Why should a tiny minority receive the rewards from resources, knowledge and institutions that are ultimately part of our common inheritance?
In this podcast, I talk to Professor Guy Standing, best known for developing the idea of the precariat and for his longstanding advocacy of universal basic income.
Guy argues that neoliberalism has created a growing class of people living without the security, rights and occupational identities that previous generations could often expect. But precarity is about more than insecure employment. It means becoming dependent upon employers, landlords, bureaucrats and others simply to get by.
That insecurity is having profound political consequences.
Our discussion moved from the precariat to Guy's idea of the commons: the natural resources, knowledge, education, institutions and other forms of common wealth from which private interests increasingly extract rents.
Guy argues that those profiting from the commons should compensate the commoners, of whom we are all one. That revenue could be placed in commons capital funds and used to provide everyone with a social dividend, helping underpin a universal basic income.
We discussed as a result why basic income could act as a “social vaccine” against economic uncertainty, why security can increase freedom rather than discourage work, and why reclaiming the commons might offer the basis for a radically different progressive politics.
This is ultimately a discussion about something bigger: who owns our common wealth, who should benefit from it, and what is the economy actually for?
This is the audio version:
There is no transcript for this podcast, as it would be very long. I have, however, summarised our conversation as follows:
I recorded this podcast with Professor Guy Standing, someone I have known for some time and whose work overlaps with my own in some important ways, a few days ago. Our conversation ranged widely, but at its heart was a simple question: how do we create the economic security people need if they are to live well, participate in democracy, and have genuine freedom?
Guy began with the idea for which he is probably best known: the precariat. His argument is that the economic changes associated with neoliberalism and globalisation have created a new class whose defining characteristic is not simply insecure employment, but a much broader condition of precarity.
People in the precariat lack stable occupational identities, employment benefits and reliable pensions. They are frequently dependent upon money wages while being exposed to, and often carrying significant debts. Most importantly, Guy argues, they increasingly lack effective economic, social and political rights.
That distinction between insecurity and precarity matters. Insecurity means facing risks. Precarity means being dependent upon the discretionary decisions of employers, landlords, bureaucrats, family members and others simply to get by. People are required, in effect, to ask for permission to survive.
That has profound political consequences.
Guy divides the precariat into three broad groups.
The first are the “atavists”, often drawn from older working-class communities, who are attracted by political promises to restore an imagined past. They are often older, from the traditional working class, and male.
The second are the “nostalgics”, including many migrants and minorities, who lack a secure sense of belonging in the present. Their aim is to live well now.
The third are the “progressives”, who are often younger and highly educated people who were promised opportunity but instead emerged into a world of debt, insecure employment and unaffordable housing.
I found Guy's description particularly powerful because each group has a different relationship with time. One looks backwards, another struggles to find security in the present, while the third is searching for a viable future.
That brought us to the commons.
For Guy, the commons are much more than commonly owned land, as they were once described. They include the natural environment, the sea, education, knowledge and the accumulated intellectual and institutional inheritance of society. He argues that much of this common property, and the wealth derived from it, has been appropriated for private gain.
That process is fundamental to modern rentier capitalism. Land, natural resources, intellectual property, patents, finance and other monopoly rights allow relatively small groups to extract enormous incomes from resources and knowledge that depend heavily upon our collective inheritance and, very often, publicly funded investment.
The obvious question is: why should they receive all the benefit? Guy's answer is that they should not.
Those who profit from taking resources from the commons should, he argues, compensate the commoners. The resulting revenues could flow into 'commons capital funds', with at least part of the return distributed to everyone as a social dividend.
This provides a very different justification for a universal basic income from the one usually offered. A basic income is not simply another benefit, nor is it charity provided by the state to people deemed to be in need. It can instead be understood as a dividend arising from our shared claim upon common wealth.
That also changes the meaning of redistribution. Instead of waiting until an increasingly unequal economic system has distributed income and wealth and then attempting to correct the resulting inequalities through taxation, Guy is proposing that everyone should have a claim on the returns generated from resources that properly belong, at least in part, to us all.
There is also a second argument for basic income, which I found compelling. We have moved from a world dominated by probabilistic or calculable risks to one increasingly characterised by uncertainty. Climate shocks, financial crises, corporate failures, technological disruption and other events cannot easily be predicted or insured against. They do not have the probabilistic characteristics required to do that.
Guy therefore describes basic income as a “social vaccine”. It cannot prevent every economic shock, but it can give people sufficient security to withstand one and, crucially, to recover afterwards.
