Universal basic income and its ambivalent relationship with work

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is an alternative social policy proposal, one of the central features of which is that a minimum income is guaranteed ‘unconditionally’. This prompts debates about UBI and its relation to work. In these debates, there are two positions expressing diverging ideas to legitimise the UBI policy proposal: an idealistic position that promotes UBI as bringing ‘freedom from work’ and a ‘pragmatic position’ that frames UBI as an effective strategy to enhance participation (in the labour market). It expresses the ambivalent relationship of UBI to work and poses a puzzle in gaining legitimacy among potential supporters. In this chapter, first, we explore the normative boundaries that confront the UBI proposal, from the perspective of principles of deservingness and work norms. Secondly, we analyse how advocates of UBI policy have adopted conflicting strategies to deal with these normative boundaries. Idealistic advocates seek to ignore or invalidate the traditionalist work and deservingness principles. Pragmatic advocates attempt to integrate these norms in the proposal, or to adapt the proposal itself to accommodate normative objections against UBI. Finally, we outline four suggestions for future research that could shed light on potential ways out of the UBI's conflictual relationship with work.