Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editors’ Introduction

Editors’ Introduction There has been a recent surge in Basic Income experiments (hereinafter UBIexp), with an increasing number of pilots and experiments coming up in the USA and in other regions of the globe, but also a renewed interest in the results of experiments that took place in the last decades. While much of the interest might be attributed to covid-19 and increased claims for more comprehensive programs of social assistance, one can argue that this interest had been growing some years before the pandemic. At the same time, recent experiments like the Finnish one, or the Maricá policy in Brazil, have gained increased media attention. The results from the Finnish basic income experiment, for example, led to a number of academic and opinion articles on basic income, UBIexp and welfare state reform. But the increased amount of data has not however led to a strong political claim for basic income. Despite positive results from recent and older experiments, a full basic income has not yet been implemented in any country, and the current movement in many countries is pushing for pilots or experiments, and not necessarily for implementing a basic income.Therefore, one is left with the question of “What (if anything) can justify basic income experiments?”The existing literature focuses on aspects such as the existing difficulties in implementing basic income experiments, or in providing a comprehensive set of recommendations to the different stakeholders engaged in UBIexp,“UBI experiments” as considered in this introduction, cover a diverse range of cash transfer experiments, some of which are neither universal, since they target specific individuals nor, in some cases, unconditional, nor individual. However, they all share some aspects which have been considered relevant for the analysis and evaluation of an UBI, namely the fact they are unconditional, or almost so, or because they assess the impacts of cash transfers as a top-on to an individual’s earned income. Hence, the definition used also includes the common distinction between what are considered ‘basic income pilots’ and ‘basic income experiments’. Whereas the first are the ones which test “genuine basic incomes” (Torry, 2019, pp. 10–13) being both unconditional and universal, the second tests only certain characteristics deemed useful for the UBI debate and evaluation, as mentioned before.from researchers, to journalists and politicians. Karl Widerquist, for example, not only stresses in his book the importance and role of communication, particularly when the findings are published, but also discusses the need to account for the bottom-line questions. In essence, UBIexp should try to navigate the complex set of outcomes that are expected from an UBI, and should be guided towards answering the bottom-line questions, namely issues like feasibility or the necessary steps and conditions to roll-out and scale a basic income (Widerquist, 2018).Such literature is helping in answering particular questions on how UBIexp can be designed and implemented, and in discussing the role of different stakeholders, and even how to navigate between the political interests surrounding the experiments. But they usually do not question the justification behind UBIexp. Hence, the question remains: “What (if anything) can justify basic income experiments?” This was the question posed by the UBIEXP research group, from the Centre for Ethics, Politics and Society, together with the Portuguese Basic Income Association, in early 2020, which launched the Essay Prize, and this special issue is composed by some of the most interesting essays received in the context of this Prize.Existing positive answers to the question can be grouped in four main perspectives, which share certain features, and influence each other. The four comprise key justifications for implementing a UBIexp.The first is the empirical or scientific claim. In essence, basic income experiments are justified because of the evidence we can collect on the outcomes of basic income. This is mostly a global perspective, where one wishes to extrapolate and generalize results observed, and attribute them to basic income in general – e.g. basic income reduces stress and promotes individual well-being and happiness; basic income decreases mental health cases; basic income reduces or not the number of hours worked.The second perspective is the deliberative claim, and it is closely linked to the first. However, instead of wishing to generalize findings, UBIexp might be seen as useful tools to collect evidence that can shape or influence the normative debates on basic income. For example, when discussing the unconditional nature of UBI, the normative debate is focused on the injustice stemming from some working while others choose not to work when granted a UBI. If UBIexp show that when granted an UBI people continue working, such a claim can be weakened, or might need to be developed further. UBIexp might also be helpful to understand if some of the claims about UBI – that it helps mitigate poverty or increases individual’s autonomy – do in fact take place, and what can be decisive to yield such outcomes when an UBI is implemented. Therefore, the deliberative perspective is focused on bridging the gap between normative and empirical claims surrounding the basic income as an idea and policy proposal.The third is the evidence-based narrative. In this case, the search for evidence is still central, but not necessarily to generalize findings, or attribute them to basic income as a policy, but rather to inform political deliberation in favour or against a basic income. Therefore, in this case, evidence is seen as critical for convincing politicians that basic income is a sound and necessary policy. In this case, there is both the global perspective, since politicians might be more persuaded if results seem to be attributed to basic income in general, but a more local particular perspective is usually at stake: one wants to know whether in a particular context a basic income yields the same or different results, and how they can help solve particular issues in a given political community.The fourth and final perspective is the advocacy claim. UBIexp are justified because of the media attention they can harness, and the opportunities they create to discuss and engage different stakeholders and audiences with the idea of a basic income. On the one hand, UBIexp might be justified by the momentum they help