Basic Income Policy of Korea

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Dawon Kim ◽  
Jai S. Mah
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Thomas ◽  
Gregory M Walton ◽  
Ellen Reinhart ◽  
Hazel Markus

Inequality and deep poverty have risen sharply in the US since the 1990s. Simultaneously, support for cash-based welfare has fallen among conservatives, who hold more stigmatizing beliefs about welfare recipients. Universal Basic Income (UBI)—a policy that proposes to give cash to all citizens to meet basic needs—aims to combat both economic and social exclusion through its features of unconditionality and universality. Yet, across three online experiments with convenience samples of US adults (total N=1,895), we found that these unique policy details alone were not sufficient to garner bipartisan support. Extending the culture match and moral reframing literatures, we test the impacts of values-based narratives of UBI on policy support and intergroup attitudes. Only when UBI was communicated with a narrative emphasizing the bipartisan value of individual freedom did UBI mitigate opposition from conservatives and welfare-related stereotypes. Exploratory analyses suggest values alignment and values salience as drivers of these impacts.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (23) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Seccareccia

<p>The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of the literature on guaranteed income policies as promoted by both mainstream and heterodox economists over the last half century and to offer a critique on the basis of what can be described as a Polanyian perspective going back to Karl Polanyi’s assessment of the Speenhamland system in his celebrated 1944 book, <em>The Great Transformation</em>. While supporting the principle of universal basic income as a means to re-embed the capitalistic labor market so as to better meet the needs of the whole community, it is argued that a guaranteed income policy without also a societal commitment to full employment may trigger labor-market mechanisms that could prevent the societal <strong>re-embeddedness</strong> from actually occurring.</p><p> </p><p> </p>


2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert van der Veen

This article challenges the general thesis that an unconditional basic income, set at the highest sustainable level, is required for maximizing the income-leisure opportunities of the least advantaged, when income varies according to the responsible factor of labor input. In a linear optimal taxation model (of a type suggested by Vandenbroucke 2001) in which opportunities depend only on individual productivity, adding the instrument of a uniform wage subsidy generates an array of undominated policies besides the basic income maximizing policy, including a “zero basic income” policy which equalizes the post-tax wage rate. The choice among such undominated policies may be guided by distinct normative criteria which supplement the maximin objective in various ways. It is shown that most of these criteria will be compatible with, or actually select, the zero basic income policy and reject the basic income maximizing one. In view of the model's limited realism, the force of this main conclusion is discussed both in relation to Van Parijs' argument for basic income in Real Freedom for All (1995) and to some key empirical conditions in the real world.


2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 644-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caterina Calsamiglia ◽  
Sabine Flamand

In order to clarify the potential impact of a basic income, we argue that any discussion on whether to adopt a basic income policy should be framed within the greater context of the transfer system as a whole. In particular, such discussion should consider separately the issues of (i) the desired income distribution to be achieved and (ii) the most efficient way of achieving it through a transfer system. Further, we stress the importance of the non-take-up phenomenon in current transfer systems and discuss the potential necessity of a basic income policy in the age of automation. (JEL D31, I32, I38)


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-219
Author(s):  
Julia Maskivker

This article explains why the traditional defense of the Basic Income policy is flawed in its assumptions about allocative uniformity. The paper argues that treating everybody identically by way of a uniform grant is ultimately in tension with the  egalitarian rationale behind the Basic Income. Phillipe Van Parijs, the champion defender of the policy proposal, has fervently argued that unconditional receipt of a universal grant will render society more just by way of the egalitarian distribution of  “real freedom” that the policy would elicit. Although Van Parijs is right in supposing that Basic Income will enhance real freedom, his theoretical apparatus is not prepared to address questions of differences in the level of opportunity already enjoyed by the beneficiaries of the policy. This failure poses a problem for normative reasoning, namely, that morally relevant differences among individuals are ignored. This paper concentrates on the implications of this blindness and provides an equality metric that is better equipped to recognize disparity and its moral implications. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra K. Przegalinska ◽  
Robert E. Wright

Positive and normative claims that artificial intelligence (AI) will or should lead to adoption of a universal basic income policy (UBI) remain insufficiently empirically grounded to merit serious consideration. Long-term trends in individual/familial income portfolio adjustment (IPA) to business, economic, and technological change (BETC) point to continued incremental changes in the ways that individuals/families achieve life goals, not a fundamental structural break necessitating radical policy changes that may not be desirable in any event. Moreover, if AI proves a more rapid disruptor than anticipated, UBI-like payments can be made quickly, as recent bailouts and fiscal stimuli demonstrate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document