Lö le , Ve ena
Wo king Pape
Challenging he jus ice o a basic income policy when
ocusing on he homeless popula ion: A case s udy on
Ge many
FRIBIS Discussion Pape Se ies, No. 01-2024
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Uni e si y o F eibu g, F eibu g Ins i u e o Basic Income S udies (FRIBIS)
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Lö le , Ve ena (2024) : Challenging he jus ice o a basic income policy when
ocusing on he homeless popula ion: A case s udy on Ge many, FRIBIS Discussion Pape Se ies, No.
01-2024, Albe -Ludwigs-Uni e si ä F eibu g, F eibu g Ins i u e o Basic Income S udies (FRIBIS),
F eibu g,
h ps://doi.o g/10.6094/FRIBIS/DiscussionPape /11/01-2024
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/285375
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
FRIBIS
F eibu g Ins i u e o Basic Income S udies
Challenging he jus ice o a basic income
policy when ocusing on he homeless
popula ion: a case s udy on Ge many
Ve ena Lö le *
DOI:10.6094/FRIBIS/DiscussionPape /11/01-2024
*Wi scha swissenscha liche Fakul ä , Ins i u ü
Ökonomische Bildung, Uni e si ä Müns e
Con ac : Ve ena.l[email p o ec ed]
6 h Ma ch, 2024
FRIBIS Discussion Pape Se ies
ISSN No. [2702-5462] FRIBIS
Pape No. 01-2024
Uni e si y o F eibu g
F eibu g Ins i u e o Basic Income S udies (FRIBIS)
Albe -Ludwigs-Uni e si ä F eibu g
Rempa s . 10
79085 F eibu g
Ge many
www. ibis.uni- eibu g.de/en
Any opinions exp essed in his pape a e hose o he au ho (s) and no hose o FRIBIS.
Resea ch published in he FRIBIS se ies may include iews on policy, bu FRIBIS akes
no ins i u ional policy posi ions. FRIBIS Discussion Pape s o en ep esen p elimina y
wo k and a e ci cula ed o encou age discussion. Ci a ion o such a pape should
accoun o i s p o isional cha ac e .
FRIBIS is an in e disciplina y esea ch ins i u e ha conduc s esea ch in basic income
and o e s policy and ci il socie y deba e as well as policy ad ice on basic Income
issues. Ou key objec i e is o build connec ions be ween academic esea ch, policy-
make s and socie y. FRIBIS uns a wo ldwide ne wo k o esea che s, policymake s and
ci il socie y ad oca es, whose joined con ibu ions aim o p o ide answe s o he global
basic income challenges o ou ime.
Challenging he jus ice o a basic income policy when ocusing on he
homeless popula ion: a case s udy on Ge many
Ve ena Lö le
Abs ac
In a gi en socie y, hose who a e leas ad an aged would allegedly bene i he mos
om ecei ing a basic income. Howe e , he me i s o such a policy a e gene ally deba ed
acco ding o he e ec s on socie y as a whole, no speci ically on he mos ma ginalized;
hus, he po en ial bene i s o a basic income o ma ginalized g oups is unclea . To add ess
his gap, I iden i y homeless people in Ge many as he leas ad an aged and assess how his
g oup would be impac ed by a basic income based on eal libe a ian, libe al egali a ian,
and epublican heo ies o jus ice. Speci ically, I show how in oducing a basic income
would a ec he homeless popula ion in Ge many in e ms o income, sel - espec , and
powe . While a basic income could inc ease mos o he homeless popula ion’s income and
imp o e communal ela ions, he s igma a ached o homelessness will only dec ease inso-
a as he basic income policy helps people exi homelessness. Mo eo e , a basic income
would dec ease powe imbalances be ween he homeless popula ion and s a e agencies, bu
he policy’s e ec s on ela ions be ween homeless pe sons and ellow ci izens, pa icula ly
landlo ds, a e ambiguous. This a icle con ibu es o he heo e ical discussion on a basic
income, p o iding a new conce n abou whe he such a policy is ai o he homeless pop-
ula ion. Mo eo e , his a icle is ele an in p ac ice, as he discussed e ec s may p omp
a enues o designing u u e social policies ha add ess he homeless popula ion as he
mos ulne able g oup in mode n wel a e s a es.
JEL classi ica ion: D31, D63, H55, I32, I38
Keywo ds: basic income, homelessness, public policy, social jus ice
1 In oduc ion
One policy ha is o en p oposed o make socie y mo e jus , especially o he mos ma ginal-
ized g oups (McKinnon, 2003; Ra en ós, 2007; Van Pa ijs, 1997), is a basic income, a egula ,
uncondi ional, and indi idual paymen made o e e y membe o socie y (Van Pa ijs & Vande -
bo gh , 2017). While he appeal o such a policy o imp o e he li es o he mos disad an aged
is clea , he schola ly discussion on he e ec s o a basic income policy cen e s mos ly on labo
ma ke pa icipan s wi h low income, low sel - espec , and low ba gaining powe (Bi nbaum &
De Wispelae e, 2021; Hende son, 2023; McKinnon, 2003; Smi h, 2021), hus igno ing people
who a e no in he labo ma ke a all, namely homeless people. I a gue ha based on eal libe -
a ian, libe al egali a ian, and epublican ideas o jus ice, his deba e mus include he homeless
popula ion, because his he e ogeneous g oup is he leas ad an aged in e ms o income, sel -
espec , and powe . P o iding a hough expe imen on basic income e ec s in Ge many, I show
ha while a basic income may e ec i ely inc ease homeless people’s income, he policy’s e -
ec s on sel - espec and powe a e ambiguous: hence, I ques ion he policy’s jus ness om a
libe al egali a ian and a epublican pe spec i e.
Homelessness has mul iple causes ha a y wi h he pe sonal social con ex , wi hin which
ins i u ional, s uc u al and indi idual ac o s a e in e dependen (Weishaup e al., 2023).1
The e o e, al hough homeless people all sha e a common symp om (no li ing in adequa e ac-
commoda ion (Amo e, 2013)), hey ep esen a highly he e ogeneous g oup (Sonnenbe g, 2021,
pp. 25-28). Fo example, sys ema ic di e ences exis in si ua ions o homeless men, women,
and quee people, and condi ions a e also di e en o homeless people o di e en ages, e h-
nici ies, o igins, esidence s a us, and ela ionship s a us (Bo s el e al., 2021; B üchmann e al.,
2022a; Ge man Fede al Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s, 2022).
