Band 14, Heft 2 -

This paper reports the results of an economic lab experiment designed to test the impact of Basic Income (BI) on wages and productivity. The experimental design is based on the classic gift exchange game. Participants assigned the role of employer were tasked with making wage offers, and those assigned as employees chose how hard they would work in return. In addition to a control without any social security net, BI was compared to unemployment benefits, and both types of cash transfers were tested at two levels. The results are that wage offers were increased in both the BI and unemployment benefit treatments compared to the control. The higher-level BI treatment also significantly increased effort. Further experimentation could shed more light on how the potential extra value created in the labor market through increased productivity would be divided between employers and employees.

The cost of basic income is typically estimated for a particular year. However, to assess the financial feasibility of basic income, it is also important to consider how much basic income will cost in the future. This is especially important in countries experiencing an ageing population, where the proportion of workers is expected to shrink. This article considers basic income as a universal life annuity and develops two models based on actuarial concepts to estimate the flat tax rate required to finance basic income. The first model considers the cost of basic income over the lifetime of the current population and the second model additionally considers changing population dynamics. The proposed models are conceptually simple, providing a straightforward way to assess the financial feasibility of basic income. Using Singapore data, the models show that the monthly cut-off income separating net contributors and net recipients is around $2710 and benefits around 39 % of adult residents. A tax rate of around 22 % is required to support a basic income of $600.

This article draws upon clinical experience of GPs working in a deprived area of the North East of England to examine the potential contribution of Universal Basic Income to health by mitigating ‘patient-side barriers’ among three cohorts experiencing distinct forms of ‘precariousness’: 1) long-term unemployed welfare recipients with low levels of education (lumpenprecariat); 2) workers on short-term/zero-hours contracts with low levels of education (‘lower’ precariat); 3) workers on short-term/zero-hours contracts with relatively high levels of education (‘upper’ precariat). We argue that any benefits must be accompanied by robust institutions capable of promoting health.

Global GDP is more than 100 trillion dollars, yet 10 % of the world’s population still live in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 per day. No one should have to live like that: alleviating poverty is a minimal moral obligation implied by nearly every secular and religious moral system. Unfortunately, neither economic growth nor conventional international aid can be relied upon to fulfil this obligation. A global basic income programme that transferred $1 per day from the rich world to each poor person would eliminate extreme poverty directly and at negligible cost. It is the least we should do.