Challenging the Justice of a Basic Income Policy When Focusing on the Homeless Population: A Case Study on Germany

2.1 Homelessness in Germany

In Germany, 531,600 people were homeless in January 2024 (German Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building 2025, p. 7). The increase from 262,000 people being homeless in January 2022 was explained by the authors due to an improvement in data collection.^[8] Overall, 8 percent (47,300) of homeless persons in Germany were without accommodation, 11 percent (60,400) lived with acquaintances, and the biggest proportion was living in shelters. Homelessness in Germany represents a long-term living situation: 40 percent of individuals living in shelters had stayed there for at least a year, and the average length of stay was more than two years. 65 percent of persons living on the streets and 45 percent of persons living with acquaintances had been homeless for more than a year (German Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building 2025, pp. 7–8).

Homelessness is more prevalent in metropolitan regions than in rural areas, as shown in Figure 1. The figure shows how many individuals lived in homeless shelters on the key date in 2022 according to regional districts. The numbers varied from districts sheltering less than 20 homeless individuals (light blue) to those sheltering more than 440 (dark blue) (German Federal Statistical Office 2023).^[9] The prevalence of homelessness in metropolitan areas was also found for individuals living on the street and with acquaintances; only the relation between the two groups changed with increasing population density. In municipalities with less than 100,000 inhabitants, more homeless individuals lived with third parties than on the streets, but in municipalities with more than 100,000 inhabitants more lived on the streets than with third parties (German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2022, pp. 61–64).

Figure 1:

Number of homeless persons living in shelters by German regional districts on the 31st of January 2022 (German Federal Statistical Office 2023).

In general, the homeless population in Germany is diverse in terms of gender, origin, age, relationship status, and residence status. A little less than two-thirds of homeless individuals were male, one-third was female, and two percent identified as diverse. Among the population living in shelters, 14 percent were German and 86 percent were immigrants, either non-German citizens or stateless. Half of the shelter population was made up of families with children, some of them single parents. 29 percent of individuals in temporary shelters were minors (25 percent in 2022) (German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2022, pp. 9–10; German Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building 2025, p. 8). In contrast, among individuals living on the streets, two-thirds were German, one-third was immigrants, and only three percent were minors. Three-quarters of homeless individuals living outside of shelters were single (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 31–36). Among adults, more men than women lived on the streets, and more women than men lived with acquaintances. More than half of the women living with third parties were younger than 30 years old in 2022. Individuals living on the streets were the oldest group, with an average age of 43 years in 2024 (44 years in 2022) (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 31–33; German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2022, pp. 9–10; German Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building 2025, p. 8).

Homelessness has multiple interdependent individual, structural, and institutional causes (Weishaupt, Hinrichs, and Weckwerth 2023). To identify these causes, most studies rely on self-reports of homeless persons, so individual factors are more salient than structural factors, potentially causing structural factors to be underestimated (Piat et al. 2015). Nonetheless, on the individual level, becoming homeless depends not only on the actual occurrence of a personal crisis, but also on the existence of adequate coping strategies. Hence, to counter homelessness, one must identify factors that increase the likelihood of crises and that inhibit ways to cope with them (Weishaupt, Hinrichs, and Weckwerth 2023, p. 2). Yet, most studies have concentrated on identifying causes but not pinpointing contributing factors or corresponding ways people have dealt with them. In the following, I summarize reported individual, structural, and institutional causes of homelessness in Germany.

On the individual level, eight percent of the homeless population reported being homeless following divorce or separation (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 40–42). In Dortmund, homeless individuals were often exposed to unstable living conditions before homelessness, such as unplanned and spontaneous moving or migrating. They also reported that individual crises led to long-lasting psychological problems, which then led to homelessness. Finally, homeless persons mentioned that an overarching reason for being homeless was lack of a social safety net to support them in dealing with these crises (Szczepanek 2021, pp. 81–84).

The risk of becoming homeless also increases when transitioning between different institutions. Youth living on the streets had almost always had contact with youth welfare services prior to homelessness (Sonnenberg 2021, pp. 39–41), and the transition from school to the formal labor market represents a critically vulnerable time for this group (Busch-Geertsema, Henke, and Steffen 2020, p. 86). Another reason for becoming homeless, named by nine percent of participants of the national study, was incarceration (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 40–42).^[10] Overall, these transitions represent individual crises and become a risk factor for homelessness when combined with their accompanying institutional structure (Weishaupt, Hinrichs, and Weckwerth 2023, pp. 5–6). For example, for people receiving unemployment assistance that become incarcerated, even for short sentences, they no longer receive rent payments by job centers, as these become covered by local agencies. This switch requires administrative efforts that are often difficult for the convicted to meet. Moreover, once sentences are served, inmates have difficulties securing new housing before being released. Before renting property to prospective tenants, landlords often require confirmation that a job center will cover the rent, but job centers usually decline to issue this confirmation for inmates before release (Hrast et al. 2023, pp. 46, 64).

One structural factor contributing to homelessness is the housing market. With increasing rents in the private housing market and low provision of public and social housing, fewer flats are available for low-income groups (Butterwegge 2023; Szczepanek 2021, pp. 83–84; Weishaupt, Hinrichs, and Weckwerth 2023, pp. 3–5).^[11] One empirical indicator that the housing market is a structural factor increasing the likelihood of homelessness is the positive correlation between the number of homeless persons living in a city and rent levels (German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2022, p. 65). Moreover, in the 2022 report, almost half of the individuals living on the street or with acquaintances cited rental arrears as one reason for being homeless, and half of the participants who were homeless due to rental arrears did not ask public institutions for support when they were in debt (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 40–42). Along these lines, Szczepanek (2021) argued that due to the complexity of the administrative system, people at risk of homelessness may be unable to comply with rules and eventually lose social welfare entitlements, which would increase the risk of eviction. Hence, rental arrears contributed to homelessness even though institutional support structures existed that were designed to prevent homelessness due to debt.

The studies I examined also identified certain systemic barriers to exiting homelessness. On the individual level, one barrier to exit could be the behavioral adaption that seems necessary to survive being homeless. For example, for someone used to sleeping in places with easy escape routes in case of danger, sleeping behind a closed door may be unbearable. Moreover, even though the homeless community is unstable and unsafe, leaving this community may increase one’s risk of social isolation (Sonnenberg 2021, pp. 58–61).

On the structural level, the housing market systematically discriminates against various subgroups, inhibiting reintegration, and the homeless population as a whole is subject to group-focused enmity (Hövermann et al. 2015; Küpper and Zick 2014). Even outside the context of homelessness, a representative study by the German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (2024) showed that 15 percent of respondents had experienced discrimination due to ethnicity or origin when trying to rent a flat. Hence, discrimination on the housing market on intersectional grounds is probable. Further related barriers to exiting homelessness include the requirement that renters have positive debt reports from the credit rating agency (SCHUFA) (Busch-Geertsema 2017, p. 78) and that their prospective rent must be deemed appropriate by local agencies providing unemployment and social assistance (Busch-Geertsema, Henke, and Steffen 2020, p. 91), such that the housing market barriers are also intertwined with barriers related to institutional structures.