In oducing a basic income policy may a ec homeless people’s indi idual li ing si ua ions,
as well as sys ema ic isks o becoming homeless and ba ie s o exi ing homelessness. Because
he social inclusion o homeless indi iduals has o be mul idimensional, enabling access o in-
come, employmen , educa ion, and heal h ca e (Benz, 2012, pp. 119, 136), he goals o a social
policy add essing homelessness should be conce ned wi h “social secu i y, human digni y, com-
munal ecogni ion, and he eedom o decide au onomously”2(Fische , 2023, p. 4). So a , his
au onomy piece has been missing: The schola ship on homelessness lacks a discussion o how
1Giano e al. (2020) p o ided a e iew on empi ical s udies iden i ying p edic o s o homelessness in he Uni ed
S a es published since he 1970s. They ound ha he mos o en ci ed easons o homelessness ac oss ime a e
(numbe o imes ci ed): amily ins abili y (41), “men al illness (34), unemploymen and po e y (33), subs ance
use (31), uns able li ing a angemen s (28), child mal ea men (20), (no) social suppo (17), and c ime (14)” (Gi-
ano e al., 2020, p. 694). Pia e al. (2015) a gued ha om a social ecological pe spec i e, iden i ying in e ac ions
and in e dependence be ween indi idual and s uc u al ac o s is c i ical o ully assess he “pe son-in-con ex ”
(Pia e al., 2015, p. 2369) and, hence, o design e ec i e social policies. They ound egional di e ences in
indi idual ac o s ha we e mul i ace ed and in e dependen , ac ing as pa hways in o homelessness. One s uc u al
ac o con ibu ing o ini ial homelessness is he ansi ion be ween os e ca e and ins i u ional se ings.
2O iginal quo e: “soziale Siche hei , Wü de, Ane kennung und die F eihei , eigene En scheidungen zu e en”
(Fische , 2023, p. 4). Fische (2023) iden i ied hese social policy goals d awing on he Ge man Social Code Book.
1
homeless indi iduals gene a e income o sus ain a li ing based on hei own choices. Acco d-
ingly, his a icle ills wo esea ch gaps. Fi s , i con ibu es o he li e a u e on basic income,
ques ioning whe he a basic income policy, which a e a gued o be jus because hey bene i
he leas ad an aged, ul ills i s p omise o he homeless popula ion. Second, i con ibu es
o he li e a u e on homelessness by discussing how an indi idual paymen may a ec home-
less people’s li ing si ua ions as well as he s uc u al o ces ha in luence he phenomenon o
homelessness.
Basic income schola ship has only ecen ly begun o discuss he issue o homelessness. In
one o he i s essays on basic income and homelessness, Ke man (2021) a gued ha basic
income may educe income exclusion, p omo e choice, acili a e wo k o ce e u ns, and im-
p o e homeless people’s heal h and well-being. Acco dingly, gains om a basic income would
be highes i combined wi h exis ing Housing Fi s policies and suppo s uc u es.3In an-
o he piece, Cla ke (2023) also a o ed a hyb id basic income scheme, whe e a basic income
would be accompanied by an ex ensi e social housing p og am and en con ol. This easoning
was based on Ti muss’s (2006) heo y on he s igma- educing e ec o uni e sal policies and a
ho ough case s udy on he s uc u al o ces d i ing homelessness in Aus alia, an example o a
libe al wel a e s a e. Fo he case o Ge many, Fische (2023) a gued ha cu en social secu i y
measu es a e ine ec i e in suppo ing homeless pe sons because hey a e cen e ed on egaining
employmen a he han enabling pa icipa ion in any ep oduc i e sphe e, be i amily, socie y,
o economy, whe eas a basic income would p omo e pa icipa ion wi hou s igma.
The abo e-men ioned heo e ical in ui ions ha e only been suppo ed by a ew empi ical
s udies examining he e ec s o basic income on homeless pe sons. In wo s udies, lump-sum
ans e s o homeless pa icipan s in Vancou e and pe sonalized budge s o ough sleepe s in
London caused indi iduals o ansi om ough sleeping o sleeping in shel e s mo e o en
3Housing Fi s was ini ially implemen ed in New Yo k Ci y by a non-go e nmen al o ganiza ion called Pa h-
ways. The app oach was a adical depa u e om he con en ional s ai case app oach o homelessness. The
s ai case app oach elied on sel - esponsibili y o homeless pe sons, assuming ha homeless people would an-
si ion om shel e s o ins i u ional o pe manen housing s ep-by-s ep, i hei de elopmen was accompanied by
ea men . Howe e , he s ai case model did no igh homelessness bu a he adminis e ed i , wi h mos homeless
pe sons en e ing only he i s s ep o shel e accommoda ion, i any (Padge e al., 2015, pp. 7-9). This obse a-
ion was sha ed by Sonnenbe g (2021, p. 71) conce ning he Ge man sys em. In con as o he s ai case app oach,
Housing Fi s p o ided ins an s able housing wi h op ional o -si e suppo se ices o educe ha m wi hou s ings
a ached (Padge e al., 2015, pp. 12-13). In 1997, he app oach was es ed by a andomized con ol ial and ound
o be e ec i e, wi h 80 pe cen o pa icipan s being housed s ably compa ed o 30 pe cen in he con ol g oup,
who we e ca ed o con en ionally. Mo eo e , he app oach was cos -e ec i e (Padge e al., 2015, pp. 48-61; o
mo e on his see Tsembe is, 2010). In 2011, Housing Fi s Eu ope s a ed a wo-yea -long expe imen in i e si es
ac oss Eu ope, o e ing “sel -con ained li ing uni s, [... ], secu e enu e, [.. .] (and) p oac i e suppo ” (Padge e
al., 2015, p. 151), wi hou any condi ions on aking pa in suppo p og ams o being in ansi ional housing be o e
en e ing Housing Fi s . A e wo yea s, e alua ion in ou ou o i e expe imen al si es was posi i e, wi h 79 o
97 pe cen o pa icipan s s ill being housed and only 23 o 335 d opping ou . Success ul expe imen s ook place
in Ams e dam, Copenhagen, Glasgow, and Lisbon, while he expe imen ailed in Budapes (Busch-Gee sema,
2014, p. 19). In Ge many, Housing Fi s app oaches a e implemen ed in Be lin, B emen, Düsseldo , Nu embe g,
and S u ga , among o he places (Bap is a & Ma lie , 2019, p. 91; Bundes e band Housing Fi s , 2023; Housing
Fi s Hambu g, 2023).
2
and addi ionally inc eased hei ne sa ings (Dwye e al., 2023; Hough & Rice, 2010).4In
ano he s udy, indi iduals in Den e we e paid a mon hly basic income in an expe imen al
se ing. A mid- e m e alua ion o he expe imen showed ha 30 o 40 pe cen o pa icipan s
had ansi ioned o s able housing and ha o mal employmen inc eased (B isson e al., 2023).
Ano he s udy on p o iding a basic income o people expe iencing homelessness in a ious
loca ions in he Uni ed Kingdom is cu en ly being e alua ed (Hume, 2022). Fu he s udies
on uncondi ional cash ans e s o you h expe iencing homelessness o ansi ioning om os e
ca e a e on he way in he s a e o O egon, in New Yo k Ci y, and in San F ancisco (Mo on
e al., 2020; O egon Depa men o Human Se ices, 2023; San F ancisco Human Se ices
Agency, 2023).5
My esea ch suppo s he p esen ed schola ship, building on exis ing heo e ical and empi -
ical e idence and applying i o he Ge man case, hus con ibu ing o he deba e in h ee ways.
Fi s , I de elop a di e en heo e ical iew conside ing basic income’s e ec s on homeless pe -
sons. This s udy ocuses on how he e ec s o a basic income policy on homeless pe sons
s eng hen o challenge he majo e hical jus i ica ions o he policy. Pa icula ly, I a gue ha
he homeless popula ion is he ele an g oup o conside when de e mining whe he a basic
income policy is jus based on he maximin dis ibu ion ule. Second, I connec o me ly sepa-
a e s ands o li e a u e: in pa icula I use he heo e ical unde pinnings o a basic income and
apply hem o he pa icula g oup o homeless pe sons, e alua ing he jus ice o he policy p o-
posal. Finally, his a icle en iches he discussion on design op ions o he mode n wel a e s a e
by p o iding a de ailed case s udy on how he li ing si ua ions o homeless people in Ge many
would change i social secu i y wen om a condi ional o a basic income scheme.
