Left-wing populism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_populism

Left-wing populism^[a] is a political ideology that combines left-wing politics with populist rhetoric and themes. Its rhetoric often includes elements of anti-elitism, opposition to the Establishment, and speaking for the masses against economic monopolies. Recurring themes for left-wing populists include economic democracy, social justice, and skepticism of globalization.

Criticism of capitalism and globalization is linked to unpopular United States military operations, especially those in the Middle East. The populist left seeks to not exclude others horizontally, relying on egalitarian ideals. Some scholars also speak of nationalist left-wing populist movements, a feature exhibited by the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua or the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. Unlike right-wing populists, left-wing populist parties tend to support minority rights, as well as an idea of nationality that is not delimited by cultural or ethnic particularism. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-described democratic socialists, are examples of modern left-wing populist politicians in the United States. With the rise of Syriza and Podemos during the European debt crisis, there has been increased debate on new left-wing populism in Europe.

Traditionally, left-wing populism has been associated with the socialist movement; since the 2010s, there has been a movement close to left-wing populism in the left-liberal camp, some of which are considered social democratic positions. In the 2020s, left-liberal economic populism appealing to the working class has been prominent in some countries, such as with Lee Jae-myung of South Korea.

By country

Africa

Nigeria

Peter Obi, a businessman and outsider politician running with the Labour Party in the 2023 Nigerian presidential election, was seen as a populist politician, gaining the support of much of Nigeria's youth. Before running for President, Obi took part in the End SARS movement, which sought to disband Nigeria's Special Anti-Robbery Squad, or SARS due to its connection to the criminal underworld and its excessive use of force. SARS was disbanded in 2020. Obi's presidential campaign in 2022 and 2023 constantly ran on issues such as economic development, fighting corruption, moving beyond ethnic politics, which have dominated Nigeria going back to its founding, and promoting criminal justice reform. Obi sought to challenge the traditional two-party system, led by the centrist and Buharist All Progressives Congress on one side, and the center-right, nationalist, and conservative-liberal Peoples Democratic Party.

South Africa

Julius Malema, the former leader of the African National Congress Youth League, broke away from the center-left African National Congress to form the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). The EFF are notable for their extreme black nationalism, which has been accused by critics of including anti-Asian racism, anti-White racism, and antisemitism. This also includes radical economic reforms inspired by Marxism-Leninism, including land reform without compensation. The EFF is also extremely anti-West, to the point of actively trying to support Russia's invasion and occupation in Ukraine and has denied the well documented war crimes committed by Russia, as well as the Belt and road initiative within Africa itself. However, the EFF is not socially conservative. In fact, voters for the EFF are the mostly likely of all voters in South Africa to support same-sex marriage, which has been legal since 2006.

In the run-up to the 2024 South African general election, former president Jacob Zuma has formed his own political party, uMkhonto we Sizwe. Named after the former paramilitary wing of the ANC of the same name, Zuma has been trying to position himself as supporting a more legitimate version of the ANC. MK, as Zuma's party is also known, calls for deporting illegal immigrants to South Africa, land reform without compensation, and opposition to same-sex marriage, the latter making it in opposition to the ANC on that one particular issue.

Zimbabwe

Former prime minister Robert Mugabe and his ZANU–PF party are seen as populist by many observers. Mugabe's ideology combined African nationalism with socialist economics and a broad-based appeal to the people. The most notably policies of ZANU–PF are their land reforms.

Americas

Argentina

Main article: Kirchnerism

 

Néstor Kirchner top) and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (bottom) served as Presidents of Argentina from 2003–2007 and 2007–2015.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (the President of Argentina from 2007 to 2015) and her husband Néstor Kirchner were said to practice Kirchnerism, a variant of Peronism that was often mentioned alongside other Pink tide governments in Latin America. During Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's time in office, she spoke against certain free trade agreements, such as the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. Her administration was characterized by tax increases, especially on agricultural exports during the late 2000s commodities boom, Argentina's main export, in order to fund social programs such as the PROGRESAR university scholarships, the universal allocation per child subsidy (commonly referred to as AUH in Argentina, Asignación Universal por Hijo), a means-tested benefit to families with children who qualified for the subsidy, and progressive social reforms such as the recognition of same-sex marriage.

Bolivia

The leadership of Siles Zuazo practised left-wing populism as well as that of former socialist President Evo Morales.

Brazil

Main article: Lulism

Lulism is a pragmatic centre-left ideology to the extent that it is called "socialist neoliberalism", but it appeals to a progressive, common-class image and also has populist elements in terms of popular mobilization.

Canada

See also: Politics of Canada

The New Democratic Party (NDP) is considered to be left-wing populist, especially regarding anti-elitism and minority rights. Party leader Avi Lewis of the Lewis Family holds left populist views.

Ecuador

Rafael Correa, the former President of Ecuador, has stressed the importance of a "populist discourse" and has integrated technocrats to work within this context for the common Ecuadorians. Correa has blamed foreign non-governmental organizations for exploiting the indigenous people in the conflict between the indigenous peoples and the government.

Mexico

Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2018

Former President of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or AMLO for short), and his party, the Morena, are considered left-wing populist in nature. AMLO has been a politician in Mexico for over three decades. He has been described as many different things, including centre-left, progressive, a left-wing populist, social democratic, and economically nationalist.

United States

See also: Congressional Progressive Caucus and Progressivism in the United States

During the 1890s and 1900s, the People's Party (United States), commonly known as the Populists, was a political party that grew out of a broad, economically left-wing movement, agrarian in nature but formed out of a "coalition of farmers, laborers, and middle-class activists" during a period of intensive labor unrest and economic transformation in the United States. Concerned that the two major American political parties were too beholden to corporate interests and hence inimical to reform, this coalition gave rise to the People's Party by 1892. They cast themselves in opposition to big business, particularly the banks and gold standard, and the political establishment controlled by them. It advocated for government intervention in the economy, such as the government ownership of railroads.

Huey Long, the Great Depression-era Governor-turned-Senator of Louisiana, was one of the first modern American left-wing populists in the United States. He advocated for wealth redistribution under his Share Our Wealth plan, which had its roots in the classical left-wing populist movement of Jacksonian democracy, which is related to the radical movement.

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-described democratic socialists, are examples of modern left-wing populist politicians. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez's populist message tend to place the people in opposition to big business and the very wealthy. Ocasio-Cortez's Democratic primary victory over the establishment Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, a 10-term incumbent, was widely seen as the biggest upset victory in the 2018 midterm election primaries. The Nation magazine described Ocasio-Cortez as a "new rock star" who was "storming the country on behalf of insurgent populists". Elizabeth Warren is also mentioned as a representative left-wing or liberal populist, and Warren is sometimes evaluated as a social democrat. Joe Biden is usually classified as a political moderate, but his economic policies occasionally have attracted the populist moniker. Sherrod Brown has also been cited as a "left-wing progressive" and populist.

Venezuela

Main article: Chavismo

The presidency of Hugo Chávez resembled a combination of folk wisdom and charismatic leadership with doctrinaire socialism. Chávez's anti-establishment stance helped him win the 1998 Venezuelan presidential election. His closeness to Cuba caused problems for Venezuela's relationship with the US. The relationship further soured due to the failed 2002 coup attempt, for which Chávez blamed the US and the CIA. His foreign policy opposed the US and, in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, he said that George W. Bush was "the devil himself" and that he had left a "smell of sulphur" in the Assembly chamber. He was admired by progressives and popular among his own people, especially the poor. George W. Bush openly supported the Venezuelan opposition, but Barack Obama scaled back the support after his election.

Asia

Israel

Main articles: 2011 Israeli social justice protests and 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests

Stav Shaffir in 2015. She was an activist involved in Israel's social justice movement and broadly seen as a left-wing progressive firebrand.

Stav Shaffir is a politician who was traditionally associetated with the more left-wing and populistic elements of Israeli politics, especially issues of environmentalism, social justice, and a strongly pro-peace stance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She initially got her start in Israeli politics as one of the three leaders, alongside Daphni Leef and Itzik Shmuli, of the 2011 social justice protests. Shaffir became particularly well known for her debate with Likud MK Miri Regev over housing prices on the Israeli television program Erev Hadash. She would go on to discuss the protest movement on tours to the United States, alongside pro-peace Labor Zionist Amos Oz, serving as a keynote speaker for Jewish-American organizations like JStreet.

In 2012, Shaffir joined the Israeli Labor Party. She became a member of the Israeli Knesset after the 2013 Israeli legislative election. She became famous for being the MK with the lowest net worth, owning nothing more than her apartment and a car. She worked with the socially liberal, secular, and liberal Zionist party Hatnua, eventually forming the Zionist Union, which would also run in the 2015 Israeli legislative election. By that time, however, she had left and become the leader of the Green Movement, later renamed to the Green Party in 2019. For the September 2019 Israeli legislative election, Shaffir organized various parties together to form the Democratic Union coalition. However, after the 2020 Israeli legislative election, Shaffir lost her seat. During her tenure as MK from 2013 to 2020, Shaffir worked on issues from social justice to defunding West Bank settlements, and from government transparency efforts to LGBT rights.

Yesh Atid is a radical centrist or liberal party. In Israeli politics, "liberal" is not particularly a concept that is distinguished by left or right, but Yesh Atid is evaluated that it has a left-wing populist element in part. They criticize elitism that causes political corruption and demand a position on material redistribution. However, Yesh Atid has an element of economic liberalism simultaneously.

Former Aluf in the IDF Yair Golan has promoted views supporting Leftist Zionism, a two-state solution with Israel keeping some of the settlement blocs, but opposition to total annexation of the West Bank, full separation of synagogue and state as well as ending the marriage monopoly by the Chief Rabbinate, opposing corruption, supporting the 2023 judicial reform protests, supporting LGBTQ+ rights, and creating a fairer economy for all Israelis.

Japan

Tarō Yamamoto in 2020. He is mentioned as a (left-wing) liberal-populist.

Reiwa Shinsengumi, led by Joji Yamamoto and founded by Taro Yamamoto, is a representative Japanese left-wing populist movement. While the party uses anti-establishment rhetoric, they are sometimes called "liberal populist". According to experts, Taro Yamamoto used a simple message to spotlight single individuals left behind, including people struggling with poverty or non-permanent employment, who used to devote themselves to radical conservatism.

Reiwa Shinsengumi is also called a "progressive populist", because they are not rooted in the traditional Japanese socialist or Labor movement, but are culturally and economically progressive, representing marginalized young people and minorities.

South Korea

South Korea's leftist political party, the Progressive Party, advocates direct democracy, anti-neoliberalism and anti-imperialism. They support a national liberalist foreign policy hostile to Japan.

Lee Jae-myung, one of DPK's major politicians, has been mentioned as a "populist" in some media outlets. Lee Jae-myung pledged to implement the world's first universal basic income system if elected in the 2022 South Korean presidential election but said he would not pay for it if the people opposed it. South Korea's right-wing politician Hong Joon-pyo saw Lee Jae-myung in September 2021 and accused him of being "Chávez of Gyeonggi Province". However, there is controversy in South Korea as to whether Lee Jae-myung can be viewed as a "left-wing populist" in the context of the United States or Europe. He once said he was "conservative" and suggested policies far from general left-wing populism in the United States and Europe, partially insisting on economic liberal policies such as deregulating companies on some issues. In addition, he showed a somewhat conservative tendency on some social agendas.^[82] In addition, Kim Hyun-jong, the head of the International Trade Special Division at the Lee Jae-myung Camp, met with Henry Kissinger, and Henry Kissinger gave Lee Jae-myung a handwritten autograph called "Good wishes".^[83] In addition, Lee Jae-myung's political orientation was somewhat ambiguous, so conservative journalist Dong-A Ilbo denied that he was a left-wing politician, while South Korea's far-left organization Workers' Solidarity evaluated him as a social democratic. (However, another South Korean left-wing undongkwon group denied that Lee Jae-myung is not a social democratic.) Lee is also a staunch supporter of free trade, unlike ordinary economic populists.

