-year PhD candidate in philosophy at Stanford University and I have been involved with the Basic Income Lab since its beginning in 2017. My work at the Lab has focused on surveying the academic literature on the impact of basic income on gender justice, racial justice, and wellbeing. By reviewing the interdisciplinary literature on this topic, I sought to put into dialogue the normative and the empirical dimensions of this debate. My biggest takeaway from this work has been the realization that universal basic income (UBI) has a rare potential to gather supporters who hold vastly different beliefs and ideological commitments.
One of the crucial challenges for contemporary democracies is to arrive at agreements over particular policies despite growing antagonisms and deep polarization across ideological lines. Drawing on a body of theoretical and empirical literature, I show that people holding vastly different political beliefs, illustrated through six theoretical frameworks of justice, have reasons to support the same policy: universal basic income. This table, Supporting UBI from the Perspective of Different Frameworks of Justice, describes how a UBI policy would be supported through different frameworks of justice. (You can also view a tabbed version of this document in the section below.) Some examples where there could be consensus on UBI include:
- Liberal egalitarians, left libertarians, republicans, and feminists would likely all support a basic income because of their shared concern for equity and empowerment within the household. As a benefit paid to the individual and not to the household, a UBI has the potential to empower economic dependents and secure them with exit options. The policy, if ongoing, could also provide a lifetime of financial security and bargaining power.
- Liberal egalitarians, left and right libertarians, republicans, and socialists may also support a basic income policy because of its universal and unconditional features which it would circumvent the paternalizing and demeaning process of means-testing.
- Republicans and socialists can also get behind UBI’s potential of freeing up time to allow people to spend more time on unpaid activities within their communities and thus promoting greater individual civic engagement.
- Finally, consensus around UBI may be generated to its potential to empower individuals – in the workplace (a reason shared by socialists, republicans, and left libertarians), in his/her/their ability to choose to work at all (a reason shared by liberal egalitarians and left libertarians), and in promoting an equal use of land resources (a reason shared by right and left libertarians).
Of course, having reasons to support this particular policy does not mean that this is the preferred policy for addressing some of the complex social and economic challenges of today. Different ideological groups might see UBI only as a second or third best solution to the problems they want to tackle. As such, while UBI may not be the first option policy for all to address issues of economic security, it may be one of the rare policies that individuals with differing political beliefs may be able to agree on in the end.
Liberal egalitarianism
Liberal egalitarianism, most commonly associated with the work of John Rawls, is concerned with reconciling the value of equality with the value of liberty, which jointly embed the idea of justice as impartiality. The liberal egalitarian emphasis on liberty can be understood as striving to ensure that everybody has the freedom to develop and pursue their own conception of the good life. The value of equality is also essential and corresponds to the liberal commitment to supporting individual choices regardless of their preferences. Such respect is considered to be incompatible with very large socio-economic inequalities. Rawls has famously unified these values in his two fundamental Principles of Justice. The First Principle gives everyone equal right to a scheme of basic liberties compatible with the same liberties for others. The Second Principle specifies that socio-economic inequalities must be arranged to everyone’s advantage and that everyone must compete for jobs and other positions on equal terms.
Empowerment within the household
As a benefit paid to the individual and not to the household, UBI could go a long way in empowering economic dependents and providing them with exit options (for example, in cases of domestic abuse). (Van Parijs 1995; Robeyns 2001; Pateman 2004; McKay 2007; Zelleke 2014)
Neutrality of preferences
UBI grants individuals more freedom in determining life choices by providing a lifetime of financial security regardless of one’s career preferences. It would thus support individuals in developing and pursuing their own conception of happiness. (Van Parijs 1995; Zelleke 2014)
Non-demeaning welfare
Because it is unconditional and universal, UBI avoids the paternalizing, demeaning, and stigmatizing process of means-testing. It thus treats all citizens on a par and recognizes their individual right to basic resources. (Zelleke 2014)
Poverty elimination
UBI has the potential to eliminate absolute poverty – poverty which is incompatible in the most basic sense with individual freedom. (Van Parijs 1995; Zelleke 2014)
Education / Acquisition of skills
UBI would allow individuals to access opportunities for additional education and re-training. Such opportunities could give people material and intellectual resources to pursue the kind of projects they want to. (Zelleke 2014)
The right not to work
Wealthy countries have a humanitarian duty, or a duty of justice, to satisfy the basic needs of their citizens even when they choose to engage in non-waged kinds of work. UBI could be a good way for countries enjoying productive economies to discharge this duty. (Baker 1992)
Left/real libertarianism
Libertarians endorse a theory of natural (pre-political) rights, including the right against coercion, the right to self-ownership, and the right to private property. Left libertarians in particular are additionally primarily concerned with providing everybody, including the least well-off, with a large degree of freedom from external constraints (such as scarcity of basic resources or an abusive work contract). They believe that this requires a certain measure of redistribution to ensure all individuals can adequately own themselves. Left libertarians also generally believe in the right to an equal share of natural resources: the “Lockean proviso” according to which all individuals have an equal right to the natural resources necessary for subsistence. Mixing one’s labor, over which one has full self-ownership, with natural resources usually yields in one’s right to private property.
