• Home
  • Contact
FICCI blog
  • Home
  • Contact
Home  /  Domestic Economy  /  A Universal Basic Income Scheme for India?

A Universal Basic Income Scheme for India?

Written by
Domestic Economy universal basic income Comments are off
Share this..
Twitter0
Facebook0
LinkedIn1

However, even restricting attention to anti-poverty schemes, one could worry whether replacing some existing programmes that are working relatively well with an UBI may be risky. Even here, capping total benefits to some maximum amount would give beneficiaries the choice of holding on to benefits from programmes that work well, and giving up those that don’t. Consider a relatively remote rural area where cash is less useful than in urban areas as markets are not well developed. It is possible that the poor in some of these areas may prefer to continue with some existing in-kind transfer programme to the extent they work well (e.g., food from ration shops).

Of course, the main issue concerning adopting a UBI scheme is affordability. Any universal programme is expensive. My calculations suggest that if every adult was given exactly the amount of income that defines the poverty level, which is on average Rs 40 per day (Rs 32 in rural areas and Rs 47 in urban areas), every person would be assured of an income of around Rs 14,000 per year or Rs 1,200 per month.  Assuming we give this sum to every adult (0.69 of the population), this would require a total expenditure of Rs 11,600 billion, which is 11 per cent of the GDP. One can, of course, offer a lower amount per person that would be more affordable but there is clearly a trade-off between such a scheme being effective and affordable.

For such a programme not to add to the fiscal burden and create inflationary pressure, it must be funded either by spending cuts or by increased taxes.

Given that only 1 per cent of Indians pay income tax, while a mere 2.3 per cent file tax returns, the fiscal instruments to claw back the transfer from the rich are limited. However, the increased push for digitisation by the present government will reduce the space for informal transactions raise the possibility using instruments other than income tax (e.g., tax on bank transactions), it also make it feasible to make electronic transfers to the poor.

The scope for spending cuts certainly exists. The budgetary subsidies in 1987-88 amounted to 12.9% of GDP (based on the 2004-05 GDP series. In 2011-12 it amounted to 10.6% of GDP (also based on the 2004-05 series). Some recent estimates suggest that non-merit subsidies are about a third of this, making up about 3.5% of GDP. This is a far cry from the 11% figure.

However, it is a conservative estimate as administrative services are not included in it, nor are other subsidy like components such as direct transfers, concessional interest rates, concessional prices of land or other assets and tax concessions or exemptions.

So long as the UBI is not posed as the only instrument of poverty alleviation, there is no reason not to try it out at least on a scale that is affordable. No policy is without costs and those who only highlight problems with the UBI should recognize that whatever is their own favourite policy also has some advantages and disadvantages.

The focus should be on the relative costs and benefits of different policies and which one works better where and for whom. As we already noted, one size does not fit all, and we should be open to the possibility that different policies could work well in different settings. So long as we cap the overall benefits, there is no reason not to adopt such a flexible approach.

Finally, we should be clear-eyed about recognizing that UBI is only a temporary relief measure for the poor, and does not provide a long-term solution to the problem of poverty. For that one needs investment in health, education, and skill formation to enable the poor to take advantage of growth opportunities, and investing in infrastructure and regulatory conditions to facilitate private investment for employment generation. Growth is the best long-term anti-poverty programme.

The article is written by Prof. Maitreesh Ghatak, Professor of Economics, London School of Economics for FICCI’s Economy Watch.

Pages:

1 2
 Previous Article Digital Banking – An Indian Perspective
Next Article   Universal Basic Income dilemmas

Related Posts

  • Universal Basic Income dilemmas

  • Universal Basic Income | International Experiences

  • Universal Basic Income | Potential Issues

  • Popular Posts
  • Recent Posts
  • Direct Selling – An Avant-garde Model
  • A Billion+ Customers need a Million Sales and Service Touch Points
  • Changing Times for Mining and Steel Sector in India Post COVID 19
  • Insurance Jobs of the Future
  • Massive potential for farmers, consumer by strengthening millet value chain; Let’s strive to put ‘Millets on every plate’
  • Energizing travel towards a sustainable future
  • Mining for a Green Future- What Lies Ahead
  • Technology transfer and collaboration – an important tool in enhancing the healthcare ecosystem

Drop us a line..

March 2023
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

FICCI Tag Cloud

banking budget business business confidence CAPAM 2017 Knowledge Paper capital markets Changing Face of Insurance crime direct selling economic relations economy economy insights Economy of Jobs economy watch education environment FDI ficci finance financial foresights fintech growth GST healthcare homeland security india industry innovation insurance MSME oil opec policy policy reforms RBI reforms retail skills Skills for All SME survey technology UK universal basic income women
   Get Updates via RSS Feed

   FICCI website

Social Media

  • Connect on Facebook
  • Connect on Twitter
  • Connect on LinkedIn
  • Connect on Instagram
  • Connect on YouTube

Archives

Popular Posts

  • Energizing travel towards a sustainable future
  • Mining for a Green Future- What Lies Ahead
  • Massive potential for farmers, consumer by strengthening millet value chain; Let’s strive to put ‘Millets on every plate’
© Copyright 2018. FICCI.