Major social upheavals like the Covid-19 pandemic can lead to fundamental and long-lasting changes in society. But will we find the right methods to us the experiences of this crisis to transform our societies for the better? 

Covid 19 is a challenge to which we are all seeking to respond. Some major social upheavals lead to fundamental and progressive shifts, think for example of the way the AIDS crisis accelerated the fight for LGBT rights; while others, most obviously the global financial meltdown of 2008, fail to precipitate major reform despite causing immense hardship. Indeed, the widespread assumption on the left that the financial crisis would lead to a reaction against inequality and global finance was not only disappointed but confounded as the political momentum was, in many countries, seized by nationalist populism.

Of the conditions that turn an immediate crisis into long term change, three stand out, all of which need to be in place:    

Where might be the spaces in society and policy areas where these conditions could apply?

Let’s start with inequality and insecurity. Overall, there has for some time been a strong public feeling that inequality is excessive. Even politicians on the right have accepted the problem of real and perceived unfairness. The pandemic doubly amplifies the inequality story. On the one hand, it reminds us of our common humanity and vulnerability, on the other, it brings into sharper relief how much more vulnerable are some citizens whether it’s casual workers, children in poorer families, isolated older people or even prisoners.  

The pandemic doubly amplifies the inequality story. On the one hand, it reminds us of our common humanity and vulnerability, on the other, it brings into sharper relief how much more vulnerable some citizens are.

The first two change conditions apply but the hardest and most contested is the third. The right and left might agree that inequality is problem, but they have very different ways of responding. Which is why the time for exploring Universal Basic Income may have come. Remember that UBI (or its close relation ‘negative income tax’) has historically had as many supporters on the right (including Milton Freidman) as the left. It is also worth noting that in the UK, we already effectively have a minimum income guarantee and that, even before the crisis, the Government had started to scale down punitive conditionality in the benefit system as Universal Credit shifted attention from getting people into work and towards supporting progression.  

There are many disagreements between advocates of UBI, both in relation to advocacy and implementation. To turn the dial we need to make the right case. First, UBI should start off very modestly. Not the fantasy that everyone can have a comfortable life without working, but the practical argument that all but the richest could have a base-line which offers them greater security, strengthens work incentives and gives people some scope to enhance their human capital through retraining or, perhaps, trying to set up their own a business. Opponents of UBI may argue that on its own it does little to address inequality, but this depends partly on how it is funded (wealth taxes being the obvious source) and also fails to appreciate that felt inequality is not just about money but also about dignity and security, both of which would be significantly enhanced if every citizen had the means to basic subsistence as a right.

If the crisis does reinforce a latent commitment to the principle of good work, what are the means to embed change?