In their discussion of the consequences of a basic income (BI), Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) suggest that most people would continue working despite access to a BI. One of their central arguments for this conclusion is that work provides various psychological benefits that would lead people to remain in the labor force. Specifically, the authors reference Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) seminal theorizing on the latent functions of employment and cite empirical evidence supportive of her ideas.
Here, we hope to inform and further articulate the authors’ arguments on this important topic by discussing the influence of a BI on continued employment and what future employment might look like with the provision of a BI. We begin by emphasizing the importance of the latent functions of work by sharing recent meta-analytic results on this topic. We then leverage Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) thinking in discussing the question of whether people would continue working with the provision of a BI. Finally, we address potential (unforeseen) consequences of work life that a BI may yield.
Does work provide the latent functions Jahoda proposed?
Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) conclude that labor force participation should remain fairly constant despite the provision of a BI partly because work provides latent psychological functions. There are actually two parts of this argument. The first is that work actually does provide each of these latent functions and these functions are related to better well-being (broadly defined). The second is that these functions will be strong enough incentives to motivate individuals to remain in the labor force (and to work roughly the same number of hours) with a basic income policy in place. We address these notions in turn.
We and coauthors recently completed a comprehensive meta-analytic test of Jahoda’s theory that is especially relevant to the first part of this argument (Aitken et al., Reference Aitken, Kaplan, Cannon and Kim2021). In this empirical review, we examined whether employment (versus unemployment) provided greater access to the latent and manifest functions of work. We also examined whether, and which, functions were predictive of greater mental health and life satisfaction. The meta-analytic review included 97 primary studies and 98,042 individuals.
The results from this study provide strong support for Jahoda’s ideas. First, we found that employed individuals reported greater access to each latent function and to the manifest function (lack of financial strain) versus unemployed individuals. The largest effect sizes were associated with less financial strain and with the latent functions of time structure and enforced activity. These results indicate that employment does serve as a powerful gateway to the manifest and the latent functions. Second, we found that each latent and manifest function predicted both mental health and life satisfaction, indicating that individuals will suffer worse well-being when they are deprived of access to these functions.
Altogether, our recent summary of this (largely cross-sectional) evidence strongly emphasizes the psychological benefits of employment via its latent and manifest functions. Indeed, this evidence gives rise to a multifaceted perspective on the nature of employment, which, when considered with the provision of a BI, depicts the accomplishment of work as an activity that goes beyond the meeting of financial needs alone.
How will provision of a BI affect access to latent functions?
Having established that latent needs are met in employment, we now consider the motivational quality of the latent functions of employed work in light of a BI. Would people continue working to access the latent functions? In considering Hüffmeier and Zacher’s (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) notion that people will continue working to pursue these latent benefits, it is important to discuss why Jahoda (Reference Jahoda1982) theorized employment to have latent functions in the first place.
In Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) view, employment is a social institution that dominates modern life in industrialized societies. It is not only where work is done but also where one is paid for working. It is this latter (manifest) function of work that has gone unchanged since the industrial revolution that makes employment so compelling a force for well-being. Jahoda posits that the provision of access to latent experiences “follow[s] necessarily from the structural forms of modern employment” (p. 59), even suggesting that such access is “an unintended by-product of its very organization” (p. 83). To Jahoda, it is the “overwhelming economic necessity of people to work for their living” (1982, p. 84), meaning that individuals work for financial reasons; latent benefits are incidental side effects that are not necessarily anticipated or even realized in a conscious manner. Thus, the latent functions of work are attached to employment more so as a matter of institutional fact, being accessed not by intentional pursuit but by way of institutional enforcement.
However, the provision of a BI presents a source of financial resources that partly would meet persons’ manifest needs outside of employment. This fact, of course, raises the question that Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) address—whether such an income would reduce labor (in number of workers and/or hours worked). Hüffmeier and Zacher review a few empirical studies showing that any decreases from similar programs are small. Furthermore, based on a meta-review of primary studies (and other reviews) of BI-like studies, Hasdell (Reference Hasdell2020) concludes,
The evidence from diverse interventions in low-, middle-, and high-income contexts indicates minimal impact on aggregate measures of labor market participation, with some studies reporting an increase in work participation. When reductions do occur, time is channeled into other valued activities such as caregiving.” (p. 16)
Regarding Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) theory, these results perhaps mean that individuals would continue working because they do recognize the latent functions of work—or, at least, the downstream psychological benefits of those functions. This is the perspective Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) offer. However, an alternative (though not contradictory) interpretation is that individuals continue to work because they seek more money than basic income (both for instrumental reasons and the various psychological functions it serves; Furnham, Reference Furnham2014). Of note, this latter explanation is consistent with Jahoda’s original theorizing but not in the way the focal article authors invoke it. Here, the latent functions still would be an unforeseen set of benefits; money would remain a dominant presumed source of job-related well-being (e.g., Society for Human Resource Management, 2016). In summary, then, preliminary evidence indicates that people would continue accessing the latent benefits through employment—though they may or may not work with that intention in mind.
