Universal Basic Income as a Social Innovation: A Study of its Acceptance Among the Middle-Income Class in Spain

2.1 Innovation Theories and UBI

Innovation theories seek to explain the mechanisms by which ideas, concepts, technical information, and practices disseminate within societies and are embraced by individuals, organizations, and political communities. This pursuit involves investigating the reasons behind these processes, as well as the pace at which they occur (Berry and Berry 2018; Rogers 1983; Wejnert 2002).

Innovation theories have been applied to different fields, such as technology, political sciences, geography, economy or sociology. Of particular interest for this research is the fact that they have also been used to analyze the spread of policy innovations, such as new educational models (Ramirez and Boli 1987), social security systems (Weyland 2005) or welfare reforms (Thomas and Lauderdale 1988). The innovation theory lens has also been used to analyze the reasons for the (non) adoption of a UBI in Finland (Koistinen and Perkiö 2014). It has been noted that innovation in policy institutions and particularly in welfare policies is often intricate and slow (Pierson 2000), due to complex path dependencies and numerous intertwined factors. Large scale welfare reforms have occurred only in very specific periods of time, often after large crisis which open a “window of opportunity” (Sweeney et al. 2000). Other than that, public policy making is often reactive and incremental (Greener 2005; Pierson 2000).

As an example, in Spain, the COVID crisis opened a window for a reform of redistributive policies in 2020. For a few months, the possibility of establishing a UBI was raised. However, ultimately an incremental solution was considered, introducing a “Minimum Living Income” (a conditional and not universal income) at the national level, which supplemented the existing minimum income system already in place in all Spanish regions (Government of Spain 2020). While the new system meant an increase on the global national budget devoted to redistribution policies, its implementation has suffered from typical bureaucratic difficulties associated with non-universal and conditional systems (Gimeno-Ullastres 2019). As repeatedly denounced by entities such as the State Association of Directors and Managers of Social Services of Spain (2023), due to its bureaucratic complexity, after three years of its introduction, only 20.8 % of the population living under the poverty line benefit from the minimum living income in Spain.

One of the main topics discussed in the context of innovation theories is the dynamics of innovation diffusion. These dynamics is based upon the fact that there are different types of adopters depending on how prone they are in adopting these innovations. Adopters have been classified according to the following groups: early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. For the innovation to achieve self-sustainability, it requires broad adoption among individuals or groups. Within the adoption rate, there exists a threshold known as the critical mass, where the number of individual adopters guarantees the ongoing self-sustained adoption of the innovation (Rogers 2014; Wejnert 2002).

A second recurrent topic in innovation theory is the discussion around the determinants of diffusion’s extent and speed (Oldenburg and Glanz 2008). As an example, Oldenburg and Glanz (2008) establish the following factors conditioning a social innovation diffusion: relative advantage over alternative options, the fact that the idea can be tried before making a final commitment (trialability), the amount of risk associated with the innovation, and the compatibility or fit of the innovation into the audience’s lifestyle, cultural/ethnic beliefs and practices or self-image. In a similar vein, Koistinen and Perkiö (2014) define a number of dimensions associated to successes and failures of UBI proposals in Finland: the specific characteristics of the proposal, the channels and actors intervening in its communication, the macro-economic and political context, the perception of different actors regarding the proposal and the achieved outcomes. Along these and other innovation models, it is obvious that the perception of the public about the UBI proposal is one of the primary influencing factors.

Therefore, from the perspective of innovation theory, focusing on comprehending public opinion regarding UBI is highly relevance. In the Spanish context, where the middle-income class forms a significant social majority, investigating the perceptions of this group is relevant, as reaching the critical mass necessary to guarantee enough UBI support would heavily rely on effectively engaging with the interests and needs of this particular demographic. Moreover, according to previous research, middle-income class tends to be particularly reluctant to the implementation of a UBI as they perceive themselves as net payers and not beneficiaries of the proposal (Roosma and van Oorschot 2020; Zimmermann et al. 2020).

Although a recent body of literature exists devoted to investigating public opinion of UBI, previous studies have essentially concentrated in revealing various explanatory factors (geographic, demographic and psychographic). In contrast, research on the actual arguments and positions for and against UBI as well as how it is compared with other policy options is scarce. The following section provides an overview on prior research on this topic.

