Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:42:25.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An unconditional basic income? How Dutch citizens justify their opinions about a basic income and work conditionality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2020

Federica Rossetti Open the ORCID record for Federica Rossetti [Opens in a new window] ,
Femke Roosma ,
Tijs Laenen  and
Koen Abts
Federica Rossetti*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Sociological Research (CeSO), KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45 box 3601, 3000 Leuven
Femke Roosma
Affiliation:
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Sociology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
Tijs Laenen
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Sociological Research (CeSO), KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45 box 3601, 3000 Leuven
Koen Abts
Affiliation:
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Sociology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article focuses on one of the core but controversial features of a universal basic income (UBI): its unconditionality. Using qualitative in-depth interviews collected in the Dutch municipality of Tilburg in 2018–2019, we examine the arguments underlying popular opinions about a UBI and work conditionality. The analysis suggests that these arguments can be interpreted from two theoretical perspectives. On the one hand, respondents make frequent use of deservingness criteria referring to the characteristics of welfare recipients, such as their need and work willingness. On the other hand, they justify their opinions using arguments related to the characteristics of welfare schemes, such as their administrative and financial feasibility. Our findings offer important insights concerning political actors who support (or oppose) the real-world implementation of a UBI.

Keywords

Basic incomework conditionalitypublic opinionin-depth interviewsthe Netherlands
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 36 , Special Issue 3: Special issue: The Social Legitimacy of Basic Income: A Multidimensional and Cross-national Perspective , November 2020 , pp. 284 - 300
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, B. (1996). The case for a participation income. Political Quarterly, 67(1), 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2010). The political economy of active labor-market policy. Politics & Society, 38(4), 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruttel, O., & Sol, E. (2006). Work first as a European model? Evidence from Germany and the Netherlands. Policy & Politics, 34(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, C. (2018). Public opinion towards workfare policies in Europe: Polarisation of attitudes in times of austerity? International Journal of Social Welfare, 28(4), 431–441.Google Scholar
Fossati, F. (2018). Who wants demanding active labour market policies? Public attitudes towards policies that put pressure on the unemployed. Journal of Social Policy, 47(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, L., Muffels, R., & Verlaat, T. (2019). Welfare states’ social investment strategies and the emergence of Dutch experiments on a minimum income guarantee. Social Policy & Society, 18(2), 277–287.Google Scholar
Groot, L., & van der Veen, R. (2000). How attractive is a basic income for European welfare states? In van der Veen, R. & Groot, L. (Eds.), Basic income on the agenda (pp. 13–38). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Hoogenboom, M. (2011). The Netherlands: Two tiers for all. In Clasen, J. & Clegg, D. (Eds.), Regulating the risk of unemployment: National adaptations to post-industrial labour markets in Europe (pp. 75–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Houtman, D. (1997). Welfare state, unemployment, and social justice: Judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed. Social Justice Research, 10(3), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knotz, C. (2018). Why countries ‘get tough on the work-shy’: The role of adverse economic conditions. Journal of Social Policy, 48(3), 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laenen, T. (2020). Welfare deservingness and welfare policy. Popular deservingness opinions and their interaction with welfare state policies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Laenen, T., & Larsen, C. A. (2018). Retrenchment of unemployment protection and the absence of public resistance in Denmark and the Netherlands. The role of popular deservingness perceptions among welfare constituents (CCWS Working papers no. 2018-93) . Aalborg: Aalborg University.Google Scholar
Laenen, T., Rossetti, F., & van Oorschot, W. (2019). Why deservingness theory needs qualitative research: Comparing focus group discussions on social welfare in three welfare regimes. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 60(3), 190–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodemel, I., & Trickey, H. (2001). ‘An offer you can’t refuse’: Workfare in international perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2017). Basic income as a policy option: Can it add up? Policy brief on the future of work. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Roosma, F., & Jeene, M. (2017). The deservingness logic applied to public opinions concerning work obligations for benefit claimants. In van Oorschot, W., Meuleman, B., Reeskens, T., & Roosma, F. (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes to welfare deservingness (pp. 189–205). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosma, F., & van Oorschot, W. (2019). Public opinion on basic income: Mapping European support for a radical alternative for welfare provision. Journal of European Social Policy, 30, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928719882827Google Scholar
van der Veen, R. (2019). Basic income experiments in the Netherlands? Basic Income Studies, 14, 1–13.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W. (1998). Dutch public opinion on social security. A descriptive summary of survey results. Loughborough: Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W., & Engelfriet, R. (1999). Work, work, work: Labour market participation policies in the Netherlands 1970–2000. East-West Review of Social Policy, 4(2), 149–192.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., Meuleman, B., & Reeskens, T. (Eds.). (2017). The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes to welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
van Parijs, P. (2004). Basic income: A simple and powerful idea for the twenty-first century. Politics & Society, 32(1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderborght, Y. (2004). Universal basic income in Belgium and the Netherlands: Implementation through the back door? (EUI Working Paper SPS No. 2004/4) . Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
Vrooman, J. C., & De Kemp, A. A. M. (1995). Andere zekerheden – Ministelsel, basisinkomen en participatiemodel onderzocht. Openbare Uitgaven, 27(2), 74–85.Google Scholar
Watts, B., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2018). Welfare conditionality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Widerquist, K. (2018). A critical analysis of basic income experiments for researchers, policymakers, and citizens. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar