Introduction
Introducing an unconditional basic income would mark a substantial policy shift in most existing welfare systems, which usually include certain conditions limiting benefit entitlement. Today, people’s access to welfare benefits and goods and services generally depends on them meeting some combination of conditions concerning their status (such as citizenship), needs (for example, unemployment) and conduct (such as behavioural requirements) (Clasen & Clegg, Reference Clasen, Clegg, Clasen and Siegel2007), making conditionalities to some extent inescapable (Dwyer & Wright, Reference Dwyer and Wright2014; Reeves & Loopstra, Reference Reeves and Loopstra2017). While being a broad concept in social policy that has been given varying definitions, typically today, conditional benefit systems in most countries include techniques of monitoring, surveillance and sanctioning of benefit recipients who are imposed to ongoing behavioural requirements including compulsory activities such as skills enhancement and mandatory work activities that have both monetary (i.e. benefit cut) and non-monetary effects (i.e. social stigma) (Watts & Fitzpatrick, Reference Watts and Fitzpatrick2018). These include obvious and hidden procedures, such as signing on as a job seeker, gathering certain types of information, understanding regulations about the type of job seeking and providing evidence of one’s worthiness (Whelan, Reference Whelan2021).
Belonging to the Nordic welfare state (NWS) model known traditionally for relatively generous and universal welfare systems, Finland has also been characterised by developmental traits strengthening the above types of conditionality, not the least regarding unemployment-related social security (see further below). However, in a temporary and partial breach of this general trend, in 2017–2018, Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s centre-conservative-populist coalition government conducted an unconditional (partial) basic income (BI) experiment directed at a random sample of 2,000 unemployed individuals. These individuals were receiving either of two basic, tax-financed flat-rate unemployment benefits (basic unemployment allowance; labour market subsidy) paid out to those not eligible for a usually more generous fund-administered earnings-related unemployment allowance. Uniquely, this experiment was based on a special law which made participation obligatory for everyone selected, eradicating the self-selection effect among participants, as opposed to most other BI experiments. The government’s aim with this experiment was primarily to test whether providing the experimental group with a BI amount (560 euros per month, corresponding to the basic amount of the unemployment benefit otherwise received) unconditionally instead of their regular, conditional unemployment benefit would have positive employment effects. Other factors, such as wellbeing effects, to be evaluated after the experiment, were added by parliament during the legislative process (see Kangas, Reference Kangas, Kangas, Jauhiainen, Simanainen and Ylikännö2021).
Because of the rather low BI amount, a significant proportion of the BI participants continued to apply for additional benefits (e.g. to receive additional parts of the unemployment benefit, such as the increase for a child), as well as means- and needs-tested social assistance and housing allowances characterised by strict eligibility criteria (Halmetoja et al., Reference Halmetoja, Saikkonen and Simanainen2022). Despite this, we argue that since the BI received was unconditional, it might have had an impact on people’s views on issues related to (un)conditionality, analogously to the way that people have been found to be affected by the mere knowledge of the possibility of benefit sanctions (Wright & Patrick, Reference Wright and Patrick2019).
Thus, since the participants in this experiment hold unique personal experiences both of unemployment policies guided by various principles of conditionality, and of receiving (at least a considerable part of) their benefit amount unconditionally as a BI instead, they constitute an interesting group for studying whether and how such experiences are reflected in their reasoning on questions of (un)conditionality.
There is a stream of literature on attitudes about various types of unemployment-related benefit conditionality as well as on ‘lived experiences’ (Whelan, Reference Whelan2021; Wright & Dwyer, Reference Wright and Dwyer2020; Wright & Patrick, Reference Wright and Patrick2019; Ylistö & Husu, Reference Ylistö and Husu2021). The literature on popular views on (the principle of) a universal, unconditional basic income has also grown (e.g. Rossetti et al., Reference Rossetti, Roosma, Laenen and Abts2020; Zimmermann et al., Reference Zimmermann, Boljka, Rakar and Hrast2020), but knowledge on the reasoning by individuals who have actually experienced a change in policies, including an unconditional BI, remains scarce. This is especially true concerning advanced welfare systems, in which any kind of BI introduced is affected by (other) existing welfare state programmes and the normative stances underlying (other) welfare state programmes more generally (Halmetoja et al., Reference Halmetoja, Saikkonen and Simanainen2022).