Potential consequences for the attainment of the latent functions
As described above, the available evidence suggests that individuals will continue to work with a BI policy in place. However, because evidence is scarce in this matter and the implementation of such a policy is likely to have significant societ al ramifications, and especially for the institution of employment, it is worth considering how the attainment of the latent functions may change despite the likelihood that most individuals will continue in the labor force. Here, we explore the consequences of the BI for those who would continue to work, those who would not, and those who may be made less able to do so.
Among those who would choose to continue in employed work, some individuals may not experience substantial differences in their work lives. They would continue to rely on employment as their primary source of income and experience latent functions of better or worse quality depending upon their job. Indeed, one possibility is that provision of a BI will not fundamentally shift the paradigm of employment. Therefore, the mean quality of the latent functions would not much improve. Jahoda (Reference Jahoda1982) discussed at length the dehumanizing character of employment that results from organizations failing to prioritize employee well-being (see also Guest, Reference Guest2017). Other policies may directly affect and improve worker well-being and the nature of the latent functions in employment (e.g., universal 4-day work week), but we suggest that largely those who would continue to work will not experience significantly different latent benefits.
An alternative possibility, though, is that a BI will free individuals from the tethers of financial dependency on employment alone, allowing them to be more discerning in selecting a job—or leaving an undesirable one (e.g., Melin & Egkolfopoulou, Reference Melin and Egkolfopoulou2021). As a result, at least some organizations might attempt to improve work conditions, or at the very least raise wages. This scenario is consistent with the idea that provision of a BI will lead people to continue working (or perhaps even raise labor force participation).
But, it is of course still quite plausible that a not insignificant portion of the labor force would choose to exit employment entirely, or at least in part. For example, there is evidence that some would choose to cease working if given the financial means to safely do so (e.g., Paulsen, Reference Paulsen2008), and for some the desire for work is simply less strong (e.g., Highhouse et al., Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Yankelevich2010). Again, provided some relief of their manifest needs outside of employment, it may be possible for such individuals to cease working and seek the attainment of their latent needs elsewhere. Indeed, some research suggests this can be done by being proactive (when unemployed; Fryer & Payne, Reference Fryer and Payne1984), by engaging in meaningful leisure activities (Waters & Moore, Reference Waters and Moore2002), by volunteering (Selenko et al., Reference Selenko, Stiglbauer and Batinic2020), and by simple acts within one’s community (Sinclair et al., Reference Sinclair, Allen, Barber, Bergman, Britt, Butler, Ford, Hammer, Kath, Tahira Probst and Yuan2020). These activities may be made more viable with the BI, and social institutions aside from employment may also become more compelling places to attain latent functions (Jahoda, Reference Jahoda1982).
Finally, we note that there may be certain populations in society that potentially would be disadvantaged with a BI, being made less able to pursue both gainful employment and alternative courses. Although we do not claim to be experts on public policy, some perspectives on the BI contest that its implementation would significantly reduce the support on which low-income households already rely, the unemployed, single parents, and so forth. (Hoynes & Rothstein, Reference Hoynes and Rothstein2019; OECD, 2017). We hasten to note that these policies differ from the one Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) discuss. The former would substitute BI for most other forms of social welfare, whereas Hüffmeier and Zacher appear to propose a BI along with the retention of these other types of assistance. The two types of programs, though, have vastly different costs attached to them (Hoynes & Rothstein, Reference Hoynes and Rothstein2019). We mention this issue to emphasize that BI programs can vary dramatically in various ways, including in terms of their implications for work. With respect to workplace well-being, some policies would lead those who are already at a disadvantage in attaining the latent functions to be even worse off in this respect.
In summary, there are potential (unforeseen) consequences to the implementation of the BI with respect to how the latent functions may be attained. What little evidence does exist may agree with Hüffmeier and Zacher’s (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) suggestion that most would continue to work, but there are additional responses and pursuits of the latent functions that must be considered. In general, more research is needed on the nature and conscious pursuit of the latent functions as well as how and where they may be accessed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the latent functions of work are of utmost importance to psychological well-being, and the social institution of employment with its inherently manifest function is the dominant force that grants access to these functions. The importance of these benefits is likely to persist despite the financial relief of a BI, meaning that the motivation to work is not at risk of compromise but the attainment of the latent functions may become fundamentally altered with a BI in place.
