To make good policy you should have at least a vague notion of what you are talking about.
However, when it comes to perhaps the biggest reform proposal around, we just do not. I am talking about a universal basic income (UBI), a system of unconditional cash payments to everybody in a given jurisdiction.
The case for a UBI runs as follows: It would reduce poverty, make people healthier and give them more dignity. It would also ease the transition of workers who lose their jobs to robots or artificial intelligence, so they can retrain for different careers. In general, it lets people bridge periods out of work or in bad jobs so they can invest in their own skills and re-enter the workforce at a higher level.
Photo: AP
To get out of a dead-end job, say, they might take a “sabbatical” for adult education. Or they could temporarily contribute in other valuable ways, for instance by homeschooling their children or caring for elderly parents.
Moreover, because a UBI would replace most or (as I would like) all legacy welfare systems, its cost need not be prohibitive.
Now the case against a UBI: It would devalue work as such and reward sloth. Without an existential need to work, why bother? A UBI would create a new and permanently dependent underclass, a lumpenproletariat of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. To provide the nectar that feeds these UBI drones, all those diligent worker bees who still have jobs would have to pay unacceptably high taxes.
This clash between cliches is what the debate has deteriorated to.
However, how, in fact, would most human beings respond to “free” money? We have not the faintest idea.
Lots of people have tried to find out, of course. Starting with Canada in the 1970s, various local, regional and national governments around the world have run experiments.
However, so far these have not yielded much useful information. Sometimes a new government took office and halted a research project or changed its parameters beyond recognition. Or the study was designed poorly.
UBI geeks were particularly disappointed that a Finnish project that began in 2017 was first changed, then stopped after only two years.
It, too, was not very well thought out — 2,000 Finns who were initially unemployed received a modest 560 euros (US$656 at the current exchange rate) a month and were compared against another group who continued to receive means-tested unemployment benefits.
To see the macroeconomic effect of a UBI, of course, you want to test it on a representative slice of the whole population, not just the jobless.
Nonetheless, as imperfect as the Finnish study was, it did debunk one assumption of UBI opponents. Getting unconditional payouts not only increased the well-being of the participating Finns, but also made them slightly more likely to find jobs. In short, they got healthier, but not lazier.
Now there is excitement about another research project getting started in Germany. It might finally get the parameters right. Almost 2 million people from all walks of life have already applied to be guinea pigs.
Starting next month, social scientists are to select two groups. One, consisting of 120 people, will get 1,200 euros a month, starting next spring and lasting three years. They will be compared against a control group of 1,380 who will be monitored, but will not get any cash.
The twist in this experiment is that the organizers are to look for “statistical twins.” So if among the 120 there is a 25-year-old pianist who lives in an urban metropolis, has five years of higher education and good health, she would have a doppelganger in the control group. So would the 40-year-old plumber from the countryside, the gig worker delivering Amazon packages, and so on.
By comparing these statistical twins over several years, said Juergen Schupp, the sociologist who leads the project, it should be possible to single out just the effects of the payments on people’s lives.
Eventually, they will even compare hair samples for clues about stress hormones. As usual in science, the results would not necessarily prove a positive — that a UBI turns us into entrepreneurs, for example.
However, they should be able to falsify bad arguments — that a UBI makes us lazy, perhaps.
Even this project, of course, will not try to answer every question. Which existing welfare services would a UBI replace? Would it extend even to migrants and temporary residents? How would it be financed?
However, it is a step in the right direction, and a reminder that policymakers in poor and rich countries alike need to keep an open mind.
We are indeed in the midst of a digital transformation that would destroy many old jobs and create many new ones, and we need structures that help people adapt.
As this year reminded us all, every now and then something like a pandemic-induced recession comes along, against which a UBI just might be an ideal policy tool. It would certainly help if we could answer some of the big questions.
Andreas Kluth is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. He was previously editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist. He is the author of Hannibal and Me
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
SEMICONDUCTORS: The firm has already completed one fab, which is to begin mass producing 2-nanomater chips next year, while two others are under construction Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電), the world’s largest contract chipmaker, plans to begin construction of its fourth and fifth wafer fabs in Kaohsiung next year, targeting the development of high-end processes. The two facilities — P4 and P5 — are part of TSMC’s production expansion program, which aims to build five fabs in Kaohsiung. TSMC facility division vice president Arthur Chuang (莊子壽) on Thursday said that the five facilities are expected to create 8,000 jobs. To respond to the fast-changing global semiconductor industry and escalating international competition, TSMC said it has to keep growing by expanding its production footprints. The P4 and P5
DOWNFALL: The Singapore-based oil magnate Lim Oon Kuin was accused of hiding US$800 million in losses and leaving 20 banks with substantial liabilities Former tycoon Lim Oon Kuin (林恩強) has been declared bankrupt in Singapore, following the collapse of his oil trading empire. The name of the founder of Hin Leong Trading Pte Ltd (興隆貿易) and his children Lim Huey Ching (林慧清) and Lim Chee Meng (林志朋) were listed as having been issued a bankruptcy order on Dec. 19, the government gazette showed. The younger Lims were directors at the company. Leow Quek Shiong and Seah Roh Lin of BDO Advisory Pte Ltd are the trustees, according to the gazette. At its peak, Hin Leong traded a range of oil products, made lubricants and operated loading
The growing popularity of Chinese sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks has shaken up Mexico’s luxury car market, hitting sales of traditionally dominant brands such as Mercedes-Benz and BMW. Mexicans are increasingly switching from traditionally dominant sedans to Chinese vehicles due to a combination of comfort, technology and price, industry experts say. It is no small feat in a country home to factories of foreign brands such as Audi and BMW, and where until a few years ago imported Chinese cars were stigmatized, as in other parts of the world. The high-end segment of the market registered a sales drop
Citigroup Inc and Bank of America Corp said they are leaving a global climate-banking group, becoming the latest Wall Street lenders to exit the coalition in the past month. In a statement, Citigroup said while it remains committed to achieving net zero emissions, it is exiting the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Bank of America said separately on Tuesday that it is also leaving NZBA, adding that it would continue to work with clients on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The banks’ departure from NZBA follows Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Wells Fargo & Co. The largest US financial institutions are under increasing pressure