The idea of universal basic income first emerged in the Late Middle Ages. In the second half of the 20th century, it began to be actively discussed as a political al become very popular. In a number of countries, such as Canada, Finland and the Netherlands, local experiments involving basic income have been taking place. This article addresses the main arguments for and against basic income. Some authors regard basic income as a populist and paternalist policy, which is an incorrect judgment, as its adequate implementation could lead to budgetary savings, reduce the size of government, and lower state interference in the lives of citizens. Another objection is that basic income would discourage labor and stimulate social dependency; however, local experiments in partial introduction of basic income and similar benefits have not confirmed this statement. The claim that basic income is too expensive of a measure does not consider that it is supposed to replace numerous other social benefits and would therefore most likely result in reduced administrative costs. Basic income is a social welfare measure most compatible with the nature of labor and the labor market under the technological revolution that has begun, where labor has been getting increasingly distributed and aimed at the workers’ self-realization rather than their survival. In practice, basic income is to be implemented gradually, only covering selected groups of individuals at first and expanding the range of recipients over time. In basic income administration, a certain role can be played by municipal governments.
Universal Basic Income: The Political Economic Aspect