Transnationalism is a research field and social phenomenon grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the receding economic and social significance of boundaries among nation states.
Overview
The term "trans-national" was popularized in the early 20th century by writer Randolph Bourne to describe a new way of thinking about relationships between cultures. However, the term itself was coined by a colleague in college.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary states 1921 was the year the term
"transnational" was first used in print, which was after Bourne's death.
Transnationalism as an economic
process involves the global reorganization of the production process,
in which various stages of the production of any product can occur in
various countries, typically with the aim of minimizing costs. Economic
transnationalism, commonly known as globalization,
was spurred in the latter half of the 20th century by the development
of the internet and wireless communication, as well as the reduction in
global transportation costs caused by containerization. Multinational corporations
could be seen as a form of transnationalism, in that they seek to
minimize costs, and hence maximize profits, by organizing their
operations in the most efficient means possible irrespective of
political boundaries.
Proponents of transnational capitalism seek to facilitate the flow of people, ideas, and goods among regions.
They believe that it has increasing relevance with the rapid growth of
capitalist globalization. They contend that it does not make sense to
link specific nation-state boundaries with for instance migratory workforces, globalized corporations,
global money flow, global information flow, and global scientific
cooperation. However, critical theories of transnationalism have argued
that transnational capitalism has occurred through the increasing
monopolization and centralization of capital by leading dominant groups
in the global economy and various power blocs. Scholars critical of
global capitalism (and its global ecological and inequality crises) have
argued instead for a transnationalism from below between workers and
co-operatives as well as popular social and political movements.
Transnationalism as concept, theory and experience has nourished
an important literature in social sciences. In practice transnationalism
refers to increasing functional integration of processes that
cross-borders or according to others trans bordered relations of
individuals, groups, firms and to mobilizations beyond state boundaries.
Individuals, groups, institutions and states interact with each other
in a new global space where cultural and political characteristic of
national societies are combined with emerging multilevel and
multinational activities. Transnationalism is a part of the process of
capitalist globalization. The concept of transnationalism refers to
multiple links and interactions linking people and institutions across
the borders of nation-states.
Although much of the more recent literature has focused on popular
protest as a form of transnational activism, some research has also
drawn attention to clandestine and criminal networks, as well as foreign
fighters, as examples of a wider form of transnationalism.
Some have argued that diasporas, such as the overseas Chinese, are a historical precursor
to modern transnationalism. However, unlike some people with
transnationalist lives, most diasporas have not been voluntary. The
field of diaspora politics
does consider modern diasporas as having the potential to be
transnational political actors and be influenced by transnational
political forces.
While the term "transnationalism" emphasizes the ways in which nations
are no longer able to contain or control the disputes and negotiations
through which social groups annex a global dimension to their meaningful
practices, the notion of diaspora brings to the fore the racial
dynamics underlying the international division of labor and the economic turmoil of global capital. In an article published in 2006, Asale Angel-Ajani claimed that "there is the possibility within diaspora studies to move away from the politically sanitized discourse that surrounds transnational studies". Since African diaspora studies have focused on racial formation, racism, and white supremacy, diaspora theory
has the potential to bring to transnationalism "a varied political, if
not radical political, perspective to the study of transnational
processes and—globalization".
Causes
Different
approaches have attempted to explain transnationalism. Some argue that
it is driven mainly by the development of technologies that have made
transportation and communication more accessible and affordable, which
thus dramatically change the relationship between people and places. It
is now possible for immigrants to maintain closer and more frequent
contact with their home societies than ever before.
However, the integration of international migrations to the
demographic future of many developed countries is another important
driver for transnationalism. Beyond simply filling a demand for low-wage
workers, migration also fills the demographic gaps created by declining
natural populations in most industrialized countries. Today, migration
accounts for three fifths of population growth on western countries as a
whole, a trend that shows no signs of slowing down.
Moreover, global political transformations and new international
legal regimes have weakened the state as the only legitimate source of
rights. Decolonization, the fall of communism, and the ascendance of human rights
have forced states to take account of persons as persons, rather than
as citizens. As a result, individuals have rights regardless of their
citizenship status within a country.
Others, from a neo-Marxist approach, argue that transnational
class relations have come about concomitantly with novel organizational
and technological advancements and the spread of transnational chains of
production and finance.
Immigrant transnational activities
When
immigrants engage in transnational activities, they create "social
fields" that link their original country with their new country or
countries of residence. "We have defined transnationalism as the process
by which immigrants build social fields that link together their
country of origin and their country of settlement".
