What would happen if everyone were to have 1,000 euros transferred to their account every month – without having to work for it? In our interview, the sociologist Malte Neuwinger talks about the surprising findings of recent experiments, busts some myths and explains why we will only be able to understand the true impact of a universal basic income if it actually becomes a reality one day.
Mr. Neuwinger, does the idea of a universal basic income perhaps have such a polarizing effect because it would be “unconditional”, a word we tend to associate with love?There could definitely be some truth in that. For many people, the concept sounds just as attractive as the idea of unconditional love. And just as we crave such love, we find a basic income very appealing. But regardless of the findings of scientific studies, many people continue to support the idea on principle, whereas its opponents remain unconvinced.
Let’s start at the very beginning: what exactly is a universal basic income?
The idea behind a universal basic income is that everyone would receive money from the state unconditionally, without having to do anything for it.
That certainly doesn’t sound like a bad idea … So what do its supporters hope it will achieve?
The biggest hope is that income would become disconnected from work, meaning it would be irrelevant whether a person worked or not. This calls into question the basic principle, widely accepted in our society, that resources should be allocated according to “achievement”, and that such achievement should primarily take the form of paid work.
One common argument put forward by critics is that people would simply put up their feet and stop working if they were paid a basic income.
The idea of people “putting their feet up” is certainly the most morally problematic argument for many. It is easy to understand why that rankles so much – it brings us back to the “achievement principle”. In empirical terms, however, it is a myth that people would simply laze around. Numerous studies dating back over the past 50 years have shown similar results time and again: people do not stop working.
Is there one particular misunderstanding about the universal basic income that irritates you?
What bothers me is that people often talk about different models – some mention a figure of 2,000 euros a month, while others talk of 1,500 euros. This waters down the debate because it is impossible to specify one concrete model and people keep referring to alternatives. You constantly hear people saying: “Depending on the amount paid, a basic income could be wonderful or disastrous.” This lack of clarity makes it hugely more difficult to have an informed discussion.
Is this lack of clarity one of the reasons why a basic income is portrayed in such different ways in the media?
Absolutely. It often seems like something of a political Rorschach test: the way it is reported frequently tells us more about the position of the journalist than about the basic income itself.
A number of studies on a universal basic income are already underway. One of them is the OpenResearch project funded by OpenAi CEO Sam Altman. What has it found so far, for example?
This is a randomized controlled study of the kind carried out to test medical drugs. In this case, 1,000 participants aged 21 to 40 receive 1,000 euros per month, while another larger group receives only 50 euros per month. The experiment is being conducted over several years, and the researchers are studying what happens to the participants: how do their health and working habits change, and how do they use the money?
Which result of this study impressed you?
What is remarkable is how surprisingly small the effects are: people who receive a basic income work only 1.4 hours per week less than those without this support. Essentially that’s just one additional extended coffee break per day! The fact that some of these effects have been observed to disappear over time is even more fascinating. After three years, people seem to have almost forgotten that they are being paid a basic income at all – it has become their new normal.
In your research you take a critical look at various studies relating to a universal basic income. What do you see as the most important points?
For pragmatic reasons, most studies focus on particular sections of the population – often on poorer groups in society because the effects of a basic income on them will be most visible. Though understandable, that contradicts the original idea of a universal basic income, which is supposed to be for everyone. Furthermore, financial limitations dictate how many people can take part in such experiments. Paying 1,000 euros a month to each participant quickly adds up to millions in funding over the course of several years. Another critical point is that if I am paid a basic income, but nobody else around me is, the dynamics will be quite different than if everyone were in the same boat.
To what extent does it make a difference whether only you receive a basic income or everyone around you does too?
It could lead to jealousy, and there is also an economic factor – if everyone had more money, this would have a bigger impact on the economy. Those are macroeconomic effects that it is virtually impossible to test in such studies. Overall, we could learn a lot more if we were to conduct these trials in as many different settings and countries as possible.
Now for the most important question of all: will a universal basic income become a reality for us in the near future? Will these scientific findings actually bring about a shift in political mindset?
Though a nice idea of course, I think it would be naive to expect that. We will only be able to really understand what a universal basic income can achieve once it is actually put into practice. Anything else, however valuable the experiments may be, ultimately teaches us only something about human behaviour – for example about the fact that we would quickly get used to having 1,000 euros per month transferred unconditionally to our accounts.