Unconditional Cash, Voting & Civic Engagement in Newark, NJ and Providence, RI

• In Event: How Timing, Dosage and Place Influence Guaranteed Income Programs

Abstract

Background 

 

Low-income households are less likely to vote than their higher income counterparts in most democracies. Basic income theorists have long proposed that cash may offset the impact of financial marginalization on voting behaviors, but scant research exists in the US to date. Internationally, voter turnout increased among the unemployed receiving unconditional cash when they were already politically active, but for those without prior civic engagement little change occurred (Hirvonen et. al., 2024). In North America, lump-sum payments through the Alaska Dividend Fund are associated with more participation in civic engagement activities and casino dividend payments impact the future voting behaviors of children whose parents receive them (Akee et. al., 2018). This paper extends this body of research by comparing two randomized controlled trials of GI to focus on the underlying mechanisms between unconditional cash and civic engagement. 

 

Methods 

 

Both the Providence, RI and Newark, NJ studies adhered to the same registered pre-analysis plan which were parallel mixed-methods randomized controlled trials (QUANT + QUAL) studying how GI impacted health, well-being and civic engagement. In keeping with parallel mixed design, quantitative and qualitative strands were analyzed concurrently and were not integrated into meta-inferences until within strand analysis ceased (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009). In this paper an additional comparative meta-inference analysis occurred recursively by returning to the qualitative data in each site to understand disparate outcomes in voting behavior, protest and volunteering by site (QUANT + QUAL  QUAL + QUAL). 

 

Findings 

 

In Providence, recipients of GI were more likely than their counterparts to vote, protest, sign petitions and volunteer for political causes or the parent teacher association, with changes in political behavior beginning as early as the sixth disbursement. Meanwhile, GI recipients a few hours south in Newark, NJ demonstrated no change in civic or political engagement despite relatively similar economic profiles, urban settings and policy subsystems. In Providence, cash created pathways for resuming community connection and ties previously constrained by persistent time and financial scarcity. As the cash alleviated hardship, connection resumed influencing how participants experienced belonging and their community. On the surface it can appear as though Newark must lack the social ties evident in Providence, but the inverse is functioning as the driver. Newark is a predominantly Black city that boasts a storied legacy of organizing and historic social institutions with deep social ties. In contrast, Providence lacks these characteristics which likely left social ties at risk of being severed during severe economic strain and inequality. Given that context, the cash provided avenues for mending broken ties of social engagement in Providence and this included civic behaviors. The financial chaos and strain of the pandemic stressed and broke social ties in both locations, but the context of reciprocity that characterizes Newark guarded against threats to political engagement when the same did not hold true in Providence. 

 

 

 

Author

• Amy Castro, University of Pennsylvania
  Presenting Author