2.2 Overview of Prior Research on Public Opinion of UBI

The strand of literature that investigates public opinion of UBI is recent-most studies are not more than five years old- and still emergent. Regarding its geographical coverage, there are various studies that focus on the European region as a whole (Baranowski and Jabkowski 2021) and specific countries within Europe, such as Finland (Linnanvirta et al. 2019), Belgium (Laenen et al. 2023), Croatia (Relja et al. 2015), the Netherlands (Gielens et al. 2023) and Spain (Rincon 2023; Gómez-Frías et al. 2021). There are also studies conducted in other regions of the world that concentrate on specific countries like the US (Hamilton et al. 2023; Yeung 2022), Canada (Calnitsky 2018), Australia (Patulny and Spies-Butcher 2023), Japan (Yang et al. 2020) and South Africa (Fouksman 2020) as well as comparative studies between countries within Europe and across different regions (Baranowski and Jabkowski 2021; Chrisp et al. 2020; Nettle et al. 2021; Stadelmann-Steffen and Dermont 2020; Zimmermann et al. 2020). It is evidence that there is a lack of such studies in large areas of Africa and Asia, as well as in Latin America.

In terms of methodology, most studies use official cross-national or national surveys, such as the European Social Survey (ESS), as an empirical basis for their analysis (see for example, Baranowski and Jabkowski 2021; Choi 2021; Lee 2021; Nettle et al. 2021). While this kind of quantitative studies are useful to detect demographic and social factors at a macro level that are related to positive or negative perceptions about UBI, they rely on questions that are often too generic. In consequence, they fail to capture important context-specific factors and psychological mechanisms that would be important to grasp people’s understanding of the UBI and the reasons why they reject or support it (Chrisp et al. 2020). Other works also adopt quantitative approaches but rely on more specific survey or experimental designs (Stadelmann-Steffen and Dermont 2020; Yang et al. 2020; Yeung 2022). These enable to test public’s opinion in view of more specific context-dependent implementation scenarios. Finally, a number of recent works adopt a qualitative approach to delve into specific dimensions, such as the social legitimacy of UBI from a social justice perspective (Zimmermann et al. 2020), the attitudes of young citizens to the introduction of UBI in a specific scenario linked to automation (Herke and Vicsek 2022) or the position of a particular sector in a given country (Gómez-Frías et al. 2021).

Regarding the findings of these studies, literature on the subject essentially concentrates in revealing various explanatory factors (geographic, demographic and psychographic) that could be linked to certain opinions or perceptions for and against UBI. In this regard, at least in the European context, geographic factors have been found to have an impact on public support for UBI. Indeed, it has been found that, globally, support for basic income seems to be significantly higher in Central and Eastern European countries (Baranowski and Jabkowski 2021), although results at the country level contradict this outcome and show high levels of support in Nordic countries such as Finland when compared to a Central European country such as Switzerland (Stadelmann-Steffen and Dermont 2020). The literature is more consistent regarding the influence of macroeconomic factors. Indeed, UBI tends to be more supported in countries with lower levels of GDP and lower social spending and employability rates (Laenen et al. 2023; Parolin and Siöland 2020). Moreover, the perspective adopted by the public towards a UBI seems to be strongly shaped by the welfare institutions of the countries in which they live (Shin et al. 2021; Zimmermann et al. 2020).

Regarding demographics, many studies reveal a link between the class position of individuals and UBI support, as people who are in a more vulnerable socio-economic position – including often younger, low-income individuals, unemployed or precariously employed, suburban renters, etc.- support UBI more (Bollain et al. 2025; Roosma and van Oorschot 2020; Shin et al. 2021; Zimmermann et al. 2020). However, findings regarding the link between the level of education and support are not conclusive. While studies in regional contexts such as Australia show higher support towards UBI from individuals that are higher educated (Patulny and Spies-Butcher 2023), other studies in different contexts (The Netherlands) show that the higher and the lower educated are equally ambivalent towards the policy (Gielens et al. 2023). Other demographic explanatory factors that seem to influence individuals’ perceptions toward UBI identified in literature are family structure and interest in participating in non-market activities (Yang et al. 2020).

