This Review was originally published in the Review of Political Economy, December 6, 2009. It’s reproduced here as originally published.
In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, by Charles Murray, Washington, DC, AEI Press, 2006, 230 pp., $20.00 hardcover ISBN 0-8447-4223-6
Charles Murray is not known as a friend of the poor. His 1984 book, Losing Ground argued that the government should ‘zero-out’ all programs designed to help the poor. His 1994 book, The Bell Curve (co-authored with Richard Herrnstein) used questionable methodology purporting to show that people are poor because they are less intelligent than average and that blacks are disproportionately poor because they are genetically less intelligent than whites. If racism is the belief that your race is mentally or physically superior to others, The Bell Curve is a racist book. Yet, his new book, In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, Murray puts forth a plan to provide more healthcare, more retirement security and more actual income to the poor with no supervision or conditions attached.
For those familiar with universal basic income, Murray’s proposal sounds very familiar. Murray calls it ‘the Plan,’ saying, ‘I have not been able to contrive a better name,’ but it is essentially a version of the program known as ‘basic income,’ which has been widely discussed by political philosophers in the last twenty years. Basic income is a regular government-ensured grant provided to every citizen on an individual basis without a means test or work requirement. People with middle or higher incomes pay more in taxes than they receive in the grant, but everyone receives the grant in cash every month. A great deal of literature has appeared on basic income in the last twenty-five years. Basic income is similar to, but not quite the same as, the negative income tax, which was widely discussed in the United States in the 1960s and ‘70s. The major difference between the two is that the negative income tax is given only to net recipients and phased out for people who earn above a certain amount, so that no one both receives a grant and pays income taxes. Both programs are ‘guaranteed incomes’ in the sense that they are designed to ensure that everyone has a small but reliable income, and both programs eliminate ‘the poverty trap’ in which some people find that they can attain a higher income by not working than by working.
Murray cites some of the literature on the negative income tax, but he appears completely unaware of the basic income literature, giving the impression that he reinvented the idea independently. When he discusses people who might drop out of the labor market, his example of what they might do is surf. This example is well-known in the basic income literature from an exchange between John Rawls and Philippe Van Parijs, neither of whom is cited by Murray. Is it a coincidence or is he merely neglecting to connect himself with that movement?
The Plan is most similar to a little-known basic income proposal by Leonard Greene, and elaborated by Irwin Garfinkel, although this connection is probably coincidental. Both Murray and Greene propose canceling everything the US government is currently doing to support individual incomes and use all of that money to finance a basic income for every citizen. The Plan is not quite a universal basic income. Only people age 21 and over are eligible, but it is a basic income in the sense that it has no means test and it is given to everyone who reaches the age of eligibility regardless of income.
Murray promoted the book and the Plan with several lectures in 2006. When questioned whether a guaranteed income is an affront to the work ethic, he responded, ‘You’re a conservative. I’m a libertarian.’ But make no mistake, Murray is profoundly conservative. His books have blamed the welfare state for everything that a conservative might find wrong with modern society, from welfare dependency though unwed motherhood to a decline in ‘man’s’ ability to craft a meaningful life. Many of the benefits he expects from the Plan align with conservative goals. He believes it will lead more people to attend church, more people to support private charities, and more of the poor to adopt the superior values of middle- and upper-class people.
Many people were shocked that a man who wrote a book arguing to zero-out the welfare state would put forward a plan for a basic income and universal health care. But it should not be completely surprising. Murray was sympathetic to the negative income tax in his contribution to Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments; and in What it Means to Be a Libertarian, he wrote that some form of income guarantee was the next best thing to the complete elimination of redistribution.
