Mechanics of replacing benefit systems with a basic income: comparative results from a microsimulation approach

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Mechanics of Replacing Benefit Systems with a Basic Income: Comparative Results from a Microsimulation Approach DECEMBER 2017Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. and distributional effects in a comparative context, undertake a microsimulation study to quantify them, and propose a simple decomposition to identify the mechanisms that drive effects in different country contexts. Results illustrate the challenges, but also the strengths, of existing social protection systems. A BI would fix benefit coverage gaps that exist in many countries, but would require very substantial tax rises if it were to be set at a meaningful level. As support would not be targeted on those most in need, it would not be a costeffective way of directly reducing income poverty. JEL Classification:C81, D31, H22, H55

Guaranteed employment or guaranteed income?

“…When transfers are financed by lower spending on other public programs, the benefits and costs of those programs must of course be considered, though that has not always been so. 36 While most countries already spend on direct 33 See, for example, Atkinson and Sutherland (1989) and Browne and Immervoll (2017). 34 See, for example, Van Parijs (1995), Standing (2005) and Bregman (2015).…”

Universal Basic Income: Debate and Impact Assessment

“…Other recent studies that also use microsimulation techniques corroborate the view that consideration of existing social protection and tax systems is an essential component Brown and Immervoll (2017). also use microsimulation techniques: 1) to underline the importance of assessing together existing social protection and tax systems for a meaningful understanding of the impact of UBI programs; and 2) to assess alternative incremental reforms to improve current assistance systems in European countries against a UBI alternative.©International Monetary Fund.…”

Basic income or a single tapering rule? Incentives, inclusiveness and affordability compared for the case of Finland

“…The basic income scenario presented here follows closely the scenario outlined by Browne and Immervoll in OECD (2017b) and Browne and Immervoll (2017). The basic income applies to working-age individuals and is set at EUR 573 (486) per month before (after) tax.…”