Startseite Wirtschaftswissenschaften Exploring Young People’s Attitudes Towards Basic Income
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Exploring Young People’s Attitudes Towards Basic Income

  • Julen Bollain ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Itziar Guerendiain-Gabás , Maitane Arnoso-Martínez und Ángel Elías Ortega
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 12. September 2024
Basic Income Studies
Aus der Zeitschrift Basic Income Studies Band 19 Heft 2

Abstract

Today’s youth find it extremely difficult to look beyond the present, in large part due to the precariousness of the labour market. Unconditional basic income, meanwhile, is emerging as the economic and social policy that is attracting most interest as an alternative not only to the conditional minimum income programmes, but also to the increasing unemployment and precarious conditions of employment. This survey study, conducted among students at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) in 2021 (n = 709), explores the attitudes of young people towards basic income. Findings reveal strong support among Basque youth for basic income, citing its potential to enhance personal freedom and improve living conditions. While previous studies have already found that young people tend to be more supportive of basic income, this research fills a gap in the literature by analysing in depth young people’s attitudes and beliefs about this policy proposal.

Keywords: basic income; youth; freedom; living conditions; future; attitudes
Corresponding author: Julen Bollain, Department of Economics and Finance, Mondragon University, Oñati, Spain, E-mail:

Funding source: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

Award Identifier / Grant number: Proyecto estratégico (PES) 18/10

Appendix 1

The questionnaire included the following measurement scales:

  1. Attitudes towards employment and representations about work:

  1. Distrust towards the future of work.

    Scale of three items that measures the participants’ degree of distrust regarding the future of youth employment (“the future of employment seems dark for our generation”, “despite the current crises, the employment situation will improve in the coming years for young people”, etc.). The scale followed a 7-point Likert-type response format (with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree) (Cronbach’s α = 0.66). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.

  1. Attributions of youth unemployment.

    Scale of five items that measures the type of attributions that the participants used when explaining youth unemployment rate. The scale was subdivided into two dimensions: 1) individualistic attribution of youth unemployment (“young people are not willing to assume the effort required to work”, “young people lack creative and innovative ideas to be able to succeed”, etc.) and 2) structural attributions of youth unemployment (“there are no public policies designed to guarantee youth employment”, etc.). The scale follows a 7-point Likert-type response format (with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree) (Cronbach’s α = 0.61). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.

  1. Legitimization of youth precariousness.

    Scale of five items that measures the degree in which participants legitimize precarious working conditions among youth (“it is logical and acceptable that at the beginning of your working life you only access precarious or unstable jobs”, “we, young people, have to be willing to retrain ourselves, even if it requires studying again”, etc.). The scale follows a 7-point Likert-type response format (with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree) (Cronbach’s α = 0.45). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neither agree nor disagree, 3 = Agree.

  1. Justification of the economic system.

    Scale of six items taken from Jaume, Etchezahar and Cervone’s (2012) adaptation of Jost and Thompson’s (2000) original scale. The scale measures the degree in which participants rationalize and justify socioeconomic inequalities and the current status quo (“if people work hard, they usually get what they want”, “people’s economic position is a result of their achievements”, etc.). The scale follows a 7-point Likert-type response format (with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree) (Cronbach’s α = 0.84). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neither agree nor disagree, 3 = Agree.

  1. Attitudes towards the future and social and institutional trust:

  1. Fatalism.

    Scale of six items that measures the level of fatalism of the participants (Cronbach’s α = 0.62). The scale is divided into 3 dimensions:

    1. Presentism. Two items adapted from Díaz et al. (2015) that measure the (in)ability to think about the future and the so-called “presentism” (“the only important thing is the present, the «here» and «now»”, “it is more useful to live in the present than planning for the future”). through a 7-point Likert-type response format (with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.

    2. Lack of alternatives. Two items that measure the (in)ability to think of alternative models to the current system (“the economic and social system we currently have is the only possible”, “I am able to think a feasible alternative to the current system”, etc.). The scale follows a 7-point Likert-type response format (with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.

    3. Lack of control. Two items adapted from Díaz et al. (2015) that measure the (in)ability to think of positive social changes (“whatever we do, we are not going to be able to change this system”, “better if things remain the same, because changes always bring problems”). The scale follows a 7-point Likert-type response format (with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.

