What do you think?
Rate this book
Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy
It may sound crazy to pay people an income whether or not they are working or looking for work. But the idea of providing an unconditional basic income to every individual, rich or poor, active or inactive, has been advocated by such major thinkers as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, and John Kenneth Galbraith. For a long time, it was hardly noticed and never taken seriously. Today, with the traditional welfare state creaking under pressure, it has become one of the most widely debated social policy proposals in the world. Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght present the most comprehensive defense of this radical idea so far, advocating it as our most realistic hope for addressing economic insecurity and social exclusion in the twenty-first century.
The authors seamlessly combine philosophy, politics, and economics as they compare the idea of a basic income with rival ideas past and present for guarding against poverty and unemployment. They trace its history, tackle the economic and ethical objections against an unconditional income--including its alleged tendency to sap incentives and foster free riding--and lay out how such an apparently implausible idea might be viable financially and achievable politically. Finally, they consider the relevance of the proposal in an increasingly globalized economy.
In an age of growing inequality and divided politics, when old answers to enduring social problems no longer inspire confidence, Basic Income presents fresh reasons to hope that we might yet achieve a free society and a sane economy.
The authors seamlessly combine philosophy, politics, and economics as they compare the idea of a basic income with rival ideas past and present for guarding against poverty and unemployment. They trace its history, tackle the economic and ethical objections against an unconditional income--including its alleged tendency to sap incentives and foster free riding--and lay out how such an apparently implausible idea might be viable financially and achievable politically. Finally, they consider the relevance of the proposal in an increasingly globalized economy.
In an age of growing inequality and divided politics, when old answers to enduring social problems no longer inspire confidence, Basic Income presents fresh reasons to hope that we might yet achieve a free society and a sane economy.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published March 20, 2017
65 people are currently reading
1101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
Read
March 5, 2022Ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο για ένα θέμα που προσωπικά με έπεισε ότι πρέπει σοβαρά να μπει στη σφαίρα του δημόσιου διαλόγου. Πραγματεύεται όλα τα επιχειρήματα και τις αντιρρήσεις για το βασικό εισόδημα και παρόλο που έχει κάποιες τεχνικές έννοιες, είναι προσιτό στο μέσο αναγνώστη.
Εννοείται ότι το θεωρώ απαραίτητο ανάγνωσμα για όσους ασχολούνται με οικονομικά και πολιτικά θέματα.
Δείτε περισσότερα στο Ex Libris.
Εννοείται ότι το θεωρώ απαραίτητο ανάγνωσμα για όσους ασχολούνται με οικονομικά και πολιτικά θέματα.
Δείτε περισσότερα στο Ex Libris.
August 24, 2017
A very well written book and compelling argument for unconditional basic income (national and, even, global).
I went into the book sympathetic with Foucault's argument that 'basic income' was simply another means by which capitalism tries to exceed another barrier (with technology replacing human labour resulting in greater unemployment and a growing chasm between the lives of rich and poor). I still think Foucault was in principle correct, but the authors of this book make a compelling case for basic income providing greater freedom for all, greater 'happiness', and the potential for addressing environmental 'externalities'.
I went into the book sympathetic with Foucault's argument that 'basic income' was simply another means by which capitalism tries to exceed another barrier (with technology replacing human labour resulting in greater unemployment and a growing chasm between the lives of rich and poor). I still think Foucault was in principle correct, but the authors of this book make a compelling case for basic income providing greater freedom for all, greater 'happiness', and the potential for addressing environmental 'externalities'.
July 14, 2017
Unconditional basic income or UBI is basically "a regular cash income paid to all, on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement." UBI entitlements are characterized by being individual, universal and obligation-free, and this book makes the argument that an UBI is an instrument towards substantively increasing real freedoms for everybody. The individuality addresses issues relating to the distribution of power within the household, universality precludes (1) exclusion errors, (2) unemployment trap issues (the problem with means-tested programs being that if a job - however precarious - might disqualify you from public assistance, you might prefer to not take the risk) and (3) reduces administrative costs of means-tested programs. The freedom from obligations means absence of employment trap - people needn't choose jobs that are characterized by terrible working conditions. To the extent that the UBI can replace some part of means-tested public assistance and save on reduced administrative costs, it is self-financing.
I thought the book discussed the rationale for an UBI really well. All I'd known about why we needed the UBI was the Silicon-Valley argument that automation means a decrease in the demand for human labor and hence loss of opportunities for work. And if work opportunities are lacking, then the jobless population must be provided with something to live on in order to stave economic or social or political collapse. The inequality and precarity that have increased so dramatically in the West because of automation, globalization and neoliberal policies, are arguably already coming close to triggering the collapse of Western economies and Western liberal democracy. This is the somewhat "conservative" argument in favor of the UBI.
