One Size Does Not Fit All: Universal Basic Income and Country Context

Distributional issues have marked the agenda after the Great Recession. Is unconditional basic income (UBI) a panacea for redistribution? Its supporters cite redistribution issues, ending poverty, social justice, economic security, labour market flexibility, individual freedom, and autonomy as justifications to support UBI. In contrast, its detractors point out that people may be less available to work, UBI has unsustainable financial costs, and some people will be worse off after the change. What argument prevails is an empirical question. In contrast to purely unilateral, theoretical or ideological stances, we follow Aerts et al. (Journal of Social Policy, 1–23, 2023), who stress that outcomes will depend on the “level, design and context”. Our approach is empirical, and we focus on addressing the issue of context. We select indicators and contrast their relative positions to identify which countries would be more politically feasible for implementing UBI programmes. Our explorative multi-indicator analysis finds the usual suspects as the best performers, but traditional country blocks typologies (e.g. Esping-Andersen, The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press, 1990) do not hold. Finland was an average candidate to experiment with UBI, with a lower probability of succeeding. Portugal is a worse candidate than Finland, while Switzerland is better for its hypothetical implementation. However, the ideal country profile depends on whether the objective is to maximise the success of the experience or the success of replication. Being an average candidate is not necessarily bad for experimentation, as it faces more real problems and increases the chances of replication than the ideal candidate. Still, it reduces the likelihood of success of the experiment. The choice of indicators and the time of measurement need to be cautious, as different indicators or periods of crisis or boom alter the rankings between countries. A consolidated choice of indicators is necessary for the robustness of results.