Thus, it remains unclear how and to what extent lived experiences prior to and during the BI experiment seem to play a role in the views regarding the issue of benefit conditionality among experiment participants. People’s reasoning in such matters has been found to be affected by an array of (other) individual- and contextual-level factors also. The socialising effects of welfare state systems and policies are likely to be of importance, as well as a person’s socio-economic background and their broader personal ideological-political stances, as well as current political discourse and media frames in society (Chrisp et al., Reference Chrisp, Pulkka and Rincón García2020; Simanainen & Kangas, Reference Chrisp, Pulkka and Rincón García2020).
Given the limited knowledge of such experiences, this study of Finnish experiment participants aims to contribute to the knowledge of factors shaping support for (un)conditionality among citizens and (possible) impacts of policy experiments on people’s views about this basic principle in social policy.
Thus, in this article, we ask: how do experiment participants view benefit (un)conditionality after having received an unconditional basic income?
(Un)conditionality in the Nordic welfare state(s)
In the following section, we take a brief look at the relationship between some general principles of the NWS model and ideas often related to a BI. This relationship is assumed to be important as a reference point for those who experienced the (partial) unconditional BI paid out to the experiment sample population, instead of receiving flat-rate unemployment benefits, subject to various types of conditionality, as they had prior to the experiment.
The NWS model has often been related to universalism and the provision of relatively generous social protection for people residing in the country (Pedersen & Kuhnle, Reference Pedersen, Kuhnle and Knutsen2017). It has therefore sometimes been suggested that such a welfare state would make an introduction of a BI particularly feasible in comparison with many other welfare states (Bay & Pedersen, Reference Bay and Pedersen2006).
This can, however, also be contested. As Halmetoja et al. (Reference Halmetoja, De Wispelaere and Perkiö2019) point out, universalism within a BI debate usually refers to flat-rate benefits offered to everyone in society, which is not concordant with the principles of the NWS model characterised by a general dualism in social security provision: for those in gainful employment, universalism is mainly related to statutory access to earnings-related benefits. Usually, if this is not the case, there remain the statutory (at least traditionally mainly universal) basic, flat-rate benefits, also related to certain conditions like sickness, old age, disability, as well as unemployment. From this perspective, the introduction of a (flat-rate) BI for everyone could be seen as seriously challenging some of the central characteristics of the NWS model. Further, in addition to earnings-related and flat-rate benefits, there is the strictly means-tested and needs-tested last-resort social assistance, representing a kind of ‘residualism within universalism’, originally meant to (temporarily) guarantee every member of society a minimum level of subsistence, if they’re not able to provide for themselves and are not covered enough by the above main safety nets. A growing number of stricter work-related conditions, especially regarding unemployment benefits, together with low flat-rate benefit levels for the long-term unemployed, have resulted in many of these people also having to rely on social assistance even to reach a minimum subsistence level (Kangas & Simanainen, Reference Kangas, Simanainen, Kangas, Jauhiainen, Simanainen and Ylikännö2021).
Nordic social policy has historically emphasised everyone’s obligation to fulfill their right to work (Kettunen, Reference Kettunen2001), implementing enabling measures to integrate individuals into the labour market. However, there has been a piecemeal shift towards punitive measures targeting those with weak labour market positions (Halmetoja et al., Reference Halmetoja, De Wispelaere and Perkiö2019; Pedersen & Kuhnle, Reference Pedersen, Kuhnle and Knutsen2017).
For those without a sufficiently long work history to qualify for earnings-related employment benefits, and for those who had received unemployment fund-administered earnings-related unemployment allowance for the maximum period, the unemployment benefit system in Finland at the time of the experiment included two types of tax-financed cash transfers: (a) a basic unemployment allowance, which could be received for a limited time, and (b) a labour market subsidy of unlimited duration for those not eligible for (a). The basic amounts of these two benefits were the same, but the labour market subsidy was means-tested. Due to the eligibility rules mentioned above, most long-term unemployed individuals received a labour market subsidy (see Halmetoja et al., Reference Halmetoja, Saikkonen and Simanainen2022).
Activation strategies for individuals receiving either of the two types of flat-rate unemployment benefits mentioned above have included several components of conditionality: eligibility rules (related to employment history), work requirements (engaging in job-seeking processes, job training or accepting job offers), employment conditions (individuals cannot engage in just any kind of job) and behavioural conditions (complying with programme requirements such as attending interviews and communicating with caseworkers). To receive these unemployment benefits and avoid sanctions, the unemployed had to register with public employment services, actively seek full-time work, apply for jobs suggested by caseworkers, participate in training programmes and follow a job search plan. Violating these criteria could, depending on caseworker discretion, result in benefit suspension for fifteen to ninety days (Huuskonen, Reference Huuskonen2023, pp. 131–150). In contrast, the BI amount paid out to experiment participants was completely unconditional.
