A UBS solves better without a UBI’s vulnerability to market failures

The concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) has gained traction recently, with books such as Rutgar Bregman’s “Utopia for Realists” (2017) and a UK petition gaining over 100,000 signatures advocating for the policy, likening it to a silver bullet of solution to today’s injustices. UBI is the provision of a regular, set amount of money to every adult, provided by the government. However, critics have recognised the need for, and benefits of, Universal Basic Services (UBS), the universal free provision of public services such as housing, transport, information, care and energy. These two opposed policies have been increasingly brought into conversation discussing how a post-growth society (that which has little or no economic growth for environmental and social benefit) can be achieved. With the embedded assumption in Western Society that economic growth equals prosperity for all via ‘trickle down’ politics, the provision of sustainable welfare is essential to deliver a just transition. The main arguments for and against UBI vs UBS are derived from the long-standing debate between public vs private sector welfare support. UBI offers social security and freedom by alleviating people from relying on employers and breadwinners for income. However, UBI risks relying on markets for social services such as housing that are subject to market failure. UBS offers social security by taking the price mark off social services and delivering these services through the state. However, the implementation of UBS is dependent on political decision-making, and thus adequate democratic processes and involvement from the public.