Europe

France

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, founder and leader of La France Insoumise

France has a long tradition of left-wing populism. During the French Revolution, the Hébertists, founded by Jacques Hébert in 1791, were a radical faction within the Society of the Friends of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a Jacobin group leading France during the Reign of Terror. They were most known for their militant opposition to the more moderate leadership of Georges Danton and supported dechristianization. They were also supportive of sending Louis XVI to the guillotine. Eventually, the Committee of Public Safety threatening, eventually charging Hébert with conspiracy and sending him to the guillotine.

In the modern day, La France Insoumise, or "France Unbowed" is a left-wing populist, democratic socialist, and eco-socialist party. The party is led by its founder, the populist firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

Germany

See also: Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht

The Party of Democratic Socialism was explicitly studied under left-wing populism, especially by German academics. The party was formed after the reunification of Germany, and it was similar to right-wing populists in that it relied on anti-elitism and media attention provided by charismatic leadership. The party competed for the same voter base with the right-wing populists to some extent, although it relied on a more serious platform in Eastern Germany. This was limited by anti-immigration sentiments preferred by some voters, although the lines were, for example, crossed by Oskar Lafontaine, who used a term previously associated with the Nazi Party, Fremdarbeiter ('foreign workers'), in his election campaign in 2005. The PDS merged into the Left Party in 2007. The Left Party is also viewed as a left-wing populist party, but it is not the basis of the party as a whole.

Greece

Alexis Tsipras of the Greek Syriza party

Syriza, which became the largest party since January 2015 elections, has been described as a left-wing populist party after its platform incorporated most demands of the popular movements in Greece during the government-debt crisis. Populist traits in Syriza's platform include the growing importance of "the People" in their rhetoric and "us/the people against them/the establishment" antagonism in campaigning. On immigration and LGBT rights, Syriza is inclusionary. Syriza itself does not accept the label "populist".

Ireland

Sinn Féin is generally considered an Irish republican, Irish nationalist, democratic socialist, and left-leaning populist political party.

Italy

Beppe Grillo, founder of the M5S, generally considered a big tent populist party with some left-wing tendencies

The Italian Five Star Movement (M5S), which became the largest party in the 2018 general election, has often been described as a big tent populist party, but sometimes also as a left-wing populist movement; the "five stars", which are a reference to five critical issues for the party, are public water, sustainable transport, sustainable development, right to Internet access, and environmentalism, typical proposals of left-wing populist parties. However, despite its background in left-wing politics, the M5S has often expressed right-wing views on immigration.

In September 2019, the M5S formed a government with the centre-left Democratic Party (PD) and the left-wing Free and Equal (LeU), with Giuseppe Conte at its head. The government has been sometimes referred to as a left-wing populist cabinet.

Since 2021, when Conte assumed the leadership of the party, the M5S shifted towards more stable and consistent left-wing positions.

Netherlands

The Socialist Party has run a left-wing populist platform after dropping its communist course in 1991. Although some have pointed out that the party has become less populist over the years, it still includes anti-elitism in its recent election manifestos. It opposes what it sees as the European superstate.

Romania

From the left to the right: Liviu Dragnea, Victor Ponta and Ion Iliescu

Since its foundation, the Social Democratic Party (PSD) has been described as left-wing populist and left-wing nationalist. Political analyst Radu Magdin described the PSD as a big tent catch-all pragmatic party with a strong populist rhetoric. Under the leadership of Victor Ponta and Liviu Dragnea, PSD was also sovereigntist.

Spain

Pablo Iglesias, leader of Podemos

The left-wing populist party Podemos achieved 8% of the national vote in the 2014 European Parliament election. Due to avoiding nativist language typical of right-wing populists, Podemos can attract left-wing voters disappointed with the political establishment without taking sides in the regional political struggle. In the 2015 election for the national parliament, Podemos reached 20.65% of the vote and became the third largest party in the parliament after the conservative People's Party with 28.71% and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party with 22.02%. In the new parliament, Podemos holds 69 out of 350 seats, which has resulted in the end of the traditional two-party system in Spain. In a November 2018 interview with Jacobin, Íñigo Errejón argues that Podemos requires a new "national-popular" strategy to win more elections.

Ukraine

Oleh Liashko, leader of the Radical Party of Oleh Liashko

In contemporary Ukrainian politics, the Radical Party of Oleh Liashko is generally speaking considered a left-wing populist party with anti-oligarch and left-wing nationalist stances. The party is also considered social democratic, and supports Ukraine's ascension into NATO and the European Union. Batkivshchyna is also sometimes considered to be a left-wing populist and more mainstream National Democrat and pro-European party.

Not all Ukrainian left-wing populists oppose Russian influence, however. In 1993, the Communist Party of Ukraine was founded by Petro Symonenko, a former apparatchik of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Generally, the party is a continuation of the Soviet-era Communist Party of Ukraine, the same one which oversaw the implementation of the Holodomor. The party primarily opposed decommunization laws. Some critics say the party is not really communist but rather a kind of conservative pro-Russian party with the aesthetic of Soviet communism and the Soviet Union. The party has similar views to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Following the Revolution of Dignity, the Communist Party of Ukraine lost popular support outside the far east due to its pro-Yanukovych stance, especially after it voted for the anti-protest laws, which were universally seen as a major step in democratic backsliding by many Ukrainians. The role of the Communist Party of Ukraine in financing Donbas separatist movements and the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic has been disputed, with credible reports of the party providing some materiel support to the Russian backed separatists, though this is denied by the CPU. After showing support for Putin following Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Communist Party of Ukraine, alongside other pro-Soviet or pro-Putin political parties, were banned by the Ukrainian government.

Universal basic income

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

In 2013, eight million 5-centime coins (one per inhabitant) were dumped on the Bundesplatz in Bern to support the 2016 Swiss referendum for a basic income (which was rejected 77% – 23%).