These social fields are the product of a series of interconnected and
overlapping economic, political, and socio-cultural activities:
Economic transnational activities
Economic transnational activities such as business investments in home countries and monetary remittances
are both pervasive and well documented. The Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB) estimates that in 2006 immigrants living in developed
countries sent home the equivalent of $300 billion in remittances, an
amount more than double the level of international aid. This intense
influx of resources may mean that for some nations development prospects
become inextricably linked—if not dependent upon—the economic
activities of their respective diasporas.
Political transnational activities
Political
transnational activities can range from retained membership in
political parties in one's country of origin and voting in its elections
to even running for political office. Less formal but still significant
roles include the transfer or dissemination of political ideas and
norms, such as publishing an op-ed in a home country newspaper, writing a
blog, or lobbying a local elected official. There is also the more
extreme example of individuals such as Jesus Galvis, a travel agent in
New Jersey who in 1997 ran for a Senate seat in his native Colombia. He
was elected and intended to hold office simultaneously in Bogota and
Hackensack, New Jersey where he served as a city councilor.
Political economy
The
rise of global capitalism has occurred through a novel and increasingly
functional integration of capitalist chains of production and finance
across borders which is tied to the formation of a transnational
capitalist class. This approach has led to a broader study of corporate networks, the global working class and the transnationalization of state apparatuses and elites.
Psychology
Transnational psychology
developed in response to the new psychological contexts created by
escalating globalization, global power dynamics, increasing migration,
an ever more interconnected world, and other phenomena that transcend
nation-state boundaries. It is a branch of psychology that applies postcolonial, postmodern context-sensitive cultural psychology, and transnational feminist lenses to the field of psychology to study, understand, and address the impact of colonization, imperialism, and globalization,
and to counter the Western bias in the field of psychology.
Transnational psychologists partner with members of local communities to
examine the unique psychological characteristics of groups without
regard to nation-state boundaries.
Socio-cultural transnational activities
Transnationalism
is an analytic lens used to understand immigrant and minority
populations as a meeting of multiple simultaneous histories.
Socio-cultural transnational activities cover a wide array of social
and cultural transactions through which ideas and meanings are
exchanged. Recent research has established the concept and importance of
social remittances which provide a distinct form of social capital
between migrants living abroad and those who remain at home.
These transfers of socio-cultural meanings and practices occur either
during the increased number of visits that immigrants take back to their
home countries or visits made by non-migrants to friends and families
living in the receiving countries or through the dramatically increased
forms of correspondence such as emails, online chat sessions, telephone
calls, CDs/ VDOs, and traditional letters.
In the late 1980s, ethnic studies scholars would largely move towards models of diaspora to understand immigrant communities in relation to area studies, although lone patterns of international flow would become accompanied by the multiple flows of transnationalism.
However, to say that immigrants build social fields that link those
abroad with those back home is not to say that their lives are not
firmly rooted in a particular place and time. Indeed, they are as much
residents of their new community as anyone else.
Transnationalism is criticized for being too far removed from
ethnic studies' efforts to empower solidarity in minority communities. Asian American Studies
provides a counterargument in that its inception was based in
comparative analysis of the racial discrimination against Asian
Americans and Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. A collection of scholarly articles, edited by Terese Guinsatao Monberg
and Morris Young, seeks to understand how transnationalism reveals ways
Asian/Americans "negotiate, resist, and work against emerging,
shifting, and often intensified 'highly asymmetrical relations of
power.'" Furthermore, inter-movement spillover plays an important role in transnational climate change politics.
Based on these findings, one can conclude that when movements come
together in the form of actors and social change tactics, movements
become stronger and more prominent. This is the purpose and overall
effect of inter-movement spillover.
Migration
Transnationalism has significant implications for the way we conceptualize immigration.
Traditionally, immigration has been seen as an autonomous process,
driven by conditions such as poverty and overpopulation in the country
of origin and unrelated to conditions (such as foreign policy and
economic needs) in the receiving country. Even though overpopulation, economic stagnation, and poverty all continue to create pressures for migration, they alone are not enough to produce large international migration
flows. There are many countries, for example, which lack significant
emigration history despite longstanding poverty. Also, most
international immigration flows from the global South to the global
North are not made up by the poorest of the poor, but, generally by
professionals. In addition, there are countries with high levels of job
creation that continue to witness emigration on a large scale.