The emainde o his a icle is s uc u ed as ollows. In he second sec ion, I gi e in o ma-
ion on he phenomenon o homelessness in Ge many, isks o becoming homeless, and ba ie s
o exi ing homelessness. Mo eo e , I in oduce a speci ic basic income policy ha was deemed
easible by he Ge man Ins i u e o Economic Resea ch (DIW) and desc ibe how his would
in e ac wi h he cu en suppo s uc u e o homeless pe sons in Ge many (Bach & Hambu g,
2023). In he hi d sec ion, I in oduce a gumen s in a o o a basic income om an ideal
heo e ical pe spec i e, namely, he eal libe a ian, he libe al egali a ian, and he epublican
pe spec i e, yielding he basis o a comp ehensi e discussion. In he ou h sec ion, I analyze
how in oducing his pa icula basic income scheme would a ec he homeless popula ion in
Ge many, d awing on he p esen ed heo e ical app oaches and empi ical e idence and e alua -
ing he e ec s acco dingly. Finally, I conclude, e lec ing on he jus ness o he basic income
policy upon inco po a ing he esul s o he discussion and o e ing a enues o u he esea ch.
4The s udy in London was p o iding a pe sonalized budge o one pa icula g oup o ha d- o- each homeless
men: hence, he paymen was a ge ed and condi ional. The budge could only be used o goods and se ices
ha may con ibu e o an e en ual exi om homelessness and was adminis e ed by a coo dina o (Hough & Rice,
2010, pp. 10-13).
5An o e iew o basic income pilo s in he Uni ed S a es is p o ided by he
s an o d_basic_income_lab_gua an eed_2023.
3
Table 1: ETHOS ligh Typology o Homelessness and Housing Exclusion de eloped by
FEANTSA (2017)
Ope a ional ca ego y De ini ion
1 People li ing ough Li ing in he s ee s o public spaces wi hou a shel e
ha can be de ined as li ing qua e s
2 People in eme gency accom-
moda ions
People wi h no place o usual esidence who mo e e-
quen ly be ween a ious ypes o accommoda ion
3 People li ing in accommo-
da ions o he homeless
Whe e he pe iod o s ay is ime-limi ed and no long- e m
housing is p o ided
4 People li ing in ins i u ions S ay longe han needed due o lack o housing; No hous-
ing a ailable p io o elease
5 People li ing in non-
con en ional dwellings due
o lack o housing
Whe e he accommoda ion is used due o a lack o hous-
ing and is no he pe son’s usual place o esidence
6 Homeless people li ing
empo a ily in con en ional
housing wi h amily and
iends (due o lack o
housing)
Whe e he accommoda ion is used due o a lack o hous-
ing and is no he pe son’s usual place o esidence
2 Homelessness in Ge many and a basic income p oposal
In Ma ch 2020, he Ge man go e nmen passed a law, commi ing o collec da a on home-
less pe sons e e y wo yea s (WoBe ich sG). The i s na ional epo was based on da a om
2022. Da a collec ion ollowed he Eu opean Typology o Homelessness and Housing Exclu-
sion (FEANTSA, 2017), di e ing be ween six ca ego ies o homelessness as depic ed in Table
1. Acco dingly, he Ge man Fede al S a is ical O ice ga he ed in o ma ion on pe sons using
nigh shel e s o he homeless popula ion, belonging o ca ego ies wo and h ee (Ge man Fed-
e al Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s, 2022; Ge man Fede al S a is ical O ice, 2023).6In-
o ma ion on homeless pe sons li ing on he s ee s o wi h hi d pa ies, belonging o ca ego ies
one, i e, and six, we e ga he ed by an addi ional key da e s udy (B üchmann e al., 2022a).7
The ollowing discussion also d aws on indings o a p eceding s udy in he mos densely popu-
la ed Ge man s a e, No h Rhine-Wes phalia (B üchmann e al., 2022b), and a quali a i e s udy
on homeless pe sons li ing in Do mund, he nin h bigges Ge man ci y, si ua ed in he cen e
o No h Rhine-Wes phalia (Bo s el e al., 2021).
6This accoun excluded indi iduals who we e in shel e s o easons o he han homelessness (Ge man Fede al
Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s, 2022, pp. 9-13).
7This s udy was he i s o sys ema ically ga he in o ma ion on homeless indi iduals li ing on he s ee s o
wi h acquain ances on he na ional le el in Ge many. The au ho s d ew a ep esen a i e sample on h ee le els, i s
selec ing municipali ies, hen ins i u ions in selec ed municipali ies, and inally homeless indi iduals connec ed o
selec ed ins i u ions (B üchmann e al., 2022a, pp. 18-21).
4
2.1 Homelessness in Ge many
In Ge many, 262,600 people we e homeless on he 31s o Janua y, 2022, making up 0.25 pe -
cen o he Ge man popula ion.8O e all, 14 pe cen (37,400) o homeless pe sons in Ge many
we e wi hou accommoda ion, 19 pe cen (49,300) li ed wi h acquain ances, and he bigges
p opo ion was li ing in shel e s. Homelessness in Ge many ep esen s a long- e m li ing si -
ua ion: 60 pe cen o indi iduals li ing in shel e s had s ayed he e o a leas a yea , and he
a e age leng h o s ay was wo yea s and eigh mon hs. Hal o he indi iduals li ing on he
s ee s o wi h acquain ances had been homeless o mo e han a yea (B üchmann e al., 2022a,
pp. 37-38; FEANTSA & Abbé Pie e Founda ion, 2023, pp. 25-26; Ge man Fede al Minis y
o Labou and Social A ai s, 2022, pp. 9-10).
Homelessness is mo e p e alen in me opoli an egions han in u al a eas, as shown in
Figu e 1. The igu e shows how many indi iduals li ed in homeless shel e s on he key da e ac-
co ding o egional dis ic s. The numbe s a ied om dis ic s shel e ing less han 20 homeless
indi iduals (ligh blue) o hose shel e ing mo e han 440 (da k blue) (Ge man Fede al S a-
is ical O ice, 2023).9The p e alence o homelessness in me opoli an a eas was also ound
o indi iduals li ing on he s ee and wi h acquain ances; only he ela ion be ween he wo
g oups changed wi h inc easing popula ion densi y. In municipali ies wi h less han 100,000
inhabi an s, mo e homeless indi iduals li ed wi h hi d pa ies han on he s ee s, bu in mu-
nicipali ies wi h mo e han 100,000 inhabi an s mo e li ed on he s ee s han wi h hi d pa ies
(Ge man Fede al Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s, 2022, pp. 61-64).
In gene al, he homeless popula ion in Ge many is di e se in e ms o gende , o igin, age,
ela ionship s a us, and esidence s a us. Acco ding o he epo , a li le less han wo- hi ds o
homeless indi iduals we e male, one- hi d was emale, and wo pe cen iden i ied as di e se.
