Do Side Effects Matter?

Social research is often needed when a new public policy is being proposed. To decide if a policy is to be recommended, we need first to put forward the goals the policy is trying to achieve and then evaluate if it is likely that such a policy will indeed accomplish those goals. In this chapter it is argued that beyond assessing the efficacy of the policy to achieve its intended goals, we also need to ask if there are unintended consequences of the policy, especially if those consequences are antithetical to the expressed goal the policy is trying to achieve. When evaluating a policy, we need to see if it will do what it proposes and if it has any other foreseeable but unintended consequences or results that directly oppose that policy’s intended consequences. If this turns out to be the case, then the policy may be problematic. To apply this to basic income policies, we must first be clear about the intended effects of implementing Basic Income. This is particularly problematic in the case of Basic Income. Some have wanted Basic Income to eliminate social security, while others think it is a way to solve problems regarding automation and so on. However, one effect seems to be intended by all proponents: to end or significantly reduce poverty. If this is so, research on Basic Income should look into the possibility that it may not reduce poverty. To evaluate this, we need to define poverty and then see if the policy has the potential to create rather than reduce poverty as a side effect of its application. If this is so, the policy is problematic, and more work is needed to implement it with good results.