Experiences of, and attitudes about, (un)conditionality
While studies on personal experiences of welfare benefits and attitudes about their unconditionality have been less frequent, there is a considerable literature stream on lived experiences related to benefit conditionality. These generally point to stringent conditionalities, like those applied in the UK’s Universal Credit system, which have exposed a series of counterproductive results. These include long-term poverty, stress, anxiety, struggles with household bills, debt, fear of eviction, negative impacts on social and family lives and loss of hope due to impersonal and punitive treatment, general loss of agency, disconnection from the welfare system, feelings of shame and worsening of mental and physical health, and experiences of misrecognition when being treated paternalistically and even food bank use and homelessness (Cheetham et al., Reference Cheetham, Moffatt, Addison and Wiseman2019; Watts & Fitzpatrick, Reference Watts and Fitzpatrick2018; Whelan, Reference Whelan2021; Wright & Dwyer, Reference Wright and Dwyer2020; Wright & Patrick, Reference Wright and Patrick2019). However, some studies have highlighted that the intensive monitoring related to welfare provision can also be experienced as supportive and inclusive (Flint, Reference Flint, Barnes and Prior2009). While still probably less liberty restrictive than in the UK, welfare benefit-related conditionalities in the context of activation in the Nordic countries (Sadeghi & Terum, Reference Sadeghi and Terum2020) have been shown to create emotions such as anxiety, frustration, the experience of injustice and the lack of control that may arise from repeated patterns of failed labour-market exchanges (e.g. Ylistö & Husu, Reference Ylistö and Husu2021).
As indicated above and shown by studies of the reasoning of vulnerable groups on deservingness in the UK (Wright & Dwyer, Reference Wright and Dwyer2020), personal experiences are but one of the factors assumed to affect people’s views on welfare policy principles, including (un)conditionality. While there has been a lack of research on unconditional BI recipients’ views on (un)conditionality, the emerging literature on the views of general populations on an unconditional BI may shed some light on other factors affecting the reasoning among BI recipients also. Rossetti et al. (Reference Rossetti, Roosma, Laenen and Abts2020) conducted in-depth interviews in the Netherlands to explore arguments for and against universal BI, finding that respondents generally lacked well-developed attitudes about a BI’s unconditionality, often resulting in ambivalent opinions. This was regardless of their age, education, income or political views. Similarly, Zimmermann et al. (Reference Zimmermann, Boljka, Rakar and Hrast2020) studied the social legitimacy of BI through discussions with Slovenian and German middle-class participants. Their findings highlighted a strong rejection of unconditionality, emphasising merit and achievements as the key principles of equality. This was also thought to echo prevailing norms underpinning these countries’ present welfare systems.
Existing quantitative studies on BI also point to volatile attitudes (Chrisp et al., Reference Chrisp, Pulkka and Rincón García2020) and/or a resistance to such an unconditional benefit as a BI (Bay & Pedersen, Reference Bay and Pedersen2006), which have been assumed to have resulted from the impact of established institutional frameworks, including various forms of conditionality, playing a significant role in shaping the prevailing norms, thus affecting public opinion on unconditionality through a range of mechanisms, even among individuals in lower socioeconomic, and even marginalised positions. The latter are assumed to be likely to favour targeted social policies for the poor over a universal BI based on material self-interest, since targeted schemes are perceived to be directly redistributive and clearer in terms of beneficiaries (also Rincón García, Reference Rincón García2024).
Data
Based on a special law (Act on The Basic Income Experiment 1528/2016), the experiment, conducted between January 2017 and December 2018, included a random country-wide selection of 2,000 people registered as basic flat-rate unemployment benefit recipients (25-58 years old), while the remaining 175,000 in this category were treated as a control group in a randomised controlled trial-type study.
Data collected in relation to the experiment evaluation included labour statistics, a fixed-response telephone survey and a semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interview study. The latter, utilised here to allow for a study on participants’ views on (un)conditionality, consisted of eighty-one interviews with willing experiment group participants, conducted between January and June 2019. This independent sub-study obtained approval from the ethical board of the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, which then delivered our research group’s interview invitation and informed consent form to half (988 people) of the basic income experiment participants by mail. Those who were willing to participate in an interview were asked to mail their consent forms directly to our research group. A total of 106 informed consent forms were obtained.