The reasons and promoters for migration are not only embodied
within the country of origin. Instead, they are rooted within the
broader geopolitical and global dynamics. Significant evidence of
geographic migration patterns suggests that receiving countries become
home to immigrants from the receiving country's zone of influence. Then,
immigration is but a fundamental component of the process of capitalist
expansion, market penetration, and globalization. There are systematic
and structural relations between globalization and immigration.
The emergence of a global economy
has contributed both to the creation of potential emigrants abroad and
to the formation of economic, cultural, and ideological links between
industrialized and developing countries that later serve as bridges for
the international migration. For example, the same set of circumstances
and processes that have promoted the location of factories and offices
abroad have also contributed to the creation of large supply of low-wage
jobs for which immigrant workers constitute a desirable labor supply.
Moreover, the decline of manufacturing jobs and the growth of the
service sector, key drivers of the globalization of production, have
transformed western economies’ occupational and income structure.
Unlike the manufacturing sector, which traditionally supplied
middle-income jobs and competitive benefits, the majority of service
jobs are either extremely well-paid or extremely poorly paid, with
relatively few jobs in the middle-income range. Many of the jobs lack
key benefits such as health insurance. Sales representatives, restaurant
wait staff, administrative assistants, and custodial workers are among
the growth occupations.
Finally, the fact that the major growth sectors rather than
declining sectors are generating the most low-wage jobs shows that the
supply of such jobs will continue to increase for the predictable
future. The entry of migrant workers will similarly continue to meet the
demand. In turn, this inflow provides the raw material out of which
transnational communities emerge.
Universal basic income (UBI) is a social welfare proposal in which all citizens 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 work. In contrast a guaranteed minimum income
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 sometimes called a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it may be called a partial basic income.
As of 2024, no country has implemented a full UBI system, but two
countries—Mongolia and Iran—have had a partial UBI in the past. 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/or consider it
socially unjust that everyone should receive the same amount of money
regardless of their individual need. Proponents say it is indeed
financeable, arguing that such a system, instead of many individual
means-tested social benefits, would eliminate much 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.
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 his 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 RadicalThomas Spence published The Rights of Infants in 1797 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 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 the idea of a negative income tax (NIT), which effectively sanctioned a basic income for all, in his book Capitalism and Freedom published in 1962. In his 1964 State of the Union address, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced legislation to fight the "war on poverty".
Johnson believed in expanding the federal government's roles in
education and health care as poverty reduction strategies. In this
political climate, the idea of a guaranteed income for every American
also took root. Notably, a document, signed by 1200 economists, called
for a guaranteed income for every American. Six ambitious basic income
experiments started up on the related concept of negative income tax.
Succeeding President Richard Nixon explained its 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.
In the mid-1970s the main competitor to basic income and negative income tax, the Earned income tax credit
(EITC), or 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 to Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), was founded, with academic conferences every second year. Other advocates included the green political movement, as well as activists and some groups of unemployed people.
In the latter part of the 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,
there were papers about basic income from a wide variety of
perspectives, including economics, sociology, and human rights
approaches.
In recent years the idea has come to the forefront more than before. The Swiss referendum about basic income in Switzerland 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, in California, then-Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs
initiated an 18-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
will 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 provides $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 will be published in 2024.
Response to COVID-19
As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and related 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.
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 diagram shows a basic income/negative tax system combined with flat income tax (the same percentage in tax for every income level).
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. 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 one gets in one's pocket 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:
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
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 heavily influenced by Martin Ford.
Ford, in his turn, believes that the emerging technologies will fail to
deliver a lot of employment; on the contrary, because the new
industries will "rarely, if ever, be highly labor-intensive".
Similar ideas have been debated many times before in history—that "the
machines will take the jobs"—so the argument is not new. But what is
quite new is the existence of several academic studies that do indeed
forecast a future with substantially less employment, in the decades to
come. Additionally, President Barack Obama
has 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".
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 the 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 cheaper than the US system put in place at
that date. By 2020, it would have been nearly a trillion dollars cheaper.
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, 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.
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.
Although it is difficult to know for sure what will happen if a whole
country introduces basic income, there are nevertheless some studies who
have attempted to look at this question:
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 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.
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.
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 landmark review confirmed these findings based on
a grown body of evidence (35 studies, the majority being large randomized controlled trials) and additionally found sufficient evidence that unconditional cash transfers also reduce the likelihood of living in extreme poverty.
The Canadian Medical Association passed a motion in 2015 in clear support of basic income and for basic income trials in Canada.
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. 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 only decreased by 13%, much 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 run 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 products,
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, is 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,
that a nonprofit organization launched in January 2017, which provides
income for 56 adults and 88 children through mobile money.
A two-year pilot the Finnish government began in January 2017 which 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 PremierDoug 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.
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. However,
some consider it to be the only example of a real basic income.
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 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.
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.
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".
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 is aware of basic income, and 64% would vote 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 are now 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 support 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%) oppose the federal government providing a
guaranteed income of $1,000 per month to all adults, while 45% support
it.
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.
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.
2020: An October survey of 1,026 Australians by YouGov found a 58% support for universal basic income.
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.
In economics, a negative income tax (NIT)
is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for
incomes below a certain level; in other words, earners above that level
pay money to the state while earners below it receive money, as shown by
the blue arrows in the diagram. NIT was proposed by Juliet Rhys-Williams while working on the Beveridge Report in the early 1940s and popularized by Milton Friedman
in the 1960s as a system in which the state makes payments to the poor
when their income falls below a threshold, while taxing them on income
above that threshold. Together with Friedman, supporters of NIT also
included James Tobin, Joseph A. Pechman, and Peter M. Mieszkowski, Jim Gray and even then-President Richard Nixon, who suggested implementation of modified NIT in his Family Assistance Plan.
After the increase in popularity of NIT, an experiment sponsored by the
US government was conducted between 1968 and 1982 on effects of NIT on
labour supply, income, and substitution effects.
Generic negative income tax
The view that the state should supplement the income of the poor has a long history (see Universal basic income § History). Such payments are seen as benefits
if they are limited to those who lack other income, or are conditional
on specific needs (such as number of children), but are seen as negative
taxes if they continue to be received as a supplement by workers who
have income from other sources. The withdrawal of benefits when the
recipient ceases to satisfy a firm eligibility criterion is often seen
as giving rise to the welfare trap.
The level of support provided to the poor by a negative tax is
thought of as parametrically adjustable according to the opposing claims
of economic efficiency and distributional justice. Friedman's NIT lacks
this adjustability owing to the constraint that other benefits would be
largely discontinued; hence a wage subsidy is more representative of generic negative income tax than is Friedman's specific Negative Income Tax.
In 1975 the United States implemented a negative income tax for the working poor through the earned income tax credit.
A 1995 survey found that 78% of American economists supported (with or
without provisos) the incorporation of a negative income tax into the
welfare system.
Income redistribution expressed equivalently as a negative income tax or as a basic income
Theoretical discussion of negative taxation began with Vilfredo Pareto,
who first made a formal distinction between allocative efficiency (i.e.
the market's ability to give people what they want subject to their
incomes) and distributive justice (i.e. the question of whether these
incomes are fair in the first place). He sought to show that market
economies allocated resources optimally within the income distributions
they give rise to, but accepted that there was nothing optimal about
these distributions themselves. He concluded that if society wished to
maximise wellbeing, it should let market forces govern production and
exchange and then correct the result by 'a second distribution...
performed in conformity with the workings of free competition'.
His argument was that a direct transfer obtained a given redistributive
effect with the least possible reduction of economic efficiency, and
was preferable to government interference in the market (as happens in
modern economies through the minimum wage) which damages efficiency by introducing distortions.
Abram Bergson and Paul Samuelson (drawing on earlier work by Oscar Lange) gave a more formal statement to Pareto's claims.
They showed that the optimum of efficiency associated with market
competition fell short of maximum wellbeing as reflected by a social welfare function
only through distributional effects, and that a true optimum could be
obtained if the state were to transfer income through 'lump sum taxes or
bounties', where 'bounties' are negative taxes and 'lump sum' is
Samuelson's term for a hypothetical redistribution with no distortionary
consequences.
It follows from the Bergson/Samuelson analysis that any proposed
measure (including the proposal to leave things as they are) can be
assessed according to the balance it achieves between three factors: (i)
the improvement in overall wellbeing from a more equitable
distribution; (ii) the loss in economic efficiency due to the
distortions introduced; and (iii) the administrative costs. The first of
these cannot easily be equated to a sum of money; the last is unlikely
to be a dominant factor. Hence redistribution should be pursued up to
the point at which any further (non-monetary) benefits from a more equal
distribution would be offset by the resulting monetary loss of economic
efficiency.