There is in fact a long history of free-market conservatives who have seen an income guarantee as a streamlined, conservative alternative to the complex, conditional welfare system. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman promoted the negative income tax on those grounds, and it seems to have been part of the motivation behind Richard Nixon’s watered-down negative income tax proposal in 1970. Most recently, Governor Sarah Palin pushed through a bill for a one-time increase in Alaska’s regular basic income (the Alaska Permanent Fund) from $2000 to $3200 per person per year. The free market appeal of an income guarantee is twofold. From the point of view of taxpayers, conditional welfare programs waste a large percentage of their budgets in overhead cost that could be saved under an income guarantee. From the point of view of the recipients, the rules and constant oversight of a conditional welfare system can be humiliating and oppressive.
Murray’s earlier books give the impression he believes that the poor are unproductive, genetically unintelligent people with bad values who have babies just to get welfare checks. One might therefore wonder why he cares about freeing the poor from oppressive government supervision. The answer is that while Murray seems to believe capitalism is a near-perfect meritocracy and that the poor are genetically inferior, he honestly believes that the poor should be free and that humiliating supervision by government bureaucrats cannot make the lives of the poor better. This kind of thinking led Murray to reinvent basic income.
This book—typical of Murray’s research—seems designed to give laypersons the impression of broad knowledge while having little concern with giving that impression to people who know the field. It is a thin volume with lots of numbers and footnotes but without a deep understanding of the research he cites. His discussion of the negative income tax is a case in point. He is aware that Milton Friedman supported the idea and that experiments were conducted on it, but he misstates what a negative income tax is and what the experimental results were. He gives the impression that a negative income tax has a 100% take-back rate, meaning that for each dollar earned privately recipients lose one dollar of their grant. If so, recipients who make money in the private labor market are no better off financially unless they get a job that pays more than the entire grant (pp. 8–9; 74). Almost no one who supports the negative income tax supports this draconian variant. Friedman supported the negative income tax largely because it could be designed to eliminate the work-incentive problems of conditional welfare programs, and none of the experiments tested a 100% take-back rate. Murray also implies that the experiments found evidence that large number of recipients dropped out the labor market. In fact, none of the experiments found evidence that anyone dropped out of the labor market. The relative decline in hours for the experimental group was 2–9% among primary wage earners and up to 20% for mothers of young children, but none of this relative decline represented anyone ‘dropping out’ of the labor market. It was instead attributable to people who happened to become unemployed taking longer to find their next job. Perhaps most importantly, the relative decline of work hours was not always an absolute decline. The largest predictor of whether recipients worked was not whether they were in the experimental or control group but the health of the economy. The people who conducted the experiments concluded that the work disincentive effects were small and did not put the viability of the program at risk.
Murray has not been careful with the facts, but is his plan a good one? Is the Plan a good workable idea that people who actually have sympathy for the poor could support? The answer is mixed. It is small; $10,000 per year minus $3,000 for mandatory private health insurance minus $2,000 for possibly mandatory retirement savings with no additional provision for children’s healthcare. That is, $5,000 per year ($416.67 per month) if retirement savings is mandatory and $7,000 per year ($583.33 per month) if it is not mandatory—for each adult whether she lives alone or with children. A single parent will be able to sue for child support out of the grant to the noncustodial parent, and so might have access to something in the neighborhood of $833.33 per month for herself and her children. But even an adult with no dependents is well below the official poverty line of $9,359 if she tries to live on $5,000 a year. (Following Murray, I’m using 2002 figures.)
Murray’s typically conservative response is that they can double-up with friends and relatives and they can all go out and get jobs at minimum wage. He calculates that when you add $583.33 to the income from a minimum wage job it would get most people—even single mothers with one dependent—out of poverty. He neglects to mention that this strategy involves mortgaging their retirement savings so that they will be more than $4,000 below the poverty line in retirement if they do this every year. He also neglects to mention that he is an opponent of the minimum wage. Since the whole idea of getting rid of the minimum wage is to enable employers to pay their workers less, we can assume that all of his calculations about how well off the recipients will be after they get these jobs are overestimates. He also neglects the very possibility that unemployment might exist, that the market may not be able to absorb the millions of new entrants to the labor market he hopes to see, and that most single mothers cannot work full time or in many cases even part time.