create for the regional and global movement on UBI. This has certainly been the case: through BIEN – Basic Income Earth Network, and numerous other local or regional organizations, the basic income movement has benefited from the growing attention paid to UBIexp and their results. On the other hand, UBIexp might be used to promote local engagement with basic income, and can even be seen as a tool for people to experience the benefits of basic income, and consequently become advocates of the movement (local or not) to implement it. This seems to be one of the motives behind some experiments currently taking place in the USA, where communities are deeply involved in the design and implementation of the UBIexp.However, we should not be blinded by this attempt to categorize the motives behind UBIexp in general. For one, more than one justification might be used: in the India basic income pilot, for example, both the scientific and the evidence-based policy claim were relevant. The pilot was supposed to provide solid and robust evidence on the impacts of basic income, but was also a decision that followed the government’s request to have more evidence on how basic income could help solve their local challenges. In the USA Stockton experiment, both the deliberative perspective, the scientific one, and the advocacy one seem to be behind the Mayor’s decision to implement a UBIexp. It can even be argued, that as a political agent, the evidence-based policy claim was also part of his motives. This is partly because of the interrelatedness between perspectives. The scientific claim might be both motivated by a certain scientific perspective of wishing to “get to the truth and facts”, but might also be a desire to have unbiased evidence, which could convince both civil society and politicians on the need for a basic income. In that case, the scientific claim is a route towards the same end shared by the evidence-based and advocacy claims, for example,Moreover, hidden agendas might be influencing the decision behind moving for an UBIexp. An experiment or pilot might be used as a stalling mechanism: political agents might not be comfortable to commit with a basic income, and therefore might choose to go for a pilot or experiment, wishing to stall the debate for some years (given the number of years required to design, implement and evaluate an UBIexp, the possibility that such strategies exist should not be dismissed). This could help explain why many central and local political authorities have implemented or actively supported UBIexp, but despite positive results have not committed to implementing the policy. One should also take into account that UBIexp engage many different actors, with at times competing interests. So we might have NGOs justifying an UBIexp based on an advocacy claim, researchers interested in the scientific or deliberative claim, and politicians who might be moved by the evidence-based narrative. Therefore, no claim would be decisive to justify basic income experiments, but rather a combination of several ones, depending on each stakeholders’ interests, might mediate the process. This also means that one should be aware of existing differences behind the motivation to implement an UBIexp, and probably move towards aligning them as much as possible to avoid future conflicts or shattered expectations when the experiment is over.There is also a negative answer to the question, or a fifth perspective that we can also consider now. This is the possibility that UBIexp cannot be justified. This could be the case either because the four perspectives mentioned above are weak or do not hold, or because UBIexp are instrumental in stalling the implementation of a UBI, for example. It can even be the case that experiments are detrimental to individuals’ lives, in which case their justification might be weaker than assumed.These several accounts are informed by many of the discussions of the five essays of this special issue on Basic Income experiments. They provide interesting and different takes on the question of this issue, moving from the theoretical debates on UBI, the claims for more evidence, and even provide guidelines for pilots and experiments, which if complied with, can justify their existence, based on the four accounts mentioned above.The first two essays answer the question directly. The first one, by Josette Daemen answers the question by providing an equation where the costs and benefits of Basic Income Experiments in terms of justice are taken into consideration. Daemen argues that the theoretical moral case for UBI is flawed, and requires testing to be solved, hence there are potential benefits in terms of justice in implementing UBIexp. However, experiments also entail costs which can lead to injustices. Therefore, justice should provide good reasons to test it (e.g. potential to understand how a policy can solve poverty or inequality, or even how a basic income could be rolled out nationwide) and these should be sufficiently high to outweigh the justice costs of experiments (e.g. someone in a vulnerable position having to disclaim their situation, or receiving a benefit that is needed for only two years). Therefore, Daemen’s paper answers directly to our question, but is not decisive. Rather it offers a tool to consider whether a given experiment, and its design, might be beneficial or not in terms of justice, which can help justify or dismiss such a proposal. More importantly the tool can promote UBIexp that are potentially more just. Therefore, the equation proposed in the article allows for a sound discussion on the benefits and costs of experiments that in some way or another borrows from many of the claims mentioned above when arguing for a basic income experiment.The second essay, by Bru Laín and Roberto Merrill provides a more decisive and positive answer to the question of what can justify basic income experiments. The essay discusses two fundamental claims on basic income experiments: they are relevant to collect evidence – the empirical claim - or they are important to understand which moral ends are achieved when a UBI is implemented. In a sense, BI experiments would be seen as a mechanism to prove that basic income is ethically desirable (or even superior to other measures) for advancing our moral claims. Both authors believe that enough empirical data has been collected to make the empirical claim weak. But such data is still relevant to deal and inform the ethical debates, namely whether UBI is a superior policy to tackle