Aff can’t solve democracy or freedom
Louise Haagh 19, Professor of Politics at the University of York, Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and author of Te Case for Universal Basic Income. The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income " The Philosophy and Political Economy of Basic Income Revisited" //pipk
A second strand of IPE looks at the forms of, and levels at which, institutions interact within a society, and at the consequences for political agency. A relevant claim is that thoroughgoing institutional change is more likely to take a top-down than a bottom-up form (Hodgson 2005). National governance systems shape the structure and quality of employment: more ‘liberal’ labour markets, like that in the US, systematically generate more ‘guard’ labour’ (Bowles and Jayadev 2006) and junk jobs (Esping-Andersen 1990: 206–208). Given the emphasis on how formal and informal institutions are connected, societal IPE also guards against the ‘cardboard cot fallacy’ in policy learning, or the illusion of direct effect. For instance, when it was discovered that Finland, a country with low-cot-death, had been distributing cardboard boxes to mothers since the 1930s, countries with higher cot death, for instance Britain, attempted to reduce cot death by distributing cardboard boxes, until it was pointed out that other Nordic countries with similar social traits to Finland, and which also had low cot death, had not distributed card board boxes (Packham 2018). Similarly, a Basic Income having a positive effect on outcomes such as freedom as control, or democratic participation, must be considered contingent on the whole make-up of civil society.