Consider a single mother with three dependent children at ages that make it difficult if not impossible for the parent to work outside the home. Her poverty threshold is $18,307. If she’s on her own and retirement contributions are mandatory, her income ($5000) is less than a third of the poverty threshold. If she can effectively sue the father for his entire grant (an optimistic assumption), she can increase her income to $10,000. If she and the father both mortgage their retirement savings, she can get up to $14,000. That is probably enough to keep her family off the street, but it is still more than $4000 below the meager US poverty line. Murray suggests combining incomes is as a solution. If she cohabitates with another mother in exactly the same situation, their combined income is $28,000—still $1,600 below the poverty threshold for a two parent family with six children of $29,601.
The grant is too small to give a dignified life to the poor without at least the addition of a child grant, but is it better than the current system? I have to admit that on this point, I am inclined to agree with Murray. As horrible as it sounds, in most states, TANF recipients work for less than they would get unconditionally under the Plan. Many people who aren’t eligible for TANF, SSI, or Unemployment Insurance get far less or nothing at all. Even the small grant of $416.67 a month can help many people get by if it is unconditional and tax free. The Plan would save many people from the utter destitution and homelessness that they experience in the United States today. On top of that, a retirement fund of $2000 a year put into a protected savings system would make for a better retirement than many Social Security recipients experience today, and $3,000 per capita could buy basic universal health coverage, solving one of the most important problems in American society today. If the Plan were put in place now, maybe we could eventually get the benefit increased to a decent level. Therefore, despite all of its faults, the Plan would be an improvement for many people living at or near the margins in the United States.
On episode #73 of “The Waking Up Podcast”, host Sam Harris discusses the potential merits of Universal Basic Income with political science researcher and author Charles Murray.
The conversation begins at 1:52:22.
Harris opens by describing Universal Basic Income (UBI) as “a possible remedy for the increasing role automation is playing in this economy”.
“The idea is that you replace the current system with a UBI, and that you leave people alone to make their own decisions about how to use it,” Murray said.
He insisted that the money be deposited every month, electronically, into a known bank account and that this type of income stream gives people moral agency.
Murray went on to say, “I think replacing the Welfare state with UBI is going to be the rare case where you have side effects – not unintended side effects that are terrible – but unintended side effects that have the potential for rejuvenating America’s civic culture.”
Both Harris and Murray agreed that A.I. has the potential to radically transform the job market, unrecognizably, within 20 or 30 years.
Harris, who has expressed his concerns about UBI with previous guests on the podcast, asked, “Are you worried at all about the incentives just not being aligned if you give out UBI? Is there any tweaking of it that makes it more likely to produce the good changes you’re picturing?”
Murray responded by describing his plan.
“There are a couple of really, really important things. One of them is that indeed you do get rid of the other Welfare state services, and that you have a very high point at which the guaranteed income is subject to a surtax. I want to lure people into working so they get to a point where they can’t afford to quit. In my plan, I say it’s $30k of earned income, so until you get $30k of earned income on your own, you keep all of the…let’s say, $12k, and then after that you start to pay a small surtax back. Anything you go out and earn, you keep. So you’ve gotten into the habit of working and if you’ve gotten up to $30k, you are not going to trade a $42k per year lifestyle for a $12k per year lifestyle. But if you have the payback point quicker, I think you increase the likelihood that you have disincentives to work. It needs to be deposited electronically into a known bank account. It needs to be universal because one of the key things about this is that everybody knows that everybody else is getting the money. Once you have that universal knowledge, then a whole variety of interactions can be set in motion that wouldn’t be set in motion without that knowledge.”
Murray also discussed the potential for work disincentives, which is a common criticism of UBI.