Universal basic income (UBI) is a social welfare proposal in which all members of a given population regularly receive a minimum income in the form of an unconditional transfer payment, i.e., without a means test or need to perform work. In contrast, a guaranteed minimum income (GMI) is paid only to those who do not already receive an income that is enough to live on. A UBI would be received independently of any other income. If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is considered a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it is called a partial basic income. As of 2026, no country has implemented a full UBI system, but two countries—Mongolia and Iran—have or had a partial UBI, Mongolia from 2010 to 2012, and Iran still to this day. There have been numerous pilot projects, and the idea is discussed in many countries. Some have labelled UBI as utopian due to its historical origin.

There are several welfare arrangements that can be considered similar to basic income, although they are not unconditional. Many countries have a system of child benefit, which is essentially a basic income for guardians of children. A pension may be a basic income for retired persons. There are also quasi-basic income programs that are limited to certain population groups or time periods, like Bolsa Familia in Brazil, which is concentrated on the poor, or the Thamarat Program in Sudan, which was introduced by the transitional government to ease the effects of the economic crisis inherited from the Bashir regime. Likewise, the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted some countries to send direct payments to its citizens. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a fund for all residents of the U.S. state of Alaska which averages $1,600 annually (in 2019 currency), and is sometimes described as the only example of a real basic income in practice. A negative income tax (NIT) can be viewed as a basic income for certain income groups in which citizens receive less and less money until this effect is reversed the more a person earns.

Critics claim that a basic income at an appropriate level for all citizens is not financially feasible, fear that the introduction of a basic income would lead to fewer people working, and consider it socially unjust that everyone should receive the same amount of money regardless of their individual needs. Proponents say it is indeed financeable, arguing that such a system, instead of many individual means-tested social benefits, would eliminate more expensive social administration and bureaucratic efforts, and expect that unattractive jobs would have to be better paid and their working conditions improved because there would have to be an incentive to do them when already receiving an income, which would increase the willingness to work. Advocates also argue that a basic income is fair because it ensures that everyone has a sufficient financial basis to build on and less financial pressure, thus allowing people to find work that suits their interests and strengths.

Early examples of unconditional payments to citizens date back to antiquity, and the first proposals to introduce a regular unconditionally paid income for all citizens were developed and disseminated between the 16th and 18th centuries. After the Industrial Revolution, public awareness and support for the concept increased. At least since the mid-20th century, basic income has repeatedly been the subject of political debates. In the 21st century, several discussions are related to the debate about basic income, including those concerning the automation of large parts of the human workforce through artificial intelligence (AI), and associated questions regarding the future of the necessity of work. A key issue in these debates is whether automation and AI will significantly reduce the number of available jobs and whether a basic income could help prevent or alleviate such problems by allowing everyone to benefit from a society's wealth, as well as whether a UBI could be a stepping stone to a resource-based or post-scarcity economy.

History

Antiquity

See also: Cura Annonae

Ancient Egypt had a strong, unified theocratic state that owned key parts of the Egyptian economy, including granaries that dispensed grain to the public during hard times.

In a 46 BC triumph, Roman general and dictator Julius Caesar gave each common Roman citizen 100 denarii. Following his assassination in 44 BC, Caesar's will left 300 sestertii (or 75 denarii) to each citizen. Trajan, emperor of Rome from 98 to 117 AD, personally gave 650 denarii (equivalent to perhaps US$430 in 2023) to all common Roman citizens who applied.

16th century

In Utopia (1516), English statesman and philosopher Thomas More depicts a society in which every person receives a guaranteed income. In this book, basic income is proposed as an answer to the statement "No penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it's their only way of getting food", stating:

instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody's under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief, and then a corpse.

Spanish scholar Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492–1540) proposed that the municipal government should be responsible for securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents "not on the grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity." Vives also argued that to qualify for poor relief, the recipient must "deserve the help he or she gets by proving his or her willingness to work."

18th century

English-born American philosopher Thomas Paine authored Common Sense (1776) and The American Crisis (1776–1783), the two most influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution. His essay Agrarian Justice was published in 1797. In it, he proposed concrete reforms to abolish poverty. In particular, he proposed a universal social insurance system comprising old-age pensions and disability support, and universal stakeholder grants for young adults, funded by a 10% inheritance tax focused on land, it is also considered one of the earliest proposals for a social security system. Thomas Paine summarized his view by stating that "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." Paine saw inheritance as being partly a common fund and wanted to supplement the citizen's dividend in a tax on inheritance transfers.

In 1797, English Radical Thomas Spence published The Rights of Infants as a response to Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice. In this essay Spence proposes the introduction of an unconditional basic income to all members of the community. Such allowance would be financed through the socialization of land and the benefits of the rents received by each municipality. A part of everyone's earnings would be seized by the State, and given to others.

19th century

Henry George proposed to create a pension and disability system, and a broad social support system from a single tax on land and natural resource value. Social support would be distributed to residents "as a right" instead of as charity. George mentioned, but did not stress, the possibility of direct cash distribution of land rent. His ideas gave rise to the economic philosophy now known as Georgism or the "single tax movement", which is an economic ideology holding that, although people should own the value they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society. Some Georgists refer to unconditional basic income funded by the single tax as a citizen's dividend in reference to Thomas Paine's proposal from the 19th century.

Early 20th century

Around 1920, support for basic income started growing, primarily in England.

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) argued for a new social model that combined the advantages of socialism and anarchism, and that basic income should be a vital component in that new society. In his 1918 book Roads to Freedom, Russell wrote "... the plan we are advocating amounts essentially to this: that a certain small income, sufficient for necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income – as much larger as might be warranted by the total amount of commodities produced – should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful..."

In the United Kingdom at the end of World War I, Dennis and Mabel Milner, a Quaker married couple of the Labour Party, published a short pamphlet entitled "Scheme for a State Bonus" (1918) that argued for the "introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom." They considered it a moral right for everyone to have the means to subsistence, and thus it should not be conditional on work or willingness to work.

C. H. Douglas was an engineer who became concerned that most British citizens could not afford to buy the goods that were produced, despite the rising productivity in British industry. His solution to this paradox was a new social system he called social credit, a combination of monetary reform and basic income.

In 1944 and 1945, the Beveridge Committee, led by the British economist William Beveridge, developed a proposal for a comprehensive new welfare system of social insurance, means-tested benefits, and unconditional allowances for children. Committee member Lady Rhys-Williams argued that the incomes for adults should be more like a basic income. She was also the first to develop the negative income tax model. Her son Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams proposed a basic income to a parliamentary committee in 1982, and soon after that in 1984, the Basic Income Research Group, now the Citizen's Basic Income Trust, began to conduct and disseminate research on basic income.

Late 20th century

Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax (NIT), which effectively sanctioned a basic income for all, in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. In his 1964 State of the Union address, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty," implemented in coming years with sweeping legislation. Johnson broadened the agenda to the Great Society, including education, civil rights, health care, and support for the arts. In this political climate, the idea of a guaranteed income for every American also took root. Notably, a 1968 document, signed by 1200 economists, called for a guaranteed income for every American. Four ambitious basic income experiments started on the related concept of negative income tax. President Richard Nixon explained the Family Assistance Plan's purpose as to provide both a safety net for the poor and a financial incentive for welfare recipients to work. Congress eventually approved a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly and the disabled.^[36]

In the mid-1970s, the main competitor to basic income and negative income tax, the Earned income tax credit (EITC) and its advocates won over enough legislators for the US Congress to pass laws on that policy. In 1986, the Basic Income European Network (later renamed the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)) was founded, with academic conferences every second year. Other advocates included the green political movement, other activists, and some groups of unemployed people.

In the late 20th century, discussions were held around automatization and jobless growth, the possibility of combining economic growth with ecologically sustainable development, and how to reform the welfare state bureaucracy. Basic income was interwoven in these and many other debates. During the BIEN academic conferences, scholars published papers about basic income from a wide variety of perspectives.

21st century

Further information: List of advocates of basic income

In recent years, the idea has come to the forefront more than before. The Swiss referendum about basic income in 2016 was covered in media worldwide, despite its rejection. Famous business people like Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, and Andrew Yang have lent their support, as have high-profile politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Tulsi Gabbard. The Institute for Public Policy Research predicted that 59% of tasks currently done by humans could be affected by AI in the next three to five years. Universal basic Income could help fill the gap left by this "jobs apocalypse."

In 2019-2021, in Stockton, California, then-Mayor Michael Tubbs initiated a 24-month pilot program of guaranteed income for 125 residents as part of the privately funded S.E.E.D. project there.

In the 2020 Democratic Party primaries, political newcomer Andrew Yang touted basic income as his core policy. His policy, referred to as a "Freedom Dividend", would have provided adult American citizens US$1,000 a month independent of employment status.

On 21 January 2021, in California, the two-year donor-funded Compton Pledge began distributing monthly guaranteed income payments to a "pre-verified" pool of low-income residents, in a program gauged for a maximum of 800 recipients, at which point it would be one of the larger among 25 U.S. cities exploring this approach to community economics.

Beginning in December 2021, Tacoma, Washington, piloted "Growing Resilience in Tacoma" (GRIT), a guaranteed income initiative that provided $500 a month to 110 families. GRIT is part of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Guaranteed Income Research larger study. A report on the results of the GRIT experiment was published in 2024.

Response to COVID-19

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact, universal basic income and similar proposals such as helicopter money and cash transfers were increasingly discussed across the world. Most countries implemented forms of partial unemployment schemes, which effectively subsidized workers' incomes without a work requirement. Around ninety countries and regions including the United States, Spain, Hong Kong, and Japan introduced temporary direct cash transfer programs to their citizens.

In Europe, a petition calling for an "emergency basic income" gathered more than 200,000 signatures, and polls suggested widespread support in public opinion for it. Unlike the various stimulus packages of the US administration, the EU's stimulus plans did not include any form of income-support policies.

Basic income vs negative income tax

See also: Negative income tax

Two ways of looking at basic income when combined with a flat income tax, both of which result in the same net income (orange line): 1. (red) stipend with conventional tax for income above the stipend. 2. (blue) negative tax for low-income people and conventional tax for high-income people.

The associated diagram shows a basic income/negative tax system combined with flat income tax (the same percentage in tax for every income level). Axis y is here the pre-tax salary given by the employer and y' is the net income.

Negative income tax

For low earnings, there is no income tax in the negative income tax system. They receive money, in the form of a negative income tax, but they do not pay any tax. Then, as their labour income increases, this benefit, this money from the state, gradually decreases. That decrease is to be seen as a mechanism for the poor, instead of the poor paying tax.

Basic income

That is, however, not the case in the corresponding basic income system in the diagram at right. There, everyone typically pays income taxes. But on the other hand, everyone also gets the same amount of basic income.

But the net income is the same

But, as the orange line in the diagram shows, the net income is anyway the same. No matter how much or how little one earns, the amount of money received is the same, regardless of which of these two systems are used.

Basic income and negative income tax are generally seen to be similar in economic net effects, but there are some differences:

Philippe Van Parijs in his library

• Psychological. Philip Harvey accepts that "both systems would have the same redistributive effect and tax earned income at the same marginal rate" but does not agree that "the two systems would be perceived by taxpayers as costing the same".
• Tax profile. Tony Atkinson made a distinction based on whether the tax profile was flat (for basic income) or variable (for NIT).
• Timing. Philippe Van Parijs states that "the economic equivalence between the two programs should not hide the fact that they have different effects on recipients because of the different timing of payments: ex-ante in Basic Income, ex-post in Negative Income Tax".

Perspectives and arguments

Economist opinions

60% of top U.S. economist panel opposed and 2% favored universal basic income (UBI) financed by ending all transfer programs (including Social Security and corporate subsidies). Daron Acemoglu argued that a better safety net is needed but "UBI is expensive and not generous enough", Markus Brunnermeier that it could shift the norm of whether to work, Barry Eichengreen that one should wait for further experimental data, Oliver Hart that redistribution should be targeted to the most needy, Caroline Hoxby that UBI ignores research on social insurance and optimal taxation. Some oppose ending other transfers.

Automation

There is a prevailing opinion that we are in an era of technological unemployment – that technology is increasingly making skilled workers obsolete.

