Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter February 12, 2019

Basic Income Experiments in the Netherlands?

Robert van der Veen
From the journal Basic Income Studies

Abstract

To many in the Netherlands it seems that basic income’s time has come, following the wide appeal of several municipal experiments. These random-control trial designs study the effects on employment, social participation, health and well-being of exempting social assistance claimants from the duties of seeking work and participating in training activities under the workfare-oriented Participation Act. In some treatment groups, claimants also retain a larger percentage of earnings, thereby reducing the poverty trap. These two design features resemble an unconditional basic income. I situate the experiments in the wider context of basic income and discuss their theoretical background and policy orientation. Under existing legal strictures, the experimental designs are too limited to judge the effects of replacing the conditional scheme of social assistance by an unconditional one. Yet these experiments point the way for future trials which can compare the effectiveness of basic income-oriented versus workfare-oriented treatments.

References

Alternative PA-Annex, 2016. Document drafted by Sjir Hoeijmakers, attached to an open letter of eleven city Aldermen for Social Affairs to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 25 October 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Amsterdam, City Council, 2017. Motion tabled by Groot Wassink, Verheul and Bijleveld on an experiment with social assistance in Amsterdam, 20 July 2017.Search in Google Scholar

Binnenlands Bestuur Sociaal, 2018. ‘Onderzoek’ bijstand Amsterdam kan doorgaan, 4 december.Search in Google Scholar

Bommeljé, Y. (2017, February/March). ‘Experimenten geïnspireerd op het basisinkomen’ (Experiments inspired by basic income). Sociaal Bestek.Search in Google Scholar

City of Amsterdam, 2018, ‘Het amsterdamse experiment met de bijstand’, January 2018, (accessed 20-8-2018)Search in Google Scholar

City of Utrecht. (2017). Video proceedings of the session of 7 September. Commissie Mens En Samenleving, of the Utrecht city council, Point 7, at Search in Google Scholar

City of Utrecht, 2018. ‘Onderzoek Weten wat werkt: samen werken aan een betere bijstand’, (accessed 20-8-2018)Search in Google Scholar

de Koning, J., et al. (2017 May 11). Re-integratie aan de kop van een bijstandsuitkering. Economisch Statistische Berichten, 102(4749):202–204.Search in Google Scholar

de Wispelaere, J., & Stirton, L. (2007). The public administration case against Participation Income. Social Service Review, 81(3), 523–549.10.1086/520939Search in Google Scholar

Divosa, 2018, ‘Apeldoorn nodigt gemeenten uit voor experiment regelluwe bijstand’, 2-2-2018 Search in Google Scholar

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2000). Fairness, incentives, and contractual choices. European Economic Review, 44, 1057–1068.10.1016/S0014-2921(99)00046-XSearch in Google Scholar

Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation Crowding Theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611.10.1111/1467-6419.00150Search in Google Scholar

Groot, L., & Verlaat, T. (2016). The Rationale Behind the Utrecht Experiment. Paper, Utrecht University School of Economics 7 September.Search in Google Scholar

Hamilton, T. B., (2017). ‘The Netherlands’ Upcoming Money-for-Nothing Experiment’, The Atlantic, 21 June 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Kela 2017, .Search in Google Scholar

Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function. Science, 341(August), 976–980.10.1126/science.1238041Search in Google Scholar

McFarland, K., 2017, ‘The Netherlands: Social Assistance Experiments Under Review’, Basic Income News, 9 May at Search in Google Scholar

Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. (2017). Letters to the Second Chamber of Parliament. 10 and 14 July, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 2018. Response to questions by Van Raan, Second Chamber of Parliament, 18 January 2018.Search in Google Scholar

Muffels, R., & Headey, B. (2013). Capabilities and choices: Do they make sense for understanding objective and subjective well-being? An empirical test of Sen’s capability framework on German and British panel data. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 1159–1185.10.1007/s11205-011-9978-3Search in Google Scholar

Munsters. (2018). Lieke Munsters, projectleider. memo for City of Apeldoorn: ‘Zelf aan het stuur en op maat’.Search in Google Scholar

Netherlands Association of Municipalities, 2018, ’ 8-2–2018.Search in Google Scholar

NRC, 2017, 20 July 2017Search in Google Scholar

PA, 2015. Participation Act, Wettekst Participatiewet per 1 januari 2015, Wolters Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar

Response of researchers, 2016. ‘Reactie wetenschappers op de inhoud van de op 30 september j.l. aanhangig gemaakte AMvB tot nadere invulling van experimenteerartikel 83 in de Participatiewet’. Letter to the Parliamentary Committee on Social Affairs and Employment, 25 October 2016. (document obtainable from the author).Search in Google Scholar

SCP, 2019 (Netherlands Institute for Social Research) Werkprogramma 2019 (Program of work), at .Search in Google Scholar

Service in return Amsterdam and Utrecht, 2014/5; Amsterdam: , ‘Verordening Tegenprestatie Participatiewet’, Article 2; Utrecht: , ‘Verordening re-integratie, studietoeslag en tegenprestatie Particpatiewet 2015ʹ, Article 15.Search in Google Scholar

Staatsblad, 2017, ‘Tijdelijk besluit experimenten Participatiewet’, (Temporary decision regarding experiments under the Participation Act), 22 February, at Search in Google Scholar

Tilburg Application. (2016). Aanvraagformulier Tijdelijk Besluit Experimenten Participatiewet. Gemeente Tilburg. 2016, deel B.Search in Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.10.1126/science.7455683Search in Google Scholar

Utrecht Application. (2017). Aanvraagformulier Tijdelijk Besluit Experimenten Participatiewet. Gemeente Utrecht. 2016, deel B.Search in Google Scholar

Van Parijs, P. H., & Vanderborght, Y. (2017). Basic Income.A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univerity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Widerquist, K. (2019), The Devil’s in the Caveats: A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Reserachers, Policymakers, and Citizens, forthcoming 2019 available at Search in Google Scholar

ZonMW, 2016, ‘Beoordelingskader voor onderzoek gericht op de evaluatie van experimenten binnen de Participatiewet’, 30–9–2016.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-02-12

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston