Why feminists need to take up a basic income in their fight for women’s liberation: An interview with Carole Pateman

Jacqueline Gullion and Carole Pateman discuss how a basic income that provides a decent (but modest) standard of living can increase democratic participation and contribute to the advancement of women.

Image: Generation Grundeinkommen/Flickr

The newly-elected conservative government in Ontario recently decided to prematurely halt the province’s basic-income pilot project. Advocates and analysts in fields ranging from health, to poverty reduction, to women’s equality have condemned this decision, saying:

“[Premier Doug Ford] knew that the evidence from the basic income pilot would show that it actually — surprise surprise — creates a healthier society when there are less people impoverished. He knew that the evidence would surely show that when we take the worry of poverty off people’s shoulders they become more involved in their communities, form better associations, do a better job raising their families, and have better mental health.”

The project, which provided the lowest-income people in three Ontario cities with a no strings attached monthly payment, was supposed to run for another two years. The pilot program was meant to test if increasing the minimum income available to people (while decreasing the bureaucracy associated with accessing it) is a viable alternative to the current social assistance regime. It was also meant to explore whether a basic income — set at a rate higher than the current welfare rate — has the potential to improve the lives of people living in poverty.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ July 2018 report on wealth concentration in Canada indicates that just 87 people in Canada have more wealth than 12 million Canadians. That means that 32.5 per cent of Canadians combined own less than 87 individual people.  

Feminists have long argued that redistribution of wealth is a condition for women’s equality. For years, Canadian women’s groups have incorporated demands for a guaranteed livable income into our campaigns for the abolition of all forms of male violence against women, including prostitution. It is unsurprising that a regressive, right wing government would object to a progressive, potentially transformative policy like basic income.

Dr. Carole Pateman is a political philosopher and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at UCLA and honorary professor at Cardiff University. Dr. Pateman is the author of several significant works shedding light on the foundations of inequality including The Sexual Contract (1988) and Contract and Domination (2007). She is the co-editor of Basic Income Worldwide: Horizons of Reform (2012).

Jacqueline Gullion is a Canadian feminist. She worked in Canada against male violence for 15 years as an unpaid activist with Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter, and now lives in Belgium, learning Dutch & French with refugees, organizing a community garden and a feminist affinity group, and working in the IT sector.

In the following interview they discuss how a basic income that provides a decent standard of living can increase democratic participation.


Jacqueline Gullion: From your point of view, what are the chief characteristics of a basic income?

Carole Pateman: The way I look at it, a basic income is a regular sum of money, paid by government to individuals — not to households or couples — that is sufficient. And this is absolutely crucial: the actual level of the income must be sufficient for someone to live what I call “a modest but decent standard of life.” With a basic income, you’re not going to be rich, but you’re not going to be mired in poverty either.

JG: Who, specifically, would be entitled to a basic income?

CP: It is meant to be universal. It should be for every resident. There should also be some kind of allowance for children. [The issue of how to administer it] is an area that’s open to discussion, but my thinking is that a basic income should be universal.

JG: Can you describe how you came to understand basic income as in the interests of the advancement of women and a more democratic society?

CP: One of the first things that attracted me to basic income is that, if the income was set at a sufficient level, it would not just relieve poverty, but it would be the end of poverty. For women it is actually very important because women’s income tends to be less than men’s. I mean if you think about a few decades ago [in the global North], it was not seen as altogether seemly for married women to be employed. They were reliant on their husband’s income, and his generosity (or not) for their own standard of living. Now, women’s wages still tend to be less than men’s, so we still don’t have a situation where women and men have equally high standards of living.

With something like a basic income, women could be assured of a reasonable standard of living in the same way men are. Finally, we’d really start talking about equal citizenship.

JG: That certainly supports the argument of why it would be better for individuals to be entitled to the basic income rather than a household to have a set amount.

CP: You know what happens historically when money goes to the household? Men tend to spend it on things other than the necessities of life for their wives and children. One good thing about family allowances in Britain is that they were always paid to the mother, so there was a really good chance that the children benefited.

JG: Could you say a bit more about the ways in which a basic income enables women (or anyone) to participate fully as a citizen in a democracy?

CP: A certain level of subsistence is required if you’re going to have the time and energy and possibility of getting the knowledge required to participate fully in your society. If all your time and energy goes toward trying to make enough money to keep body and soul together, or to providing for a family, then you are going to have to make pretty heroic efforts to actually participate.

If you are actually interested in having a democratic citizenry — that is where citizens have the opportunity, in some way or another, to govern themselves and not just be governed by others — then there has to be a material basis for it.

JG: Yes, for women, we would have the liberty to escape dangerous situations, to avoid being stuck living with dangerous men, and to be able to care for our children.

CP: Yes. I think these kinds of considerations are extremely important when we’re talking about basic income. It is a way for people to maintain their own standard of living, but it also enables them (if they have a particularly nasty, perhaps dangerous job, for example), to know that if they leave that job, they’re not going to starve. If there is a basic income available that enables them to live at least decently they can say “no” to those kinds of jobs. This is why a basic income is a major step forward. It’s not a panacea, but it is a necessary part of any policy for democratizing societies further than ours are now.

JG: In the anti-violence movement in Canada, women are integrating Guaranteed Livable Income campaigns into women’s liberation campaigns, for example against male violence against women, which includes the campaign for the abolition of prostitution.

CP: It’s very interesting and exciting that basic income is being taken up by feminist demands for equality. Because [basic income ensures] you have the means to escape from dangerous circumstances, like if you’re going into prostitution because it offers more money than other things you can do. Having a basic income available, I think, is crucial to enabling people to live as they would like to live and not as they have to because of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

JG: I would like to ask you a little bit more about your point of view on the contribution that feminists can or should make to the theorizing of basic income.

CP: I think feminists have got quite a large role to play. It seems there is much more interest in basic income now. Certainly in the earlier days the feminist side was almost completely overlooked. There was so little discussion, if any at all, on what this would mean for women. And yet, as far back as 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft was pointing out women’s economic disadvantages and the ramifications they had for women’s status as citizens, as mothers, wives, and workers (though that term would be be a bit anachronistic).

I think some who argue for basic income want to abolish the rest of the social provisions. I don’t follow that argument at all. I think we probably need to keep much of the existing provisions for Social Security, housing, medical, and education. A basic income should be part of the overall plan for having a body of citizens who don’t have to live in poverty or spend all their time struggling to make a living. It is extraordinary that here we are in 2018, living in extraordinarily rich countries, and there are so many still struggling with poverty. It is bizarre. Actually, it’s very distressing.

JG: Let’s consider some of the criticisms of basic income. Certainly the classic that I know of is the fiscal and moral conservatives saying that if everyone is entitled to an income, it will encourage laziness and people will refuse to work.

CP: Yes this is a classic: “If people can get something for nothing, everybody will immediately stop working, and spend their time drinking and taking drugs or whatever.”  There is actually very little evidence at all to support that. Most of the empirical evidence that I’ve come across suggests that people will use their income to improve their lives and to better themselves. They won’t stop working. They might want a better job or something like that, but no, the majority will not stop working. That is empirically quite a misplaced objection.

JG: Another is that if we implement a basic income, we might be able to eliminate all other social programs. I think I agree with you and probably we would still need health care, pension programs, education, but we may be able to eradicate some bureaucracy.

CP: Yes. There are some people on the right who say, “Give people a lump sum of however many dollars per year, and sort of let them get on with it… Let them find their own private health care, their own education etc.” But that’s not the sort of thing that I am suggesting. I think of basic income as part of a wider policy for the welfare state, for want of a better word.

Such a program would be supporting fellow citizens in their endeavors, not making it difficult for them to do everything or forcing everyone to privately arrange everything for themselves.

I mean if you get a few people who do want to just sit and do nothing, what does it matter if, in such rich countries [as Canada, UK, USA], a few people want to just sit in front of the television all day — that’s their loss, really. Let’s not worry too much about it.

JG: I think one of the things that’s important for us to keep in mind is that we’re talking about either social reform through small adjustments, or we’re talking about social transformation.

One argument that you made in your 2004 article, “Democratizing Citizenship: Some Advantages of a Basic Income,” was that if we set ourselves the goal of only fighting for what seems politically feasible, we may lose sight of the political reasons why we’re fighting for it. I appreciate that you argue for having a clear vision of the reasons why we aim for a basic income.

CP: For any policy, there would be a number of reasons why one would advocate it, but it does make quite a difference which reasons you are arguing for or arguing from.

If you are just interested in relieving poverty, well fine, a [small income supplement for the poor] could help some people. But if we are really serious about making democratic changes, then we have to be more serious about the level at which such an income would be set. If the level were set so people could have a decent but modest standard of life, it would likely help people start thinking differently about things that they were doing, what might be achieved, and what could be changed.

JG: I noticed in 2017 that some billionaires — like Richard Branson, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg — started talking about basic income. Billionaires are not normally the allies of progressive social change. Their arguments for a basic income are, more or less, that robotics and computers will take over a lot of the jobs that people currently do. Mark Zuckerberg said, “Now it’s our time to define a new social contract for our generation. So we should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.” What do you make of these billionaire capitalists promoting basic income?

CP: Well the notion that we could be faced with a lot of unemployed people is not very new. I mean, the robots are a newer angle, but the actual level of unemployment has been pretty high, globally, for quite some time. This has focused people’s attention on policy like basic income, because what are you going to do with all these unemployed people [who could] get restless?? I think this is where the billionaires come in: a basic income could be a way of ensuring, they hope, some kind of social order. And to be fair, maybe they actually think people should have an adequate standard of living. But I think that whether it’s through technological change of one sort or another (including robots), it could be true that, as the years go by, there will be fewer and fewer actual jobs for people. There will be a select few who’ve got the skills and qualifications to work in a highly automated environment. But for the general public, what are they going to do? How will they be employed?

Overall, I don’t think basic income is being discussed as much as it could be. I don’t know how many people have actually even heard of it. So, in some ways, I rather welcome famous people picking up the idea. Even if they’re not arguing for it quite the way I would, at least they bring the public attention.

JG: Thank you very much for making the time for this conversation. I’d like to conclude by saying congratulations again on the 30 year anniversary of The Sexual Contract, a very important feminist book of political theory that I first encountered as a volunteer rape crisis worker in Vancouver, Canada.  

Guest Writer
Guest Writer

One of Feminist Current's amazing guest writers.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Meghan Murphy

    Framing it as “free money’ is misguided. Every person deserves to live with dignity, safe housing, access to health care, and a certain standard of living. This is one way of offering this.

    • marv

      You have touched upon the crux of the matter, entitlements through universal human rights.

      “As well as challenging notions of work, a human rights approach can also support arguments about whether a basic income is deserved. It strives towards a society in which the inherent moral worth of all humans is recognised and realised, aiming for every individual to have a life worthy of human dignity. Human rights do not value people by their economic contribution to society via wage labour, instead recognising their existence itself as valuable. Basic income matches these values, giving people more freedom to lead their own lives and supporting people who contribute in ways beyond wage labour, such as caring for others, political engagement, artistic and creative endeavours.”



    • Maria Gatti

      And it is EXTREMELY important to women’s equality, counterposed to the Harper idea of family income tax, making it less profitable to women to be in the labour force if their husband’s income is considerably higher. Dependency has a high cost for women’s safety and self-esteem.

  • marv

    John Clark’s view in the link you offered is somewhat shortsighted. Here are two other left thinkers that take a broader look:

    Carter Vance is an MA candidate in the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University and a former legislative researcher with the offices of Erin Weir and Peter Julien. His writing has appeared online at Jacobin, Truth Out and Inquires Journal.

    Miles Krauter is a PhD candidate in the Sociology Department, and an alumni of the Institute of Political Economy, at Carleton University. He is the Vice President External at his union, CUPE 4600, and an organizer with the Fight for $15 & Fairness Ottawa. His writing has appeared online at rabble.ca, Ricochet, and Canadian Dimension.

