Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Basic Income Studies

Ed. by Haagh, Anne-Louise / Howard, Michael


CiteScore 2018: 0.47

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.111
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.053

Online
ISSN
1932-0183
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Basic Income Experiments in the Netherlands?

Robert van der Veen
  • Corresponding author
  • Political Science, Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-02-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2018-0023

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.

Keywords: basic income; social policy; experiments

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.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.Google Scholar

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

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

  • City of Amsterdam, 2018, ‘Het amsterdamse experiment met de bijstand’, January 2018, www.amsterdam.nl (accessed 20-8-2018)

  • City of Utrecht. (2017). Video proceedings of the session of 7 September. Commissie Mens En Samenleving, of the Utrecht city council, Point 7, at www.utrecht.nl

  • City of Utrecht, 2018. ‘Onderzoek Weten wat werkt: samen werken aan een betere bijstand’, www.utrecht.nl (accessed 20-8-2018)

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

  • de Wispelaere, J., & Stirton, L. (2007). The public administration case against Participation Income. Social Service Review, 81(3), 523–549.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Divosa, 2018, ‘Apeldoorn nodigt gemeenten uit voor experiment regelluwe bijstand’, 2-2-2018 www.divosa.nl

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2000). Fairness, incentives, and contractual choices. European Economic Review, 44, 1057–1068.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation Crowding Theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

  • Kela 2017, http://www.kela.fi/web/en/basic-income-experiment-2017-2018 .

  • Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function. Science, 341(August), 976–980.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • McFarland, K., 2017, ‘The Netherlands: Social Assistance Experiments Under Review’, Basic Income News, 9 May at http://basicincome.org/news/2017/05

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

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

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

  • Netherlands Association of Municipalities, 2018, https://vng.nl’Regelluwe bijstand proberen, iets voor uw gemeente?’ 8-2–2018.

  • NRC, 2017, https://www.nrc.nl,digital edition 20 July 2017

  • PA, 2015. Participation Act, Wettekst Participatiewet per 1 januari 2015, Wolters Kluwer.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).Google Scholar

  • SCP, 2019 (Netherlands Institute for Social Research) Werkprogramma 2019 (Program of work), at www.scp.nl .

  • Service in return Amsterdam and Utrecht, 2014/5; Amsterdam: www.amsterdam.nl, ‘Verordening Tegenprestatie Participatiewet’, Article 2; Utrecht: www.utrecht.nl, ‘Verordening re-integratie, studietoeslag en tegenprestatie Particpatiewet 2015ʹ, Article 15.

  • Staatsblad, 2017, ‘Tijdelijk besluit experimenten Participatiewet’, (Temporary decision regarding experiments under the Participation Act), 22 February, at https://www.officielebekendmakingen.nl/staatsblad/ministerie_van_sociale_zaken_enwerkgelegenheid

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

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Utrecht Application. (2017). Aanvraagformulier Tijdelijk Besluit Experimenten Participatiewet. Gemeente Utrecht. 2016, deel B.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.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 http://works.bepress.com/widerquist/86/

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

About the article

Published Online: 2019-02-12


Citation Information: Basic Income Studies, Volume 14, Issue 1, 20180023, ISSN (Online) 1932-0183, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2018-0023.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in