Affiliation:
1. Colin D. Wooldridge is the corresponding author and affiliated with Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5808, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5808, USA.
2. Andrew F. Johnson is also affiliated with Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.
3. Katherine J. Roberto is also affiliated with Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.
Abstract
Trial universal basic income (UBI) programmes in developing nations around the world have yielded positive results with respect to individual health outcomes, income, women’s empowerment, decreased child labour and much more. Concomitantly, UBI trials provide evidence that fears that UBI decreases labour force participation are based more on classist mythology than reality, and, rather, increases employment. Despite these promising results, implementation of UBI programmes will mean overcoming significant partisan political forces. As such, the focus of this commentary is to explore the most prominent barrier to the implementation of UBI programmes in both developing and wealthy nations, namely, conservative political opposition. UBI programmes are generally promoted by liberal politicians and implemented in liberal jurisdictions. However, these programmes can advance outcomes aligned with conservative principles. We chronicle the current and historical conservative opposition to UBI and argue for UBI programmes using common conservative talking points, positioning them as holistic market-based solutions to counter fragmented social services, means to foster vocational opportunities and a catalyst to promote economic growth. A discussion of how reframing UBI programmes to align with conservative principles alters attitudes towards UBI is included. The acceptance of UBI programmes across the political spectrum is paramount for achieving widespread implementation.