    “Any evaluation of the costs of a left BI must account for the fact that it would need to be gradually implemented (just like hikes to the minimum wage), and that it could eventually adequately replace welfare, disability benefits and tax credits rendered redundant. It must also account for the money that would be saved on less-burdened healthcare and justice systems, as well as the multiplier effects attendant to cash transfers to people with little capital. Finally, left critics of BI should understand that left proponents are generally banking on significant changes to our national revenue streams to sustain a generous BI, such as quantitative easing for the people, increased taxes on the wealthy (financial transaction, corporate, income, luxury, inheritance, etc), but also increased public ownership; is it too fantastical to dream of new automation-exploiting crown corporations directly funding a BI scheme? The left critic response is, presumably, yes, because none of this is ‘on offer.’ Like so many ‘realist’ arguments, this one’s cynical assumptions have a more narrow view of reality — potential and current — than what is warranted.”


  • Meghan Murphy

    I mean, men have been harassing women at work for eons… Not sure why or even how unemployment could amplify this… And indeed rich men are just as violent as working class men…

    Keeping men living in poverty and homeless isn’t going to stop violence against women.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Right on. Literally NO ONE needs to be a billionaire.

  • TwinMamaManly

    Scapegoating? Sorry. Disagree. It is completely unethical and immoral that so much wealth in concentrated in the hands of so few.

  • Just Passing Through

    Not so sure I would say that out loud “basic income will advance women’s liberation”…. once men catch on to that fact, it WILL be killed off. Truth. Anything that helps advance anything that benefits women will be sidelined, canned, shelved, nixed, killed off… sad but true so maybe we shouldn’t say this out in the open…

    • Jeff_White

      Except governments don’t need us to tell them what the consequences of their social engineering schemes will be. They know damn well what they are doing and why. That’s why you can be sure that no BI scheme is going to (a) advance women’s liberation; (b) eliminate poverty and the reserve army of unemployed from the labour market; (c) be paid for by those who can best afford it; or (d) provide the “unlimited strike fund” that some naïve people imagine will make the labour movement powerful again.

  • Just Passing Through

    Exactly. Men will never do anything to advance women’s independence EVER!

  • Maeve

    Agreed. In many less violent societies a person who wants excess of anything would be outcast from the community and considered mentally ill. It’s extremely unhealthy to want as much as many rich people do. Most of these people are incredibly miserable for a reason.

  • Meghan Murphy

    I don’t advocate to deny anyone health care, actually…

  • Wren

    Funny, I’ve known some “normal, hardworking” psychos, creeps, thugs, and lowlifes. Seems not to be an income-specific demographic.

  • therealcie

    It has been postulated that if a stipend of $1000 per month were given to each U.S. citizen, we could eliminate Medicaid and food stamps and poverty would end. The problem wit this scenario lies in the fact that, at least in the area where I live, you can’t even get a one-bedroom apartment for $1000 a month.
    $1000 a month would provide a modest living if people were also given a housing voucher and if there were universal health care.
    I am on Medicaid and am not allowed to make over $1100 a month, or I lose Medicaid. Even if I were to work 40 hours a week at my current job, where I make an average of $10 per hour, I couldn’t afford health insurance. I have several health conditions which require quarterly doctor visits for blood work. Plus, I am currently looking at needing a hysterectomy for a uterus filled with fibroids and polyps. I can’t afford to lose Medicaid.
    What I’m getting around to is the fact that I hardly have anything left after paying the nearly $700 a month lot rent (I own a mobile home in a park). I don’t get food stamps because I still have my 401K from the job I held for nearly 11 years. If I rolled out my 401K now, I lose close to $18,000 of it. The total amount it will be worth when I’m allowed to roll it out is $50,000. I don’t want to lose a third of that.
    The idea of a stipend isn’t perfect and it won’t work unless housing and health care are taken care of. But its a start. Overall, I’m for it.

    • Meghan Murphy

      OMG! Insanity. Anyone who thinks, A) $1000 a month is enough to live on, and B) That this should somehow cover people’s healthcare as well is delusional.

