This is a CTP of initiative: BIEN/Vereniging Basisinkomen (Netherlands)
On March 27th 2015, a meeting took place in Tilburg (NL) at which various actors decided to coordinate their plans and lobby for basic income-inspired experiments. The interviewee considers that this was the critical turning point in a longer trajectory towards experimenting with the basic income, the moment marking how things were coming together and where he actually joined forces with other initiatives.
It was the first time that the dispersed initiatives towards and people with ideas about experimentation with basic income were joined. It really was a CTP as all these separate initiatives joined, and as we considered, how can we bring this into being together, and what are the next steps to take. There had been some plans already, before it, yet they were dispersed. There had been an aldermen who had publicly claimed that he wanted to do it (...)...But up till then there had not been any contact between these people, or barely.
In their invitation they called it the ‘first municipal meeting basic income experiments ’. The meeting was organized by the MIES collective of basic income-inspired experimenters in Groningen, himself, a researcher from Wageningen and an activist from Tilburg – the initiators came from different regions across the Netherlands. There we have invited all the local-level politicians, council members and public servants whom we knew to have an interest in a basic income experiment, or something that had to do with basic income. They were aware of some interested people and after some further inquiry they found out who to invite. During the meeting they also took stock of the kinds of experiments that people were envisioning. It was meant to find out what do people want to do, can we can an overview of that, can we give advice on that basis on where the gaps are occurring, can we establish collaborations, how will municipalities be proceeding from here, and what is needed for them to proceed...and overview of what was wanted, what was needed, and what was possible.
Apart from its significance in terms of network development, the meeting also involved an important effort towards competence development. It had been prepared with a document on ‘guidelines for experimentation with basic income in the unemployment allowance framework’, crafted by MIES’ chairman as sociologist, the Wageningen researcher as economist and he himself as econometrist. So, in that meeting we went through the experiment design, and [the issues of] what to measure and the reasons for it. And also the juridical aspects, so what could be the next steps in procedural terms. [This guidelines document] was a kind of ‘coat rack’ [ordering device] for people, something for them to build their plans on..
The basic income experimentation would most likely be undertaken in the form of a de-regulated, less conditional provision of unemployment benefits (i.e. different from a universal basic income). Experimentation would therefore crucially have to be allowed by otherwise tight-knit regulations on the administration of employment benefits – a politically sensitive policy domain (see under [contestation]) not to be tinkered with irresponsibly. The meeting therefore raised the issue of how to approach national government as a group of experimenters. The initiators had found out already that their lobbying would have to target the Ministry of Social Affairs rather than Interior Affairs. Having established a shared focus during the meeting, the organizers would subsequently craft a letter on behalf of all participants and invite the responsible Secretary of State for an informal talk on their plans.
The meeting was also a turning point for the interviewee himself. It made him into the leading individual in the network of experimentation initiatives: Apart from stepping forward as a spokesman towards the Secretary of State, he came to host a communication platform through which to keep the network up to date on the experimentation trajectory that was taking off.
As the meeting was initiated by several individuals and intended to bring initiatives towards basic income-inspired experimentation together, it was a typical example of a co-produced event. Its significance as a critical turning point becomes all the more evident when considering the great number of actors and institutions that it recruited into an experimentation trajectory that became of national interest.
First of all, the meeting joined various individuals and organisations from civil society. Together they created a platform through which to undertake a joint lobby towards national government. It is important to note that the meeting of March 2015 was already resting on a substantial network of experimentation-minded actors that brought in considerable resources. Various creative entrepreneurs, basic income activists, politicians, academics and active civil society members. The meeting had in turn a bandwagon effect; the network had doubled in size a few months later.
Second, there was involvement from various VBI members, especially in the period towards the network meeting. They had already been re-energized by the re-invigorated basic income discussion and media-hype since 2013 (see previous CTP). The VBI stayed at a distance however, as some of the experimenting initiatives deliberately steered clear of a principled basic income advocacy, in favour of a pragmatic ‘just do it’ attitude. The interviewee, himself a VBI member, has always found it important to maintain contact, discuss, and explain them what went on with the experimentation plans, and what his position was. Yet it would have been much more difficult to get the plans across with the Secretary of State, if the VBI were the initiator behind it...So that they wouldn’t start from the idea ‘we are favouring a basic income’, but rather approach it, well, with some more nuance.
Third, the network was crucially carried by various representativeness from local-level governments. The trailblazing social innovation initiatives had started a fire with a crowd-funded basic income and with various media communications on the basic income. Local-level politicians and public servants had picked up the idea, and considered how the experimentations could be integrated with their social policies and their ‘citizen lab’ initiatives towards co-created government. Apart from being the indispensable governmental structures that are needed for any institutionalization of basic income, the local-level politicians also provided crucial lobbying power and legitimization.
