A Struggle for Framing and Interpretation: The Impact of the ‘Basic Income Experiments’ on Social Policy Reform in the Netherlands
| Author | Femke Roosma |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13882627221109846 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
A Struggle for Framing and
Interpretation: The Impact of
the ‘Basic Income Experiments’
on Social Policy Reform
in the Netherlands
Femke Roosma
Department of Sociology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Abstract
In the period from 1st October 2017 to 31st December 2019, the Dutch government allowed
several municipalities to carry out so-called ‘basic income experime nts’,‘trust’experiments, or
‘experiments low in regulation’. These experiments focused on giving exemptions on obligations
attached to social benefits, allowing people to keep extra earnings on top of their social assistance
benefits, and providing more guidance in finding work. In this paper, I critically evaluate the extent
to which these experiments have had an effect on social policy in the Netherlands in both the
short and long run. For municipalities, the main goal of these experiments was to examine
whether an approach focused on trust and intrinsic motivation would lead to increased labour
market participation and higher wellbeing. The national government approved the experiments;
but in its evaluation, it focused solely on the outflow to work in line with the existing workfare
approach. In the short run, the effects of the experiments appeared disappointing for those
with the ambition of fundamentally reforming the social security system. However, in the struggle
for framing and interpretation, advocates of a different social policy approach obtained success in
the long run. Although the Participation Act was not initially amended, the recent coalition agree-
ment of the new Government does propose a change related to the outcomes of the experiment;
and in recent party manifestos, there are more far-reaching proposals to change social policy in the
direction of a universal basic income.
Keywords
Basic income experiments, framing, social assistance, social policy, universal basic income,
workfare
Corresponding author:
Femke Roosma, Department of Sociology, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
E-mail: f.roosma@tilburguniversity.edu
Article
European Journal of Social Security
2022, Vol. 24(3) 192–212
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13882627221109846
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejs
Introduction
Over the past decades, the Netherlands has developed a tradition of debating the idea of introducing
a universal basic income (UBI), which is a (monthly) income to cover essential living costs that is
paid to all (adult) individuals regardless of income or work status and without work or participation
requirements attached (Van Parijs and Vanderborght, 2017; Widerquist et al., 2013). Dutch policy
and opinion-makers are familiar with the UBI debate (Groot and Van Der Veen, 2000), although
these public discussions have never developed into a serious policy proposal in Parliament. The
Dutch basic income debate is described as a ‘peat fire’, fuelled when unemployment rises and extin-
guishing when economic progress takes place (Groot et al., 2019). However, the latest revival of the
debate, starting in 2013 with an op-ed article (Bregman, 2013), has never fully receded. Groot et al.
(2019) argue that the Dutch ‘basic income experiments’have contributed to keeping the UBI debate
alive. In combination with (growing) dissatisfaction about the current social assistance law, the out-
comes of the experiments added fuel to the fire. This has led to new chapters in developing policy
proposals inspired by UBI.
Although the Dutch experiments were inspired by the UBI debate,
1
local policymakers strategic-
ally distanced themselves from the idea that these experiments are anything like UBI
2
in trying to
convince the national Government to approve them. The framing of the experiments was linked to
the enhancement of the ‘Participation Act’(Participatiewet), which replaced the previous social
assistance law in 2015. The national Government accepted the experiments but insisted they
should be aimed at getting people off social assistance faster, thereby aligning with the dominant
workfare frame, rather than offering more trust and security. However, municipalities, in associ-
ation with municipal researchers, formulated the aims and conditions of the experiment far
closer to the original UBI proposal, drawing on a theoretically substantiated ‘trust approach’.In
a struggle for framing and interpretation, local policymakers tried to make the experiments a
success.
Recent publications (Edzes et al., 2021; Muffels, 2021; Muffels and Gielens, 2019; Sanders
et al., 2020) have evaluated the outcomes of the experiments in terms of reintegration in to
work, job search behaviour, participation, health, wellbeing, and self-management. Others
have analysed the discourse in which the experiments were proposed (Groot et al., 2019).
Yet, we have no insights into the impact of the experiment s on social policymaking in the
Netherlands. In this article, I aim to disentangle how national and local policymakers frame
the aims, scope, and conditions of the experiment and interpret their results. I define the
concept of framing here as ‘a process by which people develop a particular conceptualisation
of an issue or reorient their thinking about an issue’(Chong and Druckman, 2007: 104). This
holds the premise that the ‘issue can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and be construed
as having implications for multiple values or considerations’(Chong and Druckman, 2007:
104). In the case of the Dutch ‘basic income experiments’, an active process of framing of
social assistance policy approaches took place in which national and local policymakers
were the main actors.
After looking at the process of designing and evaluating the experiments, I analyse the short-
term and long-term impacts of the experiments on actual policies and policy proposals as
1. There has been a thorough discussion about whether the Dutch social assistance experiments were related at all (Van Der
Veen, 2019). In terms of design, the experiments only tested UBI-related mechanisms to a limited extent.
2. https://www.divosa.nl/onderwerpen/experimenten-participatiewet.
Roosma 193
To continue reading
Request your trial