Occupation and basic income through the lens of Arendt’s vita activa

ABSTRACT

There is a debate about the meaning and importance of paid work for individuals as well as for society. On the one hand, paid work is considered the only way to secure general welfare. On the other hand, the Jobs Strategy urged by the OECD as the only possible model for achieving welfare is questioned and challenged through the idea of basic income. While basic income is frequently discussed within other disciplines, it is scarcely raised within occupational science, despite its obvious relevance. In this article, the significance of paid work and the possible consequences of introducing basic income are raised. Paid work may have healthy effects, but for many people worldwide dependence on paid work for basic security implies unhealthy, hazardous, and unsecure circumstances. Basic income may have a substantial impact on people’s occupational patterns as well as their experiences of occupational meaning. Three underlying rationales for introducing basic income can be traced: i) abolish a bureaucratic payment transfer system and maintain consumption, ii) diminish poverty and enhance a self-determined life, and iii) deepen democratization. These three rationales are discussed through the lens of Arendt’s vita activa: labor, work and action. Rationales underlying claims for basic income have substantially different underlying ideologies and are therefore important to scrutinize. Rationales mainly building on maintaining consumption imply a risk that people are reduced to homo consumens and denizens. Developing all modalities creates opportunities for occupational justice as well as inclusion and citizenship.

Tanto para los individuos como para la sociedad existe un debate en torno al significado e importancia del trabajo remunerado. Por un lado, se considera que éste es la única manera de asegurar el bienestar general. Por el otro, la estrategia de empleo, que la ocde considera el único modelo posible para lograr el bienestar, es cuestionada, y a ella se contrapone la idea del ingreso básico. Si bien otras disciplinas frecuentemente estudian el ingreso básico, a pesar de su evidente pertinencia apenas se menciona en el marco de la ciencia ocupacional. El presente artículo plantea la relevancia del trabajo remunerado y las posibles consecuencias que podría provocar la introducción del ingreso básico. Aunque el trabajo remunerado puede tener efectos saludables, en el caso de muchas personas de todo el mundo la dependencia del trabajo remunerado para garantizar el bienestar básico implica condiciones insalubres, peligrosas e inseguras. El ingreso básico puede tener un impacto sustancial en las pautas ocupacionales de las personas, así como en sus experiencias de significado ocupacional. Se señalan tres tipos de razones fundamentales para introducir el ingreso básico: i) abolir un sistema burocrático de transferencia de pagos y mantener el consumo, ii) disminuir la pobreza y mejorar una vida autodeterminada, y iii) profundizar la democratización. Estas tres razones son discutidas a través de la lente de la vita activa de Arendt: trabajo, empleo y acción. Las justificaciones que respaldan las demandas de percibir un ingreso básico tienen ideologías subyacentes sustancialmente diferentes, lo que hace importante examinarlas. Aquellas basadas principalmente en el mantenimiento del consumo implican el riesgo de que las personas se reduzcan a ser homo consumens y simples habitantes. El desarrollo de todas las modalidades crea oportunidades para promover la justicia ocupacional, la inclusión y el ejercicio de la ciudadanía.

关于有偿工作对个人以及对社会的意义和重要性存在争议。一方面，有偿工作被认为是获得一般福利的唯一途径。另一方面，经合组织敦促的实现福祉的唯一可能模式“就业战略”，受到基本收入观念的质疑和挑战。基本收入在其它学科中经常被讨论，但是，尽管它具有明显的相关性，在生活活动科学领域却很少被提及。在本文中，提出了有偿工作的重要性以及引入基本收入的可能后果。有偿工作会产生有益作用，但是对于全世界许多人来说，他们的基本安全依赖于有偿工作，这意味着不健康、危险和不安全的状态。基本收入可能会对人们的生活活动模式及其生活活动意义的经历产生重大影响。可以追溯到引入基本收入的三个基本原理：i）取消官僚的支付转移系统并维持消费； ii）减少贫困并加强自主生活； iii）加深民主化。通过Arendt的生活活动（劳动、工作和行动）的视角来讨论这三个基本原理。要求基本收入的理由具有根本不同的基本意识形态，因此对此进行审视很重要。出于维持消费的理由意味着人们会沦为同质消费者和居民。发展所有方式为生活活动正义以及包容和公民身份创造了机会。