At the time of interviewing, shortly after the experiment had ended, interviewees were aged between twenty-seven and sixty-one, resided in all parts of the country, and represented diverse backgrounds and labour market histories. Around half of the interviewees identified themselves as female (N = 42), the other half as male (N = 38), while one identified as belonging to a non-binary category. Interviews took place in homes, workplaces, public cafés, libraries or meeting rooms, depending on the interviewees’ preferences. Interviews were conducted in Finnish (N = 74), Swedish (N = 4), or English (N = 3), and lasted between 27 minutes and 2 hours and 22 minutes, with an average length of 1 hour and 5 minutes. The interviews were transcribed verbatim by three research assistants employed for the project and analysed in their original languages by the involved researchers, who are proficient in all of them. All data extracts included in this text were subsequently translated into English by the authors.
The interview questions focused on various thematic aspects of participants’ experiences receiving basic income and traditional unemployment-related benefits and how these experiences had impacted their day-to-day lives, life courses and political views. The interviewees were also asked directly how they would feel about a basic income that would be paid to all working-age people living permanently in the country, and that would be taxed gradually on everyone as an income increase. In addition, the interviewees were asked open questions about their current and past experiences of health and well-being, employment, income, social life and frontline encounters. The semi-structured interview guide also included questions related to interviewees’ views on un/conditionality, especially in relation to unemployment benefits. The overall methodology aimed to capture participants’ narrated views on, as well as their lived experiences of, unconditionality and conditionality.
The interviewees had faced welfare conditionality to varying degrees (for reasons, see above), as some had only received flat-rate unemployment benefits for a shorter period, while others had been receiving unemployment benefits and sometimes also social assistance for prolonged periods, having a weak attachment to the open labour market. Also, experiences of sanctions varied between the participants. Some of the interviewees stated that they had never been sanctioned, but just the threat of a sanction was experienced as being unpleasant (see also Wright & Patrick, Reference Wright and Patrick2019).
Method and analysis process
Our analysis started by compiling a separate file of interviewees’ references to conditionality or unconditionality, unemployment benefits, other social security benefits and basic income. For the next stage, the data extracts were coded and thematically organised into themes of conditionality and unconditionality. As a result of our thematic analysis process (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006), we identified three main strategies through which the interviewees made sense of their views on an (un)conditionality: (1) twenty-four interviewees were in favour of the unconditionality principle; (2) eighteen interviewees were critical of it; while (3) twenty-nine interviewees negotiated between the two principles through various traits, expressing ambiguity in their views. In nine interviews, there was no clearly identifiable reference to un/conditionality. The views varied among the interviewees, and there was no clear identifiable difference between age, gender, educational background and regional location.
Views in favour of unconditionality
When supporting unconditionality, interviewees primarily referred to their lived experiences on how it enhanced an individual’s negotiation power as an unemployed person. In these views, the traditional unemployment benefits were portrayed as holding an asymmetrical, contractual and unequal relationship in which unemployed people are at the mercy of street-level bureaucrats’ discretionary power. In these views, different activation measures were portrayed as less encouraging, as seen in the extract below.
It’s like someone from the outside says you must do this and that. It means that you are at the mercy of someone else, and you are somehow fulfilling the status of being unemployed. (--) Even as an idea, which is paralysing, when being externally controlled. (I41)
Most often, unconditionality was justified by introducing arguments against negative health outcomes related to control and coercive conditionality, such as worsened mental health conditions that are the result of a fear of sanctions. In these accounts, the discretionary power of the welfare state’s frontline professionals was experienced personally as being arbitrary, unjust, unpredictable and inconsistently applied. Views in favour of unconditionality included descriptions in which sanctioning, threatening and punishing were portrayed as an ‘old men’s idea’ of discipline or as similar to the senselessness of abusing your children or animals. Here, without the interviewers’ prompting, the interviewee uses the well-known Finnish activation metaphor of ‘carrots and sticks’ to make sense of her experiences:
[With unconditional benefits] there is no weapon there. What is the sanction? How will you discipline me? (--) It is quite weak if you can’t get people involved in things other than by threatening them. (--) You don’t get as good a result with a stick as you do with a carrot. Ask a donkey. For real. (I81)
As seen in the extract above, the interviewee’s views also included deliberation of motivation, that is, what drives people to make a change in their lives and what activities create real motivation. On the contrary, forcing, demanding, punishing and surveillance were viewed by some interviewees as actions that cause their self-esteem to ‘crumble’ and lead to a deterioration of trust, especially among those claimants whose unemployment has been prolonged.
