Increased Trust in the Finnish UBI Experiment – Is the Secret Universalism or Less Bureaucracy?

Bureaucratic selectivity mechanisms are the true colours of welfare states, stigmatising benefit recipients while hampering their trust in institutions and society at large. Universal policies such as the Universal Basic Income (UBI) could protect recipients’ trust by circumventing selectivity paraphernalia. By analysing regressions on the Finnish UBI experiment’s survey data, we assess the links from policy selectivity to trust in the benefit-providing institution and generalised trust through the pathway of reduced bureaucratic experience. More specifically, we analyse whether receipt of UBI leads to greater trust directly or while accompanied by an actual or perceived reduction in bureaucracy. According to our results, UBI is accompanied by greater trust, while selectivity does not necessarily lead to less trust or perception of less bureaucracy. However, in our analysis, policy selectivity did not directly correlate to recipients’ reported bureaucratic experiences, and their relationship with trust proved tricky: selectivity did not risk recipients’ trust in the policy-implementing institution, but generalised trust in other people was lowered. Thus, selective benefit recipients might be prone to self-inflicted stigma, hampering their trust in other people, regardless of actual bureaucratic experiences or trust in the welfare system.

Are Temporary or Permanent Income Payments Better Placed to Boost Demand during Covid-19?

Covid-19 has sparked calls for a universal basic income as a way of coping with a demand shock caused by the pandemic. Temporary income payments have been part of the emergency response to the pandemic. This paper questions the effectiveness of temporary payments as a way to raise demand. Some observers claim that vouchers are better targeted at sectors hit hard by Covid-19 as people may have a tendency to save than spend from temporary payments. There may be a stronger case for permanent rather than temporary payments if the aim is to boost demand in the economy.

Unconditional Basic Income and State as an Employer of Last Resort: A Reply to Alan Thomas

In a larger context of an egalitarian project which aims to reformulate capitalism a job guarantee program in the form of a State as an Employer of Last Resort (SELR) is considered superior to Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) by many, namely Alan Thomas. This article claims that most of the arguments used to assert the superiority of SELR fail their objective, for the following reasons: first, SELR falls short in its reformulation of capitalism because neither SELR nor UBI alone can euthanize the rentier class. Second, most accounts are based on a flawed assumption that UBI leads to rampage inflation. Third, if macroeconomic considerations are not enough to justify implementing SELR over UBI, then insisting on the superiority of SELR can only stem from two types of moral reasons: on one hand from a perfectionist view of empowering the worst-off through labor and on the other from demands and obligations of reciprocity. We argue that these two moral-based reasons fall short of providing a justification for the superiority of SELR over UBI. We conclude our paper defending the possibility of conciliating the two policies.

Politics of Universal and Unconditional Cash Transfer: Examining Attitudes Toward Universal Basic Income

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a periodic cash payment to all residents in a jurisdiction, without obligation. Universalism and unconditionality distinguish UBI from other redistributive policies that require means testing and certain behaviors to gain and maintain eligibility. Despite an increased interest in UBI, it is poorly understood how these two critical features – universalism and unconditionality – influence public attitudes toward UBI. This paper explores results of the eighth round of the European Social Survey and finds that people who support unconditionality are more likely to support UBI, as expected. But support for UBI is also significantly associated with a desire to help the poor rather than provide universal cash transfers to all individuals.

Basic Human Values and Attitudes Towards a Universal Basic Income in Europe

This study contributes to the emerging literature on public opinion on a universal basic income (UBI) not only by investigating the role of basic human values in influencing support for UBI but also by examining the moderating role of welfare state development in the association between basic human values and UBI support. Using the European Social Survey (ESS) Round 8 in 2016, which has an item asking whether to support UBI and the 21-item measure of human values that is based on the Schwartz theory of basic human values, the results show that individual universalism that is a self-transcendence value is positively and significantly associated with support for UBI, while the other self-transcendence value, benevolence, has a negative relationship with that; the two self-enhancement values, power and achievement, are positively linked to support for UBI. Additionally, in advanced welfare states, people who are more inclined towards individual universalism are more likely to support UBI; by contrast, in underdeveloped welfare states, this relationship is not apparent.

Basic Income Pilots: Uses, Limitations and Design Principles

The position underlying this article is that while pilots are not strictly required to justify moving in the direction of a basic income system, nevertheless they can play several useful functions in the debate. These include rebutting common preconceptions, for instance that basic income will make people ‘lazy’, indicating non-monetary benefits such as improved health and wellbeing, and testing how a basic income might best be introduced in a given region, country or city. In that context the article goes on to present 19 guiding principles for the design, implementation and evaluation of basic income pilots, with examples of selected experiments and pilots past and present.

Why Do We Run Basic Income Experiments? From Empirical Evidence to Collective Debate

There are two major possible responses to the question: what (if anything) can justify a basic income experiment? An experiment might be justified either because it gathers positive empirical evidence supporting rolling out a basic income, or because it justifies the moral desirability of such a measure. This paper critically explores both responses, the “empirical” and “ethical claim” in light of the Barcelona B-MINCOME pilot, alongside other similar experiments. We sustained that although the empirical claim is necessary, there seems to be sufficient data to easily predict that all future experiments are to gather positive results too. Consequently, we argue that experiments are particularly well-equipped to foster debates on the work ethics and on the ethical dimension of social policies and welfare regimes in general.

What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? Balancing Costs and Benefits in terms of Justice

The central thesis of this essay is that basic income experiments are justified if their expected benefits in terms of justice exceed their expected costs in terms of justice. The benefits are a function of basic income’s effect on the level of justice attained in the context in which it is implemented, and the experiment’s impact on future policy-making. The costs comprise the sacrifices made as a result of the experiment’s interventional character, as well as the study’s opportunity costs. In light of the proposed standard of justification for basic income experiments, the factors that play a role in it, and the way these interact with one another, this essay provides some practical recommendations for researchers hoping to conduct such an experiment.