Psychographic factors, such as values and lifestyles, seem to have great explanatory power to understand differences in UBI support, particularly in countries with higher levels of spending (Parolin and Siöland 2020). Support seems to be higher in individuals who have more post-materialist concerns, including Green-left voters and egalitarianists, and those favoring redistributive values and universalism (Choi 2021; Patulny and Spies-Butcher 2023; Roosma and van Oorschot 2020) and has been found to be lower and more rigid among conservatives (Yeung 2022). Welfare state chauvinism is also more likely to be associated with negative attitudes towards a UBI in higher income countries (Bay and Pedersen 2006; Diermeier et al. 2021; Laenen et al. 2023, 2023; Parolin and Siöland 2020). Other values, such as power and achievement are positively and significantly associated with support for UBI, while other values such benevolence, has a negative relationship with that (Choi 2021).

The existing body of literature that comprehensively analyzes the actual arguments and positions in favor of or against UBI, and how it is compared to alternative policy options, is scarce. There is a dearth of research in this area, with only a few notable studies, such as the recent work conducted by Rincon (2023) within the Spanish context, providing valuable insights. Through a conjoint analysis for understanding the way the public compares UBI to other policy options, this study reveals that, for the Spanish public, one of the most controversial UBI features is its universality, i.e. the fact that it is given to everyone and not only to “the poor”, while its unconditionality (the lack of conditions to recipients) is less unpopular. This has been found to be the case also in other contexts (Lee 2021; Roosma and van Oorschot 2020). Beliefs about the meaning of work and the need for work-based society are also very prominent in shaping perceptions about UBI in different contexts (Herke and Vicsek 2022).

In any case, when examining various aspects of public acceptance towards UBI, there seems to be a consensus in considering two dimensions: desirability-with respect to ethical or moral normative beliefs – and feasibility – understood as the viability of financing and implementing public policy in a given context-see for example, Van Parijs and Vanderborght (2017) or Busso et al. (2019).

3.1 Sample Selection

An exploratory study was carried out based on semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample composed of individuals of different ages, professional profiles and genders belonging to the Spanish middle class.

From the perspective of innovation theory, placing emphasis on comprehending public opinion regarding UBI is of utmost importance. In Spain, where the middle-income class constitutes a substantial portion of society, it is particularly important to explore the views of this group. Indeed, according to the OECD the lower-income class is defined as those whose income falls below 75 % of the national median income; the middle-income class is between 75 % and 200 % of the median, while the upper-income class consists of those whose income exceeds 200 % of the median (OECD 2019). According to 2022 data by the Spanish National Statistical Institute (INE 2022), around 65 % of the Spanish population belongs to the middle-class.

Gaining widespread support for UBI would then largely depend on addressing the interests and needs of this demographic, which could be pivotal in achieving the necessary critical mass for its successful implementation. Similarly, a sample in which the dominant expectation is that they will be net payers after the implementation of a basic income favors understanding resistance among those who may be adversely affected by the measure.

Participants were recruited as volunteers from the personal networks of the researchers and over 60 students in a third-year undergraduate class, using a snowballing technique. An open call was also launched through social networks to recruit further candidates.

The applied methodology can be considered a mixed methods approach in the sense that combines qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis in one study.

3.2 Qualitative Phase: Interviews

Interviews were conducted between the months of October 2022 and May 2023. Seven interviews were considered invalid or not fulfilling the segmentation criteria. In total, 45 valid interviews were conducted.

18 of the interviewees were women and 27 were men. The age profile of the persons interviewed ranged from 20 to 73 years old. 42 % of the sample was younger than 20 years old, 36 % of the sample was between 25 and 55 years old, and 22 % of the sample was more than 55 years old. Most of the interviewees were from the Community of Madrid (25 people). The rest belonged to other Spanish regions (Andalusia, Cantabria, Asturias, Galicia, Castilla-León, the Basque Country and the Canary Islands).

None of the interviewees had a marked political ideology (affiliation or loyalty to a specific party), but most declared themselves to be affiliated with generally moderate political currents (center, center-right, center-left or center-liberal). In general, with three exceptions, the people included in the sample did not have first-hand knowledge of the situation of people receiving social benefits. All interviewees were either employed or studying at the time of the interview. All of the jobs they were doing corresponded to the “white-collar” category, in the sense used by Weaver (1975), i.e. professional, clerical, managerial or administrative workers.