Interviewees also referred to self-determination, which was viewed as allowing people to choose which jobs to apply for without giving justifications for one’s actions and activities. In contrast, the conditional system was described as heavily regulating and controlling claimants’ actions. Being freed from such contractual relationships with street-level bureaucrats was viewed by interviewees as helpful because with unconditional benefits, claimants are not able to ‘beg’ or ‘whine’ for money or ‘lick anyone’s boots’ to prove their deservingness and entitlement. Unconditionality was viewed as giving unemployed people a say in their personal matters and labour market-related decisions, as seen in the extract below:
I have tried to jump at the Public Employment Office’s strange demands. You are constantly nervous about whether they will cut your benefits or force you into a waiting period. (--) It’s red tape, I don’t understand who it’s benefitting from it, but that is what this system is. (--) [On unconditional benefits] I immediately felt liberated when I knew that for two years, I would not need to crawl around in response to the Public Employment Offices’ arbitrary craziness. Instead, I was able to concentrate on putting my stuff together. (I74)
Unconditionality was associated with the freedom to articulate one’s own opinion. In these politically driven views, the conditional system resembles bullying, which hinders unemployed people’s agential capacities. Unconditionality was also viewed as freeing up social workers’ time to help those who are really in need of help, such as people with workability limitations and substance abuse problems. Also, unconditionality was viewed as simplifying the welfare system, diminishing inequality and helping to target resources justly.
In addition, descriptions supporting unconditionality included several explicit references to welfare deservingness, such as descriptions of not being accountable, humiliated and disrespectfully treated in different welfare state encounters or not being able to prove one’s moral worth:
I think the whole system is made like that, where you must prove that you have a right to a basic living. (--) I must prove that I deserve that right, because if you are on unemployment benefits, you must send all kinds of monthly slips and attachments. I have done it a lot, especially since I’ve had a part-time job, I had to put pay slips and other attachments there every month. It feels humiliating to me even though I’m at work. Where is my human dignity and the right to live a stable life? I must prove it, no, not even prove it. I must somehow deserve it, which feels just shocking. (I39)
Thus, unconditionality was associated by some interviewees as providing an opportunity not to be under moral judgement and suspicion, with a lack of privacy as an unemployed person. These views also include experiences of child-like treatment and paternalism, such as when claimants’ purchases visible in bank statements are under investigation:
The fact that you were not obliged to present the transactions of your bank account to any stranger. (--) Even though, for sure, you know that no one has the time to start wondering if you have bought a latte or eaten a bun, and judge that it would have been worthwhile to buy pea soup with that kind of money. (--) But it is a completely different thing to be the person who must present those account balances and account transactions month after month. (--) And, in a way, to seek the right to use their own money. (--) In that sense, it [=unconditional benefit] brought a feeling of security, and above all, made you feel that you are as worthy as others. (I3)
Some interviewees argued that not much can be done to the small percentage of people who abuse and cheat the welfare system. Whilst giving support to unconditionality in principle, the interviewees stated that paid labour isn’t the only means to contribute to reciprocal exchange.
In my view there will always be people – it doesn’t matter how well things are managed – there will always be those in the country who just don’t do anything (--) In my opinion, let it be allowed, for such a person. (--) If someone’s life situation is such that they can’t, or won’t, let them do it, it doesn’t take anything out of me. I’ll gladly pay taxes so that someone else can live safely and peacefully (--) I don’t think that if you bully and at the same time imagine that now that person will surely be motivated and find time and energy in their life to improve their situation – when you first throw sticks at someone’s wheel. (I12)
Some of the interviewees shared a political view that all people should have an opportunity to have their basic needs met without anyone devaluing their worth as human beings. The interviewees also criticised the current neoliberal ethos in which the rich have earned their status as deserving people. However, unconditionality, despite its benefits, was portrayed by some interviewees as an unrealistic and politically unfeasible option, as it does not fit into the existing Finnish welfare state ethos (see also Blomberg et al., Reference Blomberg, Kroll and Tarkiainen2025).
Enhanced negotiation power related to unconditionality was not only associated with street-level bureaucrats but also with employers. Some of the interviewees’ view was that unconditionality helped them personally not to accept jobs with poor conditions or negotiate better working conditions for themselves (for more, see Blomberg et al., Reference Blomberg, Kroll, Tarkiainen, Kangas, Jauhiainen and Simanainen2021). This is related to descriptions of not being taken advantage of and being in a secured position in the precarious labour market.
It also gave me the courage to negotiate a better hourly wage for myself. (--) I dared to say hey, it can’t go like this now, that come on, how does this go? I felt like a bit stronger [in the labour market] (--) And in a way, it’s like confirmation that you don’t need to swallow all kinds of crap. That every person is valuable in themselves and does not need to agree to all the [poor options in the labour market]. (I4)
Thus, unconditionality was both personally experienced and, in principle, associated with self-dignity, but also with regularity, peace, comfort and happiness, which were viewed to enhance mental health and help to predict and balance people’s lives when there is no fear of losing benefits or stressing about income.
