Income as a Basic Right

(1)

Income as a Basic Right

The longterm effect of the Basic Income and its place in the

Political Domain

Michiel Nivard

5941776

READER

Federica Russo

SECOND READER

(2)

3.1HISTORIC NOTE ... 10 3.2BASELINE BI–VAN PARIJS ... 12 3.3VARIATIONS OF BI ... 13 3.4ECONOMIC ISSUES ... 14 3.4.1 Economics surrounding BI ...14 3.4.2 Economic Form of BI ...15 4. FREEDOM/LIBERTY ... 17 4.1.THE NOTION OF FREEDOM ... 17 4.1.1.ISAIAH BERLIN ... 17 4.1.2.FRIEDRICH HAYEK ... 18 4.2.FREEDOM AND BI ... 19 4.2.1.GUY STANDING ... 20 4.2.2.CAROLE PATEMAN ... 20

4.2.3.GIJS VAN DONSELAAR... 21

4.6CONCLUSION ... 22

5. AGENCY ... 23

5.1MONEY =ULTIMATE FREEDOM ... 24

5.2NUDGING ... 25

6. POLITICAL SPHERE ... 27

7.CONCLUSION ... 29

(3)

1. Introduction

1.1 Welfare Evolution

In modern history, the Western world has transformed from totalitarian states (i.e. non-democratic) into nations where its inhabitants contribute to its structure, both via politics (democracy) and the economy (taxes). This has created societies that install and fund policies through the contribution of its citizens. As people provide labour they create welfare and earn income. This income is used to pay for personal expenses and to pay taxes. These taxes will support any implemented policy, policies that can only be created according to the wishes of the democratic majority.

The problem, however, is that this has also created a blank spot for individuals that are not able to join this system. Due to various reasons (e.g. physical, psychological, etc.) some people are not able to work and sustain their own living via an income generated by providing their labour. They are thus put outside of the system and cannot earn the income that should pay for their expenses nor can they pay the taxes that allows for the continuation of the governing structure.

For these individuals, the modern welfare system has been designed. Via an elaborate means testing (i.e. testing for eligibility via pre-determined characteristics), people that are eligible for welfare receive benefits from society that help them in guaranteeing a decent life. Whenever someone has been qualified as ‘unable to work’, he/she will still earn an income that provides basic satisfaction of ones needs.

This welfare system is paid via redistributing income from the labour force to the eligible unemployed via the government. Since free riding (i.e. someone who illegally receives welfare but is fit to work, comes at the expense of the collective), bureaucracy, and overall costs are sensitive topics (especially among the contributing labour force), any welfare state is under constant discussion. How can this system become more effective, efficient, and fair?

Some interest groups and scholars have opted for a different system that is either a supplement or replacement of the current welfare system. This idea for a variation of the current welfare system aims to limit bureaucracy, increase effectiveness and affect the entire society. This new type of welfare policy aims to provide the entire society with equal welfare regardless of their history, background and capabilities. Some experiments with this welfare type were held in Alaska, Namibia and in Canada, whereas proposals are made all over Europe (e.g. Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland).

Since 1982 (eligible) Alaskans receive yearly cheque from their government without any conditionality. These yearly grants are funded through the benefits that the Alaskan State receives from the oil industry that is present in its land. In exchange of the right to explore and mine the Alaskan land, the oil industry pays the federal government a contractual fee1_{. This income scheme differs from traditional welfare, as it does not}

require a means testing on the eligibility of the beneficiaries. So irrespective of their ability to provide labour, any Alaskan citizen will receive the yearly grant.

1_{Via the Alaska Permanent Fund, the Alaskan government manages its oil investments and}

revenues from the oil industry. The benefits are distributed over Alaskan inhabitants that have lived in Alaska for at least a year.

(4)

In Namibia and Canada, experiments in a similar fashion have been held. In Namibia the BIG coalition paid 930 members of a low-income community each 100 Namibian dollars between 2008 and 2009. This was a monthly, unconditional welfare aid aimed at improving their standard of living. The Mincome experiment in Dauphin (Canada), is considered one of the largest experiments concerning this type of welfare. Between 1974 and 1979 households received a monthly income to supplement their regular income.

Selected communities in both Canada and Namibia were proclaimed eligible to receive a certain monthly cash stipend without any conditionality. Both experiments showed impressive results in health care, happiness, voluntary work, etc. The researchers concluded that, apparently, the subjects involved in the experiment experienced lower levels of stress, which reflected the lower health costs. Also, the subjects were more inclined to engage in voluntary work, which subsequently increased social cohesion. In Namibia, the researchers also noted that the entrepreneurship of the subjects increased, leading to higher wealth accumulation in the community. Despite the positive results in both countries, the experiments were not continued, let alone expanded on larger scale.

In addition to these experiments, many European countries have pressure groups opting for similar policies to either replace or supplement traditional welfare systems. In the Netherlands, there are several groups and authors who are advocating for a guaranteed income for all. Rutger Bregman has popularized the discussion via the online journal ‘De Correspondent’, claiming that a guaranteed income would serve both Dutch economy as health and happiness of Dutch citizens. Several pressure groups in the Netherlands are putting the topic on the political agenda.

In Italy, the recently founded political movement ‘Five Star Movement’ has introduced its plans for a Citizen’s Income. This plan should ensure income for the low-income families. The Swiss started the process of having a referendum on the question whether or not every legal Swiss person should receive a guaranteed monthly income of $2,800. The referendum is expected later in 2015. And lastly, Finland has adopted new legislation that provides space for a Basic Income pilot project. Nevertheless not all critics have agreed that a true Basic Income will be tested as some key characteristics are missing from the proposal.

Overall, it must be noticed that the traditional welfare system is constantly evolving in order to create a fair but sustainable society. The trade-off between the contributors (free riding problem) and the beneficiaries (quality of life improvement) to create a just system is a constant underlying issue that has no absolute balance point.

The evolution of the welfare system has now moved in the direction of the conditionality and the effectiveness of welfare. The new direction of welfare policy that is referred to in the above examples is the idea of a Basic Income, or a guaranteed income that is free of conditions for every citizen in the society. In the rest of this thesis, the common thread of the previous examples and the effects of this process will be investigated.