Empowerment within the household
As a benefit paid to the individual and not to the household, UBI could go a long way in providing people with real freedom, which in case of economic dependents would mean financial and psychological empowerment. (Van Parijs 1991, 1995)
Neutrality of preferences
UBI respects the autonomy and agency of individuals by providing them with financial means to satisfy their own needs without being coerced into a particular labor-intensive lifestyle. (Van Parijs 1991; Moseley 2011; Munger 2012; Henderson 2017)
Non-demeaning welfare
UBI’s unconditionality and universality avoids the paternalizing, demeaning, and stigmatizing process of means-testing, which is central to most of the current welfare schemes. (Van Parijs 1991, 1995; Munger 2012; Zwolinski 2015)
Poverty elimination
UBI has the potential to eliminate absolute poverty and to guarantee basic subsistence for every individual, thus providing them with real freedom. (Van Parijs 1991, 1995; Zwolinski 2015)
Empowerment within the workplace
A workplace should be free from external constraints to pursuing a satisfying career path, such as poor working conditions, an abusive employment contract, or lack of sufficient leisure time. UBI could empower workers by removing such external constraints. (Van Parijs 1991, 1995)
The right not to work
Differences among people’s occupational needs and preferences should be respected through a system of free choice of occupation, including the right not to work at all. UBI could help sustain those who choose to exercise this right. (Van Parijs 1991, 1995)
Equal world-ownership
UBI could help promote the right to equal world-ownership and to an equal use of land resources. (Moseley 2011; Vallentyne 2012; Munger 2012; Zwolinski 2015)
Right libertarianism
Libertarians endorse a theory of natural (pre-political) rights, including the right against coercion, the right to self-ownership, and the right to private property. In addition, philosophers commitment to right libertarianism (most prominently Nozick) emphasize the normative priority of individual freedom and advocate for a small state with minimal intervention in private and market-based interactions. The sole function of such a state would be the specification, interpretation, and enforcement of negative individual rights through the military, police, and court system. Right libertarians generally reject the non-consensual taxation of labor and the products of labor. They share ties with neoliberalism as an economic doctrine.
Neutrality of preferences
UBI respects the autonomy and agency of individuals by providing them with financial means to satisfy their own needs without being coerced into a particular labor-intensive lifestyle. (Van Parijs 1991; Moseley 2011; Munger 2012; Henderson 2017)
Non-demeaning welfare
UBI’s unconditionality and universality avoids the paternalizing, demeaning, and stigmatizing process of means-testing, which is central to most of the current welfare schemes. (Van Parijs 1991, 1995; Munger 2012; Zwolinski 2015)
Equal world-ownership
UBI could help promote the right to equal world-ownership and to an equal use of land resources. (Moseley 2011; Vallentyne 2012; Munger 2012; Zwolinski 2015)
Efficiency of welfare
Welfare distribution is often inefficient and ineffective as it relies on a large bureaucracy of control. A universal cash transfer would remove the need for a large bureaucracy and promote a more efficient distribution of benefits. (Zwolinski 2010; Munger 2012)
Republicanism
Republicans (notably Pettit) are concerned with the idea of freedom from domination – the absence of dominating control or the condition of not being subject to the arbitrary or uncontrolled power of others. Republicans understand the idea of dominating control as a hierarchical mechanism whereby one individual or institution can exercise arbitrary power and control over another individual. Another value central for the republican political thought is civic virtue: the formation of a virtuous character that demonstrates a dedication to the wellbeing of one’s community and active political participation. Civic virtue is supposed to be influenced and shaped by public institutions and by public policies designed to deliberately cultivate it.
Empowerment within the household
As a benefit paid to the individual and not to the household, UBI could go a long way in protecting economic dependents from the potential dominating control of other members of their household. (Pettit 2007)
Neutrality of preferences
UBI would promote freedom from domination by reducing the power of employers and over individuals’ economic lives. This is because UBI could boost bargaining power, exit options, and power to say no to exploitative contracts. (Pettit 2007, Widerquist 2013)
Non-demeaning welfare
A non-stigmatizing basic income grant people with more independence than means-tested benefits, thus promoting their freedom from domination of the bureaucratic apparatus of the state. (Pettit 2007)
Community participation
UBI could allow people to spend more time on unpaid activities within their communities and thus help promote a model of individuals as public citizens who participate in the public sphere and are involved in various democratic practices. (Dagger 2006; White 2007)
Empowerment within the workplace
Workers should be free from the domination of their bosses, which can manifest itself through a precarious employment contract or unregulated working hours. UBI could provide workers with more freedom from non-domination. (Pettit 2007)
Marxism/socialism
One of Karl Marx’s original criticisms of capitalism is the exploitation of wage laborers: the logic of capitalist production dictates that the only potential source of profit is found in the gap between the value produced by the workers and the wage they received for their labor. Capitalism thus necessitates the exploitation of workers and their subjection to the arbitrary power of wealth over which they have no ownership. As a result, workers experience exploitation and a growing sense of alienation from their labor, from the product of their labor, and from having meaningful connections with other people. Contemporary Marxist and socialist political thought emphasizes the importance of collective bargaining and organized labor; the need to reduce the asymmetry between employers and employees; the need for a workplace with decent working conditions and opportunities for growth; the importance of recognizing the value of informal work and community engagement; and the workers’ right to be protected from the political or technological changes in the labor market.
Non-demeaning welfare
By avoiding the paternalizing, demeaning, and stigmatizing process of means-testing, UBI moves toward more equal power relations within classes. (Wright 2006)
Poverty elimination
UBI has the potential to eliminate absolute poverty and to guarantee basic subsistence for every individual. (Rogers 2017)
Community participation
UBI could allow people to spend more time on unpaid activities within their communities and thus help strengthen social bonds between citizens. (Wright 2006)
Empowerment within the workplace
A workplace should have decent working conditions, provide opportunities for leisure time and exit options, and develop the capacities and talents of these employees. UBI could empower workers in these ways. (Van der Veen & Van Parijs 1986; Wright 2006; Gourevitch 2016)
Offsetting automation effects
UBI could help protect workers from the growing unemployment and labor displacement, which continuous technological advancements and automatization are likely to cause. (Rogers 2017)
Feminism
Feminist political thought has been centered on the need for gender equity understood as equal political, educational, and career opportunities for men and women and, relatedly, the importance of empowering women across economic, political, and social spheres. One key concern has been the recognition of the value of care work and housework, including the need to distribute the burdens of such work more equitably within the household. According to the ethics of care – an ethical theory founded on feminist thought – moral action further centers around intimate caring relationships between individuals. Contemporary feminist political thinkers advocate for the empowerment of economically dependent spouses, the need for affordable daycare and longer parental leaves, and an adequate recognition and compensation of informal labor. They also emphasize the distinctiveness of the experiences and struggles of women and other gender minorities who are multiply burdened because they find themselves at the intersection of numerous axes of oppression.
Empowerment within the household
As a benefit paid to the individual and not to the household, UBI could go a long way in empowering economic dependents and providing them with exit options (for example, in cases of domestic abuse). (Van Parijs 1995; Robeyns 2001; Pateman 2004; McKay 2007; Zelleke 2014)
Neutrality of preferences
UBI grants individuals more freedom in determining life choices by providing a lifetime of financial security regardless of one’s career preferences. It could potentially free women from the traditional roles they have assumed, allowing them to develop and pursue their own conception of happiness. (McKay 2007; Zelleke 2008)
Poverty elimination
UBI has the potential to eliminate absolute poverty, which affects women disproportionately, and thus to satisfy most of our basic needs. (Zelleke 2008)
Recognition of care work
Gender equity requires a more adequate recognition and compensation of care work and housework. UBI could help further this goal by increasing the economic security of unwaged caregivers and detaching income from employment. (Robeyns 2001)
Family time
Everyone should be able to spend as much quality time with their loved ones and dependents as they want to, but these prospects are often incompatible with our breadwinner economic model. UBI could support all individuals (regardless of gender) in reducing work hours to care for dependents. (Pateman 2004; McKay 2007)