Proponents or opponents? : the Ontarian and Finnish unions’ Representatives’ understanding of basic income
Malenfant, Alexandre (2018)
Malenfant, Alexandre
2018
MDP in Comparative Social Policy and Welfare
Yhteiskuntatieteiden tiedekunta - Faculty of Social Sciences
This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2018-12-13
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:uta-201901021024
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:uta-201901021024
Tiivistelmä
The labour markets are changing. The economic and social signs of these changes are already present in many countries: the rising level of poverty and societal inequalities, the flexibilisation of the labour market, and the inefficiency of the income security systems. In response to these new challenges, the governments of Ontario (Canada) and Finland decided to experiment with a new kind of social security: the basic income. By securing the availability to a sum of money sufficient to cover the basic needs of all citizens in a given national or provincial territory, the basic income aims to protect those that suffers from the labour market changes. It also aims to improve the recipients’ health, increase participation in education and work, and reduce stigmatization.
Following the introduction of these experiments, varied political actors voiced their opinions and positions about the concept of basic income and the form of the experiments. Amongst those political actors, some Ontarian and Finnish unions had their voices heard through the media. However, few unions talked about the reasons which made them develop their positions. In the scientific literature on basic income, the study of the unions’ understanding and positioning on basic income is similarly lacking. In an effort to add to this scientific literature on the unions and basic income, the research puzzle of this master’s thesis starts with an inquiry about the way Ontarian and Finnish unions’ representatives understand and position themselves on the policy idea of basic income. The thesis’s research question is: how do Ontarian and Finnish unions’ representatives’ understands the policy idea of basic income?
To answer this research question, the study consisted of ten interviews with unions' representatives in Ontario and Finland. The qualitative data was analyzed through a constructivist thematic analysis based on the concepts of problem definitions and policy solution, as conceptualized by Jal Mehta. The findings of the thesis demonstrated that the Ontarian representatives were in favour of raising the rates of social assistance so that poverty would be diminished. For them, this could be achieved through a basic income, but they expect that it would be too low to affect most precarious workers. To tackle the issue of precariousness, the representatives named many alternatives or additional policies to basic income and argued that these policies should not be negated or traded-off if a basic income is implemented. In Finland, the unions’ representatives thought that without activation measures, an unconditional basic income would decrease work willingness. They also thought that the unemployed and precarious workers should have access to a simpler unemployment benefits system, which could increase work activation. For the representatives, it is unclear if a basic income could include conditions of work activation, and at the same time simplify the income security system.
To conclude, the findings show that the unions’ understanding and positioning on the implementation of a basic income are not simply one of advocating or opposing policy ideas proposed by their governments. Instead, policy ideas are reinterpreted by the unions’ representatives who formulate their own problem definitions and policy solutions. In Ontario and Finland, the basic income was still at a stage of experimentation and the potential forms and minute details of a basic income policy had never been decidedly set. This left the unions’ representatives with expectations, suspicions and demands regarding basic income. To convince the unions about the viability of basic income, the governments would have to satisfy the unions’ demands.
Following the introduction of these experiments, varied political actors voiced their opinions and positions about the concept of basic income and the form of the experiments. Amongst those political actors, some Ontarian and Finnish unions had their voices heard through the media. However, few unions talked about the reasons which made them develop their positions. In the scientific literature on basic income, the study of the unions’ understanding and positioning on basic income is similarly lacking. In an effort to add to this scientific literature on the unions and basic income, the research puzzle of this master’s thesis starts with an inquiry about the way Ontarian and Finnish unions’ representatives understand and position themselves on the policy idea of basic income. The thesis’s research question is: how do Ontarian and Finnish unions’ representatives’ understands the policy idea of basic income?
To answer this research question, the study consisted of ten interviews with unions' representatives in Ontario and Finland. The qualitative data was analyzed through a constructivist thematic analysis based on the concepts of problem definitions and policy solution, as conceptualized by Jal Mehta. The findings of the thesis demonstrated that the Ontarian representatives were in favour of raising the rates of social assistance so that poverty would be diminished. For them, this could be achieved through a basic income, but they expect that it would be too low to affect most precarious workers. To tackle the issue of precariousness, the representatives named many alternatives or additional policies to basic income and argued that these policies should not be negated or traded-off if a basic income is implemented. In Finland, the unions’ representatives thought that without activation measures, an unconditional basic income would decrease work willingness. They also thought that the unemployed and precarious workers should have access to a simpler unemployment benefits system, which could increase work activation. For the representatives, it is unclear if a basic income could include conditions of work activation, and at the same time simplify the income security system.
To conclude, the findings show that the unions’ understanding and positioning on the implementation of a basic income are not simply one of advocating or opposing policy ideas proposed by their governments. Instead, policy ideas are reinterpreted by the unions’ representatives who formulate their own problem definitions and policy solutions. In Ontario and Finland, the basic income was still at a stage of experimentation and the potential forms and minute details of a basic income policy had never been decidedly set. This left the unions’ representatives with expectations, suspicions and demands regarding basic income. To convince the unions about the viability of basic income, the governments would have to satisfy the unions’ demands.