1.2 Introduction to Basic Income and Layout of the Thesis

The above cases display a growing sentiment towards a radical redefinition of our social welfare system. Instead of the ‘eligibility based’ system that is commonly known today, a general income system is being proposed, where all have equal right and share of total

(5)

welfare. From a historical point of view, it can be argued that in today’s society, individual capacities are graded on a (economic) scale that asserts different values/skills accordingly. An income of a professional soccer athlete differs from that of a professional baker because his/her skills and talents are valued differently. Even within one company the spread of income can be quit skewed. A recent study by Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ shows that executives today on average earn 20 times the income of their employees compared to a 1:16 ratio in 2012.

This skewed distribution of income is leading to an unequal spread of (financial) wealth. Even though we have developed from a feudal class system into a more meritocratic society, the actual effectiveness of meritocracy is debateable. Being rewarded for hard work and skills is not necessarily a bad thing, but if external factors play a large role in this process than meritocracy becomes less fair than intended.

One of the reasons is that personal heritage still has a great impact on individual development. Your birthplace is no longer directly related to your future life, but the social conditions in which you are born can have a major (indirect) influence on future development. Current wealth is thus distributed via personal current merits; however, these merits are influenced by more than today’s talent alone. Social circumstances (neighbourhood, education, family, etc.) remain to have a major effect on personal development but cannot be altered by person merits. Researchers Wilkinson and Pickett have shown that inequality within societies have a negative impact on areas like healthcare, education, stress, violence, etc. These exogenous factors remain influential in establishing personal merits and developing individual skills.

In their book ‘The Spirit Level’, Wilkinson and Pickett argue that individual possibilities at early stages in life are a significant predictor of future social position. Their conclusion is that the number of possibilities within society is highly correlated with the degree of equality. In order to acknowledge the indirect influences on the meritocratic wealth distribution that create skewed distribution based on exogenous factors, some new policies could be devised. This supports the argument for the implementation of a more balancing welfare scheme.

The significant impact of the exogenous factors on human life sustains the skewed status quo leading to the need for balancing measures. As inequality rises, which in itself causes more inequality, the unequal access to facilities like education, health care and the like will deepen the division even more. Lower income will also lead to earlier school drop out leading to lower income, lower health, increased risk of violence etc. The vicious circle needs to be broken to lead to a more equal society. Studies like the ‘The Spirit Level’ from Wilkinson and Pickett have shown that more inequality leads to societies where people are worse off in terms of health care, happiness and other social indicators.

An important idea, which is also characterised in the cases in section 1.1, aims to eliminate this barrier of inequality by reducing the dependence on income as a basic means of survival. By granting all citizens a standard income to sustain themselves in their first life necessities, it is thought to provide every participant with more freedom to explore and capitalize on their merits. As such, the meritocratic society is becoming more just and all individuals are rewarded by their talents and efforts, which they conducted out of free choice rather than systemic force. But how is this policy created? What effect does it have on human life? These and more questions are worth

(6)

investigating, especially since these ideas have beginning to gain increasing traction on the Western political agenda.

In section 1.1, some examples of new approaches to social welfare have been given. A general thread among these examples was discovered. The generic term for these systems of welfare, where an equal amount of money is given to all members of a group, is called Basic Income, as already mentioned in the first section. The Basic Income, and its effect on society, will be the main topic of this research.

The focus of this thesis will be to investigate whether there is a relation between the BI and freedom. In other words, it will be investigated whether the BI enhances individual freedom and hence some groundwork for further research in this area will be laid. When assessing the BI, it is possible to distinguish between the philosophical aspects and the economic challenges. This freedom related research will be on the former (philosophical) dimension of BI. The main research question and some sub questions will be described in section 2.

To investigate the impact of BI in society it is first necessary to understand the concept itself, this is done in section 3. So far it has become clear that in several cases there has been popular demand for social change in society. The changes are regarding the division of welfare, entitlement of economic fruits and the equality within society. The measure that has been proposed has great similarities with the idea of a Basic Income, an idea that stems from the 18th_{century but has modern day proponents.}

Although some variations exist, this thesis will use one specific form of BI as its baseline conception of Basic Income. In short, the historic note will be discussed in section 3.1 followed by the baseline BI that will be presented in section 3.2.

Once the baseline definition of BI has been established, some variations will be discussed in section 3.3. Next, the economic aspects of BI will shortly be presented in section 3.4. However, without understating their importance, these economic aspects of BI will mainly be left untouched. The reason is that as the discussion on BI grows (also in popular media) the focus is on financial problems like: financing issues, inflation and effectiveness. These topics are less related to freedom in the sense that this research is aimed at the relation of BI to freedom of which the economic issues are of less relevance. Still, some economic issues will be discussed in section 3.4 to gain a broader understanding of BI.

Although the idea has a history, no real implementation can be found in any nation. The theory of BI thus lacks an empirical base for a BI policy and discussion arises on the actual effects of the implementation of a uniform Basic Income. This discussion mainly focuses on the short-term effects as the measures that have an economic background. Some argue that BI will be a costly policy (as all citizens will be granted a monthly stipend) and this has to be paid for. Many argue that taxes need to be increased or other budget consolidation needs be implemented. Either way the short-term financing issues are of major importance but not the focus here. Still some background on this will be provided in section 3.4 to complete the picture.

Apart from the short-term, financial effects the BI aims to provide individuals with more freedom and equalize opportunities within society. This can be seen as its long-term philosophical effects. These include the effects BI has on freedom and agency. These aspects will be investigated in sections 4 and 5. Lastly the position BI has in the political spectrum will be researched in section 6. Section 7 will provide a summary and conclusion.

(7)

2. Research Question

In the previous section we have seen an overall problem in today’s society that involves the idea that even though we live in a meritocracy with ever improving social institutions (health care, education, judiciary, democracy, etc.) there are still some opportunities missed. This efficiency loss is not only damaging the individuals who are not able to reap their full potential and forego their individual preferences but it also means a society wide welfare loss as individual talents are not fully exploited for the greater good. Basic Income, which will be discussed in more detail in section 3, can be a policy that improves the current system. Below, two lines of research will be introduced that will critically address the idea and effects of Basic Income. First, I describe in section 2.1 the ability of the BI to enhance personal freedom and agency; second, I introduce in section 2.2 the inevitable but ambiguous relation of the BI within the political sphere.

2.1 Social/Economic Sphere

To illustrate the current system of personal preference and choice, let’s discuss figure 2.12_{. When moving from left to right we see a random subject that has several}

possible life options ranging from whatever preferences he/she has for life. For example, preferences can range from studying, working or doing nothing to more detailed ideas like being an accountant to working as an artist or volunteering in Africa. Obviously, these preferences are constrained on personal talents or capabilities but for the sake of the argument let’s assume that the preferences are realistic; if one aspires to become an accountant, he/she will be able to do so given the inherent skills.

