PI is a middle ground between true universal and means-tested basic income schemes.
Hiilamo 22 [Dr. Heikki Hiilamo, PhD, works as a research professor at National Institute for Health and Welfare and as a professor of social policy at University of Helsinki; “Participation Income An Alternative to Basic Income for Poverty Reduction in the Digital Age”; 8/12/22; pg 86; Edward Elgar Publishing; https://www.elgaronline.com/monobook-oa/book/9781800880801/9781800880801.xml]//dollinger
Atkinson’s PI can be seen as a form of BI because it shares many of its design features and because it reaches a considerable stratum of the population. Both UBI and PI combine different risk categories, which means that entitlement is not tied to status as an unemployed person, for example. In contrast to means-tested policies that are assigned to the family, both UBI and PI are paid to individuals. All adults can receive UBI and PI regardless of marital status or their family circumstances. Both UBI and PI are universal redistributive policies which do not target a particular group. Both rich and poor are entitled to PI.
PI seeks the middle ground between, on the one hand, means-tested and targeted redistributive policies, and, on the other hand, universal and unconditional schemes. The contributive component adheres to the former. As with workfare policies, PI is conditional on an individual’s behaviour. However, it shares the universalism of the latter. The income entitlement for most (all adult, able-bodied) individuals is conditional on their contribution. This condition brings in an element of social insurance into the scheme by allowing the recipients to reciprocate the protection given by the scheme.