English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Support for universal basic income is one of the key conundrums of the politics of welfare reform. Research shows that the predictors of UBI favourability also explain support for other policy alternatives, which differ substantially from a UBI, like targeted or conditional cash transfers. What is attractive or objectionable about a UBI to individuals, and which policy alternatives does public opinion actually prefer? In this paper, I tackle these questions with a conjoint experiment conducted in Spain. The results show that the universality of UBI, i.e., the fact that it is given to everyone, is what generates opposition. On the other hand, its unconditionality or the idea that it does not attach any conditions to recipients, is not particularly unpopular. However, the results also reveal that progressive funding mechanisms and restricting eligibility criteria to citizens only, can boost approval for this policy. These results have far-reaching implications for the study of welfare preferences, UBI support and theories on deservingness.

A Robin Hood for all: a conjoint experiment on support for basic income