Irish Artists' Basic Income Scheme Made Permanent, But Access Remains Limited
The Irish government has announced that its pilot basic income scheme for artists will become a permanent fixture, starting this May. However, in a controversial move, the programme will not be expanded to include all artists, instead being promised to only a few thousand individuals. This decision comes despite evidence from the pilot showing significant economic and social benefits, raising questions about fairness and the ongoing precarity in the creative sector.
Life-Changing Impact of the Pilot Scheme
As a freelance writer, I was one of the 2,000 artists randomly selected from around 8,000 applicants to receive a basic income of €325 per week for three years, with no strings attached other than completing surveys. This financial support was transformative, allowing me to focus on creative work without the constant worry of affording basic necessities like housing or starting a family. Only months into the scheme, I discovered I was pregnant, and the basic income gave me the security to have my baby while maintaining my studio space in Dublin's Back Loft, a vibrant community hub for artists.
The freedom provided by the basic income enabled me to experiment with my writing, contribute to independent publications, and engage in community initiatives, such as organising events that raised funds for a local rape crisis centre. This personal experience mirrors the broader successes of the pilot, which demonstrated that artists on the scheme generated millions in returns. State research found that for every euro spent, society received €1.39 back, with total social and economic benefits estimated at over €100 million.
Systemic Precarity and Government Response
The pilot highlighted the deep-seated instability in the creative sector, adversely affecting artists' mental health and livelihoods, which the basic income significantly alleviated. Despite this, the government has opted not to expand the scheme universally. Instead, it will be limited to a few thousand artists, operating in three-year cycles with mandated gaps, a structure that critics argue perpetuates rather than resolves precarity.
In my studio, I have a photograph by a young collaborator who did not receive this support, underscoring the inequality. Only a fraction of artists in my community might benefit under the new scheme, while others struggle in a city where the housing crisis hits precarious workers hardest. Although I am fortunate to have a partner who owns our home, many artists lack such security, with some even forced to sleep on the streets due to affordability issues.
Economic and Policy Context
Ireland has historically underfunded culture, spending just 0.2% of GDP in 2022 compared to the EU average of 0.5%. The basic income for 2,000 artists adds about €35 million annually, a cost offset by economic gains. Organisations like the National Campaign for the Arts and Praxis, the artists' union, advocate for dramatic expansion, warning that the current model risks reproducing inequality. For instance, disabled artists might face reduced social protection payments due to means-testing if they accept the basic income.
As Ireland prepares to take over the EU's rotating presidency, it positions itself as a global leader in arts policy, with other member states consulting on replicating the experiment. However, successive Irish governments have deepened inequality over years, and this scheme, while a step forward, falls short of addressing systemic issues. The eligibility requirements for the permanent scheme remain unclear, adding to uncertainty for artists.
Call for Expansion and Reflection
If the basic income for artists pays for itself and fosters creative freedom, it should be expanded to all. While artists may enjoy cultural capital that the government leverages, they are also uniquely positioned to highlight inequality and the lack of political will to ensure freedom from precarity. As the pilot ends for me, I face the possibility of not being selected again, potentially receiving support for nine out of twelve years while others get none. This lottery-like approach undermines the scheme's potential to truly transform the arts sector.
In a world of increasing uncertainty, funding art might seem secondary, but creative work offers vital insights, strengthens communities, and speaks truth to power. The government must reconsider its restrictive approach to ensure that all artists, not just a lucky few, can thrive without the shadow of financial instability.
