Skip to main content

THE IDEA OF UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

In the previous article, we mentioned that Universal Basic Income has been proposed as one of the solutions to the paradox of welfare. Here, we explore what the idea is, its empirical feasibility and the possible hurdles in its implementation. Imagine that one fine morning, you get up and hear the news that the government would now transfer a certain amount of money, every month, in every citizen’s bank account, irrespective of one’s existing employment status, without it getting taxed. This is exactly what the Universal Basic Income would mean! By definition, the UBI is a financial support system that gives a certain minimum amount of money to everybody in the economy, which is needed for the fulfilment of one’s basic needs. However, there exists no consensus on what form this minimum basic income would take, or what amount is necessary for minimum subsistence. Nonetheless, this ambitious social policy is being increasingly viewed as an alternative to the existing system of welfare programmes.
The advocates of the UBI assert that this policy would effectively eradicate poverty, unemployment and wealth inequality from society. Moreover, people below poverty line would no longer be trapped in the welfare trap because a basic income can never be cut, and hence, any additional income through a new job will always make one’s financial situation better. In other words, the incentive to work will not cease to exist. Further, the economy would be able to get rid of the huge administrative and bureaucratic costs of running welfare programmes. On the other hand, critics have raised some grave concerns that the implementation of this policy would inevitably lead to. The most important of these being the problem of inflation. The resulting economic stimulus due to the UBI would certainly lead to more consumption and more investment but would also give rise to demand-pull inflation. However, some people refute the argument by saying that the UBI will be a shift of funds rather than an injection of new money into the economy. These funds would come from the eliminated administrative expenditure and by taxing the wealthy population of the economy. In addition to this, since the amount of the basic income is ambiguous, a large UBI can disincentivize people from working, thus, essentially becoming ineffective in tackling the welfare trap. Debates also surface on the issue of how this policy would affect society’s notion of “work”. Work provides meaning to one’s life; so what impact would eliminating the necessity to work have on society? Other problems such as those of capital flight which would occur due to higher taxes on the rich, as well as difficulty to withdraw this policy once implemented, have also been raised.
At present, we veritably lack enough empirical research to reach a conclusion regarding the policy of UBI. Several questions need to be addressed; if UBI is just a shift of funds, how will it result in a net increase in the aggregate demand in the economy? What about the difference in the consumption patterns of the rich and the poor? Is it not necessary to consider the fact that UBI would impact everyone differently, depending on factors like one’s existing income and the cost of living? Therefore, more empirical evidence and research is what can help us to answer the question whether UBI is a mere ‘socialist utopia’ or an actual change-maker.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Not-So-Normal Story of Normality

Being students of economics, we have been made to study the Z table excessively throughout our statistics journey. Hence, before going off the Z table, we decided to explore more about the Z table itself.  In other words, having learned its technical use in solving a wide variety of statistical problems, we now delve into the interesting history of the normal distribution, unarguably the most popular distribution in modern statistics. The distinctive characteristics of symmetricity and bell-shaped structure impart normality a wide range of real-life applications in physics, biology, finance, hydrology, etc. Abraham DeMoivre Interestingly, the major credit for the origin of the normal distribution, also called the Gaussian distribution, does not go to Carl Gauss, but rather to Abraham de Moivre,  a mathematician and a contemporary of Isaac Newton. He used to plot the results of multiple binomial distribution simulations. Consequently, he discovered a pattern that resembled a be...

Why Is Women LFPR Falling?

India experienced an enormous GDP growth of 8.7% (World Bank,2021) and is said to be one of the fastest growing economies in the world. One would expect that such stable and high GDP would create the rising jobs and this would somehow improve the Labor Force Participation Rates(LFPR) . But the official periodic labor survey on employment and unemployment by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) for 2011-12 estimated LFPR to be roughly 25 percent for women between 16-60 years, down from 30 percent in 1999- 2000. This becomes a puzzling situation, specially when we see that the fertility rates have also declined over the years, and hence LFPR for women should have improved. When searching for the reasons for this declining LFPR for women, we came across the following few possibilities. The first hypothesis is based on the reason that long run changes in female labor supply follows a U-shaped relationship between national income and female labor force participation rates. This i...

Should There Be A Market for Kidneys?

Many of us would read the title and feel- Why Not? I had the same thought.  We all have friends and know very well that friendship is something which cannot be traded. If traded, the good itself (friendship) would lose its value. But that is not the case with kidneys, right? You trade kidneys, transplant them and they would work well. So, what is the issue in making a market for kidneys if both sellers and buyers are willing to trade. Won't it be helpful to that poor person who can live a good life by selling something she does not even need? What needs to be focused here is whether this market is fair enough? The adverse conditions of the poor might make them vulnerable to commercial traders who would spare them no bargaining power. Severe inequality can undermine voluntary nature of exchange. Just the fact that buyers and sellers are ready to deal is not enough to make a market. Should university seats be sold? Should there be a market for babies? Or should votes be sold? In some...