{"id":9554,"date":"2026-02-01T10:21:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-01T10:21:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/?p=9554"},"modified":"2026-02-09T11:07:35","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T11:07:35","slug":"institute-of-economic-affairs-discusses-universal-basic-income","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/archives\/9554","title":{"rendered":"Institute of Economic Affairs discusses Universal Basic Income"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

From: Institute of Economic Affairs<\/strong> <ieainsider@substack.com<\/a>>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2026 at 10:05
Subject: Universal Basic Income?
To: <peterchallen@gmail.com<\/a>><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forwarded this email?\u00a0Subscribe here<\/a>\u00a0for more
Universal Basic Income?<\/a>
Plus: why is the state so big?
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0KRISTIAN NIEMIETZ<\/a>
FEB 1<\/a><\/a>\u00a0<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>READ IN APP<\/a>\u00a0
In today\u2019s newsletter:
\u2022 Should we introduce Universal Basic Income?
\u2022 Why is this infantilising Government is turning us all into wards of the state?
\u2022 The super-rich want a wealth tax
\u201cBritain\u2019s investment minister [Jason Stockwood] has revealed there are talks within government about introducing a universal basic income (UBI)\u201d<\/em>, the\u00a0Financial Times<\/a><\/em>\u00a0reported this week. Stockwood and his allies believe that the adoption of Artificial Intelligence is going to lead to mass unemployment, and that UBI is the best way to cushion that blow. Both of these claims can be challenged.
First of all, it is worth restating the reason why technological progress does not generally lead to unemployment.\u201c
Technology X leads to massive job losses in sector Y\u201d sounds bad. \u201cTechnology X leads to massive efficiency improvements in sector Y\u201d sounds great. But both statements describe the same thing.
As long as Y is a reasonably competitive industry, efficiency improvements will, in due course, be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. This means that consumers are now richer. They will now demand goods and services in some other sector, Z, that they could not previously afford (or only sporadically). Somebody has to provide these goods and services, and in this way, the same process that destroys jobs in sector Y also leads to the creation of new ones in sector Z. Employment shifts from Y to Z, but its overall level remains broadly the same, and everyone is richer.
This pattern is hard to spot in the short term, because it is rarely dramatic. But it is crystal clear in long-term time series. For example, YouGov recently published their\u00a0Dining Out Report 2025 UK<\/em>, which is part of a publication series in which they look at how dining habits differ between generations, as well as between Britain and other countries. Three generations ago, such a report would have made no sense whatsoever. In the 1950s, the ONS\u2019s\u00a0Family Expenditure Survey<\/em>\u00a0did not even have a category called \u2018dining out\u2019 yet \u2013 not because nobody was dining out, but because, as a proportion of the average household\u2019s budget, it was not big enough to deserve a category of its own. Britain was simply not rich enough to sustain a hospitality industry big enough to attract the attention of statisticians. People still had to reserve the bulk of their budgets for necessities, with not enough left for nice-to-have things. You could say the same about the entire leisure and entertainment industry, broadly defined.
Some argue that this time is different, and that the AI revolution is not simply a repetition of the widespread adoption of computers in the 1980s, or of the internet in the 1990s. Maybe so, and that\u2019s a good enough reason to do\u00a0something<\/em>, but not to introduce a policy with potentially much bigger downsides.
Which leads us to the second part of Stockwood\u2019s argument: UBI.
The most common argument in favour of UBI, particularly on the Left, is that people do not need economic incentives to work. It is part of our nature that we want to accomplish things.
This is true. But it also misses the point. The UBI-critical argument is not that if we had a UBI, everyone would sit around doing nothing. Of course people would do\u00a0something<\/em>. But what a UBI would do is sever the link between our activities and market demand. We would see a huge increase in the number of people who would want to be novelists, musicians, artists, actors, or full-time political activists. People would write Substacks on wine, and things like that. (OK,\u00a0bad example<\/a>…)
That\u2019s not \u2018doing nothing\u2019, but it would mean flooding sectors that are already saturated even now.
UBI is a \u2018Left-coded\u2019 idea, in the sense that most of its supporters are found on the political Left. But it is not an inherently left-wing idea. There are classical liberals who are sympathetic to it, and there are Marxists who are against it (for reasons I don\u2019t have the wordcount to get into today).
Liberal sympathisers argue that if we had UBI, we could get rid of all the welfare bureaucracy, and especially, of means-testing, with all its anti-work incentives.
They have a point. I prefer a targeted, conditional safety net to a UBI, but I accept that that involves some bureaucracy and adverse incentives. Income transfers do not just target themselves: someone needs to do the targeting. A targeted system needs welfare bureaucrats, whose job it is to establish who is entitled to transfer payments, and to how much. Those bureaucrats need to collect and verify information about people\u2019s income, assets, and family status. That\u2019s not great, and I\u2019m not exactly in love with that system.
However: we could also save administrative expenditure if we just gave every police department in the country identical budgets, regardless of differences in crime rates, types of crime, local wage levels etc. But that would surely make policing less efficient overall, even if it led to some administrative savings.
Similarly, a welfare system in which James Dyson, the Duke of Westminster, Alan Sugar, J.K. Rowling and Rishi Sunak are entitled to benefits does not strike me as \u2018efficient\u2019, even if it is unbureaucratic.
UBI is a dead end. We are better off trying to simplify the welfare system we have, and improve work incentives within it. The introduction of Universal Credit was already a step in that direction, and this agenda can be built upon.
Kristian Niemietz
<\/strong>Editorial Director
The best way to never miss out on IEA work, get access to exclusive content, and support our research and educational programmes is to become a paid IEA Insider.<\/em>
Forwarded this email?\u00a0Subscribe here<\/a>\u00a0for more
IEA Podcast:<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>Head of Media\u00a0Reem Ibrahim<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0is joined by Director General\u00a0David Frost<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0and Editorial Director\u00a0Kristian Niemietz<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0to discuss whether there is reason for optimism and Universal Basic Income \u2014
IEA YouTube<\/a><\/strong><\/em>
<\/a>This infantilising Government is turning us all into wards of the state
by David Frost<\/em>
If this Government and the\u00a0Labour Party<\/a>\u00a0stand for any political philosophy at all \u2013 and that is pretty hard to discern at the moment \u2013 it is the belief that \u201cthe Government knows best\u201d, that state authorities have better insight than you into how you should spend your money and live your own life.This world view drives the relentless growth of government spending and state power which we see every day. All through British society, power is shifting from the individual to the collective, from the political to the bureaucratic, from the local to the distant.\u00a0Police forces are to be regrouped<\/a>. Local government is being reorganised to replace one two-tier system with another, more remote form. And everywhere people face constant tinkering and disempowering change that makes life more complicated for no good reason.<\/em>
Read the full article here<\/a>
News and Views
The Nuclear Option: Rethinking Britain\u2019s Path to Net Zero with Henry Hill | IEA Interview<\/a><\/strong><\/em>,\u00a0<\/strong>Energy Analyst\u00a0Andy Mayer<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0sits down wih the Deputy Editor of ConservativeHome Henry Hill,\u00a0IEA YouTube<\/a><\/em>
<\/a>\u2018Woke\u2019 banknotes: Bank of England orders money printer to follow ESG rules,<\/a><\/strong><\/em>
CityAM<\/a><\/em>
A separate report by the\u00a0Institute of Economics Affairs<\/a>\u00a0said diversity initiatives led by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and other public bodies had gone \u201cfar beyond\u201d remits set by legal requirements.Callum Price, director of communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs said: \u201cAll government bodies, the Bank of England included, should only be concerned with doing the job that they have been created to do to the best of their ability. This means keeping costs down as much as possible and resisting mission creep.\u201c<\/em>
Tying unnecessary baubles onto the requirements for procured contracts that do not affect the primary role of the contract will only drive up costs, increase inefficiency, and reduce competition.\u201d<\/em>
6 Years since Brexit,<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Head of Media\u00a0Reem Ibrahim<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0spoke at an event in the House of Lords,\u00a0X<\/a><\/em>
<\/a>From \u00a352k to \u00a380k: John Cochrane on How Britain Can Catch Up With America | IEA Interview<\/a><\/strong><\/em>,\u00a0<\/strong>fellow of the Hoover Institution John Cochrane,\u00a0IEA YouTube<\/a><\/em>
<\/a>Head of Media\u00a0Reem Ibrahim<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0appeared on BBC Politics Live,\u00a0BBC Two<\/a><\/em>
<\/a>Watch a clip on X\u00a0here<\/a>!
BLOG<\/a>
Even the super-rich themselves want a wealth tax. So why don\u2019t neoliberals?<\/a>
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0KRISTIAN NIEMIETZ<\/a>\u00b7
JAN 29\"Even<\/a>The campaign group Patriotic Millionaires are the hipsters of the wealth tax movement: they were already campaigning for a wealth tax before it was cool.<\/a>
Read full story<\/a>
EVENTSINVITATION: The Great Realignment – Why the New Right is Here to Stay<\/a>
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS<\/a>\u00b7
JAN 12

