HERMAN DELEECK CENTRE FOR SOCIAL POLICY

Debate around a universal basic income (UBI) tends to focus on the economic and social implications of the policy proposal. Less clear, however, are the factors influencing support for a UBI. Using the 2016 European Social Survey, we investigate how trade union membership and left political ideology (central to power resources theory) and attitudes towards immigrants’ access to welfare benefits (central to welfare state chauvinism) affect individual support for a UBI. We also investigate how country-level differences in levels of social spending moderate individual-level UBI support. Results suggest that in countries where social spending is low, welfare state chauvinism and power resources theory have little effect in explaining support for a UBI. Where spending is high, chauvinism and power resources can explain individual-level support. These tensions form a demand-capacity paradox: countries which are presumably least equipped to implement a UBI see the most broad-based support for the policy. Corresponding Author: Linus Siöland Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy University of Antwerp linus.sioland@uantwerpen.be In the decade since the Great Recession, the issue of whether a universal basic income (UBI) can provide a guaranteed, basic living standard for all in society has increased in prominence in political and academic discourse. Proponents hold that UBI can provide a flexible protection against poverty and destitution in light of an increasingly fragmented labour markets and the threat of automation. Critics, meanwhile, consider the UBI economically inefficient or as posing a disincentive to work. However, less academic discussion has moved beyond the behavioural, economic and social consequences of UBI to instead consider the factors affecting support for it. An investigation into sources of support for UBI is necessary to further understand the political feasibility of the policy. This paper analyses data from 23 countries within the 2016 European Social Survey to investigate the determinants of support for a UBI. Specifically, we study the relevance of three prominent theories in sociology and social policy literature on individual support for universal redistributive programs. These include welfare chauvinism and anti-immigrant sentiment; the power resources theory of welfare state development, emphasising leftist political power and trade union mobilisation; and prevailing levels of welfare state development. Given that welfare chauvinism is generally associated with lower support for broad redistributive policies, we investigate whether widespread chauvinist sentiment poses a barrier toward UBI implementation. The mobilization of trade union members and left-leaning voters, meanwhile, has been central to explanations of expansive welfare states in Western and Northern Europe. It remains unclear, however, if these core components of power resources theory also explain patterns of support for a UBI. Finally, the extent to which chauvinism, union membership, or political ideology are associated with support for a UBI might be conditional on politicalinstitutional context at the national level. We investigate whether there is greater support for a UBI in countries with less developed welfare states. If so, welfare chauvinism and power resources theory may have less explanatory relevance in such countries.