Advertisement

The Journal of Economic Inequality

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 325–344 | Cite as

Mechanics of replacing benefit systems with a basic income: comparative results from a microsimulation approach

  • James Browne
  • Herwig ImmervollEmail author
Article

Abstract

Recent debates of basic income (BI) proposals shine a useful spotlight on the challenges that traditional forms of income support are increasingly facing, and highlight gaps in social provisions that largely depend on income or employment status. A universal “no questions asked” public transfer would be simple and have the advantage that no-one would be left without support. But an unconditional payment to everyone at meaningful but fiscally realistic levels would likely require tax rises as well as reductions in existing benefits. We develop a comprehensive BI scenario that facilitates an assessment of the resulting fiscal and distributional effects in a comparative context, undertake a microsimulation study to quantify them, and propose a simple decomposition to identify the mechanisms that drive effects in different country contexts. Results illustrate the challenges, but also the strengths, of existing social protection systems. A BI would fix benefit coverage gaps that exist in many countries, but would require very substantial tax rises if it were to be set at a meaningful level. As support would not be targeted on those most in need, it would not be a cost-effective way of directly reducing income poverty.

Keywords

Basic income Targeting Individualisation Conditionality Microsimulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham, K.G., Haltiwanger, J., Sandusky, K., Spletzer, J.R.: Measuring the gig economy: current knowledge and open issues. Paper presented at the IZA Labor Statistics Workshop “Changing Structure of Work (2017)Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A.B.: Public Economics in Action: The Basic Income/Flat Tax Proposal. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A.B.: The case for a participation income. Polit. Q., 67(1) (1996)Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, A.B.: Inequality: What Can Be Done? Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bargain, O., Immervoll, H., Viitamäki, H.: No claim, no pain. Measuring the non-take-up of social assistance using register data. J. Econ. Inequal. 10(3), 375–95 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Browne, J., Immervoll, H.: Basic income as a policy option: illustrating costs and distributional implications for selected countries. Technical background note, available at http://www.oecd.org/employment/future-of-work.htm (2017)
  7. Chareyron, S., Domingues, P.: Take-up of social assistance benefits: the case of the french homeless. Rev. Income Wealth.  https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12274 (2016)
  8. Colombino, U.: Five crossroads on the way to basic income: an Italian tour. IZA Discussion Paper 8087 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. Colombino, U.: Is unconditional basic income a viable alternative to other social welfare measures? IZA World of Labour 2015, p. 128 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. Eurostat: European System of Integrated Social Protection Statistics (ESSPROS), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/social-protection/data/database (2017)
  11. Hughes, J.J.: A strategic opening for a basic income guarantee in the global crisis being created by AI, Robots, Desktop Manufacturing and Biomedicine. J. Evol. Technol. 24(1), 45–61 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. Immervoll, H., Scarpetta, S.: Activation and employment support policies in OECD countries. An overview of current approaches. IZA J. Labour Policy, 1(9) (2012)Google Scholar
  13. Immervoll, H., O’Donogue, C., Sutherland, S.: An introduction to EUROMOD. EUROMOD Working Paper EM0/99. University of Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  14. Katz, L.F., Krueger, A.B.: The role of unemployment in the rise in alternative work arrangements. Am. Econ. Rev. 107(5), 388–92 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. OECD: OECD Pensions at a Glance. OECD Publishing, Paris (2015). http://oe.cd/pag Google Scholar
  16. OECD: OECD Family Database, http://oe.cd/fdb (2017a)
  17. OECD: How Technology and Globalisation are Transforming the Labour Market. OECD Employment Outlook, OECD Publishing, Paris (2017b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD: OECD Benefit Recipients Database (SOCR), http://www.oecd.org/social/recipients.htm (2017c)
  19. OECD (undated), The OECD tax-benefit model: Methodology. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/Methodology.pdf
  20. Parker, H., Sutherland, H.: Child tax allowances? A comparison of child benefit, child tax reliefs, and basic incomes as instruments of family policy. STICERD Occasional Paper 16 (1991)Google Scholar
  21. Scutella, R.: Moves to a basic income-flat tax system in Australia: implications for the distribution of income and supply of labour. Melbourne Institute Working Paper no.5/04 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. Sutherland, H., Figari, F.: EUROMOD: the European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model. Int. J. Microsimul. 6(1), 4–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. Widerquist, K., Noguera, J.A., Vanderborght, Y., de Wispelaere, J. (eds.): Basic Income. An Anthology of Contemporary Research. Blackwell, Wiley (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OECDParisFrance
  2. 2.IZABonnGermany

Personalised recommendations