Burkhard Wehner - Universal Basic Income and the Reshaping of Democracy

Unconditional basic income is difficult to discuss free from emotion and ideology. Controversies in this field result less from differences in economic calculations than from political and ideological prejudice. The discussion therefore cannot be objective and sober unless the political logic of unconditional basic income is fully revealed. This logic is the key to the question of whether, how, where, and when an unconditional basic income could be implemented.

From an economic point of view at least one thing should be uncontested: an unconditional basic income is affordable. But this is of course a trivial fact. There will be no denying that there is an amount greater than zero that the state can regularly pay its citizens as basic income. The dispute becomes acute, however, as higher amounts of basic income are discussed. Thendepending on ideological dispositionthis basic income may be regarded as an outgrowth of economic ignorance, as a leftist utopia, or as a fig leaf of a neo-liberal system. The fact that unconditional basic income has been incorporated in European party programs and is increasingly discussed in print media and talk shows makes the debate even more diffuse. Ideological biases will not be overcome even if the social and economic implications of unconditional basic income are examined in ever more state-organized field trials. Such trials can provide only a vague indication of the impact of a particular variant and amount of the basic income in a particular welfare state and social environment. They will not and cannot reconcile current conceptual controversies about unconditional basic income.

In the past, many advocates of unconditional basic income have taken it for granted that this income must secure a sufficient livelihood by itself. The higher the basic income, however, the more difficult it becomes to prove that it could be financed in a way that is politically acceptable. Most defenders of basic income do not tend to be very specific regarding how it would be financed. It is often unclear which taxes and which tax rates are to be used for financing and how existing social security and social transfers should be reformed when the basic income is implemented. It is also often left unclear who should be entitled to receive basic income, and there are divergent notions about the disbursement mode, in particular the possible offset of the basic income with the income tax. Most challenging is the matter of designing a process of transition from the existing social security system. The present debate has failed to make clear the winners and losers under an unconditional basic income regime and in particular how these relative effects may develop over time. Such non-transparency induces anxiety among presumed losers, and it can make them receptive to populist agitation against basic income proposals. Moreover, many advocates of unconditional basic income seek the support of a particular ideological group but present ideas objectionable to other groups. This tension may also contribute to a general negativity toward unconditional basic income. Thereby, the overwhelming rejection of unconditional basic income in the 2016 Swiss referendum did not come as a surprise; only about 10% of the electorate voted in favor.