In a landmark event at Korea’s National Assembly, Sarath Davala, Chairman of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), declared South Korea a “hot spot” in the global push for basic income.
The forum, hosted by Hyosang Ahn, Chair of the Basic Income Korean Network (BIKN), marked the launch of a new comprehensive book on the movement and underscored the nation’s pivotal role following the recent election of a pro-UBI president.
The event drew key figures from the movement and scholars around the world.
For years, Davala has carried the idea of basic income from India’s villages to European parliaments, from university seminars to grassroots assemblies. In Seoul, his words carried a special charge.
South Korea, Davala said, looking out over the forum, is near the “very top” of the global basic income conversation.
One of the key participants was also Yong Hye-in, a young lawmaker from the Basic Income Party, one of the few political parties in the world devoted entirely to the idea. She argued for using gradual reforms to bring basic income to the forefront of Korean politics.
The gathering marked the release of a new book documenting more than 22 years of Korean research, pilot projects, advocacy and policy experiments.
The new book asks “how?” How can Korea design transfers that are universal, unconditional, individual, periodic, and cash-based while still threading the needle of political and fiscal reality? How can existing pilots, such as the Youth Dividend in Gyeonggi Province, be scaled into something enduring and national? And how might renewable energy revenues (which Korea is calling sunshine income) be converted into a reinvention of the commons?
As Davala reminded the Assembly, basic income is not a single model stamped identically around the globe. It is a global idea, always “locally rendered.” In Brazil, it emerged through Bolsa Família, tethered to poverty relief. In the United States, it was rebranded as “guaranteed income.” In India, where Davala piloted early cash experiments, it arose from rural farm crises.
In Korea, the rendering has been unique. It is the product of a coalition: researchers writing steadily, provincial governments testing dividends, politicians building platforms, and activists sustaining networks. “This critical mass coming together,” Davala said, “is what (makes Korea) electrifying.”
The metaphor he reached for was telling: Korea’s basic income debate, he suggested, is as culturally visible as K-pop and as suspenseful as a K-drama. Everyone is watching to see how the next episode ends.
The Korean speakers that followed painted a sobering picture of a society on edge. Nearly half of households are now single-person. The fertility rate has plunged to 0.78 children per woman, the lowest on record globally. Stable employment, once the cornerstone of Korea’s post-industrial promise, is eroding in the face of automation, outsourcing, and the gig economy. In this context, basic income is being debated as a practical shield against income insecurity.
“Income insecurity is the new reality,” one speaker said. “And politicians must respond.”
Davala supplied perspective to the other speakers. “Evidence we already have,” he said. He noted that decades of pilots, from Namibia to Stockton, show what unconditional cash can do: increase security, improve mental health, reduce poverty.
But numbers, he insisted, do not make laws.
“Basic income is not just about fiscal feasibility,” Davala said. “That is a political call…if there is political will then fiscal feasibility becomes possible. So far, South Korea has already proven this.”
Davala recounted earlier turning points: the 2015 Swiss referendum, which even in defeat sent shockwaves through global politics; Andrew Yang’s 2020 U.S. campaign, which placed the idea on prime-time television; Brazil’s legislative experiments; India’s pilots. Each was a step forward. Now, Korea is taking its own steps.
“Even coming to this point itself,” Davala told the attendees, “is a major achievement.” He said that basic income is no longer just a “pipe dream” in Korea and it is being turned into “practical policy that can be implemented.”
Several speakers pointed out that Korea’s path is not straightforward. Like all social reforms, basic income faces what Davala called “three steps forward, two steps back.” Yet there was also a recognition that the very act of debating it seriously in Korea, backed by scholarship and a dedicated political party (the Basic Income Party and a supportive president in the Democratic Party), represented progress of its own.
“If we look back from 2035, 2025 could be the Korea milestone in the history of the basic income movement,” Davala said.
South Korea’s basic income debate has become, like its cultural exports, a phenomenon watched beyond its borders. It has suspense, global attention, and the possibility of altering not just Korean society but the conversation about income security everywhere.
Whether this story ends with a national basic income program or another pause in the long march of reform remains unknown. But for now, the world is watching Seoul, and for the basic income movement, Korea has become one of its most fascinating stages.