“You can fairly easily design it so it’s quite likely to produce good effects. I am not denying it will have work disincentives. There will be work disincentives. But we are already at a point where something more than 20% of working-age males with high school diplomas – and no more – are out of the labor force. We’ve got a problem already and I see a lot of ways in which the moral agency of an income could make the problem less.”
The Cato Institute, a US-based libertarian think tank, is hosting a “Two-Book Forum” on basic income on Tuesday, October 4.
The forum will feature two well-known authors on basic income: Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute (another right-leaning think tank based in Washington DC) and Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union (now at Columbia University).
Both Murray and Stern have published books about basic income in 2016. Stern’s book, Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream (Public Affairs), has received much media attention in the US and beyond. Stern sees UBI as needed primarily as a safeguard against disruptions in the labor market that will caused by new technologies. Murray’s In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State(AEI Press) is a new edition of a book first published 10 years ago, which has been influential among conservative and libertarian supporters of basic income. On Murray’s view, a UBI should be adopted as a way to simplify the current welfare system.
According to Cato Institute’s description of the event, Murray and Stern “will discuss whether a UBI is a practical and affordable approach to poverty in a new economy and whether or not there really is an opportunity to build a cross-partisan consensus for a new approach to social welfare.”
Michael Tanner, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, will moderate the discussion.
The event is open to the public and free-of-charge. It will also be streamed live at www.cato.org/live.
For more information, or to register (by 12 PM EST on Monday, October 3), see the event webpage on the Cato Institute’s website.
A recent survey of economists at leading institutions purports to show that 58% oppose a universal basic income, while only 2% support it. However, the survey asked specifically about a UBI that replaces all other social insurance programs and is paid only to adults over 21. Many opposed these qualifications, not UBI itself.
On Tuesday, June 28, the IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum released the results of a survey on “universal basic income” distributed to the Economic Experts Panel — a panel consisting only of “senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States” chosen to be diverse in their specializations, locations, and political orientations.
Out of these economics experts, 58% either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with a description of a specific universal basic income policy, while only 2% “agreed” and none “strongly agreed”. (The remainder were either “uncertain” or had no opinion on the matter.)
At first blush, such results are apt to shock and disappoint supporters of basic income. However, as with any survey, attention to the detail is key: what, exactly, were respondents asked?
In this case, respondents were asked to rank their opinion on the following statement on a five-point scale (or declare no opinion):
Granting every American citizen over 21-years-old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo.
Even before looking at the survey responses, we should take pause here: Charles Murray is a controversial figure even among — perhaps especially among — supporters of UBI. Left-leaning advocates tend to regard Murray and his proposals as “downright undesirable”, to use the phrase wielded by Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark in their June 15th article in CounterPunch.
Last January, to give another example, an article in Jacobin argued that a UBI “could do little to achieve egalitarian objectives — or even backfire badly” if the policy poorly designed. The author presented Murray’s proposal as an example of “non-liveable” basic income, due to its low amount and concurrent elimination of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
With this in mind, then, it should not be too surprising that several economists in the IGM Forum also took issue with the proposed elimination of all other benefits — but not UBI per se — when explaining their votes of “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”. Some even expressed support of policies closely related to UBI. For instance, Richard Schmalensee (MIT) said, “A properly designed negative income tax could be part of a better policy, but replacing everything is a bad idea.” Similarly, Eric Maskin (Harvard) replied, “A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare.” And Christopher Udry (Yale) opined that UBI could work if “coupled with universal health care and tax reform … but we are far from that.”
Larry Samuelson (Yale), who responded as “Uncertain”, stated, “There is much to recommend a universal basic income, but specifically a 13k income while ending all other transfers is difficult to assess.”
The proposed restriction of the UBI to adults over 21 worried other economists — such as William Nordhaus, who said, “And the children get nothing? The basic idea is sound but too simplistic as stated.” Likewise, Robert Hall (Stanford) simply offered, “Limitation to people over 21 can’t be the right answer.”
