The Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, which has published a series of reports on the feasibility and implementation of basic income, commissioned a recently published survey on attitudes towards basic income in the UK.
The survey was conducted by the British market research organization Ipsos MORI, who interviewed a sample 1,111 individuals from the UK population aged 18 to 75. Interviews were conducted online in August 2017. In the recently published results, the survey data are weighted to represent the general UK population according to age, gender, region, employment status, social grade, and educational attainment.
In a series of three multi-part questions, Ipsos MORI queried respondents about their views on universal basic income (UBI), which it defined, similarly to BIEN, as “a regular income paid in cash to every individual adult in the UK, regardless of their working status and income from other sources In other words, it would be: universal (i.e. paid to all), unconditional (i.e. paid without a requirement to work); and paid to individuals (rather than to a household).”
Interviewees were also instructed to assume, for the purposes of the survey, that the amount of the UBI “would be set roughly at the amount the UK government judged to be necessary to cover basic needs, e.g. food and clothing (but not housing costs).”
Before laying out the description of UBI, the survey questionnaire additional mentioned, “As you may be aware, some countries are considering introducing a basic income.”
Results
Asked whether they would support UBI described as above, 49% of respondents replied affirmatively (15% “strongly support” and 33% “tend to support”), while 26% replied negatively (17% “strongly oppose” and 9% “tend to oppose”).
Reported levels of support decreased substantially, however, when funding mechanisms were specified. Only 30% would support UBI if it entailed an increase in taxes, with 40% opposing UBI in this case. Meanwhile, 37% would support, and 30% would oppose, a UBI funded by cuts on spending on current welfare benefits. If both funding mechanisms were put into place, support for UBI decreases to 22%, while opposition increases to 47%.
The preceding result is similar to what was observed in a 2016 poll conducted by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute, which saw that respondents tended to favor basic income in principle, but would not support an increase in taxes to fund it in their country.
In the second question, respondents were asked “Regardless of whether you support or oppose the UK Government introducing a basic income, which of the following, if any, would be your most preferred way of mainly funding a basic income, if it was introduced?” Options included “increasing taxes on wealth” (34% favored), “cutting existing welfare benefits” (28% favored), “raising income tax” (12% favored), and “other” (3% favored).
The second part of this question broadens the definition of a “basic income scheme” from the initial definition, asking respondents if they would support such as program if certain compromises were made to universality and unconditionality. More than half of respondents replied that they would support a policy “only paid to those who are in work, in training, doing voluntary work, or pensioners” (52% strongly support or tend to support) or one “only paid to those on low incomes” (57% strongly support or tend to support), with only 18% and 17%, respectively, reporting opposition to the policies. (It should be noted, however, that it would conflict with most established uses of the term–including that of BIEN–to call such a policy a “basic income” scheme.)
Support decreased if the program were only to benefit young people (aged 18 to 24) “who are in work, full time education, or in training”: 35% would support (or tend to support) such a program, while 33% would oppose (or tend to oppose) it.
The third and final question queried interviewees on the “how convincing” they personally found each of six arguments that have been made in favor of basic income. The results tentatively suggest that, among British adults, arguments that emphasize the ability for UBI to support unpaid work tend to have more pull than those that emphasize the policy’s potential to encourage traditional paid work.
The argument judged most convincing was one that framed UBI as a way of recognizing the value of unpaid work: “Many people do very important work that is unpaid, such as caring or other voluntary work. A basic income would be a way of rewarding and encouraging others to do this type of work.” A full 79% of respondents found the argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, while only 15% judged it “not very” or “not at all” convincing.
All arguments provided were found to be more convincing that not (i.e. considered by a majority of survey respondents to be “very” or “fairly” convincing). However, the least persuasive was found be the following: “Many unemployed people do not have an incentive to find a job because benefits they may currently be receiving are withdrawn. As everyone would receive it, a basic income would encourage unemployed people to get a job by allowing them to keep that basic income if they find work.” A relatively small 57% deemed this argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, and 35% found it unconvincing (or “not very” convincing).
Other arguments focused on automation, job insecurity, bureaucracy in administering welfare, the “harsh and unfair” nature of conditional welfare programs.
