Understanding Multidimensional Preferences of Basic Income Policy: A Conjoint Experiment

The objective of this paper is to explain under which conditions public opinion supports basic income policy, using a comparative study of Finland and Spain. Existing data and surveys cannot fully answer this question. On the one hand, current work has treated basic income as a unidimensional policy, asking the degree of support towards a specific definition of basic income. This jeopardizes comparison between surveys, but also confuses understanding the elements of the definition that individuals are thinking about when responding. In fact, we are unable of understanding what particular features respondents are thinking about, and which characteristics are more salient to them. Secondly, existing public opinion data does not provide a clear picture of individual preferences towards basic income policy and competing proposals. For instance, according to the last ESS round approximately 70% of individuals who support basic income, are also favorable to opposed measures such as reducing unemployment benefits if recipients fail to take up a lower paid job or unpaid work. Overcoming these limitations and understanding public opinion support for basic income remains a key challenge for academics and policy-makers alike in the 21st century. The increasing prospects of labor automatization, structural unemployment, changing labor market demands and the inability of current welfare models to cope with these obstacles, have opened up the debate about the need to reform the welfare system. Amongst the proposals on the table, universal basic income is receiving growing attention in various contexts. Basic income is not only an effective tool to deal with these challenges, but can also tackle gender equality, health and education rates, poverty traps, and ecological sustainability amongst others. While basic income policy seems promising in various fronts, a key obstacle for policy-makers is to understand public opinion support towards this policy. To advance knowledge in the field, we employ a conjoint experiment, which is an unobtrusive experimental design that has been increasingly used to understand multi-dimensional preferences and choices in various issues. Respondents are forced to choose between two competing policy proposals that vary in various dimensions. In this case, we present two related basic income schemes that vary in their conditionality, unit of recipient, funding mechanisms and quantity. By making respondents choose between these two alternatives we are able of understanding the trade-offs that individuals are confronted with when selecting between competing policy alternatives. Moreover, we are able of identifying preferred designs and how these vary across sociodemographic criteria. We field this experiment through Netquest, to a nationally representative sample of 2000 individuals in Spain and Finland, during the month of February 2019. Results will contribute to advancing the knowledge on attitudes towards basic income policy, but will also speak to the growing field of the multidimensionality of preferences of welfare state reform.