On the institutional level, Sonnenberg (2021, p. 71) characterized the current social welfare structure tending to homeless individuals as rather administrative than curative and rather normalizing than individualized. Moreover, they mentioned that the rehabilitation of homeless individuals has been hampered by German bureaucracy, which is highly complex. Without professional assistance, most homeless people were not able to apply for social welfare because they did not know their rights and entitlements (Sonnenberg 2021, pp. 54–55), and they were missing relevant documents or lacked the infrastructure to use online appointment systems or applications (Sonnenberg 2021, pp. 61–62). A summary of these risk factors and exit barriers is given by Table 2, with a missing social net, the housing market, and bureaucracy constituting both risks of becoming homeless and barriers to exiting homelessness.

I contend that any discussion on a policy’s justness based on how it affects the least advantaged persons of a society must consider the homeless population. In Section 4, I further argue that the diverse group of homeless persons in Germany faces significant disadvantages in terms of income, self-respect, and power. By presenting a hypothetical scenario on the effects of a basic income in Germany, I demonstrate that while the policy may indeed enhance homeless individuals’ incomes, its implications for their self-respect and power remain uncertain. Consequently, I raise doubts about the justice of the basic income policy. In the next section, I introduce social support structures for homeless persons in place and a concrete basic income policy that might act as a complement.

2.2 Present Support Structures and Basic Income

Social support measures addressing homelessness in Germany, particularly support according to §§ 36 and 67 to 69 SGB XII, include covering debts to secure accommodation and providing counseling services. Moreover, the constitution of Germany grants the state the duty to house homeless persons if homelessness is involuntary, because being homeless threatens one’s rights to a dignified existence and to physical integrity (Art. 1 I, 2 II GG; Ruder 1999, pp. 22, 29–30).^[12] According to the principle of subsidiarity, the municipal governments are responsible for helping people realize these fundamental rights by providing temporary accommodation. This responsibility does not depend on the nationality of homeless persons, but on their main location. Responsibility for homeless youth lies with the municipal youth welfare office: only responsibility for asylum seekers lies with the nation state (Ruder 1999, pp. 37–42, 181–183).

However, to date, these support structures vary considerably between regions. In 2018, only two-thirds of counties were equipped with counseling offices despite legal requirements. Moreover, no national qualitative standards are in place to secure the right to emergency accommodation (Baptista and Marlier 2019, pp. 79–93; Busch-Geertsema, Henke, and Steffen 2020).^[13] Fischer (2023, p. 5) further criticized the system for ineffectively securing employment and accommodation for homeless persons for three reasons: Homeless individuals do not apply for support, administrative measures and individual needs do not match, and affordable accommodations are not available.^[14] To address the first two issues, Fischer (2023) proposed a basic income policy.

Present social support measures for the homeless population would be untouched by the introduction of a basic income policy as deemed feasible by Bach and Hamburg (2023).^[15] Accordingly, every adult living in Germany would be eligible for a regular payment of 1,200 euros per month, every child younger than 18 for a payment of 600 euros per month. No regional differences would apply, and basic income would be paid unconditionally and without a means test. The following discussion focuses on the revenue-neutral proposal of a basic income which would be financed by a flat rate tax on income of 60.5 percent, the elimination of reduced value-added taxes (except for on food and public transport), and a carbon price of 250 euros per ton.^[16] In addition, certain social security measures would need to be replaced (Bach and Hamburg 2023, pp. 9–12, 16 ff.). A complete list is given by Table 3, and the measures are explained in more detail in the Appendix.

Section 3 discusses three ways to justify a basic income policy in ideal theory. Scholars have put forth the proposition that for a society to be considered just, it must adopt a basic income system because such a system would improve the living conditions of the most disadvantaged individuals. In the midst of this debate, I argue that any discussion on this matter must consider the impact of basic income on the homeless population. This diverse group faces significant disadvantages in terms of income, self-respect, and power. To illustrate this point, Section 4 discusses a hypothetical scenario that examines the effects of basic income in Germany. While the discussed basic income policy may indeed enhance the income of homeless individuals, the implications for their self-respect and power remain uncertain. As a result, I cast doubt on the justice of a basic income policy.

Importantly, ideal theory differs from the specific basic income policy as discussed, in that it is not fully universal.^[17] Concerning the current social security in Germany, different eligibility criteria apply for asylum seekers who are entitled to benefits according to a special law (AsylblG). Another special case are citizens from European member states who are allowed to enter Germany due to freedom of movement. Yet, after three months, their permission to stay in Germany needs to be justified, for example, by employment. Hence, EU citizens without a justified status of residence are not entitled to German social security benefits, besides limited social assistance as interim aid. The same is true for undocumented immigrants (§ 23 SGB XII; Brüchmann et al. 2022a, p. 36). Bach and Hamburg (2023, p. 8) suggested that similar criteria could be applied when introducing a basic income policy. Yet, using this eligibility criteria in the context of a basic income policy raises some concerns regarding justness, which I discuss in detail in Section 4.

3.1 Real Libertarianism

Libertarians emphasize the efficiency of markets, but they may still argue in favor of redistribution in the form of a basic income for two reasons. First, individuals know better than governments when assessing their needs, so it is reasonable to redistribute cash. Second, governments are unable to identify desert, so it is reasonable to redistribute cash without posing conditions (Fleischer and Lehto 2023, pp. 509–511). While Fleischer and Lehto (2023) provided a comprehensive overview of different libertarian arguments to reach this conclusion, here I concentrate on the idea of one of the most prominent basic income advocates, Philippe Van Parijs.^[20] This particular argument in favor of basic income was characterized as left libertarian due to its emphasis on freedom (Fleischer and Lehto 2023, p. 524). However, Van Parijs (1991), Van Parijs (1997), and Van Parijs and Vanderborght (2017) described their approach as real libertarian, arguing that a basic income would promote what they call real freedom.

In a first step, Van Parijs (1997, p. 25) defined real freedom as being distinct from formal freedom. Formal freedom is a prerequisite and entails security and self-ownership.^[21] To attain real freedom, individuals should not only be free from interference in the pursuit of their goals, but should also have “access to the means for doing what […] (they) might want to do” (Van Parijs 1997, p. 5). Second, Van Parijs (1997, pp. 18–19) emphasized that real freedom in a just society encompasses neutrality considering the life plans of its members. This includes the right not to work, or as in Van Parijs’s (1991) famous example: the right to live as a Malibu surfer.^[22] Therefore, in a just society, opportunities need to be distributed according to the maximin principle (Van Parijs 1997, pp. 27–29). Van Parijs (2021) reasoned that “a maximin criterion provides an appealing compromise between distributive considerations and efficiency considerations, between the equalisation of the shares and the maximisation of the sum” (Van Parijs 2021, p. 2).