This book made me aware of a second, deeper argument: seeing UBI as a social dividend flowing from "common ownership of the earth," an argument as old as Thomas Paine's 1796 Agrarian Justice. If the UBI is accepted to represent a process that redistributes, in a fair manner, the natural and social and institutional resources that belong to everybody, the base that comes to us from nature or past generations but which none of us individually are responsible for, then there is a direct link between the UBI and taxes on carbon, on oil and minerals, on property and land, on financial transactions, and even, on citizenship. This is distinct from the Marxian vision of redistributive justice where production really belongs to the current producers but is partially appropriated by the capitalist class. Rather, the UBI vision sees what is produced today as the result of historical processes of institutional and technological development and capital accumulation, and of unpaid care work and natural resources. In this broader vision, everybody - whether currently engaged in paid production or not - is entitled to a fair share in what is produced.
As they put it, "what a basic income does is ensure that everyone receives a fair share of what none of us today did anything for, of the huge present very unequally incorporated in our incomes."
Van Parijs and Vanderborght are at their best when they discuss political support for the UBI. They astutely explain the puzzle of labor unions' attitudes towards the UBI: in general, it is one neglect if not outright rejection. Why is the working-class movement opposed to something that increases the bargaining power of all workers? I completely agree with their assessment that it definitely has something to do with the split between organized labor (that usually forms union membership) and unorganized or part-time labor and that it also has everything to do with gender and race. They write,
"Probably the most general and fundamental reason for labor union's lack of enthusiasm is simply that they believe the introduction of a basic income would not be in the best interest of their core membership, often largely made up full-time, make workers with stable contracts and decent pay."
While the implications for gender and racial inequality is not something that the book examines directly, I think that the UBI has the potential to reach workers that neither labor unions nor minimum wage laws can reach. As membership in the formal or full-time or unionized labor force is structured by both race and gender, the UBI is arguably likely to have a genuinely redistributive effect in favor of non-whites and women. The UBI addresses the paid work bias of social protection schemes as they now stand. UBI might also address the administrative difficulties or humiliations faced by those in means-tested or conditional public assistance programs - and such experiences are likely to be gendered, racialized and classed.
Another lacuna of the book is that it focuses on the implications of an UBI for developed countries - what about developing countries? I believe that in a developing country context, people's needs are overwhelming centered around things that a UBI cannot typically provide. These are things like provisions for good-quality education and healthcare, public infrastructure like roads and electricity and so forth that are acknowledged to be public goods and are hence unlikely to be provided because of UBI (this is distinct from the West where a majority of the population has lost access to such services, even though the capacity to provide them still exists). Lack of development itself is now seen as a failure to develop institutions that sustain growth. And if low living standards are the primary problem, it seems unlikely that a UBI would kick off a virtuous cycle towards access to good living standards for all.
In the case of India for instance, the UBI is proposed as a substitute for existing government spending on social protection which is argued to be inefficient. In particular, the UBI is seen as an effective replacement to India's PDS system (subsidized foodgrain that is procured from farmers at support prices and then distributed across the country to around 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population). It is argued that the PDS has large leakages due to inclusion errors and that a cash transfer is better. I believe that this argument as flawed. Access to grain is not equivalent to access to cash transfers especially as grain is sold in markets where prices fluctuate, creating unbearable risks with a fixed cash transfer. Not many have bank accounts, and the poorest are likely to find harder to negotiate cash transfers than the wealthy. Thirdly, India has ration shops in every village, but only a handful of villages have banks. Finally, if anything, the PDS is subject to exclusion errors and this is best addressed by a universal PDS and not a universal cash transfer. Attempting to replace the direct distribution of foodgrain with cash transfers in the Indian context might result in food insecurity for the most vulnerable.
Of course, the above arguments only apply if the UBI were to be funded with the country's own fiscal resources, in which case I'd say they would be better spent on public goods - but what if they were to be funded from the outside? If we think about global transfers (which currently take the form of aid), the obvious issues are that they're vulnerable to being directed into projects that have little or no impact on the lives of those in developing countries. Or even worse, if given to undemocratic regimes they hold the potential of empowering such regimes. UBI therefore presents an excellent opportunity: if the nature of these transfers could be formalized in an international treaty and then collected and pooled by international body, they could be effectively distributed in developing countries as individual, unconditional, universal grant to their citizens. This would be both a simple solution to ensuring that the redistributive transfers occur in a transparent, democratic and (probably) highly effective manner.
