As China explores solutions to youth employment, an academic debate regarding welfare expansion is growing in the country. For BIEN’s UBI Youth Scholars Program, students held their own debate and evaluated the feasibility of basic income’s implementation in China as one possible solution.
The UBI Youth Scholars Program provides university students the opportunity to learn about basic income and conduct research under the mentorship of global UBI academics. In their mock debate assignment, student Kai Lechman-Su highlighted the structural and philosophical challenges surrounding UBI.
Lechman-Su outlined China’s evolving labor landscape. He argued that automation is steadily eroding low-skill employment, particularly in the vast manufacturing sector that powered China’s economic rise. For these workers, he explained, opportunities are contracting without adequate state compensation to ease the transition. A universal basic income, from his perspective, could serve as a economic cushion. “Low-skill labor is being phased out,” he stated. “UBI would be a really good way to offset a lot of the harm that’s being done in those industries.”
In his analysis, UBI functions as a platform for security and growth, rather than a simple handout. He contrasted it with traditional social assistance systems, which often involve means-tests and filters. UBI could streamline support by reducing administrative hurdles and broadening access to financial aid. Lechman-Su suggested that financial security empowers individuals to pursue education or entrepreneurship. To address funding, he proposed a strategy of fiscal reallocation. This would involve redirecting certainl subsidies, introducing more taxation, and trimming inefficiencies. Such an approach would largely redistribute existing revenue, not necessarily inflate the national budget. “It would free up funds in other sectors,” he said, “and could overall in the future increase China’s GDP.”
Another countered that the gross cost may be too high for China. Citing a 2014 estimate, she noted that even a modest UBI program could have absorbed nearly half of China’s total government spending for that year. She questioned the fiscal prudence of such a massive expenditure for a government also tasked with major investments in infrastructure, technological innovation, and support for an aging population. “These numbers would only get bigger over time,” she remarked, pointing to the compounding pressures of inflation and rising living standards.
The analysis also emphasized a critical factor for China: regional disparity. China’s economy is not monolithic. Incomes and costs of living in megacities are vastly different from those in rural villages. She argued that a uniform national payment would fail to account for these differences and could paradoxically worsen inequality. “A UBI that works in downtown Shanghai would be way too high for a small village in Guizhou,” she explained.
Her critique extended to the efficiency of social support. She contended that China’s current welfare programs are specifically designed to assist the most vulnerable populations. Replacing this targeted aid with universal payments could dilute its impact. “We would be spending money on people who are already financially stable,” she said. “That spreads resources thinner and weakens support for people still struggling.”
This student debate illuminates a divide over the nature of social welfare. China’s system is built on targeted intervention. It is a model where officials assess needs, determine eligibility, and tailor support to local conditions.
A universal program like UBI makes eligibility automatic for everyone. This concept may resonate with a younger generation navigating a highly competitive job market defined by unpredictability. Amid the issues of youth unemployment and the rise of platform-based gig work, traditional welfare may face increasing pressure. UBI speaks to a new form of economic stress in a world of Artificial Intelligence and automation..
The discussion also touched upon the potential impact on the labor supply. She questioned whether workers in essential sectors, including logistics, construction, and factory production, would remain in their jobs if provided an unconditional financial floor. She suggested that even with a strong cultural work ethic, a UBI could lead some to reduce their hours or leave certain industries, potentially weakening productivity.
Lechman-Su responded by citing research from the United Nations Development Programme. The findings indicated that most respondents would continue working even with a UBI, driven by career goals and family responsibilities. From his viewpoint, this suggests the financial freedom from UBI would enable people to pursue more meaningful work. “People would continue to work,” he argued, “but maybe on things that they have more passion for.”
While Lechman-Su and the other student disagreed on implementation in the mock debate, they both saw value in exploring the idea through smaller pilot programs. Conducting trials in specific provinces or for targeted groups, such as recent graduates or migrant workers, could provide valuable data on UBI’s real-world effects.
The core issue this debate raises is whether citizens be granted economic autonomy without direct oversight. UBI offers a model of simplicity and universality, but it requires relinquishing the filters that policymakers have historically used to target aid. Lechman-Su’s arguments emphasized the individual’s capacity to make productive choices. She argued that often the government can direct resources more efficiently.
Ultimately, the debate with Lechman-Su reveals that the most important question about UBI in China may not be whether it is affordable, but what it is for. Is the goal to patch the existing safety net or to build the foundation for a new one? The students’ dialogue signifies that automation will challenge us to keep asking these questions and probing the future of welfare for all countries.
Is the core of basic income about the cash or about something more? In the summer 2025 cohort of BIEN’s UBI Youth Scholars Program, the university students discussed in their opening research assignment about how they view basic income as being more than just an economic policy.
UBI Youth Scholars is a program for university-level students to learn about basic income from prominent UBI scholars around the world. Students partake in basic income lecture series and assignments and complete the program with a group project, such as a research white paper. This summer’s cohort primarily hails from several universities across mainland China.
Today, BIEN is featuring two of the youth scholars’ opening assignment to define basic income.
Students Tony (Anyi Chen) and Jenny Wang argued that basic income goes beyond just alleviating poverty. They said it is primarily about giving people the freedom to live with dignity, pursue passions, and contribute to society on their own terms. Tony described UBI as “a universal economic floor.” In other words, he argued it is a safety net that allows individuals to take risks and grow without the constant fear of survival. Jenny echoed this view, writing that UBI allows people to say “no” to unsatisfying work and instead focus on what truly matters to them, whether that’s family, education, volunteering, or art.