RÉSUMÉ

Il existe un débat à propos du sens et de l'importance du travail rémunéré pour les individus ainsi que pour la société. D'une part, le travail rémunéré est considéré comme l'unique moyen d'assurer le bien-être général. D'autre part, la stratégie pour l'emploi recommandée par l'OCDE comme unique modèle possible pour atteindre le bien-être est remise en question et contestée par le concept de revenu de base. Alors que le revenu de base est fréquemment abordé dans d'autres disciplines, l n'est guère évoqué dans au sein des sciences de l'occupation malgré sa pertinence incontestable. Dans cet article, l'importance du travail rémunéré et les conséquences possibles de l'instauration du revenu de base sont examinés. Le travail rémunéré peut avoir des effets bénéfiques sur la santé, mais pour de nombreuses personnes dans le monde, la dépendance au travail rémunéré pour une sécurité de base implique des circonstances malsaines, dangereuses et incertaines. Le revenu de base peut avoir des répercussions importantes sur les occupations des gens ainsi que sur leurs expériences du sens des occupations. Il est possible de dégager trois raisons sous-jacentes à l'instauration d'un revenu de base : i) abolir un système bureaucratique de transfert des paiements et maintenir la consommation, ii) diminuer la pauvreté et promouvoir une vie autodéterminée, iii) intensifier la démocratisation. Ces trois arguments sont discutés au travers de la perspective vita activa d'Arendt : l’œuvre, le travail et l'action. Les arguments sous-jacents à la revendication d'un revenu de base reposent sur des idéologies différentes et doivent donc faire l'objet d'un examen minutieux. Les arguments qui se basent principalement sur le maintien de la consommation comportent le risque de réduire les personnes au rôle d’homo consumens et de simples « habitants ». Le développement de toutes les modalités crée des opportunités de justice occupationnelle ainsi que d'inclusion et de citoyenneté.

KEYWORDS:

• Action
• Basic income
• Labor
• Work

MOTS-CLÉS:

• Action
• revenu de base
• œuvre
• travail

There is an increasingly diverse debate about the meaning and importance of paid work, for individuals as well as for society. On the one hand, paid work and participating in the labor market is considered the only way to secure welfare, i.e. resources and conditions in society that are required for reasonably healthy and secure living (in the following the concept will be applied in this broad sense), both now and in the future (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2018). On the other hand, the idea of the Jobs Strategy (OECD, 2018) with its ever-increasing economic growth is questioned as the only possible model for achieving welfare and well-being (Standing, 2017; Van Parijs, 2013; Wilcock, 1993). The Jobs Strategy, which strongly argues for paid work, is referred to as important in promoting economic growth and hence demands that as many people as possible take part in the labor market, but the necessity of the Jobs Strategy is challenged by proponents for basic income to all citizens (Standing, 2005).

Basic income is frequently debated in a range of disciplines such as political science and philosophy but is scarcely debated in the occupational science and therapy literature. One important exception is the recently published article by O’Halloran, Farnworth, Innes, and Thomacos (2018), who examined basic income as one among several solutions to tackle unemployment. The scarcity of the debate is surprising considering that a well-known and influential person for the discipline, the artist and social activist William Morris (1834-1896), was a resolute proponent of basic income. In one of his novels, Morris described a society with basic income which made it possible to perceive work, i.e. non-paid work, as something creative and nourishing (Morris, 1891). The English social philosopher Thomas More’s Utopia, published in 1516, also gave an early argument for basic income, mainly for the purpose of preventing criminal activity (Standing, 2017). Other advocators are the philosopher and political activist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (Fromm, 1966). Russell advocated a basic income in a time of economic insecurity (Russell, n.d.). Fromm argued for basic income from a psychological perspective. He reasoned that a basic income would remove the threat of not being able to survive. Basic income would thereby represent a psychological shift from scarcity amongst people to individual freedom (Fromm, 1966). Recently, Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive, has pronounced the necessity of basic income. Musk argued that if artificial intelligence (AI) can perform human duties better than humans, this will lead to both unemployment as well as cheaper production, which would create abundance that can be transformed to basic income (Painter, 2016a).

The actuality of basic income today may thus be related to the current debate on AI and its consequences for a labor market with diminishing jobs. Technology has advanced, and many jobs can nowadays be performed with considerably less human involvement. Robots can perform a lot of duties with much better precision than humans (Grace, Salvatier, Dafoe, Zhang, & Evans, 2018). Both blue- and white-collar jobs can and are being replaced by AI, such as robotic machine operators and robotic surgery (Davies, 2017). Even though technological advancements historically have raised fear among workers, this concern might be more relevant today and may not be reduced to merely a symptom of technological determinism. For example, the introduction of the spinning jenny in the 18th century was perceived by many textile workers in England as not merely an opportunity but as a threat to their jobs. AI, appearing today, in forms such as self-driving cars, is also seen as both a threat and a relief. Yet, there is a distinctive difference between AI appearing today compared to the spinning jenny. Today both humans’ physical and their intellectual abilities can be replaced (Davies, 2017). While the impact of AI in relation to human occupation is extensive and outside the scope of this article, it may rather be a topic of interest for further exploration within occupational science.

