Basic income isn’t the panacea some thought, study finds
Here’s a statement that may sound callous but is meant to be compassionate: The dream of a universal basic income needs to be put to rest.
Yes, the pandemic has exposed the weaknesses in our social safety net and cruelly taught us over and over again that the most vulnerable among us urgently need better support and more respect.
But with the publication of an ambitious and groundbreaking study of basic income that has just been released, it’s clear that government simply handing out cash to everyone — or even just to all the people below the poverty line — is not an answer.
In pre-pandemic times, when government money was tighter and the problems of poverty somewhat harder to see, the idea of governments providing a basic income was usually confined to academic discussions, think tanks and activist groups. It has gained significant momentum in the past year as federal spending on income support has soared, cheques for anyone in need were plentiful, and as the pandemic restraints hit low-income workers and precarious workers the hardest.
So, when a basic income didn’t even get a hat-tip in the federal Liberals’ speech from the throne last fall, many were left scratching their heads and wondering where the government’s dedication to income support had disappeared to.
But there’s good reason for provincial and federal governments not to jump onto that bandwagon, regardless of the good intentions involved.
There are far better ways to ensure that every member of society is well supported, respected and able to contribute to society, the authors of this new report argue. And they back it up with 40 research projects from other experts, 16,000 simulations, heaps of data and 529 pages of results.
“The needs of people in this society are too diverse to be effectively answered simply with a cheque from the government,” say co-authors David Green (University of British Columbia), Jonathan Rhys Kesselman (Simon Fraser University) and Lindsay Tedds (University of Calgary).
Their work was born of politics, a demand from the Green Party in British Columbia as a condition of keeping the then minority NDP government in power. Universal basic income is also a mainstay of the federal Greens and has been examined and embraced by prominent thinkers in every political party over the years.
But in practice, it just won’t work. Handing a cheque to individuals would increase their autonomy, the authors show, but won’t necessarily solve the problems that brought them to need the cheque in the first place.
That doesn’t mean the status quo is acceptable, as the pandemic reminds us.
The reason the federal government had to so quickly invent the Canada Emergency Response Benefit was because the Employment Insurance system was inadequate at the best of times and deeply faulty as soon as large numbers of Canadians lost their jobs. Even with the CERB, and now the revamped and enhanced EI systems now in place, as well as wage subsidies going to employers who were on the brink, we’ve seen the same vulnerable groups of low-wage workers — often young, often racialized, often female — suffer the biggest setbacks of job loss while also being at high risk of catching COVID-19 from taking on unprotected work.
Money can certainly help, but it should be targeted specifically at those in need. In many cases, it should come in tandem with supports or specific programs that deal with underlying issues and help recipients to find meaningful work.
A one-size-fits-all cheque is not going to end the discrimination or poor workplace standards that follow around low-income workers. Nor will it always help single parents find care for their children or give long-term unemployed people a chance to reinvent themselves.
The B.C. panel of experts were first asked to examine basic income, but quickly found themselves dealing with those very issues. And luckily for us, they addressed them. Unluckily for us, the answers are complicated, require hard work, time and a wheelbarrow full of federal-provincial cooperation.
“What we are saying is what we absolutely need to do is take a look at the needs of individuals, AND better form a system that supports their unique needs,” Tedds said in an interview.
Governments should start with those most in need: single, working-age adults, people with disabilities, youth aging out of care, women fleeing violence, the long-term unemployed and the working poor. And then, they should tailor their efforts to eliminate their poverty by calibrating, reforming, better targeting and improving rules and regulations.
It’s not nearly as simple or as clear-cut as universal basic income. Nor does such an approach deliver a satisfying blowing up of the current system that is riddled with pitfalls and unintended consequences. Instead, it’s incremental, requires negotiation and collaboration and open minds. But it stands a better chance of whittling away at poverty, which is the main point.
Or as the three authors called it, “a never-ending quest” for a just society.