Volume 3, Issue 3 - Debate: Should Feminists Endorse Basic Income?

A basic income has been regarded as a policy that could advance gender justice because of its ability to protect women from some of the consequences of the gendered division of labour. I argue, though, that full justice for women plausibly entails the abolishment of traditional gender roles and that a feminist assessment of basic income should then look at its ability to help us move away from traditional gender roles. I also argue that basic income could meet the demands we should place on our income security policy as we move towards a gender-just society; and I defend basic income against the objection that, given current gender norms, it might lead to a reinforcement of the gendered division of labour.

The implications for gender equality of three regimes are compared: a low tax-low benefit regime, a regime of Basic Income Grants (BIG), and a welfare state offering a generous menu of in-kind and cash benefits concentrated on people with special needs, but not including lengthy paid parental leave. It is argued that the special needs of women, particularly lone mothers, make the welfare state regime superior in promoting gender equality to a regime with BIG benefits, which spreads its cash benefits equally to all citizens. Further, the reductions in labor force commitment that BIG fosters (and which lengthy paid parental leave also fosters) would reverse the progress women have made in the labor market. That progress is the main basis for women's improved status, and undermining it may even make a BIG regime inferior to the low benefits regime in its effect on gender equality.

As a feminist, I am committed to equality of condition between men and women, defined multidimensionally in terms of respect and recognition; resources; love, care and solidarity; power; and working and learning. I concentrate in this comment on equality in the affective system, i.e., the set of social relations that operates to meet people's needs for love, care and solidarity. A central problem for egalitarians is that recognising, valuing and supporting care work risks reinforcing the gendered division of labour, a problem of much wider remit than the issue of basic income. I argue, however, that basic income can be construed as recognising and supporting care work as a form of worthwhile but noncommodifiable activity and that this should be combined with confronting the division of labour culturally and ideologically. I cite recent empirical work on caregivers and care recipients in Ireland in support of my position.

Feminists should endorse a basic income, particularly in comparison to other feasible safety-net alternatives, including work-conditioned benefits and a caregiver stipend. A basic income promotes gender equality by creating the social and economic conditions required to reduce the gendered division of labor. Most importantly, a universal, unconditional basic income could greatly reduce the poverty rate of the most vulnerable group in capitalist economies: single women and their children. For this reason if for no other, feminists should endorse a basic income.

I argue that, in the currently gender-unjust societies a basic income would not advance feminist goals. To assess the impact of a social policy on gender justice I propose the following criterion: a society is gender-just when the costs of engaging in a lifestyle characterized by gender-symmetry (in both the domestic and public spheres) are, for both men and women, smaller or equal to the costs of engaging in a gender-asymmetrical lifestyle. For a significant number of women, a basic income would increase the costs of leading gender-symmetrical lifestyles because it would make it easier for both women and men to pursue gender-unjust preferences. I argue that preference satisfaction is distinct from justice. I conclude by showing why a basic income would lead to further privatisation of caregiving, and I outline the negative effects this would have on women.

To assess whether basic income (BI) can address the multiple causes of gender inequalities the author reviews debates about choices of care and the concept of dependency. She evaluates complementary policies that encourage a combination of care and employment. It is not empirically clear what type of gender equality BI would result in, and whether advocates are expecting too much from one policy tool.