Among he popula ion li ing in shel e s, one- hi d was Ge man and wo- hi ds we e immig an s,
ei he non-Ge man ci izens o s a eless. Hal o he shel e popula ion was made up o amilies
wi h child en, some o hem single pa en s. Hence, one-qua e o indi iduals in empo a y
shel e s we e mino s (Ge man Fede al Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s, 2022, pp. 9-10).
In con as , among indi iduals li ing on he s ee s, wo- hi ds we e Ge man, one- hi d was
immig an s, and only h ee pe cen we e mino s. Th ee-qua e s o homeless indi iduals li ing
ou side o shel e s we e single (B üchmann e al., 2022a, pp. 31-36). Among adul s, mo e men
han women li ed on he s ee s, and mo e women han men li ed wi h acquain ances. Mo e
han hal o he women li ing wi h hi d pa ies we e younge han 30 yea s old. Indi iduals
li ing on he s ee s we e he oldes g oup, wi h an a e age age o 44 yea s (B üchmann e al.,
2022a, pp. 31-33; Ge man Fede al Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s, 2022, pp. 9-10).
Homelessness has mul iple in e dependen indi idual, s uc u al, and ins i u ional causes
8When compa ing Ge many o o he Eu opean coun ies, Ge many was second in he ela i e amoun o home-
less pe sons, only su passed by F ance (0.31 pe cen ) (FEANTSA & Abbé Pie e Founda ion, 2023, p. 120).
9The igu e also illus a es ha mo e homeless pe sons s ay in shel e s in Wes han in Eas Ge many. While
his ac is no ele an o he p esen ed discussion, i p omp s an in e es ing a enue o u he esea ch on he
s uc u al causes o homelessness.
5
goods acco ding o he di e ence p inciple. The di e ence p inciple s a es ha : “(s)ocial and
economic inequali ies a e o be a anged so hey a e [... ] o he g ea es bene i o he leas
ad an aged” (Rawls, 1999, p. 266). In pa icula , socie al ins i u ions should ensu e a maximin
dis ibu ion o social p ima y goods, which we e de ined as “ hings ha e e y a ional man is
p esumed o wan ” (Rawls, 1999, p. 54) o pu sue hei e sion o he good li e. Real libe a ian,
libe al egali a ian, and epublican jus i ica ions o a basic income ely on he assump ion ha
basic income allows o a maximin dis ibu ion conside ing income, sel - espec , and powe , all
cons i u ing social p ima y goods.
These jus i ica i e a emp s ha e been coun e ed nume ous imes, one o he s onges ob-
jec ion being ha a uni e sal basic income iola es he p inciple o ecip oci y (Lis e , 2020;
Maski ke , 2018). Se ing aside hese c i icisms, I a gue ha he heo ies do no adequa ely
iden i y he wo s -o indi idual, which is c ucial when e alua ing he jus ice o a basic income
policy acco ding o he unde lying assump ions I p esen below. In pa icula , I ind ha he-
o ies conce ning he leas ad an aged need o inco po a e e ec s on he homeless popula ion
li ing in mode n wel a e s a es. Ideal heo y only implici ly discusses he ques ion o p esen
s uc u al disad an ages, and schola s ha e al eady a gued ha he deba e on basic income has
o inco po a e pe spec i es on pe sons wi h disabili ies (Rey Pé ez, 2019), pe sons subjec o
acial disc imina ion (Nwogbo, 2021), and women (Pa eman, 2007; Mille e al., 2019). Ye ,
ew ha e conside ed he e ec s o basic income on homeless pe sons. To emphasize his gap,
he e I ou line he mains eam heo ies, de ining he social goods ha need o be maximinned
acco dingly.
3.1 Real libe a ianism
Libe a ians emphasize he e iciency o ma ke s, bu hey may s ill a gue in a o o edis-
ibu ion in he o m o a basic income o wo easons. Fi s , indi iduals know be e han
go e nmen s when assessing hei needs, so i is easonable o edis ibu e cash. Second, go -
e nmen s a e unable o iden i y dese , so i is easonable o edis ibu e cash wi hou posing
condi ions (Fleische & Leh o, 2023, pp. 509-511). While Fleische & Leh o (2023) p o ided
a comp ehensi e o e iew o di e en libe a ian a gumen s o each his conclusion, he e I
concen a e on he idea o one o he mos p ominen basic income ad oca es, Philippe Van
Pa ijs.20 This pa icula a gumen in a o o basic income was cha ac e ized as le libe a -
ian due o i s emphasis on eedom (Fleische & Leh o, 2023, p. 524). Howe e , Van Pa ijs
(1991), Van Pa ijs (1997), and Van Pa ijs & Vande bo gh (2017) desc ibed hei app oach as
eal libe a ian, a guing ha a basic income would p omo e wha hey call eal eedom.
20An ex ensi e examina ion o Van Pa ijs’s idea o a basic income, including i s ecep ion and main c i icisms,
was gi en by Somme (2016). The a icle ocuses on his pa icula libe a ian heo y because he p esen ed
c i ique does no a ack he di e ing assump ion made by libe a ian schola s, bu a he ques ions whe he he
consequences o basic income a e sa is ac o y acco ding o he conclusion d awn om hese assump ions. This
conclusion, namely ha a basic income is he bes way o edis ibu e in o de o maximin eedom, does no di e
be ween he libe a ian heo ies as p esen ed by Fleische & Leh o (2023).
12
In a i s s ep, Van Pa ijs (1997, p. 25) de ined eal eedom as being dis inc om o mal
eedom. Fo mal eedom is a p e equisi e and en ails secu i y and sel -owne ship.21 Second,
indi iduals should no only be ee om in e e ence in he pu sui o hei goals, bu should
ha e “access o he means o doing wha [...] ( hey) migh wan o do” (Van Pa ijs, 1997, p.
5). Van Pa ijs (1997, pp. 18-19) emphasized ha eal eedom in a jus socie y encompasses
neu ali y conside ing he li e plans o i s membe s. This includes he igh no o wo k, o as
in Van Pa ijs’s (1991) amous example: he igh o li e as a Malibu su e .22 The e o e, in a
jus socie y, oppo uni ies need o be dis ibu ed acco ding o he maximin p inciple (Van Pa ijs,
1997, pp. 27-29). Van Pa ijs (2021) easoned ha “a maximin c i e ion p o ides an appeal-
ing comp omise be ween dis ibu i e conside a ions and e iciency conside a ions, be ween he
equalisa ion o he sha es and he maximisa ion o he sum” (Van Pa ijs, 2021, p. 2).
Van Pa ijs (1997, p. 33) u he s a ed ha a uni o m amoun o cash paid o all would
sa is y he maximin c i e ion in e ms o eal eedom. Van Pa ijs (1997, pp. 42-46) and Van
Pa ijs (2021) a gued in a o o cash because in a capi alis socie y, income would wo k bes o
enable indi iduals o pu sue hei e sion o he good li e, buying consump ion goods o leisu e.