That security matters for freedom as well. Someone who is permanently frightened about paying the rent, feeding their children or servicing their debts cannot enjoy meaningful economic freedom. Nor can they necessarily make the choices that allow them to develop their abilities or participate fully in society.
Guy argues that evidence from basic-income experiments challenges the claim that providing security makes people idle. Instead, he says, people often work more, acquire skills, improve their health and education, and become more economically active. Local economies can benefit because additional income generates demand for locally produced goods and services.
This led us towards something bigger than basic income itself.
Both of us reject the idea that paid employment is the only activity that creates value or gives life meaning. People demonstrate extraordinary skills through caring, voluntary activity, hobbies, community participation, creative work and micro-businesses, while conventional employment frequently fails to use much of their ability.
The progressive objective should therefore not simply be to manufacture more jobs. It should be to give people sufficient security to undertake worthwhile work, broadly understood, and to participate in the communities in which they live. That is where Guy's ideas about the precariat, the commons, basic income and rentier capitalism come together for me. This is a cohesive basis for a better society.
Contrast this with the existing economic settlement, which has concentrated wealth and power while simultaneously increasing insecurity for millions of people. That insecurity is now producing political consequences. Some people are looking backwards towards authoritarian populism and an imagined lost past. Others are searching for a progressive politics capable of offering security, belonging and hope.
Our discussion suggested that reclaiming the commons could be central to that alternative. Instead of allowing the returns from our natural resources, knowledge, technology and shared inheritance to accrue overwhelmingly to rentiers, we could capture part of those returns for everyone. A commons capital fund could turn common wealth into a social dividend. That dividend could provide the basic security people need to make meaningful choices about work, family, community and participation in democracy.
That would not simply be another adjustment to the existing economic system. It would begin to change who has a claim on wealth, who receives the rewards generated by society, and ultimately what we think the economy is for.
Guy and I agreed that we had barely scratched the surface. There is clearly much more for us to discuss, and I hope we will return to these issues in another podcast.
Poll
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thanks for another helpfully analytical article.
Might the concept of the “precariat”, and its further differentiation into three types, support the concept of practical democracy being a polyarchal form of governance?
Might a more general grasp of “ Polyarchal Democracy” make citizens, and their children, more genuinely well informed and so make our form of governance more validly democratic?
A good point.
There is definitely a ‘democratic dividend’ to be had here that may be more tangible than current arrangements.
Two of the biggest issues I know you for are your advocacy of the tax system and resource accounting where you bring both a strong moral underpinning and accounting logic.
Reading through the blog alone convinced me that there was nothing contrary to any of this – it felt to me that the discussion was ‘at home’ so to speak with the above.
It is good to see Guy expanding and developing his initial ideas. His 2014 book about the ‘precariat’ and identifying them as a potentially politically unstable phenomenon was very prescient. In nicer times it would have caused more of a stir – severe Tory austerity had gripped the country at the time.
I think you are both in ‘good company’ and I look forward to further blogs on this issue.
Thanks, PSR. Guy and I have mailed each other this morning; he does seem to have enjoyed this conversation.
The problem is, the rentiers and neoliberals (Labour/Tory/Liberals/Reform/Restore/SNP) will fight tooth and nail to prevent UBI and instead squander wealth on increased military spending and cutting existing benefits.
Free Open Source Software (FOSS) gives me a more realistic share in the commons of IT than I had when I was part of a system which generated vast profits for multinational corporations while delivering monopolistic clunky bloatware. FOSS also creates community with volunteer peer support providing solutions to software and hardware problems far quicker than MS ever did, despite taking my money.
I feel this overlaps philosophically with what you are talking about here.
You are right.
And I admit I have not got the courage or time to change.
The principle of The Commons is for me a foundational principle of how a society should be organised and societies should also treat as fundamental the position that the commons belongs to all life which includes humans.
The problem with treating profit as a dividend is that it keeps in place institutions and practices producing that profit that are injurious to life in general. Distributing the profits of oil companies for example in the form of UBI does not help us build a better world.
While UBI would be better than any existing arrangement I have some reservations which lead me to favour universal basic services instead. The first is that UBI retains the primacy of money as an asset rather than primarily valuing the service and I am very much behind your emphasis on resources rather than money in explaining MMT. The second is that cost can fluctuate and to retain access a somewhat complicated calculation that would vary, for all the usual factors of user, deliverer and external factors, between people and areas would be required and subject to political restraint. To provide a service free at the point of delivery requires only the more straight forward task of maintaining the service that has to be done anyway.
