The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is not a contemporary one and has been gradually permeating the political discourse. Its roots are typically traced to Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) and, since then, the concept of a Universal Basic Income has not only resisted the test of time but has been thoroughly developed and embraced by diverging ideologies (see King and Marangos 2006, Bidadanure 2019, p. 482).
A brief historical analysis of this concept suggests that its weight on the political agenda is increasing and, thus, it should be addressed appropriately.
So, what exactly is Universal Basic Income? UBI is, fundamentally, a policy idea for a “regular cash payment” (Van Parjis 1992a, Martinelli 2017, p. 4) that, parsimoniously explained, is: (a) allocated to everyone (from a given country’s population, for example), regardless of their wealth and without preconditions, and (b) provides a “sufficiently generous cash benefit to live on, without other earnings” (Bidadanure 2019, p. 482, Hoynes and Rothstein 2019, p. 1). As with every other academic topic, this definition is a contested and some authors apply other conceptual idiosyncrasies to this definition. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this essay, the definition of UBI will be the aforementioned.
After Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) laid the foundations for this concept and other authors such as Thomas Paine (1791) developed it further, the idea of a UBI continued its infiltration on political thought. During the course of the 20th century, the debate surrounding UBI grew substantially, with some programs even being tested out in the United States and in Canada, using Milton Friedman’s terminology “negative income tax” in their theoretical underpinnings (Friedman 1963, Hum and Simpson 1993). Even then, in the context of these experiments, Hum and Simpson (ibid) found “few adverse effects” and those which were found were “smaller than would have been expected without experimentation”, therefore providing some empirical data to support the sustainability of a UBI-like program.
Since then, the proponents of UBI have grown exponentially. Not only this, but UBI has been subjected to increasing empirical research, which mostly points to the benefits of such policy idea (Gentilini et al. 2019). From national referendums (Martinelli 2017, p. 19) to technological titans, venture capitalists (Fouksman and Klein 2019, p. 496), and democratic candidates on the United States’ primaries (Yang 2018), acceptance and high-profile public endorsements of UBI have grown exponentially, making it an increasingly interesting subject.
Considering the amplified attention on policy mechanisms that follow the guidelines of a UBI, this essay decided to focus on three main parameters to advocate for the application of a Universal Basic Income system: (a) implementation of a mechanism towards wealth redistribution and justice, (b) promotion of active behaviour and (c) employment of a coping strategy for the future of automation.
Wealth redistribution
The first parameter used by this essay to analyse and advocate for the implementation of a UBI is its use as a policy mechanism towards wealth redistribution.
Wealth redistribution is a major theme nowadays. The gap between the rich and the poor has been constantly rising and is now “at its highest level in decades” raising concerns on both researchers and policymakers (Dabla-Norries et al. 2015, p. 4). Income inequality and its consequences on economic growth and the wealth gap have been widely studied and are commonly accepted as being deterrents for a functioning society on seemingly every metric of evaluation (ibid).
The recent COVID-19 pandemic has helped shedding light on this issue. For example, the findings on Forbes’ Magazine 35th Annual World’s Billionaires List portray a scenario that is the antithesis of the worldwide economic status-quo (Dolan 2021). The number of billionaires grew more than 660 in one year, reaching the total of 2,755 (ibid). Jeff Bezos made $64 billion last year, having currently $177 billion (ibid). Elon Musk made roughly $126 billion last year, reaching $151 billion (ibid). Fact sheets such as this one, coupled with the governments response to the pandemic, namely, (very shy) governmental “part-time cash-payments” and considerable bailouts to corporations have shown “how industrial economic systems are heavily weighted towards benefitting the wealthy and corporate health and profit to the disadvantage of ordinary citizens and workers” (Ashford et al. 2020, p. 5404).
Considering this, implementing a UBI could ameliorate the menacing effects of the way our economic system is currently structured, by redistributing “a share of the wealth produced by all in common” (Bidadanure 2019, p. 482). Even when applying a different level of analysis, focusing on justice and equity, if one believes and is “truly committed to an equal concern for all and to nondiscrimination”, then a UBI is a perfect fit for a moral and ethical frame as described above (Van Parjis 1991, p. 102).
Incentivizes active behaviour
Moving forward, this essay’s second parameter for analysis is the use of a UBI as a mechanism towards incentivizing active behaviour. In the light of what is argued by Parjis and Vanderborght (2017, pp. 26-27), in this context, active behaviour does not reflect the repressive “active welfare state” that policies the beneficiaries and forces them to work inside of what often is an unfruitful framework. What this essay means by active welfare state is a state that is implementing public policies that promote active behaviour, in the sense that it rewards individuals who try to improve their material wellbeing. On the contrary, typical welfare schemes “punish” individuals who try to improve their material wellbeing on their own by taking their subsidies.
The application of a UBI framework would allow not only the promotion of active behaviour but would also liberate people into pursuing activities that might otherwise be impossible to pursue (for example, under the traditional welfare schemes). This might, in turn, produce great benefits for societal progress and for the contemporary fight against stress, anxiety, mental disorders, and all the psychological intricacies that are associated with the times we currently live (see Jonsdottir et al. 2010). Moreover, coupled with fostering active behaviour, a UBI would also provide a greater degree of individual freedom for leisure activities, whatever they might be, which can, in turn, have a positive impact on their labour efficiency (Wei et al. 2016).
A strategy for automation
The third and last parameter applied in this essay is the use of a Universal Basic Income to deal with the future of automation.