Fu he , Van Pa ijs (1997) a gued in a o o a uni o m paymen acco ding o he c i e ion o
undomina ed di e si y. Based on Dwo kin (1981b), Van Pa ijs (1997, pp. 61-86) s a ed ha
conside ing in e nal endowmen s o indi iduals, edis ibu ion should be sensi i e o a bi a ily
assigned alen s and abili ies, bu only i alen s we e domina ed.23 In sho , domina ion means
ha all membe s o a socie y ag ee ha he se o in e nal endowmen s o one pe son is s ic ly
p e e ed o e hose o ano he , which Van Pa ijs (1997) ende ed imp obable.24 Ul ima ely,
his yields he conclusion ha “i we a e se ious abou pu suing eal- eedom- o -all [.. .] wha
we ha e o go o is he highes uncondi ional income o all consis en wi h secu i y and sel -
owne ship” (Van Pa ijs, 1997, p. 33).
21The concep o sel -owne ship goes back o Locke (1698) and his heo y o na u al p ope y igh s. Acco d-
ingly, in he s a e o na u e, he e is no owne ship o na u al esou ces. P ope y igh s a e ins alled by app op ia ion
h ough labo . The p oduc o one’s labo is owned by onesel . Mo eo e , “(s)el -owne ship implies ha an ha an
indi idual is no equi ed o con ibu e he labou o he bene i o o he s” (Fleische & Leh o, 2023, p. 512). In
his case, edis ibu ion is only jus i ied i i secu es p ope y igh s by enabling minimum subsis ence consump ion
and compensa es “ hose ende ed wo se-o by ou sys em o p i a e p ope y” (Fleische & Leh o, 2023, p. 515).
Howe e , he e is a subs an ial schola ship deba ing whe he any edis ibu ion can be jus i ied acco ding o Locke.
One o he i s o a gue in a o o a basic income based on he Lockean p o iso was Zwolinski (2015), coun e ed
by Rallo (2019).
22Mo e c i ically his a gumen was amed di e en ly: “He (Van Pa ijs, au ho ’s no e) denies he in olun a ily
unemployed pe sons any p i ilege o e he olun a ily unemployed ones” (Me le, 2021, p. 8).
23While edis ibu ion should be insensi i e o di e ences in as es, as Dwo kin (1981a) a gued.
24A di e en app oach conce ning he missing compensa ion o di e ences in abili ies by he basic income
policy was p oposed by Hende son (2017). Hende son (2017) dismissed he c i e ion o undomina ed di e si y,
a guing “ ha he e is no single c i e ion on which compensa ion o unequal in e nal endowmen s can be based”
(Hende son, 2017, p. 4, emphasis in o iginal). Ins ead, a basic income should be paid in addi ion o policy mea-
su es “enhancing he capabili ies o disad an aged indi iduals and o uni e salising pa icipa o y pa i y” (Hen-
de son, 2017, p. 4, emphasis in o iginal). Hende son (2017) based his a gumen on he wo ks o Sen (2005),
obeyns_is_2003, and F ase (2001). Since he basic income policy discussed in his a icle is in oduced in
addi ion o mos policies add essing homelessness in Ge many, I do no ake his heo e ical discussion u he .
Ne e heless, possible ade-o s be ween in oducing a basic income policy and d opping o he policy measu es,
such as housing subsidies, a e men ioned when app op ia e.
13
To sum up, Van Pa ijs (1997) and Van Pa ijs & Vande bo gh (2017) a gued ha in o de
o a socie y o be deemed jus , i should adop a basic income sys em. Such a sys em would
inc ease oppo uni ies as measu ed by he income o he mos ma ginalized indi iduals. I con-
end ha any discou se on his issue mus conside he impac o basic income on he homeless
communi y because his di e se g oup aces signi ican disad an ages in e ms o income, as I
discuss u he in Sec ion 4.
3.2 Libe al egali a ianism
Bo h he libe al egali a ian and he eal libe a ian app oach o basic income a e guided by
conside a ions o eedom and neu ali y (Si sch & Unge , 2021, p. 213).25 Ye , he libe al
egali a ian pe spec i e en iches he discussion by ocusing on he e ec s o a basic income
policy on he dis ibu ion o sel - espec . Acco ding o Rawls (1999, pp. 386-388), sel - espec
has wo componen s: i s , a eeling o sel -wo h and, second, con idence in one’s own abili ies
o succeed. The eeling o sel -wo h is suppo ed i an indi idual has de ined hei e sion o
he good li e and i his e sion is ecognized as aluable by o he s. Communal ecogni ion also
con ibu es o indi idual con idence o pu sue his e sion o he good li e, hence, o he second
componen o sel - espec . The ela ion is illus a ed by Figu e 2.
Communal ecogni ion
Sel -wo h Con idence
Sel - espec
Figu e 2: The ela ion be ween he componen s o sel - espec acco ding o Rawls (1999).
Mos egali a ian basic income schola s a gue in a o o he policy in addi ion o public good
p o ision, explici ly con as ing e ec s o a basic income o hose o condi ional social secu i y
(Si sch, 2021).26 Fische (2023) ques ioned whe he paymen s should be condi ioned on he
25Simila i ies a e e iden since he eal libe a ian easoning is based on libe al egali a ian heo ies. Despi e ha
Rawls (1999) and Dwo kin (1981b) disca ded basic income (Bidadanu e, 2019), he e is a subs an ial schola ship
a guing in a o o a basic income om he libe al egali a ian pe spec i e. The connec ion o he ideas o jus ice
as ai ness by Rawls (1999) and equali y o esou ces by Dwo kin (1981b) is desc ibed in mo e de ail by (To y,
2023, pp. 206-208).
26Public good p o ision is impo an acco ding o libe al egali a ian heo y because he nega i e ex e nali ies
and collec i e ac ion p oblems o p i a e ma ke p o ision would lea e he leas ad an aged wo se o o he wise
(Si sch, 2021, pp. 217-223).
14
willingness o be employed o mally, because he p o ision o o mal wo k depends on o he
o ms o wo k, such as ca e wo k.27 O he au ho s a gued ha means es s and willingness-
o-wo k equi emen s o condi ional schemes would cause eelings o shame due o necessa y
adminis a i e in usion in he pe sonal li es o hose deemed in need. Hence, hese measu es
would dec ease sel -wo h. Finally, he communal pe cep ion o hose ecei ing a condi ional
minimum income as needy would dec ease he bases o sel - espec (Bi nbaum, 2010; McKin-
non, 2003; Si sch, 2021). In con as , uni e sal and uncondi ional basic income would es ablish
an income loo o he leas ad an aged wi hou s igma. Fu he , basic income would enable
communal pa icipa ion by p o iding indi iduals wi h an exi op ion om deg ading o mal la-
bo con ac s (Bi nbaum, 2010; McKinnon, 2003; McKinnon, 2006). To sum up, “(p) o iding
people wi h access o (and no p e en ing hem om aking pa in) meaning ul o ms o pa -
icipa ion, wi h oppo uni ies o social ecogni ion is, no doub , e y impo an i we wan
o p omo e social condi ions o he de elopmen o a pe son’s con idence in he abili ies and
li ely sense o he own wo h” (Bi nbaum, 2010, p. 502, emphasis in o iginal).
