The Case Against the Universal Basic Income

With the cost of implementation shrinking and robot-to-workers ratio skyrocketing, the effects of automation on our economy and society are more palpable than ever. According to various studies, over half of our jobs could be fully executed by machines over the next decade or two, with severe impacts concentrated disproportionately on manufacturing-focused developing countries. In response to the threat of mass displacement of labour due to automation, economists, politicians, and even the business community have come to see Universal Basic Income (UBI) as the panacea. This paper argued against a UBI by addressing its implementation costs and efficiency in mitigating the impact of automation through quantitative evidence as well as results of failed UBI-comparable programs across the world. The author of this paper instead advocated for the continuation of existing means-tested welfare systems and further investment in education scheme for unskilled and low-skilled labour. This paper was submitted to the “Young Economist of the Year 2019” essay competition hosted by the Financial Times and the Royal Economic Society, where it won a high commendation and was one of the 36 best papers shortlisted among 1,300 qualified submissions to be honoured on the website of the Royal Economic Society (2.7% acceptance rate). Due to the rules and policies of the Royal Economic Society, the author could only make this paper available to the public at least one year after the original date of submission.