Can state and local basic income policies support planning for equity?

Abstract

Interest in basic income has been rising as more and more cities and places undertake basic income pilots, seams in existing supports become more and more apparent, and racial and class-based disparities widen. Yet the justifications offered for basic income programs are diffuse and sometimes in tension. Questions remain about the purpose of pilots, and whether pilots will ever make the jump to permanent policies. This thesis sets out to answer whether basic income policies at the city or state level can support equity. In doing so, it reviews the existing literature; examines failed basic income programs; investigates existing federal benefits systems and policies, and how they could constrain a basic income; and compares a city-level basic income pilot (Stockton's Economic Empowerment Demonstration) with a state-level basic income program (Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend). Assessing this evidence demonstrates the breadth of decisions involved in designing basic-income policies, and the tradeoffs involved in each. Ultimately, basic income policies can support equity by providing a direct, flexible benefit to the poor and avoiding administrative burdens built into many benefit programs. However, whether a policy actually supports equity goals depends on the specific decisions involved in its design, including its financing, eligibility criteria, and whether other services are sacrificed to implement it. Serious questions remain unanswered by existing pilots about how a permanent policy would be financed and implemented. Uncritical calls for a basic income risk neglecting details that determine whether policies will support or undermine equity. City and state governments could still benefit from incorporating features of basic income into their equitable development strategies, and pilots and advocates could work more to answer unknowns about the transition to policies..