Van Parijs (1997, p. 33) further stated that a uniform amount of cash paid to all would satisfy the maximin criterion in terms of real freedom. Van Parijs (1997, pp. 42–46) and Van Parijs (2021) argued in favor of cash because in a capitalist society, income would work best to enable individuals to pursue their version of the good life, buying consumption goods or leisure. Further, Van Parijs (1997) argued in favor of a uniform payment according to the criterion of undominated diversity. Based on Dworkin (1981a), Van Parijs (1997, pp. 61–86) stated that considering internal endowments of individuals, redistribution should be sensitive to arbitrarily assigned talents and abilities, but only if talents were dominated.^[23] In short, domination means that all members of a society agree that the set of internal endowments of one person is strictly preferred over those of another, which Van Parijs (1997) rendered improbable.^[24] Ultimately, this yields the conclusion that “if we are serious about pursuing real-freedom-for-all […] what we have to go for is the highest unconditional income for all consistent with security and self-ownership” (Van Parijs 1997, p. 33).

To sum up, Van Parijs (1997) and Van Parijs and Vanderborght (2017) argued that in order for a society to be deemed just, it should adopt a basic income system. Such a system would increase opportunities as measured by the income of the most marginalized individuals. I contend that any discourse on this issue must consider the impact of basic income on the homeless community because this diverse group faces significant disadvantages in terms of income, as I discuss further in Section 4.

3.2 Liberal Egalitarianism

Both the liberal egalitarian and the real libertarian approach to basic income are guided by considerations of freedom and neutrality (Sirsch and Unger 2021, p. 213).^[25] Yet, the liberal egalitarian perspective enriches the discussion by focusing on the effects of a basic income policy on the distribution of self-respect. According to Rawls (1999, pp. 386–388), self-respect has two components: first, a feeling of self-worth and, second, confidence in one’s own abilities to succeed. The feeling of self-worth is supported if an individual has defined their version of the good life and if this version is recognized as valuable by others. Communal recognition also contributes to individual confidence to pursue this version of the good life, hence, to the second component of self-respect. The relation is illustrated by Figure 2.

Figure 2:

The relation between the components of self-respect according to Rawls (1999).

Most egalitarian basic income scholars argue in favor of the policy in addition to public good provision, explicitly contrasting effects of a basic income to those of conditional social security (Sirsch 2021).^[26] Fischer (2023) questioned whether payments should be conditioned on the willingness to be employed formally, because the provision of formal work depends on other forms of work, such as care work.^[27] Other authors argued that means tests and willingness-to-work requirements of conditional schemes would cause feelings of shame due to necessary administrative intrusion in the personal lives of those deemed in need. Hence, these measures would decrease self-worth. Finally, the communal perception of those receiving a conditional minimum income as needy would decrease the bases of self-respect (Birnbaum 2010; McKinnon 2003; Sirsch 2021). In contrast, universal and unconditional basic income would establish an income floor for the least advantaged without stigma. Further, basic income would enable communal participation by providing individuals with an exit option from degrading formal labor contracts (Birnbaum 2010; McKinnon 2003; McKinnon 2006). To sum up, “(p)roviding people with access to (and not preventing them from taking part in) meaningful forms of participation, with opportunities for social recognition is, no doubt, very important if we want to promote social conditions for the development of a person’s confidence in her abilities and lively sense of her own worth” (Birnbaum 2010, p. 502, emphasis in original).

Thus far, the presented arguments suggest that a basic income policy would increase the self-respect of those who are “in low paid, menial, exhausting work” (McKinnon 2003, p. 148; see also Birnbaum 2010), hence, in a formal employment relation. Extending this perspective, Fukuma (2017) argued in favor of a basic income “to guarantee institutionally both ‘the right to meaningful work’ and ‘the right not to work’” (Fukuma 2017, p. 5). While agreeing that a meaningful activity lies at the core of the concept of self-respect, Fukuma (2017) reasoned that individuals would evaluate tasks differently concerning the additional value to their version of the good life (Fukuma 2017, p. 5). Basic income would give people the chance to engage in meaningful work either in the formal sphere or outside of it. Relying on a similarly inclusive definition of work, Fischer (2023) argued that communal recognition could be received by being active in any reproductive sphere, be it within the formal labor market, the family, or another part of civil society, for example, providing volunteer work. Basic income would promote all forms of communal participation, while stigma attached to activities outside of the formal labor market would decrease (Fischer 2023, pp. 8–10); hence, corresponding self-respect would increase. Extending the argument to the informal sphere has a further implication, namely that the worst-off individual of a society in terms of self-respect is not necessarily taking part in the formal labor market. Thereby, this reasoning adds relevance to the presented research, identifying homeless persons as least advantaged in modern welfare states.

To sum up, liberal egalitarian scholars put forward the idea that for a society to be considered just, it should embrace a basic income system due to its positive effects on self-respect. I argue that any conversation on this matter must consider the impact of basic income on the homeless community because this diverse group faces significant disadvantages in terms of their ability to formulate a meaningful life plan, their confidence to pursue this plan, and communal recognition of both, which relates to self-respect. Further evidence on this argument is given in Section 4.

3.3 Republicanism

The third way to justify basic income as discussed by this article is republicanism. Republicans define freedom as non-domination. An individual is free from domination when it is free from the possibility of arbitrary, hence, uncontrolled, interference horizontally from fellow citizens and vertically from the state (Casassas and De Wispelaere 2016, p. 285; Raventós 2007, pp. 62–64). An individual is controlled “when others are in a position of being able to interfere in any of those ways that gets me to behave according to their tastes” (Pettit 2007, p. 4). This ability does not need to be acted on because when an individual is subject to control, every action that is performed without interference is performed with the implicit consent of the controlling entity (Casassas and De Wispelaere 2016, p. 285; Pettit 2007). This form of “(s)ocial power is arbitrary to the extent that its possible exercise is not externally constrained by effective rules, procedures, or goals that are common knowledge to all relevant parties” (Lovett 2009, p. 821).