particular challenges than other existing or recommended policies. Therefore, both authors answer directly to the question, stating that the ethical claim, the role UBIexp can have in helping us understand what moral ends are achieved with a basic income, provides a robust justification for engaging in UBIexp.The last three articles answer the question, and provide additional aspects to justify or illustrate their claims.Malcom Torry’s article defends that UBIexp experiences can be justified by both advocacy, evidence-based policy and scientific reasons. However, these claims are first influenced by whether we are discussing experiments-like the Negative Income Tax or the Finnish cases – or pilots – such as the Indian and Namibian cases. For Malcom, only experiments that test whether a basic income would be feasible to roll out nationwide can be considered pilots, and those are central to the UBI debate, and to its potential implementation. From this distinction, different claims to justify UBIexp can be crafted: on the one hand, experiments can be helpful to uncover certain outcomes of basic income. Pilots on the other hand, are crucial for a move towards implementing a basic income. And whereas in countries in the global south pilots are feasible, in other countries, with developed welfare states, microsimulation studies should be used to understand how a basic income policy can work if implemented nationwide. In essence, Malcom Torry answers the question in a twofold manner: for one, UBIexp are justified in general for the knowledge they can provide – so partly a scientific claim – but mostly because of what they can teach us on how to roll out the policy nationwide – which can be both argued from an advocacy and evidence-based discussion.Catarina Neves’ article considers UBIexp are justified because of the role they can have in shaping or informing the normative debates on basic income. Particularly, empirical evidence from UBIexp is relevant to understand better, or readdress some of the assumptions and perspectives on the moral debate on UBI, particularly, the debate on reciprocity. To do so, the article takes a version of the deliberative claim as given, and moves into discussing what sort of evidences can or should UBIexp provide in order to discuss the norm of reciprocity, and the perception of the norm, when a UBI is implemented. Although it justifies UBIexp because of the role evidence can play in the normative debate, the essay closes with a brief reflection on the ideal/non ideal paradigm, discussing how the normative debate on reciprocity and UBI is at times discussed taking ideal contexts as given, which jeopardizes the possibility of using evidence from non-ideal contexts, such as the ones in UBIexp. Therefore, the deliberative claim as a justification for experiments, namely when it comes to the reciprocity debate, can in fact be weakened. However, the essay closes with the conclusion that even if evidence cannot help settle most normative debates, it can nonetheless help understand components of the norm of reciprocity, and its interaction with UBI, which can be helpful to expand the debate.Lastly, the fifth essay by Guy Standing, which is the winner of the Essay Prize, closes the circle, by advancing 19 guiding principles to implement what is considered as robust and sound UBIexp. The article states that UBIexp are justified not because of how they can reinforce or settle the normative debate, namely whether a UBI is ethically justifiable or not. Rather, UBIexp are critical to understand the how and the why: how can a UBI be implemented, or rolled out? Why does such an outcome happen when a UBI is implemented or not? From this perspective, UBIexp – either pilots or experiments – are not a strict requirement for implementing a basic income, since the ethical justification should be the one driving its implementation. However, they can indeed contribute positively to it, by helping to refute particular aspects or objections, or uncover other impacts of a UBI. In that sense, both the evidence-based policy and the deliberative claims, as mentioned above, can be considered as robust justifications for UBIexp. Following this conclusion, Standing derives 19 principles to design and implement pilots that can have such fruitful benefits, either in helping to decide when and whether an UBI should be rolled out nationally or regionally, or in helping to understand whether particular objections are robust. Therefore, Standing’s article contributes in a twofold manner to the discussion on UBIexp: for one it answers the question that motivates this special issue, telling us that UBIexp are not strictly necessary to implement a basic income, but they can prove useful in the overall debate, particularly if they help dismiss certain objections. Secondly it tells us to determine which principles should guide the design, implementation and evaluation of UBIexp, in order to have more experiments and pilots that can be justified and useful for the entire debate.1Moving ForwardThe five essays of this issue provide valuable and novel insights to the UBIexp debate. They also mostly settle for a positive answer to the questions “What (if anything) can justify basic income experiments?” Such rich accounts will certainly be helpful in expanding this debate, namely due to the new questions they open, and the ongoing discussions they might not cover entirely.One such group of questions relates to the role of methodology and design. Guy Standing in his article, for example, discusses the need for ex-post surveys. Is it right to consider them, and how can such surveys change our perceptions of the results? Moreover can ex-post evidence contribute to the UBI movement? Another question might be the extent to which the design of a UBIexp, and particularly the type of research and methodology might influence the legitimacy of a UBIexp, and of its results. Do quantitative methods strengthen the legitimacy of a UBIexp, particularly one justified by an evidence-based policy or scientific claim? How about qualitative research? What legitimacy can UBIexp have, if grounded on qualitative methods? One can even argue that some objections might only be dismissed (or not) using such methods, or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods. Therefore, the extent to which the claim justifying a UBIexp and the legitimacy of its results are influenced by the choice of the research methodology is still to be largely discussed. Also within the realm of methodology, there is still