So I think that the book doesn't talk as much as it could about the (positive, I think) implications that UBI would have for inequalities based on gender, race and citizenship. But on the whole, I think it is an incredibly thorough and rigorously-argued book. A couple of chapters were tough going, especially the one containing philosophical arguments about the ethics of an unconditional basic income; I couldn't care less if Rawls's theory or Dworkin's theory justifies a basic income or not. On the other hand, the chapter on whether an UBI is politically achievable or not is fascinating. Their almost encyclopaedic grasp of the history of almost every UBI proposal every made is positively intimidating (which isn't really surprising, given that van Parijs is brilliant and has worked on UBI for ages). But even if I did skip stuff, I know I'm going to want to come to this book to read it more carefully. It's hard to find a book that's this clear and accessible and yet so meticulously argued.
I thought the book discussed the rationale for an UBI really well. All I'd known about why we needed the UBI was the Silicon-Valley argument that automation means a decrease in the demand for human labor and hence loss of opportunities for work. And if work opportunities are lacking, then the jobless population must be provided with something to live on in order to stave economic or social or political collapse. The inequality and precarity that have increased so dramatically in the West because of automation, globalization and neoliberal policies, are arguably already coming close to triggering the collapse of Western economies and Western liberal democracy. This is the somewhat "conservative" argument in favor of the UBI.
This book made me aware of a second, deeper argument: seeing UBI as a social dividend flowing from "common ownership of the earth," an argument as old as Thomas Paine's 1796 Agrarian Justice. If the UBI is accepted to represent a process that redistributes, in a fair manner, the natural and social and institutional resources that belong to everybody, the base that comes to us from nature or past generations but which none of us individually are responsible for, then there is a direct link between the UBI and taxes on carbon, on oil and minerals, on property and land, on financial transactions, and even, on citizenship. This is distinct from the Marxian vision of redistributive justice where production really belongs to the current producers but is partially appropriated by the capitalist class. Rather, the UBI vision sees what is produced today as the result of historical processes of institutional and technological development and capital accumulation, and of unpaid care work and natural resources. In this broader vision, everybody - whether currently engaged in paid production or not - is entitled to a fair share in what is produced.
As they put it, "what a basic income does is ensure that everyone receives a fair share of what none of us today did anything for, of the huge present very unequally incorporated in our incomes."
Van Parijs and Vanderborght are at their best when they discuss political support for the UBI. They astutely explain the puzzle of labor unions' attitudes towards the UBI: in general, it is one neglect if not outright rejection. Why is the working-class movement opposed to something that increases the bargaining power of all workers? I completely agree with their assessment that it definitely has something to do with the split between organized labor (that usually forms union membership) and unorganized or part-time labor and that it also has everything to do with gender and race. They write,
"Probably the most general and fundamental reason for labor union's lack of enthusiasm is simply that they believe the introduction of a basic income would not be in the best interest of their core membership, often largely made up full-time, make workers with stable contracts and decent pay."
While the implications for gender and racial inequality is not something that the book examines directly, I think that the UBI has the potential to reach workers that neither labor unions nor minimum wage laws can reach. As membership in the formal or full-time or unionized labor force is structured by both race and gender, the UBI is arguably likely to have a genuinely redistributive effect in favor of non-whites and women. The UBI addresses the paid work bias of social protection schemes as they now stand. UBI might also address the administrative difficulties or humiliations faced by those in means-tested or conditional public assistance programs - and such experiences are likely to be gendered, racialized and classed.
Another lacuna of the book is that it focuses on the implications of an UBI for developed countries - what about developing countries? I believe that in a developing country context, people's needs are overwhelming centered around things that a UBI cannot typically provide. These are things like provisions for good-quality education and healthcare, public infrastructure like roads and electricity and so forth that are acknowledged to be public goods and are hence unlikely to be provided because of UBI (this is distinct from the West where a majority of the population has lost access to such services, even though the capacity to provide them still exists). Lack of development itself is now seen as a failure to develop institutions that sustain growth. And if low living standards are the primary problem, it seems unlikely that a UBI would kick off a virtuous cycle towards access to good living standards for all.
In the case of India for instance, the UBI is proposed as a substitute for existing government spending on social protection which is argued to be inefficient. In particular, the UBI is seen as an effective replacement to India's PDS system (subsidized foodgrain that is procured from farmers at support prices and then distributed across the country to around 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population). It is argued that the PDS has large leakages due to inclusion errors and that a cash transfer is better. I believe that this argument as flawed. Access to grain is not equivalent to access to cash transfers especially as grain is sold in markets where prices fluctuate, creating unbearable risks with a fixed cash transfer. Not many have bank accounts, and the poorest are likely to find harder to negotiate cash transfers than the wealthy. Thirdly, India has ration shops in every village, but only a handful of villages have banks. Finally, if anything, the PDS is subject to exclusion errors and this is best addressed by a universal PDS and not a universal cash transfer. Attempting to replace the direct distribution of foodgrain with cash transfers in the Indian context might result in food insecurity for the most vulnerable.