To ensure non-domination, socio-economic inequalities need to be decreased (Lovett 2009, pp. 822–825). Power asymmetries favor relationships of dependency and pose the risk of exploitation. Hence, poor individuals are more likely to be dominated. This is true for relations with their fellow citizens as well as with state entities. For example, conditional minimum income schemes require public intrusion into the private sphere and, therefore, encompass a possibility of domination by the state (Casassas and De Wispelaere 2016, p. 289; Lovett 2009, pp. 824, 826). To address these inequalities, republicans advocate measures to establish an economic ceiling (Casassas and De Wispelaere 2016, pp. 290–293; see also Neuhäuser 2018) and basic income.^[28]

A basic income “provides a direct and resolute strategy for systematically and continuously preventing conditions of exploitable dependency and vulnerability to abuse throughout people’s lives” (Fleischer and Lehto 2023, p. 591), due to regularity and unconditionality of the payment. This is especially true considering formal employees: Pateman (2007) argued that the employment relationship is inherently subject to subordination on the part of the employee because individuals can be laid off against their will. Hence, employment relations are “a vast area of hierarchy and subordination within supposedly democratic societies” (Pateman 2007, p. 4). Basic income would at least enable individuals to exit their jobs without losing their means for subsistence consumption and without being subject to state intrusion, such as by checking eligibility for welfare payments (Fleischer and Lehto 2023, p. 593).^[29] The same argument can be made for individuals exiting partnerships within which they financially depend on cohabiting (Pettit 2007, p. 5; Raventós 2007, pp. 70–72). To sum up, a basic income “would enable citizens to have the opportunity not to be employed” (Pateman 2007, p. 5, emphasis in original) or to sustain a living on their own. Hence, a basic income sets the “preconditions for citizens to interact as equals” (Fleischer and Lehto 2023, p. 594).

However, for republicans, basic income needs to fulfill certain conditions to contribute to freedom as non-domination. First, the amount of the basic income needs to be sufficient to enhance the individual’s economic bargaining power. Moreover, it needs to be implemented in addition to public good provision, so that basic income is not only used to cover necessary expenditures on health, education, and the like, but can effectively contribute to non-domination (Casassas and De Wispelaere 2016, pp. 288–289; Lovett 2009, pp. 826–828). Finally, the basic income needs to be embedded in a democracy and support active participation either in non-dominated formal employment or in informal ways of societal engagement such as unpaid care work (Birnbaum 2020, pp. 289–294).

Despite that the republican theory may differ from concerns of distributive justice (Smith 2021, p. 846), I frame the theory of non-domination as an account of distributive justice in line with Lovett (2009). Lovett (2009) explicitly defined justice as minimizing domination: “The political and social institutions or practices of any society are just to the extent that, in expectation, they will tend to minimize the sum total domination, counting the domination of each person equally” (Lovett 2009, p. 820). While Lovett (2009) argued that non-domination should be distributed in a utilitarian sense, the basic income scholarship usually centers its reasoning on the most vulnerable members of society because “people who depend on others’ goodwill […] are easier targets of control and domination” (Pettit 2007, p. 6). Therefore, I argue that the goal of any just society in a republican sense must be to enable non-domination for the least advantaged, hence, to maximin power.^[30]

3.4 Diverging Foundations for Basic Income Justice

This section clarifies how real libertarian, liberal egalitarian, and republican theories diverge in their justifications for basic income, with particular attention to the implications of these differences for the following discussion. Each approach offers distinct criteria for evaluating whether basic income achieves justice, which is made explicit in Section 4 by analyzing the living situation of the homeless population in Germany and providing a thought experiment on how a basic income may affect this particular group.

Real libertarians emphasize that in a capitalist society, income has the widest range of uses to increase opportunities of those who posses the least (Van Parijs 1997). Liberal egalitarians challenge the real libertarian position by emphasizing how self-respect, as the most important primary good, requires more than just income redistribution (McKinnon 2003). Where real libertarians see cash transfers as sufficient for justice concerning the homeless population, egalitarians would argue that homeless individuals need societal and institutional recognition. The liberal egalitarian approach thus reveals a crucial blind spot in real libertarian theory: its inability to account for the relational dimensions of dignity that go beyond mere resource provision. For instance, while a basic income might provide homeless individuals with greater purchasing power, it may not automatically guarantee their equal standing as citizens or address the social stigma they face as is discussed in Section 4.2.

Republicans introduce an even more fundamental critique by conceptualizing freedom not as opportunity sets or self-respect, but as non-domination. From this perspective, real libertarianism’s focus on cash transfers fails to address the systemic power imbalances that leave homeless individuals vulnerable to arbitrary interference – whether from institutions or fellow citizens. Republican theory demands institutional safeguards against such domination, arguing that justice requires not only redistribution of resources, but that non-domination be institutionally embedded ex ante (Casassas 2007, p. 5). This suggests that basic income needs to empower marginalized groups in order to be considered just. In light of this argument, I maintain that the conversation must consider the effects of basic income on the homeless population, as this heterogeneous group experiences the greatest disadvantages in terms of power, and thus interference from both fellow citizens and state agencies, which is discussed in Section 4.3.

The tensions between these approaches become particularly salient when comparing liberal egalitarian and republican perspectives. While both share critiques of real libertarianism, they diverge in their ultimate priorities. Liberal egalitarians remain focused on the social bases for self-respect and analyze how basic income may address this issue concerning marginalized populations. Republicans, by contrast, insist that basic income has to compensate for structural domination. Thereby, the republican concept of non-domination stresses the relational instead of the individual or recognitional aspects of basic income. Moreover, while for liberal egalitarians, redistribution is inherently just and basic income functions to maximin primary goods, for republicans redistribution via basic income is only instrumental, serving to reduce domination (Sirsch and Unger 2021, p. 1009).^[31] This fundamental disagreement about whether justice requires self-respect or power restructuring explains why proponents from different traditions might evaluate the same basic income policy quite differently when applied to the homeless population.

To sum up, the approaches to justify a basic income presented in this section evaluate the hierarchy of relevant social primary goods that are essential for a society to be just differently. Thereby, this section stresses the need to evaluate the introduction of a basic income policy from different points of view. In Section 4, the presented theories are used to discuss the research question on how a basic income policy would affect the living situation of homeless persons, the risks to becoming homeless, as well as possible exit barriers to homelessness. The discussion follows the suggestion by Rawls (1999) that “(i)t is fairly straightforward to ascertain what things will advance the interests of the least favored. This group can be identified by its index of primary goods, and policy questions can be settled by asking how the relevant representative man suitably situated would choose” (Rawls 1999, p. 281). Hence, the justness of the basic income policy depends on its effects on the homeless population, which I identify in the following to be least advantaged in terms of an index of primary goods. The index of primary goods as suggested by real libertarians, liberal egalitarians, and republicans consists of income, self-respect, and power.