  1. Attitudes and beliefs about unconditional basic income:

  1. Overall agreement towards basic income.

    One item of overall agreement towards the introduction of a basic income: “Indicate to what extent would you agree or disagree with the Basque Government providing an Unconditional Basic Income to every resident in the Basque Country” (this question is followed by a short text where the main characteristics of the proposal are exposed). 7-point Likert-type response format, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree. Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neither agree nor disagree, 3 = Agree.

  1. Attitudes towards the characteristics of a basic income.

    Scale of four items that measures the degree of agreement of the participants with respect to each of the characteristics of a basic income: a) “it should be universal (i.e. every person residing in the Basque Country should receive it)”, b) “it should be individual (i.e. each person should receive it individually)”, c) “it should be unconditional (i.e. there should not be any type of requirement or condition for receiving it)”, d) it should be redistributive (i.e. it should be financed by a tax reform that increases taxes on the richest sectors). 7-point Likert-type response format, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree. Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neither agree nor disagree, 3 = Agree.

  1. Emotions towards basic income.

    A scale of six items that measures the degree in which participants feel different emotions when thinking of basic income (“indignation”, “security”, “hope”, etc.), with a 7-point Likert-type response format (1 = Not at all and 7 = Completely). Two dimensions of 3 items each were constructed: 1) Positive emotions (“safety”, “hope”, etc.) (Cronbach’s α = 0.87), and 2) Negative emotions (“indignation”, “fear”, etc.) (Cronbach’s α = 0.85). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.

  1. Perceived personal impact.

    Open-ended question that evaluates the changes that participants would make in their lives if they received a monthly basic income (“Could you tell us what would you do with an Unconditional Basic Income of 900€ per month?”).

  1. Perceived social consequences.

    A scale of 10 items that measures the degree in which participants perceive different social consequences if a basic income was introduced (“the implementation of a basic income would eliminate poverty in our territory”, “basic income would favour equality between men and women”, “basic income would encourage people to stop working”, “basic income would make people dependent on the State”, etc.). 7-point Likert-type response format, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree. Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neither agree nor disagree, 3 = Agree. In addition, participants were asked to indicate the degree in which they find these consequences desirable or undesirable for society (7-point Likert-type response format, where 1 = Totally undesirable and 7 = Totally desirable). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Undesirable 2 = Neither desirable nor undesirable, 3 = Desirable.

  1. Pro-basic income political participation.

    A scale of 3 items that measures the extent in which participants are willing to participate in actions in favour of the introduction of a basic income (“participate in a social movement that advocates for the introduction of a basic income”, “sign a petition requesting the government the introduction of a basic income”, etc.). 7-point Likert-type response format, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree (Cronbach’s α = 0.88). Participants’ responses were then recoded into 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neither agree nor disagree, 3 = Agree.

  1. Sociodemographic variables:

Several sociodemographic variables were included, such as age, gender identity, country of birth, town and province of residence, the university degree or master’s degree they were studying and the campus where they were studying. In addition, a scale was also included to gather the different activities in which participants were currently involved (university studies, employment, artistic/cultural projects, volunteering, political activism or militancy, caring for family members/relatives). Furthermore, students’ political participation was measured by means of a scale of six items (“voting in elections”, “participating in demonstrations, work stoppages or strikes”, “talking about politics with friends”, etc.), with a 7-point Likert-type response format (1 = Never and 7 = Always) (Tables 8–16).

The ideological position of the participants was measured using a scale of 7 points (from 1 = Extreme Left to 7 = Extreme Right), which was later recoded into three categories: Left, Center-Left, Center-Right. Subjective social class was also measured (on scale of five points, from 1 = Low to 5 = High), and recoded into three categories: Lower-middle class, Middle class, Upper-middle class. Finally, the degree of identification with the Basque and Spanish identities was also measured, with items such as “being … is an important part of my identity” and “I feel proud to be …” (7-point Likert-type response format, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree). This was later recoded into two categories: low identification and high identification.

Appendix 2
Table 8:

Attitudes towards employment as a function of gender, political orientation and social class: t-test analysis of comparison of means and ANOVA analysis of variance.

