BEYOND OR BESIDES NEOLIBERALISM? THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (original) (raw)

The Political Economy of Universal Basic Income

Gentilini, Ugo; Grosh, Margaret; Rigolini, Jamele; Yemtsov, Ruslan (eds.) Exploring Universal Basic Income : A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices. World Bank, 2020

Universal basic income (UBI) is emerging as one of the most hotly debated issues in development and social protection policy. But what are the features of UBI? What is it meant to achieve? How do we know, and what don’t we know, about its performance? What does it take to implement it in practice? Drawing from global evidence, literature, and survey data, this volume provides a framework to elucidate issues and trade-offs in UBI with a view to help inform choices around its appropriateness and feasibility in different contexts. Specifically, the book examines how UBI differs from or complements other social assistance programs in terms of objectives, coverage, incidence, adequacy, incentives, effects on poverty and inequality, financing, political economy, and implementation. It also reviews past and current country experiences, surveys the full range of existing policy proposals, provides original results from micro–tax benefit simulations, and sets out a range of considerations around the analytics and practice of UBI. This chapter discusses the political feasibility of UBI from a broad political economy perspective.

Universal Basic Income as an Instrument of Social Policy - Master's Thesis Abstract

University of Belgrade Faculty of Political Science, 2020

The main objective of the research is the analysis of the universal basic income as an instrument of social policy, a basis of real freedom for all, and a basic human right. The analysis of universal basic income proposals is conducted on the basis of several criteria: (1) interrelationship between universal basic income and the other two models of social protection: public assistance and social insurance; (2) the effects of the UBI on (un)employment and work incentives; (3) possible legitimate ways of financing the universal basic income: (a) through fiscal public revenues like taxes and other charges; (b) through non-fiscal public revenues from public capital funds; (4) the question of the universality of basic income: is it an universal human right of every human being or a right limited to citizens of a country, federal state or province. Unlike two other models of social protection, public assistance and social insurance, universal basic income is not based on charity toward the poor (like public assistance) where “the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives”, or state-supported solidarity among employees and their employers (like social insurance) which is selective and limited to those who are already privileged enough to be employed, but on a human right to dignified life, work, health, well-being and free development of every person, regardless of their work or property status. However, a reform that introduces an universal basic income could either increase or decrease social security and freedom of people in the worst social position. If the introduction of universal basic income implies abolishment of the existing social benefits and services, for the most deprived persons of the community it would be a worse scheme than the existing one. Only in sensible combination with the other universal and conditional components of the social protection system, universal basic income can increase the income and property, powers and prerogatives, and social bases of self-esteem of the people in the worst social position. In its constructive function, universal basic income is a floor beneath the overall income distribution that includes wages and conditional social benefits and services as well as universal health care and universally accessible education. Universal basic income would allow all people to move more freely between more or less paid work, lifelong education and training, and voluntary activities in the community, because they could at any time decide to quit job or shorten working hours, without losing the right to a basic income. The combination of three unconditionalities of the universal basic income – an individual basis, no means-test or work requirement – would eliminate the unemployment trap or exclusion of the poor and marginalized part of the population from working and social life, and the employment trap or exploitation and burnout of people in work. The Finnish national UBI experiment (2017–2018) proved that basic income increases work motivation and overall life satisfaction: the experimental group of unemployed people who received a basic income during the experiment were mentally healthier, felt more self-confident, had less stress and more autonomy in life, did more meaningful work, and had more trust in other people and social institutions compared with the control group. It is a proof that universal basic income is not an instrument of a passive welfare state that would be introduced so that some people would choose to do nothing for the rest of their lives, but an instrument of an active welfare state by which people can freely choose a meaningful way to best contribute to society. American economist and Nobel laureate Herbert Simon estimated that approximately 90 per cent of the salary of an employee in the formal economy is not earned by personal effort, but is a gift from accumulated social wealth to which current employees have contributed nothing. Thus, the introduction of an universal basic income is only a way to distribute a part of that natural, social, cultural and technological heritage of humanity among all members of society. Therefore, a fairly legitimate way of financing the universal basic income is to ensure the property right of every person over an equal part of social wealth that is created due to natural resources and scientific, technological, organizational and cultural achievements of previous generations of mankind. However, in the absence of such public capital fund, the universal basic income would have to be financed by fiscal public revenues. A compromise solution would be a sensible combination of fiscal and non-fiscal public revenues for the financing of basic income. Macro-regional or world basic income is necessary for a fairer distribution of the inherited social wealth of humanity, which is now distributed in extremely unequal proportions between and within states. World or macro-regional basic income is one of the necessary social and economic preconditions for the safe opening of borders between countries at the European and global level. The wider the supranational level at which the universal basic income is introduced, the weaker would be the motivation for selective opportunistic economic migrations which is now significantly boosted by national transfer programs in the affluent countries of the Global North. Moral law is obviously on the side of universal basic income. Just as slavery, racial and gender discrimination have been finally recognized as the intolerable infringements of the basic human rights, so the non-recognition of a right to basic means of subsistence or the conditioning of that right by economic extortion and coercion based on illegitimate ownership and control over the labor and social wealth will finally be recognized as an unbearable violation of a right to dignified life and freedom of every individual and family regardless of their work or property status. Humanity is unstoppably moving towards the realization of that natural right. Universal basic income would only partially restore or compensate people for the enormous social wealth that some individuals and groups illegitimately appropriated for themselves as exclusive private property, while the state confirmed and protected that illegitimate private appropriation with its coercive apparatus and legislation. It is impossible to restore the dignity and freedom of the individual, family and work without reclaiming the natural right to basic means of subsistence. Key words: universal basic income, social policy, social protection, social security, social insurance, public assistance, social model, social state, work incentives, means test, social wealth.

