Unconditional Basic Income (BI) for families below the Poverty Line in India
Before we address the moral and efficiency aspect of an unconditional BI, it is essential to define what “unconditionality” entails. Most of the literature on Basic Income emphasizes unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI). “Unconditional,” in this regard, involves three primary senses, according to Philippe Van Parjis :
i. The grant is strictly for individuals (not households, families or couple)
ii. Not dependent on the income already earned
iii. Duty-free, i.e., one does not need to check if the person is able/unable to work, willing/unwilling to work.
With this context, it is safe to presume that the proposal we are engaged with here is not really unconditional. The target of our basic income are people below the poverty line, hence the second sense of unconditionality is compromised. If we are debating a BI for families, then sense one is compromised too. Nonetheless, for the sake of our argument, we assume “families” as a single unit. I will provide arguments in favor of Basic Income for Below Poverty (BP) families, and also for a universal one. The basic structure of my arguments in both cases subscribes to Amartya Sen’s capability approach.
BI for Below Poverty Families:
After socialist policies have failed post-second world war, the idea of the welfare state had come into contention. The welfare state was seen as a drown on the state coffers, and there were proposals for a new approach to the state. Both liberals and conservatives agreed on the idea of growth. Rapid economic growth was needed to push the stagnated economy, and this paved the path to neoliberalism. It was assumed that this rapid growth would trickle down and cause prosperity. But this has not happened. In India’s context, this is referred to as “jobless growth.” In such circumstances, where there is increasing unemployment, the idea of basic income seems attractive. With poor people being thrown back to poverty, their basic needs are not met. Not only is their status stagnant, but it has been deteriorating further.
There are various states of well-being that an individual desires to realize her autonomous status — she may want to practice medicine, play soccer, make love, raise children (Anderson, 1999) . She might pursue those because she has reason to believe that they are valuable to her. Such states of being could be called functionings. A person’s capabilities are sets of such functionings she can achieve to realize her agency. Capabilities measure not those actually achieved functionings, but a person’s freedom to achieve valued functionings. (Anderson, 1999).
The current status of jobless growth has pushed people into circumstances where their freedom of exercising their functioning is severely constrained. Poverty does not enable them to afford education, health, and necessary information. Amartya Sen would call this an attack on their freedom. Let us take the example of health. A person with ill-health will not be able to find out or explore her functionings. If she cannot exercise her functioning, she cannot realize her agency. Hence her liberty to self-realization is compromised. Food, shelter, and education are considered to be basic capabilities to achieve to live in the world. With poverty coming in the way of realizing those capabilities, it is only moral to enable people below the poverty line to fill that gap. Fill the gap, enough to pursue those capabilities. The basic income here can play this role here. To the question of efficiency, Libertarians and Liberals both agree on the benefits of Basic Income. Libertarian’s argument of efficiency lies in BI’s merit over a welfare state. They bat for a replacement of the existing bureaucratic welfare state with a streamlined Basic Income. The grants and money for such a policy would come from the substitution of the welfare state and diverting the funds to a Basic Income program. Of course, the prominent line of argument among libertarians and conservatives is that it BI/UBI disincentivizes work. But this line of reasoning has been slowly shifting into the substitution of the welfare state. One of the arguments among the liberals is that the primary source of funding for such a program would come from the wealth endowments. Van Parjis (Parijs, 1991) engages with this proposal comprehensively to find a neutral ground for the exact amount and source of such funding. He states that a UBI is necessary to pursue realizations of one’s idea of a good life. This idea of perception of a good life is close to Amartya Sen’s basic capabilities idea.
BI for everyone (UBI)
The capability approach can be used in proposing a basic income for every citizen too. In this context, the target population is not only the people below the poverty line, but for everyone, including the rich. Let’s take the example of the falling female labor force participation rate (FLFPR) in India. A lot of literature suggests that Indian women are leaving the labor market economy for domestic work due to a lack of jobs matching their education levels. In such a situation, they are forced to do household work where they are subjected to patriarchal norms, leading them to be subjugated. A UBI can play a crucial role in avoiding such a situation. The grant could be used to sustain her till she finds the job of her choice. She can pursue her functionings and realize her agency without being subjected to patriarchal norms of femininity. Other reasons for a UBI include the abandonment of one’s desires and wishes or functionings, owing to the market pressure. A person is unable to exercise their functionings because that might cost them their “stable job” and, therefore, their livelihood. The market pressure comes in between them realizing their functionings, capabilities, and, therefore, their agency. It is not moral to force someone to abandon their agency. The market pressure compels individuals to let go of their functionings. A UBI could relieve individuals of the market pressure and allow them to pursue the capabilities that they have reason to value.
Hence, a UBI and BI for Below poverty line families is a promising endeavor to enable people to expand their capabilities and, therefore, their freedoms.
References
Anderson, E. S. (1999). What Is the Point of Equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/233897
Parijs, P. V. (1991). Why Surfers Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(2), 101–131.
