Charlie Young, an economics writer who has worked at the UK think tank New Economics Foundation, has contributed an article on basic income to the online journal Evonomics. In the piece, he proposes a categorization system to help make sense of some of the main sources of variations between basic income schemes.
As Young points out, “universal basic income” is not a single proposal. Instead, the label encompasses a broad set of proposals that are not mutually compatible in practice, even though they are related in a more abstract conceptual or philosophical sense. For this reason, it does not make sense to say that one is “for” or “against” UBI outright.
According to Young, the “most important distinguishing feature” between these varied proposals is the source of funding (which he takes to encompass such questions as whether the UBI is a replacement to the welfare state or an add-on). He mentions the scope (“just how ‘universal’ is the income?”), amount, and regularity of the basic income as other distinguishing features.
In this light, Young recommends the following three-fold classification scheme for UBI proposals: (A) proposals based on adjustments of existing tax and benefit systems (which, in his words, have in common “a shared belief that a politically feasible UBI must be small-scale, sometimes include transitional proposals, and be based on funding from existing tax structures”); (B) proposals focused on replacement of existing welfare programs (which Young claims to differ from the former in their justification and outcomes of interest, the latter focusing more on individual autonomy than macro-level effects); and (C) proposals funded by “communalising common assets” such as natural resources, wealth, or productivity increases due to technology.
Read the full article:
Charlie Young, “The Conversation About Basic Income is a Mess. Here’s How to Make Sense of It,” Evonomics, March 19, 2017.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Christian Guthier