You have
Access
In their discussion of the consequences of a basic income (BI), Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) suggest that most people would continue working despite access to a BI. One of their central arguments for this conclusion is that work provides various psychological benefits that would lead people to remain in the labor force. Specifically, the authors reference Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) seminal theorizing on the latent functions of employment and cite empirical evidence supportive of her ideas.
Here, we hope to inform and further articulate the authors’ arguments on this important topic by discussing the influence of a BI on continued employment and what future employment might look like with the provision of a BI. We begin by emphasizing the importance of the latent functions of work by sharing recent meta-analytic results on this topic. We then leverage Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) thinking in discussing the question of whether people would continue working with the provision of a BI. Finally, we address potential (unforeseen) consequences of work life that a BI may yield.
Does work provide the latent functions Jahoda proposed?
Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) conclude that labor force participation should remain fairly constant despite the provision of a BI partly because work provides latent psychological functions. There are actually two parts of this argument. The first is that work actually does provide each of these latent functions and these functions are related to better well-being (broadly defined). The second is that these functions will be strong enough incentives to motivate individuals to remain in the labor force (and to work roughly the same number of hours) with a basic income policy in place. We address these notions in turn.
We and coauthors recently completed a comprehensive meta-analytic test of Jahoda’s theory that is especially relevant to the first part of this argument (Aitken et al., Reference Aitken, Kaplan, Cannon and Kim2021). In this empirical review, we examined whether employment (versus unemployment) provided greater access to the latent and manifest functions of work. We also examined whether, and which, functions were predictive of greater mental health and life satisfaction. The meta-analytic review included 97 primary studies and 98,042 individuals.
The results from this study provide strong support for Jahoda’s ideas. First, we found that employed individuals reported greater access to each latent function and to the manifest function (lack of financial strain) versus unemployed individuals. The largest effect sizes were associated with less financial strain and with the latent functions of time structure and enforced activity. These results indicate that employment does serve as a powerful gateway to the manifest and the latent functions. Second, we found that each latent and manifest function predicted both mental health and life satisfaction, indicating that individuals will suffer worse well-being when they are deprived of access to these functions.
Altogether, our recent summary of this (largely cross-sectional) evidence strongly emphasizes the psychological benefits of employment via its latent and manifest functions. Indeed, this evidence gives rise to a multifaceted perspective on the nature of employment, which, when considered with the provision of a BI, depicts the accomplishment of work as an activity that goes beyond the meeting of financial needs alone.
How will provision of a BI affect access to latent functions?
Having established that latent needs are met in employment, we now consider the motivational quality of the latent functions of employed work in light of a BI. Would people continue working to access the latent functions? In considering Hüffmeier and Zacher’s (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) notion that people will continue working to pursue these latent benefits, it is important to discuss why Jahoda (Reference Jahoda1982) theorized employment to have latent functions in the first place.
In Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) view, employment is a social institution that dominates modern life in industrialized societies. It is not only where work is done but also where one is paid for working. It is this latter (manifest) function of work that has gone unchanged since the industrial revolution that makes employment so compelling a force for well-being. Jahoda posits that the provision of access to latent experiences “follow[s] necessarily from the structural forms of modern employment” (p. 59), even suggesting that such access is “an unintended by-product of its very organization” (p. 83). To Jahoda, it is the “overwhelming economic necessity of people to work for their living” (1982, p. 84), meaning that individuals work for financial reasons; latent benefits are incidental side effects that are not necessarily anticipated or even realized in a conscious manner. Thus, the latent functions of work are attached to employment more so as a matter of institutional fact, being accessed not by intentional pursuit but by way of institutional enforcement.
However, the provision of a BI presents a source of financial resources that partly would meet persons’ manifest needs outside of employment. This fact, of course, raises the question that Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) address—whether such an income would reduce labor (in number of workers and/or hours worked). Hüffmeier and Zacher review a few empirical studies showing that any decreases from similar programs are small. Furthermore, based on a meta-review of primary studies (and other reviews) of BI-like studies, Hasdell (Reference Hasdell2020) concludes,
The evidence from diverse interventions in low-, middle-, and high-income contexts indicates minimal impact on aggregate measures of labor market participation, with some studies reporting an increase in work participation. When reductions do occur, time is channeled into other valued activities such as caregiving.” (p. 16)
Regarding Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1982) theory, these results perhaps mean that individuals would continue working because they do recognize the latent functions of work—or, at least, the downstream psychological benefits of those functions. This is the perspective Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) offer. However, an alternative (though not contradictory) interpretation is that individuals continue to work because they seek more money than basic income (both for instrumental reasons and the various psychological functions it serves; Furnham, Reference Furnham2014). Of note, this latter explanation is consistent with Jahoda’s original theorizing but not in the way the focal article authors invoke it. Here, the latent functions still would be an unforeseen set of benefits; money would remain a dominant presumed source of job-related well-being (e.g., Society for Human Resource Management, 2016). In summary, then, preliminary evidence indicates that people would continue accessing the latent benefits through employment—though they may or may not work with that intention in mind.