Views critical towards unconditionality
Nearly a quarter of the interviewees argued unambiguously against unconditionality in principle by criticising the idea that conditionalities are viewed by some as harsh in nature. In these views, conditionalities were portrayed as caretaking, e.g. as helping unemployed people in their job search. In the extract below, unconditionality was also associated with the ‘outdated’ rhetoric of the Finnish political left.
However, the [Prime Minister Sipilä government’s] activation model [based on the tightening of conditionality] doesn’t bother me either. I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. Rather, I think it is a good thing. (--) You shouldn’t treat it as coercion. (--) They give you jobs and like doctors try to cure a disease, the employment staff tries to get you a job. (--) I think it [unemployment benefits] should be conditional in some way. (--) So that the unemployed people stay awake and get something meaningful to do. But there’s that stigma [following from rhetoric claiming that people are] being forced into the whole system. The social media and people feed it when they moan about the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (--) On the internet, they feed the same general mood that the unemployed are being bounced about in this way, and then the Left Alliance also feeds this, because they consider that activation is bullying the unemployed. (--) In my opinion, the lefties could reflect on their own situation and move their hundred-year-old rhetoric into this millennium. (I68)
Thus, some interviewees explicitly supported conditionality in welfare policy, as conditionalities were viewed as ways to prevent fraud and benefit recipients from lazing about. Some interviewees argued, based on their political views, that it would be frustrating to pay unconditional benefits to those who are unwilling to make an effort in the labour market.
You shouldn’t get money for doing nothing. Everyone must try. (--) This situation can’t really continue like this so that people just shirk and lazy about without moving their butts. You should somehow prove your activity. (--) But for sure, I don’t support it either, that people are given money so that they lie around at home. (I79)
Those who were seen as needing conditionalities were identified as ‘work-shy’ young people, migrant men, people with no work history or alcoholics. Conditionalities were associated with the discretionary power of street-level bureaucrats’ decisions to secure both people’s own good and the balance of common resources. However, the interviewees explained that it is complex to define the boundaries of conditionalities regarding who should and should not be disciplined and required to undertake activities. In these views, conditions were perceived as desirable but also unfair to those who are active, revealing the moral complexity involved in supporting the principle of conditionality.
Especially young people should be forced to work with state support. (--) I mean, just for their own sake. (--) When you are excluded from work when you’re young, you easily get bitter about it (--) In a way, it should be the same for everyone, but it can’t be the same for everyone. It should be individually tailored. (I5)
Most commonly, conditionalities were argued to be necessary to apply to healthy and able-bodied claimants, to whom conditions should include participation in charity work and a range of activation measures, because unconditionality could lure laziness, passivity and self-inflicted exclusion. Some interviewees reported that some form of sanction system was needed in principle, to regulate the non-compliant or fraudulent others, but also said that the threat of sanctions was unnecessary or unjust in their own case. The interviewees often introduced short stories of people they knew were taking advantage of the welfare system and therefore required controlling measures, as seen in the following extract:
Well, I also understand conditionality in the sense that I have a relative who refuses to work. (--) The person is now 40 and worked for a couple of years 20 years ago and since then has refused to work. (--) And the person sits in bars almost every night and has three children. (--) In cases like this, I understand the conditionality, but in my own case, it feels like a punishment in some way. I would work if I only got a job and some [employer] would accept me. (I10)
The interviewees also stated that it is not morally right to enable people’s alcoholism with unconditional benefits. Therefore, conditions were viewed as meaningful and reasonable when people were helped and commanded to find their route back to normal life for their own best interest. As seen below, justifications of conditionalities and activity demands were also drawn from the interviewee’s own past personal experiences and prior self:
When I compare it to some of the guys who stayed in the world of drugs. They didn’t have that interest, and similarly, I didn’t either when I was taking part [in drug abuse]. They did not have much interest in things, moving forward and so on. So, yes, I think it’s crazy that our society pays for someone’s substance abuse and alcoholism like that. I don’t understand how the world can be like that. Isn’t it a bit of society’s fault if alcoholics are only given money from the social welfare office and not steered away from what they are doing? (I40)
Ambiguous views negotiating between unconditionality and conditionality
Over one-third of the interviewees held political views that were more ambiguous and complex, as they negotiated between the benefits and pitfalls of conditionality in their discussions. For example, in the extract below, conditionalities are portrayed as meaningful and to a certain extent necessary, however, too harsh in nature:
It seems that the current line of the [Prime Minister Sipilä’s] government is such that there is no such thing as automatic money for anyone – because they always emphasise that you must do it yourself. Well, that’s true. (--) You must do yourself too. (--) Somehow this line is – well, it is a bourgeois government – line is so hard. (--) Harder than before and, yes, I understand that I was just reading a book about Mahatma Gandhi, so it is precisely like that, before rights, there is always a responsibility. (I7)
Conditionalities were then referred to as being multi-sided and a difficult moral matter. Some interviewees reported a good personal relationship with the frontline workers and referred to helpful encounters with the conditional welfare system by portraying the potential conditional withdrawal of benefits as caretaking. Often, in these accounts, the interviewees pointed out that no one should be forced or humiliated, thus conditions should be more humane, respectful and helpful instead of causing frustration in claimants.
