Whenever people debate the efficacy of a welfare program, thorny questions about work requirements inevitably arise. How much should people work to receive welfare, or will this program incentivize people to stay out of the labor force? However, recently, there has been steam gathering for a public policy idea which could bypass some of these hurdles.
The policy is called a universal basic income (UBI), and the way it works is pretty straightforward. The government pays out a fixed amount of money to every citizen, without considering their income level or their employment situation. The idea has actually attracted fans from both sides of the political aisle.
As Noah Smith notes for Bloomberg View, groups as ideologically contradictory as socialists and libertarians have found themselves in agreement on the potential benefits of a UBI. He also discusses how the unconditional nature of the program means working people do not have to worry about subsidizing those not in the labor force, or those searching for work.
This policy also finds itself squarely in the middle of a larger debate about inequality and technological change in America. With plenty of concerns across the political spectrum about displacement of workers due to technological change, a basic income could serve as a way to soften the blow of these transitions. Helping people maintain their standard of living, despite those inevitable changes, should be a goal of all policymakers. A UBI could potentially go a long way to help this become a reality. 
Of course, any program like this can sound good in theory, but how does it work in application?
In a recent paper, economists Damon Jones and Ioanna Marinescu studied the effects a version of a basic income had in Alaska, this is called the Alaska Permanent Fund. It was implemented in 1982, and it paid out the basic income by using the revenues from the large natural resource reserves in the state. The average payout each year has been around $2,000 per person.
Their research focused on figuring out if the payments caused a decrease Alaska’s employment, but found there was no significant effect on employment across the state. Jones noted if there were any negative effects on employment from the initial payments, they were offset by the increase in consumption from the basic income dividends.
Interestingly though, they did find there to be an increase in the number of part-time hours worked. So, the results seemed to be positive across the board. The authors, of course, made it clear more research should be done to substantiate these findings.
More data from programs similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund are necessary if there is any chance for the UBI to be taken to the national stage. While the findings from the Jones and Marinescu paper seem to indicate a potentially valuable model for a nationwide basic income program, it is important to find other examples of city or state-led programs to analyze.
Recently, the mayor of Stockton, California, Michael Tubbs, announced the city would implement a universal basic income experiment. According to an article by Adam Brinklow in Curbed, the city will provide $500 a month to a selected group of low-income residents. It would not be as expansive as the Alaska Permanent Fund, nor will it be quite as similar to the standard definition of a basic income program. However, it will definitely provide another opportunity for researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of a UBI.
Going forward, it will continue to be imperative for researchers to carefully examine any UBI program they can, so the general public can have a clearer idea of the effects.
Personally, I think there is a lot of potential for a UBI to be a more efficient and politically salient way to help all people maintain a certain standard of living.
However, we are a long way from implementing a program like this on a national scale. There are many out there who think the idea is foolish, and I imagine many who hold public office have this opinion.
Nevertheless, it is my view we should continue to encourage experiments like the one being conducted in Stockton or the permanent fund in Alaska. With sustained hard work and a little luck, we may one day be able to try and implement a UBI at the national level.