The space is too limited to expand on this argument but in essence I am arguing that we should be more in touch with resources as the source of our wellbeing and less concerned with tokens of debt.
Much to agree with
Totally agree….and UBS, free or subsidised at point of delivery, would not be subject to the continual loop of extraction in the same way that increasing individual’s monetary worth would.
With a bit of imagination universal basic services could extend beyond health, education and transport into energy, food, housing etc.
Interesting. I couldn’t vote because I don’t know what is meant by “claiming ownership of the commons” – something like being citizens? Could UBI be truly universal – for all who live here, not just for those the government deigns to recognise as citizens?
Try this
https://www.google.com/search?q=reclaiming+ownership+of+the+commons&sca_esv=091a64d36eb9ecc4&sxsrf=APpeQns3nTiajkMrTDP5sJBkIuJ7kLZAyA%3A1791711746710&ei=AlrLap_DKrqC9u8P66-q-Q0&biw=1408&bih=802&uact=5&oq=reclaiming+ownership+of+the+commons&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiI3JlY2xhaW1pbmcgb3duZXJzaGlwIG9mIHRoZSBjb21tb25zMgUQIRigAUinLVDLGViJG3ACeAGQAQCYAb8BoAHiA6oBAzAuM7gBA8gBAPgBAZgCBaAC_APCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIOEAAY5AIY1gQYsAPYAQHCAhcQLhjcBhi4BhjaBhjYAhjIAxiwA9gBAcICBxAjGLACGCfCAgUQABjvBcICCBAAGIkFGKIEwgIIEAAYgAQYogSYAwCIBgGQBg-6BgYIARABGAmSBwMyLjOgB5ULsgcDMC4zuAf0A8IHBTAuMy4yyAcOgAgB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
Richard
In the past you have talked about provision of some services as a Social Dividend – how about a £1 bus fare, a certain per capita amount of electricity and water either free or at a reduced rate etc…..
That’s one way to do it.
Why £1 bus fare? Why not public transport s a public good, provided without charge? For some even £1 may be problematic.
British engineer and economist C H Douglas had a similar concept of a social dividend in the 1920s and 30s. He hoped his ideas would provide economic security for all. In addition to land, labour and capital he said there was fourth factor, the cultural inheritance of society -which included scientific knowledge and techniques.
There were a number of Social Credit parties arsing from the the writings of C H Douglas. In England a party known as the Greenshirts was established but made little headway.
The most successful Social Credit parties were in Canada. One held power in the province of Alberta for over 30 years.
in the 1970s and 80s a similar party was the third part in New Zealand.
Keynes, I learnt today, mentioned him in the General Theory and rejected his ideas.
I came across it years ago but never found enough information to evaluate it. But the possibility of another way remained. Positive Money came along in recent years but I didn’t think their answer stood up.
I read accounts of Mosler’s work. Thought, ‘that can’t be right but couldn’t find a way to disprove it.’ Stephanie Kelton wrote of a similar feeling. Then it began to seem plausible.
Thanks to this blog I can now see clearly why Thatcher was wrong ( and Sunak in the lsat few years) that there is no alternative to her neo-liberalism. I had a sense of finding something which I thought may exist but I couldn’t find it. Thanks Richard.
Thank you. Appreciated.
I really enjoyed this podcast , particularly the ideas about the commons, which I’ve never really examined. We have lost so much by stealth, I think it’s been hard to identify for many.
I also think the point Guy makes about people being more productive when in receipt of enough income to provide security was borne out by all the people – artists, musicians, writers, makers of theatre , small time entrepreneurs etc who started their careers “on the dole” in the seventies, when signing on was, in my experience, an easy process where one didn’t feel the weight of moral judgement. I would add that there are also large numbers of retired people with adequate pensions who go out and make a huge contribution to society entirely voluntarily.
We are sold the myth of a lazy underclass……sadly bought by many.
And bought wholly incorrectly, I think.
That was an excellent podcast Richard. Clear, progressive ideas always give me hope.