4.1 Income

This section draws on the real libertarian idea of justice, identifying homeless individuals as least advantaged in terms of opportunities, which, in a capitalist society, are most effectively enabled by disposable income as argued by Van Parijs (1997, pp. 42–46) and Van Parijs (2021).^[34] A study in North Rhine-Westphalia showed that 26 percent of homeless persons living on the streets or with third parties did not possess any regular source of income; hence, they solely lived on in-kind provision by non-governmental organizations or on what they earned from begging and collecting bottle deposits.^[35] Loss of subsistence income occurred even though most homeless persons are entitled to either unemployment or social assistance. At the same time, 7 percent of the homeless population generated income from formal or informal employment, 52 percent received unemployment assistance, and 6 percent received social assistance (Brüchmann et al. 2022b, pp. 47–51). However, it is plausible to assume that in most cases neither income source elevates homeless persons above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is 60 percent of the median income and is equivalent to 1,250 euros per month for a single adult living in Germany (German Federal Statistical Office 2022). Overall, I conclude that homeless persons are the least advantaged group in terms of income in Germany. Therefore, here I discuss how a basic income policy would improve the living situation of homeless persons in terms of income as well as affect the income-related risks to becoming homeless and the exit barriers in place.

The simulation study by Bach and Hamburg (2023) showed that a basic income policy would increase household net income of the lowest income decile of the German population by 63 percent. Particularly, the amount of current social security transfers is lower for homeless persons than for housed persons because local authorities pay rent for the latter group. Hence, the basic income amount would most certainly exceed the amount of present cash transfers by unemployment and social assistance for homeless persons. Therefore, a basic income may enable individuals to generate savings while not having to pay rent, as was found by the experimental study on basic income for homeless persons in Vancouver (Dwyer et al. 2023, p. 3). Notably though, as part of the study in Vancouver homeless persons were paid 7,500 Canadian dollars as an initial lump-sum transfer and, therefore, effects on savings might differ between one-time and regular basic income payments.^[36]

Concerning the income of subgroups, low-income families with children would profit the most from a basic income introduction (Bach and Hamburg 2023, pp. 18–19). In contrast to the current system, families would be better situated than single parents for whom specifically designed policies, such as child support advance payment, would be cut. Nevertheless, on average, single parents would still be better off income-wise with basic income than with social security in place.

A basic income may be more effective in increasing homeless people’s incomes because of three characteristics that distinguish it from the current social security system: salience, universality, and unconditionality. A basic income policy would be paid to almost everyone living in the state territory, so it would prevent loss of income due to missing information on applicable social security measures. Moreover, complex means tests to determine eligibility would not be needed to generate income which would reduce administrative measures and enable those who were previously deterred by the complexity of the system to secure a stable income. Finally, unconditionality would prevent income loss due to behavioral sanctions. As Birnbaum (2023, p. 528) put it: “no lack of information or skills, no bureaucratic obstacles or complex rules would prevent people with a low income from passing eligibility conditions, or from actually claiming the benefits intended to prevent or alleviate poverty.” Empirical evidence of the Denver Basic Income Project strengthened this intuition, demonstrating that financial well-being of homeless participants receiving a regular payment increased after three months, irrespective of the concrete amount (Brisson et al. 2023, pp. 19–22).

However, whether a basic income can increase the income of homeless individuals also depends on administrative details. While some homeless persons possess identification and non-profit organizations provide a registered address, which is needed to open a bank account, not all homeless individuals will meet these requirements. Basic income could be managed similarly to unemployment assistance, by requiring homeless persons to check in with the responsible local agency regularly to receive checks that can be cashed in. Alternatively, a refillable debit card could be distributed as in the Denver Basic Income Project (Brisson et al. 2023, p. 2). Although problems may still exist regarding lack of identification for some people and potential double payments if one’s identification is not checked, this would not render the basic income policy unjust, because the justifications as presented in Section 3 are concerned with the policy’s effects on the least advantaged. Double payments are permissible as long as feasibility of a basic income is not threatened by the practice. This is because homeless persons are better off with a basic income income-wise, irrespective of receiving it once or twice.

Concerning risks to becoming homeless, some income-related risks include separation, former incarceration, and transition from foster care (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 41–42). With an individual payment, the financial dependence resulting from cohabiting would be reduced, enabling separation without risking homelessness. Moreover, for former inmates, the reliability being reinstalled with an income directly after release may reduce difficulties in securing follow-up accommodation. The same is true for youth exiting foster care. However, in metropolitan areas, where most homeless individuals live, rents are high and a basic income payment of 1,200 euros will not elevate individuals from being at risk of poverty (German Federal Statistical Office 2022). Moreover, in contrast to the current social system (see for example § 22 SGB II; §§ 4, 12 WOGG), a basic income would not give individuals additional reasonable living expenses that vary according to regional prices and household composition. Because the distributional effects of a basic income favor families over singles (Bach and Hamburg 2023, pp. 18–19), whether a basic income would effectively reduce the risk of becoming homeless may still depend on one’s living situation. In particular, a payment of 1,200 euros may not decrease the risk of rental arrears for singles and single parents in metropolitan areas.

Concerning the interaction of individual crises causing rental arrears and the institutional support structure, a basic income may reduce rental arrears because a regular source of income enables regular rent payments. However, the current support system is basically designed to ensure that rental arrears do not cause homelessness (e.g., § 36 SGB XII). Yet, almost 50 percent of homeless individuals did not ask public institutions for support when they were threatened with homelessness (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 41–42). Hence, the real threat of homelessness in the current system is having rental arrears and not knowing about or not wanting to make use of support structures in place. In the national report on homelessness, it was suggested that to prevent homelessness, information on existing measures would have to be distributed more effectively (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, p. 42). In contrast, a basic income would be far more salient than current social security measures, solving the information problem. Moreover, it would be less intrusive due to universality, so it may reduce non-take-up for stigma-related reasons, as I discuss later in the context of self-respect.

Effects of a basic income on the housing market as a structural factor contributing to homelessness remain unclear. On the one hand, a basic income policy that increases the financial capacity of low-income families could increase pressure on the low-income housing market (Clarke 2023, p. 871). With increasing household budgets and housing demand and without a corresponding increase in supply of affordable housing, rents could increase without solving the problem of an affordable housing shortage, as any increases in housing supply due to rising prices would considerably lag increases in demand. On the other hand, a basic income could relieve pressure on the housing market in metropolitan areas. If employment is no longer the main source of income, migration from urban to rural areas may be facilitated, as rural areas are more attractive due to lower prices. However, since moving is another risk of homelessness, such a development may lead to an increase in homelessness in rural areas if individuals fail to cope with the disruption of changing living circumstances. In addition, introducing a basic income policy may increase immigration of net beneficiaries, putting further pressure on the existing systems and the tax base from which a basic income that relies on income tax is financed (Löffler 2021).