      • Maria Gatti

        Indeed. And it is also the reason that even in the US, people are fighting for a universal health system. Even in the UK and Canada, there are a lot of holes in ours. In Canada, dental care is lacking, and mental health care is inadequate in many ways, and often ill-adapted to the problems of women, racialised and Indigenous people, and poor people in general.

    • FierceMild

      I hate the bind you’re in. Healthcare should be comprehensive and free.

  • Maria Gatti

    You are right. In trials elsewhere, many people have used Basic Income to resume their studies, whether academic or technal trades, without the spectre of debt which is so terrifying to people who have grown up in poverty.

    • Maeve

      Tell me about it. I worked my ass off while going to school and still have tons of student debt. It has definitely caused me some serious anxiety. With the type of jobs I work, there is no way I will ever be able to pay off my debt. It’s oppressive in the way that the plutocrats want it to be. I’ve considered getting more training or doing something more interesting, but it would cost me too much at this point. What if we boycotted paying off our loans? What do people think would happen in the U.S.?

      • Meghan Murphy

        I will never be able to pay off my student loan debt in my lifetime either… It’s ridiculous. Def in for a boycott.

  • TLT

    Im not buying it that Zuckerberg really cares about the general well being of people. I feel like he is most likely a hypocrite like the rest of Hollywood. The bay area has been entirely gentrified since tech moved in.what is he doing about that? Oh well he can afford housing, so whats it to him? He is a billionaire and has a platform…he could actually make a difference if he wanted to, or at least create a significant amount of awareness….having that kind of power and simply expressing your progressive beliefs for all to hear just doesn’t cut it. As for celebrities they make millions/sometimes billions yet have no sense of how that trickles down. My understanding is that movie theatres make very little money. The rights of a movie are sold to them for a crap ton of money, and the turn over is very little. and lets be honest the ppl who work there make minimum wage, and the ppl running the show make a little more at best. Does anyone else think its ridiculous that a single actor or actress sometimes makes millions a movie? There needs to be an entire shift as to how this wealth is distributed. But celebrities usually get a pass bc they are liberal. I’m not saying they are bad people, im just saying they are part of those millionaires and billionaires who are benefiting most from Big Baby’s tax cuts. And maybe im making too many generalizations about Zuckerberg, and its great that he agrees with progressive ideas, but Im just not buying it. Im not buying it from any of the tech bros…

  • FierceMild

    Patriarchy must end. Worship of violence must end. All people start life with a right to have basic needs met. These beliefs aren’t contradictory.

  • Jeff_White

    Funny, I don’t hear Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Hugh Segal (who designed the Ontario BI project), Elon Musk, Richard Branson, The Cato Institute, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Mark Zuckerberg, or the Adam Smith Institute arguing for $15/hr minimum wage, medicare, and increased social benefits programs, but they all are (or were) big fans of Universal Basic Income schemes.

    I repeat what I wrote above: “Instead of dreaming about a BI utopia, we should be demanding that governments drastically increase benefit levels of existing social programs and continually broaden their scope, coverage, and eligibility.”

    It’s actually possible to expose the fraud of BI and at the same time advocate for social reforms.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Well, my opinion is that the rich should be taxed much, much more than they currently are… I agree that we need a robust social assitance regimr and better wages, benefits, etc (I actually don’t think people should have to work ‘full time’ i.e. five days a week/40+ hours a week… It’s too much… but I understand what you’re saying, wage-wise). I’m not opposed to people paying taxes. I support taxes. But I think those making the most money should be paying more and those making less should be paying less…

  • Maria Gatti

    I thought this was a feminist forum, not a Randian forum. Ethics are not simply an opinion.


  • Jeff_White

    Their BI nay be a “misnomer”, but it’s the one that is being sold by the political elites in Canada. Unfortunately, too many on the “left” are buying it. The left is stuck in a white male neoliberal rut.

  • Jeff_White

    And the “Tesla guy” Elon Musk is also a big fan of “Basic Income”. That alone is enough to give pause before jumping on the BI bandwagon.

  • Jeff_White

    That’s too high a ceiling. Why should rich people be allowed to have obscene levels of wealth? They are no more deserving than the rest of us. In fact, that wealth was provided to them by our labour.