Speenhamland, automation, and Basic Income: A response

Spring 2018

In the final edition of Renewal for 2017 (issue 25.3-4), Frederick Pitts, Lorena Lombardozzi and Neil Warner suggest that the experience of the Speenhamland reforms of 1795 were ‘an experiment in a kind of basic income’.

It was not. It was an extension of poor relief to the working poor. The supplements paid out of the rates guaranteed a net income. They were definitely not a ‘Basic Income’. The difference is crucial. A guaranteed minimum income is a minimum income level below which a household’s income is not allowed to fall, and the payment made is designed to bring a household’s net income up to the specified level. The modern equivalents are Working Tax Credits and so-called Universal Credit. In Speenhamland the supplement paid out was designed to fill the gap between the worker’s earnings and a specified minimum income that was related to the size of the family and to the price of bread. The supplement was a means-tested benefit.

PDF of article:

Subscribers to Renewal can access this article for free. If you are already a subscriber please login to your account to read the article.

Subscribe to Renewal

Please note that due to EU VAT charges on digital products, the final price may be slightly different depending on the EU country in which your billing address is located.
Renewal: a journal of social democracy, Volume 26 No 1