The Philosophy and Political Economy of Basic Income Revisited

Haagh examines to what extent the opportunity presented by growing public interest in Basic Income has enabled the debate to overcome long-standing contradictions between narrative claims and contextual reality. She argues that a neutralist case whereby Basic Income is proposed as a replacement for other instruments of social and economic regulation and security in society remains influential yet broadly untenable. The debate is still coming to terms with the contrast between lofty ambitions and real-world constraints. Haagh claims singular visions of economic governance have deep historical roots in Basic Income narrative, raising new thorny issues, and begging a need to conceptualise the practical role of Basic Income in broader terms. A global context of neo-liberal development and rising inequality sets the scene for a series of devil’s deals linked with a paradoxical relation between contemporary Basic Income ‘opportunity’ and structural crisis. To illustrate these issues Haagh employs an Institutional Political Economy (IPE) lens to identify how the integrity, feasibility, and effects of Basic Income hinge on wider conditions. She argues internal complementarity (integrity) is shaped by external complementarities linked with broader conditions of social equality, and this interaction is likely to be key in a Basic Income’s feasibility and broader effects.