Author and columnist Moisés Naím, Distinguished Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, expresses very tentative support for basic income in a recent Huff Post article. In particular, he sees the policy as a possible means to ease the tradition to more automated economy–despite what he considers many problems (or potential problems) with it.
His hesitant and rather pessimistic acceptance of basic income is summarized in the article’s concluding sentence:
More often than not, those who govern are forced to choose between a catastrophic policy and a defective but workable one. Guaranteeing a minimum income may be one of the latter.
Earlier in the article, Naím spells out what he sees as some of the policy’s major defects:
Having a guaranteed income could discourage work. Giving someone a material compensation without something of value produced in exchange is questionable from economic, social and ethical standpoints. The risks of corruption and political favoritism in the selection of beneficiaries are high. And, of course, this isn’t a cheap initiative. These types of subsidies could turn into a huge burdens for the state and create enormous chronic deficits in public budgets.
This is not the place to address and allay these majors concerns. We should note, though, that the worry about “corruption and political favoritism in the selection of beneficiaries” is peculiar given the very definition of ‘basic income’. If Naím is a truly considering a universal basic income, as BIEN defines the notion, this particular concern should never arise.
Naím goes on to say, though, that “despite all its defects, a minimum income guarantee may well become an inevitable policy.”
Read the full article here:
Moisés Naím, “As Robots Take Our Jobs, Guaranteed Income Might Ease the Pain,” Huff Post, July 18, 2016.
Photo Copyright by the World Economic Forum
