This is a CTP of initiative: BIEN/Vereniging Basisinkomen (Netherlands)
In October 1987 the Workplace Basic Income was established, marking the emergence of organized basic income activism in the Netherlands. Several basic income proponents from various affiliations decided to bundle forces, and set up a platform for the promotion of and stimulation of debate on the basic income. This included a degree of exploration and conceptual development: Well, in those times it was still a relatively unknown concept…so, there was a discussion to explore what it really was about…
The establishment of the Workplace was a critical turning point as it was the predecessor of the current VBI association, one of the BIEN members that kept the fire of the basic income discussion burning in the Netherlands in the three decades up to 2016. A particularly important change that it made was to provide a platform for promotion and discussion of the basic income What you had [before it], there were ideas, there were individuals, and eventually one political party, which was really small at the time, who spoke out in favour of that basic income. And then the proponents said, ‘let’s bundle forces’, and as the nutrition sector union had the financial means for it, they have decided to do it. (...) It was a kind of bundling of initiatives. It was all a bit intertwined, there was the PPR as a political party [radical left], there were the individuals from the PSP [pacifist-socialist party] like myself, you had the little unions of benefits claimants, the nutrition sector union ...They just needed to have something together to deliberate. Before that, it was a bit like everybody for their own, so to say… The interviewee considers this establishment of the Workplace significantly more important than its later re-establishment as Basic Income Association VBI (see under [related events]).
The very constitution of it as a ‘Workplace’ reflected how the founders decided for connecting within the otherwise fragmented basic income advocacy. As they were aware of the circumstance that basic income advocates were generally very principled and much driven by values, the bundling of forces should take a politically neutral form. Both the two key initiators, the radical-left PPR party and the nutrition sector union, went therefore for a Workplace. The PPR was aware of that, that it would be good to establish such a space, which would not be within the remits of a political party, and not have a political colour, which would then allow to keep it appealing to a broader group of people…and in fact, they also were occupied with the establishment of other Workplaces, on other issues, so it was a bit of a method they followed there. And yes, you can give them the credits for that.
The establishment of the Workplace was as such a collective achievement. Still there is one particular actor that played a crucial part in it, namely the nutrition sector union. As mentioned above, they provided the financial means for having the Workshop running, and to have a part-time staff member to coordinate its activities (such as organization of seminar and discussion evenings, issuing a magazine). The initiating role of this union organization is significant. It shows how unions have resources to support transformative social innovation (finance, accommodation, networks, coordination, longevity), but also how the basic income at that time appealed to the concerns of workers. The nutrition sector union, the interviewee explains, was interested in the basic income as it promised to empower their members in their position on the labour market. Well, they were an organization for people working in slaughter houses and all, and for these people it would be a considerable support to have a basic income in place. They were not a union of elite workers, so to say, so, it’s kind of logical.
Other notable partners in the Workplace initiative were, apart from the initiating union organization and leftist political parties (see further under [contestation]), the groups of benefits claimants. These groups formed outside the unions, but similarly sought to unite and politically represent the growing class of unemployed. And well, and what you also had, the idea, and Philippe [van Parijs – BIEN co-founder and leading thinker] had that idea as well, that the unemployed, that these should unite. So we had a few of those, groups of unemployed organized outside the unions.(...) That was a particularity of that period, that in the cities there were these little clubs of unemployed who occupied themselves with this [basic income issue]. That’s something you don’t have at all, currently. I mean, there are unemployed [laughs] - but they’re not organized as such! The participation of the benefits claimants’ groups, as quasi-unions, signals furthermore how the convergence of the various basic income advocates had everything to do with the broader societal circumstance of high structural unemployment. The sheer unavailability of paid work led various people to question the established norm that ‘one should earn one’s income’, and to resist the regulations urging benefits claimants to work on their employability (i.e. the conditions to income that the unconditional basic income typically does away with). The unemployment was that high and so without prospects in the early eighties, that people were saying, “I simply consider my unemployment allowance as a basic income – and I will do with it as I please”. The rules were quite more lenient at the time, so that’s something people could in fact do - they’ve become much more stringent nowadays. So people went to live in squatting houses, or do other things, or became full-time activists...considering their allowance as a basic income.
The societal crisis of unemployment can thus be said to have recruited several Workplace initiators and members for joint basic income advocacy. The crisis made the basic income into quite acute and direct relevance for groups of people, like workers and benefits claimants. As Groot & van der Veen (2001: 147) indicated in their analysis of the Dutch basic income discussion, the economic recession was an important co-producing factor as it brought people to consider it as a concrete proposal, more than an abstract, counterfactual utopia. In this first stage, basic income figured as a utopian symbol of social criticism, directed to the reality of productivist market society, rather than as a concrete proposal. It was only under the pressure of a severe recession that the idea took shape as a strategy of social policy. Basic income entered the realm of institutional alternatives, through still being strongly inspired by Kuiper’s emancipatory viewpoint..
