UK Poverty Post

Citizen’s income: an idea whose time has come? (part two)

Yesterday, we introduced some of the arguments relating to the idea of a citizen’s income. Today, we consider two variants of a citizen’s income that look to provide basic incomes for active citizenship, in ways that avoid compulsion.

Active community service

At the core of most models for security, esteem and identity is the notion of the ‘working citizen’. For those advocating a citizen’s income based on participation, however, what is meant by ‘work’ is broadened to incorporate the forms of work beyond employment – such as self-provisioning, unpaid community work, and volunteering. At present, in contrast, a model dominates that views the ‘working citizen’ as somebody participating in formal employment. In this view, everything is linked to a paid job, including citizenship itself, as manifested by the lack of distinction drawn between citizens’ rights and workers’ rights.

For advocates of an active citizen’s income, however, and based upon a broader definition of work that encompasses informal work, the desire is to promote an alternative model for security, esteem and identity. From this perspective, the ‘working citizen’ is integrated not only through formal but also informal work. To see how this new model of the ‘working citizen’ might operate, we consider two possible policy options below. The first seeks to extend the ‘voluntary and community sector’ of the New Deal programme which has been adopted in many western nations, so as to promote integration through active citizenship (rather than formal employment alone); and the second seeks to introduce active citizens’ tax credits, again being widely implemented throughout the western world.

Civil-ising New Deal

Following the lead of the USA, many western economies have in recent decades started to implement workfare-type regimes, as part of a general reorientation of labour market intervention towards active labour market policies. These workfare programmes represent a significant departure from traditional welfare systems. People are required to work in return for social assistance payments. In stark contrast to previous welfare and unemployment benefit programmes in which state support was passive, unconditional and entitlement based, these new workfare regimes are conditional, work-focused, and oblige participants to be active in order to receive social payments (Campbell, 2000; Robinson, 1998). The principal critique of them is that there is a compulsion element, whereby people are forced to do work that they would not otherwise wish to conduct (e.g., Peck, 2001).

The intention here is to consider a modification to New Deal that would reduce the compulsion critiques that currently blight it, and at the same time unleash the unemployed from the shackles that prevent them from engaging in economic practices that they might wish to undertake. The proposal is that the ‘voluntary and community’ sector of the New Deal programme could be extended to allowing the unemployed to define the ‘social and/or economic contribution’ that they wish to make. This would not only negate the workfare critiques aimed at this programme, but also release the unemployed to take greater responsibility for the nature of their integration into work.

The precise scope of work that might be deemed acceptable and the problems involved in deciding on the breadth of such activity are of course problematic, but they would certainly include caring activities and organising community groups. Hence, somebody who was principal carer of a young pre-school child or an elderly dependent person would have this essential work recognised under the ‘community and voluntary sector’ of New Deal, and they would be paid an activity benefit for doing this work. Similarly, those organising and running community groups such as LETS, time banks and credit unions would again receive an activity benefit paid at a higher rate than the zero-activity benefit level, in recognition of their contribution.

An example of a similar initiative is to be found in Australia. Here, there has been some recognition that various activities are socially legitimate for those who are claiming out-of-work benefits. It has been understood, for example, that care work should be accredited. Both lone parents and one parent in a couple can claim a ‘parenting allowance’. This is income-tested on one’s own and one’s partners’ income, and is payable to parents with children aged up to 16 years old (Hirsch, 1999).

Although this policy proposal would start to conquer the workfare critiques associated with active labour market policies such as the New Deals, a key problem that this proposal fails to modify is the meaning of a ‘working citizen’ amongst those who are not eligible for New Deal. The likely outcome is that it would introduce a ‘dual society’. Those eligible to choose the contribution that they wish to make to their communities are only those who are unemployed. The likelihood, therefore, is that the new forms of work undertaken would be seen as a second rate and second class ‘economy’ for those excluded from the formal labour market. This leads us to a more comprehensive proposal for facilitating a multi-activity society, explored below, that is more inclusive in terms of the groups who could be mobilised to renegotiate their contribution to society.

Active Citizens’ Credits (ACC)

The conventional contract between the state and out-of-work households offers income in exchange for a duty to search for employment if one is able. Only a few groups are exempted from this obligation. Engaging in parenting, for example, has not generally been considered acceptable.

Here, however, a scheme is proposed that could not only recognise such work beyond employment, but also reward those individuals who engage in such endeavour – and thus promote a multi-activity society. This scheme is based on the notion of accrediting active citizenship. Drawing upon the ideas for citizens’ service (Briscoe, 1995; Hirsch, 1999; McCormick, 1994) and a participation income (Atkinson, 1998), the intention of ‘active citizens’ credits’ (ACC) is to record, store and reward participation in caring, and other work conducted for the good of their community (Williams, 2007; Williams and Windebank, 2003). Under this non-compulsory scheme, individuals would engage in a self-designed portfolio of work of their choosing, for which they would be reimbursed.

This would be non-compulsory, in that individuals could freely choose whether or not to participate. It would also allow the individuals participating in this scheme to themselves decide the portfolio of economic practices that they want to undertake. The goals behind such a proposal are:

• to recompense and value work which currently goes unrecognised and unvalued;
• to encourage active citizenship without recourse to compulsion;
• to harness informal work;
• to create a ‘full-engagement’ society by enabling people who wish to make a particular ‘social contribution’ to do so;
• to incorporate the multi-dimensionality of social inclusion and exclusion into policy-making, and
• to tackle poverty through means other than merely insertion into the formal work.

The idea that such a scheme should be developed to encourage individuals to engage in freely chosen work to benefit their community is perhaps uncontroversial. The major controversy is over how to reward people. One option is to embed this proposal within the tax credit approach that is emerging in many advanced economies (e.g. Liebman, 1998; Meadows, 1997; Millar and Hole, 1998). Just as there are ‘employment tax credits’, pensioner tax credits, disability and sickness tax credits, there could be ‘active citizens tax credits’ for those participating in caring activities and other work for the good of their community, sub-divided into three further types of tax credit: parents’ tax credits, carers’ tax credits and community worker tax credits (Williams and Windebank (2003) and Williams (2007)).

If adopted, a multi-activity society would be engendered, by recording, storing and rewarding engagement in work beyond employment. The result would be the creation of a society founded upon the principle of multi-activity, without a radical policy overhaul.

Conclusions

Given that the needs of the poor and unemployed are currently being met so inadequately by the conventional job creation model, which seeks to enable everybody to secure their livelihood solely through the formal labour market , it is obvious that new models of social and economic integration are required. Provision of a citizen’s income, therefore, may well be an idea whose time has come. Either way, more debate and discussion are certainly needed on whether this is the case, and on how such an idea might be implemented.

What is beyond doubt, however, is that inclusion through formal employment alone is no longer either feasible or desirable. It is time to open up debate to new approaches. This citizen’s income idea is one important possibility that we hope will be more fully considered.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oxfam GB.