room to accommodate discussions on the ethical downsides and costs of UBIexp. Josette Daemen’s article hinted at the justice costs of UBIexp, but much can be added to this discussion. Should ethical dilemmas govern the decisions behind choosing an RCT as method, or a saturation study? Can ethical costs, particularly in vulnerable and disadvantaged populations weaken the justification for a UBIexp? This might be particularly true if one considers the scientific claim – the need for more evidence – as a weak or unfounded claim. If we have enough data and evidence, why would we accept a UBIexp which might entail high justice costs, particularly to those who are most vulnerable?Another set of questions is related with UBIexp and the UBI movement. Mostly, the advocacy claim, briefly mentioned above, is largely unexplored. Is such a claim justified? Can we implement an UBIexp solely or mostly on the grounds of advocacy efforts? Moreover, how much of the evidence and attention of UBIexp has indeed contributed to the growth of the basic income debate locally, regionally and globally? Looking into particular organizations behind the basic income movement might be critical to assess such questions. Understanding the strength of the advocacy claim might be crucial to understand whether UBIexp are justified in general, particularly if other claims are considered weaker. For example, if more experiments continue to take place amounting to much more data showing positive impacts of basic income, and resulting in basic income not being politically implemented, one might argue that both the evidence-based policy and scientific claims are weakened. In such a scenario, is the advocacy claim sufficient to justify a UBIexp?Questions about the relationship between the political process and UBIexp might also result in novel findings on the topic. There has certainly been more debate and work on how the political context and process might justify or help implement UBIexp, or how it can jeopardize the implementation and the analysis of the findings (particularly in the aftermath of the Finnish basic income experiment). But growing movements like the USA Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, might justify looking into the role of political agendas in promoting UBIexp. Can a UBIexp in a local city spill over to other places, and how can political affiliation affect such an outcome? Can a UBI be considered as a populist policy, and what are the dangers of that happening? Can covid-19 emergency basic incomes influence the political opinion and take on basic income? Could it result in more widespread awareness for UBIexp? Or could it even reduce the justification for UBIexp, and rather justify implementing a basic income without the need for more evidence?Another salient discussion relates to whether UBIexp are relevant for our empirical and normative debates on basic income. On the one hand, the scientific claim can have proponents arguing for more UBIexp because of the need for more data, to clarify certain outcomes of objections (e.g. work participation, mental health outcomes, productivity) or to understand local outcomes of implementing a basic income. On the other hand, we can have those who argue that we already have too much evidence, hence the empirical claim is mostly weak to be considered as a justification for UBIexp. This is Bru Laín’s and Roberto Merrill’s take in their essay. But what is the necessary threshold of sufficient data? Who are the stakeholders arguing for more data, and can UBIexp conducted today satisfy those claims, or not? In such a debate, it would also be important to understand the claims behind the arguments for more data and the competing interests of different actors. It might be the case that arguments for more local data stem not from a scientific perspective, but rather from an evidence-based policy narrative. In that case, local data should be mostly sufficient, and there would be no need to argue for generalizable findings. A related question is also how such evidence can or cannot help the normative debates on basic income: can UBIexp evidence be used to expand the normative discussions, as Catarina Neves argues on her paper on reciprocity and UBIexp, or are there untestable claims, and therefore, very little can be useful for the normative debate?A final set of questions might simply be to justify whether the claims presented in this essay, and mirrored in the conclusions or arguments of the five essays, influence each other, by depending on each other, or by showcasing competing interests. For example, can the evidence-based policy claim have strength without the scientific claim? The strength of the advocacy claim might also be dependent on the weakness of the scientific claim. Maybe to assess what justifies UBIexp one has to analyse each context where the experiment is taking place, and assess competing interests and claims: in some contexts the evidence-based narrative might be justified, whereas in others, only a deliberative or scientific claim can be considered a strong justification. Can UBIexp be justified only in certain moments or contexts, as opposed to looking for a general justification grounded on a particular claim? And what other justifications might be at stake – community empowerment, or civic engagement – and even how can one perceive possible negative outcomes of UBIexp – as stalling mechanisms, as resulting in ethical costs, as undermining existing evidence or contradicting it – might contribute to weaken existing justifications, hence even possibly resulting in a negative answer to our initial question.Discussing UBIexp and their justifications seems all the more relevant today given the amount of basic income experiments and pilots that are taking place, or are scheduled to occur in the next few months and years. Assessing the role of experiments is critical for the basic income local and worldwide movement, but also to the ongoing discussions on the outcomes and the moral justifications for basic income. This issue provides a contribution to this discussion, not only though the arguments of the five essays, but also through the questions that the papers are also echoing. We wish to thank the referees for their generous blind evaluation of the five essays included in this issue. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Basic Income Studies de Gruyter

Editors’ Introduction

Merrill, Roberto; Neves, Catarina
Basic Income Studies , Volume 16 (1): 10 – Jun 1, 2021