Similar arguments apply for income-related exit barriers. Bureaucracy would be simplified and support would be more easily attainable, possibly increasing the chances of exiting homelessness.^[37] Moreover, reentering the housing market often requires deposit payments of up to two months’ rents. Since a basic income would be paid without means test, homeless persons could save up to afford deposits (Kerman 2021, p. 6). However, excess demand on affordable housing may inhibit individuals who do not conform to societal expectations from reentering the housing market despite sufficient income (German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency 2024). Renters could even be more hesitant to give flats to formerly homeless persons when rent payment is not managed by local agency but by individuals themselves. Hence, a basic income policy could even worsen exit barriers to homelessness, because access to affordable housing does not solely depend on income (Clarke 2023), which is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

To sum up, homeless individuals in Germany are presently the worst off in terms of income. A basic income has the potential to effectively boost many homeless peoples’ incomes because the policy is more prominent and less complicated. Moreover, the suggested amount is higher than the cash benefits provided by current social security measures in Germany. A basic income policy might also reduce the risk of homelessness due to income-related issues, as regular income can help prevent rental arrears. Furthermore, the ability to save money with a basic income could make it easier for individuals to exit homelessness. Overall, the homeless population’s income may increase with a basic income policy, so the introduction of a basic income policy can be justified according to real libertarian ethics.

4.2 Self-Respect

In this section, I use the concept of self-respect as defined in the liberal egalitarian tradition by a feeling of self-worth, having defined one’s version of a good life, and confidence in the ability to pursue this life, both being supported by communal recognition (Rawls 1999, pp. 386–388).^[38] However, according to this definition, homeless individuals report to feel socially downgraded and left alone (Fischer 2023, p. 4; Szczepanek 2021, p. 80), and the homeless population in Germany suffers from mental and physical health issues. Among those living on the streets or with third parties, 54 percent reported that they are impacted mentally or physically, suffer from substance abuse, or experience a combination of the three. While men more often reported physical impairments or substance addictions, women more often reported suffering from mental health issues. Further, 20 percent of the German homeless population does not have access to tap water. In general, homeless persons stated that they feel significantly less healthy than the German average (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 45–47, 102, 111; German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2022, pp. 34–35; German Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building 2025, p. 8). It is plausible to assume that these issues inhibit building up the confidence to pursue their own version of a good life, thus, they inhibit building up self-respect.

Given that communal recognition is seen as the basis of self-respect, the homeless population itself is perceived as a rather unstable community (Sonnenberg 2021, p. 27). The study in Dortmund showed that homeless individuals identify themselves as loners with loose social ties and relationships that are based on sharing a common fate rather than trusting each other: “The core of their common identity is the ever-present crisis of homelessness”^[39] (Sonnenberg 2021, p. 50). Moreover, homeless individuals are subject to prejudice, as they are perceived as a financial burden (Hövermann et al. 2015, pp. 412–413). The societal mainstream sees homeless individuals as “symbolic figures for existing problems like a stressed housing market, psychological problems, alcohol and drug consumption, broken biographies and gaps in the social welfare system”^[40] (Sonnenberg 2021, p. 53). Therefore, homelessness is argued to be “the most extreme form of social exclusion” (Leterme and Develtere 2023, p. 35). Hence, being confronted with health issues, experiencing low communal cohesion, and being subject to prejudice, I argue that the homeless population is least advantaged in terms of their ability to be confident in their version of the good life and enjoying communal recognition, hence, in terms of self-respect. In the following, I discuss how a basic income policy would affect the living situation of homeless persons in terms of self-respect, as well as the self-respect-related risks to becoming homeless.

Empirical studies that have examined whether regular payments can help stabilize mental health and, thus, allow people to pursue a meaningful life have had mixed results. The study in London, providing rough sleepers with a personalized budget, reported improvements in participants’ mental health (Hough and Rice 2010, pp. 16, 23). The qualitative midterm report on the Denver Basic Income Project found that when homeless individuals received basic income payments, they were less stressed and more hopeful concerning their future (Westbrook 2023, p. 9).^[41] However, the quantitative midterm report of the same project found only slightly positive and even negative effects (Brisson et al. 2023, pp. 23–27). The presented difference may result from the unmasked research design. Because participants knew that they would profit from regular payments in the upcoming year when they filled out the initial survey, which was used as reference point for the quantitative study, this may have positively biased their self-reports on mental health in anticipation of being part of the program (Brisson et al. 2023, p. 35). Yet, because survey and interview participation was optional, a selection bias could also have resulted in a larger share of positively affected homeless persons reporting their experiences in the qualitative and the quantitative study. Hence, present empirical evidence on how a basic income would affect homeless people’s mental health is inconclusive, so no indication can be hypothesized for the German case.

Moreover, one could argue that a basic income would worsen homeless people’s potential for self-harm, by providing more funds to be spent on temptation goods. For this reason, some studies excluded homeless persons who were severely mentally impaired or suffered from substance abuse (Denver Basic Income Project 2022; Morton et al. 2020). However, despite this apprehension being shared by the societal mainstream (Dwyer et al. 2023, p. 7), empirical evidence indicated that spending on temptation goods would not be different with basic income (Dwyer et al. 2023, pp. 3–6).^[42] In the pilot study in London, participants reported explicitly that they had reduced alcohol consumption. Further, while another participant stated that he initially sold items that he intended to use to exit homelessness on substances, after one year, he was abstaining from substance abuse after 20 years of previous consumption (Hough and Rice 2010, pp. 16–17, 25, 53–54). Considering all studies, no empirical evidence suggests that a basic income will harm the health of the homeless population.

In fact, McKay, Bennett, and Dunn (2023) provided an overview on studies reporting that a basic income might have positive effects on people’s health and well-being.^[43] While this review did not include studies targeting the homeless population, participants from the London experiment also reported improvements in physical health, supporting them in learning basic living skills, like cooking (Hough and Rice 2010, p. 16). Yet, a basic income’s positive effects on health may depend on the regularity of the payment because the experimental study in Vancouver, initiating a lump-sum transfer, did not find significant positive effects on cognitive functioning, well-being, or substance use (Dwyer et al. 2023, pp. 5–6). Thus, it is questionable whether a basic income would positively affect mental and physical health of homeless individuals. Therefore, I conclude that the present evidence does not suggest that a basic income would improve the confidence of homeless persons in their ability to live a meaningful life, which is one aspect of self-respect.

