Abstract:
Following the success of a recent Swiss Citizens’ Initiative to grant each citizen an unconditional income guarantee and the Finnish Government’s plans to conduct the first national pilot project, the idea of a basic income as a citizens’ right has gained much prominence in the policy debate. This article reviews a number of policy developments on the ground through the lens of the policy transfer literature. In the absence of a fully developed basic income in place, proponents must rely on partially implemented schemes or proposals that differ in crucial respects from the basic income ideal. This paper outlines three sets of empirical cases and analyses what (if any) lessons we can draw from them regarding the future of basic income schemes.
Jurgen De Wispelaere, “Basic Income in Our Time: Improving Political Prospects Through Policy Learning”, Journal of Social Policy, Cambridge University Press 2016.
Good Article: The transition from EITC to NIT is relatively straightforward since EITC is a subset of NIT. NIT is a familiar concept and a tapering Basic Income is the same as an Individualized NIT. For some audiences, a tapering Basic Income for individuals may be preferable to a NIT for households and easy to grasp. As it stands now, the Basic Income Ideal, without a tapering option, may be perceived as distancing itself from a focus on economical poverty relief and rather presenting itself as a costly wealth redistribution policy that may not demonstrate empathy to working citizens being asked to fund it.