Abstract There has historically been a paradox in public health policymaking. In international development, there has been a working assumption that improving the quantity, security and predictability of people’s material resources leads to overall improvements in health, education, employment and other outcomes. However, in domestic policy within high-income societies, opinion has been divided on causality. This has appeared contradictory: if poverty harms health and if development mechanisms in low-to-middle income countries include transfers of resources, why would the same considerations not apply in high-income societies and why would improving people’s resources via policies such as Basic Income not improve their health? In this article, we explore this apparent distinction through semi-structured interviews with 14 UK-based public health policymakers. We find that the distinction is not clear, with UK-focused policymakers viewing the UK as a ‘poor country with rich people in it’, subject to similar considerations as low-to-middle income countries.

Abstract Numerous state and community actors have initiated basic income (BI) pilots to demonstrate the efficacy of cash transfers. Notwithstanding the substantial evidence on BI-like programs, pilots continue to be introduced at the community level but have consistently failed to be scaled-up to the national level. In this conceptual paper, we explore the multiple streams approach to policymaking and a critical policy studies orientation that offers valuable nuance on why the implementation of BI has been stymied in Canada, and what role pilots potentially play in this country. Concerns surround pilot framing, problematic interpretations of evidence, and troubling ethical considerations. We highlight potential ways that pilots can be helpful in mobilizing citizens and the political will to install BI permanently into Canada’s social protection infrastructure. These include providing instructive information on BI implementation, rallying strong support constituencies, and educating policymakers on the flawed adoption of the deservingness paradigm to orient social welfare programming.

Abstract This article estimates the cost of Universal Basic Income (UBI) sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States. It uses the most recent microdata available from the Census Bureau through its Current Population Survey (CPS) public-use microdata files and references historical income data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplements (ASEC) going back to 1967. It finds that UBI (or an equivalent guaranteed income) sufficient to eliminate official poverty is surprisingly affordable and that the cost of UBI as a percentage of GDP has been falling steadily for more than 50 years. Estimates based on the most recent data (from 2024) show the net cost of a UBI set at $16,000 per adult and $8,000 per child (slightly higher than the official poverty line) with a 50 % marginal tax rate is approximately $783.7 billion per year, which is about 2.67 % of GDP. In inflation-adjusted terms, the current cost of a poverty-line UBI as a percentage of GDP has fallen significantly from 9.35 % of GDP in 1967 to 4.95 % in 1995, 3.70 % in 2015, and 2.67 % in 2024. Therefore, as a percentage of GDP, the current cost of a poverty-line UBI is less than one-third (28.6 %) of what it would have cost when the guaranteed income was under discussion in the United States in 1967. This article also updates and significantly improves on calculations made in the article “The Cost of Basic Income: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations” which appeared in Basic Income Studies in 2017.

Abstract This article develops hypotheses to inform an experimental approach for investigating the impact of Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) on sustainable consumption. As the ecological crisis intensifies, UBI has been discussed as a possible eco-social policy solution. However, the empirical evidence to support UBI’s ecological benefits remains limited, particularly regarding consumption and aligning the freedom inherent to UBI with sustainable choices. The article addresses this gap by conducting the necessary preliminary analysis and hypotheses development for claims regarding UBI as an eco-social policy to be examined empirically, and provides an approach for testing these hypotheses experimentally. The proposed experimental approach examines two specific mechanisms through which a UBI could impact on the sustainability of consumption choices: 1) invoking norms around reciprocity and deservingness and 2) the priming of ecological norms. The findings from such an experimental approach would guide future research on how the unconditionality inherent to UBI could facilitate more sustainable consumption choices and so contribute to policy discussions regarding UBI as an eco-social policy.

Abstract Economic insecurity is a major problem of the contemporary world. Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been widely advocated as a potentially powerful antidote; however, it remains relatively unpopular because much of the public believes that it disincentivizes work, immorally provides something for nothing, will be spent on drugs and alcohol, and/or is too expensive. Rather than developing yet another academic response to these worries, this paper attempts to design a UBI-type policy that could be highly popular right now, and therefore realistically implemented in the short-term. The policy of Free Groceries for All would entitle each and every citizen to a small amount of money every month, say $50, via an electronic card that can be used for purchasing food and only food. The evidence from the survey data suggests that this policy would be significantly more appealing to the public at large than a conventional UBI, since it substantially mitigates the major concerns.

Abstract In today’s global economy, where informality and insecurity characterise working life for millions, scholars, activists, and political authorities are looking for radical solutions. One of the most commonly advanced is universal basic income (UBI), which is widely theorised as a tool for enhancing worker power and improving work, through offering workers an ‘exit option’. Critics retort that social and economic life are too complex for UBI to be a magic bullet and that UBI could even make life worse. To date, very few studies have empirically interrogated this debate. This paper reports findings from what we believe to be the first two pilots to do so. Both combined unconditional cash and community organiser support in India and Bangladesh over two years. Our findings suggest that UBI can enhance worker power, enable partial exit, and support collective organisation. Its limitations leave us doubtful, however, that UBI alone could fundamentally alter labour relations.

Abstract Would a UBI advance republican liberty? The potential threat to non-domination posed by administrative bureaucracies has led some republican theorists to argue in favour of a UBI. While the strength of the republican case for UBI has been the subject of a robust debate in the literature, insufficient attention has been paid to how the exit costs associated with unemployment are affected by how people perceive and evaluate risk. This paper shows that once we properly account for the fact that people are loss averse and assess exit costs in a context of uncertainty and limited information, we get a better grasp of the non-domination related trade-offs at stake in a decision between an income-maintenance model of welfare provision and a baseline provision model built around a UBI. It identifies and outlines three of these trade-offs and sketches an approach for how to think about these from a non-domination perspective.

Abstract In 2018 the Ontario Basic Income Pilot was launched in three Ontario cities and was cancelled abruptly months later after a change in government. This paper summarises the results of a qualitative study in one of those cities, Thunder Bay, Ontario. In partnership with a local community legal clinic, we interviewed 20 former recipients of the program and 13 key informants to understand two things. First, how did people experience the Ontario Basic Income Pilot for the time it was active? Second, how did people experience the cancellation of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot? After analysing the interviews using Thematic Analysis, we provided answers by way of themes. In general, the Ontario Basic Income Pilot was experienced as positive. Recipients discussed six main benefits: (a) improved financial security; (b) improved food security; (c) increase mental and physical health; (d) improved social mobility; (e) increased humanization; and (f) improved social inclusion. The cancellation on the other hand had largely negative effects. This includes a reversal of all of the aforementioned benefits as well as a decreased trust in government. We conclude the paper with a brief discussion covering two points. First, we explore what our small qualitative study suggests about the intended aims of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot; we do this by loosely comparing our findings with the preliminary survey administered on behalf of the provincial government. Second, we consider what a basic income might mean for the unique circumstances in which Thunder Bay finds itself.