Of course, the above arguments only apply if the UBI were to be funded with the country's own fiscal resources, in which case I'd say they would be better spent on public goods - but what if they were to be funded from the outside? If we think about global transfers (which currently take the form of aid), the obvious issues are that they're vulnerable to being directed into projects that have little or no impact on the lives of those in developing countries. Or even worse, if given to undemocratic regimes they hold the potential of empowering such regimes. UBI therefore presents an excellent opportunity: if the nature of these transfers could be formalized in an international treaty and then collected and pooled by international body, they could be effectively distributed in developing countries as individual, unconditional, universal grant to their citizens. This would be both a simple solution to ensuring that the redistributive transfers occur in a transparent, democratic and (probably) highly effective manner.
So I think that the book doesn't talk as much as it could about the (positive, I think) implications that UBI would have for inequalities based on gender, race and citizenship. But on the whole, I think it is an incredibly thorough and rigorously-argued book. A couple of chapters were tough going, especially the one containing philosophical arguments about the ethics of an unconditional basic income; I couldn't care less if Rawls's theory or Dworkin's theory justifies a basic income or not. On the other hand, the chapter on whether an UBI is politically achievable or not is fascinating. Their almost encyclopaedic grasp of the history of almost every UBI proposal every made is positively intimidating (which isn't really surprising, given that van Parijs is brilliant and has worked on UBI for ages). But even if I did skip stuff, I know I'm going to want to come to this book to read it more carefully. It's hard to find a book that's this clear and accessible and yet so meticulously argued.
June 12, 2018
A good and comprehensive overview of the basic income debate. Though it promises to be a "radical proposal", it actually offers a cautious and nuanced take on UBI, which leaves (almost) no stone unturned.
Unfortunately it likely won't win any awards for being a popular best seller. It's not a compulsive page-turner. The book's exciting title belies its dry and scholarly content, which will alienate 70-90% of the potential audience. Lay readers lured in by the title might be disappointed if they were expecting something similar to, say, Rutger Bregman's recent hit, "Utopia for Realists."
But this has its advantages. Unlike many of the flashier titles on the market, the book is written in a careful and comprehensive manner that doesn't distort any of the facts or ignore any of the complications. The focus is wisely on a careful comparative analysis of potential reforms in terms of multi-dimensional feasibility. Utopias are measured and weighed within the bounds of the path-dependently possible.
The authors emphasize that UBI should be pursued on multiple levels: the national level, the regional level (e.g. the EU) and the global level, in increasing orders of difficulty. They likewise claim that partial or non-ideal UBI reforms should not be shunned as important milestones towards future reforms.
So, should we then start modestly, partially and suboptimally, and expand from there, as the authors claim? This seems like a viable strategy, but it's not without its dangers either. Imperfect reforms can stay permanent and undermine the idea of UBI, so it might make more sense to wish for bold and comprehensive one-off reforms.
The authors are the world's leading authorities on basic income, and it shows. Recommended for educated readers who need a scholarly compendium on the vagaries of the global UBI debate.
Unfortunately it likely won't win any awards for being a popular best seller. It's not a compulsive page-turner. The book's exciting title belies its dry and scholarly content, which will alienate 70-90% of the potential audience. Lay readers lured in by the title might be disappointed if they were expecting something similar to, say, Rutger Bregman's recent hit, "Utopia for Realists."
But this has its advantages. Unlike many of the flashier titles on the market, the book is written in a careful and comprehensive manner that doesn't distort any of the facts or ignore any of the complications. The focus is wisely on a careful comparative analysis of potential reforms in terms of multi-dimensional feasibility. Utopias are measured and weighed within the bounds of the path-dependently possible.
The authors emphasize that UBI should be pursued on multiple levels: the national level, the regional level (e.g. the EU) and the global level, in increasing orders of difficulty. They likewise claim that partial or non-ideal UBI reforms should not be shunned as important milestones towards future reforms.
So, should we then start modestly, partially and suboptimally, and expand from there, as the authors claim? This seems like a viable strategy, but it's not without its dangers either. Imperfect reforms can stay permanent and undermine the idea of UBI, so it might make more sense to wish for bold and comprehensive one-off reforms.
The authors are the world's leading authorities on basic income, and it shows. Recommended for educated readers who need a scholarly compendium on the vagaries of the global UBI debate.
July 17, 2022
Incredibly comprehensive and well researched arguments for universal basic income. It would be a challenge to write a better book on the subject.
Read
February 7, 2023молочные реки кисельные берега и БАЗОВЫЙ ДОХОД
January 20, 2018
Basic Income by Phillipe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght.