The establishment of the Workplace marked the emergence of organized basic income advocacy. As already transpired through the account of its co-production, this critical turning point was crucially preceded by several earlier developments.
First, there was the basic income discourse shaped by social critique and utopianism (1975-1983).
Second, there was the basic income advocacy by the PPR political party and nutrition sector union, as well as the broader discussion on basic income as a policy option and welfare state reform (1980-1987). This broader shift in the basic income discourse from critique to institutional alternative is also described in the critical turning point just preceding the establishment of the Workplace.
Third, the Workplace establishment has been crucially stimulated by the establishment of BIEN (link) as a basic income advocacy network in 1986. To the interviewee this was of special significance as he was one of the co-founders and longstanding board members of the international network. BIEN was established as a way to sustain the successful international connecting achieved at the basic income conference at Louvain-la-Neuve (BE). And what we did, was just issuing that bulletin (...), and to have this congress every two years at another location. The interviewee underlines that the membership of the international network was of crucial importance to the Workspace and the later VBI. Just like most other national affiliates of BIEN, these local initiatives were of relative much lesser size, significance and impact than the network that they were part of. It were typically not so much the national-level activities and congress organizations that carried basic income advocacy: It was a bit in the reverse. When BIEN had their meetings in countries, then it [basic income activism] started to spread, and organize, and set foot on the ground. The interviewee specifies how the biannual conferences typically had been reinforcing the local activism in the differing host countries – thus gradually sowing the seeds of basic income advocacy across Europe and eventually beyond it as BIEN became a global network.
Fourth, once the Workplace was established, it ‘kept the fire burning’. This means that it has kept the Dutch basic income discourse going up till the present (1987-2016) – an uphill struggle that for a large part of that 30 years period has been of only very marginal impact. Especially in the first few years of the Workplace/VBI it could manifest itself as an actor in a broader societal debate on the basic income. That debate had flared up largely thanks to the report of the Scientific Advisory Council (WRR) in 1985 (link). Even if the political enthusiasm for the basic income soon collapsed after the 1985 proposal, the debate in society went on. Well, there has been a lot of discussion, and [an achievement of the Workplace] was that there was a focal point, to coordinate and to facilitate that discussion. There was this WRR report in 1985 in which it was said to government, ‘think about it seriously, such a partial basic income’. Which in turn led the CPB (Central Planning Bureau) to occupy itself with the topic, and to conduct a study in 1991(...) in which the basic income was one of the three options…So that led to the situation that, in any case amongst public servants, the bureaucracy that is feeding the politicians, that a serious attention had grown for the basic income. And at the same time…I think the last eruption was in 1994, with Wijers and Zalm, that was a bit of a last discussion on the subject. And well, after that it really receded, economically it went much better, you had the internet bubble etcetera. (See CTP 3)
Fifth, the Workshop has been re-established as the Basic Income association (VBI) in 1991. To the interviewee this did not involve a major change in the original idea of functioning as a platform, and therefore he considers the 1987 establishment of the Workshop to be the more important event. The main thing that changed was a slightly different organizational form was needed – an association with individual and open membership, rather than the rather fuzzy ‘amalgam’ construction in which the organization hinged on the nutrition sector union. The interviewee’s account suggests that this reorganisation was partly a conscious choice for a more open organizational form, and partly just a practical consequence of the retreat of the principal initiator and sponsor: Within the nutrition sector union, things started to move a bit in the other direction [away from basic income advocacy]. Greetje Lubbe stepped back as chair, and then one said, ‘we don’t have money for this anymore’, and then it is has been decided to establish that association. To have membership on an individual basis, and no longer as a kind of amalgam of individuals and organizations of whom the nutrition sector union paid the largest amount. So that was rather like, we’re going to put [the Workplace] in another organizational form.
The establishment of the Workplace did not evoke contestation. On the contrary, its constitution as a platform for discussion and as bundling of forces was rather intended to overcome or channel contestation. Moreover, its constitution as a Workplace was deliberately meant to circumvent the possibility that the basic income platform would be dominated by the particular political programs of the key founding members - notably the leftwing PPR party and the nutrition sector union.
