A guaranteed universal basic income would arguably be the most effective means of abolishing poverty and second class citizenship. Because women, especially mothers, are the majority of those denied full citizenship through poverty and economic dependence, proposals for a basic income have huge significance for women. Mothers' level of income also is the major determinant of families standards of living, particularly those of children. Therefore all proposals for a basic income must be carefully assessed in terms of whether they would provide all women and their children with access to an adequate and reliable income.

In Britain during the second half of the 1980s most of the influential writers who had previously advocated a full UBI instead proposed a range of partial basic income schemes. This paper examines the causes of women's poverty and questions whether a partial UBI would overcome these factors .

The increase in married mothers' participation in paid work throughout the English speaking world during the past fifty years has been widely publicised. In the UK women now number almost half of the paid work force (1). However, it is less well known that increased numerical participation in paid employment has not provided most women with either economic independence or income security.

Women's share of direct income has grown only slightly during the present century (2); and married mothers, the largest group of women, in the 1990s have average direct incomes of about one quarter of those of married fathers (3), with major implications for power dynamics within households. The average direct income of all women over 30 is still less than half of that of men (4).

Lone mothers are especially likely to be poor whether they are employed or not, and dominate the 'official' poverty statistics. There has been a general assumption in policy making that women's poverty is due to the lack of a male 'breadwinner'. However, married mothers are also frequently poor, even though their poverty is more hidden. Although 'mainstream' poverty research has neglected the wives of well paid men, research has found that only about one in five men share their income equally with their wives (5). There has never been any legal obligation for men to share their incomes equitably with their families; and in fact some women become financially better off if they leave the marriage and claim state benefits (6). However, even if all men were to share their income equally, large numbers of wives and children would remain poor. This is because the average male wage in the UK in the 1990s is very considerably below the amount required to keep a family in 'reasonable decency' (7).

Several factors contribute to female poverty. The first is women's lower rates of pay. Although women's average hourly pay has risen to four fifths of men's since the Equal Pay Act was passed, women's annual average income is less than two thirds of men's. Women are the majority of low paid workers. In the UK there is no national minimum wage to address this and in recent years even the Wages Councils have been gradually dismantled. In 1990 over half of even full-time women workers (and four fifths of part-timers) earned less than the European Decency Threshold (8). Shorter hours of paid work exacerbate women's poorer financial position. Women's total hours of paid employment have not increased since the second World War (9). Almost half of women employees were part- timers by 1995; and even full-timers had shorter average hours of paid work than men, with obvious implications for their pay.

The move towards labour market 'flexibility'' (irregular and discontinuous employment) has affected women's incomes more than men's. Whilst men have tended to obtain full-time temporary contracts, often lasting at least a year, women have increasingly only been able to find part-time and casual paid work or outwork (homeworking) often at very low rates of pay. Contracting out of government services has contributed to this trend. The demographic changes since the 1980s which meant a shortage of school leavers have created more jobs for mature women, but patterns of employment policy in the past hundred years strongly suggest that this will be purely temporary. Occupational segregation also contributes to women's lower incomes, since jobs employing mainly women are far more likely to be low paid (10). In addition, there are large numbers of women who are 'hidden unemployed' who do not receive a wage but do not qualify for a benefit and so do not register as unemployed (11).

Women are more likely than men to be reliant upon a benefit from the State. Benefit regulations contribute to women's poverty in two main ways. One is by denying most benefits to women with a male partner, and the other is through abatement rates which effectively trap sole parents in poverty. Very large numbers of women are engaged in work which is essential but unpaid. Women undertake the largest part (an estimated 70 per cent) of unpaid household work; and recent research has found that women are the 'responsible adult' for the care of children in 98 per cent of cases (12). Women lose an estimated half of their lifetime earnings as a result of this caring work (13). By contrast, fathers are expected to engage in long hours of paid work, which make it difficult for them to spend significant amounts of time with their children. This makes it harder for women to take on additional hours of paid work.

The lack of an adequate and reliable personal disposable income creates extreme difficulty for women wishing to leave unsatisfactory relationships, including violent or abusive ones, in order to create a better life for themselves and their children. Many women therefore stay in unhappy marriages and put up with poor conditions (14). In low income households, it is commonplace for mothers to reduce their own consumption of food and other necessities, with implications for their long term health (15).

The level of income of the woman of the house is the most important determinant of the well being of whole households, including children. This is because mothers generally take responsibility for sharing the available income around the household; whereas men usually regard at least a portion of their income as being for their personal consumption, even after job loss, when there is usually no spare income for luxuries (16). Therefore the most effective way of relieving poverty would be to provide mothers with a guaranteed income for themselves and in respect of any dependent children.

