Questioning the feasibility and justice of basic income accounting for migration

IF 1.6 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Politics Philosophy & Economics Pub Date : 2021-07-22 DOI:10.1177/1470594X211032394
Verena Löffler
{"title":"Questioning the feasibility and justice of basic income accounting for migration","authors":"Verena Löffler","doi":"10.1177/1470594X211032394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When studying the feasibility and justice of basic income, researchers usually assume that policymakers would be introducing the unconditional benefit to a closed economic entity. When contemplating the introduction of a universal policy, few researchers take into consideration the fact that citizens and foreigners migrate, and that this movement alters the size and skill structure of the population. This article addresses this oversight by analyzing how basic income schemes based on residence or citizenship may affect tax base, wages, and employment while incorporating migration incentives. The discussion is based upon neoclassical labor supply and migration theory and informed by the conjectured economic effects from a normative perspective. This research suggests that a basic income would create migration incentives that reduce the tax base, leading us to question this policy’s feasibility. Moreover, the flow-on effects of migration call into question the justice of both residence-based and citizenship-based basic income schemes. Therefore, this article sheds light on how basic income’s feasibility and justice relate to each other and identifies the benefits and further opportunities for interdisciplinary social policy research.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"65 1","pages":"273 - 314"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X211032394","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

When studying the feasibility and justice of basic income, researchers usually assume that policymakers would be introducing the unconditional benefit to a closed economic entity. When contemplating the introduction of a universal policy, few researchers take into consideration the fact that citizens and foreigners migrate, and that this movement alters the size and skill structure of the population. This article addresses this oversight by analyzing how basic income schemes based on residence or citizenship may affect tax base, wages, and employment while incorporating migration incentives. The discussion is based upon neoclassical labor supply and migration theory and informed by the conjectured economic effects from a normative perspective. This research suggests that a basic income would create migration incentives that reduce the tax base, leading us to question this policy’s feasibility. Moreover, the flow-on effects of migration call into question the justice of both residence-based and citizenship-based basic income schemes. Therefore, this article sheds light on how basic income’s feasibility and justice relate to each other and identifies the benefits and further opportunities for interdisciplinary social policy research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
质疑基本收入解释移民的可行性和公平性
在研究基本收入的可行性和公平性时,研究人员通常假设政策制定者将向一个封闭的经济实体引入无条件的福利。在考虑引入一项普遍政策时,很少有研究人员考虑到公民和外国人迁移的事实,这种迁移改变了人口的规模和技能结构。本文通过分析基于居住或公民身份的基本收入计划在纳入移民激励措施的同时如何影响税基、工资和就业,来解决这种监督问题。本文的讨论基于新古典的劳动力供给和迁移理论,并从规范的角度推测经济效应。这项研究表明,基本收入将产生减少税基的移民激励,这使我们质疑这项政策的可行性。此外,移民的流动效应使基于居住地和基于公民身份的基本收入计划的公正性受到质疑。因此,本文阐明了基本收入的可行性和公平性是如何相互关联的,并确定了跨学科社会政策研究的好处和进一步的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Politics, Philosophy & Economics aims to bring moral, economic and political theory to bear on the analysis, justification and criticism of political and economic institutions and public policies. The Editors are committed to publishing peer-reviewed papers of high quality using various methodologies from a wide variety of normative perspectives. They seek to provide a distinctive forum for discussions and debates among political scientists, philosophers, and economists on such matters as constitutional design, property rights, distributive justice, the welfare state, egalitarianism, the morals of the market, democratic socialism, population ethics, and the evolution of norms.
期刊最新文献
A Farewell Editorial Democratic speech in divided times: An introduction How to talk back: hate speech, misinformation, and the limits of salience Discursive optimism defended Lockdowns and the ethics of intergenerational compensation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1