Study on the basic income

The findings of an empirical analysis carried out by the Hamburger Stiftung für Wirtschaftsethik, led by Prof. Michael Opielka of Jena University of Applied Sciences, have been published by VS Verlag under the title ‘Basic Income and Value Orientation’. The book analyses the value attitudes of middle and senior decision-makers from the fields of politics, social work and business regarding a basic income in Germany.

“It is remarkable how structurally conservative members of the elite are,” concludes Prof. Michael Opielka. The study, which is based on an analysis of interpretative patterns drawn from qualitative interviews with these leaders, shows that mere membership of the elite – quite apart from differing interests – has a homogenising effect on the value structure of these leaders. This value structure is dominated by the traditional principle of ‘performance determines reward’ and underpins the mistrust of new egalitarian ideas such as the basic income.

The debate on the idea of a basic income

The idea of a basic income, which envisages the unconditional transfer of a basic sum to every citizen instead of the current means-tested social transfers, is garnering support across the political spectrum. Civil society initiatives, in particular, are endeavouring to bring the debate on this topic further into the public sphere – and have done so with some success in recent years. Nevertheless, no political or social majority in favour of the issue has emerged as yet. It is worth noting, however, that both business figures such as Götz Werner and sociologists such as Ulrich Beck have spoken positively about the concept. At the same time, the idea enjoys equal support from liberal economists and representatives of the Left Party.

The principles of the welfare state play a particular role in shaping values

A defining feature of the value structure of the executives surveyed with regard to a basic income is a form of solidarity defined by performance and reciprocity, and by an institutionally controlled, needs-based distribution of social transfer payments. Solidarity, understood in this way, can thus be characterised as a virtual link between the respondents, transcending the differing interests of individual groups. This value framework precludes support for an egalitarian transfer system involving greater individual responsibility, such as a basic income. It goes hand in hand with a conservative stance that invokes the welfare state principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, and regards the state as the central authority for regulating social policy issues.

The arguments against a basic income differ only at the level of interests and regulatory policy – for example, on the question of who should have greater influence over regulatory policy: the state or the market. Experts in the fields of politics and social work draw on the notion of a ‘strong hand’ in the form of the state. Experts in the field of economics, on the other hand, draw on the notion of the market, which exercises control from above and relieves citizens of the responsibility to shape the common good. Against the backdrop of this value structure, innovative ideas such as the universal basic income are not even recognised at a conceptual level by those in leadership positions, but are instead instrumentalised as a means of legitimising their own values.

Does this homogeneous and conservative value structure hinder social innovation?

The results of the study therefore reveal no marked plurality of values amongst the executives surveyed – the vast majority of whom reject the basic income – even though the selection of executives from different sectors and with varying political backgrounds would suggest a range of differing views. Following an analysis of the interviews, it can therefore be posited that membership of the elite has a homogenising effect on value structures and socialises its members more strongly than their diverse political or economic interests. A second hypothesis can be formulated which, with reference to the conservative value structure identified among the experts, suggests that the issue of a universal basic income is too innovative – and therefore too risky – to be accepted by a conservatively oriented elite. This can be interpreted as an indication of the perseverance often attributed to German society and exemplified by the elites themselves.

With this study, the Hamburger Stiftung für Wirtschaftsethik aims to contribute to a discussion on values and the associated questions of distributive and merit-based justice. The study provides an insight into how opinion leaders in Germany interpret economic and political ethics in relation to the idea of a basic income.

Michael Opielka, Matthias Müller, Tim Bendixen, Jesco Kreft: Basic Income and Value Orientations. An Empirical Analysis, VS Verlag, ISBN 978-3-531-16795-4