Gender t(453) Sig. Political orientation F(2, 454) Sig. Social class F(2, 462) Sig.
Male Female Left Centre-left Centre-right Low Medium High
M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT
Distrust towards future employment 5.32 1.00 4.83 0.95 4.83 1.07 12.392 0.000 5.32 1.01 5.06 0.99 5.01 1.14 3.867 0.022
Attributions of youth unemployment 2.57 0.98 2.23 0.85 3.746 0.000 2.13 0.84 2.58 0.76 2.78 1.02 22.379 0.000 2.14 0.86 2.43 0.89 2.45 1.05 5.362 0.005
Legitimization of youth precariousness 2.86 0.76 3.14 0.75 3.21 0.78 9.076 0.000 2.83 0.83 3.07 0.76 3.04 0.69 4.731 0.009
Justification of the economic system 2.90 1.32 2.52 1.07 3.288 0.001 2.26 1.05 2.88 1.06 3.60 1.17 52.261 0.000 2.34 1.20 2.75 1.16 2.85 1.20 7.052 0.001

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV gender, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the IVs political orientation and social class identification. Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Table 9:

Attitudes towards employment as a function of participation in activities beyond university studies: t-test analysis of comparison of means.

Activism in social movements t(525) Sig. Cultural activities t(525) Sig.
No Yes No Yes
M DT M DT M DT M DT
Distrust towards future employment 5.06 0.99 5.87 0.84 4.785 0.000
Attributions of youth unemployment 2.41 0.93 2.01 0.78 2.536 0.011 2.45 0.92 2.03 0.86 3.843 0.000
Legitimization of youth precariousness
Justification of the economic system 2.69 1.17 1.82 1.03 4.351 0.000 2.69 1.19 2.33 1.10 2.628 0.009

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV other activities besides university education (paid employment. artistic/cultural projects. volunteering. activism in social movements. caring for family members/close dependents). Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Appendix 3
Table 10:

Attitudes towards employment as a function of gender, political orientation and social class: t-test analysis of mean comparison and ANOVA analysis of variance.

Gender t(454) Sig. Political orientation F(2,454) Sig. Social class F(2, 462) Sig.
Male Female Left Centre-left Centre-right Low Medium High
M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT
The democratic system
Political parties 2.43 1.28 2.19 1.02 2.230 0.013
Government
The justice system 3.20 1.43 2.93 1.33 1.937 0.027 2.82 1.31 3.30 1.43 3.33 1.39 6.923 0.001 2.78 1.37 3.11 1.36 3.13 1.34 3.198 0.042
Companies 2.64 1.32 3.26 1.28 3.66 1.53 20.519 0.000 2.50 1.32 3.11 1.41 3.36 1.30 12.967 0.000
Trade unions
Social movements 4.71 1.41 4.97 1.28 −1.956 0.026 5.10 1.19 4.88 1.27 4.28 1.52 13.059 0.000

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV gender, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the IVs political orientation and social class identification. Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Table 11:

Attitudes towards employment as a function of national identity: t-test analysis of mean comparison.

Basque national identity t(461) Sig. Spanish national identity t(461) Sig.
Low High Low High
M DT M DT M DT M DT
The democratic system 3.49 1.55 3.88 1.42 −2.793 0.003
Political parties
Government 2.43 1.20 2.83 1.31 −3.489 0.000
The justice system 2.76 1.32 3.25 1.35 −3.956 0.000
Companies 2.77 1.35 3.10 1.43 −2.518 0.006 2.69 1.34 3.21 1.42 −4.013 0.000
Trade unions 3.69 1.32 3.95 1.35 −2.105 0.018
Social movements 4.67 1.34 5.09 1.26 −3.428 0.000 5.03 1.29 4.70 1.32 2.728 0.003

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IVs Spanish national identity and Basque national identity. Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Table 12:

Attitudes towards employment as a function of participation in activities beyond university studies: t-test analysis of comparison of means.