Both emphasized how UBI could fundamentally challenge society’s long-held belief that a person’s worth is tied to traditional employment. Tony called this a “narrative shift,” reducing stigma around unemployment and non-traditional roles like caregiving. Jenny similarly described UBI as affirming everyone’s dignity, ensuring equal opportunity and autonomy regardless of their economic output.
There were important differences in their focus. Tony approached UBI through the lens of economics and innovation. He argued that UBI could serve as an automatic stabilizer during recessions and even act as “publicly funded venture capital,” encouraging people to leave secure but stagnant jobs to start businesses, innovate, or explore groundbreaking ideas. His tone is forward-looking, envisioning a more dynamic, creative economy fueled by UBI.
Jenny, on the other hand, brought a more social and psychological perspective. She focused on UBI’s potential to ease inequality, reduce stress, and empower families and communities to thrive. At the same time, she raised concerns about unintended consequences, such as whether UBI might discourage some people from engaging in meaningful economic or societal contributions. Could a world where survival is guaranteed lead to complacency, she asksed or would it redefine what “work” and “contribution” mean in a healthier way?
Both perspectives offer insight into the real debates happening over basic income now. While most studies on basic income pilots find that it has minimal effect on work hours, what is less clear is how it may affect the quality of productive behavior over the long-run.
Reflecting on these ideas, it’s hard not to see how UBI forces all of us to confront difficult questions. If our worth is no longer defined by a paycheck, how do we measure success?
A new research report by BIEN’s UBI Youth Scholars’ researchers examines the strengths and limitations of Indonesia’s flagship social protection program, Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH), and assesses whether Universal Basic Income (UBI) could offer a more inclusive alternative.
PKH, Indonesia’s long-running conditional cash transfer (CCT) program, has helped millions of low-income households improve access to education and healthcare. By requiring school attendance and regular health checkups, PKH is designed to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. However, this report reveals persistent problems in its implementation, such as complicated targeting mechanisms, exclusion of eligible households, and the reinforcement of traditional gender roles. Despite targeting women as beneficiaries, studies show that many do not gain real decision-making power within the household.
UBI, by contrast, offers a radically different approach. Instead of targeting the poor, UBI provides a fixed income to all citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status. The team’s analysis highlights UBI’s potential to reduce poverty more efficiently, minimize bureaucratic hurdles, and empower recipients, especially those in the informal economy or who fall outside Indonesia’s welfare registries. UBI also shows promise in addressing gender inequity by granting women direct, unconditional access to resources.
Yet, the report is clear-eyed about the challenges. A full-scale UBI in Indonesia would be expensive. It is estimated to cost 4–5% of GDP annually. It would also face political opposition from those concerned about the potential reduction of existing social programs. “UBI may seem utopian, but it has real potential when implemented carefully and incrementally,” said one of the lead researchers.
Instead of choosing between PKH and UBI, the report proposes a hybrid pathway. This includes softening PKH’s strict conditionalities, integrating unconditional transfers for high-risk groups, and piloting localized UBI trials in areas with high poverty and poor welfare coverage. These pilots could provide much-needed evidence on UBI’s effects on education, employment, and community well-being.
The researchers also recommend strengthening Indonesia’s welfare infrastructure, especially its social registry (DTKS), which is often outdated and incomplete. With better data, the government could design more adaptive and inclusive welfare schemes. They also urge a reallocation of inefficient fuel and electricity subsidies toward more direct forms of support.
Ultimately, the report concludes that a universal, dignified income floor is both a moral and strategic imperative for Indonesia’s future. With rising urbanization, informal work, and demographic pressure, the current model may no longer be enough.
As debates about poverty, inequality, and automation intensify, this report adds timely insight into how Indonesia can evolve its social protection system by attempting to reflect on what could work better.
A research paper from the UBI Youth Scholars Spring 2025 Program has examined how universal basic income (UBI) could supplement China’s existing welfare structure, particularly its minimum living allowance system known as Dibao.
The study, authored by university students Harry Lv and Benjamin Yang, presents a comparative analysis of UBI and China’s current insurance and assistance systems, focusing on how each contributes to socioeconomic security. The paper observes that while China’s Dibao program has played a role in reducing China’s extreme poverty, it remains limited in coverage, subject to regional disparities, and may unintentionally discourage employment.
UBI, in contrast, is presented as a more uniform and administratively simple approach that could enhance baseline economic security without the need for income verification. The authors argue that a basic income model could help raise the level of support for low-income families, reduce administrative burdens, and promote labor mobility.
The report suggests that China could experiment with pilot programs in selected regions to explore how basic income might work alongside existing social insurance. The authors also recommend that future reforms address the “cliff effect” in the current system, where modest income gains can lead to a sudden loss of benefits.
“Basic income provides residents with a stable source of income, while the subsistence allowance system alleviates residents’ concerns about future risks, making them more willing to consume and invest, thereby driving economic development,” the report concluded.
This study is part of BIEN’s UBI Youth Scholars initiative, which supports young researchers in exploring social policy innovation through evidence-based research. The report draws from international case studies, including experiments in Finland and Alaska, while grounding its analysis in the Chinese policy context.
