Universal Basic Income: the debate

In this issue, we introduce a new section, called ‘Debate’, designed to discuss new ideas and policies to tackle poverty and social justice. In this, the first, Debate, the focus is on Universal Basic Income (UBI), a regular cash payment to every individual regardless of their income and wealth and without any conditions attached. It is an idea which has risen in prominence in recent years, seen as a radical way of rethinking social security systems to provide better economic security for all and reduce the stigmatising effects of means-tested systems. Its impact on poverty, and its overall cost, is dependent on the level at which payments are set, its overall design in relation to other benefits, and the way in which taxes are adjusted to pay for it.

In ‘Universal Basic Income is affordable and feasible: evidence from UK economic microsimulation modelling’, Howard Reed, Matthew Johnson, Stewart Lansley, Elliot Johnson, Graham Stark and Kate Pickett (2023a) examine the distributional impacts – and costs – of three UBI schemes broadly designed to provide pathways to attainment of the Minimum Income Standard (MIS). They argue that the schemes have a large impact on levels of poverty and are affordable.

Donald Hirsch (2023a) takes up the debate (‘The big tax hikes that make UBI ‘affordable’ could be used to cut poverty in more targeted ways’). He argues that the same impacts on poverty could be achieved through more targeted adjustments to the current system. This would require much lower increases in personal taxation than the high increases that UBI requires to be fiscally neutral (that is the additional expenditure is covered by additional revenue and does not require additional government borrowing). This makes it, Hirsch argues, more politically acceptable.

In response (‘Changing circumstances and new basic premises: turning the affordability feasibility relationship on its head’), Reed et al (2023b) argue that Hirsch’s approach simply maintains the flaws of the present system and that, post-pandemic, voters’ perceptions of what is feasible have been transformed. Hirsch (2023b), in the concluding contribution, ‘An untested premise: would voters really support redistribution through UBI which left many of them worse off?’, remains sceptical, doubting whether the greater support seen for social protection during the pandemic is really that permanent or dramatic.

By examining the pros and cons of these three specific schemes, the discussion gets to the heart of the debate around UBI, that is whether it is affordable and politically feasible. The participants agree about the need to raise minimum incomes but disagree about the most likely – and cost effective – way of achieving this.

In future issues, we hope to publish similar debates on other policy issues. If you have a contribution which you think might be appropriate, do contact us.

In the meantime, we are sure you will find plenty of interest in this issue. The first three research articles focus on important aspects of extreme poverty and food insecurity in the UK, followed by a study of menstrual poverty in Spain. The issue then turns to questions of the measurement of poverty with an article on how to measure the attributional processes regarding the perceived causes of poverty and wealth and one on the use of the Consensual Approach for improving existing multidimensional poverty data in Latin America. The final article in the research section examines the relationship between research and advocacy.

Joanna Mack and Marco Pomati

February 2023

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.