Why has the COVID-19 pandemic increased support for Universal Basic Income?

The study investigates whether the COVID-19 pandemic increased public support for Universal Basic Income (UBI) and why. Context: Public and media discussion of UBI rose during early 2020, with some policymakers advocating universal cash transfers as a response to pandemic-induced economic disruption. Prior polls show moderate support for UBI but sensitivity to concerns about taxation, work incentives, and targeting the needy. Hypothesis: Changes in situational priorities during the pandemic (e.g., need for simplicity, speed, reduced stress) would shift the weights people assign to perceived pros/cons of UBI, increasing support relative to normal times. Purpose: Measure within-person differences in support or preference for UBI in normal times versus pandemic times, and explain any shifts via changes in importance attached to specific properties of social transfer systems. Importance: Understanding how crises reshape policy preferences clarifies the psychological mechanisms behind support for universality versus conditional targeting and informs welfare policy design under uncertainty.

The paper reviews arguments for and against UBI, noting longstanding ethical and pragmatic justifications (Standing, 2017; van Parijs & Vanderborght, 2017) and increased pandemic-era advocacy. Polling (ESS 2016) reported majority support in many European countries, with pro-UBI arguments of security and reduced bureaucracy resonating (Ipsos MORI, 2017). However, support declines when higher taxes or replacement of existing benefits are highlighted; concerns include work disincentives and the belief that targeting better directs help to those in need (Populus). The authors clarify that targeting outcomes can, in principle, be achieved with unconditional payments when paired with progressive taxation, though this is often counterintuitive. Deservingness heuristics (van Oorschot, Aaroe & Petersen) and confusion between targeting and conditionality may shape attitudes. Theoretical framing suggests policy preferences are situationally responsive (Nettle & Saxe, 2020), implying crises can reweight perceived policy attributes.

Study 1 (April 7, 2020)

• Participants: N = 802 (UK n = 400; USA n = 402) recruited via Prolific; balanced by gender; broad age and SES ranges.
• Design: Within-subject ratings of UBI support for two contexts: (a) normal times (counterfactual without pandemic) and (b) pandemic times (current pandemic and aftermath). Support measured on 0–100 slider (0 = bad idea, 100 = good idea). UBI described as a monthly, modest, unconditional income based on age/residency.
• Measures: Rated importance (0–100) of nine commonly discussed UBI propositions (advantages and disadvantages), for both normal and pandemic times; also rated perceived truth of each proposition (importance ratings used for primary analyses).
• Analysis: Regressions predicting UBI support from proposition importance (separately for normal and pandemic times); computed standardized shifts in importance from normal to pandemic; compared predicted shift in support based on reweighted importance to observed shift. Examined sociodemographic predictors (age, gender, SES, political orientation, country) and personal pandemic impact.

Study 2 (May 7, 2020)

• Participants: N = 400 (UK n = 200; USA n = 200), Prolific; gender-balanced.
• Design: Direct comparison between two mutually exclusive, equal-cost systems: UBI vs a conditional targeted welfare scheme (eligibility based on criteria like income/inability to work; requires application and assessment). Preference measured on a 0–100 slider (0 = more true: targeted; 100 = more true: universal; 50 = equal). Participants reported preference for normal and pandemic times.
• Measures: Sixteen desirable properties of social transfer systems. For each property, participants indicated which system better satisfies it (0–100 as above) and rated importance of each property for both time contexts. Additional items assessed perceived pandemic-induced stress/anxiety in people previously receiving welfare vs not, and beliefs about administrative feasibility (assessing need, stress of demonstrating need, tolerance for delays/paperwork).
• Analysis: GLMs predicting system preference from importance ratings (normal and pandemic models); examined shifts in property importance (Cohen’s d). Predicted preference shifts from reweighting of property importance. Tested associations with perceived stress impacts and administrative challenges. Assessed sociodemographic predictors.

Study 3 (September 15, 2020; UK only)

• Participants: Two samples: Study 3a (n = 200) and Study 3b (n = 197), Prolific; gender-balanced; similar ages to prior studies.
• Design: Abbreviated replications: 3a measured UBI support (0–100) for normal vs pandemic times (as in Study 1); 3b measured UBI vs targeted system preference (0–100) for normal vs pandemic times (as in Study 2).
• Analysis: Paired t-tests for within-person differences; compared effect sizes to earlier UK subsamples (April/May) via tests on individual difference scores by timepoint. Data and code available on OSF.

Study 1 (n = 802, UK+US)

• UBI support increased for pandemic times vs normal times: mean shift ≈ +16 points on 0–100 scale; t = 22.07, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d ≈ 0.78. 576 increased, 163 no change, 63 decreased.
• Political orientation predicted baseline support (more left-wing, higher support); lower subjective SES associated with higher support. Age, gender, and country not significant predictors of baseline support. Personal pandemic impact did not predict pandemic-time support or shift.
• Predictors of support: Higher importance attached to simplicity/efficiency of administration, reducing stress/anxiety, and valuing every individual predicted higher support; concerns about work disincentives and payments to the rich/undeserving predicted lower support; “hard to cheat” was a weaker positive predictor.
• Pandemic reweighting: Importance increased for simplicity/efficiency, reducing stress/anxiety, and valuing every individual; importance decreased for work disincentives and payments to rich/undeserving. Using normal-times regression weights plus observed importance shifts predicted a mean support increase of +15.73 points, closely matching observed +16.03.