At this point it is clear that there are several future options moving from the subject to the right. These are arranged in preferred order, where the most preferred option is at the top and descending to the least preferred option. What are the complicating measures that withhold any subject from achieving its ultimate preference? Since we’ve assumed realistic preferences and the subject will be intrinsically motivated (these are preferences) the only constraints can be outside of the individuals’ sphere of influence. We will call these ‘exogenous factors’ the factors coming from the social/economic sphere.

These factors can be classified as either social or economic in nature. The social factors that influence ones life path are very diverse, like family issues, health, friends, etc., and are difficult to counter, as they will be very personal and specific in nature. However, the economic factors are more general as these might include a steady income, tuition fees, insurance costs, etc. We can image any individual forfeiting on its ultimate preference (e.g. become an accountant) as the tuition fees for school are too high or (short time) opportunity costs are too high since time is needed to earn a living.

In this latter case (economic constraint) it is able to distillate a parallel with the Basic Income as described in the introduction. The meritocracy has already improved today’s society by a large extent but some improvements could be made. The

(8)

social/economic sphere, that has such a big impact on the realisation of individual preferences, still has a potential negative effect. As this has largely to do with the income that is needed to sustain oneself we can see how the Basic Income can improve the possibility of realising the ultimate preference.

The line of argument presented above shows that the Basic Income has the potential ability of increasing individual’s ability to fulfil their preferences and to grasp their full potential and thus increasing individual freedom. The question that can be raised is whether this argument is valid and to what extent the Basic Income theory does indeed contributes to personal freedom. However, the hypothesis in this thesis remains that a guaranteed income can improve the quality of life since more preferred personal options can be fulfilled.

Another very related issue to the freedom/liberty aspect of BI is the concept of individual agency that a person possesses. Agency can be characterized by the level of self-government that any individual has over its own actions. In other words, do our

intentions correspond to our preferences and our actions? How is the social/economic sphere involved in this process and could BI improve individual agency?

From this basic theory we can distillate a research question that will remain the main goal of this thesis. The research question will theorize the effects of a Basic Income on the long-term quality of individual life. The research question to be investigated will be ‘To what extent does a Basic Income provide better personal preference fulfilment for individuals, a process that, when successful, can be described as freedom enhancing?’.

As the hypothesis in the first part of this section has shown, the impact of the social/economic sphere on the cultivation of personal preferences is large. Despite the equalizing effect that democracy and meritocracy have had on exploiting personal endeavours, there still is room for improvement. The hypothesis of this research will thus be that the BI will indeed have a significant positive impact on increasing possibilities for individuals to act upon their preferences and therefore increase personal freedom.

(9)

In sections 4 and 5 the possible relation between the Basic Income and its freedom enhancing potential will be investigated. Some theories regarding freedom will be discussed and its relevance to Basic Income presented and discussed. Via this investigation, the groundwork for the relation between BI and freedom is laid down.

2.2 Liberal/Social Dichotomy

In section 3.1 a short historic overview of the Basic Income idea will be provided. Nevertheless it should be already clear that the idea has a strong political component; yet, BI is difficult to classify within the political sphere. Can Basic Income be classified as a social/left wing concept or should we categorize it as a right wing/liberal idea? This separate question will be investigated further in section 6 and is meant to further provide a framework for deeper investigation on the Basic Income.

The categorisation of the BI proves to be more problematic then it may seem at first sight. The idea to install a policy that grants any citizen with a free income to add in its basic needs has a very leftish ring to it. Socialist ideologists might not oppose this, as it seems to equalize the income gap within society. When we look at the far left, the communist ideal might be regarded as a ‘above and beyond’ BI as all citizens where allowed a guaranteed income. Also, as we will see in the coming sections, the notion of property rights is challenged through the Basic Income doctrine.

When moving to the right of the political spectrum, it is possible to defend the basic income theory from a liberal perspective. Libertarians will – to some extent – endorse the idea if it proves to enhance individual freedom and increase overall welfare. From a utilitarian perspective, it could prove to be beneficial to society if all individuals gain utility. However, the interference of a government body to distribute and organize the BI policy would be problematic for libertarians to accept.

In general, it will be interesting to investigate whether or not the Basic Income theory can be classified in any existing framework within the political sphere. To be clear: it is not a direct aim of this piece of work to classify the BI. On the contrary, it is possible that Basic Income is not subject to the traditional political framework. On top of that, it is interesting to attempt to characterize BI as it allows us to better understand the concept of BI and perhaps helps us to move beyond the traditional dichotomy of left and right in politics.

This gives rise to a second research question (apart form the freedom-related question discussed in section 2.1) about whether it is possible to see where the Basic Income can fit on a philosophical/political scale. In section 6. some different defences will be looked at and the arguments weighted against each other in order to try to classify BI. The first freedom-related research question will also play an important role as it is highly related to the political classification.

From this short introduction is has already become clear that it will prove to be difficult to frame BI in the political domain. Also, when considering the example cases from section 1.1, it is clear that BI alludes to non-traditional political parties. They are either bi-partisan efforts (Alaska), non-political academic experiments (Namibia, Canada) or issues addressed by new non-conformist political parties (Italy). This gives rise to the hypothesis that Basic Income has the potential to supersede the political dichotomy and inhabits an overarching political domain.

(10)

3. Basic Income Theory

The overall idea that was present in the previous section all revolved about a general income for all citizens and has become known under its generic term Basic Income (BI). The idea has a fairly long history and has very different varieties; therefore some historic guidance is appropriate when assessing its qualities. This will be provided in section 3.1.

For the continuation of the argument revolving Basic Income, it is important to define a certain baseline or a common understanding regarding the Basic Income, for the benefit of further investigation of its fundamentals. In section 3.2, I present the theory of Van Parijs, which is commonly viewed as the general version of Basic Income with all essential elements incorporated. Although there are some variations, Van Parijs’ view can be regarded as the mainstream view and will be used as such in this thesis.

Although the version of Van Parijs will provide a good overview and a perfect baseline example of BI, there are still some alternative suggestions to be found in the literature. Variations regarding form and type are to be found in the existing literature, which can provide interesting insights on the overall idea of BI. These variations will be presented and discussed in section 3.3.

To understand the implications of the Basic Income theory it is also important to separate the economic notions from the philosophical notions that surround the BI. The aim of this thesis will focus on the latter but it is important to acknowledge the economic issues as well. These will be described in section 3.4. These economic issues will be divided into two separate sections handling both economic issues surrounding the BI (3.4.1) and issues regarding the form of BI (3.4.2).