Thus a , he p esen ed a gumen s sugges ha a basic income policy would inc ease he
sel - espec o hose who a e “in low paid, menial, exhaus ing wo k” (McKinnon, 2003, p. 148;
see also Bi nbaum, 2010), hence, in a o mal employmen ela ion. Ex ending his pe spec i e,
Fukuma (2017) a gued in a o o a basic income “ o gua an ee ins i u ionally bo h ‘ he igh
o meaning ul wo k’ and ‘ he igh no o wo k’” (Fukuma, 2017, p. 5). While ag eeing ha a
meaning ul ac i i y lies a he co e o he concep o sel - espec , Fukuma (2017) easoned ha
indi iduals would e alua e asks di e en ly conce ning he addi ional alue o hei e sion o
he good li e (Fukuma, 2017, p. 5). Basic income would gi e people he chance o engage in
meaning ul wo k ei he in he o mal sphe e o ou side o i . Relying on a simila ly inclusi e
de ini ion o wo k, Fische (2023) a gued ha communal ecogni ion could be ecei ed by being
ac i e in any ep oduc i e sphe e, be i wi hin he o mal labo ma ke , he amily, o ano he
pa o ci il socie y, o example, p o iding olun ee wo k. Basic income would p omo e all
o ms o communal pa icipa ion, while s igma a ached o ac i i ies ou side o he o mal labo
ma ke would dec ease (Fische , 2023, pp. 8-10); hence, co esponding sel - espec would
inc ease. Ex ending he a gumen o he in o mal sphe e has a u he implica ion, namely
ha he wo s -o indi idual o a socie y in e ms o sel - espec is no necessa ily aking pa
in he o mal labo ma ke . The eby, his easoning adds ele ance o he p esen ed esea ch,
iden i ying homeless pe sons as leas ad an aged in mode n wel a e s a es.
To sum up, libe al egali a ian schola s pu o wa d he idea ha o a socie y o be conside ed
jus , i should emb ace a basic income sys em due o i s posi i e e ec s on sel - espec . I a gue
ha any con e sa ion on his ma e mus conside he impac o basic income on he homeless
communi y because his di e se g oup aces signi ican disad an ages in e ms o hei abili y o
27Pa eman (2007) used a simila a gumen coun e ing he claims o ecip ocal con ibu ion o be eligible o a
minimum income because “nei he mo he s no all hose engaged in ca ing wo k demand an immedia e ecip ocal
con ibu ion om hose o whom hey a e ca ing; hei wo k is no condi ional upon a con ibu ion” (Pa eman,
2007, p. 3).
15
o mula e a meaning ul li e plan, hei con idence o pu sue his plan, and communal ecogni ion
o bo h, which ela es o sel - espec . Fu he e idence on his a gumen is gi en in Sec ion 4.
3.3 Republicanism
The hi d way o jus i y basic income as discussed by his a icle is epublicanism. Republicans
de ine eedom as non-domina ion. An indi idual is ee om domina ion when i is ee om
he possibili y o a bi a y, hence, uncon olled, in e e ence ho izon ally om ellow ci izens
and e ically om he s a e (Casassas & De Wispelae e, 2016, p. 285; Ra en ós, 2007, pp. 62-
64). An indi idual is con olled “when o he s a e in a posi ion o being able o in e e e in any
o hose ways ha ge s me o beha e acco ding o hei as es” (Pe i , 2007, p. 4). This abili y
does no need o be ac ed on because when an indi idual is subjec o con ol, e e y ac ion
ha is pe o med wi hou in e e ence is pe o med wi h he implici consen o he con olling
en i y (Casassas & De Wispelae e, 2016, p. 285; Pe i , 2007). This o m o “(s)ocial powe is
a bi a y o he ex en ha i s possible exe cise is no ex e nally cons ained by e ec i e ules,
p ocedu es, o goals ha a e common knowledge o all ele an pa ies” (Lo e , 2009, p. 821).
To ensu e non-domina ion, socio-economic inequali ies need o be dec eased (Lo e , 2009,
pp. 822-825). Powe asymme ies a o ela ionships o dependency and pose he isk o ex-
ploi a ion. Hence, poo indi iduals a e mo e likely o be domina ed. This is ue o ela ions
wi h hei ellow ci izens as well as wi h s a e en i ies. Fo example, condi ional minimum
income schemes equi e public in usion in o he p i a e sphe e and, he e o e, encompass a
possibili y o domina ion by he s a e (Casassas & De Wispelae e, 2016, p. 289; Lo e , 2009,
pp. 824, 826). To add ess hese inequali ies, epublicans ad oca e measu es o es ablish an
economic ceiling (Casassas & De Wispelae e, 2016, pp. 290–293; see also Neuhäuse , 2018)
and basic income.28
A basic income “p o ides a di ec and esolu e s a egy o sys ema ically and con inuously
p e en ing condi ions o exploi able dependency and ulne abili y o abuse h oughou people’s
li es” (Fleische & Leh o, 2023, p. 591), due o egula i y and uncondi ionali y o he paymen .
This is especially ue conside ing o mal employees: Pa eman (2007) a gued ha he employ-
men ela ionship is inhe en ly subjec o subo dina ion on he pa o he employee because
indi iduals can be laid o agains hei will. Hence, employmen ela ions a e “a as a ea o
hie a chy and subo dina ion wi hin supposedly democ a ic socie ies” (Pa eman, 2007, p. 4).
Basic income would a leas enable indi iduals o exi hei jobs wi hou losing hei means o
subsis ence consump ion and wi hou being subjec o s a e in usion, such as by checking eli-
28The necessi y o an economic ceiling is only implici ly ela ed o basic income as an ins umen o ensu e
non-domina ion. Howe e , i may jus i y an inc ease in edis ibu i e axa ion o inance he policy in oduc ion
(Bi nbaum, 2020, p. 287). A guably, axa ion is a jus i ied s a e in e e ence because i is adminis e ed by demo-
c a ic ins i u ions (Pe i , 2007, p. 6; Ra en ós, 2007, p. 63).
16
gibili y o wel a e paymen s (Fleische & Leh o, 2023, p. 593).29 The same a gumen can be
made o indi iduals exi ing pa ne ships wi hin which hey inancially depend on cohabi ing
(Pe i , 2007, p. 5; Ra en ós, 2007, pp. 70-72). To sum up, a basic income “would enable ci -
izens o ha e he oppo uni y no o be employed” (Pa eman, 2007, p. 5, emphasis in o iginal)
o o sus ain a li ing on hei own. Hence, a basic income se s he “p econdi ions o ci izens o
in e ac as equals” (Fleische & Leh o, 2023, p. 594).
Howe e , o epublicans, basic income needs o ul ill ce ain condi ions o con ibu e o
eedom as non-domina ion. Fi s , he amoun o he basic income needs o be su icien o
enhance he indi idual’s economic ba gaining powe . Mo eo e , i needs o be implemen ed
in addi ion o public good p o ision, so ha basic income is no only used o co e necessa y
expendi u es on heal h, educa ion, and he like, bu can e ec i ely con ibu e o non-domina ion
(Casassas & De Wispelae e, 2016, pp. 288-289; Lo e , 2009, pp. 826-828). Finally, he basic
income needs o be embedded in a democ acy and suppo ac i e pa icipa ion ei he in non-
domina ed o mal employmen o in in o mal ways o socie al engagemen such as unpaid ca e
wo k (Bi nbaum, 2020, pp. 289-294).
