Is a social investment strategy compatible with the provision of an unconditional basic income? Prima facie, these two scenarios look like incongruent policy alternatives. While social investment – an influential policy paradigm at the level of the European Union – aims at promoting public services and maximum labour market participation, basic income is paid in cash and has sometimes been presented as the key component of a post-work future. In this article, we explore this apparent incongruence and show that these two visions for welfare reform are not necessarily incompatible. We argue that they may share a number of substantial points of agreement, and indeed may reinforce one another according to a logic of institutional complementarity. In particular, we claim that a partial basic income (i.e., a modest unconditional income guarantee, whose amount would be insufficient if one lives alone) could enhance or complement the key functions of a social-democratic version of the social investment strategy. By doing so, we conclude that the integration of a basic income into a social investment package could contribute to overcoming criticisms of the social investment agenda. At the same time, it could rescue basic income from the numerous critics who see it as an unrealistic policy proposal.

社会投资策略是否与提供无条件基本收入相容？从表面上看，这两种情况看起来像是不一致的政策选择。虽然社会投资——在欧盟层面具有影响力的政策范式——旨在促进公共服务和最大限度地参与劳动力市场，但基本收入以现金支付，有时被视为工作后未来的关键组成部分。在本文中，我们探讨了这种明显的不一致，并表明这两种福利改革愿景不一定不相容。我们认为，它们可能有许多重要的共识点，并且根据制度互补性的逻辑确实可以相互加强。特别是，我们声称部分基本收入（即适度的无条件收入保证，如果一个人独居，其数量将不足）可以增强或补充社会投资战略的社会民主版本的关键功能。通过这样做，我们得出结论，将基本收入纳入社会投资一揽子计划可能有助于克服对社会投资议程的批评。同时，它可以从许多认为这是不切实际的政策建议的批评者手中拯救基本收入。