When technology is changing, as well as taking over human occupational performance, it may be important to consider whether that is perceived as liberating or threatening. A relevant question is whether workers in England in the 18th century, as well as workers of today, feared/fear the loss of their jobs or the loss of their income when their duties were/are replaced by machines. A basic income may reduce the fear of losing an income for survival. If the necessity of paid work will diminish in the future, this may have an impact on how people value and experience work. This is an important issue for occupational scientists and therapists. As an occupational therapist and scholar in the field of work rehabilitation and return to work for people experiencing marginalization, I consider it important to question paid work as the optimal goal and a criterion for inclusion in society, and to discuss and problematize the opportunities with basic income.

In this paper the concepts ‘paid work’ and ‘labor’ are used interchangeably relating to survival. The concept ‘work’ is used for work that is not only performed for survival but for creating useful and permanent features and, finally, ‘action’ is used for human activity performed in relation to other people as parts in the public sphere. The concepts are in accordance with Arendt’s (1958/1998) terms in vita activa, which is presented below.

Work in Occupational Science and Therapy Literature

Engaging in work is one of many forms of human occupation and occurs in the context of time, space, society and culture (Whiteford, Townsend, & Hocking, 2000; Wilcock, 1993). In the occupational science and therapy literature, work is often regarded as including both paid and unpaid work addressing occupations that provide services or commodities to others, which means doing something for someone else, where an altruistic aspect can be traced (Kielhofner, 2007; Wilcock & Hocking, 2015; Zuzanek, 2010). The dividing line between paid and unpaid work is less distinct in that literature (Whiteford et al., 2000; Wilcock, 1993). The narrow definition of occupation to only include paid work, provided by Marx amongst others, has been questioned within occupational science, and a broader definition taking all productive occupations into account has been preferred (Whiteford et al., 2000). Sometimes, this broad, overlapping definition without any fixed border is suitable for describing characteristics for productive work and for scrutinizing the complexity of performance regarding both individual and contextual circumstances (Braveman, 2012), but has a weakness when considering the need for payment for survival and basic security embedded in paid work.

Vita activa

For a better understanding of the premises and conditions for work-related issues in general, and basic income in particular, Arendt’s vita activa has been found to be a fruitful framework. In the context of basic income, Arendt has been discussed previously; for example, that not everyone is required to take part in the labor market in the future (Schroeder, 2001) and the significance of liberated time for taking part in the action modality (Butler, 2010). Suuronen (2018) has raised the spheres for human action, the private, the social, and the political/public in relation to basic income. Dunlop (2016) and Paulsen (2008) addressed the distinction between labor and work. However the action modality is not discussed in these sources, which is a problematic limitation since this third concept in vita activa, action, is the modality that Arendt meant was essential for both the co-existence among humans as well as human flourishing. To my knowledge, no occupational science studies of basic income in relation to vita activa have been conducted. Among Arendt’s extensive works, the vita activa is of major concern for, and has clear links to, occupational science since it investigates human doing (Jansson & Wagman, 2017).

In contrast to Marx and in line with occupation-focused theories, Arendt (1958/1998) acknowledged both paid and unpaid work. According to Arendt, human activity is conditioned and there are three modalities of human activity; labor, work and action, which she labelled the vita activa. The labor modality refers to recurring occupations that need to be carried out constantly to maintain biological existence, such as eating, cleaning, getting food etc. In this endless, cyclic process, products are consumed as they are produced. According to Arendt, the character of the labor modality has been incorporated in modern society with the construction of paid work, which is characterized by an ever-increasing production followed by an ever-increasing consumption of things people did not realize they needed. This ever-increasing production followed by consumption has a negative impact on the environment (Arendt, 1958/1998; Fromm, 1966; Standing, 2017; Wilcock & Hocking, 2015).

The work modality is not undertaken by necessity as the labor modality but rather by utility. This implies that work is a goal-directed occupation with a finite end where something tangible is produced. Products stemming from the work modality can be both physical objects and phenomena such as music, literature, or laws. In the work modality, humans are elevated from the repetitiveness of labor when creating for permanence and durability. Products from the work modality are used and not consumed, as in the labor modality. The action modality, finally, is the activity that takes place between people, which occurs in the public sphere amongst other humans without any interference of materials. According to Arendt (1958/1998), it is in the action modality that humans’ unique specificity emerges. It is in the action modality together with others, both equal and distinct, that humans achieve freedom. These three modalities may serve as a lens to better understand the circumstances under which work is undertaken (Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of vita activa: Labor, work and action

Vita activa
	Private sphere	Public sphere
Modality	Labor	Work	Action
Condition	Life itself	Worldliness	Plurality
Characteristics	Necessity Reflects humans’ biological needs Repetitive Consumption	Utility Reflects the artificial human-made world Goal-directed	Freedom Taking initiative between humans Unpredictable

