It’s often assumed that paying people an unconditional living wage (i.e. Basic Income; BI) will result in mass dropout from the work force as people chose to stay home and play video games instead of contributing to society. In my recent study, published in the Journal of Management Studies, I argue that this would not be the case. People work for many reasons and implementing a BI has the potential to improve the quality of workplaces and employees’ experiences within them.

In a report from 2017, Europeans were asked what they believed others would do if given an unconditional basic income (McFarland, 2017). It was found that 53% of people believed that other people would quit work entirely. However, when they themselves were asked what they would do, only 3% indicated they would quit their job without looking for another yet. This is an incredible finding to highlight how unfavorably and inaccurately we evaluate the work motives and intentions of others. But these beliefs assume that people only work for the financial rewards given in return. If people were freely given more money, they will not need to work as much, right? The logic here appears sound, but relies on an incomplete understanding of human motivation. Of course, we go to work because the income is necessary. But we also work for a range of other reasons that are typically less obvious.

Self-determination theory is a theory of motivation that directly explores and categorizes these other reasons for working, many of which can be even more influential than simple financial rewards. In my study, I examined the motivational and wellbeing implications of basic income (BI) from the perspective of self-determination theory and arrived at the following conclusions.

Labour participation & Motivation

On average, BI trials didn’t reduce labor participation or number of hours worked. There are a few details to consider here. First, motivation is not a unidimensional construct – people have different reasons for working and each has different implications for work and the employee. If someone is motivated by a reward or to avoid a punishment, we call this external motivation and it is considered a controlling form of motivation. Alternately, reasons such as inherent interest, enjoyment, and perceived meaningfulness of a behavior are considered autonomous forms of motivation. When we consider an employee who receives BI, their external motivation may be reduced as they do not need the financial rewards of working as much as before. However, it will not eliminate this form of motivation completely. Additionally, the loss of external motivation may well be accompanied by increases in more autonomous types of motivation (including intrinsic motivation), hence no change to overall motivation amounts, and therefore little change to employment.

As demonstrated in a recent meta-analysis, more autonomous forms of motivation tend to have significantly stronger associations with performance persistence, and wellbeing outcomes than controlled forms of motivation. Therefore, we have reason to believe that this shifting of motivation profile towards more autonomous forms of motivation has the potential to positively impact employee performance and wellbeing. Lastly, it’s worth noting that in the reviewed BI trials, those who left the workforce were often those who should not be forced to work in order to survive in the first place (e.g., the elderly, those with disabilities, children, and primary caregivers).

How might this impact workplaces?

We might also ask how workplaces would change in a BI society to adapt to the shifting motivational dynamics of employees. Most notably, as external motives become less salient and more autonomous motives become more important to people, workplaces may need to provide working conditions that meet these new motives. Low income and poorly designed jobs may become difficult to staff and undesirable jobs may either have to increase pay (which may not be possible) or redesign their workplace to better satisfy the employees basic psychological needs.

Previous work has noted the beneficial health benefits associated with BI appears including physical, and mental health. Based on our theoretical understanding, we might also expect substantial improvements to eudemonic wellbeing, that is, the subjective experience of living a life worth living. This type of wellbeing is often measured through indicators such as general life satisfaction or perceived meaningfulness of one’s life.

Economic growth or human wellbeing?

On a societal level, we may also ask what objective social policies should be aiming to achieve. BI might not make sense to the neoliberal capitalist who solely prioritizes economic outcomes. But what about individual wellbeing? Chances are you live in a country with values strongly influenced by neoliberal capitalism. This view focuses on individualistic achievement, competition, capital accumulation, and it defines success by the amount of goods we can produce and the profit we can generate. BI does not encourage competition or wealth accumulation, and if paid for by taxation, may actively contradict these values. But BI is not a policy to increase the productivity or profitability of corporations. It’s true that a healthy economy is important and we should strive to maintain one. But if we evaluate every policy solely based on neoliberal capitalistic values, we will systematically exclude a range of outcomes including the wellbeing of individuals within society. Accordingly, I argue that we should not neglect policies that aim to increase the wellbeing of individuals, encourage dignified work, and bring “real freedom to all” (Van Parijs, 1995).