Universal basic income as a source of inspiration for the future of social protection systems? A counter-agenda
| Author | Daniel Dumont |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13882627221138599 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Universal basic income as a
source of inspiration for the
future of social protection
systems? A counter-agenda
Daniel Dumont
Centre for Public and Social Law, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels,
Belgium
Abstract
The case for a universal basic income helps to reflect on what could be done to bring social pro-
tection into the 21st century, but, it is argued, does not itself provide the most convincing solution
to the difficulties rightly pointed out by its proponents. However, this plea constitutes a fruitful
source of inspiration for other developments than that proposed. Three proposals are made
here in this respect: reducing the influence of household composition on the amount of social ben-
efits received, making the possibility of combining a social benefit with other financial resources
more flexible, and relaxing the work integration requirements imposed in return for the granting
of rights.
Keywords
universal basic income, social protection systems, individualisation, universality, (un)conditionality
’Not every solution is an answer to a problem.’David Helbich (2015) Belgian Solutions. vol. 1,
Antwerp: Luster, back cover.
1. Introduction: the universal basic income, the future of social
protection?
The idea of a basic income is to guarantee all citizens a minimum income without any conditions,
that is, regardless of their private and family situation, whatever their personal resources, and
without the slightest work requirement (Van Parijs and Vanderborght, 2017: 1 and 8). Granted
regardless of household composition, to the (very) rich and the (very) poor alike, and without
Corresponding author:
Daniel Dumont, Centre for Public and Social Law, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Email: daniel.dumont@ulb.be
Article
European Journal of Social Security
2022, Vol. 24(4) 299–318
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13882627221138599
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejs
any requirements in terms of efforts to integrate into the labour market, the income would be indi-
vidual, universal and unconditional at the same time. The expression ‘universal basic income’
(UBI) has the advantage of highlighting both the second and third of these three key characteristics.
For this reason, it will be referred to as such hereafter.
What should one think of this bold proposal, which is being passionately defended by its
growing number of proponents, in a context of increasing inequality and the digitalisation of the
economy?
1
Should we, for example, share the lyricism of the philosopher Philippe Van Parijs,
its best-known contemporary promoter internationally, when he sees in UBI ‘a reform that legitim-
ately carries hopes as crazy as the abolition of slavery or the establishment of universal suffrage, a
mobilising utopia that is in keeping with our times’(2004: 249)? Or, with his co-author Yannick
Vanderborght, in their reference book Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and
a Sane Economy,‘an essential element of a radical alternative to both old socialism and neoliberal-
ism’(Van Parijs and Vanderborght, 2017: 3)?
This contribution engages in the debate on the merits of the idea and takes a position on it, from a
social security lawyer’s perspective. To date, legal scholars have remained almost totally outside
the debate on UBI, which has been carried on mainly by philosophers, economists, sociologists
and political scientists, as well as by political figures. There are a few notable exceptions,
2
but
some of them have been marked by misunderstandings about the concept, which in turn have pre-
vented the debate from really finding its footing in the legal sciences (see below, section 2). It is also
true that legal scholars are certainly not the best-equipped to make pronouncements on the desir-
ability of a universal basic income, its economic sustainability, its social effects or its political feasi-
bility. Nevertheless, knowledge of the maze of regulations that make up social security law, their
raison d’être, evolution over time, and contemporary turmoils, is not without relevance for the aca-
demic but also political discussion. Moreover, this discussion too often remains confined, strik-
ingly, to exchanges that are not always very fruitful between, on the one hand, defences of UBI
that are sometimes a bit out of touch and which tend to caricature what exists and, on the other
hand, hasty disqualifications of the idea that are unconcerned with hearing and responding to the
arguments that support it.
3
Basedonthesefindings, the discussion that follows focuses more on the practical implications of
UBI than on the philosophical principles on which it is based. It attempts to identify the pros and cons
of the proposal in a primarily pragmatic way, by reflecting on the concrete impacts on social protection
systems that would result from its implementation. In order to contribute to assess the appropriateness
of a UBI, it will elaborate by starting from the European social protection systems as they are, that is,
inherited from a long history, to be credited with undeniable achievements, but also confronted with
1. For an overview of the debates, see the anthology by Widerquist, Noguera, Vanderborght and De Wispelaere (2013). On
the genesis and national receptions of the idea, see Sloman, Zamora Vargas and Ramos Pinto (2021), as well as Jäger and
Zamora Vargas (2023).
2. Mainly see the studies co-authored by administrative law specialist Lindsay Stirton on the difficulty to concretely imple-
menting a UBI (De Wispelaere and Stirton, 2011, 2012). See also the pro-UBI plea published by public international
lawyer Philip Alston (2019) when he was UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty (2014–
2020). See the draft legislation establishing a Citizen’s Basic Income for the United Kingdom by Malcom Torry
(2020: 263–270). In a different vein, Zamboni (2021) has investigated the cultural-political reasons whythe UBI proposal
has so far failed to receive any significant attention in Sweden’s legislative agenda on the future of social protection, even
though –or precisely because –the welfare state is particularly developed there.
3. For a good counter-example, see Martinelli and Vanderborght’s nuanced discussion of the respective advantages and dis-
advantages of UBI and the ‘social investment’perspective: Martinelli and Vanderborght (2022).
300 European Journal of Social Security 24(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial