Volume 20, Issue 2

This paper leverages multi-regional input-output (MRIO) analysis to estimate the economic impacts of a universal basic income on Appalachian Ohio counties as strategy for supporting economic transition away from the coal economy. A $500 monthly basic income to each adult Appalachian Ohio resident results in 46,367 new jobs, $2 billion in labor income, and an increase of nearly $4 billion in regional gross domestic product.

In a given society, those who are least advantaged would allegedly benefit the most from receiving a basic income. However, the merits of such a policy are generally debated according to the effects on society as a whole, not specifically on the most marginalized; thus, the potential benefits of a basic income for marginalized groups is unclear. To address this gap, I identify homeless people in Germany as the least advantaged and assess how this group would be impacted by a basic income based on real libertarian, liberal egalitarian, and republican theories of justice. Specifically, I show how introducing a basic income would affect the homeless population in Germany in terms of income, self-respect, and power. While a basic income could increase most of the homeless population’s income and improve communal relations, the stigma attached to homelessness will only decrease insofar as the basic income policy helps people exit homelessness. Moreover, a basic income would decrease power imbalances between the homeless population and state agencies, but the policy’s effects on relations between homeless persons and fellow citizens, particularly landlords, are ambiguous. This article contributes to the theoretical discussion on a basic income, providing a new concern about whether such a policy is fair to the homeless population. Moreover, this article is relevant in practice, as the discussed effects may prompt avenues for designing future social policies that address the homeless population as the most vulnerable group in modern welfare states.

Basic Income (BI) has attracted significant interest in recent years, with the debate gradually shifting from theoretical considerations to practical research focused on policy implementation. One of the primary criticisms of BI remains its perceived infeasibility, yet the existing literature lacks a structured analysis of this issue. The main objective of this systematic literature review is to address this gap by reviewing current conceptualizations of BI feasibility and the factors that influence it. The review offers both quantitative insights that present numerical data on the analyzed studies, and qualitative analysis of two main themes: conceptualization of BI feasibility, and factors determining BI feasibility. The study clarifies feasibility types used in the literature and identifies key factors for policymakers to utilize in pushing for BI’s realization. The findings highlight the interdependence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, emphasizing the role of context and policy design in shaping BI’s feasibility.

This study empirically analyzed how attitudes toward the introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in South Korean society evolved before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it examined how attitudes toward the introduction of a UBI changed under the assumption of tax increases, using data from. The results of the analysis indicate a tendency for attitudes towards UBI to become more cautious, despite the experience of a system with UBI characteristics. Factors that significantly influence attitudes towards the introduction of UBI based on the 2021 data include income, gender, marital status, age group and political ideology. In addition, the “Not Out Of My Pocket” (Noomp) phenomenon is evident in the context of the introduction of a UBI with the presumption of a tax burden. It is therefore clear that social consensus on tax increases is of paramount importance in the development of welfare systems, including UBI.

Proposals for various forms of Basic Income, including Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) and Universal Basic Income (UBI) have received increasingly broad attention in recent years, both globally and in Australia. If all existing payments and taxes are applied on a purely individual basis (or entirely on a household basis), the distributional impacts of the introduction of GMI and UBI are equivalent. The key concept here is the effective marginal rate of taxation (EMTR), which is the combined effect of taxes paid on additional income and welfare payments withdrawn as income rises. This equivalence between UBI, GMI and Negative Income Tax (NIT) breaks down if, as in Australia, taxes are levied primarily on individual income while benefits are paid to households and means tested on a household basis. The purpose of this paper is to use micro-simulation to illustrate how this distinction changes the distributional effects of Basic Income schemes and the magnitude of the EMTR required to finance them. Modelling is completed through microsimulation using Treasury’s CAPITA model.

The proposal for Basic Income (BI) pushed by renowned figures in Mexico sparked a vigorous debate over social policy between 2015 and 2018. This debate was particularly notable, as it challenged the long-standing dominance of conditional cash transfers, which had remained largely unquestioned as the country’s main antipoverty policy since their introduction in the 1990s. Despite the BI proposal getting wide coverage from the media, it not only failed to gain traction on the government’s agenda but also quickly became irrelevant right after the general elections of 2018. This was due to the unsuccessful coalition-building efforts of the BI proponents, who were unable to reconcile their political disagreements, overcome partisan competition, establish communication, and bridge their policy beliefs on various levels. By conducting interviews with relevant stakeholders, I conclude that the inability of the BI supporters to form a unified advocacy coalition made it impossible to promote social policy change.