Activism in social movements t(650) Sig. Cultural activities t(650) Sig. Paid employment t(650) Sig.
No Yes No Yes No Yes
M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT
The democratic system 3.65 1.49 3.11 1.41 2.119 0.017 3.67 1.47 3.41 1.57 1.765 0.039
Political parties 2.24 1.10 2.58 1.32 −1.798 0.036 2.30 1.12 2.00 1.01 2.318 0.010
Government
The justice system 3.01 1.36 2.50 1.28 2.192 0.014
Companies 2.98 1.42 2.08 1.02 3.740 0.000 2.99 1.43 2.54 1.25 2.751 0.003
Trade unions
Social movements 4.79 1.39 5.25 1.13 −1.931 0.027

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV other activities besides university education (paid employment. artistic/cultural projects. volunteering. political activism or militancy in social movements. caring for family members/close dependents). Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Appendix 4
Table 13:

Attitudes towards UBI as a function of political orientation and social class: analysis of variance ANOVA.

Political orientation F(2,450) Sig. Social class F(2,454) Sig.
Left Centre-left Centre-right Low Medium High
M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT
Global agreement 5.40 1.33 4.71 1.50 4.70 1.71 11.893 0.000 5.36 1.51 5.13 1.39 4.64 1.54 5.763 0.003
Attitudes towards UBI characteristics
Individual 5.94 1.29 5.49 1.46 5.32 1.56 6.472 0.002
Universal 5.48 1.63 4.72 1.73 4.65 2.01 10.915 0.000 5.43 1.74 5.08 1.75 4.74 1.89 3.902 0.021
Unconditional 4.55 1.92 3.80 1.90 3.79 2.18 7.418 0.001
Redistributive 5.94 1.40 5.12 1.67 4.37 2.08 33.511 0.000 5.93 1.46 5.30 1.76 5.11 1.81 8.660 0.000
Emotions towards UBI
Positive emotions 4.92 1.40 4.54 1.53 4.20 1.49 8.590 0.000
Negative emotions 2.58 1.41 2.93 1.44 3.17 1.53 5.934 0.003 2.45 1.31 2.87 1.53 3.04 1.29 5.501 0.004
Willingness to participate politically
Pro-UBI participation 4.69 1.55 4.01 1.63 3.74 1.66 14.105 0.000

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV gender, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the IVs political orientation and social class identification. Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Table 14:

Attitudes towards UBI as a function of participation in activities beyond university studies: t-test analysis of comparison of means.

Activism in social movements t(489) Sig. Cultural activities t(489) Sig. Paid employment t(489) Sig.
No Yes No Yes No Yes
M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT
Global agreement 5.02 1.50 5.74 1.31 −2.768 0.006 5.01 1.50 5.40 1.43 −2.237 0.026 4.98 1.53 5.36 1.36 −2.476 0.014
Attitudes towards UBI characteristics
Individual 5.53 1.46 6.14 1.13 −2.437 0.015 5.47 1.48 5.89 1.31 −2.874 0.004
Universal 5.06 1.78 6.08 1.48 −3.363 0.001 5.06 1.79 5.49 1.70 −2.030 0.021
Unconditional 4.17 1.98 5.25 2.02 −3.146; 0.002
Redistributive 5.37 1.74 6.44 1.00 −3.674 0.000 5.34 1.75 5.96 1.44 −3.045 0.002 5.33 1.77 5.79 1.50 −2.598 0.010
Emotions towards UBI
Positive emotions 4.64 1.42 5.56 1.47 −3.711 0.000 4.61 1.45 4.99 1.40 −2.547 0.011
Negative emotions 2.79 1.44 2.24 1.27 2.225 0.027 2.86 1.46 2.45 1.33 2.795 0.005
Willingness to participate politically
Pro-UBI participation 4.29 1.60 5.26 1.69 −3.454 0.000 4.27 1.60 4.82 1.68 −2.789 0.006 4.24 1.60 4.72 1.65 −2.838 0.005

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV other activities besides university education (paid employment, artistic/cultural projects, volunteering, political activism or militancy in social movements, caring for family members/close dependents). Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Table 15:

Social consequences identified in the UBI as a function of political orientation and social class: analysis of variance ANOVA.