More information about the survey, including all weighted and unweighted data, is available here:
Jurgen De Wispelaere, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath was interviewed on August 7th by Truthout, a nonprofit web-based news and commentary site whose aim is to provide “a platform for transformative ideas, through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis.” In this interview, he makes several important points regarding some of the issues in the current debate and research on Basic Income.
De Wispelaere’s key position is that Basic Income’s aim should be first and foremost about relieving poverty and social exclusion. Poverty is fundamentally a lack of money and Basic Income offers a solution to that problem. Compared to other forms of welfare, Basic Income avoids the well-known poverty trap, where earning wages leads to a loss of benefits, while also reducing the need for some of the bureaucracy associated with contemporary welfare states. De Wispelaere also says that welfare states already dispense some amounts of cash or quasi-cash, with Basic Income the main difference is really about how the money is distributed. As he says, “it is not just about whether or not you have more cash with a Basic Income, but also about how you get your cash.” Basic Income is characterized mainly by its unconditionality. De Wispelaere also mentions the Mike Leigh movie, “I, Daniel Blake” as an illustration of how current welfare policies can cause significant problems and how an unconditional Basic Income could make a big difference.
De Wispelaere also speaks about the value of Basic Income experiments, stressing that conclusions reached from one experiment may not be valid elsewhere due to limitations of time and location. Nevertheless, he argues that the experiments are worth pursuing and he identifies three key reasons for performing Basic Income experiments: implementation, politics, and philosophy.
There are a number of aspects of implementation that can be identified and fixed through running a limited experiment, things that are difficult to predict from a theoretical standpoint alone. Basic Income, although it is often presented as such, is not a simple policy; it will interact with other policies such as housing benefits, disability assistance, the tax system and pension rights. When doing an experiment, these interactions can also be tested, along with other parameters. Another great motivation for Basic Income experiments is politics. Risk-averse politicians may like the idea of a Basic Income but be reticent to propose implementing it in full. A limited trial can help gather more political support for a wider implementation. Finally, philosophical considerations reflect the different viewpoints as to whether we can trust people to play by the rules, or whether they are fundamentally lazy. Or, as De Wispelaere puts it, “do we think that the whole range of people to which Basic Income applies all are going to turn into Homer Simpsons?” According to De Wispelaere, “in many cases, evidence alone can’t solve these issues. It’s a philosophical and moral argument that has to be fought and won.”
De Wispelaere also says in the interview he is not convinced by the “Robots Are Coming” narrative. First, because we need Basic Income now to alleviate poverty, job fluctuation, and insecurity. Second, because when the robots do come there will be other significant issues that arise and Basic Income is not enough to solve those. Regarding the Silicon Valley positions, De Wispelaere says: “It is a bit of a caricature, but what they are effectively proposing is a very polarized, divided society. They talk about Basic Income as a necessary part of the solution but don’t mention other important social and economic struggles between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. For me, Basic Income may be necessary, but it’s certainly not enough.”
Why do so many leading economists pronounce themselves in favor of a Basic Income? Because of its positive economic effects on the distribution side, for example. Basic Income stabilizes the overall domestic consumption and provides a kind of regulation for the ratio between expenditures and savings. Furthermore, the Basic Income helps up to a certain degree to equalize the “unnecessary” distortions arising from the free play of market forces within the context of automation, digitalization, delocalization and further developments in society. And finally, Basic Income constitutes a lean and just system to provide every single individual with the minimal share of the wealth of nations that he/she is entitled to.
The economist and former head of the Hamburg World Economic Institute Thomas Straubhaar does not put the emphasis on the macroeconomic aspects. In 2006, he was one of the originators of the liberal Basic Income proposal “Solidary Citizens’ income” promoted by Dieter Althaus, member of the center-right party CDU and Thuringia’s prime minister at the time. Straubhaar’s new publication “Radikal gerecht” (radically just) shows some interesting development, while maintaining the core of the arguments in favor of a Basic Income from a liberal perspective.