I understand it [=conditionality]. How would I say this, uh, this is a terribly difficult question, it’s not easy at all because… In my opinion, if I think the most meaningful to me has been that [anonymised] project. (--) As they were genuinely on my side [in an activation measure] – (--) They genuinely helped and encouraged me to find my own thing. (I43)
In addition, ambiguous views included accounts that stated that required activities that are tied to benefits should include useful skills, such as studying languages, not just activation measures for the sake of non-sense activation. These activities should be flexible, assessed with discretion and targeting that considers individual life situations. Thus, people should be treated with respect, and conditionality should help them to better integrate into the labour market, not hinder access. Also, activation in these views is portrayed as something in need of political development and reform in a way that fair treatment of unemployment claimants is secured, and those in need are helped.
That [(un)conditionality] is a very, very difficult question. Because there are so many kinds of people. And I can’t speak for anyone else other than myself. On the other hand, I think that something should be done in return for getting money. But it shouldn’t be oppressing and blaming the unemployed people that it is their fault that they are unemployed. (--)I think that those who are doing well anyway, don’t have to enhance their situation [with unconditional basic income]. Rather, those who are going through difficult times should be helped first and foremost. (H44)
As seen in the extract above, the conditionalities are justified as individually tailored help for those who are in need. Some interviewees argued that it is not reasonable or realistic to give unconditional money to those who are self-sufficient and earn 5,000 euros a month.
Then, conditionality was argued to make sense depending on individual cases. Typically, the interviewees distinguished groups – like nurses on hourly pay as well as sick and older adults with disabilities – as deserving a lack of conditionality.
Conclusions
In the theoretical literature on BI, it has often been argued that people in more marginalised societal positions, such as the long-term unemployed, are likely to benefit from unconditional basic benefits for various reasons (Bay & Pedersen, Reference Bay and Pedersen2006). More generally, a BI is believed in this literature to yield numerous positive outcomes related to recipients’ autonomy and overall quality of life. Though seldom a question at the centre of argumentation, it thus seems to be commonly posited that the nature of BI would also confer inherent legitimacy to the principle of unconditionality among recipients (e.g. van Parijs, Reference Van Parijs1995).
Against this backdrop, it seems likely that having experiences with unconditional BI, of the kind that the participants in the Finnish BI experiment have acquired, would often result in favouring unconditionality as a principle guiding (basic) social security. These experiment participants make up a particularly interesting group to study, as they have also personally experienced the forms of conditionality associated with the regular unemployment benefit they had previously received.
Moreover, to date, recipients’ views on the principle of (un)conditionality have usually not been the focus of empirical studies on BI experiments; instead, research has focused on (other) outcomes. Here, a scoping review by Gibson et al. (Reference Gibson, Hearty and Craig2018) found mixed impacts of BI on physical and mental health, with some studies showing positive effects and others showing none, while Wilson and McDaid’s (Reference Wilson and McDaid2021) review seemed to confirm mental health benefits. Gibson et al. (Reference Gibson, Hearty and Craig2018) further concluded that a BI had little impact on labour market participation. Available qualitative research indicates reduced stigma and increased self-dignity and trust (Bohmeyer & Cornelsen, Reference Bohmeyer and Cornelsen2019; Calnitsky, Reference Calnitsky2016), with Finnish research showing varied effects on these issues (Blomberg et al., Reference Blomberg, Kroll, Tarkiainen, Kangas, Jauhiainen and Simanainen2021). A qualitative study by Hamilton and Mulvale (Reference Hamilton and Mulvale2019) suggests that a BI offers advantages over traditional conditional welfare programmes in areas such as long-term financial planning, improved nutrition, housing stability, physical and mental health and relationships with friends and family.
While such results would seem to point in the direction anticipated in theories on BI concerning views on unconditionality among BI recipients, as discussed above, attitudinal research on welfare state support indicates the likelihood of more complex underpinnings of attitudes about (un)conditionality.
