Aus dem Abstract:
"This paper discusses two common arguments for the adoption of a UBI; that it can be a more effective way of supporting low-income households when existing safety net programs are inefficient, and that it can generate broad support for structural reforms. Using India as an illustration, the paper discusses the trade-offs that need to be recognized in adopting a UBI in these contexts. It shows that replacing the 2011 Public Distribution System (PDS) with a UBI results in losses for many low-income households, although much of this can be reduced by recycling the “out-of-system” PDS losses and the fiscal savings from excluding the highest-income groups as higher UBI transfers."
Ähnliche Ergebnisse wurden schon in einer Studie der OECD geäußert. Siehe auch den Kommentar zur OECD-Studie von Karl Widerquist.
Sascha Liebermann
"This paper discusses two common arguments for the adoption of a UBI; that it can be a more effective way of supporting low-income households when existing safety net programs are inefficient, and that it can generate broad support for structural reforms. Using India as an illustration, the paper discusses the trade-offs that need to be recognized in adopting a UBI in these contexts. It shows that replacing the 2011 Public Distribution System (PDS) with a UBI results in losses for many low-income households, although much of this can be reduced by recycling the “out-of-system” PDS losses and the fiscal savings from excluding the highest-income groups as higher UBI transfers."
Ähnliche Ergebnisse wurden schon in einer Studie der OECD geäußert. Siehe auch den Kommentar zur OECD-Studie von Karl Widerquist.
Sascha Liebermann