The interviews were designed to evaluate to what extent a UBI was acceptable for the individuals and preferable to other welfare options as well as to engage in a thorough discussion on the arguments for and against UBI. It is worth noticing that this kind of discussion is not possible when adopting more massive quantitative approaches. The design was validated on the basis of a focus group with professionals from the construction sector; the results of this focus group are explained in Gómez-Frías et al. (2021). Specifically, the interviews were conducted according to the following structure:

1. First, respondents were asked to answer the following question: “What do you think the Welfare State should offer to all citizens? Minimum living income; Universal basic income; Either; Neither; I don’t understand the difference; Other. This initial question was designed to test general knowledge and awareness about UBI and other welfare options implemented in Spain.

2. Next, respondents were asked to argue about the desirability and feasibility of Basic Income.

3. Subsequently, to enrich and help focus the terms of the discussion, participants in the study were shown a 5-min informative video produced by Spanish public television (RTVE 2020). The full content of this video can be watched online. This video showed the summary of arguments for and against basic income wielded by several academic experts in the field throughout a conference on Basic Income organized at the Polytechnic University of Madrid in October 2019. The event was organized around two round tables and brought together 10 experts from different disciplines (economics, law, business administration, sociology and philosophy). More specifically, the video covered the following topics: The potential impact of automation on the job market; the concerning situation of growing poverty and inequality worldwide; the difference between minimum income and basic income policies; inefficiencies and bureaucratic problems associated with minimum income policies; the poverty trap; stigma and invasion of family privacy associated with minimum income policies; potential decrease in labor supply and active population that could be generated by a basic income; potential of UBI to improve recognition of sectors with high social value but low market value.

4. After the video, the interviewees were asked to react to the arguments presented and to continue arguing about the acceptance of UBI.

5. Finally, as a general conclusion of the discussion, interviewees were asked to provide a binary answer (“Yes”, “No”) regarding the three response variables measured in the quantitative phase (see below): desirability, feasibility and acceptance.

All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Subsequently, the collected material was analyzed using content analysis techniques (Miles and Huberman 1994; Saldaña 2021). The codes were defined inductively and were iteratively refined throughout the analysis. All interviews were coded by two researchers independently and discrepancies that arose were resolved in successive working meetings. The coding and analysis applied followed a force-field logic (Lewin 1951). Force-field analysis considers human behavior as dynamic, resulting from the balance of forces working in opposite directions. According to this conception, change in behavior would occur when the forces in favor of a given change outweigh the forces against it (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:

“Force-field” logic used in the analysis on acceptance of UBI (own elaboration).

3.3 Quantitative Phase: Logistic Regression

The statistical analysis of the results was performed by applying logistic regression or logit regression. Logistic regression is a type of regression analysis used to predict the outcome of a categorical variable (a variable that can adopt a limited number of categories) as a function of the independent or predictor variables (Harrell 2001; Hosmer et al. 2013). The term logit refers to the natural logarithm of the odds ratio (the probability of success of the studied phenomenon divided by the probability of failure of that same phenomenon). The logit technique fits a regression model where the response variable would be logit of the probability of the studied variable.

Specifically, and following Van Parijs and Vanderborght (2017) and Busso et al. (2019), three response variables were considered: Desirability, Feasibility, and Acceptance (a combination of the first two). The operationalization of these variables was as follows:

1. Desirability: whether UBI it is considered desirable from an ethical or normative perspective.

2. Feasibility: whether UBI is seen as practicable from a pragmatic standpoint (e.g. budgetary, organizational).

3. Acceptance: the overall position in favor of or against UBI.

Response variables were treated as binary categorical variables, with 0 representing “No” responses to the final question asked in the interviews (“In your opinion, is a UBI desirable/feasible/acceptable?”) and one representing “Yes” responses to the same question.

Independent variables comprised various arguments for and against basic income, which were coded as binary categorical variables. A “1” indicates the presence of the argument in the discussion, while a “0” signifies its absence. Arguments in favor of basic income include those suggesting positive outcomes at either a systemic or individual level resulting from UBI implementation. Conversely, arguments against basic income highlight potential negative outcomes or logical flaws at either the individual or systemic level.

4.1 General Results on Awareness and Acceptance of UBI

A general descriptive analysis of the results shows that the majority of those interviewed adopted a critical attitude towards basic income. Thus, 47 % of the sample considered this public policy desirable and only 24 % considered basic income to be feasible. 45 % of the sample considered basic income neither feasible nor desirable. Finally, only 16 % considered basic income acceptable (simultaneously desirable and feasible).