Our empirical analysis of the Finnish BI experiment participants revealed three distinct views to benefit unconditionality, pointing to a fairly complex and multifaceted pattern of thought among the experiment participants: about one in three of our eighty-one interviewees were clearly in favour of unconditionality, while about every fourth opposed it, with most of the remaining interviewees having less clear-cut views, negotiating between pros and cons.
Thus, supporters of unconditionality argued that the BI simplifies the welfare system, reduces inequality and allocates resources fairly. Personal experiences during the BI experiment highlighted that the unconditional BI offered a predictable safety net and protection against poor working conditions, while traditional activation measures were viewed as coercive and harmful, reflecting a neoliberal ethos. Opponents of unconditionality also cited personal experiences but, in addition, brought their political views to the fore by criticising the rhetoric of leftist Finnish political parties for stigmatising conditionality, for example, even though the BI experiment was initiated by a non-socialist centre-conservative government. They argued that conditionalities prevent misuse of the system and help recipients reintegrate into society, though the ‘truly active’ should not face sanctions. However, many interviewees were weighing the benefits and drawbacks of conditionality. They justified certain conditionalities with the idea that ‘rights come with responsibilities’ and advocated for professional discretion in implementation. Some argued that unconditional support should not be given to those who are self-sufficient or wealthy.
Summing up, participation in the universal BI experiment did not result in unequivocal views on conditionality/unconditionality. However, in contrast to qualitative studies among the general population that have shown general ambiguity in people’s views on (un)conditionality (Rossetti et al., Reference Rossetti, Roosma, Laenen and Abts2020), our results show that some of the participants really supported unconditionality. This suggests that personally experiencing the benefit unconditionality contributes to clarifying views about such a principle among benefit recipients. Simultaneously, the proportion supporting unconditionality could be regarded as quite modest. Various reasons seem to underlie this finding. Negative personal experiences of conditionality did not necessarily lead to an unequivocally positive view on the unconditionality of benefits, since not all (potential) recipients were regarded as equally deserving of support. Similar reasoning has been found in studies on different benefit systems, comprising various groups in vulnerable positions, both in Finland and elsewhere (Bottero, Reference Bottero2019, pp. 83–90; Linnanvirta et al., Reference Linnanvirta, Kroll and Blomberg2019). Other informants referred to positive personal experiences of the original conditional system, while also partially displaying views that seemed to indicate a significant impact of institutionalised norms on the NWS work ethos in their principal reasoning on (un)conditionality. Furthermore, more general personal political views also seemed to have a significant impact on the varying views on unconditionality among experiment participants. Thus, our results point to the importance, for BI experiment participants, of various ‘classical explanatory factors’ for the variations in views that have been detected in attitudinal research on welfare states (Chrisp et al., Reference Chrisp, Pulkka and Rincón García2020; Svallfors, Reference Svallfors2007).
However, it should be noted that our interviews were conducted when the experiment had recently ended, and a dominating message in the public debate was the idea that an unconditional BI was going to be ‘buried’, and that the experiment had ‘failed’ in terms of its employment goals (Blomberg et al., Reference Blomberg, Kroll, Tarkiainen, Kangas, Jauhiainen and Simanainen2021). Furthermore, our results on unconditionality stemming from the NWS institutional context and a distinct public discourse may not be transferable as such to other less comprehensive welfare systems.
While the views expressed in this experimental setting would not necessarily remain unaltered if unconditionality, in the form of a BI or otherwise, were to be strengthened within regular social policies, our interviewees belong to a group that would most likely have benefited personally from the extended unconditionality of basic benefits that the experiment provided, if viewed in the light of much theoretical pro-BI reasoning. However, considering our findings, it would seem as if a change in recipient views would require a clear alteration in policy principles about unconditionality, rather than the other way around. For the moment, the Finnish government policy is moving in the diametrically opposite direction, and no political party with a realistic prospect of attaining power has actively advocated the implementation of a BI since the conclusion of the BI experiment in 2018.
All in all, based on our findings, the lived experiences of a BI do not seem to affect the thinking on normative principles of the welfare state in any straightforward way. Personal political views, as well as the institutionalised norms underlying traditional national welfare policies, seem to affect both the interpretation of one’s own experiences and the weight given to these when considering policy principles. Thus, future research on BI models and their implementation may benefit from considering the various potential mechanisms underlying people’s reasoning on (un)conditionality detected here. Prioritising such a focus would seem important for enhancing the understanding of the legitimacy effects of BI policies.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