This is not to suggest, of course, that all of the economists surveyed were inclined to support a basic income (but just not Charles Murray’s version). Some did express opposition to UBI itself, and for reasons that we might expect: it’s too expensive, it might discourage work, it’s not necessary given current welfare programs, and “Bill Gates would get 13k, which is crazy.”
Nonetheless, it’s striking that many explanations of “Disagree” responses did not criticize UBI per se, and were sometimes even implicitly (or explicitly!) supportive.
Not all respondents gave explanations of their answers. However, looking through the list of economists surveyed, it’s further notable that the Murray-inspired UBI proposal elicited disagreement and uncertainty from some others who have previously expressed support of basic income. For instance, the Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton voted “Disagree”, despite having recently come out in favor of “basic income grants”. Even distinguished MIT Professor Abhijit Banerjee — who is an advisor for GiveDirectly’s basic income pilot and recently wrote a compelling case for UBI in The Indian Express — voted “Uncertain”.
Thus, supporters of UBI — and especially those on the left-side of the political spectrum — should not be discouraged by this particular poll, despite its purportedly showing that only 2% of a forum of economics experts “support a universal basic income”.
If there’s anything to concern us about this survey, it should be the implicit conflation (in its headline) of the general idea of UBI with Charles Murray’s specific, and very controversial, proposal.
On the other hand, the economists themselves do not make this conflation — and, indeed, their responses serve as a reminder of the danger of tying the idea of UBI to any one particular policy implementation.
Agreement at the level of the general idea amongst opposing political factions is often hailed as a virtue of the basic income proposal. However, once we move from idea to policy implementation, persistent disagreement may return with a vengeance.
This is an important message, and one which the IGM Forum survey illustrates well.
This page contains a list of links to free versions of pretty much everything I’ve ever written. Free versions are possible because most publishers allow authors to post early versions of their publications on their personal website. Where the published version is free, I’ve tried to include a link to it, but otherwise, the links below are to the early versions on my “Selected Works” webpage.
The early versions are usually the last version I wrote before sending it to the publisher. That means they usually lack copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. They’re going to contain mistakes that aren’t in the final version. Maybe some really dumb mistakes. But otherwise, they should be good approximations of the works I eventually published.
The reason some things are missing is that it’s a hassle to post everything. If you want something that’s missing please contact me at Karl@Widerquist.com.
According to Google Scholar, my academic publications were cited 1,417 times by July 28, 2020.
My “Selected Works” website has free versions of most of my publications. My Biography, from December 3, 2016, is on BasicIncome.org.
Karl Widerquist. Universal Basic Income: Essential Knowledge, Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press
Michael Anthony Lewis and Karl Widerquist, Economics for Social Workers: Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press (the First Edition, 2002, is available from Columbia University Press)
Karl Widerquist, forthcoming, “Three Waves of Basic Income Support,” the Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income. Malcolm Torry (editor). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan
Karl Widerquist, March 2018, “My Own Private Basic Income.” In Amy Downes and Stewart Lansley (eds.) It’s Basic Income: the Global Debate, Bristol, UK: Policy Press, an Imprint of the University of Bristol Press, pp. 48-53. Also published in OpenDemocracy, June 27, 2017 (more than 47,000 downloads)
Karl Widerquist, December 22, 2016. “The People’s Endowment.” In Axel Gosseries and Inigo Gonzalez (eds.) Institutions for Future Generations, Oxford University Press, pp. 312-330
Karl Widerquist, March 31, 2013. “Is Basic Income Still Worth Talking About?” in The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21st CenturyVolume II, Robert S Rycroft (ed.) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, pp. 568-584
Karl Widerquist, 2012. “Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Basic Income in Practice,” Democratic Imperatives: Innovations in Rights, Participation, and Economic Citizenship. Report of the Task Force on Democracy, Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile Word, American Political Science Association (ed.). Washington, DC: The American Political Science Association (April), p. 64
Karl Widerquist, 2011. “Why we Demand an Unconditional Basic Income: the ECSO freedom case,” in Arguing about Justice: Essays for Philippe Van Parijs, Axel Gosseries and Yannick Vanderborght (eds.) Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain, pp. 387-394
