Guaranteed basic income from the perspective of self‐determination theory
Summary
It’s often assumed that paying people an unconditional living wage will result in mass dropout from the workforce, as people chose to stay home and play video games instead of contributing to society.
In a 2017 report, Europeans were asked what they believed others would do if given an unconditional basic income. It was found that 53% of people believed that other people would quit work entirely. However, when they were asked what they would do, only 3% said they would quit their job without looking for another.
This is an incredible finding to highlight how unfavourably and inaccurately we evaluate the work motives and intentions of others. However, these beliefs assume that people only work for the financial rewards given in return. If people have freely given more money, they will not need to work as much, right? The logic here is rationally sound but relies on a woefully incomplete understanding of human motivation. Of course, we go to work because the income is necessary. But we also work for a range of other reasons that are typically less obvious.
Self-determination theory is a theory of motivation that directly explores and categorizes these other reasons for working, many of which can be even more influential than simple financial rewards. In my recently published article, I examined the motivational and wellbeing implications of basic income from the perspective of self-determination theory and arrived at the following conclusions.
What did people do when they received a basic income?
On average basic income trials didn’t reduce labour participation or the number of hours worked; in examining the results, I suggest that it:
- Might reduce external motivation, but will not eliminate it completely.
- The reduction in external motivation might be accompanied by increases in autonomous types of motivation (including intrinsic motivation). Hence, there is no overall change in worker motivation on average.
- This shifting of motivation profile may even improve the overall quality of work motivation, resulting in better employee performance and wellbeing.
- Those who chose to leave the workforce because of basic income are those who probably should not have been there in the first place (e.g., the elderly, those with disabilities, children, and primary caregivers).
Basic income appears to benefit health, mental health, and life satisfaction (eudemonic wellbeing).
What should workplaces know?
- Workplaces may need to adopt motivational strategies in a society with basic income
- As external motives become less salient and more autonomous ones become more important, workplaces may need to provide working conditions that meet these new motives.
- Undesirable jobs will either have to pay more (which may not be possible) or redesign their workplace to better satisfy employees.
Does basic income make sense in our society?
Basic income might not make sense to the neoliberal capitalist who solely prioritizes economic outcomes. But what about individual wellbeing?
Chances are you live in a country with values strongly influenced neoliberal capitalism. This view focuses on individualistic achievement, competition, capital accumulation, and it defines success by the amount of goods we can produce and the profit we can generate. BI does not encourage competition or wealth accumulation, and if paid for by taxation, may actively contradict these values.
However, basic income is not a policy designed to increase the productivity of corporations or increase their profitability. A healthy economy is important and we should strive to maintain one. But if we evaluate every policy solely based on neoliberal capitalistic values, we will systematically exclude a range of outcomes including the wellbeing of individuals within society. We should not neglect policies that aim to increase the wellbeing of individuals, encourage dignified work, and bring “real freedom to all”.
