{"insight":{"id":"113523570","lede":"Among a cohort of developed countries, the US has the lowest universalism index (measure of welfare programs), and the lowest support for redistribution.","slug":"citizens-living-in-countries-with-higher-levels-of-universalism-tend-to-maintain","title":"Citizens living in countries with higher levels of universalism tend to maintain stronger support for government redistribution.","showTitleAsQuote":false,"epistemicStatus":"empirical","reports":[{"id":"19519421","title":"Basic Income","slug":"basic-income"}],"tags":[{"slug":"universalism","name":"Universalism","id":"101707811","lede":"

One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens (and taxed to adjust distribution afterwards).

\n\n

Universal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.

\n\n

Targeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens.\n\nUniversal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.\n\nTargeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.","featured":true},{"slug":"redistribution","name":"Redistribution","id":"74016537","lede":"","ledeExcerpt":"","featured":null},{"slug":"welfare","name":"Welfare","id":"23933425","lede":"

Welfare refers to government-sponsored assistance programs intended to ensure that all members of society can meet their basic needs. Examples include social insurance, Medicaid, and disability insurance.

\n\n

The vast majority of welfare spending goes to those who cannot actively participate in the labor market, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"Welfare refers to government-sponsored assistance programs intended to ensure that all members of society can meet their basic needs. Examples include social insurance, Medicaid, and disability insurance.\n\nThe vast majority of welfare spending goes to those who cannot actively participate in the labor market, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.","featured":true},{"slug":"stability","name":"Stability","id":"23916385","lede":"

We define stability as the resiliency, robustness, and constancy of our nested social, financial, and environmental systems. Stability is the degree to which our systems can withstand stress and maintain their functionality over time.

\n\n

Why do we need stability? All else equal, a stable society is preferable to an unstable society. Stability - the product of the harmonious interaction between parts, or interwoven systems - protects against uncertainty and decay. For example, a healthy body regulates its blood glucose levels to provide cells with their required energy. Too much glucose makes cells sticky, with a paralyzing effect. Too little glucose starves them. What's important is the constancy of glucose regulation within functional limits, and the resiliency to maintain this regulation amidst adversity.

\n\n

Instability occurs when systems transgress functional limits, causing the breakdown of other systems and suffering for those who depend on them. When interlocking systems remain stable, they provide a fertile foundation for positive expectations that fuel investments in progress and broad cooperation throughout society.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"We define stability as the resiliency, robustness, and constancy of our nested social, financial, and environmental systems. Stability is the degree to which our systems can withstand stress and maintain their functionality over time. \n\nWhy do we need stability? All else equal, a stable society is preferable to an unstable society. Stability - the product of the harmonious interaction between parts, or interwoven systems - protects against uncertainty and decay. For example, a healthy body regulates its blood glucose levels to provide cells with their required energy. Too much glucose makes cells sticky, with a paralyzing effect. Too little glucose starves them. What's important is the constancy of glucose regulation within functional limits, and the resiliency to maintain this regulation amidst adversity.\n\nInstability occurs when systems transgress functional limits, causing the breakdown of other systems and suffering for those who depend on them. When interlocking systems remain stable, they provide a fertile foundation for positive expectations that fuel investments in progress and broad cooperation throughout society.","featured":true}],"sources":[{"id":"113523547","lede":"A paper affirming the 'paradox of redistribution': countries achieve more redistribution when they take from all to give to all, rather than when they take specifically from the rich and redistribute to the poor. The authors construct a 'universalism index', and test it across 20 OECD countries. They find support for the paradox in 21st century welfare states.","link":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958928717700564","slug":"the-case-for-welfare-state-universalism","kind":"Academic Paper","title":"The Case for Welfare State Universalism","year":"2018-01-01","researchers":[{"id":"113523459","location":"McGill University","name":"Olivier Jacques","seoDescription":"","slug":"olivier-jacques"},{"id":"113523469","location":"Université de Montréal","name":"Alain Noël","seoDescription":"","slug":"alain-noel"}]}]}}