Volume 3, Issue 1

The paper starts by exploring the negative contingencies that are associated with the core institution of capitalist societies, the labor contract: unemployment, poverty, and denial of autonomy. It argues that these are the three conditions that basic income schemes can help prevent. Next, the three major normative arguments are discussed that are raised in opposition to basic income proposals: the idle should not be rewarded, the prosperous don't need it, and there are so many things waiting to be done in the world. After demonstrating that proponents of basic income stand in no way empty-handed when facing these objections, a third part considers basic income in functional terms: would its introduction help to resolve problems of social and economic order that are unlikely to be resolved in more conventional ways?

There has long been a minority view that providing people with cash is an effective way of combating poverty and economic insecurity while promoting livelihoods and work. The mainstream view has nevertheless been that giving people money, without conditions or obligations, promotes idleness and dependency, while being unnecessarily costly. This paper reviews recent evidence on various types of schemes implemented in developing countries, including several pilot cash transfer schemes, assessing them by reference to principles of social justice. It concludes that experience with cash transfers is strengthening the case for a universal basic income.

This article probes the current status of the welfare state in Canada, including its failure to ensure economic security for all. Historical and current proposals in Canada for guaranteed or basic income (BI) as an alternative model are outlined. These Canadian discussions are situated in relation to broader international debates on BI. Finally, some current political openings for advancing a guaranteed income framework for Canada are explored.