It is a widely accepted fact that the development of new technologies such as artificial intelligence will produce a considerable amount of work displacement. In this instance, UBI could provide a measure of economic security for workers whose job is predicted to be agglutinated by new machinery (Bidadanure 2019, p. 497). To be clear, this is not to say that UBI is the solution for the displacement of labour due to technological advancements. It is to argue, though, that UBI stands as a quick and easy mechanism to mitigate the effects this might have on society.
The impact technological development will have on job loss is a contested one. Frey and Osborn (2017) contributed to this debate with an impactful paper, suggesting 47% of “total US employment” was in a “high risk category” of becoming automated. However, other studies which applied different metrics have portrayed a different scenario, such as Arntz et al. (2016), predicting only 9% of jobs on the countries they scrutinised were at risk of becoming automated. Nonetheless, this matter needs to be addressed and a UBI is a proposal that would help tackling the externalities caused by this technological shift on production.
Conclusion
This analysis has been everything but exhaustive. This paper exists only as a parsimonious framework advocating for a UBI through three specific parameters. This topic can be thoroughly dissected through many lenses, and areas such as the economic viability of such a framework were left for further analysis. Notwithstanding, the literature on the sustainability of a UBI is not in a vacuum, and many authors have developed different schemes and theorized several policies which seem, to an extent, to be capacitated with dealing with the issue of paying for a policy with such a wide scope (see Reed and Lansley 2016 and Straubhaar 2017).
The overall scenario regarding UBI suggests that it is a policy that is fit for our time and that it provides usefulness towards mending some fractures that are currently present on our societal tissue and that seem to be expanding. This essay brought three specific parameters to look at UBI through, focusing on wealth redistribution, the promotion of active behaviour and the future of jobs under automation. On wealth redistribution this essay argued that a UBI scheme would help share the wealth produced in a society, considering that the fissure between the rich and the poor is increasing at an alarmed pace. Regarding active behaviour, the argument was that, unlike typical welfare programs, a UBI rewards people who try to improve their material wellbeing while at the same time provides a greater degree of individual freedom. On the future of jobs under automation, this paper asserted that a UBI, while not being a solution, would help providing some economic security for individuals whose jobs might be displaced as a consequence of technological development. The idea of a UBI needs to be further addressed by scholars and seriously considered by policymakers as a tool towards societal progress, individual stability, and a more equal and just world.
Bibliography
Arntz, M., et al. 2016. The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis.
Ashford, N. A., et al. 2020. Addressing inequality: the first step beyond COVID-19 and Towards Sustainability. Sustainability, 12(13), 5404.
Bidadanure, J. U. 2019. The political theory of universal basic income. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 481-501.
Dabla-Norris, et al. 2015. Causes and consequences of income inequality: A global perspective. International Monetary Fund.
Dolan, K. 2021. Forbes’ 35th Annual World’s Billionaires List: Facts and Figures 2021. Forbes. Accessed at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2021/04/06/forbes-35th-annual-worlds-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures-2021/?sh=65d9afd05e58
Fouksman, E., & Klein, E. 2019. Radical transformation or technological intervention? Two paths for universal basic income. World Development, 122, 492-500.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. 2017. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological forecasting and social change, 114, 254-280.
Friedman, M. 2020. Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago press.
Gentilini, U., et al. 2019. Overview: Exploring universal basic income.
Goldsmith, O. S. 2010. The Alaska permanent fund dividend: A case study in implementation of a basic income guarantee.
Hoynes, H., & Rothstein, J. 2019. Universal basic income in the United States and advanced countries. Annual Review of Economics, 11, 929-958.
Hum, D., & Simpson, W. 1993. Economic response to a guaranteed annual income: Experience from Canada and the United States. Journal of Labor Economics, 11(1, Part 2), S263-S296.
Jonsdottir, I. H., et al. 2010. A prospective study of leisure-time physical activity and mental health in Swedish health care workers and social insurance officers. Preventive medicine, 51(5), 373-377.
King, J. E., & Marangos, J. 2006. Two arguments for basic income: Thomas Paine (1737-1809) and Thomas Spence (1750-1814). History of economic ideas, 55-71.
Martinelli, L. 2017. Assessing the Case for a Universal Basic Income in the UK. IPR Policy Brief. Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath, Bath. https://www. bath. ac. uk/publications/assessing-the-case-for-a-universal-basic-income-in-the-uk/attachments/basic_income_policy_ brief. pdf.
More, T. 1947. Thomas More: Utopia. Walter J. Black.
Paine, T. 2011. Rights of man. Broadview Press.
Reed, H., & Lansley, S. 2016. Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?. London: Compass.
Straubhaar, T. 2017. On the economics of a universal basic income. Intereconomics, 52(2), 74-80.
Van Parijs, P. (1991). Why surfers should be fed: the liberal case for an unconditional basic income. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 101-131.
Van Parijs, P. 1992a. Arguing for basic income (Vol. 995). London: Verso.
Van Parijs, P. 1992b. Basic income capitalism. Ethics, 102(3), 465-484.
Van Parijs, P., & Vanderborght, Y. 2017. Basic income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy. Harvard University Press.
Wei, X., et al. 2016. How does leisure time affect production efficiency? Evidence from China, Japan, and the US. Social Indicators Research, 127(1), 101-122.
Yang, A. 2018. The war on normal people: The truth about America’s disappearing jobs and why universal basic income is our future. Hachette UK.