The principles remain the same: Basic Income is paid unconditionally, to each individual, in addition to existing income and an amount that allows for a dignified living of each person. According to Straubhaar, Basic Income is a liberal concept because it promotes free choice of the individual (including the poor) and abolishes social bureaucracy. And it is a just cause because people with a high income pay more net taxes than those with a low income. While the citizen’s income of 2006 was calculated at €600 per adult per month (Bürgergeld), Straubhaar now speaks of €1,000 per person. He does not insist on this sum, saying that a) the basic needs of the individuals have to be re-evaluated periodically by the responsible office, for instance the federal statistical office, and b) in addition the amount is and will be a function of the political debate. A higher Basic Income requires higher taxes, which is the expression of the political will respectively of the political majorities. “It is obvious that the amount of the Basic Income and the tax rate are the levers of the policy makers and of the population to steer this new social system”, he writes on page 17.
Straubhaar presents the Basic Income as a kind of radical reform of the tax system. He calls it a negative income tax, however. A core element of this tax reform would be a flat rate tax on all kinds of income, not only wages, but also capital revenues and revenues from automats and robots. Here, Straubhaar reacts in a raw form to the fact that in the future, products from fully automated factories are going to have a price as well. Hence these have to be taxed like any other income. This is a major difference to most other models (and specifically the solidary citizen’s income of 2006) which deal mostly or exclusively with revenue taxes, and it is very welcome to see such an adaptation from the liberal side and in a systemic (even if at this moment still rather crude) form.
Concerning the financing, Straubhaar argues that the €960 billion cost of a Basic Income of €1,000 per person per month (80 million x €12’000) is somewhat higher than the actual expenses for the social state in Germany of €880 billion. The actual gross value-added amounts to €2.73 trillion (2015), which means that a flat rate of tax of 40% on this (at the moment it is transformed into income) would provide €1.1 trillion. The rest of the state’s expense would be covered by indirect taxes. At the same time, the contributions for the classical social insurance that actually are deducted from the gross salaries would largely be abolished.
Straubhaar admits this calculation to be very rough and not able to reflect all the possible and dynamic effects of the introduction of a Basic Income scheme, and insists on the flexible elements such an introduction will imply (estimation of cost of living, political process etc.). As with other authors, financing is not the core of this motivation. He sees the Basic Income as the best and most viable solution to adapt the classical system of social insurance of the 19th century to the 21th century. It creates a sort of a “blind” social policy, contrary to the targeted schemes whose advantage all too often is only to maintain a class of social bureaucrats who decide on sums and subjects. Furthermore, it is a core contribution to big issues of our times, namely an ageing population, digitalization/automation, individualization, and so on. Economically, it is not only viable, but it makes sense within the context of globalization and full automation. And he insists on paid labor continuing to be the main source of income but in new, more flexible and open forms, as activities and careers keep changing, as we witness already today. In this context, the existing organizations like trade unions or entrepreneurs’ federations will maintain their significance. The work motivation, which some economists see threatened by a Basic Income, will not decrease, but on the contrary increase thanks to the increased degree of freedom.
Straubhaar’s book is an important step for the liberal promotors of the Basic Income scheme in Germany. He aligns in practice with the other wings (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen, Goetz Werner) by speaking now of a sum of €1,000 per person per month (without being categoric about it). He urges it as a core element for the rebuilding of the social state, an adaptation to the 21th century and a blind social policy with arguments that are widely acknowledged by intelligent people. However, it is not certain that his fellow liberal economist colleagues in Germany are willing to follow his arguments. Many of them are still anchored in the concept of a 19th century social state. On the promotor’s side, some might be tempted to criticize Straubhaar’s concept of a negative income tax. Furthermore, several questions about the additional tasks of the social state remain.
There is one point that cannot be conceived in the way Straubhaar does. On page 98, he writes that every German citizen is part of the Basic Income scheme from birth until death, and those living abroad would have a right to their full claim, independent of their new country of residence. This is a flashback to the 19th century concepts of citizenship and nationality. Today, we speak of resident population and debate the introduction of a Basic Income in the whole world. Thus, if a German citizen would live in France, he would get the French Basic Income without the German Basic Income. But this is a tiny remark and does not impair the substantial progress of “Radikal gerecht”.