Regarding the basis of self-respect, many argue that a basic income will positively influence communal recognition because the payments are universal and unconditional. Without means testing and work requirements, the stigma attached to welfare payments may diminish (Birnbaum 2010; McKinnon 2003).^[44] Yet, “it is possible that stigma would still attach to those […] who lack the outward signs of personal wealth and affluence.” (McKinnon 2003, p. 152). Moreover, the division between net beneficiaries and net recipients would remain and “some recipients may see themselves as more deserving of BI (basic income, author’s note) payments (e.g., retirees) than other groups (e.g., the homeless)” (Clarke 2023, p. 867). Finally, if communal perception is related to the prejudiced view that homeless persons are a financial burden to society (Hövermann et al. 2015, pp. 412–413), this perception might be fostered by the universality of the payment, because the previous assumption that homeless individuals are beneficiaries of state money becomes a certainty. Hence, even with a basic income policy, the societal mainstream may still perceive homeless persons as subordinate because stigma will still be attached to being unhoused, and the stigma-decreasing effect of a basic income will only relate to no longer needing a targeted welfare payment. Moreover, intersectional discrimination on the grounds of race, origin, disability, gender, and sexuality will remain untouched.

Aside from the issue of stigma, basic income can still enable homeless individuals to spend more time on engaging in mutually beneficial communal relationships instead of trying to secure a living (Fischer 2023, pp. 6–11). The qualitative study on personalized budgets for rough sleepers in London showed that participants engaged more in existing relationships and even built new ones. Three participants registered for courses in IT, art, and gardening.^[45] Yet, some participants were negatively impacted by relocating to shelters with the help of the budget, for example, they increased their alcohol use, and, in one case, were imprisoned (Hough and Rice 2010, pp. 8–9, 16). Moreover, some participants of the Denver Basic Income Project reported having to cut ties due to envy from those not receiving a basic income (Westbrook 2023, pp. 7–8; Westbrook 2024, p. 19). While the problem of envy would probably be less significant with a widely applicable basic income, participants of the basic income experiment in Vancouver reported lower feelings of connectedness nine months after basic income payments, possibly due to changing of location and, thus, community (Dwyer et al. 2023, p. 6). Yet, the effect disappeared in surveys three months later, indicating only initial adaptation problems. Hence, moving may result in the formation of a more reliable social net that could strengthen homeless persons’ basis of self-respect and even prevent homelessness if crises occur in the long-term.

One subgroup that may particularly benefit from a basic income are families. The Denver Basic Income Project revealed that homeless caretakers spent more and better time with their children and grandchildren. Moreover, basic income was often used to buy presents for friends and families, strengthening relationships (Westbrook 2023, pp. 7–8). While after 10 month, the impact of basic income on relationships became only apparent when more specific questions were asked in the qualitative report (Westbrook 2023, p. 19), the quantitative report revealed significant reduction in parenting distress (Brisson et al. 2024, p. 40). One reason for this could be that families at risk of homelessness are able to spend more time on unpaid activities such as child care without fearing homelessness (Kerman 2021, p. 8). Hence, a basic income may improve leisure quantity and quality of homeless persons, as well as the conditions for unpaid work, supporting communal ties, and, thereby, improve the basis of self-respect (Kerman 2021, p. 7; McKinnon 2003).^[46]

Finally, a basic income might allow homeless people to more easily gain formal employment, which is a possible basis for self-respect, because such a universal income would remove disincentives to pick up employment due to welfare payment withdrawal (Birnbaum 2020, p. 294; Kerman 2021, p. 7). The final report of the Denver Basic Income Project strengthened this intuition, reporting that a basic income led to increases in participants’ formal employment after one year for groups receiving a basic income. In contrast, the active comparison group’s employment share decreased (Brisson et al. 2024, pp. 29–32). However, the initial employment of participants in the Denver Basic Income Project was already quite high (they included part-time, temporary, and under-the-table employment), with only two percent of participants reporting to be unemployed at the beginning of the experiment (Brisson et al. 2023, pp. 19–22).

Looking at risk factors of becoming homeless, a basic income might have positive effects on psychological problems if it is able to reduce the stress related to sustaining a living and the stigma attached to welfare payments (Kerman 2021, p. 8). While this would only be true if stress and missing communal recognition are causes and not symptoms of deeper psychological issues, a basic income can further enable individuals to seek support for individual psychological problems “on their own terms, without coercion, and without their personal problems being blamed for, or treated as the key to addressing, their homelessness” (Clarke 2023, p. 873). The unconditionality of the payment could at least make it easier for individuals at risk of homelessness to access additional support services (Birnbaum 2023, p. 583). Yet, evidence that a basic income can improve mental health is ambiguous.

Overall, I contend that the homeless population in Germany is currently least advantaged in terms of self-respect. The belief in one’s ability to lead a meaningful life can potentially be positively influenced by a basic income policy if the policy improves mental and physical health. Yet, the empirical evidence on this topic is inconclusive. Moreover, the introduction of a basic income policy may reduce the negative perception associated with receiving welfare payments. However, for the homeless population, stigma may still be attached to living in poverty and being unhoused. Lastly, basic income has been found to have a positive effect on communal relationships, which is a fundamental aspect of self-respect. Hence, the effects of a basic income on homeless persons’ self-respect are ambiguous, challenging the justness of the policy from a liberal egalitarian perspective.

4.3 Power

In this section, I argue that homeless persons in Germany are least advantaged in terms of power, defined as their ability to secure a position of non-domination by fellow citizens and state authorities, which forms the republican idea of justice (Casassas and De Wispelaere 2016, p. 285; Raventós 2007, pp. 62–64).^[47] First, I consider the relation between homeless persons and fellow citizens. Homeless individuals are often subject to group-focused enmity (Sonnenberg 2021, p. 57), which is based on “an institutional imbalance of power in favor of the economy” (Hövermann et al. 2015, p. 409) in contrast to family, friendship, religion, and politics. A so-called marketized mentality encompasses individualism, emphasizing individual success as decisive for moral evaluation. Therefore, homeless individuals who are presumed to be unemployed are perceived as a societal burden. This relation between marketized mentality and prejudice against homeless individuals was found to be positive and significant for Germany (Hövermann et al. 2015, p. 416; see also Davidov et al. 2011, p. 488).

Such prejudice may legitimize verbal and physical violence to sustain subordination of the homeless population (Küpper and Zick 2014, pp. 243–247; Sidanius and Pratto 2012). In Germany, almost 67 percent of homeless persons living on the streets and 39 percent of those living with third parties experienced violence. Homeless persons with physical or mental health issues and women were more often victimized than others. Particularly, in 2022, almost 80 percent of women living on the streets experienced violence, and one-third of all homeless women was subject to sexual violence. Of those who experienced violence, eight percent were exposed to commercial sexual exploitation (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 51–54; German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2022, p. 10; German Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building 2025, p. 9). The study in Dortmund showed that undocumented sex workers, in particular, were mutually dependent on substances and clients to finance their consumption (Sonnenberg 2021, pp. 44–48). Even if not subject to abuse, dependence on begging and collecting bottle deposits makes some of the homeless population dependent on others, at least income-wise (Brüchmann et al. 2022b, pp. 47–51). Therefore, as an interim result, I find that homeless persons in Germany are subject to domination by fellow citizens.