3.1 Historic Note

It could be argued that Basic Income can already be found in ancient Greek society. Here all citizens (i.e. free, Greek, men) had the right to receive a citizen’s income that would enable them to devote their life to politics, art and science. Nevertheless this policy was not applicable on women, slaves and other non high-class members. A first modern account for the case of BI can be found in the 18th_{century in the writings of Thomas}

Paine and Thomas Spence.

Thomas Paine was a British American who became one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and played a key role in the revolution against the British but was also an important figure in the French Revolution. As a political theorist and philosopher, he was the author of many influential works like ‘Common Sense’, ‘Age of Reason’, ‘Rights of Man’ and ‘American Crisis’ that have had major impact on the American independence war against the British.

The later work of Paine, ‘Agrarian Culture’, is most interesting with regard to Basic Income. This pamphlet from 1797 has become known as one of the first writings on Basic Income. Paine questions the property of land and subsequently the fruits that the land provides. Land, he argues, is given to man not to be privately owned, but to be collectively shared for its wealth. The reason is that all men are created equal and land is

(11)

given to all men by God. People can thus not exclude each other from the benefits of the land, as it is not theirs specifically.

The ideas of Paine are thus a fundamental change in the existing property ideas. He claims that property is equal to all men as we have been given the earth as ‘natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator’ (Paine, 1797). Any other property is artificial and an invention of men but not ratified by God. This unfair property system is enforced by the process of inheritance, through which ‘property’ could be kept among the wealthy few.

At the same time, it is also clear that, where land is owned commonly, it does not always produce an effective outcome. Paine uses the example of the Indians in North America who claim the land around them collectively without inequality. However, these Indians are reported to have a smaller yield from their land than privately owned land in Europe. Apparently there is thus a trade-off between the equality of all men and the higher productivity of private property.

In practice, he argues that instead of peasants paying rent to the landowner for a right to farm the land, it should be the other way around. Since the land is common property for all, it is justified that the landowner is obliged to pay a tax over its land to the society. It is thus not the landowner that has given the people his land to farm, but the people who have provided the landowner with a piece of commonly owned land. Paine argues that this tax should take the form of a one-off inheritance tax that would equalize the skewed property. This would continue the productivity outcomes of privately owned land but equalize the skewed property income.

The tax revenues that are to be gained should then be used to fund any social welfare scheme providing a regular payment to the elderly (pension or basic income) and a fixed one-time stipend to the young reaching maturity in order to ‘start their life’. This idea shows Paine’s utilitarian background, as it will alleviate the least well off with a certain income and thereby improve happiness of the greatest number. At the same time it is also beneficial for the wealthy landowners as it provides them with support for the property rights as they pay a contribution to society.

Thomas Spence was a contemporary of Paine and developed similar ideas in Newcastle and London. After witnessing a dispute between free men in Newcastle regarding the rights to cut woods on parish lands he developed ideas that hint towards a Basic Income. Like Paine, Spence also alludes towards the idea of land being commonly owned by all men. Hence the outcome of the dispute lay in the fact that the free men released their rights to cutting wood but demanded an equal share of the profits of the parish.

This event influenced Spence greatly and led him to write the book ‘The Marine Republic’. Here, Spence describes some brothers who inherit a fully equipped ship from their father. The brothers, like the free men in Newcastle, will share the costs and the revenues of the ship. When they land in America and colonize an island, the brothers uphold the principle and all rents collected by the community are used to fund any collective expense. The remainder of the rents is distributed equally among the citizens. Both incidents can be regarded as versions of a Basic Income.

These thoughts can be regarded as some of the first insights towards a common Basic Income. The idea was grounded in the skewed income from property rights that were unjust to begin with (since land was equal property for all). The equal spread of

(12)

the inheritance tax and the collective sharing in profits can be considered to be the first attempt for a social Basic Income. Although the theories of Paine and Spence didn’t follow through immediately, in later centuries, there have been more attempts to optimize the BI theory and to implement certain aspects. In the next section, I offer a basic theory of the Basic Income idea using the ideas of Van Parijs. This can be regarded as the received view.

3.2 Baseline BI – Van Parijs

These early accounts of Basic Income have led to modern day ideas that are still widely different in details as they are common in general argument. The main differences between several BI arguments rest upon different form, availability, frequency and conditionality (to be discussed more in section 3.3). Nevertheless, it is possible to distillate one general thought from all the available theories, which incorporates the overall idea. This version is best represented in the writings of Van Parijs who is a well-known proponent of Basic Income. His writings are commonly regarded as the received view and will serve as a baseline of BI for this thesis.

Van Parijs discusses his idea of BI in his paper ‘Basic Income: A Simple and Powerful Idea for the Twenty-first Century’ (2004). He immediately states that the Basic Income should be understood as: ‘an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement’. This statement can be broken down in several factors corresponding to form, frequency, availability and conditionality.

Firstly, every citizen should be eligible to receive a monthly stipend for sustaining its basic needs. The form of this income is a monthly cash payment, which thus excludes any in-kind payments like food stamps or transport card. Also, it cannot be a one off stipend but should remain recurring for consecutive periods over lifetime. The intuition behind this is that any individual has personal preferences that are not known by any political body. Cash payments will grant the most freedom of spending for any individual and will thus ensure the most efficient allocation of funds, tailored to the specific needs and preferences of the beneficiary.

Secondly, a central political organ heading the society should distribute the Basic Income that is to be paid. This grants that an objective and transparent organization needs to be trusted with the payment of income. It does not necessarily need to be the national government but could also be a regional or communal board. The inclusion of such a body generates trust and the sense of democratic accountability. Also, it creates the realm of objectivity and impartiality when setting policy requirements and handling the money.

Lastly, the conditionality of BI is an important requirement. Van Parijs clearly states that all citizens should receive the income without any return or condition from the benefactor. In other words, any citizen in the society should unconditionally receive the BI. Race, health, gender, sexuality or any other qualification, should not be of any influence for the BI distribution. This also includes the absence of a means test (i.e. a predetermined test to check the eligibility of a possible beneficiary) in the process of receiving a Basic Income. But, more importantly, also the recipient is not required to work or contribute in any way to society apart from being an official member of the

(13)

society. This is unlike most existing welfare programs where (a history of) work is a condition upon receiving welfare and/or means testing is standard issue.