The Bergson/Samuelson theory was developed in a broadly utilitarian
framework. A fourth factor could be added in the form of a moral claim
derived from present ownership or legitimate earning. Considerable
weight was placed on this during the Enlightenment but Hume and the Utilitarians rejected it. It is seldom mentioned nowadays but cannot be dismissed a priori as a relevant consideration.
The theoretical study of the trade-off between equity and efficiency was initiated by James Mirrlees in 1971. Eytan Sheshinski summarised:
In various examples calculated by Mirrlees, the optimal
income-tax schedule appears to be approximately linear with a negative
tax at low incomes.
Friedman's NIT
Rose and Milton Friedman
"Negative Income Tax" became prominent in the United States as a result of advocacy by Milton and Rose Friedman, who first put forward a concrete proposal in 1962 in a brief section of their book Capitalism and Freedom. Their system is equivalent in its operation to most forms of universal basic income (UBI) (qv., particularly the section § Fundamental principles for the equivalence).
In the aforementioned work, Friedman provides five benefits of
the negative income tax. Firstly, Friedman argues that it provides cash
which the individual sees as the best possible way of support. Secondly,
it targets poverty directly through income rather than through general
old-age benefits or farm programs. Thirdly, negative income tax could in
his opinion replace all supporting programs present at that time and
provide one universal program. Fourthly, in theory the cost of negative
income tax can be lower than the cost of existing programs mainly due to
lower administrative costs. Lastly, the program should not distort the
market in the way minimum wage laws or tariffs do.
Friedman envisioned the NIT followingly in an interview in 1968:
Considering family A of four with income $4000 and Family B of four with
income $2000. If the break-even income would be $3000, after filing the
tax report, family A would pay the tax on $1000 while family B would be
entitled to receive, assuming the 50% NIT rate, $500. Meaning half of
the difference between what they earn and the break-even income.
Therefore, a family with $0 income would be entitled to receive $1500 in
subsidy. Friedman argued NIT would not destroy the incentive to work,
as compared to guaranteed income programmes (GIP) with 100% effective marginal tax rate, i.e. with the GIP workers lose $1 of subsidy for each $1 increase in wage.
In his 1966 "View from the Right" paper Milton Friedman remarked that his proposal...
has been greeted with considerable (though far from
unanimous) enthusiasm on the left and with considerable (though again
far from unanimous) hostility on the right. Yet, in my opinion, the
negative income tax is more compatible with the philosophy and aims of
the proponents of limited government and maximum individual freedom than
with the philosophy and aims of the proponents of the welfare state and
greater government control of the economy.
Friedman
also elaborated and provided two reasons for the hostility from the
right. Firstly, he mentions that the right is frightened due to the
introduction of a guaranteed minimum income
the poor would have a disincentive to improve their well-being.
Secondly, the right is not certain about the political outcomes of the
NIT, as there exist threats that there will be an upward pressure on the
break-even incomes among politicians.
The Friedmans together promoted the idea to a wider audience in 1980 in their book and television series Free to Choose. It has often been discussed (and endorsed) by economists but never fully implemented. Advantages claimed for it include:
The alleviation of poverty was mentioned in Capitalism and Freedom,
where Friedman argued that in 1961 the US government spent around 33
billion on welfare payments e.g. old age assistance, social security
benefit payments, public housing, etc. excluding mainly veterans'
benefits and other allowances. Friedman recalculated the spending
between 57 million consumers in 1961 and came to the conclusion that it
would have financed 6000 dollars per consumer to the poorest 10% or 3000
dollars to the poorest 20%. Friedman also found out that a program
raising incomes of the poorest 20% to the lowest income of the rest
would cost the US government less than half of the amount spent in 1961.
The Friedmans' writings were influential for a period with the American political right, and in 1969 President Richard Nixon proposed a Family Assistance Program
which had points in common with UBI. Milton Friedman originally
supported Nixon's proposal but eventually testified against it on
account of its perverse labor incentive effects.
Friedman was mainly opposed to the idea that Nixon's program would be
combined with existing programs at that time, rather than replacing the
existing programs as Friedman originally proposed.
Meanwhile, support for negative income tax was increasing among the political left. Paul Samuelson argued in Newsweek
that it was an idea whose time had come, and more than 1,200 academic
economists signed a petition in support of it. Friedman withheld his
signature, possibly on the grounds that the petition didn't explicitly
describe the new measure as a replacement rather than a supplement to
existing programs.
