Free Groceries for All: A Realistic Path Towards Universal Basic Income

A merely national ‘universal’ basic income and global justice

Radical transformation or technological intervention? Two paths for universal basic income

This paper delves into the economic implications and feasibility of Universal Basic Income (UBI), concentrating on the considerable tax burden necessary to fund a UBI system on a national scale. With UBI increasingly seen as a potential solution to modern economic challenges, such as income inequality, poverty, and automation-driven job displacement, this analysis underscores the significant fiscal demands of implementing UBI. Through a comprehensive literature review of global UBI trials and an analysis of economic models and simulations, the paper explores UBI’s impact on labor markets, poverty alleviation, and income redistribution. Notable UBI experiments in Finland, Kenya, and Stockton have demonstrated UBI’s capacity to enhance well-being and provide financial security. However, these trials also reveal critical concerns about labor market participation and, more pressingly, the heavy fiscal burden a UBI system would impose. The fiscal models reviewed in this study indicate that UBI, while promising in enhancing social welfare, would require substantial tax increases to support it. The results emphasize that funding UBI would place a considerable strain on public resources, demanding either heightened income or consumption taxes or innovative but untested funding sources, such as taxes on carbon emissions or automation. Each of these potential funding mechanisms has profound implications for economic equity, efficiency, and social acceptance, and their viability is highly dependent on a nation’s specific economic context and fiscal policy landscape. Furthermore, the study assesses UBI’s potential long-term effects on labor markets, finding that while UBI might support labor market flexibility by reducing economic insecurity, the level of the payment and tax structure could significantly affect employment incentives. This complex interplay of UBI payments and tax policies, which often disproportionately impact certain socioeconomic groups, underlines the need for careful fiscal planning. If structured effectively, UBI could serve as a buffer against the economic disruptions caused by automation, providing displaced workers with the resources to retrain or pursue new career paths in a shifting job market. However, the increased tax burden raises questions about long-term viability, as higher taxes could reduce disposable incomes, deter workforce participation, and, paradoxically, counter the economic dynamism UBI aims to foster. In conclusion, while Universal Basic Income holds transformative potential for reducing poverty and supporting individuals in the face of technological change, its implementation would require an unprecedented commitment of public funds. This paper argues that UBI’s long-term sustainability depends on the development of funding mechanisms that can balance equity with economic efficiency, without placing undue strain on public resources or individual taxpayers. The substantial tax burden associated with UBI implementation must be carefully managed to ensure that the societal benefits outweigh the financial costs, calling for further research into tax structures that align with economic and social goals.

This chapter is premised on the view that the human rights movement needs to address and respond to the fundamental changes that are taking place in economic and social structures at the national and global levels. In this setting one of the most vibrant proposals is to replace or supplement existing social protection systems with a universal basic income (UBI). The chapter reflects on how a UBI does and should relate to analogous efforts within the framework of international human rights law. It argues that UBI offers a bold and imaginative solution to pressing problems that are about to become far more intractable as a result of the directions in which the global economy appears inexorably to be heading. While there are many objections relating to affordability in particular, the concept should not be rejected out of hand on the grounds that it is utopian. In today’s world of severe economic insecurity, creativity in social policy is necessary. The chapter concludes by calling for the debates over social protection floors and a UBI to be brought together, rather than being kept largely separate in a counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating way.

This chapter is premised on the view that the human rights movement needs to address and respond to the fundamental changes that are taking place in economic and social structures at the national and global levels. In this setting one of the most vibrant proposals is to replace or supplement existing social protection systems with a universal basic income (UBI). The chapter reflects on how a UBI does and should relate to analogous efforts within the framework of international human rights law. It argues that UBI offers a bold and imaginative solution to pressing problems that are about to become far more intractable as a result of the directions in which the global economy appears inexorably to be heading. While there are many objections relating to affordability in particular, the concept should not be rejected out of hand on the grounds that it is utopian. In today’s world of severe economic insecurity, creativity in social policy is necessary. The chapter concludes by calling for the debates over social protection floors and a UBI to be brought together, rather than being kept largely separate in a counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating way.

The economic importance of charcoal to rural livelihoods: Evidence from a key charcoal-producing area in Ghana

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to understand public perceptions of the role of income for improving mental health, since public perceptions shape political decision-making. Socioeconomic determinants such as poverty cause a great deal of mental ill-health, yet it is not clear whether the general public believes this to be true. Lay understandings of health often overemphasize the roles of individual habits and medical treatments and underappreciate the importance of socioeconomic determinants.Design/methodology/approachUK adults (n = 622) rated effectiveness of three interventions for reducing psychological distress: medication, psychotherapy, and providing sufficient income to cover necessities via a basic income. We manipulated whether participants rated effectiveness for an identified individual vs. the population in general. Participants also indicated their support for the introduction of the basic income scheme.FindingsIncreasing income was rated highly effective for reducing psychological distress. Effectiveness ratings for income provision were as high as those for psychotherapy, and higher than those for medication. There was also an interaction with framing: in the population framing, income provision was rated more effective than either of the other two interventions. There were high levels of support for introducing a universal basic income scheme in this population.Originality/valueUK adults anticipate that income provision would be highly effective at reducing psychological distress, as or more effective than increasing access to psychotherapy or medication. Policymakers can assume that the public will be receptive to arguments for mental health interventions that tackle broader socioeconomic determinants, especially when these are framed in population terms.

