Universal Basic Income - a new tool for development policy? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Universal Basic Income in the Developing World
2019
Should developing countries give everyone enough money to live on? Interest in this idea has grown enormously in recent years, reflecting both positive results from a number of existing cash transfer programs and also dissatisfaction with the perceived limitations of piecemeal, targeted approaches to reducing extreme poverty. We discuss what we know (and what we do not) about three questions: what recipients would likely do with the incremental income, whether this would unlock further economic growth, and whether giving the money to everyone (as opposed to targeting it) would be wise. * We thank Michael Faye and Alan Krueger, our collaborators on the GiveDirectly basic income evaluation, as well as Ashu Handa, Renana Jhabvala, and Claudia and Dirk Haarmaan for helpful discussion. Mansa Saxena provided excellent research assistance.
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.
A STUDY OF THE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
International Journal of Management (IJM), 2020
This paper introduces the idea proposed for the Universal Basic Income (UBI) for countries which are at their emerging state. Is it necessary for developing countries to provide for everyone financially? In recent years, this topic has received perceived notions amid growing concerns about COVID-19, and other tragedies including ones related to technology which has led to unemployment in mass. UBI has its supporters just as rivals and each side make them force hypothetical contentions with respect to its usefulness (why UBI will or won't work).
Global perspectives on universal basic income
Identifying who to help, through which public services and when, has seldom been a straightforward task in most democratically elected, free-market societies. Competing social, economic and political pressures are often too great, resulting in outcomes that can amplify inequalities and reduce life chances. The concept of universal basic income (UBI) is a long-standing one and has been met by a range of views on its economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Given the sizeable negative shock of COVID-19, might current circumstances allow for UBI to become more mainstream? If not now, when? In this report, we outline the risks and other key variables that policymakers will need to consider. Importantly, we reflect on the potential impacts that a policy such as UBI may have on public finances and how these might be addressed. As the evidence base is limited, our intent is not to advocate a policy stance but rather to open a discussion based on global, shared experiences.
Towards a More Equitable and Just World: A Case for Universal Basic Income
Journal of Development Innovations, 2020
The global economy has created an unprecedented amount of wealth. The top 10% of wealth holders own 82% of global wealth, while the bottom-half account for less than 1%. Such wealth disparity may be attributed to the dominant economic model’s focus on accumulating profit over providing equitable and secure lives for all. This lack of basic income security and extreme poverty is a violation of economic rights of citizens in many countries. The global spree of technical automation further exacerbated this situation through job loss. The provision of universal basic income could possibly serve as a moral and sustainable solution to ensure that no one is denied the basic income requirement for food, shelter and medical care. It is the right political choice for governments and those in authority to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to live in dignity and economic freedom through progressive realization of basic income security. JEL classification: I31, J08, J38 Keywords: economic insecurity, human rights, economic freedom, universal basic income, safety nets, basic income security, leaving no one behind
Social protection the role of cash transfers
2006
United Nations Development Programme T he UN Millennium Development Goals address many dimensions of extreme poverty-including penury, hunger, disease, analfabetism and inadequate housingwhile promoting gender equality and environmental sustainability. Poverty reduction is the result of several interacting factors, including importantly: redistribution of incomes, assets, and opportunities; pro-poor economic growth; and social provision and protection. This issue of IPC's journal Poverty in Focus highlights the importance of social protection in the struggle against global poverty. Inequality reduction and pro-poor growth will be the theme of the next issue. Social protection aims to enhance the capacity of poor and vulnerable persons to manage economic and social risks, such as unemployment, exclusion, sickness, disability and old age. Policy interventions can improve their well-being by, among other things, moderating the impact of shocks causing sharp reductions in their income or consumption. Social protection and provision can also enhance the productive capabilities of poor men and women, reducing poverty and inequality and stimulating pro-poor growth. Like other policy areas, social policies involve choices and priorities, for example between mere social safety nets and promotion of sustainable livelihoods, short term alleviation and long-term elimination of poverty, universal and targeted programmes, conditional and unconditional schemes, food and cash transfers, etc. Criteria must be set for selecting which households, and who within them, should receive the benefits. If schemes are conditional, then on what: participation in education, health, nutrition and/or work programmes? Is such participation by the poor and needy in fact constrained by demand or supply factors? Can institutional and management capacity cope effectively?
Journal of International Development Cooperation, 2010
people with access to even the most rudimentary protection is estimated to be less than 10 per cent(International Labour Organization, 2010). Together with crises of food, energy and climate change, the global economic crisis since 2007 is more likely to worsen the situation in terms of its coverage and the level of benefits due to both global and national financial constraints, in particular in developing countries. Recent research based on fiscal projection data published by the IMF for 126 low and middle income countries shows there will be a further contraction of government spending in 2010-2011 through wage cuts, reduction of subsidies and more targeted schemes of social protection which will inevitably result in the reduction of social protection and social security (Ortiz et al., 2010). Although increased interest in social protection and social security as a policy approach to reduce poverty and inequality is a recent phenomenon, social security and social protectionas either normative or practical components of development strategy have been consistently emphasized in various documents of the international since the Second World War. Article 25 and 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) clearly states the right to social services meeting basic necessities such as food, clothing, housing and medical care, and education and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond one's control. Such transfers and services as medical care, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, old-age benefit, employment injury benefit, family benefit, maternity benefit, invalidity benefit and survivors'benefit were again emphasized as worldwide agreed minimum standards by the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention of ILO (No.102, 1952)(International Labour Organization, 1952). The Internationl Covenance on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reaffirmed the importance of social security and social service in articles 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13(General Assembly of United Nations, 1966). Given the widespread consensus on the expansion of the social protection and social security, the record of social protection and social security is very much disappointing. Why is the coverage so low and how can we expand social protection and social security? Answers to this question is partly related to how social protection and social security are understood, designed and implemented within a broad development strategy to reduce poverty and inequality. How were the policies of social protection and social security interpreted and introduced in the development discourse? What are the implications of