It is worth noticing that 20 % of people in the sample declared that they did not know what a UBI was. Among those that declared to understand the concept, there were many that, throughout the discussion, showed a confusion between UBI and other forms of conditional welfare policies (such as the Minimum Income). In general, there was a widespread lack of knowledge and awareness regarding the type and outcomes of welfare policies already in place in Spain.

The qualitative analysis made it possible to clearly identify six arguments against and six arguments in favor of UBI in the discourse. These arguments are presented in the following sections and summarized in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2:

Arguments against UBI present in the sample. Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 3:

Arguments in favor of UBI present in the sample. Source: Own elaboration.

4.2 Arguments Against UBI

4.3 Arguments in Favor of UBI

5.1 Feasibility

Logit models were tested with all dependent variables (arguments for and against defined as categorical variables with two levels-0 if argument does not appear; one if argument appears) against feasibility as the response variable.

Only a negative association corresponding to argument AA3 (“Difficulties in accepting the universality of basic income”) was significant with 95 % confidence. That is, those people who do not understand the interest of “giving money to the rich” and then giving it back through taxes are those who are more likely to consider basic income unfeasible. These people are precisely those who minimize the importance of the problems and administrative inefficiencies generated by minimum income systems. Figure 4 shows the coefficients of the estimated model, as well as the values of the residual variance and the Akaike information criterion.

Figure 4:

Predictive model for feasibility based on logit regression. Source: Own elaboration.

Regarding the diagnosis of the model for predictive purposes, the Likelihood ratio test provides a p-value of 0.0155 (significant value for a confidence level greater than 95 %). However, we obtain a classification error of 27 % when performing the classification table. This is an appreciable error and indicates that there are additional factors that should be included in the model that have not been covered by the current study.

5.2 Desirability

Again, logit models were tested with all dependent variables against desirability as the response variable. Four arguments in favor (AF1, AF2, AF3 and AF4) and two against (AA3 and AA4) were significant. Table 1 shows the coefficients of each of the models, as well as their level of significance.

Again, as in the case of feasibility, we see that the most important and clearest association (highest degree of significance) is with argument AA3 (“Difficulties in accepting the universality of basic income”). This would be followed by the argument that affects the capacity of basic income to generate confidence to face the future (AF4); then, the argument that relates basic income with a revitalisation of the economy through an activation of consumption (AF3), followed by the difficulties to accept giving an income without conditions (AA4), the perception that basic income would improve social justice (AF2); finally, the opinion on the capacity of basic income to simplify bureaucracy (AF1).

Next, we constructed a predictive logit model with all significant variables. The Akaike information criterion is the lowest of all the models constructed in relation to desirability (greater than 60 in all cases), which confirms its greater suitability as a predictive model (Figure 5).

Figure 5:

Predictive model for desirability based on logit regression. Source: Own elaboration.

The classification error of the predictive model is 22 % and the Likelihood ratio test gives a p-value of 0.00042 and is therefore highly significant.

5.3 Acceptance

Finally, logit models were fitted for acceptance. Three arguments in favor (AF4, AF2 and AF3) and one against (AA1) were significant. Gender was also significant with a negative coefficient, showing that women in the sample are more likely to accept basic income (Table 2).

The most important association is established with argument AF2, which refers to the idea that basic income would contribute to a fairer society for all. This is followed by argument AF4, i.e. the argument that basic income would contribute to strengthening confidence in the future and the ability to take important steps in life. This is followed with a lower level of significance by the AF3 argument (the capacity of basic income to dynamize the economy through an increase in consumption) and AA1, the belief that basic income would discourage work.

The model has a good predictive capacity, with only a 7 % error in the classification matrix and an Akaike criterion value of 28.2. The likelihood ratio test is 0.0004 and is therefore highly significant.

7.1 Limitations

The results of the analysis identify eight variables relevant to the acceptance of basic income and/or its two components – feasibility and desirability. However, these findings should be understood as limited by the socio-geographical scope of the sample. To generalize the results more broadly, it would be necessary to extend the study to a larger, more diverse population. The current sample was intentionally focused on middle-income individuals, but, even taking this into consideration, there is a bias, as the upper-middle class is overrepresented, and participants are predominantly white-collar professionals with high levels of education. It would be beneficial to include lower-middle-class individuals and blue-collar workers to provide a more comprehensive perspective inside the targeted demographic group.

That said, while the data collected from the interviews has been subjected to quantitative analysis, which has allowed for more robust conclusions, this is fundamentally a qualitative study. Its primary aim is to generate hypotheses and identify avenues for further research. The objective is to deepen our understanding of the phenomenon under study – public opinion about UBI among the middle class – and to guide future studies that can validate these preliminary conclusions and quantify the various relevant variables identified. The key findings, that should be understood as hypotheses, are outlined below.

7.2 Conclusions and Practical Implications

The first conclusion drawn from this study is the value of examining the components of universal basic income (UBI) acceptance in a more nuanced manner, rather than treating it as a single, monolithic variable, as is often done in survey-based studies. By using this qualitative approach, we have gained a more detailed understanding of UBI acceptance. Specifically, it is useful to consider two key components – perception of feasibility and desirability. These two aspects are associated with different arguments, actions, and challenges, and thus warrant distinct attention when considering potential interventions.

For instance, perception of feasibility seems to be heavily influenced by the concept of universality and the proper understanding of the tax redistribution mechanism for higher-income groups. As it is closely linked to the specific model of basic income being proposed, addressing perceptions of UBI feasibility requires careful explanation of these details.

Desirability, on the other hand, is more complex and multifaceted, as it is shaped by normative arguments and value judgments. While feasibility can be addressed through clear explanations of implementation mechanisms, desirability poses a greater challenge because it may involve shifts in societal values and norms.

Moreover, the results of this study suggest the existence of two distinct segments within the middle class regarding their level of awareness and understanding of universal basic income (UBI). The first segment, representing a threshold of acceptance, fails to grasp the concept and perceives it as nonsensical or absurd. These individuals are deeply embedded in a capitalist system and adhere strongly to the meritocratic model. Very often, this group is not even aware of the redistribution policies currently in place in their country, such as minimum income programs, neither they are familiar with their potential problems of implementation. It is worth noting that, in our sample, most participants fell into this category, and fundamental misconceptions about the nature of UBI persisted even after more than 20 min of discussion. This raises important questions about the validity of large-scale quantitative studies currently being conducted. First, it is unclear whether respondents fully grasp what UBI entails. Second, as mentioned above, these studies often treat acceptance as a monolithic variable, which limits the ability to derive meaningful, actionable insights.

In consequence, a key practical implication of these findings is a call for UBI researchers to critically reassess current methodologies of investigation of public opinion of UBI and incorporate qualitative perspectives more carefully before designing large-scale surveys.

Another practical implication, addressed to UBI advocacy organizations, is the need to address the initial threshold of acceptance in a specific manner. There is a clear need for basic education that differentiates UBI from other social policies, such as minimum income programs. Emphasizing the dissemination of evaluations of existing public policies is crucial, as these can help shape a more informed public understanding of UBI’s potential.

The media also bears significant responsibility in this regard, as it often neglects critical aspects of policy implementation. Greater media attention to these details is essential for fostering a more informed, nuanced public debate about UBI.

Then, in order to move beyond the acceptance threshold, it would be necessary to address underlying value systems, a challenging and long-term endeavor that extends far beyond the specific debate on UBI. Promoting values of citizenship and collaboration is crucial, as UBI acceptance requires these values to gain broader acceptance. Moreover, the presence of such values would likely enhance the UBI’s effectiveness, fostering greater reciprocity and reducing potential abuses, which in turn could address one of the common criticisms of UBI. Fostering these values, especially empathy and the ability to “put oneself in another’s shoes,” is essential. In this regard, implementing experiential learning initiatives could be a valuable strategy to promote empathy and a deeper understanding of the collective benefits of UBI.

Finally, in the Spanish context, the discussion around a basic income addressed to minors is particularly significant. It is essential to address the legitimate concerns that some segments of the population may have regarding its implementation. A more realistic approach to understanding public acceptance of this policy is needed, acknowledging that scepticism or hesitation may arise. Engaging with these doubts openly and providing clear, evidence-based explanations will be crucial for fostering informed debate and increasing the likelihood of wider acceptance of basic income for children in Spain.