Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Vibhor Mathur
(University of Bath)
Nick Langridge (University of Bath)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Paper panel
- Stream:
- Labour, incomes and precarity in development
- Location:
- G51a, ground floor Main Building
- Sessions:
- Friday 28 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
What role can a Universal Basic Income play in tackling the polycrisis? What are the synergies and conflicts between basic income and other services in imagining a more future-ready welfare architecture? This panel welcomes diverse and critical conversations on UBI's potential in development.
Long Abstract:
The profile of Universal Basic Income as a policy tool is rising steadily across the world, with multifold increase in the number of pilot projects (Stanford Basic Income Lab, 2023) and a growing number of government policies in that direction (eg. in Wales, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea etc.). These discussions are particularly loud as the polycrisis facing the world (wars, pandemics, ecological destruction, rising inequities, political polarisation etc.) are brutally highlighting the inadequacy of the current welfare systems and 'development' models. On the one hand lies the enthusiasm around the transformative and radical roots of a universal, unconditional basic income for all, and on the other lie concerns about its inadequacy as a tool for meaningful transformation, and as a band-aid in a capitalist system. Worse still, are fears of a neoliberal hijack, where a UBI is used as a substitute for other services and infrastructure in welfare. This panel aims to bring together conceptual innovations, empirical research and microsimulations from around the world that further understanding UBI's role in this world of polycrisis. Particularly, its effects or shortcomings in achieving different policy goals (eg. poverty, mental health, labour, gender, ecological sustainability etc.) and for different populations (eg. different geographies, demographics, people in different social, legal and economic conditions etc.). We particularly welcome research in the synergies and complementarity, or lack thereof, between a UBI and other services/policies that can help imagine a more robust, fit-for-purpose, future-ready and dignifying social policy architecture.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 28 June, 2024, -Paper short abstract:
This paper explores the impacts of a universal unconditional cash transfer – a basic income experiment –, handed out in a rural Ugandan village, on climate resilience and adaptation, and the extent to which these were mediated by CT effects on collective variables (e.g., social capital).
Paper long abstract:
Surprisingly little literature exists on how cash transfer (CT) programs affect climate adaptation, notwithstanding the severity of the ongoing climate emergence, and the overlap in aims between social protection and climate policy. In this sense, if social protection programs’ objective is to yield (long-run) transformative reductions in poverty and vulnerability, such goal cannot be achieved without enabling recipients to better tackle climate hazards. CTs can improve climate resilience through positively impacting its several dimensions, among which, it is postulated that the social component plays a key role. This paper analyses, through quasi-experimental difference-in-differences, the midline effects of a basic income pilot conducted in rural Uganda, on adaptation to climate change and collective-level outcomes – operationalized as social capital, agency and collective action. The main finding was that the program did spur the adoption of (both preventive and absorptive) coping mechanisms against shocks. Interestingly, not only ‘beneficial’ strategies – such as savings and credit – but also ‘mal-adaptation’ practices – like selling productive assets and withdrawing children from school – were increasingly employed. Causal Mediation Analysis suggested that the increasing utilization of beneficial mechanisms was driven by CT-led improvements in collective-level outcomes, whereas the latter did not significantly influence changes in the usage of adverse strategies.
Paper short abstract:
This paper presents findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of an innovative 'cash plus' intervention implemented at neighbourhood level in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It reflects on synergies between cash and community-based support, and - crucially - the benefits of universal and unconditional delivery.
Paper long abstract:
Social protection, and cash transfers especially, have been found to have many positive impacts on families' lives and are now widely recognised as a cornerstone of any prosperous, fair society. The CLARISSA Cash Plus intervention in Dhaka, Bangladesh is an innovative social protection scheme for tackling social ills. Combining community mobilisation, case work and cash transfers over a period of 27 months, it aimed to support people in a low-income neighbourhood in Dhaka to build their individual, family, and group capacities to meet their needs.
In contrast to most cash transfer or 'cash plus' interventions - but in keeping with key principles of Universal Basic Income - the scheme is universal and unconditional at neighbourhood level; all households are eligible for cash support and every individual can participate in complementary services.
In this paper, we explore the impact of the combined delivery of universal and unconditional cash and complementary community-based support on a range of individual and family outcomes. We present findings from a mixed-methods evaluation, showing that (i) community-based support can enhance the impact of cash and vice versa, (ii) universal delivery positively engages powerful community actors, and (iii) unconditional delivery enhances people's agency and capacities. These findings provide important insights for design of future interventions, emphasising the potential of combining support and doing so universally.