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/editors-introduction-llt74fNaIx
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
ISSN
1932-0183
eISSN
1932-0183
DOI
10.1515/bis-2021-0022
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

There has been a recent surge in Basic Income experiments (hereinafter UBIexp), with an increasing number of pilots and experiments coming up in the USA and in other regions of the globe, but also a renewed interest in the results of experiments that took place in the last decades. While much of the interest might be attributed to covid-19 and increased claims for more comprehensive programs of social assistance, one can argue that this interest had been growing some years before the pandemic. At the same time, recent experiments like the Finnish one, or the Maricá policy in Brazil, have gained increased media attention. The results from the Finnish basic income experiment, for example, led to a number of academic and opinion articles on basic income, UBIexp and welfare state reform. But the increased amount of data has not however led to a strong political claim for basic income. Despite positive results from recent and older experiments, a full basic income has not yet been implemented in any country, and the current movement in many countries is pushing for pilots or experiments, and not necessarily for implementing a basic income.Therefore, one is left with the question of “What (if anything) can justify basic income experiments?”The existing literature focuses on aspects such as the existing difficulties in implementing basic income experiments, or in providing a comprehensive set of recommendations to the different stakeholders engaged in UBIexp,“UBI experiments” as considered in this introduction, cover a diverse range of cash transfer experiments, some of which are neither universal, since they target specific individuals nor, in some cases, unconditional, nor individual. However, they all share some aspects which have been considered relevant for the analysis and evaluation of an UBI, namely the fact they are unconditional, or almost so, or because they assess the impacts of cash transfers as a top-on to an individual’s earned income. Hence, the definition used also includes the common distinction between what are considered ‘basic income pilots’ and ‘basic income experiments’. Whereas the first are the ones which test “genuine basic incomes” (Torry, 2019, pp. 10–13) being both unconditional and universal, the second tests only certain characteristics deemed useful for the UBI debate and evaluation, as mentioned before.from researchers, to journalists and politicians. Karl Widerquist, for example, not only stresses in his book the importance and role of communication, particularly when the findings are published, but also discusses the need to account for the bottom-line questions. In essence, UBIexp should try to navigate the complex set of outcomes that are expected from an UBI, and should be guided towards answering the bottom-line questions, namely issues like feasibility or the necessary steps and conditions to roll-out and scale a basic income (Widerquist, 2018).Such literature is helping in answering particular questions on how UBIexp can be designed and implemented, and in discussing the role of different stakeholders, and even how to navigate between the political interests surrounding the experiments. But they usually do not question the justification behind UBIexp. Hence, the question remains: “What (if anything) can justify basic income experiments?” This was the question posed by the UBIEXP research group, from the Centre for Ethics, Politics and Society, together with the Portuguese Basic Income Association, in early 2020, which launched the Essay Prize, and this special issue is composed by some of the most interesting essays received in the context of this Prize.Existing positive answers to the question can be grouped in four main perspectives, which share certain features, and influence each other. The four comprise key justifications for implementing a UBIexp.The first is the empirical or scientific claim. In essence, basic income experiments are justified because of the evidence we can collect on the outcomes of basic income. This is mostly a global perspective, where one wishes to extrapolate and generalize results observed, and attribute them to basic income in general – e.g. basic income reduces stress and promotes individual well-being and happiness; basic income decreases mental health cases; basic income reduces or not the number of hours worked.The second perspective is the deliberative claim, and it is closely linked to the first. However, instead of wishing to generalize findings, UBIexp might be seen as useful tools to collect evidence that can shape or influence the normative debates on basic income. For example, when discussing the unconditional nature of UBI, the normative debate is focused on the injustice stemming from some working while others choose not to work when granted a UBI. If UBIexp show that when granted an UBI people continue working, such a claim can be weakened, or might need to be developed further. UBIexp might also be helpful to understand if some of the claims about UBI – that it helps mitigate poverty or increases individual’s autonomy – do in fact take place, and what can be decisive to yield such outcomes when an UBI is implemented. Therefore, the deliberative perspective is focused on bridging the gap between normative and empirical claims surrounding the basic income as an idea and policy proposal.The third is the evidence-based narrative. In this case, the search for evidence is still central, but not necessarily to generalize findings, or attribute them to basic income as a policy, but rather to inform political deliberation in favour or against a basic income. Therefore, in this case, evidence is seen as critical for convincing politicians that basic income is a sound and necessary policy. In this case, there is both the global perspective, since politicians might be more persuaded if results seem to be attributed to basic income in general, but a more local particular perspective is usually at stake: one wants to know whether in a particular context a basic income yields the same or different results, and how they can help solve particular issues in a given political community.The fourth and final perspective is the advocacy claim. UBIexp are justified because of the media attention they can harness, and the opportunities they create to discuss and engage different stakeholders