As automation takes greater and greater attention in the media, I’ve noticed a proportional increase in the discussion surrounding the establishment of a uniform minimum income floor for all people.
Fun fact – the discussion of such income floors started in the 1700’s during the industrial revolution, and has ebbed and flowed ever since!
If you are interested in a history lesson around basic income, this book can provide a sound background. The first part of its analysis (from the poor laws of England, to the modern day welfare state and perhaps its next evolution) is its strongest.
The description of basic income and its economics is also reasonably detailed without being tedious, however I did find the authors’ base assumption that a basic income not replace current welfare poorly explained (typically I have seen basic income explained as a replacement for social security payments).
Where the book falls down is in its rather boorish descriptions of income (which could be improved by case study type stories) and little detail on studies conducted in the past save some high level description without results. Layout could also be improved through use of summary tables of major points.
Lastly, readers who enjoy purely theoretical arguments will likely enjoy the material more than I did. I found the armchair theory approach to describing how basic income could become a reality, rather uninspiring and dry.
A fascinating first third, undone by its later parts.
2 stars.
As automation takes greater and greater attention in the media, I’ve noticed a proportional increase in the discussion surrounding the establishment of a uniform minimum income floor for all people.
Fun fact – the discussion of such income floors started in the 1700’s during the industrial revolution, and has ebbed and flowed ever since!
If you are interested in a history lesson around basic income, this book can provide a sound background. The first part of its analysis (from the poor laws of England, to the modern day welfare state and perhaps its next evolution) is its strongest.
The description of basic income and its economics is also reasonably detailed without being tedious, however I did find the authors’ base assumption that a basic income not replace current welfare poorly explained (typically I have seen basic income explained as a replacement for social security payments).
Where the book falls down is in its rather boorish descriptions of income (which could be improved by case study type stories) and little detail on studies conducted in the past save some high level description without results. Layout could also be improved through use of summary tables of major points.
Lastly, readers who enjoy purely theoretical arguments will likely enjoy the material more than I did. I found the armchair theory approach to describing how basic income could become a reality, rather uninspiring and dry.
A fascinating first third, undone by its later parts.
2 stars.
August 20, 2019
Basic Income is a strong yet dense introduction to a revolutionary socio-econmic concept of the same name. The authors discuss the history of basic income from the sixteenth century onward, its variations, how and where it would work, and its pitfalls. The book is self-aware in that it doesn't claim to know how this concept will come to fruition, and that it will not be uniform in its application, however, it is seen as the only viable solution to guarantee freedom beyond the abstract concept of rights. While the concept is simple by consisting of a non-means tested fixed livable income for all citizens, the incidental consequences are complex. I give credit to the authors for exploring these facets, however the text is bogged down by intense detail and long-winded historical examples that will turn casual readers away. This drawback is significant to titles discussing a concept that will only increase in relevance. In the end, the authors did not seem to know their audience. Otherwise, this book is recommended for people committed to exploring the topic. 3.5 stars.
March 12, 2021
Un buen libro para reflexionar la de idea de un Ingreso Básico Universal, no solo desde la perspectiva filosófica, sino analizando todas sus viabilidades tanto políticas como económicas. La obra cumple su objetivo dialéctico con bastante precisión.
Me quedo con una frase del epílogo: «Un día nos preguntaremos por qué nos tomó tanto tiempo poner bajo nuestros pies un piso firme en el que todos podamos pararnos»
En cuanto a la calificación, es un tanto subjetiva ya que la obra está más orientada a personas con perfil de economista o política, por lo cual, fue fácil perderme entre argumentos.
Me quedo con una frase del epílogo: «Un día nos preguntaremos por qué nos tomó tanto tiempo poner bajo nuestros pies un piso firme en el que todos podamos pararnos»
En cuanto a la calificación, es un tanto subjetiva ya que la obra está más orientada a personas con perfil de economista o política, por lo cual, fue fácil perderme entre argumentos.
December 12, 2024
Great book filled with evidence supporting a comprehensive argument in favor of a basic income. It systematically shed light on the BI’s foundations, criticisms against it, and how it could be implemented — and more.
The only problem with the book is the writing style. It’s dense, academic. I had to read paragraphs and even sentences multiple times to grasp the info. I’m sure it could have been written more accessibly without losing any key info.
Overall, great book and worth reading for anyone looking to understand more about the landscape of options available for helping those worst off in society and creating, as the authors argue, real freedom for all.
The only problem with the book is the writing style. It’s dense, academic. I had to read paragraphs and even sentences multiple times to grasp the info. I’m sure it could have been written more accessibly without losing any key info.
Overall, great book and worth reading for anyone looking to understand more about the landscape of options available for helping those worst off in society and creating, as the authors argue, real freedom for all.