Study 2 (n = 400, UK+US)

• Preference shifted toward UBI over targeted system for pandemic times: normal mean ≈ 60.35 vs pandemic mean ≈ 70.03; t = 2.86, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d ≈ 0.34. Similar across UK and US; shift not explained by political orientation or personal pandemic impact.
• Which system better serves properties: Of 16 properties, UBI rated superior on 15; targeted system superior only for “making sure help goes to those most in need.” Largest UBI advantages: simplicity of administration, suitability for an unpredictable world, being hard to cheat, avoiding people falling between the cracks, and personal benefit to respondent.
• Importance predictors: In normal times, importance of simplicity, poverty reduction, suitability for unpredictability, and personal benefit predicted pro-UBI preference; prioritizing helping the neediest, being hard to cheat, and avoiding irresponsible behavior predicted pro-targeted preference. Patterns were somewhat weaker/less consistent for pandemic times.
• Pandemic reweighting: Many properties increased in importance for pandemic times (e.g., simplicity, coping with unpredictability, cohesion). Reweighting predicted a +5.16 mean shift toward UBI, less than observed (+9.88), indicating partial but incomplete explanatory power. Perceived increases in stress/anxiety for those not previously on welfare and urgency (inability to afford delays/paperwork) significantly predicted more pro-UBI pandemic preferences.

Study 3 (UK-only replication, September 2020)

• UBI support remained higher for pandemic times (3a: mean 75.05 vs 65.06; t = 7.10, p < 0.001), but the effect size attenuated (d ≈ 0.50), about 62% of April’s UK effect (d ≈ 0.81); difference significant (t = −3.84, p < 0.001).
• Preference UBI > targeted remained higher for pandemic times (3b: mean 59.71 vs 53.93; t = 3.48, p < 0.001). Effect size d ≈ 0.25 was ~70% of May’s effect (d ≈ 0.35); difference not statistically significant (t = −1.55, p = 0.12).

Overall

• The pandemic increased support for UBI per se, not only for more generous transfers generally; shifts were similar across UK and US and broadly across political orientation. Changes in perceived importance of simplicity/efficiency, stress reduction, universality, and ability to cope with unpredictability substantially explain increased support/preferences.

The findings address the research question by showing that the pandemic context increases support for UBI and preference for universality over conditional targeting, primarily through shifts in the perceived importance of policy attributes. Respondents placed greater weight on simplicity/efficiency, rapid delivery, reduced stress/anxiety, universality, and robustness to unpredictability—attributes they associate with UBI—while concerns about work disincentives and payments to the rich/undeserving became less salient. Consequently, within-person support increased from normal to pandemic times. These effects generalized across UK and US samples and across the political spectrum and persisted six months into the pandemic, though attenuated. When UBI was explicitly traded off against targeting, preferences were more nuanced: targeting was still perceived as better at ensuring help reaches the neediest, and the predictive power of importance weights was weaker, suggesting underlying tensions between values of universality/simplicity and deservingness/targeting. The additional evidence that respondents believed the pandemic disproportionately raised stress for those not previously on welfare, and that delays/paperwork were intolerable, reinforces why universality gained appeal during crisis conditions.

The paper shows that COVID-19 increased public support for UBI and shifted preferences toward universality over conditional targeting, with changes largely explained by reweighting of policy attributes under crisis (simplicity, speed, stress reduction, universality, resilience to unpredictability). These shifts were evident in both the UK and US and persisted, though reduced, six months after the initial shock. Contributions include: (1) demonstrating situational malleability of welfare policy preferences; (2) identifying psychological mechanisms (attribute reweighting) linking context to support for UBI; and (3) distinguishing general support for transfers from specific support for universality. Future research could: (a) employ representative, longitudinal panels with pre-pandemic baselines; (b) experimentally manipulate attribute salience and policy designs (e.g., taxation coupling, clawbacks) to test causal mechanisms; (c) examine other policy domains where crises shift attribute priorities; and (d) probe heterogeneity across socioeconomic groups and political identities in response to different crisis types.

• Samples recruited via Prolific were not nationally representative; results cannot estimate population-level support.
• No pre-pandemic baseline; “normal times” ratings are retrospective counterfactuals subject to recall and framing biases.
• Study 1 presented only UBI (no competing alternative), potentially conflating increased support for UBI with support for transfers generally; addressed but not eliminated by Study 2.
• Some reported descriptive statistics in text contain typographical inconsistencies; however, inferential results and effect directions are clear.
• Self-reported importance weights may not fully capture complex trade-offs when alternatives are explicit (as in Study 2), limiting predictive power.
• Study 3 was UK-only; generalizability of temporal attenuation to other contexts is untested.
• Short survey formats and slider measures may introduce measurement error and anchoring effects.