Finally, although Straubhaar labels Basic Income as radically just, he does not close the loop from a moral perspective to a legal standpoint, by omitting the step from basic income to basic right. As Thomas Paine wrote in 1796, the whole earth was originally in the possession of the whole human race. Now, on the base of an immensely increased wealth of nations and individuals, Basic Income represents the entitlement of every individual to a minimal (or basic) share of this wealth.
More information at:
(in German)
Thomas Straubhaar, Radikal gerecht [Radically just], Edition Körber-Stiftung, 2017
Written by: Albert Jörimann
Albert Jörimann, was president of BIEN-Switzerland from 2008 until 2013. His main research subject is financing questions of basic income.
Works cited:
Das Solidarische Bürgergeld. Analyse einer Reformidee.» Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Edited by Michael Burchard, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2007.
In October 2017, the city of Barcelona, Spain, will launch a two-year experiment testing several variants of a guaranteed income and active policies to reduce poverty rates.
The project has been called B-MINCOME in reference to the Canadian province of Manitoba’s Mincome experiment, a guaranteed annual income trial conducted in the late 1970s.
The design of B-MINCOME, which was first discussed in Basic Income Newsin February, has recently been finalized. It will be conducted in the Besòs area, the city’s poorest region, and include 2000 households.These households will comprise a stratified random sample from Besòs area households which have at least one member between ages 25 and 60 and which are current beneficiaries of the city’s Municipal Social Services. (Participation in the experiment is voluntary for the households selected, in contrast to Finland’s basic income experiment in which participation was made mandatory to avoid self-selection bias.)
Of the selected households, 1000 will be assigned to a control group, while the other 1000 will be assigned (at random) to one of ten treatment groups, all of which will receive cash income supplements (Municipal Inclusion Support or SMI). Treatment groups differ according to whether the SMI is accompanied by an additional program and whether the SMI is means tested.
The amount of the SMI will depend upon household composition and financial status, but will range from 100 to 1676 euros per month per household. For example, a four-member household with no assets and a total monthly income of 900 euros would receive an SMI of about 400 euros per month. Participants will continue to receive Municipal Social Services, but these will be deduced from the SMI.
For 450 households in the study, the SMI will be delivered without any additional associated policies. For this group, the benefit will carry no terms or conditions beyond those made necessary by the constraints of the experiment: participants must continue to reside in the Besòs area until the conclusion of the trial on September 30, 2019, and they must agree to the terms of the experiment (e.g. consent to be anonymously monitored for research purposes, communicate changes in income or household status to those administering the experiment, and install a mobile app to communicate with experimenters). Importantly, receipt of the SMI is not conditional on a willingness to work or fulfill any other participation requirement.
These 450 households will be further divided into two treatment groups: one in which the SMI is means tested (the amount of the payments will be reduced according to the amount of additional household earnings), and one in which participants will receive the full amount of the SMI for the duration of the experiment, regardless of additional income.
Thus, the latter treatment group will receive a benefit extremely similar to a basic income–a guaranteed monthly cash payment with no work requirement or means test–with the slight difference that its amount depends on household composition.
The remaining 550 households will not only receive the SMI but also be subject to an associated social policy. These households will be distributed among eight treatment groups, according to (a) the associated policy and, in the first three groups, (b) whether participation in the policy is mandatory or voluntary. The policies include (1) an occupation and education program (150 households), (2) a social and cooperative economy program (100 households), (3) a guaranteed housing program, and (4) a community participation program (200 households).
Within the fourth group, half of the households will be assigned to a treatment group in which the SMI is means tested, half to one in which it is not.
The researchers conducting B-MINCOME are interested in the extent to which the SMI reduces poverty and social exclusion, and which particular models of SMI are most effective for this purpose. For instance, is the SMI more effective when combined with any particular associated policy, or with none at all? And is the SMI more or less effective if it is means tested?
To examine the impact on poverty and social exclusion, researchers will examine, more specifically, changes in labor market participation, food security, housing security, energy access, economic situation, education participation and attainment, community networks and participation, and health, happiness, and well-being.
Researchers will additionally examine whether the SMI reduces the administrative and bureaucratic responsibilities of social workers.
