Stephen Laughton and John Pye outline a means to an end of unemployment.
One of the important ideas that has come out of Modern Monetary Theory, which is an economic theory that views resources as the fundamental economic constraint not debt (see box: Jobs off the line), is that of a job guarantee (JG): Everyone who wants a job will be guaranteed one based on the fundamental idea that there will always be unfulfilled needs and unemployed people are effectively a waste of resources so represents an inefficiency. But how would this work in practice?
The economic starting assumption is that any government implementing a job guarantee has abandoned neoliberal fiscal rules and is running the economy for full employment. In this context, the job guarantee will not be the huge employer that it would be if introduced in today’s economy where high unemployment has become normalised.
The job guarantee acts as a transition job, keeping people ready and able to transfer to jobs as the economy expands.
However, even with full employment, there will be frictional unemployment and fluctuations due to business cycles and economic shocks. For these, the JG acts as a transition job, keeping people ready and able to transfer to jobs as the economy expands. Participation increases when employers shed staff, and contracts as recruitment recovers. There will also be people on the JG whose life circumstances make other work difficult. Such people can remain permanently on the JG if they so choose. The JG strengthens automatic stabilisers, further dampening downturns and thereby reducing the numbers involved.
Administration
The JG needs the staff and projects to absorb new arrivals. Some might expect that this could be administratively difficult to implement. There is, though, ample evidence that this is not the case.
The programme would be centrally funded but administered locally. Fortunately, central and local government agencies and voluntary and community organisations have a long track record of coming together to manage schemes for public purpose. Many of them employ people either to directly deliver the work or to administer the projects.
Examples of similar administrative arrangements include Local Economic Partnerships at the level of a whole authority or limited term partnerships to manage more narrowly aimed investment initiatives such as the Towns Fund. Some existing partnerships are standing arrangements, some are time limited around a particular task, some are set up under statute and some are entirely voluntary but all show that co-operation between the organisations is already commonplace.
Where small local charities want to become employers but are assessed as lacking the necessary skills, it is easy to connect them with a voluntary sector infrastructure organisation (typically a Council for Voluntary Service) or other training providers who ensure they get the skills in advance and/or agree suitable temporary solutions where they are needed.
What would count as useful work
Residents, workers and community organisations would help identify projects. That could mean restoring habitats, running community arts activities or offering digital support to isolated residents. The test is whether the work meets a real need and gives the participant something worthwhile to do (see box: Job application).
These are not new problems. For example, they arise every time a public sector employer makes a cut in service and volunteers who believe the service is essential step forward to take up some of the slack for free.
The difficult boundary is between extra provision and replacing an existing job. In the UK there is no clear legal distinction between statutory and discretionary public services. A council should not cut its parks team and bring the same work back under the JG. A charity should not dismiss a paid employee because a publicly funded replacement is available. It is interesting to note that currently consultants are often used by the government to carry out jobs that are not permanently needed. Local approval requires examination of existing staffing, and services already provided by other employers, with workers and unions able to challenge displacement.
Who is the job for? Agree the person’s skills, interests, available hours, travel limits and support needs.
What will they do? Set out useful tasks, the working pattern and a named supervisor. Confirm the employer and employment terms.
What makes it possible? Arrange equipment, training, accessibility adjustments and any childcare or travel support.
When does paid work begin? Publish a maximum waiting time and provide a route to challenge delays or unsuitable offers.
What if the placement fails? Keep responsibility for finding another suitable role with the service, rather than leaving the worker to start again.
But these are not new problems. For example, they arise every time a public sector employer makes a cut in service and volunteers who believe the service is essential step forward to take up some of the slack for free. A good example is the many litter picking groups that start up where local authority services are cut leaving public spaces in a mess. Such problems are already being negotiated every day.
Suitable work needs to be useful without making essential services depend on a fluctuating workforce (see box: Who cares?). In practice, the question is whether a service could cope when participants leave for other jobs. Natural habitat restoration, local history or cultural projects are examples of work where the pace can be adjusted to accommodate varying numbers of workers.
For example, full-time care workers want to go out into old people’s homes to ask residents to recount significant events in their lives as part of a reminiscence or oral history project as mentioned above or they may want to put on some form of entertainment; those fulltime workers can then be assisted by JG workers in a supplementary activity. If the JG workers leave, the residents may miss them but they will not suffer.
Another practical example of a job which is useful, purposeful and nice to have but not essential: in the 1980s the Manpower Services Commission community programme organised a history project, in which previously unemployed people catalogued archives to create a permanent publicly accessible record of local history which is still much used and valued today. If work of this type were resurrected JG participants would have a fulltime supervisor in the local archivist, and the project would proceed at a faster pace or slower pace depending on entrance to and exit from the JG.
Care, tutoring and home improvement for example require particular skills, checks and supervision. A job guarantee supports additional activities, but it should not become a source of untrained staff carrying responsibilities beyond their competence. Where a project reveals an enduring need for reliable staffing, there should be a route to a properly funded permanent service.
What about the unemployed?
The voluntary JG would sit alongside benefits and if someone turns down a JG this does not trigger a benefit penalty. The JG would pay more than benefits and community design and involvement puts some moral pressure on participants to take it up, as was chronicled in the Marienthal scheme (see box: Match point).
A decent hourly rate is only part of a usable offer. Someone caring for a relative may need predictable part-time hours. Someone without a car may need work nearby. Participants should be able to see how earnings affect their household income before they start, and receive support through the transition to their first payday.
Austria’s Marienthal pilot, launched in 2020, offers voluntary jobs to residents unemployed for more than a year. Participants receive preparation, counselling and help finding or developing suitable work. Oxford researchers found improvements in income security and social wellbeing, and a large reduction in long-term unemployment.
The practical lesson is that matching work to people is eminently doable.
The guarantee remains available for as long as it is needed. Training, references and time for interviews help people move into other employment. But pressure to produce quick exits could encourage providers to push workers into another insecure job. Sustained employment and the quality of the experience matter more than a rapid turnover of participants.
So how about trialling it?
A phased introduction would allow payroll, accreditation and matching systems to be tested before national expansion. Areas with high unemployment should be included, but selecting only councils already equipped to deliver would miss a crucial test. Places with weaker capacity would need preparation funding and practical support.
The early stages should measure how long people wait for a suitable offer, whether wages arrive correctly, who is being left out and how complaints are resolved. Evaluation should also track displacement, the usefulness of projects, participant wellbeing and the quality of subsequent employment. Residents and workers should have a voice alongside administrators.
Maybe what many would see as a radical move could become just common sense.
For further detailed reading, that shows examples of jobs, the effect on prices, phased implementation, assessment processes, and cost savings of moving people into work, investigate the following:
Patricia Pino, 2026, A Counter-Inflationary Job Guarantee for the United Kingdom
Stephen Laughton, 2026, The Money Sham and the interview here.
Public Health England, 2017, Movement into employment: return on investment tool
Public Health England’s Movement into Employment study.
