- The document discusses basic income as a policy, mirror of existing welfare systems, and metaphor for rethinking social and economic structures. - Research examines what drives political support for basic income across countries, finding it influenced by ideological, socio-economic, and institutional factors that vary in different contexts. - Case studies of the UK and Finland show support is sometimes more abstract than concrete and existing welfare states shape basic income politics, with individual support also linked to preferences for targeting and conditionality relative to national systems.

1. Policy, “mirror” or metaphor: the
political economy of basic income
in advanced welfare states
Reforming social security - What can we learn from basic income
experiments?
Presentation to KELA, Helsinki 17.12.2021
Dr Joe Chrisp, Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath

2. Summary
• Background
• Basic income: policy, mirror or metaphor?
• Research puzzle and methods
• Cheap support?
• Labour market risks
• Context matters

3. Background
• Basic income, or UBI, is an unconditional income given to
every individual
• Exponential increase in political interest in a basic income
• Swiss referendum, Finnish experiment etc.
• Dominance of normative and descriptive academic
research – ‘ethics and economics’ of a basic income

4. Basic income as a policy
• UBI policy design trilemma (Martinelli 2020) – adequacy, affordability and
advantages of radically simplified welfare
Model Level Funding Replacement Examples Feasibility
Radical left High, i.e.
subsistence
Redistributive taxes: wealth &
income
Supplement to existing
benefits
Autonomy think
tank
Neoliberal Moderate Limited income tax increases Replace existing benefits
(and more)
Charles Murray
Partial UBI Low Tax allowances & marginal
increase in tax bands
Integrated with existing
benefits
Torry, Green
Party, VIHR
Dividend Low &
variable
New taxes/sources: carbon,
data, sovereign money
Supplement to existing
benefits
Alaska, RSA,
Crocker

5. Basic income as a “mirror”
• UBI is better thought of as a “thought experiment” to make social
security systems more like UBI (Gaffney 2015)
Feature Implicit goal Policy trajectories Salient contexts
Periodic Income security Increase regularity of payments Use of annual or bi-annual payments
Cash Autonomy
(consumption)
Replace vouchers/hypothecated benefits with cash Use of vouchers/hypothecated benefits
Universal Coverage Remove/reduce eligibility requirements, e.g. savings,
contribution record etc.
Gaps in coverage and/or low take-up of
benefits
Individual Intra-household
distribution
Individualise benefit entitlements Use of means-tested benefits
Non-withdrawable Work incentives Introduce/reduce taper rates or earnings disregards High effective marginal tax rates for low-
income individuals/households
Unconditional Autonomy
(participation)
Remove or reduce punitive nature of sanctions Use of sanctions
Sufficient Income guarantee Introduce/increase level of social assistance Lack of social assistance or very
low/dualized systems
Replacement Simplification Integration, merging benefits Complicated benefit system

6. Basic income as a metaphor
• UBI as a tool for thinking deeply about the role of work and money
embedded in our economy and society
Values Typical debates Broader possible policy
consequences
Work Automation and degrowth
Valorisation of unpaid work
Shorter working week
Decommodification
Money Balance between public services and social security
(redistributive market liberalism)
Role of money in capitalism
Privatisation/marketisation
Debt-free sovereign money/MMT

7. Research puzzle
• What drives political support for basic income?
• Ideological (‘neither left nor right’)
• Socio-economic (precariat, automation, unemployment)
• Institutional (universalism, conditionality)
• How does support for basic income vary cross-nationally
and what explains that variation?

8. Mixed-methods research
• Party manifesto analysis
UBIPOL Database (1980-2018)
(using Manifesto Project dataset)
• Voter preferences analysis
European Social Survey (2016)
• Case studies of the UK and Finland
63 elite interviews (34 + 29)
Supply-side
Demand-side
Interaction
within an
institutional
context

9. “Cheap” support?
• What does support for basic
income mean?
• Parties with arms tied behind their
back (VAS & VIHR and SNP; KESK
and Labour)
• (Un)supportive unions (PAM in
Finland, TUC/Unite in UK)
• Public supportive of abstract
principle, less so specifics
• Where does ‘support’ for basic
income lead?
• More research
• Long-term goal and steps towards
the policy
Distribution of party commitments in manifestos 1980-2018 for basic income
or a cognate policy (e.g. NIT, basic income for disabled people)

10. Labour market risks
Country-level public support for basic income (ESS 2018) according to 4
socio-economic indicators
Party support for basic income (manifesto database) 5-year average
unemployment rate prior to election [parties weighted by vote share]

11. Context matters
• Existing welfare state institutions shape the politics of basic
income
Party support for basic income (manifestos) according to party ideology at a
given election (MARPOR score) and country’s social expenditure

12. Context matters
Individual-level support for basic income (ESS 2018) according to
preference for targeting in social policy and a country’s existing level of
targeting
Individual-level support for basic income (ESS 2018) according to
preference for conditionality in social policy and a country’s existing level of
conditionality

13. Thanks