B-MINCOME is supported by a grant from Urban Innovative Actions (UIA), an initiative of the European Commission that supports projects investigating “innovative and creative solutions” in urban areas.The Barcelona City Council partnered with five research organizations and institutions to design and conduct the experiment: the Young Foundation, the Institute of Governance and Public Policy at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, the Catalan Institution for Evaluation of Public Policies, and NOVACT-International Institute for Non-Violent Action.
B-MINCOME has maintained connections to global basic income movements throughout its design phase. The designers of B-MINCOME consulted with representatives from the governments of Finland, the Canadian province of Ontario, and the Dutch municipality of Utrecht, who have been involved with the design of guaranteed income experiments in their own areas. In addition, the project team contains several members of BIEN’s Spanish affiliate, Red Renta Básica.
The leading political party in Barcelona’s City Council, the left-wing Barcelona en Comú, hopes to implement a municipal cash transfer program following the results of the B-MINCOME pilot, in part with the goal of reducing the bureaucracy associated with the administration of Municipal Social Services and reducing total expenditures on social policies.
Thanks to Bru Laín for details of the design of B-MINCOME, and Genevieve Shanahan for copyediting this article.
In this article, written by David Floyd, the history of support of UBI is described from the period of hunter-gatherer societies and how the networks in those societies took care of people who could not provide themselves with a basic standard of living. The article then describes how agriculture and urbanization made an end to such networks and how problems were not handled well by the institutions that took the place of the original networks, referring to Charles Eastman who described this problem in 1915.
Thomas Paine was one of the famous people who noticed the creation of poverty, caused by cultivation, which did not exist before. He was the first to propose a UBI (Paine called it a “groundrent”) in the late 18th century, as a compensation for the dispossession of the majority of inhabitants of their natural inheritance. Cole first used the term Basic Income in 1953.
From Paine, via Henry George, Huey Long, G.D.H. Cole, Martin Luther King, Mc Govern and Nixon, the current boost of support for UBI in the 21st century is explained as a reaction to poverty and inequality, predominantly used as an argument by proponents on the left political spectrum, and inefficiency of the welfare state, used as an argument on the right wing.
In addition to the political perspective, a distinction between “reformers” and “futurists”, which cross-cuts left and right, is described in further depth.
The group of “reformers” is described as a group of basic income supporters who is mostly concerned with addressing problems in society as it is now, mostly caused by the broken welfare system, such as:
“Employment traps” (where people are kept form leaving their job out of fear and bad employers are supported as a result of that)
“Unemployment traps” (“earn a dollar from work, lose a dollar in benefits”)
“Welfare cliffs” (where the effect tax on additional income even exceeds 100%)
Stigma associated with public benefits
Bureaucratic inefficiency
The group of “futurists” is described as supporters who see technological unemployment as a main threat in the future and offer basic income as a solution or who see a basic income as a cornerstone of an eventual utopia.
The two main criticisms of a universal basic income are its cost and the expectation that it would reduce or eliminate incentives to work.
This discussion is described with calculations of “The Economist” and views of Bill Gates, Karl Widerquist, Guy Standing, Philippe van Parijs and others. Brief attention is given to Alaska’s “Permanent Fund Dividend” and the outcome of experiments, such as Manitoba and India. Furthermore, the definition of ‘work’ is discussed, the effects of UBI on poverty and even the experiments in Finland, Oakland and Ontario get attention.
Floyd summarizes his article with a question: “Could doing away with poverty, sweeping away patronizing bureaucracy, neutralizing the threat of mass unemployment and increasing the value society places on worthwhile, but unprofitable, pursuits really be as simple as handing everyone cash?” He then uses Confusius’ quote to guide us towards the answer:
Basic Income, Solidarity Economy and Social Protection
The 24th BIEN CONGRESS in Maricá & Niterói – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – 27-29 August 2025
Maricá provides unconditional transfers to almost half of its population. 7 other cities in the state of Rio de Janeiro have already created their own local currencies inspired by Maricá’s Citizens Basic Income. Our other host city, Niterói provides transfers benefiting more than 100,000 individuals.
Pre-congress events: Latin America Day: 25 Aug. & Early Career Day: 26 Aug.