— Prof. Mark MacCarthy (2014)

One central rationale for basic income is the belief that automation and robotisation could result in technological unemployment, leading to a world with fewer paid jobs. A key question in this context is whether a basic income could help prevent or alleviate such problems by allowing everyone to benefit from a society's wealth, as well as whether a UBI could be a stepping stone to a resource-based or post-scarcity economy.

U.S. presidential candidate and nonprofit founder Andrew Yang has stated that automation caused the loss of 4 million manufacturing jobs and advocated for a UBI (which he calls a Freedom Dividend) of $1,000/month rather than worker retraining programs. Yang has stated that he is influenced by Martin Ford. Ford believes that the emerging technologies will fail to deliver much employment; on the contrary, because the new industries will "rarely, if ever, be highly labor-intensive". Similar ideas have been debated before in history—that "the machines will take the jobs". What is new is the existence of several academic studies that forecast a future with substantially less employment, in the decades to come. Additionally, US President Barack Obama stated that he believes that the growth of artificial intelligence will lead to an increased discussion around the idea of "unconditional free money for everyone".

Economics and costs

See also: Cost of living

Some proponents of UBI have argued that basic income could increase economic growth because it would sustain people while they invest in education to get higher-skilled and well-paid jobs. However, there is also a discussion of basic income within the degrowth movement, which argues against economic growth.

Advocates contend that the guaranteed financial security of a UBI will increase the population's willingness to take risks, which would create a culture of inventiveness and strengthen entrepreneurial spirit.

The cost of a basic income is one of the biggest questions in the public debate as well as in the research and depends on many things. It first and foremost depends on the level of the basic income as such, and it also depends on many technical points regarding exactly how it is constructed.

While opponents claim that a basic income at an adequate level for all citizens cannot be financed, their supporters propose that it could indeed be financed, with some advocating a strong redistribution and restructuring of bureaucracy and administration for this purpose.

According to statements of American Enterprise Institute-affiliated Libertarian/conservative scholar Charles Murray, recalled and sanctioned in 2016 by the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and nationally syndicated columnist Veronique de Rugy, as of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI in the US would have been about $200 billion less expensive than the US social safety-net system put in place at that date. By 2020, it would have been nearly a trillion dollars less expensive.

American economist Karl Widerquist argues that simply multiplying the amount of the grant by the population would be a naive calculation, as this is the gross costs of UBI and does not take into account that UBI is a system where people pay taxes on a regular basis and receive the grant at the same time.

According to Swiss economist Thomas Straubhaar, the concept of UBI is basically financeable without any problems. He describes it as "at its core, nothing more than a fundamental tax reform" that "bundles all social policy measures into a single instrument, the basic income paid out unconditionally." He also considers a universal basic income to be socially just, arguing that although all citizens would receive the same amount in the form of the basic income at the beginning of the month, the rich would have lost significantly more money through taxes at the end of the month than they would have received through the basic income, while the opposite is the case for poorer people, similar to the concept of a negative income tax.

Recent theoretical work has introduced alternative mathematical approaches to the allocation of basic income. One such example is the Boltzmann fair division model, which applies the Boltzmann distribution from statistical mechanics to resource or income allocation. In this framework, each individual's share is assigned probabilistically according to an exponential function of a specified attribute (such as need or contribution), providing a flexible mechanism to balance fairness and efficiency in basic income distribution.

Inflation of labor and rental costs

One of the most common arguments against UBI stems from the upward pressure on prices, in particular for labor and housing rents, which would likely cause inflation. Public policy choices such as rent controls or land value taxation would likely affect the inflationary potential of universal basic income.

Work

Many critics of basic income argue that people, in general, will work less, which in turn means less tax revenue and less money for the state and local governments. Studies include:

• In negative income tax experiments in the United States in 1970, there was a five percent decline in the hours worked. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for primary earners. The reduction in hours was higher when the benefit was higher.
• In the Mincome experiment in rural Dauphin, Manitoba, also in the 1970s, there were slight reductions in hours worked during the experiment. However, the only two groups who worked significantly less were new mothers, and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.
• A 2024 study investigated the impact of $1,000/month UBI over a period of 3 years for 1,000 randomized low-income participants in two U.S. states, which represented an around 40% increase in household income. The study found an income effect with a decrease of non-UBI income by $1,500/year, a decrease in non-UBI household income by 21% of the UBI transfer, a 2% decrease in labor market participation, no significant change in time spent on childcare, no self-reported decrease in barriers to employment, a null result for changes in job quality, an increase in entrepreneurial orientation but no significant change in entrepreneurial activity, while enrollment in tertiary education showed a slight increase for participants below 30 years of age.

Although it is difficult to know for sure what will happen if a whole country introduces basic income, there are nevertheless some studies that have attempted to look at this question:

• A study from 2017 showed no evidence that people worked less because of the Iranian subsidy reform (a basic income reform).

Regarding the question of basic income vs jobs, there is also the aspect of so-called welfare traps. Proponents of basic income often argue that with a basic income, unattractive jobs would necessarily have to be better paid and their working conditions improved, so that people still do them without need, reducing these traps.

A 2026 meta-analysis conducted by the American Enterprise Institute of 122 UBI programs found that among the thirty randomized pilots with published results, the net employment effect was +0.8%. However, in the four programs with 500 or more participants, the net employment effect was -3.2%. The median study N was 151 people. Studies that tracked program attrition found an average dropout rate of 37%.

Philosophy and morality

See also: Community cohesion and Solidarity

By definition, universal basic income does not make a distinction between "deserving" and "undeserving" individuals when making payments. Opponents argue that this lack of discrimination is unfair: "Those who genuinely choose idleness or unproductive activities cannot expect those who have committed to doing productive work to subsidize their livelihood. Responsibility is central to fairness."

Proponents usually view UBI as a fundamental human right that enables an adequate standard of living which every citizen should have access to in modern society. It would be a kind of foundation guaranteed for everyone, on which one could build and never fall below that subsistence level.

It is also argued that this lack of discrimination between those who supposedly deserve it and those who do not is a way to reduce social stigma.

In addition, proponents of UBI may argue that the "deserving" and "undeserving" categories are a superficial classification, as people who are not in regular gainful employment also contribute to society, e.g. by raising children, caring for people, or doing other value-creating activities which are not institutionalized. UBI would provide a balance here and thus overcomes a concept of work that is reduced to pure gainful employment and disregards sideline activities too much.

Health and poverty

See also: Social determinants of mental health, Social determinants of health in poverty, and Social determinants of health

The first comprehensive systematic review of the health impact of basic income (or rather unconditional cash transfers in general) in low- and middle-income countries, a study that included 21 studies of which 16 were randomized controlled trials, found a clinically meaningful reduction in the likelihood of being sick by an estimated 27%. Unconditional cash transfers, according to the study, may also improve food security and dietary diversity. Children in recipient families are also more likely to attend school and the cash transfers may increase money spent on health care. A 2022 update of this review confirmed these findings based on a body of evidence (35 studies, the majority being large randomized controlled trials) and additionally found that unconditional cash transfers also reduce the likelihood of living in extreme poverty.

The Canadian Medical Association passed a motion in 2015 in support of basic income and for basic income trials in Canada.

Advocates

Main article: List of advocates of universal basic income

Pilot programs and experiments

Main article: Universal basic income pilots

See also: Universal basic income by country

Omitara, one of the two poor villages in Namibia where a local basic income was tested in 2008–2009

Since the 1960s, but in particular since the late 2000s, several pilot programs and experiments on basic income have been conducted around the world. Some examples include:

1960s−1970s

• Experiments with negative income tax in the United States and Canada in the 1960s and 1970s.
• The province of Manitoba, Canada experimented with Mincome, a basic guaranteed income, in the 1970s. In the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, labor decreased by 13%, less than expected. This program was ended after issues with the cost becoming unsustainable started to arise.

2000−2009

• The basic income grant in Namibia launched in 2008 and ended in 2009.
• An independent pilot implemented in São Paulo, Brazil launched in 2009.

2010−2019

• Basic income trials ran in 2011–2012 in several villages in India, whose government has proposed a guaranteed basic income for all citizens. It was found that basic income in the region raised the education rate of young people by 25%.
• Iran became the first country to introduce a system of UBI in December 2010. It was paid to all citizens and replaced the gasoline subsidies, electricity, and some food, that the country applied for years to reduce inequalities and poverty. The sum corresponded in 2012 to approximately US$40 per person per month, US$480 per year for a single person, and US$2,300 for a family of five people.
• In Spain, the ingreso mínimo vital, the income guarantee system, is an economic benefit guaranteed by the social security in Spain, but in 2016 was considered in need of reform.
• In South Korea the Youth Allowance Program was started in 2016 in the City of Seongnam, which would give every 24-year-old citizen 250,000 won (~US$215) every quarter in the form of a "local currency" that could only be used in local businesses. This program was later expanded to the entire province of Gyeonggi in 2018.
• The GiveDirectly experiment in a disadvantaged village of Nairobi, Kenya, benefitting over 20,000 people living in rural Kenya, was the longest-running basic income pilot as of November 2017, which is set to run for 12 years.
• A project called Eight in a village in Fort Portal, Uganda, was launched by a nonprofit organization in January 2017, providing income for 56 adults and 88 children through mobile money.
• A two-year pilot the Finnish government began in January 2017 involved 2,000 subjects. In April 2018, the Finnish government rejected a request for funds to extend and expand the program from Kela (Finland's social security agency).
• An experiment in the city of Utrecht, Netherlands launched in early 2017, that is testing different rates of aid.
• A three-year basic income pilot that the Ontario provincial government, Canada, launched in the cities of Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay in July 2017. Although called basic income, it was only made available to those with a low income and funding would be removed if they obtained employment, making it more related to the current welfare system than true basic income. The pilot project was canceled on 31 July 2018 by the newly elected Progressive Conservative government under Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
• In Israel, in 2018 a non-profit initiative GoodDollar started with an objective to build a global economic framework for providing universal, sustainable, and scalable basic income through the new digital asset technology of blockchain. The non-profit aims to launch a peer-to-peer money transfer network in which money can be distributed to those most in need, regardless of their location, based on the principles of UBI. The project raised US$1 million from a financial company.
• The Rythu Bandhu scheme is a welfare scheme started in the state of Telangana, India, in May 2018, aimed at helping farmers. Each farm owner receives 4,000 INR per acre twice a year for rabi and kharif harvests. To finance the program a budget allocation of 120 billion INR (US$1.55 Billion as of May 2022) was made in the 2018–2019 state budget.

2020−present

• Swiss non-profit Social Income started paying out basic incomes in the form of mobile money in 2020 to people in need in Sierra Leone. Contributions finance the international initiative from people worldwide, who donate 1% of their monthly paychecks.
• In May 2020, Spain introduced a minimum basic income, reaching about 2% of the population, in response to COVID-19 in order to "fight a spike in poverty due to the coronavirus pandemic". It was expected to cost state coffers three billion euros ($3.5 billion) a year."
• In August 2020, a project in Germany started that gives a €1,200 monthly basic income in a lottery system to citizens who applied online. The crowdsourced project lasted three years and be compared against 1,380 people who do not receive basic income. When the project was finished in August 2023, Mein Grundeinkommen calculated that a tax-financed universal basic income of €1,200 per month could be financed for every adult in Germany that would make 80% of adults better off.
• In October 2020, HudsonUP was launched in Hudson, New York, by The Spark of Hudson and Humanity Forward Foundation to give $500 monthly basic income to 25 residents. It will last five years and be compared against 50 people who are not receiving basic income.
• In May 2021, the government of Wales, which has devolved powers in matters of Social Welfare within the UK, announced the trialling of a universal basic income scheme to "see whether the promises that basic income holds out are genuinely delivered". From July 2022 over 500 people leaving care in Wales were offered £1600 per month in a 3-year £20 million pilot scheme, to evaluate the effect on the lives of those involved in the hope of providing independence and security to people.
• In July 2022, Chicago began a year-long guaranteed income program by sending $500 a month to 5,000 households for one year in a lottery system to citizens who applied online. A similar program was launched in late 2022 by Cook County, Illinois (which encompasses the entirety of Chicago as well as several suburbs) which sent monthly $500 payments to 3,250 residents with a household income at or below 250% of the federal poverty level for two years.
• In June 2023, The Guardian reported that a universal basic income of £1,600 a month is to be trialled in two places in England – Jarrow and East Finchley.
• In February 2025, South Korea announced a "farmers' opportunity income" plan to be integrated into their basic income for farmers, and deployed in 24 cities and counties of the Gyeonggi Province. An estimated 210,000 selected farmers and fishermen will receive either 1.8 million won annually or 50,000 won monthly.
• In March 2025, the Government of Delhi in India approved the "Mahila Samridhi Yojana" plan, under which eligible women would receive a monthly allowance of ₹2,500, based on financial status for women below the poverty line.
• In November 2025, the government of Marshall Islands introduced a national universal basic income scheme under which every resident citizen receives quarterly payments of about US$200. It is financed by a trust fund created under an agreement with the United States, which in part aims to compensate the Marshall Islands for nuclear testing there. The fund holds more than $1.3bn in assets, with the US committing a further $500m through to 2027.

