Is the COVID-19 Pandemic paving the way towards a Universal Basic Income?
By Leah Barrett Werner
Among the many questions about what the pandemic might bring about, the idea of a universal basic income has captured the world’s attention. While often dismissed as unrealistic and unaffordable in the past, in a time when countless people have lost their jobs and livelihoods, and the prospects of future employment seem bleak and uncertain, it is tempting to imagine a society in which income is a guaranteed right, one that is not tied to employment status.
Until now, Universal Basic Income has, in different variations, been tested in a handful of pilot projects around the world that have either been ended prematurely or cancelled (as in Ontario and Finland) or fallen short of being translated into permanence. Now, amid the significant media attention and new-found support that the idea has garnered in recent months, some have stipulated whether the pandemic is finally making the case for a UBI. Even the Pope has endorsed the idea. And as governments around the world have taken drastic steps to address the crisis, variations of the idea have come to life. Spain has announced it will be implementing a basic income, intended not only as a temporary response to the crisis but as a permanent policy. The US government has sent out temporary direct cash transfers to all American citizens, and in Canada, the government has rolled out programs like the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) intended for those who have lost their jobs due to the Pandemic and do not qualify for employment insurance.
While much of the legislation is framed as temporary, there is a question of whether the current crisis will provoke lasting changes to social policy. Many of the grim realities that the pandemic is revealing – poverty, unemployment, the consequences of a growing gig-economy and precarious work, the inadequacies of social assistance schemes – will endure long after crisis has ended. In a context of endemic wage stagnation, even full-time minimum-waged jobs often do not provide a livable income, and neither do limited and punitive welfare programs, both of which trap people in cycles of poverty. And with the growth in non-standard work arrangement, (such as part-time work and gig-work), that are not covered by employment insurance, many more are left in precarious income situations. Indeed, some argue that these issue will become even more acute with the prospect of mass-automation of jobs.
Yet while the pandemic is undeniably exacerbating existing problems of income insecurity, making a strong case for providing an income safety net, these facts in themselves will not necessarily lead to a UBI. Whether the crisis really is paving the way towards a permanent Universal Basic Income, I would suggest, depends upon the degree to which a more longstanding and deeply entrenched cultural association between work and income can be effectively confronted and challenged.
The cultural expectation that we must work in order to make a living runs quite deep. It is reflected, albeit in different ways, in the attitudes of those who oppose UBI on the left and right alike. This is reflected perhaps most obviously on the right in a pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps ideology, firmly grounded on the premise that it is an individual’s duty to sell their time on the labour market, and that any kind of ‘hand-outs’ would be a disincentive to work. However, it is even reflected on the left by those who argue that rather than giving money directly to people, we should work to improve wages, workers’ rights and conditions, strengthen existing employment insurance programs, or even implement a universal jobs guarantee.
However, while UBI is often linked to the problem of getting people back to work, it can also facilitate a re-assessment of the cultural value that has been (disproportionality) placed on waged labour. Universal basic income can also be about well-being and about enabling life outside of (paid) work, allowing us more choice and time to engage in activities that we find meaningful and useful.
The context of the pandemic is notable in decentering work as a reason for UBI. In a global pandemic and government mandated lock-down, no one is really blaming anyone for losing their job or perhaps even for choosing not to work because of health concerns. I wonder if perhaps this has helped to shift understandings of what is at stake. As we saw, the world did not fall apart when millions around the globe stopped working. Instead, the true necessity of different kinds of jobs became clear, as we developed a deeper understanding of what should be considered ‘essential.’ As lock-down restrictions begin to ease, and economies re-open, can we imagine a recovery that will not just include a push for creating new jobs or ‘saving’ old ones to re-grow the economy, but one that will make income a right, regardless of employment status – something that will perhaps enable further a questioning of the often taken for granted notion that we have to work to make a living?
The scope and duration of the UBI policies is an open question. In Spain, although the policy is planned as a permanent measure, it is only intended for the country’s lowest income families and is perhaps more akin to (means-tested) welfare programs than a universal basic income, and the amount (500 euros per month) will arguably still require people to work to reach above the poverty line. In the US, the direct cash transfers were a one-off deal with the end-goal unequivocally being returning to work. In Canada, the CERB is both temporary and specifically targeted for workers who had lost their jobs due to the pandemic, and one of the eligibility criteria is that one earned 5000 dollars the previous year thus tying the program explicitly to work-based income.
As such, in themselves these measures do not necessarily reflect a questioning of the relationship between income and work. However, they do open new ground for discussion on the value and necessity of paid employment.