\"INVITATION:<\/a>To mark the publication of Dr Steve Davies\u2019 new book The Great Realignment – Why the New Right is Here to Stay, we are hosting a live IEA Podcast to delve into Dr Davies\u2019 thesis about the great realignment in British and global politics.<\/a>
Read full story<\/a>
Thanks for reading Institute of Economic Affairs | Insider! This post is public, so feel free to share it.
Share<\/a>

A guest post by
Kristian Niemietz<\/a>
Editorial Director and Head of Political Economy at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Views my own.
Subscribe to Kristian<\/a>
You (Peter Challen) are currently a free subscriber to Insider. For the full experience,\u00a0upgrade your subscription.<\/strong><\/em> Paid subscribers support the IEA’s charitable mission and receive special invites to exclusive events, including the thought-provoking IEA Book Club.We are offering all new subscribers a special offer.\u00a0For a limited time only, you<\/strong>\u00a0will receive 15% off and a complimentary copy of Dr Stephen Davies\u2019 latest book,\u00a0Apocalypse Next: The Economics of Global Catastrophic Risks<\/a>.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From: Institute of Economic Affairs <ieainsider@substack.com>Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2026 at 10:05Subject: Universal Basic Income?To: <peterchallen@gmail.com> Forwarded this email?\u00a0Subscribe here\u00a0for moreUniversal Basic Income?Plus: why is the state so big?INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS\u00a0and\u00a0KRISTIAN NIEMIETZFEB 1\u00a0READ IN APP\u00a0In today\u2019s newsletter:\u2022 Should we introduce Universal … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-agenda"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9554"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9554"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9565,"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9554\/revisions\/9565"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccmj.org.uk\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}