February 9, 2018
If you are a layperson looking for basic information on the concept of a basic income, like I am, you would be best served by finding another book. This one seems to be written for academics and economists. I do consider myself to be an intelligent person, but I found the language to be unnecessarily academic.
Large portions of the book also felt like a waste of time:
- multiple chapters on the historical background that led to the idea of basic income
- attempts to justify the ethics of a basic income scheme according to various political philosophies that one may or may not subscribe to
- Regarding sustainability, the authors introduce several basic income experiments only to conclude that "two major limitations, intrinsic to any basic income experiment, prevent us from drawing any firm conclusion about the economic sustainability of a lifelong basic income funded from within the community that enjoys it." (140)
Before reading Basic Income I had not yet formed an opinion on the idea of an unconditional, universal basic income. After reading, I still don't have an opinion on whether such a concept is feasible, but I believe it deserves more consideration.
Large portions of the book also felt like a waste of time:
- multiple chapters on the historical background that led to the idea of basic income
- attempts to justify the ethics of a basic income scheme according to various political philosophies that one may or may not subscribe to
- Regarding sustainability, the authors introduce several basic income experiments only to conclude that "two major limitations, intrinsic to any basic income experiment, prevent us from drawing any firm conclusion about the economic sustainability of a lifelong basic income funded from within the community that enjoys it." (140)
Before reading Basic Income I had not yet formed an opinion on the idea of an unconditional, universal basic income. After reading, I still don't have an opinion on whether such a concept is feasible, but I believe it deserves more consideration.
March 31, 2021
A very thorough, balanced and convincing argument for Universal Basic Income. It would seem that its time has come, albeit necessarily gradually and carefully. I particularly like the Green connection with the movement which I think will become more relevant as Global Climate Change becomes more blatant and oppressive.
July 18, 2017
Great overview of the basic income concept, tackling the idea from many different standpoints. Nice historical development too. Only negative is that I would have liked to have seen a section about how basic income could be beneficial for ethnic minorities
August 20, 2025
Muy bien explicado el concepto, qué es y qué no es, así como la historia de la asistencia pública, seguridad social y de la propia idea de una renta basica universal. Destaco la sorpresa de ver ciertas personas que no esperaría defendiéndola -de Hayek a Bertrand Russel- y la idea de sacarla de arrendar la tierra una vez nacionalizada, por deber ser patrimonio común de la humanidad, otorgando a la vez una justificación ética que elude la objeción de ser una explotación de los trabajadores por los vagos, y una idea de financiamiento plausible para algún monto de Renta.
El capítulo de la justificación ética me parece bueno pero creo que si no conoces previamente las teorías de Rawls y Dworkin no te enteras de nada xq las presenta de forma muy rápida para dar paso a la propia justificación.
El capítulo de viabilidad económica no me parece lo bastante profundo, apenas hay números de cómo debería ser el sistema impositivo, sino unos comentarios generales sobre qué cosas se podrían tasar para financiarla, y un único dato cuantitativo: impuesto lineal sobre la renta del 80%, hecho sobre el cual no se comenta nada (como si tal cosa sabes). Tampoco se discuten modelos econométricos, sino que se hacen algunas observaciones sobre las ventajas y sobretodo limitaciones de usarlos.
El capítulo de la viabilidad política, excepto en los casos de los sindicatos, ecologistas, y mujeres -que son bastante interesantes-, no explica las razones por las cuales apoyarían o se opondrían, sino que se limita a enumerar casos particulares de organizaciones particulares que la apoyen, o como mucho menciona la posición mayoritaria del grupo.
El capítulo de la globalización vuelve a ser bastante bueno y se ofrecen cifras más concretas sobre una propuesta de renta basica a nivel europeo.
El libro sin embargo deja una sensación extraña: se concluye que la justificación ética no es imposible, aunque la mayoría de teorías de la justicia no le dejan mucho espacio; que no hay ningún experimento concluyente, ni modelo adecuado para predecir sus efectos; que es totalmente viable con tan solo un impuesto de la renta del 80% (XD); que realmente pocos grupos importantes lo apoyarían; que la globalización la vuelve especialmente difícil, pero que se podría hacer una propuesta a nivel europeo: mediante impuestos al carbono financiar una Renta de 10 EURAZOS MENSUALES a cada ciudadano.... O una Renta de 200€ a costa de tan solo poner un IVA del 40%🤑🤑. Ah, y que hay que dejar a los inmigrantes sin. Y todo esto de uno de sus principales defensores a nivel academico. Wow.
El capítulo de la justificación ética me parece bueno pero creo que si no conoces previamente las teorías de Rawls y Dworkin no te enteras de nada xq las presenta de forma muy rápida para dar paso a la propia justificación.