Payments with similarities

Alaska Permanent Fund

Main article: Alaska Permanent Fund

The Permanent Fund of Alaska in the United States provides a kind of yearly basic income based on the oil and gas revenues of the state to nearly all state residents. More precisely the fund resembles a sovereign wealth fund, investing resource revenues into bonds, stocks, and other conservative investment options with the intent to generate renewable revenue for future generations. The fund has had a noticeable yet diminishing effect on reducing poverty among rural Alaska Indigenous people, notably in the elderly population. However, the payment is not high enough to cover basic expenses, averaging $1,600 annually per resident in 2019 currency (as of 2019 it has never exceeded $2,100), and is not a fixed, guaranteed amount. For these reasons, it is not always considered a basic income.

Wealth Partaking Scheme

Main article: Wealth Partaking Scheme

Macau's Wealth Partaking Scheme provides some annual basic income to permanent residents, funded by revenues from the city's casinos. However, the amount disbursed is not sufficient to cover basic living expenses, so it is not considered a basic income.

Bolsa Família

Main article: Bolsa Família

Bolsa Família is a large social welfare program in Brazil that provides money to many low-income families in the country. The system is related to basic income, but has more conditions, like asking the recipients to keep their children in school until graduation. As of March 2020, the program covers 13.8 million families, and pays an average of $34 per month, in a country where the minimum wage is $190 per month.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (ECBI) opened Harrah's Cherokee Casino in 1997 and it has generated jobs and revenue for the tribe, providing money that the EBCI applies to its people's education, welfare and culture. Each member of the tribe is paid an annual income that started at $500 and has increased to $10,000 as of 2015.

Other welfare programs

• Pension: A payment that in some countries is guaranteed to all citizens above a certain age. The difference from true basic income is that it is restricted to people over a certain age.
• Child benefit: A program similar to pensions but restricted to parents of children, usually allocated based on the number of children.
• Conditional cash transfer: A regular payment given to families, but only to the poor. It is usually dependent on basic conditions such as sending their children to school or having them vaccinated. Programs include Bolsa Família in Brazil and Programa Prospera in Mexico.
• Guaranteed minimum income differs from a basic income in that it is restricted to those in search of work and possibly other restrictions, such as savings being below a certain level. Example programs are unemployment benefits in the UK, the revenu de solidarité active in France, and citizens' income in Italy.

Petitions, polls and referendums

• 2008: An official petition for basic income was launched in Germany by Susanne Wiest. The petition was accepted, and Susanne Wiest was invited for a hearing at the German parliament's Commission of Petitions. After the hearing, the petition was closed as "unrealizable".
• 2013–2014: A European Citizens' Initiative collected 280,000 signatures demanding that the European Commission study the concept of an unconditional basic income.
• 2015: A citizen's initiative in Spain received 185,000 signatures, short of the required number to mandate that the Spanish parliament discuss the proposal.
• 2016: The world's first universal basic income referendum in Switzerland on 5 June 2016 was rejected with a 76.9% majority. Also in 2016, a poll showed that 58% of the EU's population were aware of basic income, and 64% would have voted in favour of the idea.
• 2017: Politico/Morning Consult asked 1,994 Americans about their opinions on several political issues including national basic income; 43% either "strongly supported" or "somewhat supported" the idea.
• 2018: The results of a poll by Gallup conducted last year between September and October were published. 48% of respondents supported universal basic income.
• 2019: In November, an Austrian initiative received approximately 70,000 signatures but failed to reach the 100,000 signatures needed for a parliamentary discussion. The initiative was started by Peter Hofer. His proposal suggested a basic income sourced from a financial transaction tax, of €1,200, for every Austrian citizen.
• 2020: A study by Oxford University found that 71% of Europeans were in favour of basic income. The study was conducted in March, with 12,000 respondents and in 27 EU-member states and the UK. A YouGov poll likewise found a majority for universal basic income in United Kingdom and a poll by University of Chicago found that 51% of Americans aged 18–36 supported a monthly basic income of $1,000. In the UK there was also a letter, signed by over 170 MPs and Lords from multiple political parties, calling on the government to introduce a universal basic income during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• 2020: A Pew Research Center survey, conducted online in August 2020, of 11,000 U.S. adults found that a majority (54%) opposed the federal government providing a guaranteed income of $1,000 per month to all adults, while 45% supported it.^[168]
• 2020: In a poll by Hill-HarrisX, 55% of Americans voted in favour of UBI in August, up from 49% in September 2019 and 43% in February 2019.^[169]
• 2020: The results of an online survey of 2,031 participants conducted in 2018 in Germany were published: 51% were either "very much in favor" or "in favor" of UBI being introduced.^[170]
• 2020: An October survey of 1,026 Australians by YouGov found a 58% support for universal basic income.^[171]
• 2021: A Change.org petition calling for monthly stimulus checks in the amount of $2,000 per adult and $1,000 per child for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic had received almost 3 million signatures.