March 2026
Exhausted by forced closures, restrictions on movement and ever-shrinking budgets, Irish cultural institutions teetered on the verge of collapse during the COVID-19 crisis. Countless exhibitions were cancelled, visual art sales all but disappeared and many artists began to reassess their career paths.
It was against this backdrop that the Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) pilot scheme emerged. The scheme arose from the recommendations of the government’s Arts and Culture Recovery Taskforce, which was convened in 2020 to address the structural fragility exposed by the pandemic. Rather than framing the crisis as a temporary episode, however, the taskforce acknowledged a deeper problem: that many artists had been operating in conditions of chronic precarity long before COVID-19 arrived.
Beginning in 2022, the BIA provided a weekly payment of EU€325 to approximately 2,000 artists for three years. The scheme was open to artists from a wide range of disciplines, including visual art, theatre, literature, music, dance, opera, film, circus and architecture. Beyond basic conditions like residency status and proof of professional activity, the eligibility criteria were deliberately minimal: there was, for instance, no income means test.
Above all else, the BIA was devised to keep artists working. The government framed this goal in terms that were partly economic, partly cultural: art is inextricably linked to national identity, and Ireland’s tourism, nightlife and entertainment sectors all rely on artists to attract their audiences. Without an experienced arts industry, these sectors lose their character and allure while overall economic turnover declines.
It improved my mental health, my outlook, and gave me permission to keep going. At the beginning, I was afraid three years would pass and I’d still be struggling. Now I feel more stable because I have work lined up.Natasha Waugh
Now that the pilot scheme is coming to an end, the results look extremely promising. ‘I genuinely don’t think I’d still be working without it,’ explains Natasha Waugh, a filmmaker and BIA recipient. When we speak, Waugh is concluding her first stint as a director on Fair City (1989–ongoing), a soap opera for the national broadcaster RTÉ. ‘It improved my mental health, my outlook, and gave me permission to keep going. At the beginning, I was afraid three years would pass and I’d still be struggling. Now I feel more stable because I have work lined up.’
Waugh’s experience is far from unique. In my discussions with BIA recipients, the same story is repeated: the basic income kept their profession viable. But these positive responses are not merely anecdotal. The pilot scheme was conceived with evaluation embedded into its structure. Nadia Feldkircher, who leads the BIA research programme, designed it as ‘a randomized controlled trial, the same [type] used in medical trials’. By assembling two statistically similar groups, with one receiving the BIA and the other not, you can ‘compare outcomes between the groups at the same point in time’, Feldkircher explains. ‘The difference between them is the impact of the policy.’
Research published by Feldkircher’s team in September 2025 found a clear difference in retention: artists who did not receive the basic income were more than twice as likely to exit their career as those who did. Moreover, in the six months prior to the report’s publication, recipients produced an average of four additional works (for example, a sculpture, song or short story) compared to those in the control group, and they spent an average 11 hours more per week on creative practice.
Such outcomes are like nectar to arts advocates, but they fail to persuade fiscal conservatives. Anticipating this, the Irish government commissioned an independent cost-benefit analysis of the scheme by a UK-based consultancy. The results were unequivocal: each EU€1 of public investment in the pilot returned EU€1.39 to society. The return is generated through several channels. First, unlike some social welfare payments, the BIA is taxed as income. Second, artists’ increased output leads to additional taxable earnings. Third, the scheme reduces reliance on welfare. Fourth, higher levels of artistic production generate knock-on economic activity (the core assumption underpinning the scheme). Fifth, improved mental health outcomes reduce pressure on the public health service, delivering measurable cost savings.
After a public consultation last year revealed widespread support for the scheme, Patrick O’Donovan, Ireland’s Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport, announced it would be made permanent in 2026. According to some media outlets, the next intake may be expanded to 2,200 participants, though only time will tell.
The visual arts in Ireland are still in a fragile place: Dublin’s The Complex, for instance – one of its last multipurpose arts venues – will be evicted in January, and Ormond Art Studios has just closed after 15 years. Basic Income for the Arts has not secured the future of Irish visual art. But it has made the present more survivable.
This article first appeared in frieze issue 258 with the headline ‘Ways of Living’
Cultural Criticism | Tom Lordan 