Universal Basic Income: Ideological Debate and Evidence from Iran, Alaska, and Switzerland

Abstract

This article examines the contentious debate surrounding Universal Basic Income (UBI)—an unconditional, equal, and permanent cash payment providing basic needs for all citizens—from an ideological left–right perspective. It analyzes key arguments made by proponents and opponents on both sides, showing how the core disagreement centers on whether UBI should replace or supplement most of the existing welfare system. The article then critically evaluates these arguments through an empirical analysis of UBI case studies in Iran, Alaska, and Switzerland, examining UBI’s impacts on labor supply, inequality, poverty, and political support. Findings suggest: (1) UBI need not reduce employment and could enhance it in certain demographics. (2) Its effect on inequality is significant, but the direction of influence depends on generosity and progressivity. (3) Broad public backing requires stable funding sources separate from politics and preferably a public framing as a civic entitlement rather than another welfare policy. Ultimately, the crux of the left-right debate, and the key to a viable UBI policy acceptable to both sides, rests on the specific funding mechanism and its integration with the existing welfare system.