Potential consequences for the attainment of the latent functions
As described above, the available evidence suggests that individuals will continue to work with a BI policy in place. However, because evidence is scarce in this matter and the implementation of such a policy is likely to have significant societ al ramifications, and especially for the institution of employment, it is worth considering how the attainment of the latent functions may change despite the likelihood that most individuals will continue in the labor force. Here, we explore the consequences of the BI for those who would continue to work, those who would not, and those who may be made less able to do so.
Among those who would choose to continue in employed work, some individuals may not experience substantial differences in their work lives. They would continue to rely on employment as their primary source of income and experience latent functions of better or worse quality depending upon their job. Indeed, one possibility is that provision of a BI will not fundamentally shift the paradigm of employment. Therefore, the mean quality of the latent functions would not much improve. Jahoda (Reference Jahoda1982) discussed at length the dehumanizing character of employment that results from organizations failing to prioritize employee well-being (see also Guest, Reference Guest2017). Other policies may directly affect and improve worker well-being and the nature of the latent functions in employment (e.g., universal 4-day work week), but we suggest that largely those who would continue to work will not experience significantly different latent benefits.
An alternative possibility, though, is that a BI will free individuals from the tethers of financial dependency on employment alone, allowing them to be more discerning in selecting a job—or leaving an undesirable one (e.g., Melin & Egkolfopoulou, Reference Melin and Egkolfopoulou2021). As a result, at least some organizations might attempt to improve work conditions, or at the very least raise wages. This scenario is consistent with the idea that provision of a BI will lead people to continue working (or perhaps even raise labor force participation).
But, it is of course still quite plausible that a not insignificant portion of the labor force would choose to exit employment entirely, or at least in part. For example, there is evidence that some would choose to cease working if given the financial means to safely do so (e.g., Paulsen, Reference Paulsen2008), and for some the desire for work is simply less strong (e.g., Highhouse et al., Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Yankelevich2010). Again, provided some relief of their manifest needs outside of employment, it may be possible for such individuals to cease working and seek the attainment of their latent needs elsewhere. Indeed, some research suggests this can be done by being proactive (when unemployed; Fryer & Payne, Reference Fryer and Payne1984), by engaging in meaningful leisure activities (Waters & Moore, Reference Waters and Moore2002), by volunteering (Selenko et al., Reference Selenko, Stiglbauer and Batinic2020), and by simple acts within one’s community (Sinclair et al., Reference Sinclair, Allen, Barber, Bergman, Britt, Butler, Ford, Hammer, Kath, Tahira Probst and Yuan2020). These activities may be made more viable with the BI, and social institutions aside from employment may also become more compelling places to attain latent functions (Jahoda, Reference Jahoda1982).
Finally, we note that there may be certain populations in society that potentially would be disadvantaged with a BI, being made less able to pursue both gainful employment and alternative courses. Although we do not claim to be experts on public policy, some perspectives on the BI contest that its implementation would significantly reduce the support on which low-income households already rely, the unemployed, single parents, and so forth. (Hoynes & Rothstein, Reference Hoynes and Rothstein2019; OECD, 2017). We hasten to note that these policies differ from the one Hüffmeier and Zacher (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) discuss. The former would substitute BI for most other forms of social welfare, whereas Hüffmeier and Zacher appear to propose a BI along with the retention of these other types of assistance. The two types of programs, though, have vastly different costs attached to them (Hoynes & Rothstein, Reference Hoynes and Rothstein2019). We mention this issue to emphasize that BI programs can vary dramatically in various ways, including in terms of their implications for work. With respect to workplace well-being, some policies would lead those who are already at a disadvantage in attaining the latent functions to be even worse off in this respect.
In summary, there are potential (unforeseen) consequences to the implementation of the BI with respect to how the latent functions may be attained. What little evidence does exist may agree with Hüffmeier and Zacher’s (Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021) suggestion that most would continue to work, but there are additional responses and pursuits of the latent functions that must be considered. In general, more research is needed on the nature and conscious pursuit of the latent functions as well as how and where they may be accessed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the latent functions of work are of utmost importance to psychological well-being, and the social institution of employment with its inherently manifest function is the dominant force that grants access to these functions. The importance of these benefits is likely to persist despite the financial relief of a BI, meaning that the motivation to work is not at risk of compromise but the attainment of the latent functions may become fundamentally altered with a BI in place.