In the occupational science and therapy literature, corresponding concepts for the modalities labor and work can be easily recognized. A major concern is to analyze and enhance performance of everyday occupations, which are mainly characterized by being repetitive and satisfying biological needs. Such occupations correspond to the labor modality, performed in the private or social sphere (Milbourn, McNamara, & Buchanan, 2014). Within the concept productivity, aspects of both labor as well as work can be traced. Productivity that is undertaken for necessity implies labor, while productivity undertaken for the purpose of constructing or designing something durable would instead correspond to work. The action modality is less obvious in the literature. Yet, the highlighting of both equality and distinctiveness between humans aligns well with significant terms such as diversity and pluralism (Whiteford et al., 2000; Hocking 2012a; Kinsella, 2012). Also, the concept co-occupation, which implies a mutual interdependence between humans when performing occupations (Pierce, 2003), is in accordance with the action modality.

Returning to the concept of paid work, one can state that the economic aspect, that is, that it generates an income, has a significant impact on how people value paid work. In Western society, paid work with its extrinsic value referring to payment and security, is one of the most significant areas of human occupation (Sen & Braveman, 2012). The importance lies in the adjective ‘paid’, which connotes more than the actual performance of a job. Paid work does not only imply the actual performance of duties. ‘Paid’ indicates that this occupation has a crucial spillover effect in generating an income both for survival and for the management of other areas of daily living. As Braveman (2012) stated when referring to paid work, it is “a means of providing a financial or other source of reward to support our daily existence and help us to meet our need for food and shelter” (p. 3).

Aspects of Paid Work

In this section, some aspects connoting paid work in the societies of today will be raised. These aspects concern perceptions of work, how work is specialized and divided, the significance of paid work for individuals as well as for society, manifested in the Jobs Strategy, and finally how problems with access and inclusion in the labor market become apparent.

There are a multitude of, sometimes contradictory, perceptions of paid work. In most societies a paid job is a highly valued and positively sanctioned activity. Paid work is correlated with financial rewards and economic security, better health, a sense of belonging and gaining a more valued identity through contributing to society. Moreover, paid work is perceived as something necessary and conducted with a sense of compulsion. Paid work can also imply hazards and health risks and may cause physical and mental symptoms together with feelings of alienation and exploitation (Braveman, 2012; Standing, 2017; Wilcock & Hocking, 2015).

There is an extensive variety and diversity of jobs. Examples of specialized jobs include squeezing people into subway cars or testing the smell of deodorants. The examples are infinite, just like human creativity (Braveman, 2012). Paid work often requires education in addition to specialized skills, with specialization and division of labor being features connoting paid work. According to Durkheim (1933/2013), an authority in the field of division of labor, this division is both an economic issue and serves as a prerequisite for material development and a basis for morality and solidarity. That is, division of labor can promote the development of specialized skills, leading to more efficient production, while also having a cohesive purpose and acting as a form of cement among people in society. Both purposes Durkheim proposed have an altruistic core with the message that we all contribute to society through our work, which leads to an experience of being a part of something beyond the personal arena and gives meaning to work. Durkheim’s altruistic view of the division of labor contrasts to Marx and Engels’ (1848/1990) opinion that the division of labor refers to work processes organized in a way that disconnect the worker from the things being made or processed and leads to alienation. According to Standing (2012), the altruistic aspect of paid work has turned into egoistic self-concern when competing on the neo-liberal globalized labor market with unstable contracts, which has led to diminished working communities.

The Jobs Strategy (OECD, 2018) is a core component of promoting participation in the labor market with paid jobs, referring both to individuals’ needs and self-realization, as well as to maintaining welfare. Longer educational periods among the younger population and increasing age among the older mean that the proportion of people’s lives when they are available to work and pay taxes has been relatively diminished. A further argument for the Jobs Strategy is that generous social benefit systems lead to an economic burden for society. Therefore, according to the OECD (2018), as many people as possible need to be included in the labor market with paid jobs. Paradoxically, full employment is neither credible nor desirable in many neo-liberal economic systems, since a certain amount of unemployment, the so called equilibrium unemployment (Pissarides, 2000), serves as a measure to regulate inflation (Pissarides, 2000; Standing, 2012). Thus, within the concept of the Jobs Strategy there are some accepted exceptions from the goal that all people should be included in the labor market. However, these exceptions are related to the economic system and thus on a macro rather than micro-level. An individual who is unemployed is not regarded as the important exception that prevents inflation but is rather regarded as a burden for society (Standing, 2012). This paradox demonstrates an individualized view on unemployment.