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Libertarianism,” in the International Encyclopedia of Public Policy: Governance in a Global Age, Volume 3, Phillip O’Hara (Ed.) Perth: GPERU, pp. 338-350
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Does She Exploit or Doesn’t She?” in The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee, Karl Widerquist, Michael A. Lewis, and Steven Pressman (eds.), Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2005, pp. 138-162
Non-Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Including Book Chapters and Journal Articles
Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Reciprocity and Exploitation,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Jose A. Noguera and Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Basic Income as a Post-Productivist Policy,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Yannick Vanderborght, José A. Noguera, and Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Politics,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, Yannick Vanderborght, and José A. Noguera, 2013. “The Idea of an Unconditional Income for Everyone,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, and Yannick Vanderborght, 2013. “The Implementation of Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Theories of Justice and Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Yannick Vanderborght and Karl Widerquist, 2013. “The Feminist Response to Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Freedom and Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, and Yannick Vanderborght, 2013. “The Economics of Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, 2012. “Exporting the Alaska Model to Alaska: How Big Could the Permanent Fund Be if the State Really Tried? And Can a Larger Fund Insulate an Oil-Exporter from the End of the Boom?” in Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform Around the World, Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 169-180
Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard, 2012. “Critical Reflections on the Future of Alaska’s Permanent Fund and Dividend,” in Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model, Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115-122
Michael Lewis, Steven Pressman & Karl Widerquist, 2005. “The basic income guarantee and social economics,” The Review of Social Economy 63 (4): 587-593. (Revised version published as “An introduction to the Basic Income Guarantee” in The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee, Widerquist, Lewis, Pressman (eds.), Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005)
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Discussion” Time for Land Value Tax? Dominic Maxwell and Anthony Vigor (eds.) London: Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 60-64
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Introduction,” The Journal of Socio-Economics 34 (1): 1–2
Karl Widerquist and Michael Howard, coeditors of “Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its suitability as a model”
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Review of Natural Justice, Ken Binmore,” Utilitas 21 (4): pp. 529-532
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Jeremy Waldron’s Legal Philosophy and the Basic Income Debate, comment on three books by Jeremy Waldron,” Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Review of Just Distribution: Rawlsian Liberalism and the Politics of Basic Income, Simon Birnbaum,” Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2008. “Review of The Failed Welfare Revolution: America’s Struggle over Guaranteed Income Policy, Brian Steensland,” Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2007. “Review of the Ethics of Stakeholding, Keith Dowding, Jurgen De Wispelaere, and Stuart White,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Review of Libertarianism Without Inequality, Michael Otsuka,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of Work Behavior of the World’s Poor: Theory Evidence and Policy, Mohammed Sharif,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of The Civic Minimum, Stuart White,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of Real Libertarianism Assessed, Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams (eds.),” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of Economics as Religion: from Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond, Robert H. Nelson,” the Eastern Economic Journal 30 (1): 153-155
Karl Widerquist, 2001. “Review of The Political Economy of Inequality, Ackerman, Goodwin, Dougherty, and Gallagher (eds.),” the Journal of Economic Issues 35 (4): 1054-1056
Karl Widerquist, “The Growth of the Australian Basic Income Movement,” in Implementing a Basic Income in Australia: Pathways Forward, Elise Klein, Jennifer Mays, and Tim Dunlop (eds.) New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Karl Widerquist “Predicciones de Keynes: ‘Las posibilidades económicas de nuestros nietros’ Una visión restrospectiva” Ciudadanos: Critica Política y Propuesta Año 6, No. 10 El Futuro (Invierno de 2006). Traducido por José Villadeamigo, pp. 55-60 de “Re-Reading Keynes” Dissent