Political orientation F(2,450) Sig. Social class F(2,456) Sig.
Left Centre-left Centre-right Low Medium High
M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT M DT
Eliminates poverty 4.07 1.58 3.42 1.44 3.76 1.68 5.563 0.004
Encourages people to stop working 3.29 1.63 4.20 1.53 4.44 1.69 20.940 0.000 3.20 1.72 3.89 1.69 4.06 1.47 10.087 0.000
Eliminates precarious employment 4.62 1.67 4.21 1.49 4.10 1.64 4.265 0.015
Fairer distribution of wealth 4.96 1.50 4.43 1.56 4.14 1.76 10.203 0.000 4.97 1.64 4.55 1.57 4.56 1.45 3.669 0.026
People more dependent on the state 3.92 1.53 4.57 1.45 4.87 1.51 15.015 0.000
Greater equality between men and women 4.35 1.59 4.04 1.58 3.75 1.73 4.844 0.008
It would have a “pull effect” 4.78 1.49 5.16 1.40 5.53 1.31 9.020 0.000
It would make jobs outside the market possible 5.34 1.32 4.83 1.28 4.92 1.39 6.309 0.002 5.41 1.32 5.01 1.40 5.14 1.07 4.229 0.015
It would break the merit-reward link 4.26 1.55 4.44 1.59 4.79 1.45 3.691 0.026
It would improve the lives of young people 5.83 1.25 5.51 1.36 5.26 1.66 6.304 0.002 5.98 1.32 5.56 1.39 5.27 1.28 7.845 0.000

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV gender, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the IVs political orientation and social class identification. Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

Table 16:

Social consequences identified in the UBI as a function of participation in activities beyond university studies: t-test analysis of comparison of means.

Activism in social movements t(504) Sig. Paid employment t(504) Sig.
No Yes No Yes
M DT M DT M DT M DT
Eliminates poverty
Encourages people to stop working 3.77 1.68 2.53 1.46 4.315 0.000
Eliminates precarious employment
Fairer distribution of wealth 4.55 1.58 5.02 1.54 −2.877 0.004
People more dependent on the state 4.28 1.55 3.44 1.63 3.105 0.002
Greater equality between men and women
It would have a “pull effect” 5.04 1.42 4.00 1.77 4.160 0.000
Would make jobs outside the market possible 5.10 1.33 5.69 1.33 −2.558 0.011
Would break the merit-reward link 4.45 1.52 3.72 1.54 2.746 0.006
Would improve lives of the youth

  1. We conducted t-tests for comparison of means with the IV other activities besides university education (paid employment, artistic/cultural projects, volunteering, political activism or militancy in social movements, caring for family members/close dependents). Only results statistically significant at p < 0.05 are reported in the table.

References

Agencia Tributaria. 2019. Mercado de Trabajo Y Pensiones en Las Fuentes Tributarias 2018. Madrid: Servicio de Estudios Tributarios y Estadísticas.Suche in Google Scholar

Alto Comisionado contra la Pobreza Infantil. 2020. Pobreza Infantil Y Desigualdad Educativa en España. Madrid: Gobierno de España.Suche in Google Scholar

Ayala-Garcia, A., L. Serra, and M. Ubalde-Lopez. 2021. “Association between Early Working Life Patterns, in Publicly and Privately Owned Companies, and the Course of Future Sickness Absence Due to Mental Disorders: a Cohort Study in Catalonia (Spain).” BMJ Open 11 (2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040480.Suche in Google Scholar

Belaustegi, L., J. Bollain, J. Cerrato, Á. Elías, and N. Peña. 2016. Clara mayoría social a favor de una Renta. Básica Incondicional en la UPV/EHU. Bilbao: Facultad de Relaciones Laboral y Trabajo Social de la UPV/EHU.Suche in Google Scholar

Blanco, A., and D. Díaz. 2007. “El Rostro Bifronte Del Fatalismo: Fatalismo Colectivista Y Fatalismo Individualista.” Psicothema 19 (4): 552–8.Suche in Google Scholar

Bollain, J. 2021. Renta Básica: Una herramienta de Future. Lleida: Editorial Milenio.Suche in Google Scholar

Bollain, J. 2024. Abolishing Poverty in the Basque Country: Two Feasible Basic Income Models.” Journal of Poverty and Social Justice. https://doi.org/10.1332/17598273Y2024D000000015, (In press).Suche in Google Scholar

Bone, K. D. 2019. “I Don’t Want to Be a Vagrant for the Rest of My Life’: Young Peoples’ Experiences of Precarious Work as a “Continuous Present.” Journal of Youth Studies 22 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1570097.Suche in Google Scholar

