Download the PDF: Universal Basic Income: Spearheading Gender Equality Policy Brief
While the 2017 presidential campaign brought the concept of universal income to the forefront, the health crisis and the 2022 election have brought it back into the spotlight. For its advocates, universal income is a relevant solution to address rising social inequalities and effectively combat precariousness. Tried out in a number of countries , often at the sub-state level (e.g., New York City), it has sparked ideological and doctrinal debates about its essence and scope, and raises questions about the organization of the social model, the relationship to work, and, above all, its economic feasibility.
Universal income (also known as « basic income »), as advocated by the French Movement for a Basic Income, is based on the following principles: the amount must be the same for everyone, without means testing or needs assessment, on an individual basis, without any requirement for consideration in return, for life, and with equal contributions from all. In this sense, universal income should ensure basic living conditions for each beneficiary, as set out in Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: » Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, medical care, and necessary social services. »
From a social perspective, the project seems attractive in that it should, in essence, contribute to the fight against inequality and poverty by giving everyone the opportunity to live with dignity. Nevertheless, political debates on the subject have been held without considering its potential effect on gender relations and, more broadly, on the benefits of such measures, which are presumed to be neutral because they are « universal. » How can universal income be a tool for women’s empowerment? Could it not, on the contrary, constitute a subsistence income that would lead to greater gender inequality?
Universal income as a lever for women’s emancipation
From the point of view of its advocates, universal income would be an excellent tool for empowering women and would enable the most vulnerable among them to become independent. Indeed, it should replace the current complex social safety net with a single allowance. Universal income would thus aim to simplify administrative procedures and eliminate delays in obtaining assistance, providing automatic and immediate coverage for individuals in need. Furthermore, because it is unconditional, basic income would help to destigmatize the poorest members of society. The French Movement for a Basic Income argues that « basic income will allow women, who are currently stuck between domestic work and paid work, to be free to choose what they want to do […] such as entrepreneurship, because they are always the first to sacrifice themselves. » Less well paid (on average 28.5% less than men in 2019 across all working hours according to INSEE), overrepresented in precarious employment and more prone to unemployment, universal income would give women greater bargaining power with their employers by allowing them to refuse underpaid jobs, thanks to the subsistence income (Gardey and Silvera, 2018).
In addition, the individualization of universal basic income payments should enable every woman to have a nest egg regardless of their family situation, unlike the French minimum social benefits, thus allowing them to gain autonomy in managing their finances (Van Lancker, 2017). Some argue that the wider range of options available as a result of the introduction of a universal income should enable women to leave relationships in which they are unhappy, thereby reducing the risk of domestic violence, which is sometimes intrinsically linked to financial dependence (Zellecke, 2011).
When universal income merges with maternal income
Despite many optimistic views on the effects of universal income on women, there is no consensus on the issue. One of the main benefits of universal income mentioned above would be an increase in women’s bargaining power in the labor market.
Nevertheless, it is likely that the effects of universal income could reinforce gender inequalities within couples by consolidating the gendered division of unpaid work. It could encourage women with family responsibilities related to housework to distance themselves even further from the labor market. In short, if a situation leads a couple to reduce the total number of hours of paid work in order to have more time to care for children or perform other domestic tasks, it is therefore, in most cases, less costly for women to stop working or reduce their working hours. Consequently, such a measure would ultimately lead to greater inequality in the labor market, as demonstrated by the work of Ghiotto and De Vos (2017). In Germany, for example, the introduction of a universal basic income would lead to a slight decrease in working hours for married men (around 5%) and a significantly higher decrease for married women (21.1%). In the Netherlands, simulations conclude that there would be a 5% decline in labor market participation overall, but 17.7% for women with children.
It is highly likely that the introduction of such a model would only reinforce the pre-existing divisions between skilled full-time employees (mostly men who would not need to reduce their working hours) and unskilled part-time employees (mostly women). A necessary and utopian prerequisite for the success of universal income in terms of gender equality is therefore the outright elimination of gender differences in treatment.