and audiences with the idea of a basic income. On the one hand, UBIexp might be justified by the momentum they help create for the regional and global movement on UBI. This has certainly been the case: through BIEN – Basic Income Earth Network, and numerous other local or regional organizations, the basic income movement has benefited from the growing attention paid to UBIexp and their results. On the other hand, UBIexp might be used to promote local engagement with basic income, and can even be seen as a tool for people to experience the benefits of basic income, and consequently become advocates of the movement (local or not) to implement it. This seems to be one of the motives behind some experiments currently taking place in the USA, where communities are deeply involved in the design and implementation of the UBIexp.However, we should not be blinded by this attempt to categorize the motives behind UBIexp in general. For one, more than one justification might be used: in the India basic income pilot, for example, both the scientific and the evidence-based policy claim were relevant. The pilot was supposed to provide solid and robust evidence on the impacts of basic income, but was also a decision that followed the government’s request to have more evidence on how basic income could help solve their local challenges. In the USA Stockton experiment, both the deliberative perspective, the scientific one, and the advocacy one seem to be behind the Mayor’s decision to implement a UBIexp. It can even be argued, that as a political agent, the evidence-based policy claim was also part of his motives. This is partly because of the interrelatedness between perspectives. The scientific claim might be both motivated by a certain scientific perspective of wishing to “get to the truth and facts”, but might also be a desire to have unbiased evidence, which could convince both civil society and politicians on the need for a basic income. In that case, the scientific claim is a route towards the same end shared by the evidence-based and advocacy claims, for example,Moreover, hidden agendas might be influencing the decision behind moving for an UBIexp. An experiment or pilot might be used as a stalling mechanism: political agents might not be comfortable to commit with a basic income, and therefore might choose to go for a pilot or experiment, wishing to stall the debate for some years (given the number of years required to design, implement and evaluate an UBIexp, the possibility that such strategies exist should not be dismissed). This could help explain why many central and local political authorities have implemented or actively supported UBIexp, but despite positive results have not committed to implementing the policy. One should also take into account that UBIexp engage many different actors, with at times competing interests. So we might have NGOs justifying an UBIexp based on an advocacy claim, researchers interested in the scientific or deliberative claim, and politicians who might be moved by the evidence-based narrative. Therefore, no claim would be decisive to justify basic income experiments, but rather a combination of several ones, depending on each stakeholders’ interests, might mediate the process. This also means that one should be aware of existing differences behind the motivation to implement an UBIexp, and probably move towards aligning them as much as possible to avoid future conflicts or shattered expectations when the experiment is over.There is also a negative answer to the question, or a fifth perspective that we can also consider now. This is the possibility that UBIexp cannot be justified. This could be the case either because the four perspectives mentioned above are weak or do not hold, or because UBIexp are instrumental in stalling the implementation of a UBI, for example. It can even be the case that experiments are detrimental to individuals’ lives, in which case their justification might be weaker than assumed.These several accounts are informed by many of the discussions of the five essays of this special issue on Basic Income experiments. They provide interesting and different takes on the question of this issue, moving from the theoretical debates on UBI, the claims for more evidence, and even provide guidelines for pilots and experiments, which if complied with, can justify their existence, based on the four accounts mentioned above.The first two essays answer the question directly. The first one, by Josette Daemen answers the question by providing an equation where the costs and benefits of Basic Income Experiments in terms of justice are taken into consideration. Daemen argues that the theoretical moral case for UBI is flawed, and requires testing to be solved, hence there are potential benefits in terms of justice in implementing UBIexp. However, experiments also entail costs which can lead to injustices. Therefore, justice should provide good reasons to test it (e.g. potential to understand how a policy can solve poverty or inequality, or even how a basic income could be rolled out nationwide) and these should be sufficiently high to outweigh the justice costs of experiments (e.g. someone in a vulnerable position having to disclaim their situation, or receiving a benefit that is needed for only two years). Therefore, Daemen’s paper answers directly to our question, but is not decisive. Rather it offers a tool to consider whether a given experiment, and its design, might be beneficial or not in terms of justice, which can help justify or dismiss such a proposal. More importantly the tool can promote UBIexp that are potentially more just. Therefore, the equation proposed in the article allows for a sound discussion on the benefits and costs of experiments that in some way or another borrows from many of the claims mentioned above when arguing for a basic income experiment.The second essay, by Bru Laín and Roberto Merrill provides a more decisive and positive answer to the question of what can justify basic income experiments. The essay discusses two fundamental claims on basic income experiments: they are relevant to collect evidence – the empirical claim - or they are important to understand which moral ends are achieved when a UBI is implemented. In a sense, BI experiments would be seen as a mechanism to prove that basic income is ethically desirable (or even superior to other measures) for advancing our moral claims. Both authors believe that enough empirical data has been collected to make the empirical claim weak. But