El capítulo de viabilidad económica no me parece lo bastante profundo, apenas hay números de cómo debería ser el sistema impositivo, sino unos comentarios generales sobre qué cosas se podrían tasar para financiarla, y un único dato cuantitativo: impuesto lineal sobre la renta del 80%, hecho sobre el cual no se comenta nada (como si tal cosa sabes). Tampoco se discuten modelos econométricos, sino que se hacen algunas observaciones sobre las ventajas y sobretodo limitaciones de usarlos.
El capítulo de la viabilidad política, excepto en los casos de los sindicatos, ecologistas, y mujeres -que son bastante interesantes-, no explica las razones por las cuales apoyarían o se opondrían, sino que se limita a enumerar casos particulares de organizaciones particulares que la apoyen, o como mucho menciona la posición mayoritaria del grupo.
El capítulo de la globalización vuelve a ser bastante bueno y se ofrecen cifras más concretas sobre una propuesta de renta basica a nivel europeo.
El libro sin embargo deja una sensación extraña: se concluye que la justificación ética no es imposible, aunque la mayoría de teorías de la justicia no le dejan mucho espacio; que no hay ningún experimento concluyente, ni modelo adecuado para predecir sus efectos; que es totalmente viable con tan solo un impuesto de la renta del 80% (XD); que realmente pocos grupos importantes lo apoyarían; que la globalización la vuelve especialmente difícil, pero que se podría hacer una propuesta a nivel europeo: mediante impuestos al carbono financiar una Renta de 10 EURAZOS MENSUALES a cada ciudadano.... O una Renta de 200€ a costa de tan solo poner un IVA del 40%🤑🤑. Ah, y que hay que dejar a los inmigrantes sin. Y todo esto de uno de sus principales defensores a nivel academico. Wow.
July 20, 2019
Thorough. Some sections were highly engaging and thought-provoking (Chapters 1, 2, 5, 7, 8), while others so dense I had to skip for risk of not reading the rest (especially the history of various welfare schemes around the world in chapters 3 and 4). Some interesting views I'd never considered:
• The potential affect of basic income on increasing divorce rate and the feminist view of basic income.
• Discussions around how such schemes in the EU versus US would be different and how heterogeneous societies (language, culture, etc.) might have additional political challenges to implement basic income schemes. Similarly, the potential risks associated with localized basic income in a globalized world:
• An interesting idea to tie together basic income and global climate justice by auctioning carbon emissions:
Overall, I recommend it.
• The potential affect of basic income on increasing divorce rate and the feminist view of basic income.
certainty that income will be available during the difficult transition period after a marital dissolution lessens the financial dependence on the marriage of the financially more dependent spouse—the wife, in most cases. Increased independence presumably allows some persons to leave unsatisfactory, perhaps even brutalizing, marriage.
• Discussions around how such schemes in the EU versus US would be different and how heterogeneous societies (language, culture, etc.) might have additional political challenges to implement basic income schemes. Similarly, the potential risks associated with localized basic income in a globalized world:
This tension is particularly disturbing for basic-income supporters, as the joint appeal of equality and freedom that endears basic income to them should also make them firm supporters of free migration. Surely, the real freedom to choose the way to spend one’s life should encompass the freedom to choose where to spend it, and this freedom should not be restricted to those who happen to be born in a privileged part of the planet.
• An interesting idea to tie together basic income and global climate justice by auctioning carbon emissions:
revenues from such an auction equally to all those with an equal right to make use of the “digestion power” of the atmosphere—that is, to all human beings. As pointed out in chapter 6, this would amount to something closely analogous, on a global scale, to the funding of a basic income by a tax on land.
Overall, I recommend it.
June 28, 2018
A good and comprehensive overview of the basic income debate. Though it promises to be a "radical proposal", it actually offers a cautious and nuanced take on UBI, which leaves (almost) no stone unturned.
Unfortunately it likely won't win any awards for being a popular best seller. It's not a compulsive page-turner. The book's exciting title belies its dry and scholarly content, which will alienate 70-90% of the potential audience. Lay readers lured in by the title might be disappointed if they were expecting something similar to, say, Rutger Bregman's recent hit, "Utopia for Realists."
But this has its advantages. Unlike many of the flashier titles on the market, the book is written in a careful and comprehensive manner that doesn't distort any of the facts or ignore any of the complications. The focus is wisely on a careful comparative analysis of potential reforms in terms of multi-dimensional feasibility. Utopias are measured and weighed within the bounds of the path-dependently possible.
The authors emphasize that UBI should be pursued on multiple levels: the national level, the regional level (e.g. the EU) and the global level, in increasing orders of difficulty. They likewise claim that partial or non-ideal UBI reforms should not be shunned as important milestones towards future reforms.