As civic disorder diminished in the US, support for negative
income tax waned among the American right. Instead the doctrine came to
be particularly associated with the political left, generally under the
name "basic income" or derivatives. It received further impetus in
Europe with the founding of the Basic Income Earth Network
(BIEN) in 1986. Asked in 2000 how he viewed a basic income "compared to
the alternative of a negative income tax", Friedman replied that the
measures were not alternatives and that basic income was "simply another
way to introduce a negative income tax", giving a numerical example of
their equivalence.
Experiments on the effect of NIT on the labour supply
The
experiments on NIT have been conducted in the US between years 1968 and
1982 and the expenditures were 225 million recalculated for the 1984
value. The first results have been that the husbands reduced labour
supply by about the equivalent of two weeks of full-time employment. On
the other hand, wives and single female heads reduced it by three weeks
and the youth reduced the labour supply by four weeks.
The experiments were conducted in the following states:
New Jersey (1968–1972) observing 1,357 families for a period of 3
years and testing the guarantee levels from 0.5 to 1.25 of the poverty
line and tax rates from 0.3 to 0.7.
Rural Iowa and Carolina (1969–1973) involving 809 families for a
period of 3 years and testing guarantee levels from 0.5 to 1.00 and tax
rates from 0.3 to 0.7.
Gary
(1971–1974) observing 1,780 families for a period of 3 years and
testing guarantee levels from 0.75 to 1.00 and tax rates from 0.4 to
0.6.
Seattle–Denver (1971–1982) the biggest of the four experiments,
containing three lengths of treatments (3, 5 and 10 years) and testing
guarantee levels from 0.95 to 1.40 and a non-constant tax rate.
It has been concluded that the most relevant sample size is from the
Seattle-Denver experiment, and the experiment should yield the most
precise estimates. Importantly, the results may vary not only due to
sample sizes but also due to different design, methods of analysis or
operations.
Results of the individual experiments
The
individual results were districted into four categories: husbands,
wives, single female heads, the youth. Firstly, it was noted that there
is an unambiguous decrease in labour supply as a result of NIT and that
there exists a pattern among each of the groups. The results show that
husbands are the least responsive to NIT in terms of withdrawal from
labour force while the youth is the most responsive. Moreover, the
percentage responses are from 5-25% equalling 1–5 weeks of full-time
work. The employment rate ranges from 1 to 10%.
It is however important to note that while on one hand the youth was
the most responsive to NIT, on the other hand the decrease in labour
supply was equalled by increase in school attendance. Moreover, the
chances of completing school education also rose notably in New Jersey
by 5% and in Seattle-Denver by 11%.
Considering results from the Seattle-Denver experiment, it can be
shown that the two-parent families that received $2,700 decreased their
earnings by almost $1,800. Therefore, spending $2,700 on transfers to
two-parent families in Seattle-Denver increased their income by only
$900. This raised the question whether taxpayers would be willing to pay
$3 in order to increase the income of aforementioned families by $1.
Implications to the real world
An
attempt was made to synthesise the results and provide a nation-wide
estimate of the effects of NIT in the US using two plans, one with 75%
and the other with 100% guarantee and 50% and 70% tax rates. The
corresponding programmes would cost between 6.7 and 16.3 billion
dollars, (-5.3) to 4.5 billion dollars, 55.5 to 61.1 billion dollars and
15.4 to 25.7 billion dollars (value expressed in 1985 dollars)
respectively. These are net costs, meaning how much more the NIT would
cost relative to the welfare programmes in effect at the time. For the
latter two options, i.e. 100% guarantee with either 50% or 70% tax rate,
it would represent an increase in spending equal to 1.5 percent of the gross national product
(GNP) and 0.4-0.6 percent of GNP. The net increase could be financed by
increase in federal taxes from 2 to 4 percent. While the cost of
eliminating poverty seemed attainable, the issue of decreased earnings
and self-support among families remained prevalent.
Hence, the issues likely caused the decrease in interest in
implementation of NIT, as the work of donor is a bit higher than the
work of the recipient and can potentially lead to free riding which
would destroy the entire framework.
A negative income tax is structurally similar to a universal basic income,
as both are capable of achieving the exact same net transfer of income.
However, the two mechanisms may differ in the cost to the government,
the timing of payments, and the psychological perceptions from
taxpayers.