such data is still relevant to deal and inform the ethical debates, namely whether UBI is a superior policy to tackle particular challenges than other existing or recommended policies. Therefore, both authors answer directly to the question, stating that the ethical claim, the role UBIexp can have in helping us understand what moral ends are achieved with a basic income, provides a robust justification for engaging in UBIexp.The last three articles answer the question, and provide additional aspects to justify or illustrate their claims.Malcom Torry’s article defends that UBIexp experiences can be justified by both advocacy, evidence-based policy and scientific reasons. However, these claims are first influenced by whether we are discussing experiments-like the Negative Income Tax or the Finnish cases – or pilots – such as the Indian and Namibian cases. For Malcom, only experiments that test whether a basic income would be feasible to roll out nationwide can be considered pilots, and those are central to the UBI debate, and to its potential implementation. From this distinction, different claims to justify UBIexp can be crafted: on the one hand, experiments can be helpful to uncover certain outcomes of basic income. Pilots on the other hand, are crucial for a move towards implementing a basic income. And whereas in countries in the global south pilots are feasible, in other countries, with developed welfare states, microsimulation studies should be used to understand how a basic income policy can work if implemented nationwide. In essence, Malcom Torry answers the question in a twofold manner: for one, UBIexp are justified in general for the knowledge they can provide – so partly a scientific claim – but mostly because of what they can teach us on how to roll out the policy nationwide – which can be both argued from an advocacy and evidence-based discussion.Catarina Neves’ article considers UBIexp are justified because of the role they can have in shaping or informing the normative debates on basic income. Particularly, empirical evidence from UBIexp is relevant to understand better, or readdress some of the assumptions and perspectives on the moral debate on UBI, particularly, the debate on reciprocity. To do so, the article takes a version of the deliberative claim as given, and moves into discussing what sort of evidences can or should UBIexp provide in order to discuss the norm of reciprocity, and the perception of the norm, when a UBI is implemented. Although it justifies UBIexp because of the role evidence can play in the normative debate, the essay closes with a brief reflection on the ideal/non ideal paradigm, discussing how the normative debate on reciprocity and UBI is at times discussed taking ideal contexts as given, which jeopardizes the possibility of using evidence from non-ideal contexts, such as the ones in UBIexp. Therefore, the deliberative claim as a justification for experiments, namely when it comes to the reciprocity debate, can in fact be weakened. However, the essay closes with the conclusion that even if evidence cannot help settle most normative debates, it can nonetheless help understand components of the norm of reciprocity, and its interaction with UBI, which can be helpful to expand the debate.Lastly, the fifth essay by Guy Standing, which is the winner of the Essay Prize, closes the circle, by advancing 19 guiding principles to implement what is considered as robust and sound UBIexp. The article states that UBIexp are justified not because of how they can reinforce or settle the normative debate, namely whether a UBI is ethically justifiable or not. Rather, UBIexp are critical to understand the how and the why: how can a UBI be implemented, or rolled out? Why does such an outcome happen when a UBI is implemented or not? From this perspective, UBIexp – either pilots or experiments – are not a strict requirement for implementing a basic income, since the ethical justification should be the one driving its implementation. However, they can indeed contribute positively to it, by helping to refute particular aspects or objections, or uncover other impacts of a UBI. In that sense, both the evidence-based policy and the deliberative claims, as mentioned above, can be considered as robust justifications for UBIexp. Following this conclusion, Standing derives 19 principles to design and implement pilots that can have such fruitful benefits, either in helping to decide when and whether an UBI should be rolled out nationally or regionally, or in helping to understand whether particular objections are robust. Therefore, Standing’s article contributes in a twofold manner to the discussion on UBIexp: for one it answers the question that motivates this special issue, telling us that UBIexp are not strictly necessary to implement a basic income, but they can prove useful in the overall debate, particularly if they help dismiss certain objections. Secondly it tells us to determine which principles should guide the design, implementation and evaluation of UBIexp, in order to have more experiments and pilots that can be justified and useful for the entire debate.1Moving ForwardThe five essays of this issue provide valuable and novel insights to the UBIexp debate. They also mostly settle for a positive answer to the questions “What (if anything) can justify basic income experiments?” Such rich accounts will certainly be helpful in expanding this debate, namely due to the new questions they open, and the ongoing discussions they might not cover entirely.One such group of questions relates to the role of methodology and design. Guy Standing in his article, for example, discusses the need for ex-post surveys. Is it right to consider them, and how can such surveys change our perceptions of the results? Moreover can ex-post evidence contribute to the UBI movement? Another question might be the extent to which the design of a UBIexp, and particularly the type of research and methodology might influence the legitimacy of a UBIexp, and of its results. Do quantitative methods strengthen the legitimacy of a UBIexp, particularly one justified by an evidence-based policy or scientific claim? How about qualitative research? What legitimacy can UBIexp have, if grounded on qualitative methods? One can even argue that some objections might only be dismissed (or not) using such methods, or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods. Therefore, the extent to which the claim justifying a UBIexp and the legitimacy of its results are influenced by the