There are also voices questioning the Jobs Strategy, i.e. the idea that all people must take part in the labor market and that paid work signals inclusion in society, instead proposing other economic systems to ensure basic security, such as basic income (Lindman, 2015; Standing, 2017). Also, within the occupational science literature, paid work as a sign of inclusion has been questioned. For example, Whiteford et al. (2000) challenged “normative ideas that paid occupation is a mark of power, citizenship, or even meaning” (p. 63). However, in this claim the importance of income seems to be overlooked and solutions to the economic aspect are lacking. That omission might be due to the lack of distinction between paid and unpaid work in the occupational science literature. Many people struggling to find or keep paid work are probably not primarily focusing on power or citizenship but rather on how to pay next month’s bills. This challenge to paid work is pointless if it does not give due regard to the issue of the financial means of survival. To my knowledge one of few exceptions in the field is the study of various payment solutions to unemployment, i.e. rendering an income, where basic income and a job guarantee together with the current approach for handling unemployment were analyzed through an occupational science framework (O’Halloran et al. 2018).

A Labor Market with Precarious Conditions

Regardless of the Jobs Strategy’s efforts to include as many as possible in the labor market, participation is not a matter of course for everyone. All around the world people experience feelings of insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty due to circumstances such as unemployment, employment insecurity, flexible wages, and working poverty, together with an eroding welfare (International Labour Organization [ILO], 2019; Puig-Barrachina et al., 2014; Simó Algado, de San Eugenio, & Ginesta, 2017; Standing, 2017). These precarious employment circumstances have been more common during recent decades (Koranyi, Jonsson, Rönnblad, Stockfelt, & Bodin, 2018). More than 174 million people worldwide are expected to be unemployed during 2020 (ILO, 2019). The reduction in vulnerable employment has stalled since 2012 but the number is still expected to be 76% of all employment in developing countries and 46% in emerging countries (ILO, 2018). Working poverty, that is, employment with extremely low salaries, is another problem, especially in developing countries where the number in extreme working poverty is estimated to be approximately 40% of all employed people (ILO, 2018). This poverty is not necessary. Material resources are available. For example, 10% of the global military expenditure is enough to erase extreme global poverty (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2018). As Simo Algadó et al. (2017) stated “we refer to this reality as moral poverty, the anaemia of the soul” (p. 356).

A Growing Precariat

Standing (2012) defined the precariat as people with permanent i) lack of or unstable employment leading to minimal and insecure income, ii) lack of occupational identity often in combination with higher education than required for the jobs they do, and iii) lack of non-wage benefits such as unemployment benefits (Standing, 2012). These circumstances create experiences of occupational injustice (Hocking, 2012b; Wilcock & Hocking, 2015) leading to feelings of shame, anxiety, and anger (Smith, 2017; Standing, 2012).

Some groups are more likely to enter the precariat than others. Young and older people, women, people with disabilities, together with welfare claimants, migrants and people with a criminal record are all at higher risk (Standing, 2012). For example, work participation among people with disabilities is lower than for people without disabilities (Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008). In the case of Sweden, only 3 out of 10 people with mental health problems take part in working life, which is the lowest frequency of all disability groups, and the gap between people with and without disabilities is increasing (Statistics Sweden, 2018). This occupational injustice poses a risk of ill health for the individual, as well as creating the societal risks arising from exclusion and marginalization of groups (Smith, 2017; Wilcock & Hocking, 2015).

Controls Following on the Jobs Strategy

In order to uphold the Jobs Strategy, many countries have developed controls of the people who, for various reasons, do not have paid jobs on the labor market and who apply for social benefits. People’s ability as well as possibility of working is continuously evaluated (Laliberte Rudman & Aldrich, 2016) to determine their eligibility for work disability benefits, social allowances, or compensation from unemployment insurance funds. In the case of work disability evaluations, there has been a shift in many OECD countries towards a more restrictive stance (Brage, Konradsdottir, & Lindenger, 2016). This means that individuals who do not see other options than relying economically on disability benefits ‘have to’ demonstrate and show their right to claim. The individual, often with experience of repeated failures in managing a job and not able to consider other solutions, may feel compelled to act in ways to meet the expected limitations. The individual needs to maintain an identity as well as a behavior to match the stipulated demands, which means an identity as ill and incapable of working. In these cases, the system encapsulates the individual in roles and behaviors that are in accordance with the legitimate limitations that can generate work disability benefits (Jansson & Björklund, 2007).