On the Political Feasibility of Universal Basic Income

Richard Caputo (ed.), Basic Income Guarantee and Politics: International Experiences and Perspectives on the Viability of Income Guarantee. New York: Palgrave, 2012

For much of the last two decades, debate around the proposal of a universal basic income (BI) centered on arguing the ethical and economic case for instituting a policy that grants each adult citizen a guaranteed income as a right, without a means test or work requirement. The question of how to bring about such a policy—the question of political feasibility—has only recently gained traction amongst BI advocates. Leaving aside some notable exceptions, much work remains to be done to further our understanding of the challenges faced by BI advocates and the strategies available to overcome these. In this chapter, we aim to contribute to this enterprise by outlining an analytical framework to think about the political feasibility of BI in a more systematic manner. The framework we propose in this chapter is constructed around two key political dimensions that constitute the core of the policy process: agency and constraints. Combined, these dimensions generate a matrix with four types of political feasibility: strategic feasibility, institutional feasibility, psychological feasibility, and behavioral feasibility. Each of these types will be briefly explored in the remainder of this chapter with specific focus on their relevance for BI.

Just Society by Allocating Money? Contending Models of Universal Basic Income and Their Limits

A Qest for Justice: Theoretical Insights, Challenges, and Pathways Forward, 2023

This study investigates various discourses and articulations of contesting actors/groups on universal basic income (UBI). Specifically, it aims to compare and contrast the capitalist/regressive and anti-capitalist/progressive basic income modalities by addressing the techno-capitalist, libertarian/neoliberal, social democratic and socialist interpretations of UBI.

A Democratic Defense of Universal Basic Income

Penn State University Press eBooks, 2008

One powerful and illuminating argument animates much of Carole Pateman's remarkably diverse work on democracy, participation, political obligation, social contract, feminism and feminist interpretation, and the welfare state: subordination and democratic citizenship are incompatible. To my mind, her particular genius has been to show how social institutions and relationships, from marriage to the capitalist organization of production, make some individuals dependent upon others; to demonstrate that such relationships pervade our political theories and our societies; and, to argue forcefully for a deep democratization that would transform our theory and our practice and make us more free. Seen in light of this overarching concern, Pateman's recent interest in proposals for a basic income represents a seamless continuation of her scholarly endeavors (see Pateman 2004, 90). A basic income (BI) is an unconditional social transfer set at a level that assures every citizen subsistence. It is payable to all individuals regardless of their economic means, family or employment status, willingness to seek paid work or accept jobs, or any other status or requirement (Purdy 1994, 33; cf. Parijs 1995). In short, BI makes guaranteed subsistence a core entitlement of citizenship. Proposals for BI have a long intellectual history (see Dowling, Wispelaere, and White 2003; Parijs 2004; Rothschild 2001); they have recently attracted considerable interest in response to grave concerns about the social, economic, and political viability of the welfare state in the age of neoliberal globalization (Offe 1992; Standing 1992). Although this contemporary discussion of BI began as one about policy reforms that might enhance distributive efficiency, reduce poverty, and shore up the political foundations of the welfare state, the debate has largely come