There was considerable contestation to be overcome, the interviewee explains. In those times, the motivations of basic income activists and advocates were much mere principled than currently in 2016. Nowadays, he considers it striking how pragmatic people are in their approach to the basic income. The discussion is typically about the amount that the basic income should be, and what its effectiveness would be, more than whether it is morally justified or to be pursued as a struggle for justice. People nowadays also appear to be inclined towards experimenting and trying out, and towards proceeding in stepwise fashion. So that feeling that we should really be doing something now, and that it’s not just some non-committal discussion, that’s much stronger now. Contrasted with current pragmatism, the interviewee sketches how for example the benefits claimants rather took a very principled approach in which they categorically rejected the conditions and regulations under which they received their allowances. They claimed the basic income as a right, similar to the ethical critiques of the 1970s.
The principled advocacy for the basic income evoked accordingly heavy and emotionally charged counter-reactions. Especially the principled insubordination of benefits claimants clashed with widely shared moral-political convictions. Well, and the reaction [to insubordinate benefits claimants] was of course, ‘well, but that was not how this was supposed to work’, ‘who won’t work, won’t eat’. All of the Christian and socialist morals went against that…So, you had a very fanatical discussion, you can say. In the principled debate on it, the basic income was associated with various ambitions towards societal transformation. In times of severe economic recession, it had to compete with other programs of revolution and reform: Well, it was a really fanatical discussion. A part of the people involved were left-wing people, considering that, instead, we should be insisting on the control over the means of production - so, that was something that was going on. In 1981 we had the French government who nationalized a few companies, and well, it was that which counted as the example, not the basic income. Or it was ‘no, we should be going for the mandatory shortening of labour hours’. That was another thing that received quite some support at the time…so, basically obliging everybody to stick to those 25 hours, by governmental measure, and then one would not need that basic income. So, those people were strongly committed to the idea that one should achieve self-realisation through labour. So that was a pretty fanatical and sharp discussion which completely ran through the radical left. So the PSP (pacifist-socialists) was internally divided, CPN (communist party) stuck to the classical ideas of labour, that it should pay…but others, and Philippe van Parijs was one of them, found that the basic income should be as high as possible, as eventually it would lead into a kind of communist end state.
In the various principled approaches, it was often underlined that the basic income was not only a socio-economic arrangement that could work, but also a matter of changing interpersonal relations. Left-wing parties highlighted the solidarity principles at stake – similar to the earlier utopian accounts of basic income as a right, stemming from Christian-progressive circles. The understanding of basic income as a matter of changing interpersonal relations become particularly clear through the feminist members of the Workplace. To them, the basic income was an important lever through which to phase out the male breadwinner model – after all, it would introduce income entitlements for individuals, rather than households. The feminist imprints of the Workspace were later expressed in the name of the VBI, named fully ‘male friends and female friends (Dutch has distinct words for both categories) of the basic income’.
The establishment of the Workplace as a politically neutral platform was entirely anticipated. The initiators made a conscious decision towards it. Moreover, the interviewee recalls how the ‘Workplace’ construction was practiced more often in these days. The PPR political party had also initiated a Workspace for the disarmament issue, for example.
Even if planned as a serious step towards implementation of and discussion on the basic income, the interviewee is ambivalent about the Workplace establishment as a critical turning point. First of all, the transformative impacts of the Workplace and its successor VBI should not be exaggerated, he stresses. Their size has always been limited to a few hundred members, which is less than the smaller political parties. He also considers them of far smaller significance than BIEN as an international network – the establishment of that network in 1986 was a more decisive, impactful event. On the other hand, looking back on it almost 30 years later, he appreciates how on the longer run, the Workspace and the VBI have kept the fire burning. Well, there was this nice magazine that they published, every quarter, the yearly discussion meeting was organized, but, that was something drawing in no more than some 20-25 people. It was really like keeping the fire burning, but that was all. The establishment of the Workspace did create a certain visibility and exposure for the rather dispersed and divided basic income advocacy – which could no longer be reduced to the utopian-ethical voices through which it had been spread in the preceding decade.
The interviewee considers the ‘keeping the fire burning’ as a very marginal achievement, but also takes into account how this carried the basic income ideas through a period in which it had almost vanished from Dutch political life (see later CTP). That, and the economic boom of the late 1990s that released much pressure on the welfare system, was something the Workplace initiators could not have foreseen. Finally, the interviewee – recently elected chair of the VBI – expresses his surprise over how well-known the basic income concept turns out to be anno 2016. Well, in those times it was still a relatively unknown concept, so, there was a discussion to explore what it really was about. Whilst currently, and our survey inquiries bring that out, one does no longer need to explain what a basic income is. That is something that surprised me as well. As I thought, after some 30 years that understanding of the basic income will probably have receded...and the younger generation, they probably won’t know what it is…but they surely do! This positive, confident assessment of current basic income discourse is telling: Overall, the interviewee does seem to assess in hindsight that the evangelizing activities as undertaken from the ‘Workplace Basic Income’ platform have been significant.