People on long-term unemployment are probed and activated on a workfare market with fabricated jobs and work trials, receiving a conditioned payment from social security systems (Boland, 2016). This workfare market serves as a sort of threshold to the labor market. For many people this threshold is too high to mount, and they hardly ever reach the labor market. Different solutions are tried, not infrequently resulting in failures to enter the labor market (Laliberte Rudman & Aldrich, 2016). Often, people move from one benefit system to another, e.g. from unemployment benefits to work disability benefits, under insecure circumstances and low benefits that have been found to affect identity and self-esteem as well as generating feelings of stigmatization and guilt (Jansson & Björklund, 2007). Seen through the lens of the concept becoming, various measures in the workfare may be intended to support the individual to self-actualization. However, after repeated failures, the supportive intention turns into its opposite and instead leads to occupational alienation, defined as “deep feelings of incompatibility with the occupations associated with a place, situation, or others to the extent that basic needs and wants appear impossible to attain or maintain” (Wilcock & Hocking, 2015, p. 258).

Basic Income

Basic income is defined as an income that covers costs for basic needs and security sufficient to make constructive decisions. It is directed and distributed towards individuals. The general idea behind basic income is that it should be universal and include all people in a society and to be unconditional (Standing, 2017). Basic income in this universal and unconditional sense has only come close to realization in a few cases; Alaska is probably the best known. The Alaska Permanent Fund pays annual dividends related to incomes from oil to all its citizens. Other less known examples of basic income to all citizens is that of Macao, a small autonomous territory in China, and a low level universal basic income has been introduced in Iran, also related to oil (Van Parijs, 2013). Basic income has been considered in many countries, and proposals for various forms of basic income have been presented. In many trials, basic income has been targeted towards selected groups in society, for example people on long term unemployment (Laurinavičius & Laurinavičius, 2016). There are also examples of conditional basic income, for example basic income can be received if children attend school (Suplicy, 2003).

Defenders of basic income argue that the costs would not have as great an impact as many suppose. Rather, basic income replaces existing benefit systems such as unemployment and disability benefits and thereby it is merely a form of substitution of expenditure (Standing, 2017; Van Parijs, 2013). Basic income has been shown to have a positive impact on health outcomes as well as creating greater equality between groups in society, such as men and women (Forget, 2011). Opponents of basic income raise concerns about excessive costs and financial consequences. However, costs are not the only underlying reason for opposition; it is argued that basic income would endanger people’s work ethic and the idea of contribution and reciprocity in society (Lindman, 2015). With a basic income, people could avoid seeking and taking jobs, instead opting, for example, to participate in illegal occupations. Questioning of the idea of basic income from a work ethic standpoint reveals the predominant idea that paid work is the natural form for building and organizing our lives which is a standpoint closely related to that of the Jobs Strategy (Lindman, 2015).

Underlying Rationales for Basic Income

The arguments for basic income stem from various political ideologies. Rationales for introducing basic income can roughly be divided in three groups: i) abolish a bureaucratic payment transfer system and maintain consumption ii) reduce poverty and enhance a self-determined life and lastly iii), deepen democratization. These ideas are not mutually exclusive but could rather be perceived as more or less overlapping (Gorz, 1999; Lindman, 2015; Painter, 2016b; Standing, 2017; Van Parijs, 2013).

A proponent for the first group of rationale is the economist Milton Friedman, who held that basic income carries the advantage of lessening bureaucracy and transforming complex income substitution systems to one less costly system. Friedman’s proposal for basic income is a form of negative income tax (NIT) which decreases in relation to eventual income. Introducing basic income would stimulate the economy and raise demands, which would supposedly lead to an expansion of consumption, thus stimulating the economy. However, they argue that basic income must be held at a low level, otherwise people will, according to Friedman, not be interested in taking a paid job (Lindman, 2015).

Proponents of the second rationale regard basic income as a means of diminishing poverty and wealth inequalities by redistributing resources among people in a society that cannot provide jobs for all. A basic income opens the way for people to spend more time with their family and to pursue other options in life than paid work. With an assured basic income, people would be more active and have the opportunity to develop their interests and skills and indulge in other forms of occupation than only those that generate a wage. Basic income has appeared to foster entrepreneurship with almost no impact on work incentives. Economists who have studied the effects of basic income concluded that people do not quit their paid jobs when basic income is introduced. Only a very modest decline has been noticed which has been interpreted as a salutary decline i.e. a decline that can contribute to healthy effects in longer terms, referring to situations such as parents staying at home with their children when they are sick or tired (Gorz, 1999; Lindman, 2015; Standing, 2017).

Proponents of the third rationale argue that basic income is a necessary, though not sufficient condition for a more democratic society. Standing (2005) argued that basic income should not be a project for poverty reduction but rather a claim of rights for basic security. Basic income, from this perspective, is not welfare but rather investment in human resources and thus has the potential to enable and develop not only the individual but the society as a whole. They argue that the understanding and perception of democracy can be both deepened and changed through the introduction of basic income (Choi, 2012; Lindman, 2015; Painter, 2016b; Standing, 2017). For example, Painter (2016b) compared basic income with education, asserting that it can be regarded as a universal right and a societal investment in the same way that education is.