So, should we then start modestly, partially and suboptimally, and expand from there, as the authors claim? This seems like a viable strategy, but it's not without its dangers either. Imperfect reforms can stay permanent and undermine the idea of UBI, so it might make more sense to wish for bold and comprehensive one-off reforms.
The authors are the world's leading authorities on basic income, and it shows. Recommended for educated readers who need a scholarly compendium on the vagaries of the global UBI debate
Unfortunately it likely won't win any awards for being a popular best seller. It's not a compulsive page-turner. The book's exciting title belies its dry and scholarly content, which will alienate 70-90% of the potential audience. Lay readers lured in by the title might be disappointed if they were expecting something similar to, say, Rutger Bregman's recent hit, "Utopia for Realists."
But this has its advantages. Unlike many of the flashier titles on the market, the book is written in a careful and comprehensive manner that doesn't distort any of the facts or ignore any of the complications. The focus is wisely on a careful comparative analysis of potential reforms in terms of multi-dimensional feasibility. Utopias are measured and weighed within the bounds of the path-dependently possible.
The authors emphasize that UBI should be pursued on multiple levels: the national level, the regional level (e.g. the EU) and the global level, in increasing orders of difficulty. They likewise claim that partial or non-ideal UBI reforms should not be shunned as important milestones towards future reforms.
So, should we then start modestly, partially and suboptimally, and expand from there, as the authors claim? This seems like a viable strategy, but it's not without its dangers either. Imperfect reforms can stay permanent and undermine the idea of UBI, so it might make more sense to wish for bold and comprehensive one-off reforms.
The authors are the world's leading authorities on basic income, and it shows. Recommended for educated readers who need a scholarly compendium on the vagaries of the global UBI debate
May 26, 2018
Whenever the authors personal views were visible I felt a little irritated, but the book is still very objective and that as well as other complaints I might bring up are just nitpicks. In the end this is simply a great book explaining what basic income is, how feasible it is, what different people and ideologies think of it and how close or far away different places are at implementing it. I would definitely recommend it if you want to know more on the topic.
February 2, 2018
Un buen libro para entender lo fundamental sobre el tema. Bueno para reflexionar sobre las implicacipones de la implementación y de sus concecuencias tanto positivas como negativas en cualquier sociedad. Es una lectura muy recomendable para quienes se interesan por la parte conceptual, filosofica y etica del UBI.
July 15, 2020
Probably the best single-volume introductory argument for basic income you'll find, which is unsurprising given that it's co-authored by van Parijs, who has probably done more than any single person to popularize and defend this idea. The book could, however, greatly benefit from a better understanding of how money and government spending work.
September 26, 2020
Probabilmente lo studio più completo sul reddito di base, raccoglie esempi dei diversi tipi di misura sperimentati in tutto il mondo. È un testo accademico quindi richiede impegno e sforzo per completare la lettura ma è imprescindibile se si vuole davvero parlare di "reddito di cittadinanza" con cognizione di causa.
October 25, 2020
This is the most comprehensive overview of Universal Basic Income that I have read. While the authors are open about their own bias in favor of UBI, they are careful to cover every angle objectively. If you have serious interest in this "radical proposal for a free and sane society" this is the perfect book to understand it.
August 8, 2017
All of the excitement of a dry economics read.
I'm already convinced, & there's a fair amount of solid data here, but if you're looking for emotional inspiration this really isn't going to do it unless you're Sheldon Cooper....
I'm already convinced, & there's a fair amount of solid data here, but if you're looking for emotional inspiration this really isn't going to do it unless you're Sheldon Cooper....
July 1, 2018
Necesario y completo. Altamente recomendable.
Want to read
June 25, 2022Recommended in TP
November 11, 2024
Such a beautiful concept but it’s very utopian for me. It’s not affordable. It’s nice to dream tho
August 12, 2025
Tough read although extremely interesting and which I need to revisit 3,5
July 10, 2020
기본 소득 논의가 활발하여 읽게 된 책. 기본 소득에 대한 기본을 배울 수 있다!
다만, 기본 소득은 결국 부동산으로 다 흡수되지 않을까 하는 걱정을 하는데, 이에 대한 답을 얻을 수가 없었다. 내가 경제를 잘 몰라서 하는 쓸데없는 걱정인 걸까, 아니면 방안의 코끼리 문제인걸까.
다만, 기본 소득은 결국 부동산으로 다 흡수되지 않을까 하는 걱정을 하는데, 이에 대한 답을 얻을 수가 없었다. 내가 경제를 잘 몰라서 하는 쓸데없는 걱정인 걸까, 아니면 방안의 코끼리 문제인걸까.
September 25, 2020
needs more graphs. not enough graphs. also, partial basic income is for cowards. full income or bust!
Read
August 3, 2018362.582 P231 2017
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews