Basic Income and the Social Investment State: Towards Mutual Reinforcement?

Abstract

Is a social investment strategy compatible with the provision of an unconditional basic income? Prima facie, these two scenarios look like incongruent policy alternatives. While social investment – an influential policy paradigm at the level of the European Union – aims at promoting public services and maximum labour market participation, basic income is paid in cash and has sometimes been presented as the key component of a post-work future. In this article, we explore this apparent incongruence and show that these two visions for welfare reform are not necessarily incompatible. We argue that they may share a number of substantial points of agreement, and indeed may reinforce one another according to a logic of institutional complementarity. In particular, we claim that a partial basic income (i.e., a modest unconditional income guarantee, whose amount would be insufficient if one lives alone) could enhance or complement the key functions of a social-democratic version of the social investment strategy. By doing so, we conclude that the integration of a basic income into a social investment package could contribute to overcoming criticisms of the social investment agenda. At the same time, it could rescue basic income from the numerous critics who see it as an unrealistic policy proposal.

Universal basic income as a source of inspiration for the future of social protection systems? A counter-agenda

“…See also Murray, 2008). 7 It is the scenario of a basic income of a modest amount, introduced as a complement to current social protection, that is now clearly preferred in the majority of circles where the idea has percolated (Martinelli and Vanderborght, 2022: 47). And it is this scenario that will be the focus of my attention.…”

“… 3. For a good counter-example, see Martinelli and Vanderborght's nuanced discussion of the respective advantages and disadvantages of UBI and the ‘social investment’ perspective: Martinelli and Vanderborght (2022).…”

“… 24. On the side of the defenders of UBI, a promising path to explore would be to move away from the somewhat fetishistic defence of basic income primarily for its own sake, as if it were a self-sufficient project whose realisation should be ensured at all costs, and to elaborate on its incorporation into a much broader package of policy proposals. For a stimulating and refreshing outline in this direction, see Martinelli and Vanderborght (2022).…”

Basic Income in Ireland: The Development of Two Pilots

“…These three overlapping areas - services, income support, and activist measures - were seen as the core structure of Ireland's welfare state. There was no mention of basic income, although the idea of a participation income was floated based on Tony Atkinson's exposition (Atkinson, 1996; National Economic and Social Council, 2005). Arguably, basic income could have been trialled as an activist measure, as enunciated by Martinelli and Vanderborght (2022) in their paper on basic income and social investment, for example; but this was never proposed.…”