This framework, set out by Van Parijs, will in this thesis regarded as a basis for the Basic Income theory. Also in the exiting literature involving BI, the theory of Van Parijs can be regarded as the received view. Whenever there is a received or standard view, it directly implies the existence of some variations. Indeed, some possible grounds (form, conditionality, etc.) have been mentioned where deviations from the original base BI have been made. Some of these will be discussed in the following section 3.3.

3.3 Variations of BI

In the previous section a clear base concept of the Basic Income has been defined. However, as the concept of a baseline suggests, there are some variations available in the existing literature that cannot be left unmentioned as they can provide some valuable insights. Most variations can be classified within the sphere of availability.

Ackerman and Alstott (2004) have proposed a one-time stake to be received by everyone when reaching adulthood, which contrasts van Parijs’ monthly payments and hereby challenging the frequency aspect. They also apply some conditions (graduate high-school, refrain from criminality) and hereby limiting the availability. They argue, however, that with these adjustments a stake would grant more freedom as it is convertible to BI and not the other way around. A BI would thus restrain recipients from their money creating a ‘spendthrift trust’ (Alstott, 2004, p. 45). This will be discussed more in section 3.4.2.

Others have challenged the idea of the BI to be a cash payment. And instead opted for a tax return, or tax rate cuts (negative income tax) or even in-kind goods. These could include food stamps, public transport tickets, educational grants or any other measure to be exchanged for pre-selected commodities. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is a proponent of a minimum income (BI) if it takes the form of a negative income tax for workers. This would, however, not affect the unemployed, as they won’t earn any income to begin with. A more detailed analysis will be provided in section 3.4.2.

Another interesting group of variations of the Basic Income is not to be found in theory, but in practice. Current social welfare system, that is (in all its variations) present in most of the Western world, can be regarded as a form of BI as well. However, there are some strong restrictions upon social welfare that exclude it from the realm of Basic Income. Most importantly, these concern the violation of availability and conditionality as means testing is present and the beneficiary is required to act in return.

The last group of proposed BI alternatives focuses on the conditionality for a BI. Instead of providing every citizen with a basic income, some people might be excluded from the welfare scheme. For instance, a certain level of education is needed in order to reduce drop out rates. Also criminality has been argued to be a deal breaker for receiving BI. Both of these points can be found with Alstott and Ackerman (2004).

The financing of the BI is also subjected to different variations, that is: how will a society be able to pay for a unilateral Basic Income? In section 3.4.1 this will be investigated in more depth but it is already clear that this point received several different solutions. Paine suggested a tax on land/heritage and others have proposed a redistribution of income tax but also an introduction of the Tobin taxes have been

(14)

proposed. Tobin taxes are taxes levied over stock trading. For each transaction an agent would make, he or she would need to pay a small tax. Also some local measures are heard including the use of natural resource benefits (if present). Some Dutch advocates for a Basic Income have proposed using (part of) the benefits from natural resources to finance the BI policy. These financing problems are part of the economic issues related to BI and discussed in the next section.

It is interesting to note that we can distinguish between two spheres where the Basic Income would make an impact. It is possible to separate the long-term from the short-term effects, where the long-term effects call on philosophical grounds like freedom and agency whereas the short-term effects encounter economic aspects. The aim of this thesis is to focus on the long-term philosophical aspects of BI, which will be discussed in section 4-6. Yet it is important to briefly mention the economic questions that underline the idea. This will be investigated in the next section.

3.4 Economic Issues

As the Basic Income is in principle a plan to redistribute economic resources within society, there are important economic issues at stake as well. Although these questions are fundamental to the concept and implementation of BI, they will not be part of the scope op this thesis. The investigation here will focus predominantly on the long-term effects of a BI on philosophical aspects like freedom and agency. A second aim is the attempt to characterize BI in the current political spectrum.

Nevertheless, in this section some economic issues that are at stake will be highlighted. The first reason is that it is such an important aspect of the BI policy that it cannot be neglected in this investigation regarding the BI. The economic background will provide a better overview of the issues surrounding the BI and help understanding the topic and its density. The second reason for including the economic aspect is the relation that it has on the research question in this thesis. As this research is to better understand the relation of the BI to personal freedom and its relation to economic structures in society, it is important also to know the economic implications of the BI.

Therefore, in the next paragraphs two sub-aspects of economic dimensions regarding the BI will be presented. Firstly, some economics surrounding the BI will be presented. This has mainly to do with economic discussions focussing on the short-term implications for a BI policy (i.e. financing, efficiency, inflation), which will be presented in section 3.4.1. Secondly, some alternative measures for the form of BI will be discussed in section 3.4.2. Some variations of BI are said to be more efficient and effective than the general baseline that we’ve assumed in this thesis. This section contrasts with section 3.3 in the sense that the reasoning within these variations is economic rather than theoretical. What are their relations to freedom and can we use these theories in our further research?

3.4.1 Economics surrounding BI

As becomes clear from the baseline theory proposed by Van Parijs, BI will grant every citizen an unconditional monthly income. This will inevitably lead to economic challenges that can be broken down roughly into three fields. First, there are questions concerning financing and the funding/costs of a BI implementation. A second point is

(15)

related to the financing issue as it is unclear to what extent a BI is efficient and effective. Lastly, there are some fears of inflation surrounding the BI.

Let’s consider the first economic issues. How will BI be financed? Any plan that provides all citizens with unconditional monthly income needs a strong financing policy because it will be expensive to guarantee all citizens a certain ‘base income’. Some pressure groups argue that taxes will need to go up in order to pay for the new program. Policy changes like raising value added tax (VAT), rich tax, inheritance tax etc. have been proposed3_{. Others have more faith in reforming the current social welfare policies and}

the efficiency gains of the enormous system of bureaucratic redistribution of welfare have to offer4_.

Either way the problem seems to be apparent and crucial, if BI is to be implemented. The variety in solutions indicates that there is room for funding to be found but that far stretching measures need to be taken. This brings to mind the question of whether the entire plan is efficient to begin with? Because if taxes are uniformly raised and redistributed evenly among the entire society, then what benefit is there to be gained? Hypothetically, some will pay exactly the amount of tax that the will receive in BI. This problem is always apparent in any redistribution policy but also within government spending in general. Everyone who pays taxes will receive some of that in return via government spending. Hence this efficiency problem will always be present.

