Universal Basic Income, or Universal Basic Services?
When I first heard about Universal Basic Income (UBI), I found it inspiring, and it was one of the concepts that radicalised me. The first place I read about it in depth was in Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams Inventing the Future (2015), which introduced by me to the ‘post-scarcity’ brand of left-wing politics. Since then, the idea has taken off in the popular imagination of the left. Rutger Bregman’s Utopia for Realists (2017) helped this popularisation, as well as prominent thinkers debating and advocating for the policy across the left. UBI gives every citizen a set amount of money they should be able to live off, crucially, without means-testing.
Universal Basic Services (UBS) on the other hand, is not a term used quite so frequently. It tends to be used when talking about how it is an alternative to UBI. I first came across it as a term in Aaron Bastani’s Fully Automated Luxury Communism (2019). UBS is the idea that a critical set of essential services should be free at the point of access. The NHS is an enactment of this concept, and Medicare for All in the US is the proposal of one. Free access too, or the aspiration to provide, education for children and teenagers is more or less a globally accepted Universal Basic Service. On the left, many argue this should be extended to Energy, Water, Transport, Housing and life-long Education.
But, which one should be pursued as an ideology for transforming the role of the state under a left-wing government? UBI or UBS?
Universal Basic Income
In theory, the implementation of UBI could be the most significant transfer of power to workers in decades. In Inventing the Future, Srnicek and Williams argue that the combination of UBI and automation can bring about a post-work society. As automation reduces that amount of jobs, a shorter working week on a similar pay would redistribute the amount of work fairly. But a UBI would allow workers flexibility to choose whether or not to take specific jobs, meaning unpopular positions would either have to increase wages to continue to have an adequate supply of labour or automate the undesirable jobs. This would create a positive feedback loop, where more of the economy is automated, the overall amount of work is lessened, and the working week is continually shortened. UBI would also go a long way in eradicating poverty, as well as dispel attitude about the ‘undeserving poor’ as everyone would receive the money.
There have been some trials of UBI. Finland conducted one of the largest in 2017/2018, it was considered a failure, however many have argued the test was flawed. Previous trials occurred in Canada in the 1970s, but the trial was hastily abandoned and the data sealed. When reopened in the 21st century, some positive societal results were noted. The problem with most of the attempts to date is that they have relatively small sample sizes. To truly see if UBI can work in practice sample seizes of an entire city should probably be taken. This way, the impact in the broader economy can be measured as well as the effect on individuals wellbeing.
However, aside for the common critique that such a program would be wildly expensive, there are critiques. UBI is seen as a silver bullet for many of societies ills, rather than tackling inequality at the root. Ann Pettifor, in her book The Case For The Green New Deal (2019), also expresses the critique that “UBI is provided regardless of need… While the universal sum agreed upon (…) may not be enough to help those in severe need, UBI is a generous gift to the affluent who don’t need it.” A massive realignment of the economy would be needed to fund such a project, would a universal sum really do that much social good, when the middles classes would likely use it to simply boost their personal consumerism?
Universal Basic Services
UBS has been at the centre of most truly left-wing projects. Corbyn’s Labour was committed to UBS, with re-nationalisation of key industries the key plank of their policy offerings at the last two general elections. The idea is that if you bring say, utilities of energy and water, into public ownership, you can either bring down the cost or eliminate it, for swathes of the population. This would de-commodify a large part of the services we rely on. Life under UBS and life under free-market commodification can be seen most starkly by looking at the differences between UK and US healthcare systems. Most Brits can’t fathom the idea of having to think about what a trip to A&E might cost them.
UBS is also a very flexible ideology to move forward with. For example, there are numerous ways to make public transport accessible for all those that need it. 1/3 off rail cards could be extended to more of the population, permanent infrastructure like tramlines and cycling lanes could be rolled out to cities, towns, and villages across the UK. Or, as Aaron Bastani argues, we could make all buses free.
Not only does removing the profit margin pass a reduction to the consumer help to lower the price, but investment in emergent technologies could help bring costs down in many areas. Energy is the obvious one here, as renewable energy, once up and running, doesn’t cost as much to maintain. The Conservative government’s refusal to invest in big projects, like the now long abandoned Swansea Bay Tidal lagoon, is telling. If such a scheme was built, the running could be handed over to the regional government or local council. Then energy could be provided to residents, and a nominal charge added onto council tax to cover any maintenance. This is how providing water already works in Scotland.
Which is it?
In an ideal world, it’s both. When a dream team left-wing government takes power in Britain, UBS should be the priority, but UBI should be an experiment they trial. I also think it is easier to sell UBS to an electorate because it applied to real-life more. ‘We’re going to lower your housing and energy costs’, sounds more realistic than, ‘we’re going to give everyone a sum to cover those costs’. I certainly don’t want to see any potential left-wing government, i.e. Labour, entirely rule out UBI, and at least commit to a large scale trial. However, any possible left-wing government that isn’t promising UBS is only just on the left, and an abandonment of these principles is a return back to the inadequacy of Blairism.