At present most women do not receive an adequate income from either paid work or State welfare. Despite changing abatement rates, welfare beneficiaries still tend to be trapped in poverty (17). This is because in the English speaking countries to a large extent 'work' and 'welfare' have been mutually exclusive. With few exceptions, since the 1830s, welfare benefits have not been paid to people who are in paid employment (18) This principle was designed to give male workers incentives to enter paid employment and become 'independent workers' (ie. dependent upon a wage or salary). By contrast, social policies have fostered wives' and mothers' dependence on a male wage earner. Once a person starts paid work or enters a heterosexual relationship they normally lose their entitlement to a benefit (19).

Since the 1830s, welfare benefits have been made lower than wages or training allowances, and have been regarded as inferior to income from 'work'. This has been based on an assumption about human nature that without financial incentive people will not 'work'. The fact that women do huge amounts of essential work unpaid and with real dedication and commitment contradicts this argument. Combining paid work and welfare would be the most effective way of eradicating poverty and providing income security.

Solo mothers in Britain currently have a relatively low labour force participation rate, because of poverty traps arising from benefit abatement rates and childcare costs. Current policy in the UK as in the USA and New Zealand is to try to reduce 'welfare dependency' by forcing sole mothers into dependence on a wage or a man. However, neither provides a reliable income for mothers. Low paid jobs and childcare costs keep female-headed families poor; and efforts to force solo mothers into economic dependence upon a man via the 'cohabitation rule' have often had disastrous financial consequences for women.

A combination work and welfare, for women and for men would be an effective way of solving several of the problems outlined above. A huge advantage would be the removal of 'poverty traps' to mothers re-entering paid work. Benefits would then provide a platform rather than a pit for those moving into the paid workforce; and welfare would not be assessed according to relationship status. If everyone was paid an adequate living allowance, irrespective of whether they were in paid employment, implicitly some acknowledgement would be made of the unpaid work of both women and men. Partnered carers would have a secure income for the first time. Both women and men would have more genuine lifestyle choices, since it would be easier to leave unhappy relationships and to form new ones. There need be no economic ties between ex-partners, and so there would be fewer hostilities. Middle aged women would no longer be expected to simultaneously support their children through long years of financial dependence, support their elderly parents and save for their own old age out of an inadequate income. There would be dignity as well as income security for older women who had already sacrificed a full-time paid career to care for others. Overall a full basic income would represent a step closer to full citizenship for all women.

In the UK since the mid 1980s, demands for a full basic income have been abandoned by most of its prominent advocates, on the grounds that if a UBI was fully funded from income tax, once the housing benefit was included, this would raise direct taxation to a level that was not considered politically feasible (20). Instead a series of schemes, known as Partial Basic Income, or Citizens' Income, have been advocated, which would be mainly symbolic. It would provide a small regular income similar to a family allowance, but would not be sufficient to live on. A Citizens Income would benefit women in the same ways that child benefit still does in the UK, as a small but reliable regular sum of money which enables recipients to save. However, it would not lift the female-dominated 'underclass' out of poverty. It would thus lack most of the advantages of a full UBI (such as administrative simplicity) and would in fact undermine most of its central principles. Women would in fact not become independent citizens with a partial 'citizens' income'.

In New Zealand it is quite possible that a full basic income could be adopted. The situation is different in that the housing supplement is considerably less costly to the Exchequer. Further, both countries could explore the use of alternative taxes instead of relying completely upon income tax. A partial citizens' income should only be considered (if at all) as an interim step towards a full UBI.

There are some reasons for caution. Basic income should not be considered as a substitute for policies to promote equality in the paid workforce, otherwise there is a danger of creating a workfare state. There should be no trading away of hard-won gains in the labour market such as the minimum wage in order to obtain a basic income. UBI should be worked for alongside policies such as pay equity, affordable child care, equal opportunities and a shorter working week. The principle of work and welfare for women and for men would help to overcome gender stereotyping of domestic and caring work. There should be no more attempts to create a cheaper welfare system at women's expense. Women, especially mothers, have the greatest need for a reliable and adequate income; furthermore it is women's income which chiefly determines the heath and well-being of present and future generations.

In New Zealand we have the opportunity to learn from the research which has been done in the UK, but we can adapt the work to the New Zealand situation, which is different in a number of crucial respects. Our aim should be to promote a full basic income. This would have tremendous. advantages for women and also for most men. A full UBI would overcome debates between feminists over whether mothers should receive a carers' benefit in order to stay at home with their children or whether all women should compete in the paid workforce by giving all women (and men) real choices. It could therefore form a basis for united and effective action by creating coalitions amongst diverse groups.