Bujang, M. A., N. Sa’at, and T. M. I. Tg Abu Bakar Sidik. 2017. “Determination of Minimum Sample Size Requirement for Multiple Linear Regression and Analysis of Covariance Based on Experimental and Non-experimental Studies.” Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health 14 (3).Suche in Google Scholar

Calnitsky, D. 2016. “More Normal Than Welfare: The Mincome Experiment, Stigma, and Community Experience.” Canadian Review of Sociology 53 (1): 26–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12091.Suche in Google Scholar

Campbell, I., and R. Price. 2016. “Precarious Work and Precarious Workers.” Economic and Labour Relations Review 27 (3): 314–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304616652074.Suche in Google Scholar

Carmo, R. M., F. Cantante, and N. de Almeida Alves. 2014. “Time Projections: Youth and Precarious Employment.” Time & Society 23 (3): 337–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463x14549505.Suche in Google Scholar

Costello, E. J., A. Erkanli, W. Copeland, and A. Angold. 2010. “Association of Family Income Supplements in Adolescence with Development of Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders in Adulthood Among an American Indian Population.” Journal of the American Medical Association 303 (19): 1954–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.621.Suche in Google Scholar

Creed, P. A., M. Hood, E. Selenko, and L. Bagley. 2020. “The Development and Initial Validation of a Self-Report Job Precariousness Scale Suitable for Use with Young Adults Who Study and Work.” Journal of Career Assessment 28 (4): 636–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720920788.Suche in Google Scholar

Díaz, D., A. Blanco, M. Bajo, and M. Stavraki. 2015. “Fatalism and Well-Being across Hispanic Cultures: the Social Fatalism Scales (SFS).” Social Indicators Research 124 (3): 929–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0825-1.Suche in Google Scholar

Elías, A., and L. Rincón. 2016. “Algunas virtualidades de la renta básica.” Boletín Hegoa 48.Suche in Google Scholar

Encuesta de Población Activa. 2021. Encuesta de Población Activa: Cuarto trimestre de 2020. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.Suche in Google Scholar

Forget, E. L., A. D. Peden, and S. B. Strobel. 2013. “Cash Transfers, Basic Income and Community Building.” Social Inclusion 1 (2): 84–91. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v1i2.113.Suche in Google Scholar

Fundación, FOESSA. 2022. Evolución de la Cohesión Social Y Consecuencias de la Covid-19 en España. Madrid: Cáritas Española.Suche in Google Scholar

Galland, O. 2008. “Young People and Society: Contrasting Visions of the Future.” In Young People Facing the Future. An International Survey, edited by A. Stellinger, and R. Wintrebert, 27–56. Paris: Fondation pour l’Innovation Politique.Suche in Google Scholar

Gielens, E., F. Roosma, and P. Achterberg. 2023. “Dimensions of Controversy: Investigating the Structure of Public Support for Universal Basic Income in the Netherlands.” International Journal of Social Welfare: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12607.Suche in Google Scholar

Jaume, L., E. Etchezahar, and N. Cervone. 2012. “La justificación del sistema económico y su relación con la orientación a la dominancia social.” Boletin de Psicologia 106: 81–91.Suche in Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., and E. P. Thompson. 2000. “Group-based Dominance and Opposition to Equality as Independent Predictors of Self-Esteem, Ethnocentrism, and Social Policy Attitudes Among African Americans and European Americans.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36 (3): 209–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403.Suche in Google Scholar

Kangas, O., S. Jauhiainen, M. Simanainen, and M. Ylikännö. 2019. The Basic Income Experiment 2017- 2018 in Finland: Preliminary Results (Report N. 9). Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.Suche in Google Scholar

Laenen, T. 2023. The Popularity of Basic Income: Evidence from the Polls. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-031-29352-8Suche in Google Scholar

Lanbide. 2020. Estudio de Incorporación a la Vida Laboral en 2020-IV. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Departamento de Empleo y Políticas Sociales.Suche in Google Scholar

Leccardi, C. 2017. “The Recession, Young People, and Their Relationship with the Future.” In Young People’s Development and the Great Recession: Uncertain Transitions and Precarious Futures, edited by I. Schoon, and J. Bynner, 348–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316779507.015Suche in Google Scholar

Lindner, T., J. J. Mijs, W. de Koster, and J. van der Waal. 2023. “Does Informing Citizens about the Non-meritocratic Nature of Inequality Bolster Support for a Universal Basic Income? Evidence from a Population-Based Survey Experiment.” European Societies: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2023.2272263.Suche in Google Scholar