Fourth, the lobby for local-level experimentation had national government involved as gate-keeper to convince. The experimentation would have to be fitted in with national policy through an exception clause in the regulative framework. The precise scope for such exceptions was up to the Secretary of State – who soon faced questions and motions by members of parliament on this. Political parties felt once again compelled to take a position on the basic income – or on the experimentation with it.
Fifth, the media have been important in welding the network, through extensive coverage of the basic income topic and even the experimenting network itself. As described in the previous CTP (link), the activist television documentary makers of VPRO Tegenlicht have been particularly supportive in this: Apart from their critical-transformation oriented documentaries they organized discussion evenings, and did extensive internet coverage as well.
Sixth and finally, there are various societal developments that co-produced the formation of this experimentation network. It was carried by the ‘media hype’ on basic income (see previous CTP), reinforced by the discontentment of local governments about a recent devolution social security policy, and the interviewee also considers that international contacts with similar initiatives and coverage of similar societal developments elsewhere had helped. Sure there is some relation between what happened earlier [in Dutch basic income debate] and now. But, and maybe I’m a bit biased in that, but I feel that there is much stronger relation with things that are happening now.
The March 2015 meeting consolidated earlier network formation. It formed the start of an experimentation trajectory that took off rapidly but lost pace due to contestation and difficulties to have them administratively anchored. By November 2016, the responsible Secretary of State has allowed for experiments within policy constraints, which are scheduled to start in 2017. In the 1,5 years between the March 2015 ‘kickoff’ meeting and this decision there has been a sequence of events that elicits the difficulties of altering institutions governing politically sensitive issues like unemployment policy.
The first of three important preceding events took place End September 2014. It all started during the ‘meet –up’ discussion evening that was organized to amplify the impacts of the Tegenlicht basic income documentary (Cf. previous CTP). As MIES presented their experimentation plans there, he became interested and asked them whether he could be joining in the expert meeting on basic income experimentation that they announced. Otherwise I might even have never become involved with all of this.
On 27 November 2014 that expert meeting took place in Groningen. The meeting, organized by MIES, featured several academic researchers and basic income experts to discuss the scope for basic income-inspired experimentation. One of the later ‘frontrunner’ aldermen in support of such experiments opened the meeting. One of the working groups decided to focus on experimentation with unemployment benefits, and actually, there you had it – the birth of that experimentation guideline.
Shortly after the meeting, the third VPRO Tegenlicht episode was broadcasted (see previous CTP). It covered the expert meeting, a powerful lecture by an invited prominent BIEN member, and placed several individuals of the experimenters’ network in the spotlight. As the television documentary in turn generated further media attention, the interviewee came into contact with interested members of parliament.
Fourth, the experimenting network followed up on their consolidating March 2015 meeting on 24 April 2015 when they sent their letter of intent to the Secretary of State for Social Affairs and the Interior Affairs department. It took repeated approaches via a public servant to evoke a response from the Ministry; the first telephone conversation between him and a responsible public officer eventually took place by the end of May 2015. The experimenters had already sent out an invitation for their expert meeting in November, actually. Rumour had it that the responsible public servant thought it better not to appear however, considering it politically sensitive.
By early June 2015, the group of municipalities interested in the experimentation had doubled to 28. Still there had not been any official national-level reaction apart from the telephone conversations – it seemed to be a rather sensitive matter. By end June 2015 the municipality of Utrecht (the largest of the experimentation-minded cities) organized a meeting for the ‘frontrunners’, i.e. the aldermen of the Utrecht, Groningen, Tilburg and Wageningen cities in which substantial political support and early elaborations of experimentation set-ups had come about. The group of four local governments ‘frontrunners’ agreed to increase the pressure on the Secretary of State to arrange a meeting. Moreover, MPs from the Environmentalist, Socialist party and Labour parties similarly urged the responsible Secretary of State to create opportunities for the municipalities to pursue their experimentation. After these combined and to a certain extent orchestrated political pressures, the State of Secretary committed to having talks with the municipalities.
A sixth related event took place around Mid June. A wave of international media coverage on ‘the Dutch basic income experiments’ started as the Utrecht municipality went public with their experimentation plans. The international media ‘hype’ was a rather accidental side – effect: As the Tour de France prologue was held in Utrecht that year, much international press happened to be present. An article by the ‘the Independent’ newspaper unleashed a wave of international media coverage on the experimentation plans – even if often not very accurate. Since then, Utrecht has become internationally known as ‘the basic income experiment’ city – although even just before, it hadn’t even been mentioned in the Dutch press...it’s really funny how these things go.
The seventh related event is the phase between end September-2015 and Mid March 2015 in which the Ministry is assessing the experimentation plans disclosed by the four ‘frontrunner’ municipalities and considering how the plans can be fit in with regulations. In the experience of the interviewee, this started a long period of negotiating, fitting in, finding a generic framework for the diverse experimentation proposals - and especially of postponed decision. “By end September, the plans of the municipalities were there already, in fairly elaborate form. Since then, they’ve just been refined bit by bit...Every time there were new talks with the aldermen. ‘Well, we’d like to hear just a bit more about the plans’, ‘let’s have another meeting’, ‘well, I’m not sure if...’...and then there came the issue of how much scope for experimentation there could be [within the national-level policy framework] so there was another deliberation session..and basically that’s how it went on up until today”.
By November 4th 2015 it became clear however that the exposure to and lobbying for the experimentation had generated substantial political support. The eighth related event was that a motion was passed in the Dutch house of commons, urging the minister to create the regulatory scope for a diversity of experimenting set-ups. The motion was proposed by four political parties. The motion followed up on similar MP inquiries in June 2015.
The state of affairs on 18/03/16, at the date of interview, is that the expected meeting for a final decision on the experiments has had to be postponed once again. After much further waiting, the decision on the experimentation came by the end of September 2016. This ninth related event seems to be a critical turning point itself, as the presented policy framework for experimentation displayed a series of compromises and adaptations.
The meeting of experimenters was an important event in overcoming possible contestation. Even if they sought to join forces and shared a similar passion, the participants differed in the approach to experimentation taken. Their plans were in different stages of development, and they had been brought forward by different kinds of actors (civil society, municipality council members, public servants). As I remember, we were all pretty much agreeing on where to aim for with that letter [to Secretary of State]. After all, those guidelines [to basic income-inspired experimentation] captured more or less the essence of what people wanted. So, there was consensus on the contents that that letter should have. Of course, people did have quite divergent ideas on the basic income itself. There were those who really wanted to make it a basic income thing, and who were real basic income ‘believers’, and there were municipalities in which one already had decided to go rather for the unemployment benefits experimentation – even at the time when the overall focus was still more on that basic income orientation.” Importantly, there was an overall consensus on the pragmatist experimental attitude. The people in the experimenting wanted to just start doing things with the basic income, and considered that sticking to the principles of a full-fledged and universally rolled out basic income would not be helpful. This was one reason why the VBI basic income association stayed in the background – their principled stamp and signature would have made it very hard to persuade the Secretary of State.
The network meeting did involve considerable contestation, though, and the enthusiastic experimenters only found out over time how serious it was and what it consisted of. The experiments aimed to explore de-regulated, lenient regimes of administering welfare benefits – in line with the concept of the unconditional basic income. They sought to experiment with a new way of organizing, in which benefits claimants would be less controlled and put upon and in which less energies and resources would be wasted on ineffective and alienating policies. Similar to the contestations arising in earlier stages of the Dutch basic income discussion (see previous CTPs), the concept evoked strong aversions with politicians. It went against workfare policies, against the stringent conditions under which unemployed could receive their allowances, and against beliefs that inactivity and free-riding on society should be combated with policy toughness. Especially on the national level, the basic income proved to be a highly undesired framing of the experimentation: The Ministry has always tried to draw it away from that basic income. They have never wanted to call it basic income, and have insisted on that actually, also because the political sensitivity, the VVD [Liberals, leading party in the cabinet] are against the basic income, and acting against it, at least on the national government level.(...) In those talks [with Secretary of State] it was a bit of a taboo word. The political controversy manifested concretely in the reluctance of the Secretary of State to take up the earlier invitations for talks, and in the lengthy process of fitting in the experimentation plans with the prevailing policy regulations.
The political controversy surrounding the basic income also helped the experimenters, however. The framing as basic-income-inspired experiments had a certain shock value, which ensured sustained media attention (see previous CTP) and therewith the attention of politicians as well. The basic income framing has eventually been toned down, the interviewee indicates, but this does not detract from the fact that this what the experiments have always been about. Only the framing has been adapted...the experiments have not or hardly changed in content. And they are just the easiest ways, in the current Dutch situation, to have just something of the basic income tested.
Last but not least, the emerging experimentation network entailed an important tension between the national and local government tiers in the Netherlands. Local governments, and the earlier-mentioned ‘frontrunner aldermen’, were actively collaborating or ‘conspiring’ with civil society initiatives in this experimentation lobby. They were quite outspoken about their discontent with the national-level employment policy. Crucially, this policy had only very recently involved a devolution of executive tasks. In several municipalities these tasks proved difficult to fulfil, also creating budgetary problems. The devolution was quite broadly felt to be over-demanding on local authorities, insufficiently sensitive to the situations ‘on the ground’ and needlessly rigorous. Moreover, there were obvious tensions between the rather right-wing 'toughness on the unemployed' of national-level policy, and the often rather Left-oriented administrations of (urban) municipalities. The experimentation network was thus a middle point in contestation between governmental tiers.
The interviewee describes the critical turning point of the network formation to have come about quite ‘organically’. The meeting of the experimentation-minded individuals and initiatives resulted from contacts and ideas that developed in the half year before, with the meetings in September and November (Cf. Related events) as crucial moments in bringing the March 2015 organizers together. For the rest, each of the organizers managed to attract interested parties for the meeting through their own networks. The ‘organic growing’ and the apparent snowballing together of a group of enthusiastic initiators indicate how the network was spontaneously evolving – with a notable degree of planning and coordination by individuals who sought to keep and increase the momentum and ensure that the experimentation plans would be implemented – somewhere, and in some form.
The interviewee has in fact anticipated the network formation in a remarkable way: After finishing his econometry studies he postponed the career this would normally afford him, and instead he started a crowd-funding initiative. Website visitors could donate and support his mission to live on a modest ‘basic income’ for a year, for him to dedicate his time exclusively to promoting the basic income. He succeeded, and this innovative financing allowed him to become the full-time available (and skilled) person that the network was increasingly needing.
By the time of the March 2015 meeting he could not foresee the further course of the experimentation trajectory that was taking off, though. Looking back on it a year later, the meeting was the clear breakthrough in the experimentation trajectory in the sense that it marked the start of a broadly supported lobby for experimentation. The lobby was successful, it can be concluded from the encouraging parliamentary motion, the sustained deliberations with the ministry and the fact that a framework for experimentation was in fact created by the end of 2016.
Finally, the interviewee was fully aware by March 2016 that it was too early to tell how much of a critical turning point the network meeting was. He was tensely awaiting a new critical turning point – the governmental decision that would set out the scope for experimentation and pave the way for them to actually happen.
The interviewee is still in the middle of the process towards the eventual experiments. He has not come yet to drawing out and formulating the many lessons of the 1,5 intensive years that have passed. Reconstructing the timeline, he can nevertheless identify three lessons.
First, he considers it surprising and instructive how the key initiators managed to have such a significant impact – on the level of national government – by bundling the forces of a few individuals and initiatives that were moving in similar direction. I’ve learnt that such meeting can actually have a quite a big impact. Everything after can be retraced to that. OK, people might have found each other in another way, but still. To simply connect people and initiatives, that can have a big impact.
Second, there is also the lesson, learnt the hard way, of how difficult it is to create the space for experimentation within a national policy framework that is so politically sensitive and administratively complex. The altering of institutions, even when it only involves a temporary and tentative exception in the form of an experiment, has proven to be a very lengthy process. It seems to have been a difficult experience for him that the rapid process of network formation, shaping and fine-tuning of experimentation plans and converging onto a joint political lobby was followed by a long period of waiting. The political-bureaucratic deliberations behind closed doors, the repeated rescheduling of meetings with ministerial officials – it brought along a significant slowing down of the earlier energetic pace. And another lesson...well (laughs), that is that things can something go very fast, and something very slowly. Depending on the phase of the process you’re in. You can make extremely great steps if you just have a few people who go about ‘just doing it’. Before you know it, you’ve got it done in a few days, the crafting of such a guideline for experimenting for example, or to craft that declaration of intent of ‘let’s just do it’...But if you’re landing in a process of politics, locally but especially when it’s nationally, then things that in terms of content matter are just not such a big deal can take much more time.
Third, he has learnt about the importance of careful framing of socially innovative proposals. The basic income proved to be a risky framing for the strong aversions it evoked, whilst on the other hand it attracted attention and provided a clear identity and vision to the experiments. In hindsight he might have framed the experiments a bit less as basic income experiments, as they did in their letter to the Secretary of State in April 2015, anticipating the political sensitivities and aversions against the basic income. On the other hand, he considers that that basic income was in fact what the people in the experimenting network were motivated by. And he does find it important to keep framing it in basic income terms, as that is just articulating the transformative vision that makes these experiments so important. Actually, the letter to the Secretary of State was just well-formulated as it was, he considers - even in hindsight.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
