Universal Basic Income (UBI), the concept of providing a set income to all citizens regardless of their employment status, would ideally be managed on a country-by-country basis.
This is because each nation has its own unique economic structure, fiscal policies, and social welfare systems. However, a centralized system or bank could also potentially oversee UBI under an international agreement or policy.
This would likely be more complex and present its own set of challenges, but it remains a possible scenario. In this article, we will explore these two management possibilities in greater depth.
Examples of successful UBI projects
When it comes to Universal Basic Income, there are several countries that have already experimented with this type of social welfare program.
By looking at their experiences, we can start to understand how UBI could be managed either nationally or by a central system.
For instance, in the United States, the city of Stockton in California ran a UBI pilot program from 2019 to 2021.
The project was managed locally and funded by private donations. It provided $500 monthly to a select group of residents with no strings attached.
The program showed positive results, with recipients spending most of the money on basic needs and showing less stress and anxiety.
Finland conducted a two-year UBI experiment from 2017 to 2018, which was managed by the country’s social security institution.
This trial provided €560 per month to a random sample of 2,000 unemployed people. The results showed improved well-being among participants and no decrease in their motivation to work.
In Kenya, there is an ongoing UBI project run by the charity GiveDirectly. It’s not managed by the government but is interesting because of its scale – it aims to reach more than 20,000 people in rural villages.
This project gives us an example of what a large-scale UBI system could look like.
- Stockton, USA – $500 monthly for selected residents, funded by private donations.
- Finland – €560 per month for 2,000 unemployed people, funded by the government.
- Kenya – ongoing project reaching over 20,000 rural villagers, funded by charity.
These examples show that UBI projects can be successfully managed on different levels – whether it’s local (like in Stockton), national (like in Finland), or even through a non-governmental organization (like in Kenya).
How UBI projects address management issues
Let’s pull up the magnifying glass and take a closer look at Finland’s national-level UBI experiment to see how the management of such a program might work.
In this case, the Finnish government, specifically the social security institution Kela, was responsible for managing the program.
They selected 2,000 unemployed individuals randomly and provided them with a monthly stipend of €560. The selection process was strictly managed by Kela, which also handled payments directly to the recipients.
The program was funded through the government’s budget allocated for social security.
This suggests that if a country decides to implement UBI, the management would likely fall under an existing social security or welfare department with funding from the national budget.
On another scale, let’s consider Stockton’s UBI trial in California, USA.
This project was managed locally by the city, which partnered with an independent research team to select eligible citizens based on specific criteria – primarily those living in neighborhoods with a median income at or below the city’s median.
The funding came from private donations and was distributed directly to participants on prepaid debit cards.
This example shows that on a smaller scale, local governments or city councils could potentially manage a UBI system.
In both examples – whether it’s a national government like Finland or a local city council like Stockton – the management of UBI is done by established institutions within the country.
There are no examples yet of a central system or bank managing UBI internationally. But these examples provide insight into how such systems might operate if established.
Why UBI is beneficial and needed
Universal Basic Income can be a powerful tool for addressing income inequality and poverty.
By providing everyone with a guaranteed income, UBI helps ensure that all individuals can meet their basic needs, regardless of their employment status.
This can be particularly beneficial in times of economic downturn or rapid changes in the job market due to technological advancements.
UBI can also contribute to improved mental and physical health. Financial stress is a significant cause of mental health issues. By reducing this stress through a guaranteed income, UBI could lead to better overall health outcomes.
The Finnish UBI experiment, for example, showed that recipients reported lower levels of stress and better mental health.
Furthermore, UBI could potentially stimulate economic growth. When people have more money to spend, they are likely to spend it on goods and services, which can boost local businesses and create jobs.
Lastly, UBI offers a sense of freedom and empowerment. With a guaranteed income, people might have the financial stability to pursue education or training opportunities, start their own business, or engage more in community activities.
This could lead to increased social mobility and a more vibrant, engaged society.
While UBI is not without its criticisms and challenges – including questions about its cost and potential impact on work incentives – the potential benefits make it a worthy concept for serious consideration and further exploration.
READ NEXT: Does UBI Give the Government More Power Over the People
Potential for a central system or bank
While UBI has primarily been implemented and managed on a country-by-country basis so far, the possibility of a central system or bank overseeing UBI internationally is an intriguing concept.
This could potentially streamline the process, given that all participating nations would follow the same set of rules and standards. However, such an approach would also require unprecedented levels of international cooperation and agreement.
A key challenge to this approach is the vast economic disparity between different nations.
The cost of living varies greatly from one country to another, meaning the amount of UBI that would be considered sufficient also differs. Managing these disparities under a centralized system would be a complex task.
Moreover, there are significant differences in taxation systems and social security structures worldwide.
Integrating these diverse systems into a universal policy would require intensive negotiation and likely significant changes to national policies.
While there are currently no examples of a UBI managed by a central system or bank, it’s a concept that could come into focus as discussions about global income inequality and wealth distribution continue to gain momentum.
It is an area ripe for exploration as we continue researching and debating the best ways to implement UBI globally.