Despi e ha he epublican heo y may di e om conce ns o dis ibu i e jus ice (Smi h,
2021, p. 846), I ame he heo y o non-domina ion as an accoun o dis ibu i e jus ice in
line wi h Lo e (2009). Lo e (2009) explici ly de ined jus ice as minimizing domina ion:
“The poli ical and social ins i u ions o p ac ices o any socie y a e jus o he ex en ha , in
expec a ion, hey will end o minimize he sum o al domina ion, coun ing he domina ion o
each pe son equally” (Lo e , 2009, p. 820). While Lo e (2009) a gued ha non-domina ion
should be dis ibu ed in a u ili a ian sense, he basic income schola ship usually cen e s i s
easoning on he mos ulne able membe s o socie y because “people who depend on o he s’
goodwill [.. .] a e easie a ge s o con ol and domina ion” (Pe i , 2007, p. 6). The e o e, I
a gue ha he goal o any jus socie y in a epublican sense mus be o enable non-domina ion
o he leas ad an aged, hence, o maximin powe .30
3.4 Simila i ies and di e ences
In he ollowing, I dis inguish he epublican concep o jus ice mo e clea ly om he libe al
egali a ian and he eal libe a ian concep s because he simila i ies o he app oaches a e e -
iden . Fi s , non-domina ion can ac as a p e equisi e o sel - espec (Si sch & Unge , 2021,
p. 1018). I a pe son is subjec o domina ion, hey may li e in cons an unce ain y due o
he h ea o exploi a ion and is, he e o e, unable o o mula e a li e plan (Lo e , 2009, pp.
29Bi nbaum & De Wispelae e (2016, p. 66) poin ed ou ha e ec i e ba gaining powe o employees who
wish o ake pa in he o mal labo ma ke can only be ealized by a basic income policy when he e a e be e
al e na i es a ailable. Simila ly, B een (2017) a gued ha basic income is in e io o s a e egula ions p o ec ing
he ulne able employee and, hence, does no necessa ily ollow om he epublican emphasis on non-domina ion.
30Lo e (2009) himsel a gued ha he dis ibu ion p inciple is no as impo an as he decision on he good ha
needs o be dis ibu ed, namely, non-domina ion ins ead o u ili y o p ima y goods. Fu he , he a gued in a o o
minimizing he sum o domina ion “on he g ounds o i s simplici y and di ec ness” (Lo e , 2009, p. 822).
17
821-822). Mo eo e , a pe son may only be able o ha e non-subse ien ela ionships, i hey
is ee acco ding o he concep o non-domina ion. Howe e , in con as o libe al egali a ian
hough , he epublican concep o non-domina ion s esses he ela ional ins ead o he indi-
idual o ecogni ional aspec s o sel - espec , pinpoin ing he impo ance o being ee om
in e e ence on wo on s: he s a e and ellow ci izens. Mo eo e , he epublican ocus “on
asymme ies o powe allows o he iden i ica ion o ulne abili ies in he p i a e sphe e whe e
ac ual in e e ences a e ha d o iden i y” (Si sch & Unge , 2021, p. 1017). Second, while
o libe al egali a ians, edis ibu ion is inhe en ly jus and basic income unc ions o maximin
p ima y goods, o epublicans edis ibu ion ia basic income is only ins umen al, se ing
o educe domina ion (Si sch & Unge , 2021, p. 1009).31 While income can be ins umen-
al o powe , epublicans (in con as o eal libe a ians) emphasize he dis ibu ion o powe .
This line o a gumen s esses ha non-domina ion should be ins i u ionally embedded ex an e
(Casassas, 2007, p. 5). Hence, checking whe he a basic income policy leads o a maximin dis-
ibu ion o powe , enabling non-domina ion o hose who a e leas ad an aged, adds ano he
ace o he p esen ed discussion. In ligh o his a gumen , I main ain ha he con e sa ion mus
conside he e ec s o basic income on he homeless popula ion, as his he e ogeneous g oup
expe iences he g ea es disad an ages in e ms o powe , and hus in e e ence om bo h ellow
ci izens and s a e agencies, which is discussed in Sec ion 4.
To sum up, he app oaches o jus i y a basic income p esen ed in his sec ion e alua e he
hie a chy o ele an social p ima y goods ha a e essen ial o a socie y o be jus , whe e he
de ini ions o jus a e di e en bu ely on simila assump ions. Libe a ians, libe al egali a ians
and epublicans all a gue on he basis o eedom and neu ali y. Libe a ians u he emphasize
ha in a capi alis socie y, income has he wides ange o uses o inc ease oppo uni ies o hose
who posses he leas . D awing on Rawls (1999), libe al egali a ians highligh he impo ance
o sel - espec , which can be maximinned when combining public good p o ision wi h basic
income. Las ly, epublicans a gue ha he s a e needs o enable no only o mal eedom, bu
also non-domina ion on he pa o public and p i a e hi d pa ies, hence, i needs o inc ease
powe o he leas ad an aged.
In Sec ion 4, he p esen ed heo ies a e used o discuss he esea ch ques ion on how a ba-
sic income policy would a ec he li ing si ua ion o homeless pe sons, he isks o becoming
homeless, as well as possible exi ba ie s o homelessness. The discussion ollows he sugges-
ion by Rawls (1999) ha “(i) is ai ly s aigh o wa d o asce ain wha hings will ad ance he
in e es s o he leas a o ed. This g oup can be iden i ied by i s index o p ima y goods, and
policy ques ions can be se led by asking how he ele an ep esen a i e man sui ably si ua ed
would choose” (Rawls, 1999, p. 281). Hence, he jus ness o he basic income policy depends
on i s e ec s on he homeless popula ion, which I iden i y in he ollowing o be leas ad an-
31Si sch & Unge (2021, p. 1009) a gued ha hese di e ences allow o a mo e unequal dis ibu ion when
a gued om a epublican pe spec i e compa ed o libe al egali a ian e hics because non-domina ion can be ensu ed
by o he means han edis ibu ion (B een, 2017, see also).
18
aged in e ms o an index o p ima y goods. The index o p ima y goods as sugges ed by eal
libe a ians, libe al egali a ians, and epublicans consis s o income, sel - espec , and powe .
4 Income, sel - espec , and powe o he homeless popula ion
in Ge many
When a emp ing o iden i y hose who a e he wo s o in Ge man socie y, he ques ion a ises
o whe he he he e ogeneous homeless popula ion needs o be b oken down u he in o dis-
inc subpopula ions. Fo example, di e ences exis be ween homeless indi iduals li ing on
he s ee , wi h acquain ances, o in shel e s. Howe e , homeless indi iduals o en swi ch be-
ween hese o ms o li ing day- o-day. Mo eo e , Sonnenbe g (2021) emphasized ha li ing
in shel e s o wi h hi d pa ies is no necessa ily an imp o emen o being li e ally homeless
because homeless people s ill depend on o he s in a way ha inhibi s hem om li ing wi h
human digni y in ei he o m o homelessness (Sonnenbe g, 2021, pp. 20-24). Empi ical e i-
dence suppo s he p esen ed a gumen : A qua e o homeless indi iduals li ing on he s ee
and almos hal o homeless indi iduals li ing wi h acquain ances had ne e s ayed in a shel e
be o e. When asked why, h ee easons we e named by almos 40 pe cen o indi iduals: shel-
e s accommoda ed oo many people, we e oo dange ous, o we e wo se han exis ing li ing
a angemen s (B üchmann e al., 2022a, pp. 43-45).32 Hence, I do no dis inguish be ween
homeless indi iduals’ li ing si ua ions when discussing whe he hey a e he wo s o in e ms
o income, sel - espec , and powe in Ge many.