The interviewee was about to be elected as chair for the VBI. Probably therefore he was continuously comparing the experiences of the earlier Workspace Basic Income days with the current developments in the Dutch basic income discussion. Amongst the many insights based on these reflections on 30 years development, three lessons stand out.
First of all, he has come to realize how the principled considerations on the basic income have somewhat disappeared. Instead, pragmatism prevails. Even if coming from the quite principled political circles himself, he seems to be appreciative of the pragmatism and its readiness to compromise – a readiness somewhat missing in earlier times, leading to rejections of partial basic income proposals that in hindsight were somewhat unfortunate. Well, what we have learnt, is that a maximalist position of “a full-fledged basic income or nothing it all”, that that is not very practical. To a certain extent we’re getting that discussion now again, as, a part of our constituency says, “we want that 1500 EU/month [basic income] now, simple as that”, whilst others consider, “well, we’re a bit of an consensus-oriented country, you’ll better move a bit more towards the middle, otherwise you won’t have a foot to stand on”. And that demands a greater flexibility. And there’s also people in the association who think, “well, 800 EU/month is good enough, let’s first start with that. After all we’re talking major societal change, let’s first see what will be happening with the labour market…” Well, such things you didn’t hear, 30 years ago. A moderate wing, so to say (laughs)…it was like, either you’re in favour of a full-fledged basic income or not, but that half-way thing [partial basic income]- forget it about it.
The second lesson pertains to the organisational form to choose for basic income advocacy. He still finds the ‘workplace’ construction a good form for its platform function, its political neutrality and openness. Even if different in approaches, ambitions and backgrounds than 30 years ago, he again sees how basic income advocacy is undertaken through diverse individuals and collectives that somehow should be joining forces. In current society, it has become particularly important to unite the diverse streams through ‘light’ structures – and through activities that are temporary in duration rather than relying on permanent-sustained allegiance. Well, [a lesson is] that we should broaden. Johan Luijendijk and his little club are busy with basic income, the network ‘Political Renewal’ is busy with basic income, and there’s a few others of them. And then the idea is to consider whether we could create a kind of network, a bit like in Germany, like an umbrella, under which all these initiatives are gathered. The association [VBI], the ‘initiative basic income’, but maybe also the young Democrats, as they’ve spoken out so explicitly in favour of the basic income recently….In order to create some loose structure through which these initiatives stay in contact with each other. And you also have the circumstance that people don’t join political parties that easily anymore, or an association, that is just a fact. If young people find something important, then they think that one should just do it…or to give it some money for a while, but not permanently. You’ll have to find other forms of organisation. Such a petition [for getting the basic income on the parliamentary agenda, as undertaken in the Netherlands], that is typically such a form of organization. It’s a temporary effort to organize support, to send it to parliament after a while..and then it’s over. After which it’s time to go think up something else.
A third lesson pertains to the societal circumstances and crisis situations through which the basic income gains adherence. In earlier days there was the (temporarily) high structural unemployment. Currently he sees a new situation on the labour market that is creating similar sense of acute urgency. There is a large share of the working population falling into a kind of institutional void, in the sense that they are insufficiently protected by watered down and outdated social security arrangements. (...), there is an enormous willingness towards that basic income. And my explanation of that is that the social security system, that people consider it much weaker than it used to be. In earlier days you got your WW [collective unemployment insurance] allowance for 5 years, and you could take your time for re-orienting on a new job, and didn’t have to go ‘consume’ your own house…Currently, it is the middleclass facing it, the 31 old ICT worker losing his job, can go start consuming his house after two years. People’s feeling that this system is there for you, it’s not there anymore. If you’re now on the dole you’re chased enormously, if you find a job and then fall back again, you’ll receive nothing for the first 6 weeks, that’s not very attractive…The poverty trap hasn’t changed…the current system is not up to the task. We have 2 million flex workers, the working poor - compare that to the 5 million with a steady job, which was 5,5 million only 10 yeas ago. Something we used to know from the American situation, that is something we also have in the Netherlands now. We also have 1 million self-employed without personnel, who are doing OK generally. But most of them do not arrange insurance, even those who are well paid - even from those only some 45% has an insurance for disability or saving pension. Some 80-85 % of these people are doing OK, it is true, yet some 15- to 20% aren’t. They are basically without significant social security. That is how I explain why there is currently much more support for the basic income than back in the day. The lesson is thus that basic income is becoming relevant in a different way and to particular groups of citizens.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