A Realist Conception of Universal Basic Income

MSc Thesis, 2017

Realist political theory claims it is concerned with real politics. According to Galston, realism exists to correct for excessive ideal theorising, make political theorising once again relevant to real-world politics, and catch the attention of real policymakers. Recently, concerns have been raised about predicted mass technological unemployment and the idea of a Universal Basic Income has been raised as a viable solution. UBI proposals in Finland were increasingly reframed as practical solutions to political problems and since January 2017 Finland is running the only unconditional UBI experiment. By drawing on Williams’ and Sleat’s work on legitimacy a realist method is outlined to theorising UBI. Predictions of technological unemployment are treated seriously and UBI is assessed as a reasonable solution that maintains the legitimacy of the state. Empirical research on basic income experiments and proposals raise concerns over the implementation and portrayal of a UBI policy.

The unconditional basic income guarantee: Attempts to eclipse the welfare state

International Social Work, 2008

ABSTRACT EnglishThis article describes a loosely affiliated network of international organizations, the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), dedicated to enacting legislation for an unconditional guaranteed income for citizens of their respective countries. Three basic income guarantee (BIG) schemes are presented and suggestions are made for overcoming shortcomings identified in each model.FrenchCe papier décrit un réseau trés ténu d'organisations internationales: le BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network = Réseau du Revenu Basique pour la Terre), dédié la création d'une législation pour un revenu garanti inconditionnel pour les citoyens de leurs pays respectifs. Trois schémas de garanties de revenu de base (Basic Income Guarantee: BIG) sont présentés et des suggestions sont faites pour surmonter des défauts identifiés dans chaque modéle.SpanishSe describe una red abierta de organizaciones internacionales, el Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) (Red Terrestre de Ingresos Base). Se dedica esta red a promover legislaciones que garanticen incondicionalmente ingresos para los ciudadanos de sus respectivos países. Se presentan tres modelos y se hacen sugerencias para superar las deficiencias de cada uno.

Political philosophy guide to social deliberation about unconditional basic income

2019

Recently, the idea of unconditional basic income (UBI) has emerged in several countries and/or regions, and the dispute is usually rather fierce. During this decision-making process, political communities have to form opinions about the most important values of the community. We believe that defining this vision of the political community must be based on comprehensive and rational social deliberation instead of fetishising or demonising an instrument. That is why it is especially important that members of the political community see the values behind the pro-UBI and anti-UBI social visions and those considerations of social justice which are for and against UBI clearly. In our paper, we undertake to bring to the surface those basic intuitions about social justice which are behind the pro-UBI and anti-UBI social visions. In other words, we will explore the often unspoken presuppositions held in the worldview of the supporters as well as the opponents. About UBI, rational discourse can be formed only when the parties realize and understand each other's reasons, and stop ignoring or underestimating the importance of these. Without these kinds of (exploratory) analyses, the debate about UBI can easily become irrational and fruitless, which is how the parties miss the point. We expect our philosophical guide to help the arguing parties to see through the dialect of the debate, and to articulate their standpoints better. We think that the philosophical debate about UBI is determined by five essential questions. (1) Do the interest of the private sphere or the interest of the political community have priority? (2) Is it the individual or the community who is primarily responsible for poverty? (3) In the case of welfare benefits, should the state follow the principle of need or the principle of universality? (4) During redistribution, should the state apply the principle of reciprocity or is the state not in the epistemic position to apply the principle justly? (5) Should the right social policy ensure the opportunity to participate in the labour market or ensure the opportunity to be left out of the labour market? In our paper, we will examine these questions one by one.