The recently completed experiment with basic income in Finland reveals these various rationales. The background for the experiment was a discussion of the need to reform the social security system that had extended over several decades, according to which unemployment allowances have built-in work disincentives to unemployed people taking temporary jobs (Kangas, Simanainen, & Honkanen, 2017; Kangas, Jauhiainen, Simanainen, & Ylikännö, 2019).

The experiment, designed as a randomized field experiment starting in January 2017 and ending in December 2018, only targeted people on long-term unemployment benefits. The aim was primarily to study “the effects of the basic income on the employment and income” (Kangas et al., 2019, p. 9). That is, to investigate the participants’ inclination to take on short-term and/or lower paid jobs. Variables of health, confidence and trust were also assessed. The results showed no difference between the employment rates of the experimental and the control group. However, the preliminary results showed significantly better perceived health among the participants in the experimental group, who also showed more confidence in their own future as well as more trust in different societal institutions, such as the police and politicians (Kangas et al., 2017; Kangas et al., 2019). The findings broadly align with the first rationale outlined above, with its intention to lessen bureaucracy and promote incentives to take a paid job. Critical voices, who might have preferred aims corresponding to the second and third rationales, have expressed disappointment with the experiment due to its limited scope, only including people on long term unemployment, and its primary focus on the effects on employment (De Wispelaere, Halmetoja, & Pulkka, 2018).

Rationales in Relation to Vita Activa

These three identified rationales for introducing basic income can be illustrated through the lens of Arendt’s (1958/1998) vita activa. The first rationale, to abolish a bureaucratic payment transfer system and maintain consumption, can be recognized in the labor modality while basic income provides for managing everyday survival. In the efforts, following the Jobs Strategy, to include as many people as possible in the work force, physical and mental health decreases among groups participating in intense labor (Koranyi et al., 2018; Standing, 2017), along with their opportunities to take part in the other modalities: work and action (Arendt, 1958/1998). Basic income may liberate people from impossible demands on the labor market and the growing precariat with insecure conditions may instead live with basic security without dependence on a paid job. However, in this scenario there is a risk that people contribute to the economic system as consumers and may be transformed and reduced to what Fromm (1966) called ‘homo consumens’ and participate in society as denizens i.e. inhabitants with limited rights, rather than citizens (Hocking, 2012b; Standing, 2012).

The second rationale, to diminish poverty and enhance a self-determined life, can be related to the work modality, with its focus on durability and sustainability (Arendt, 1958/1998). With the introduction of basic income, people may refuse to take deleterious and onerous jobs, which should be regarded as a healthy response. The products stemming from work can be produced and used in a sustainable way, saving both human effort and the earth’s resources (Wagman, 2014). In the case of jobs perceived to be unethical or repressive, it is of great importance for individuals to be able to say no. ‘No one has the right to obey’ are words supposedly uttered by Arendt, which can be read on a wall in the courtyard of her birthplace in Hannover. To reflect and make ethical considerations may be easier with a basic income. Having the possibility of saying no may contribute to better work environments and circumstances, and diminish hazardous work situations. In the long run, basic income can thus have a decontaminating effect on workplaces and raise incentives among employers to organize attractive and healthy workplaces.

The two rationales presented thus far may lead to liberation from labor but, alternatively, there is a risk that they might lead to deprivation of work. If work is separated from economic compensation for survival, other incentives may be more relevant and possible. With a basic income, people would be free to engage in meaningful work without concerns for survival. For example, interest and engagement can be motivators for engaging in work. Also, the opportunity to take part in work to the extent that matches one’s ability may become a possibility. The altruistic core of work that implies being a part of a community and contributing to society in different ways, as proposed by occupational science and therapy scholars (Kielhofner, 2007; Wilcock & Hocking, 2015; Zuzanek, 2010), as well as Durkheim (1933/2013), can thus be realized with a diversity of contributions mirroring individuals’ various abilities and not a standardized 40 hours weekly contribution of standardized work duties (Durkheim, 1933/2013; Jakobsen, 2004). According to Hocking (2012b), a sense of belonging and contributing to society are essential aspects of work. The introduction of basic income may distinguish toiling labor from work that is nourishing and contributes to people’s well-being as well as to society. The altruistic division of work that Durkheim proposed may thus be highlighted and enhanced. However, in this scenario, belonging to a work community will not be economically necessary.