Martinelli, L. 2019. “A Basic Income Trilemma: Affordability, Adequacy, and the Advantages of Radically Simplified Welfare.” Journal of Social Policy 49 (3): 461–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279419000424.Suche in Google Scholar

Moreno, G. 2003. Trabajo Y Ciudadanía: Un Debate Abierto. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Ararteko.Suche in Google Scholar

Observatorio Vasco de la Juventud. 2021. Diagnóstico de la Situación de la Juventud de Euskadi 2020. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco.Suche in Google Scholar

Pimlott-Wilson, H. 2015. “Individualising the Future: the Emotional Geographies of Neoliberal Governance in Young People’s Aspirations.” Area 49 (3): 288–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12222.Suche in Google Scholar

Reeskens, T., and W. van. Oorschot. 2012. “Those Who Are in the Gutter Look at the Stars? Explaining Perceptions of Labour Market Opportunities Among European Young Adults.” Work, Employment & Society 26 (3): 379–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017012438575.Suche in Google Scholar

Rincon, L. 2023. “A Robin Hood for All: a Conjoint Experiment on Support for Basic Income.” Journal of European Public Policy 30 (2): 375–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.2007983.Suche in Google Scholar

Sanzo, L. 2018. “La política de garantía de ingresos en España.” Zerbitzuan: Gizarte zerbitzuetarako aldizkaria = Revista de servicios sociales 65: 41–51.10.5569/1134-7147.65.04Suche in Google Scholar

Vallejo-Martín, M., M. Moreno-Jiménez, P. del, and M. L. Ríos-Rodríguez. 2017. “Sentido de comunidad, fatalismo y participación en contextos de crisis socioeconómica.” Psychosocial Intervention 26 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2016.10.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Van Hootegem, A., and T. Laenen. 2023. “A Wave of Support? A Natural Experiment on How the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected the Popularity of a Basic Income.” Acta Politica 58 (3): 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00260-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Van Parijs, P. 2006. “Basic Income: A Simple and Powerful Idea for the 21st Century.” In Redesigning Distribution. Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Cornerstones for an Egalitarian Capitalism, edited by E. O. Wright. Londres: Verso.Suche in Google Scholar

Vives, A., C. Vanroelen, M. Amable, M. Ferrer, S. Moncada, C. Llorens, C. Muntaner, F. Benavides, and J. Benach. 2011. “Employment Precariousness in Spain: Prevalence, Social Distribution, and Population-Attributable Risk Percent of Poor Mental Health.” International Journal of Health Services 41 (4): 625–46. https://doi.org/10.2190/hs.41.4.b.Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, N., and S. McDaid. 2021. “The Mental Health Effects of a Universal Basic Income: A Synthesis of the Evidence from Previous Pilots.” Social Science & Medicine 287: 114374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114374.Suche in Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. 2020. The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Geneva: WEF.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-12-08
Accepted: 2024-08-13
Published Online: 2024-09-12

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. The Debate Over the Definition of Basic Income
  4. The Case for a Revision of BIEN’s Definition of Basic Income
  5. A Survey of Universal Basic Income Experiments
  6. Macroeconomic Observations on Paying for and Funding Universal Basic Income
  7. Exploring Young People’s Attitudes Towards Basic Income
  8. Is G.A. Cohen’s Egalitarian Ethos Consistent with Unconditional Basic Income?
  9. Unconditional Endowment and Acceptance of Taxes: A Lab-in-the-Field Experiment on UBI with Unemployed
https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2022-0030
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
basic income; youth; freedom; living conditions; future; attitudes

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. The Debate Over the Definition of Basic Income
  4. The Case for a Revision of BIEN’s Definition of Basic Income
  5. A Survey of Universal Basic Income Experiments
  6. Macroeconomic Observations on Paying for and Funding Universal Basic Income
  7. Exploring Young People’s Attitudes Towards Basic Income
  8. Is G.A. Cohen’s Egalitarian Ethos Consistent with Unconditional Basic Income?
  9. Unconditional Endowment and Acceptance of Taxes: A Lab-in-the-Field Experiment on UBI with Unemployed
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 19.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bis-2022-0030/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen