ABSTRACT
Using an expanded version of De Wispelaere and Stirton’s 2004 framework for assessing basic income policies, we examine selected past and recent trials. The trials have all produced inconclusive results, in part because of the political contexts in which they have been implemented. As a result, they do little to progress policy reforms to address the challenges of economic insecurities and inequalities. Basic income proposals can act as beacons for change, but because they often lack detail, they risk distracting attention from the challenges and opportunities for social security reform. Our expanded framework enables detailed assessment of the dimensions of proposals for change. It also enables the identification of the elements of basic income proposals that can be incorporated into progressive efforts to reclaim social security.
SOURCE: Bowman, D. Mallett, S. and Cooney-O’Donoghue, D. “Diversion Ahead? Change Is Needed but That Doesn’t Mean That Basic Income Is the Answer.” In “Implementing a Basic Income in Australia: Pathway forward.” Edited by Elise Klein, Jennifer Mays and Tim Dunlop, Springer Link, 24 May 2019.
Dina Bowman, Shelley Mallet & Diarmuid Cooney-O’Donoghue are colleagues in the Research and Policy Centre at the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Shelley Mallett, is the Executive Director of the Centre; Dina Bowman is the Principal Research Fellow, Work and Economic Security; and Diarmuid Cooney-O’Donoghue currently works as a Research Officer at the Centre.
BROTHERHOOD STAFF – please contact the LIBRARY if you would like full text access to this article
OTHER USERS – see this LINK to publisher’s website
Produced by the librarians at the Brotherhood of St Laurence in Melbourne, Australia