Nonetheless, a range of studies show that people with disabilities want to work (Jakobsen, 2004; Jansson & Björklund, 2007). The barriers hindering them may be due to the fact that they are competing for a paid job on unequal terms on the labor market. An important question that arises is whether all people can independently manage to find arenas for belonging to a work community. For marginalized people, this concern may imply increased isolation and restricted participation in meaningful occupations. The question is whether society will bother making efforts for people with disabilities or other stigmatizing attributes with coaching and advocating for work. From an occupational perspective, where occupation is regarded as an innate need and source for health (Kielhofner, 2007; Wilcock & Hocking, 2015), lack of access to work communities and meaningful work poses a risk for social isolation and decreased health (Wilcock & Hocking, 2015). Concerns like these bring us to the next issue: the potential of basic income to promote democracy and citizenship in society.

The third rationale, aims towards a deepened democracy, promoting shared political activity that goes beyond representative democratic participation such as voting, which aligns with Arendt’s (1958/1998) action modality. Introducing basic income would open the door to a more extensive participation in other forms of occupation than paid work. Volunteer occupations, for example, may serve as a contrast to occupations that involve consumption, and often have engaging with others for social change at their core (Hocking, 2012a). These features also align with the action modality in vita activa. Arendt was an advocate of the action modality and held that, in dialogue in the public sphere, people take part as citizens together with others. In addition, action has the potential to hinder further disastrous human conflicts. In action, people reveal who they are, which means that differences, the distinctiveness between people, is highlighted and becomes visible (Arendt, 1958/1998; Durkheim 1933/2013). Revealing differences is an important feature of democratic societies. Arendt was suspicious of traditional representative democracy and proclaimed the importance of all people taking part in the action modality in the public sphere (Bokiniec, 2009). This standpoint has obvious similarities with the ideology of basic income as a way of deepening democracy and enhancing a more active and participatory citizenship (Choi, 2012; Lindman, 2015; Painter, 2016b; Standing, 2017). See Table 2 for an overview.

Table 2. Overview of vita activa in relation to rationales for basic income

Vita activa
Private sphere		Public sphere
Modality	Labor	Work	Action
Condition	Life itself	Worldliness	Plurality
Characteristics	Necessity	Utility	Freedom
Rationales for basic income
Characteristics	Labour	Work	Action
	Abolish a bureaucratic system Maintain consumption	Reduce poverty Enhance a self-determined life	A human right Deepen democratization

The scenarios outlined above, viewed through the lens of vita activa, are relevant for occupational scientists and therapists, who build on the explicit assumption that humans need to participate in occupation (Durocher, Gibson, & Rappolt, 2014). Occupational justice implies the possibility of taking part in “meaningful and purposeful occupations (tasks and activities) that people want to do, need to do and can do considering their personal and contextual circumstances” (Stadnyk, Townsend, & Wilcock, 2010, p. 331). Occupational justice comprises occupations that meet basic needs, give meaning and opportunity to maximize potential and flourish, as well as maintaining habits and fulfilling aspirations in accordance with the surrounding society (Durocher et al., 2014). Since occupations are of central significance for humans’ existence, restricted participation is a matter of injustice (Durocher et al., 2014). According to Wilcock and Hocking (2015), injustices have to be recognized before they can be addressed. Through action in the public sphere, differences as well as injustices can be raised and recognized.

Limitations

This paper proposes a tentative argument with the purpose of illuminating different rationales for introducing basic income. Basic income, i.e. unconditional, universal and sufficient to make a living, has not yet been fully realized. Studies on basic income are limited to certain groups and are, paradoxically, often conditioned. The proposals about various rationales discussed in this paper are therefore hypothetical, rather than relying on empirical data. However, with basic income, occupations may be perceived and valued in a way that makes it a relevant issue for occupational scientists. Another limitation is that the problematization of basic income is illuminated with the support of thinkers from a Western tradition and from the author’s own Western perspective. The framework has been limited to Arendt’s vita activa. Therefore, it is important to further scrutinize basic income from various perspectives, both within Western tradition but especially from other traditions of thinking.

Conclusion

Paid work is a significant issue, with its crucial spillover effect in generating an income both for survival and for managing other areas of daily living. Unemployment and insecure and vulnerable employment are global problems that lead to occupational injustice. Basic income is a frequently discussed issue. However, the reasons underlying claims for basic income have substantially different underlying ideologies. It is therefore important to scrutinize them when considering access to meaningful and developing occupations. If all aspects of human occupation are not considered, there is a risk that some people may be reduced to homo consumens and denizens. Taking account of all modalities in vita activa: labor, work and action, creates opportunities for enhanced occupational participation and deepened citizenship, in the sense that people participate not only in the labor modality but in all modalities. Restricted participation is a matter of injustice. Injustices need to be recognized before they can be addressed. Through action in the public sphere, differences as well as injustices can be raised and recognized. With the introduction of basic income, values other than monetary payment may be more salient. Occupational science has an important role in this, contributing a deeper understanding of health, meaningfulness, and justice related to occupation.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID

Inger Jansson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3309-2816