2018
DOI: 10.1515/bis-2018-0002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attitudes Toward Universal Basic Income and Welfare State in Europe: A Research Note

Abstract: This research note examines the relationship between public attitudes toward universal basic income (UBI) and country-level socio-economic conditions in 21 European Countries. Despite abundant theoretical and empirical research on UBI, a comparative analysis of public appetite for UBI has been unavailable due to data limitations. This research note takes advantage of the 2016 European Social Survey to explore the connection between public support for UBI and levels of social protection and economic insecurity.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In line with several recent theoretical and empirical studies on UBI (cf. Baranowski & Jabkowski, 2019;Lee, 2018;Meuleman et al, 2018;Rossetti, Roosma, Laenen, & Abts, 2020;Taylor-Gooby & Leruth, 2018), we find that the overall support for basic income varies widely in the European countries participating in the 8th round of the ESS project. For example, national-level support for the basic income scheme ranged from 33.1% in Norway to 79.9% in Lithuania (see Table 1).…”
Section: Cross-country Differences In a Basic Income Supportmentioning
confidence: 51%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In line with several recent theoretical and empirical studies on UBI (cf. Baranowski & Jabkowski, 2019;Lee, 2018;Meuleman et al, 2018;Rossetti, Roosma, Laenen, & Abts, 2020;Taylor-Gooby & Leruth, 2018), we find that the overall support for basic income varies widely in the European countries participating in the 8th round of the ESS project. For example, national-level support for the basic income scheme ranged from 33.1% in Norway to 79.9% in Lithuania (see Table 1).…”
Section: Cross-country Differences In a Basic Income Supportmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…There is a considerable gap between a rich theoretical consideration of the UBI schemes and a limited number of various empirical studies (field experiments, see Haushofer & Shapiro, 2013;Schjoedt, 2016;Standing, 2013; financial simulations, see Arcarons, Pañella, & Mèlich, 2014;OECD, 2017) with a particular emphasis on the surveys on this topic (Baranowski & Jabkowski, 2019;Cardone, 2021;Lee, 2018;Roosma & van Oorschot, 2020;Vlandas, 2021). Thus, there is a clear need for a systematic empirical cross-national analysis to better understand the importance of individual factors for UBI support in different national contexts.…”
Section: Aims Of the Papermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to previous studies, we do not focus on a single operationalization of deprivation, but instead examine three dimensions that correspond to the individual, group and contextual level. First, we compare individuals with a (perceived) low income and those with a high one, as it has been shown that income and financial hardship are important predictors of support for a BI (Choi 2021 ; Lee 2018 ). However, in addition to this individual (or household) measure of hardship, we focus on the role of group-relative deprivation, which plays a substantial role in forming people’s opinions about the welfare state (Van Hootegem et al 2021 ).…”
Section: Theoretical Perspectives On the Impact Of The Covid-19 Crisi...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, some valuable insights are offered by studies of public attitudes towards a UBI. Most studies have found moderate to high levels of support for the scheme (e.g., Delsen & Schilpzand, 2019; Lee, 2018), indicating that large sections of the population support major welfare reform, away from the dominant principle of equity in favour of the principle of equality. These studies are, however, somewhat one‐sided in their focus, as they did not present respondents with the opposing reform alternative of shifting towards the principle of need.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%