Another (economic) issue that has been raised and relates to efficiency is how the BI would affect the propensity to work. This means that when a subject receives welfare, their willingness (propensity) to work diminishes. The reason is that their welfare will be lowered equal to the amount of their new wage earned from a potential new job. With a BI this is not the case since the BI is unconditional and any income that is earned on top of this is not deducted from the Basic Income. Hence, the propensity to work will not be affected and the BI is more efficient.

Lastly, also some theorists have spotted a threat of inflation. Inflation is the value reduction of money because for example money becomes more available. The problem with BI might be that money is ‘freely’ handed out and thus would decrease the value of the existing money supply. However, since the BI is paid for via taxes and other existing resources, there is much debate whether or not BI will indeed stimulate inflation, as no money creation is needed.

3.4.2 Economic Form of BI

Apart from these economic surroundings of the BI, there is also some economic debate regarding the optimal form of the BI. As discussed in section 3.3, there are various forms of a Basic Income policy. In the general baseline that is used for this research, BI consists of equal monthly cash instalments to be received unconditionally by all citizens of a certain political group. However, several authors debate this form. Ackerman and Alstott focus on the time aspect and argue that a one-time lump sum cash benefit should be preferred rather than infinite monthly cash payments.

3_{Some interesting proposals have been made by the Dutch BI income advocacy group}

‘BasisInkomen.nu’. These include, among other, increasing the VAT.

4_{In Dutch television show ‘Tegenlicht’ it has been proposed to eliminate the entire bureaucratic}

system that handles current welfare distribution. It was claimed that this would free up sufficient assets to finance the Basic Income in the Netherlands.

(16)

Their advice is to include the time value of money and calculate the present value of a lifetime BI that is paid every month. After this is done, it is possible to calculate an average based on the life expectancy within society. This gives the total value of BI for one person over its lifetime that is normally divided and distributed each month.

Instead of breaking this sum into smaller monthly stipends, Ackerman and Alstott propose to give the total amount in one large Basic Capital gift. The benefits would be that there is less money flowing around, less bureaucracy and that people have a larger say in the spending of their endowment. Should they prefer a ‘regular’ BI, they can still use the capital to buy an annuity that provides a monthly payment that equals the initial BI. However, if they for some reason they wish to spend (part of) their capital on an expensive acquisition (e.g. house, education) this is also possible.

For the latter reason, they prefer a one-off capital endowment rather than a BI as it allows subjects to purchase larger, more expensive things and thus grants them more options, which increases their freedom. At the same time, the subjects can also choose to use the one-off grant to buy an annuity that would guarantee a monthly income similar to traditional BI.

Another economic variation on the form of a BI has shortly been discussed in section 3.3. In the baseline BI for this research it has been established that a cash payment is the general form, however, there have been proposals for other means. Both in-kind (e.g. food stamps, transport cards) and tax benefits have been proposed as alternatives to cash. Reasons for both these alternatives are twofold: first, it would be a cheaper alternative and, secondly, it would leave beneficiaries with less temptation for spending sprees.

Tax benefits and in-kind benefits are supposedly cheaper, as they need less bureaucratic machinery than a redistributive system. Also, in the case of in-kind, a central government is able to mass-produce or obtain goods at lower costs, which are than distributed among the beneficiaries. A second reason in favour of the alternative BI is that it leaves the subject eligible for BI less tempted to ‘misuse’ the cash it obtained. Instead of purchasing short-term consumption goods (e.g. sport car, sneakers), the public endowment will automatically be spent on long-term necessary goods like food or education. Subjects can thus be steered to a favourable direction by the benefactor who is sure of the proper use of its funds.

It is clear that both alternative forms touch upon the aspect of enhanced freedom for the beneficiary. Ackerman and Alstott argue that a onetime capital endowment increases the options for the subject eligible for a BI with respect to monthly payments. The same goes for the in-kind and tax benefits, this would be preferable from a freedom enhancing standpoint as it minimizes the treat of ‘misuse’ of affluently provided cash payments. However, can objective measures be made for what is ‘proper’ use of an income? Who is to determine what is ‘best’ for someone? Can this too be considered free?

For these reasons some of these last economic aspects will be discussed in more detail in section 5, when regarding the freedom related research question with agency and self-governance. The idea is that the form of the Basic Income has an effect on the use of it. Therefore the financial aspects play a part in the long-term philosophical aspects that are related to the ability of the BI to generate individual freedom.

(17)

In this section an introduction of the Basic Income has been given. The overall historic overview has been presented and the general received view of Basic Income has been discussed. This version of BI by Van Parijs knows some variations that all address different topics. Lastly some economic issues and variations have been discussed in order to broaden the understanding of BI. In the coming section the research question will be explored in more debt. The perceived relation between BI and the individual ability to fulfil ones preferences is investigated in the next section.

4. Freedom/Liberty

In order to answer the posed research question it is important to state a clear definition of the term ‘freedom’. Freedom can be characterized in several ways and is one of the most ambiguous terms in philosophy. Freedom can be defined as free minded, absence of coercion or limitless capabilities but in the case of this research, the focus will be on the effect of economic possibilities on human life. In what way is the economic system preventing personal characteristics to flourish? Or, in other words, in what way does the economic structure pose obstacles for the fulfilment of human freedom? In this sense we need some theorists’ versions of freedom that are applicable to the BI case and try to relate them with the topic BI. Could the idea of BI that is represented in the previous sections be a helpful tool to overcome the possible restrictions the economic structure posses?

In the next paragraphs some theorist will be discussed that have either had applicable ideas of freedom or that have had insights in Basic Income and already related this to freedom. The first authors that will be discussed (Berlin and Hayek) can be characterised by the former whereas the last theorists (Standing, Pateman and Van Donselaar) did already lay a connection between freedom and BI. The overall aim of this section is to create some insights whether there is a relation between freedom and Basic Income, with the aim to lay down some groundwork for future research in the field.

4.1. The Notion of Freedom

The following two sections (4.1.1. and 4.1.2.) will provide an overview of two views on the notion of freedom. First the idea of positive and negative freedom that is characterized by Isaiah Berlin will be discussed and secondly the relation between coercion and the state on freedom that has been described by Hayek will be discussed.

The distinction that Berlin makes between negative and positive freedom both proves to be helpful when assessing the effect of BI on personal freedom. Also, the ideas of Hayek are very useful for the ideas of BI as it question the definition of the necessities for human life.