Basic Income (BI) has gained traction as a potential welfare reform, yet its political feasibility remains contested. This study explores how public support for BI varies across European countries, focusing on two central policy design dimensions: conditionality (e.g., work requirements) and universality (e.g., eligibility for newcomers). Using data from a vignette experiment embedded in the 2023 Cross-National Online Survey (CRONOS) across ten European countries, we analyze how design preferences intersect with individual-level factors political ideology, economic insecurity, and welfare chauvinism. Results show robust support for conditional BI models, indicating widespread preference for linking benefits to job-seeking. In contrast, preferences regarding universality are more fragmented and context-dependent. Right-leaning and chauvinistic individuals tend to oppose universal and unconditional models, while those experiencing economic insecurity are generally more supportive—though this relationship varies across countries and BI designs.

This research note examines the relationship between public attitudes toward universal basic income (UBI) and country-level socio-economic conditions in 21 European Countries. Despite abundant theoretical and empirical research on UBI, a comparative analysis of public appetite for UBI has been unavailable due to data limitations. This research note takes advantage of the 2016 European Social Survey to explore the connection between public support for UBI and levels of social protection and economic insecurity.

This research note examines the relationship between public attitudes toward universal basic income (UBI) and country-level socio-economic conditions in 21 European Countries. Despite abundant theoretical and empirical research on UBI, a comparative analysis of public appetite for UBI has been unavailable due to data limitations. This research note takes advantage of the 2016 European Social Survey to explore the connection between public support for UBI and levels of social protection and economic insecurity.

Reimagining equity and egalitarianism calls for rethinking traditional welfare responses to poverty and economic security in Australia. Similar to other advanced Western democracies, Australia has pursued policies underpinned by neoliberal economics in an effort to curtail perceived excesses in public expenditure over the past three decades. In response to these policy settings, commentators and policy activists have increased their attention to the potential of a universal and unconditional basic income scheme to address economic insecurity. This paper positions basic income within the context of Australia's welfare state arrangements and explores the potential of the scheme to respond to economic insecurity, particularly precarious employment and poverty traps created by a highly targeted social security system.

Would it be possible to provide people with a basic income as a right? The idea has a long history. This book draws on two pilot schemes conducted in the Indian State of Madhya Pradesh, in which thousands of men, women and children were provided with an unconditional monthly cash payment. In a context in which the Indian government at national and state levels spends a vast amount on subsidies and selective schemes that are chronically expensive, inefficient, inequitable and subject to extensive corruption, there is scope for switching at least some of the spending to a modest basic income. This book explores what would be likely to happen if this were done. The book draws on a series of evaluation surveys conducted over the course of the eighteen months in which the main pilot was in operation, supplemented with detailed case studies of individuals and families. It looks at the impact on health and nutrition, on schooling, on economic activity, women’s agency and the welfare of those with disabilities. Above all, the book considers whether or not a basic income could be transformative, in not only improving individual and family welfare but in promoting economic growth and development, as well as having an emancipatory effect for people long mired in conditions of poverty and economic insecurity.

Concerns about social and economic impacts of recent austerity policies have reinvigorated debates about a "basic income" (BI). BI is a transfer payment given to all without conditions of labor sufficient for a certain reasonable standard of living. The long-running BI debate, however, has tended to overlook an important but related issue: the need for low-cost credit options to those on low incomes. A wide range of arguments have been offered in favor of BI. As Standing (2008, p. 1) suggests, a BI helps in "combatting poverty and economic insecurity," by promoting job-searching and skills development. A more radical recent argument by Monnier and Vercellone (2014) sees BI in terms of being attached to social rights. This is highlighted in their statement, BI as the "counterpart to social labor that is not remunerated today," and hence not welfare but "a new universal and unconditional right" (Monnier & Vercellone, 2014, pp. 60–61).KeywordsAustralian GovernmentWelfare RecipientBasic IncomeConsumption SmoothingSmall LoanThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Technology entrepreneurs have endorsed a universal basic income (UBI) as a remedy against disruptions of the work force due to automation. The advancement of information technologies could thus drastically reshape welfare state policy, but its impact on citizens’ preferences about UBI is unexplored. We extend previous research on citizens’ preferences showing a link between job automation and demand for redistribution to the case of UBI preferences. Using European Social Survey data in 21 countries, we find no association between risk of job automation and UBI support. Our findings suggest that UBI and redistribution preferences differ in two important ways: First, opinion formation about UBI is still ongoing. Second, demand for UBI is lower than demand for redistribution, and traditional supporters of redistribution are sceptical about an UBI. This points to the multidimensionality of policy preferences. Its universalistic nature could imply that UBI support is more culturally driven than traditional welfare policies.

Universal basic income (UBI) is a radical policy proposal of a monthly cash grant given to all members of a community without means test, regardless of personal desert, with no strings attached, and, under most proposals, at a sufficiently high level to enable a life free from economic insecurity. Once a utopian proposal, the policy is now widely discussed and piloted throughout the world. Among the various objections to the proposal, one concerns its moral adequacy: Isn't it fundamentally unjust to give cash to all indiscriminately rather than to those who need it and deserve it? This article reviews the variety of strategies deployed by political theorists to posit that the proposal is in fact justified, or even required, by social justice. The review focuses mainly on the contemporary normative debate on UBI—roughly dating back to Philippe Van Parijs's influential work in the 1990s—and is centered on the ideals of freedom and equality.