Volume 20, Issue 1

Technological unemployment is what happens when automation eliminates jobs and not enough new jobs arrive to employ everyone, leaving part of the workforce permanently unemployed. Who owns the money that used to pay them? Business owners will argue that it’s theirs. I will argue that it’s not. I consider and refute several arguments for their claim, and then argue that this money is collective property. Because it’s collective property, we can use it to fund basic incomes for the technologically unemployed without violating anyone’s property rights. Moreover, it is equal in amount to the total incomes lost to technological unemployment, and therefore big enough to fund a decent standard of living for the unemployed, no matter how numerous they are. This is a new kind of collective property, distinct and different from other collective properties, such as the natural world, employment rents, and social capital.

A basic income (BI) is defined by its characteristics, in contrast to a means-tested benefit, or more accurately here, an income-tested benefit (ITB). Both are tax-exempt. However, the ITB recipients’ gross incomes are taxed in two stages. An ITB is defined by the mechanism (a taper) used to ensure that a recipient does not profit unduly from the benefit. The special case of an ITB that is ‘a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis’ would still not be categorised as a BI when gross income is zero, because ITBs are means-tested. The BI’s essential characteristic ‘without means test’ is identified as ‘it is separate from, and paid prior to, any taxation of incomes or wealth’. The consequences of this essential difference are summarised here. The effects of the characteristics of a BI and the structural features of a typical ITB system are also explored.

Left-libertarianism comes in two main varieties: equal share and equal opportunity for well-being. Although equal share left-libertarians have supported a basic income guarantee, its equal opportunity counterparts either ignore a basic income in their theorizing or reject it. This article offers four reasons why left-libertarians should consider a basic income as a way to promote equality of opportunity for well-being: a basic income enhances self-respect, a basic income opens up the possibility of personal projects beyond traditional employment, a basic income protects negative freedom, and a basic income minimizes potential for abuses and mistakes of centralized authorities. Peter Vallentyne’s objection to basic income is also considered. His asset-oriented account of the Lockean proviso is rejected in favor of an equality-promoting account that requires a substantial basic income.

The productive impacts of cash transfer (CT) programs have not been widely studied, though interest in this area is growing, with existing evidence generally pointing to rather positive findings. Notably, one key takeaway from the (limited) available research is the debunking of a common criticism drawn against cash transfers and social assistance, more in general – namely, the assumption that social programs disincentivize or discourage work. Even less is known about the sustainability of CT impacts, as these interventions are typically designed as short-term programs. To address this gap, we conducted a quasi-experimental study of a universal unconditional cash transfer initiative in rural Uganda. Our study examined whether effects on savings, debt, investment, incomes, assets and labour allocation (if any) persisted after the end of the transfer. Despite the concurrent outbreak of COVID-19, our findings revealed several sustained impacts, particularly on savings, (agricultural) incomes and business ownership.

Cash assistance programs have been piloted as Basic or Guaranteed Income across the United States. This research asks how programs are being designed and evaluated, with implications for how collective program impacts are understood. To answer this question, we assemble and review 105 programs based in the United States, covering over 40,000 beneficiaries. We compare eligibility criteria, funding sources, distribution amounts, program administration, pilot duration, and evaluation measures. We find that just over half of the programs use income-based qualifications and most (84 %) have some form of place-based eligibility criteria defined by residence. The plurality of programs (28) are based in California (CA) and 16 operate at the county level. We also find that while the development of pilots often uses community development framing, funding and evaluation measures tend to be more aligned with either economic or public health intervention assessments. As multiple fields of study engage with poverty alleviation, our findings add nuance to the complex and continuously developing landscape of interventions and evaluations.

We analyze the Bolsa Verde Program, arguing that it likely was the world’s first largescale institution of a Green Basic Income Program. As such, the initiative presents a unique opportunity to evaluate the potential environmental uses and implications of Basic Income initiatives. Our study relies on a socially-embedded analysis of the program as it functioned in the context of the Brazilian Amazon. This involves analysis of qualitative data from former program beneficiaries, community leaders, program evaluators, and managers. This research suggests that the program operated socially as a de facto Green Basic Income program, despite being designed as a hybrid Payment for Environmental Services initiative. Our analysis suggests that Bolsa Verde was successful in reducing both deforestation and poverty, and these successes were achieved without undermining collective community institutions that could have positive anti-poverty and environmental protection benefits of their own.