Thank you
Richard, the evidence is less kind to Guy than he suggests. The largest US cash trial (OpenResearch, 2024) paid $1,000 a month for three years. Recipients worked about 1.3 fewer hours a week, and employment fell roughly two points. Finland’s trial barely moved employment at all. Alaska’s celebrated dividend is around $1,000 a year, which is a bonus rather than security. The “precariat” is also smaller than the rhetoric: zero-hours contracts cover about 3% of UK workers, and average job tenure has stayed broadly stable. A meaningful UBI of £10,000 per adult would cost over £500bn, a fifth of GDP. Which commons fund yields that?
I think you are missing much of what Guy Standing is arguing.
First, why should working an average of 1.3 fewer hours a week necessarily be considered a failure? If people gain greater freedom to care for others, spend time with their families or refuse unsuitable employment, that might be a worthwhile outcome. The Finnish experiment also reported improvements in economic security and wellbeing, despite little change in employment.
Second, you cannot measure the precariat simply by counting zero-hours contracts. Standing describes a much wider condition of insecurity, including uncertain incomes, insecure housing, inadequate pensions, weak employment rights and an inability to plan for the future. People can, and many do, have permanent contracts and still experience considerable insecurity.
Third, Standing’s argument about the commons is not simply about finding a fund large enough to pay everyone £10,000 annually. This is as trite as saying tax funds spending without considering that spending actuality creates the capacity to tax. It concerns who owns and benefits from resources that should be our shared inheritance, including land, natural resources and wealth created collectively.
You also confuse the gross cost of a universal payment with its net cost after taxation and changes to existing social security arrangements.
Nor does a currency-issuing government need to accumulate savings before spending. The constraints are available resources and inflation.
I have reservations about some UBI proposals myself, and have said so over time, particularly if they undermine public services. But Guy’s central argument concerns economic security, shared wealth and the right to benefit from common resources. Your criticisms do not come close to adequately addressing that argument.
A truly worthwhile podcast that covers a lot of ground and I am so glad that you have opened up the conversation around the commons. Further podcasts with Guy would be deeply appreciated. An example of the way the commons has been captured and seems to receive little attention, as far I can see, is the way Elon Musk is appropriating space (a commons) with his disposable satellites (space junk) for Starlink. Similarly the FF companies have utilised the commons, the atmosphere, for their waste and we are all going to suffer the consequences caused to our climate whilst still being obliged to continue using their products. Further examples abound. I have not read the Blue Commons, but just ordered it. I hope Guy is able to make some progress with the Green MP’s!
I hope that, too.
I have to say that, when I look into the abyss, all I see is justification for saying that we do not need so many people in the future.
So at some time, is some politician backed by a powerful few going to tell us not to have children? Will certain social classes by barred from reproducing? Will there be a quote system introduced?
And who is going to make that decision, if it is made at all – based on what criteria? It’s like writing off human beings and I don’t think that’s right. And if that decision will be made, can it be done justly – nicely even, or will it be a matter of treating people like shit. And who is to say that those at the top are the best people when families rise and fall all the time and a narrow ruling elite can generate its own problems.
Go back to Cameron’s ‘Nudge Unit’ and how the nudge was actually a kick in the groin.
The opportunity provided here is one of rethinking and redefining economic output. All that housework keeps the companies that make the products going. But the people squeezing out toilet cleaner and using the elbow grease (doing it) are ignored. And let’s face it, caring is monumentally undervalued in this society, but if you risk the ranch to make a financial gain, you’ll get a big fat bonus (made worse by the fact that you are likely to be bailed out by the State – so where was the risk BTW?).
I like this concept. For me it is good old fashioned ‘social security’ (bollocks to ‘welfare’ BTW).
Agreed, and on the term welfare
While listening i had this questions that popped up in my mind, why do humans think that we have ownership of the world, I then remembered something that was said to me as a young adult, those with the biggest sticks took what they wanted and eventually became the ruling class. The history of land ownership goes back to the days when rulers wanted to raise armies to fight other rulers for resources, on the basis of if I have wealth its because I deserve it and if you don’t then its because you don’t deserve it. I like the idea of universal basic services but do think it misses a bit of the point if it is instead of a universal basic income which allows for individual choice, so I think that we would benefit from both UBS and UBI. is that totally unrealistic.
That is not totally unrealistic.
It is very unlikely without rid ourselves of neoliberalism.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for this highly interesting and thoroughly enjoyable podcast with Guy Standing – much appreciated this end.
You should definitely get Guy on again – and soon. Perhaps after his upcoming discussions with the Green Party he could report back, as it were. Also, it might be useful if you both address some of the queries and comments received thus far which challenge his/your perspective.
Sincerely,
Lawrence