A UBI and UBS are complementary – they address different aspects of sustainable welfare.

The newly emerging concept of sustainable welfare refers to welfare systems which aim to satisfy everyone's needs within planetary boundaries and to decouple the welfare-growth nexus. Both Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Universal Basic Services (UBS) have been discussed as suitable, but potentially competing, approaches that could support sustainable welfare. This paper contributes to this debate by asking how UBI and UBS compare in relation to four sustainable welfare criteria: a) planetary boundaries, b) needs satisfaction, c) fair distribution, and d) democratic governance. The paper argues that UBI and UBS are not so much conflicting but complementary approaches for supporting sustainable welfare. UBI focuses on the consumption side of the economy while UBS addresses the production side more directly, both of which would be relevant in any sustainable welfare system. Sustainable welfare outcomes of UBI and UBS would be shaped by the institutional contexts within which they operate, especially by the governance of markets, collective provisioning systems and decision-making at all levels. More attention needs to be paid to these institutional contexts when discussing potential sustainable welfare outcomes of UBI and UBS. 1. Introduction The increasing urgency to tackle the climate crisis and social issues such as global inequality and conflict calls for rebuilding economic systems so that they stay within planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) and satisfy human needs (Doyal and Gough, 1991; Max-Neef et al., 1991). Rebuilding economics systems in this way would also require the establishment of welfare systems that support the dual goals of staying within planetary boundaries and needs satisfaction. A debate about such sustainable welfare systems is beginning to emerge, but more work is required to develop concrete proposals for ways in which sustainable welfare systems could be designed. This paper compares two proposals for sustainable welfare policies that are sometimes presented as competing with each other – Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Universal Basic Services (UBS). However, I argue that both approaches could contribute to sustainable welfare and that they could complement each other, especially if their potential weaknesses are addressed by transforming the institutional contexts within which they operate.