Moreover, homeless persons are subject to domination by state institutions. Local agencies check the eligibility of applicants in need and sanction possible misdemeanors. While the relation between those seeking support and those deciding on its provision is regulated by law, it is also one of perceived dependency (Weishaupt, Hinrichs, and Weckwerth 2023, p. 6). For example, 30 percent of homeless individuals with rental arrears had asked for support at job centers, the city, or at counseling centers, but did not receive it. 25 percent feel explicitly discriminated by state agencies (Brüchmann et al. 2022a, pp. 40–42; German Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building 2025, p. 9).^[48] Hence, I conclude that homeless persons are least advantaged in terms of power facing both fellow citizens and state entities. Therefore, in the following, I discuss how a basic income policy would affect their living situation in terms of power, as well as how it affects the power-related risks of becoming homeless and exit barriers to being homeless.

The effects of a basic income policy on enmity concerning the homeless population are ambiguous. On the one hand, it is plausible to assume that enmity toward the homeless population would be reduced if a basic income would cause the economical sphere to be less dominant, mitigating marketized mentality. Advocates of the basic income argue that the policy would radically alter the societal structure by enhancing the value allocated to non-market activities (Henderson 2023). Thereby, competing spheres to the market, like community and family (Fischer 2023), friendship, religion, and politics (Hövermann et al. 2015), may gain importance. Moreover, empirical evidence showed that public support for policies targeting homeless persons is higher if policies benefit the society as a whole (Parsell, Clarke, and Kuskoff 2023, p. 16). Since basic income is paid to the population universally, the group of net beneficiaries exceeds the homeless population. Hence, the public’s attitude toward basic income may be more positive than towards targeted social welfare measures (Clarke 2023, p. 872; Dwyer et al. 2023, p. 7). To sum up, a less powerful marketized mentality and positive attitudes toward basic income may reduce prejudices placed on the homeless population. On the other hand, if the introduction of a basic income policy fosters the idea that homeless persons are a societal burden and prejudice is still attached to living unhoused, enmity and resulting violence could persist or even become worse. Hence, a basic income policy may affect homeless persons’ power with respect to fellow citizens and the societal mainstream either way. Moreover, effects are intertwined with the discussion on stigma in the previous section and, therefore, with the effects of a basic income on self-respect.

Scholars have debated whether a basic income tends to foster either emancipation or persisting gender inequalities (Lenczewska 2022);^[49] yet, the effects of a basic income policy may differ substantially from the current debate when considering homeless women’s power. In particular, Cameron, Tedds, and Yu (2023) extracted three hypotheses from the literature on the effects of a basic income on gender-based violence. First, cash transfers could increase women’s financial bargaining power, enabling them to exit violence-based relationships. Second, cash transfers could threaten male dominance within the household setting and, thereby, increase gender-based violence. Finally, cash transfers could decrease financial stress, which is a possible cause of gender-based violence (Cameron, Tedds, and Yu 2023, pp. 17–18). A review on empirical studies by Wong and Forget (2024) showed that unconditional cash transfers were associated with decreases in physical intimate partner violence against women, while evidence on mental abuses was ambiguous. In addition, female participants had to prostitute themselves less often.

While there is no empirical evidence on the effects of a basic income on homeless women in particular, the presented results indicate positive effects on homeless women’s living situation. Homeless women who live with third parties could reduce financial dependence on those housing them, thus affecting the power imbalance in their favor. Moreover, for sex workers, in particular, a basic income may enable homeless women to reduce dependency on clients, thereby freeing up resources to counter a possible dependency on substances, eventually securing an empowered position.^[50] Hence, while it is unclear whether a basic income would generally increase homeless people’s power with respect to their fellow citizens, a basic income may indeed increase homeless women’s power.

Concerning homeless people’s power with respect to state agencies, universality and unconditionality of the basic income payment would reduce state agencies’ power. Public officials could no longer evaluate eligibility, make behavioral demands, or decide on sanctions; hence, power imbalances of the current system may be reduced by a basic income policy. This intuition is strengthened by empirical evidence. Midterm results of the Denver Basic Income Project indicated that homeless persons with basic income reduced contact with service providers addressing basic needs of homeless persons (Brisson et al. 2023, pp. 29–33), but they increased contact with those aiding to secure housing (Westbrook 2023, p. 12).^[51] This evidence suggests that with the security of a basic income, homeless persons prefer not to rely on service structures that help with immanent needs and are able to decide more autonomously on how to use the most effective support structures for their individual cases. Hence, a basic income may contribute to securing an empowered position for homeless persons with respect to state agencies.

A similar argument can be made concerning risks of becoming homeless and barriers to exiting homelessness. Individuals with rental arrears regain autonomy when they are able to pay rent on their own without being dependent on state institutions, for example, having to apply for housing subsidies. The ability to pay rent autonomously would have further effects on people’s risk of becoming homeless and trying to exit homelessness when dealing with landlords. On the one hand, the universality of the basic income payment may reduce discrimination by landlords against those who formerly relied on state agencies for rent payments, since income is secured for everyone.^[52] On the other hand, housing discrimination may remain due to other characteristics of homeless persons, such as sexual orientation, race, origin, unemployment (German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency 2024; Kerman 2021, pp. 6–7), or merely the fact of being homeless.

Moreover, without the security of rent payments via state agencies, barriers to reenter the housing market for homeless persons may become higher, because landlords may not trust formerly homeless persons to pay rent regularly. Further exit barriers may remain, like requirements on being debt-free and possessing positive credit ratings (Busch-Geertsema 2017, p. 78; Busch-Geertsema, Henke, and Steffen 2020, p. 90). Therefore, while basic income “has the capacity to address the income side of the housing affordability crisis” (Clarke 2023, p. 870), access to affordable housing remains a necessary condition to exit homelessness. To sum up, a basic income may improve the power of people at risk of becoming homeless with respect to state institutions, but these people’s power with respect to landlords may remain low, particularly for persons attempting to exit homelessness.

In conclusion, I contend that homeless persons are least advantaged in terms of power with respect to fellow citizens and state agencies. The introduction of a basic income policy may impact existing animosity towards homeless persons in different ways, depending on whether prejudice is presently based on being a welfare claimant or living unhoused. In the latter case, a basic income only improves power imbalances if it contributes to exiting homelessness. The particular groups of homeless women who live with acquaintances and homeless sex workers may experience positive effects from a basic income, as it enhances their financial independence. Additionally, individuals’ power may increase when dealing with government agencies that no longer assess eligibility for welfare payments. Yet, being able to independently pay rent without involving state agencies, may weaken the standing of persons trying to exit homelessness when it comes to landlords. Consequently, basic income can only partly secure an empowered position for homeless persons, making it unclear whether the policy can be deemed just from a republican perspective.