choice of the research methodology is still to be largely discussed. Also within the realm of methodology, there is still room to accommodate discussions on the ethical downsides and costs of UBIexp. Josette Daemen’s article hinted at the justice costs of UBIexp, but much can be added to this discussion. Should ethical dilemmas govern the decisions behind choosing an RCT as method, or a saturation study? Can ethical costs, particularly in vulnerable and disadvantaged populations weaken the justification for a UBIexp? This might be particularly true if one considers the scientific claim – the need for more evidence – as a weak or unfounded claim. If we have enough data and evidence, why would we accept a UBIexp which might entail high justice costs, particularly to those who are most vulnerable?Another set of questions is related with UBIexp and the UBI movement. Mostly, the advocacy claim, briefly mentioned above, is largely unexplored. Is such a claim justified? Can we implement an UBIexp solely or mostly on the grounds of advocacy efforts? Moreover, how much of the evidence and attention of UBIexp has indeed contributed to the growth of the basic income debate locally, regionally and globally? Looking into particular organizations behind the basic income movement might be critical to assess such questions. Understanding the strength of the advocacy claim might be crucial to understand whether UBIexp are justified in general, particularly if other claims are considered weaker. For example, if more experiments continue to take place amounting to much more data showing positive impacts of basic income, and resulting in basic income not being politically implemented, one might argue that both the evidence-based policy and scientific claims are weakened. In such a scenario, is the advocacy claim sufficient to justify a UBIexp?Questions about the relationship between the political process and UBIexp might also result in novel findings on the topic. There has certainly been more debate and work on how the political context and process might justify or help implement UBIexp, or how it can jeopardize the implementation and the analysis of the findings (particularly in the aftermath of the Finnish basic income experiment). But growing movements like the USA Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, might justify looking into the role of political agendas in promoting UBIexp. Can a UBIexp in a local city spill over to other places, and how can political affiliation affect such an outcome? Can a UBI be considered as a populist policy, and what are the dangers of that happening? Can covid-19 emergency basic incomes influence the political opinion and take on basic income? Could it result in more widespread awareness for UBIexp? Or could it even reduce the justification for UBIexp, and rather justify implementing a basic income without the need for more evidence?Another salient discussion relates to whether UBIexp are relevant for our empirical and normative debates on basic income. On the one hand, the scientific claim can have proponents arguing for more UBIexp because of the need for more data, to clarify certain outcomes of objections (e.g. work participation, mental health outcomes, productivity) or to understand local outcomes of implementing a basic income. On the other hand, we can have those who argue that we already have too much evidence, hence the empirical claim is mostly weak to be considered as a justification for UBIexp. This is Bru Laín’s and Roberto Merrill’s take in their essay. But what is the necessary threshold of sufficient data? Who are the stakeholders arguing for more data, and can UBIexp conducted today satisfy those claims, or not? In such a debate, it would also be important to understand the claims behind the arguments for more data and the competing interests of different actors. It might be the case that arguments for more local data stem not from a scientific perspective, but rather from an evidence-based policy narrative. In that case, local data should be mostly sufficient, and there would be no need to argue for generalizable findings. A related question is also how such evidence can or cannot help the normative debates on basic income: can UBIexp evidence be used to expand the normative discussions, as Catarina Neves argues on her paper on reciprocity and UBIexp, or are there untestable claims, and therefore, very little can be useful for the normative debate?A final set of questions might simply be to justify whether the claims presented in this essay, and mirrored in the conclusions or arguments of the five essays, influence each other, by depending on each other, or by showcasing competing interests. For example, can the evidence-based policy claim have strength without the scientific claim? The strength of the advocacy claim might also be dependent on the weakness of the scientific claim. Maybe to assess what justifies UBIexp one has to analyse each context where the experiment is taking place, and assess competing interests and claims: in some contexts the evidence-based narrative might be justified, whereas in others, only a deliberative or scientific claim can be considered a strong justification. Can UBIexp be justified only in certain moments or contexts, as opposed to looking for a general justification grounded on a particular claim? And what other justifications might be at stake – community empowerment, or civic engagement – and even how can one perceive possible negative outcomes of UBIexp – as stalling mechanisms, as resulting in ethical costs, as undermining existing evidence or contradicting it – might contribute to weaken existing justifications, hence even possibly resulting in a negative answer to our initial question.Discussing UBIexp and their justifications seems all the more relevant today given the amount of basic income experiments and pilots that are taking place, or are scheduled to occur in the next few months and years. Assessing the role of experiments is critical for the basic income local and worldwide movement, but also to the ongoing discussions on the outcomes and the moral justifications for basic income. This issue provides a contribution to this discussion, not only though the arguments of the five essays, but also through the questions that the papers are also echoing. We wish to thank the referees for their generous blind evaluation of the five essays included in this issue.

Journal

Basic Income Studies – de Gruyter

Published: Jun 1, 2021

There are no references for this article.