IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bistud/v16y2021i1p27-38n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Do We Run Basic Income Experiments? From Empirical Evidence to Collective Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Laín Bru

    (Centre for Ethics, Politics and Society, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal)

  • Merrill Roberto

    (Centre for Ethics, Politics and Society, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal)

Abstract

There are two major possible responses to the question: what (if anything) can justify a basic income experiment? An experiment might be justified either because it gathers positive empirical evidence supporting rolling out a basic income, or because it justifies the moral desirability of such a measure. This paper critically explores both responses, the “empirical” and “ethical claim” in light of the Barcelona B-MINCOME pilot, alongside other similar experiments. We sustained that although the empirical claim is necessary, there seems to be sufficient data to easily predict that all future experiments are to gather positive results too. Consequently, we argue that experiments are particularly well-equipped to foster debates on the work ethics and on the ethical dimension of social policies and welfare regimes in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Laín Bru & Merrill Roberto, 2021. "Why Do We Run Basic Income Experiments? From Empirical Evidence to Collective Debate," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 27-38, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bistud:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:27-38:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/bis-2021-0018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2021-0018
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bis-2021-0018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bistud:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:27-38:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.