The poverty alleviation programs adopted by various states at different points of time have been an issue of much debate. There have been a number of research and empirical study on the effects of different benefit schemes for the poor and the unemployed. Researchers and policy makers have also come up with different instruments to combat poverty and destitution. It is the primary goal of every welfare state to ensure a respectful and quality living for all its citizens. The article that we are going to discuss today is a critical analysis of the Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) scheme. This scheme has been adopted by some countries. Switzerland is one of them. The author S.M. discusses how this scheme can work of it is introduced in the US economy. The author cites the opinion of a number of economists, political thinkers, journalists and researchers to discuss both the pros and cons of this new scheme. The present study attempts to delve into the possible effects of the UBI scheme on the poor population of the USA.
A UBI is a social support scheme that aims at providing a basic subsistence level of income to the people irrespective of their employment status, health status, family size, or their position in the income ladder. The objective is to replace the various schemes like housing plans for the poor, the health insurance benefits, the food bills and the child benefit schemes with one scheme of UBI. The author discusses the argument both in favor and against the scheme. The section of the political thinkers believes that the UBI is the right way to bring a wide section of the population above the poverty line. It is also convenient for the poor population as they don’t have to run after the various schemes like the housing vouchers and food coupons. The population under the poverty line will now have a given amount of dollar to spend on their urgent necessities. The most important benefit of the scheme as pointed out by the author is that there is no compartmentalization of the spending. An array of different benefits allows the beneficiaries some allotted level of that particular amenity. But we would like to stress the fact that this compartmentalization is justified on the grounds that this ensures that the security benefits are utilized judiciously and not wasted in unnecessary and unproductive spending. For example the food bill will allow a given level of spending on food. The housing voucher similarly allows the incumbent to spend a given sum on the housing facilities. The author presents the counter argument too. While a section of the population may use this basic income in a judicious way a major section may not use their rationality in the spending.
Works Cited
Parijs, Philippe Van. "Reciprocity and the Justification of an Unconditional Basic Income. Reply to Stuart White." Political Studies XLV (1997): 327-330.
S.M. "The Cheque is in the Mail." The Economist, November 19, 2013: 3.
Tod, Christian. Equity and Efficiency Considerations, WIth an Illustration Using Austrian SILC Data. Research Report, Linz: Johannes Kepler University, Department of Economics, 2008.
Veen, Robert J. van der. "Real Freedom versus Reciprocity: COmpeting VIew on the Justice of Unconditional Basis Income." Political Studies XLVI (1998): 140-163.
White, Stuart. "Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and The Case for an Unconditinal Basic Income." Political Studies 45, no. 2 (1997): 312-326.