4.1.1. Isaiah Berlin

In an inaugural lecture given at Oxford University, Isaiah Berlin (1969) developed the idea of two concepts of liberty. Instead of one singular meaning of the term freedom/liberty, he distinguished a negative and a positive form. Both concepts entail the freedom of cultivating ones wishes and acting according to ones own preferences to

(18)

cultivate them. However, within this process, the subject has an inner freedom to actually strive for his/her personal goal and act in accordance to their own beliefs but he/she is simultaneously involved in a context surrounding him/her in which outside forces might restrain his/her preferences.

These two concepts are both interfering with the personal liberty; Berlin named them positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom thus entails the personal power to be able to explore and act upon ones preferences whereas negative freedom is the absence of any outside elements that can restrict your actions. Berlin hereby detects two domains where freedom acts or can be restricted.

With respect to the research on the extent to which BI is freedom enhancing, both forms of freedom are important factors. As discussed in section 1, we assumed that economic factors could be of major influence for the development of individual talents. These economic factors were represented in figure 2.1 and can range from educational fees, health care cost or income in general. If one (or more) of these social needs is not in place, it will negatively affect the possibilities to cultivate individual capacities and lead to lower grade preference fulfilment.

In this respect, both negative and positive freedom are part of the BI effects. Negative freedom is characterized by the absence of external forces that prohibit any preferred action. The economic boundaries that are active in society could be regarded as external factors that limit negative freedom. A BI could in that sense enhance the freedom by limiting the scope in which these structural economic forces are able to interfere with personal life.

Also, positive freedom can be strengthened via the BI. As the economic structure can indeed create a system where certain standards have to be met (e.g. tuition fees, health care costs) in order to advance the social ladder, individuals can lose the motivation to strive for higher goals. Their inner motivation or ‘drive’ can fade and thus the subject limits itself in advance of any attempt.

So when we talk about the Basic Income as a freedom enhancing policy that supports individuals in their quest to fulfil their preferences within the social/economic structure, the notions of negative and positive freedom are relevant. BI can be considered as freedom enhancing as it has the potential to effectively reduce the effect of the economic system on decisions made by individuals.

4.1.2. Friedrich Hayek

Another interesting scholar that was influential both in philosophy and economics is the Austrian Friedrich Hayek. Being a Chicago school economist, he was a strong proponent of minimal government influence. This was reflected in his views on individual freedom, a type of freedom that, in his view, was strictly described as lack of coercion.

According to his view, there is always a case of uncertainty that threatens individual life and thus our behaviour. One of the biggest uncertainties in his view was the behaviour of government. The reason for this conviction is that many of our personal decisions are based upon the actions of government; purchases are influenced by VAT, labour supply by taxes and settlement by the rule of law.

Nevertheless, not only government influences our behaviour, but also our very existence depends upon many different variables, which are our outside the realm of our

(19)

personal control, and yet they are still a limiting (coercing) matter. Examples within the social/economic sphere are jobs, income, education, social environment, etc. Hayek makes three important distinctions that are relevant to the notion of freedom and the relation of subjects and their environment. In the words of Hayek:

“So long as the services of a particular person are not crucial to my existence […] the conditions he exacts for rendering these services cannot properly be called

coercion.“ (2006, p. 91)

First, it is important that the preservation of life is not challenged. If an agent threatens the basic needs of another person’s life, it is called coercion and thus interferes with freedom. However, the question remains what we must call ‘basic needs’. Obviously basic needs include nutrition, shelter, medication and the like; but must we not also include education, safety, luxury (status)? When we relate these factors to the figure 2.1, it is clear that all these are part of the social/economic sphere that influences our possibilities to fulfil our preferences. Even though it is clear that something like ‘luxury’ is not necessary for basic needs, the status that it provides does generate the individual a position in the social framework. Several studies have showed that status is important in several social classes and that a lack of certain status symbols can lead to stress and depression. Studies in ‘Poor Economics’ and ‘Spirit Level’ indicate that status symbols are highly prioritized in lower levels of society even though they are expensive and do not serve direct purpose for sustaining one’s life. Nevertheless, it shows that social necessities are of importance for the quality of an individual life as well.

A second important part that must be discussed here is the gradual scale (opposed to absolute values) of the several factors needed for basic survival. Take nutrition for example; a specific number of calories is needed to sustain a human life but can this be regarded as a proper existence? Would a minimum of education, health, shelter, etc. be enough to realize the individual’s preferences?

The third important aspect relies on the question whether or not individuals can interfere in each other’s strife for existence. What if both parties claim certain factor to be of crucial importance for their existence? Both would not participate in coercion but would withhold the other from a basic need. Mutual exclusion should be applicable in this situation as otherwise the ultimate ground cannot be decided.

In this respect, it is possible to combine the theory of Hayek with the Basic Income as a means to reduce this impact that certain dependencies can have on our life. It shows us that it is important to define certain basic needs that are required to sustain a basic living. With absence of these basic factors we can speak of the absence of freedom. Again, using the scheme in figure 2.1, we see that the social/economic factors play an important role and can be related to the factors that stand in the way of our prime existence, as Hayek discussed. The question remains, however, what an actual ‘basic need’ is. In what range can we still call anything necessary for our existence?

4.2. Freedom and BI

After discussing two general notions of freedom in the previous section, the following sections will discuss some notions of freedom that have directly been related to the Basic Income by their respective authors. Guy Standing discusses the ‘right to work’ and its consequences to society. Pateman incorporates gender issues to the Basic Income and argues that woman rights are served better through a BI. The last author in this

(20)

section, Van Donselaar, questions the grounds of the BI. Is it a measure to redistribute property for the sake of freedom enhancement or for the sake of redistribution itself?

4.2.1. Guy Standing

In his article ‘Why Basic Income is needed for a Right to Work’ (2005), Guy Standing argues that the Basic Income idea is indeed a good measure to turn around existing measures in society. In his viewpoint people want to obtain a job and work for their living. It is natural to feel appreciated and have the ability if and the opportunity to sustain oneself. However, this is not the case for any job, as people digging holes in terrible circumstances are not fulfilling their ideals or preferences. It is a combination of the fulfilment from having a job plus the fulfilment of having a specific job that suits your personal preferences.

High unemployment thus creates a problem of unsatisfied citizens that are also not able to sustain their own existence. These people are thus affected twice by their unemployment. However, it is not a solution to let these people work on pointless jobs or in harmful conditions. Instead, a BI could foster a steady income that provides citizens with a stable base. From this base it is possible to prevail in ones needs and seek a relevant opportunity. The ‘right to work’ has become more prominent instead of the ‘need to work’. The BI can provide in this need.

Standing continues with ‘good work stems from basic security, as do those other attributes of a good society, including social solidarity, tolerance and social responsibility’. In this concluding remark Standing claims that having ‘good work’ provides the basis for a society of citizens that are tolerant, responsible and, in general, socially good. ‘Good work’ is an ambiguous term in this sense, but can be defined as a respected, dignified job that corresponds to ones preferences. Having a ‘good job’ will thus not only contribute to the individual wellbeing but also to the overall utility of the entire society.

In the views of Standing, a Basic Income should be a right for every human as it will lead to possibilities to act responsible and function properly. Income is a means to develop oneself and to contribute (not only economically via taxes) to society as a conscious, moral person. This idea can be related to the freedom aspect of a BI as it focuses on the functioning of a human in society. According to Standing a guaranteed income will lead to responsible humans that have the opportunity to regard several options and thus act on their preferences. On top of this it will also benefit society at large as it creates healthy, responsible individuals who contribute to the social economic structure.

4.2.2. Carole Pateman

Another view on the influence that a Basic Income has on the freedom of individuals is presented by Carole Pateman. She links the theory of BI with the enhancement of personal freedom and links it to its potential to increase women’s rights at the same time.

Like the introduction of this research, Pateman also acknowledges the premise that the existence of a social economic structure in society is forcing individuals in a certain process in order to meet their preferences (whether necessities or luxury).

(21)

According to her, this increases the importance of the ability and availability of work as it grants an income. This process raises the importance of an income not only as a means of survival but also as the sole provider of independence. Without such monetary assets, an individual won’t be able to provide in its essential needs and will fail in the social economic structure.

Pateman agrees with the idea of a Basic Income and underscores the potential of liberating subjects from the immediate need for income. Her aim (like most BI proponents) is not to abolish work and income altogether, but to minimize the direct need. Work and income should not become a sole means needed for basic survival and luxury consumption but transform into a commodity itself. The idea is that one should focus on a job that generates pleasure in itself, rather than indirect pleasure via the income provided. A BI has thus the ‘potential’ to break the link between income and employment’ as it generates unconditional income that can be utilised in fulfilling ones (basic) preferences. There is a link to uncover with the ‘right to work’ that has been discussed by Standing in the previous section.

Here Pateman also develops a feminist argument. In her view, the traditional relations, as described above, do hold but are predominantly true for men. Men are expected to work in order to earn an income and provided for their family. They are thus involuntarily bound to the social economic structure via their family, whom otherwise will perish without the male income. The woman on the other hand suffers a secondary (and perhaps worse) boundary, as she is not only forced within the social economic structure of employment and income, but also within the (traditional) institute of marriage.

A woman’s income and resulting means of existence is realized within her husband and locked in marriage. This reinforces the power that employment and marriage have in society and upholds the social economic structure. A Basic Income can also counter the secondary force that withholds women fulfilling their preferences, through their husbands, as women will be granted an income of their own. This allows them to build their own existence, independent from men and marriage and provides them the opportunity to build their own future. The BI can thus be another liberating driver in the acknowledgment of equal rights for men and women.

The feminist aspect is thus a strong factor of the BI acknowledged by Pateman and a further argument for the liberty that a Basic Income can provide. The argument Pateman makes can also be transmitted to other minority groups in society that are not (yet) receiving equal rights. Similarly, the Basic Income can have a liberating and equalizing effect on the rights and opportunities of immigrants, religious minorities or any other ‘inferior’ group within society.

4.2.3. Gijs van Donselaar

Gijs van Donselaar (1998) distinguishes two forms of freedom (real and social) and questions the role of property in both forms. Do we need to consider property (BI) as the basis for self-ownership and thus promoting real freedom? Or should we regard the access to property as a means to justify the transfer of property within society promoting social freedom? In other words, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? These questions show an interesting tension in the argumentation for BI and touch upon the ambivalent notion of freedom.

(22)

Van Donselaar acknowledges the importance of economic assets in freedom of individuals but separates the use of these assets for sustaining ones life versus the use of assets to strengthen ones position in society. This distinction finds a base within the definition of freedom as it can both refer to the ability to self-sustainment but also to the power one has to acquire measures for self-sustainment. Basic Income in that sense is indeed helping to increase this freedom but the ultimate goal is ambiguous. It should become ‘an excuse’ for the redistribution of existing and future property.

This argument shows some similarity with the problems of Hayek’s theory. In both ideas there seems to be a problem in the ambiguity of definition. There exists a scale of freedom that has no absolute boundaries to strife for. Again, what is the goal of economic assets? Pure self-sustainment or is there also an opportunity to increase possible life quality? But then again, is this part of self-sustainment that allows the subject to act upon its freedom, or is it luxury and thus not eligible as freedom? The absence of a strict criterion of freedom leads to a problematic situation where it is unclear to what extent the subject has a right to measures that help it sustain its life. The BI is thus justified as it enhances freedom, but it is unclear how far the BI must go in order to fulfil its goal.

4.6 Conclusion

Overall, we have seen that the link between freedom and BI is a difficult but important relationship. As the theory in the first two sections has shown, the social/economic structure has a strong implication on the life of individuals. Even though it grants many opportunities it will also come as a restriction as the ultimate preferences cannot be fulfilled. Reasons could include lack of time and/or funds. The discussed theories by Berlin and Hayek show that the limitations on human freedom that origin from the social economic structure might be (partially) tackled through the Basic Income. However, further analysis could be done to explore the full relation.

In the second section, some authors have indeed explored the relation between freedom and the BI into further debt. Standing and Pateman argue that the BI can provide more freedom within the social/economic boundaries as it will strengthen the ‘right to work’ and provide citizens with the means to sustain themselves. Especially the ‘right to work’ argument proves to be a strong idea. As the social/economic structure forces individuals to earn an income in order to sustain their living, it is arguable to grant a ‘right to work’. This notion could be investigated in more depth via detailed research in society. Via social experiments (questionaires, survays), specific groups could be identified that would benefit from an income that is generated via work. The economic benefits that this increased labour supply could generate for the society, could be investigated via possible future economic research.

Pateman also relates the BI to gender issues, as it will alleviate the impact of marriage and liberate women’s right via income guarantees. It shows that the BI does have a possibility to equalize society and provide opportunities for minorities, not only gender related. It seems logical to extend this research to other minority groups and their exposure to the benefits of a BI. Further research might be very adequate for the continued investigation in Basic Income.

However, some questions still remain. Even though Hayek does emphasize that the lack of coercion from any outside party is preferred and that people should always

Income as a Basic Right