Ano he op ion would be o single ou a g oup o homeless indi iduals acco ding o socio-
demog aphic cha ac e is ics. The phenomenon o g oup- ocused enmi y, a o m o sys ema ic
p ejudice, is p e alen o homeless pe sons in Eu ope in gene al and in Ge many in pa icula
(Hö e mann e al., 2015; Da ido e al., 2011; Küppe & Zick, 2014). In addi ion, g oup-
ocused enmi y can be based on immig a ion s a us, di e ing e hnic backg ounds, eligious
a ilia ion, gende , sexuali y, and physical and men al disabili y (Küppe & Zick, 2014, pp. 245-
247). Hence, i is plausible ha in e sec ional disc imina ion may wo sen he li ing si ua ion o
homeless indi iduals belonging o one o mul iple o hese subg oups.
This in ui ion is s eng hened by wo examples om s udies on he homeless popula-
ion in Ge many emphasizing ha homeless women and immig an s a e pa icula ly ulne -
32Mo eo e , 26 pe cen o homeless indi iduals no s aying in shel e s s a ed ha shel e s we e oo di y, 16
pe cen said ha ules, like no being allowed o sha e ooms wi h pa ne s and amily (13 pe cen ) o pe s (11
pe cen ), we e oo s ic . Six pe cen had no known abou exis ing shel e s (B üchmann e al., 2022a, pp. 43-45).
Fu he easons may be “misin o ma ion, shame, o ea o s igma isa ion” (Busch-Gee sema e al., 2020, p. 86).
19
able.33Conce ning women, 14.6 pe cen o households h ea ened wi h homelessness in 2018
we e single mo he s (Busch-Gee sema e al., 2020, p. 88). Among homeless women, 36
pe cen expe ienced sexual iolence compa ed o h ee pe cen o homeless men (B üchmann
e al., 2022a, p. 52). Fu he e idence on homeless women being pa icula ly ulne able is
gi en in he ollowing sec ion; howe e , I a gue ha ocusing on homeless women alone would
an icipa e esul s o he analysis.
Conce ning immig an s, he speci ic basic income policy I e alua e sugges s keeping eligi-
bili y c i e ia o immig an s in place, such ha i di e s om ideal heo y by no being ully
uni e sal as desc ibed in Sec ion 2 (see page 20). This de ia ion is c i ical conce ning he p in-
ciples o jus ice as laid ou by basic income ad oca es. Homeless immig an s a e likely o be
he leas ad an aged in Ge man socie y, as mos a e denied social secu i y bene i s (B üchmann
e al., 2022a, p. 36; Busch-Gee sema e al., 2020, pp. 86-87). Fo example, in No h Rhine-
Wes phalia, almos hal o homeless households wi hou Ge man ci izenship we e wi hou in-
come, compa ed o 38 pe cen o Ge man homeless households. Homeless pe sons o igina ing
om eas e n o sou h-eas e n Eu opean s a es we e pa icula ly poo , wi h 66 pe cen no e-
cei ing any income (B üchmann e al., 2022b, p. 51). Ye , in oducing he sugges ed basic
income policy would no imp o e he si ua ion o many homeless immig an s, and i may e en
wo sen hei ela i e posi ion wi hin he Ge man homeless popula ion. The e o e, a basic in-
come ha is exclusi ely paid o ci izens and immig an s wi h a documen ed s a us o esidency
does no comply o he c i e ia posed o a socie y o be jus as explo ed abo e (see also Lö -
le , 2021). Hence, I s ess ha he ollowing discussion on he jus ness o he sugges ed basic
income policy depends on whe he his g oup would be included in he implemen ed policy.
Ne e heless, I conside he ollowing discussion o be ele an because much o he homeless
popula ion would be a ec ed by he sugges ed basic income policy, and including he e ec s on
he homeless popula ion a e c i ical o assessing such a policy, especially i hey a e conside ed
o be he leas ad an aged membe s o socie y.
Nex , I analyze he possible e ec s o a basic income o he he e ogeneous g oup o home-
less indi iduals. I d aw on he p esen ed case s udy and heo y, iden i ying homeless indi iduals
in Ge many as leas ad an aged in e ms o income. Then, I use empi ical and heo e ical li e -
a u e o discuss whe he a basic income policy as sugges ed by Bach & Hambu g (2023) would
imp o e he income o homeless indi iduals in Ge many and how i would a ec income- ela ed
isks and exi ba ie s o homelessness. I p oceed equi alen ly ocusing on he social goods o
sel - espec and powe . The discussion di e s be ween di e en g oups whene e speci ic e -
33E idence also s essed ha homeless indi iduals aged 50 o olde we e pa icula ly ulne able because dis-
ad an ages in connec ion o homelessness and old age ein o ce each o he when occu ing simul aneously (B em
& Seebe ge , 2009, p. 227). Li e expec ancy o homeless indi iduals is lowe han o he a e age popula ion.
Homeless indi iduals li ing in shel e s who a e no addic ed o d ugs ha e he highes li e expec ancy among
homeless people, wi h 60 o 65 yea s. Homeless indi iduals li ing on he s ee ha e a mean li e expec ancy o 50
yea s, and when hey su e om a d ug addic ion, hei li e expec ancy dec eases o 35 yea s (B em & Seebe ge ,
2009, p. 229). Un o una ely, he e is no ecen o de ailed e idence on his subjec , which is why his g oup is no
discussed u he in he ollowing sec ion.
20
idence is a ailable; pa icula ly, I inco po a e basic income e ec s on he powe o homeless
women.
4.1 Income
This sec ion d aws on he eal libe a ian idea o jus ice, iden i ying homeless indi iduals as
leas ad an aged in e ms o oppo uni ies, which, in a capi alis socie y, a e mos e ec i ely en-
abled by disposable income as a gued by Van Pa ijs (1997, pp. 42-46) and Van Pa ijs (2021).34
A s udy in No h Rhine-Wes phalia showed ha 26 pe cen o homeless pe sons li ing on he
s ee s o wi h hi d pa ies did no possess any egula sou ce o income; hence, hey solely
li ed on in-kind p o ision by non-go e nmen al o ganiza ions o on wha hey ea ned om
begging and collec ing bo le deposi s.35 Loss o subsis ence income occu ed e en hough
mos homeless pe sons a e en i led o ei he unemploymen o social assis ance. A he same
ime, 7 pe cen o he homeless popula ion gene a ed income om o mal o in o mal employ-
men , 52 pe cen ecei ed unemploymen assis ance, and 6 pe cen ecei ed social assis ance
(B üchmann e al., 2022b, pp. 47-51). Howe e , i is plausible o assume ha in mos cases
nei he income sou ce ele a es homeless pe sons abo e he a - isk-o -po e y h eshold, which
is 60 pe cen o he median income and is equi alen o 1250 eu os pe mon h o a single adul
li ing in Ge many (Ge man Fede al S a is ical O ice, 2022). O e all, I conclude ha homeless
pe sons a e he leas ad an aged g oup in e ms o income in Ge many. The e o e, he e I discuss
how a basic income policy would imp o e he li ing si ua ion o homeless pe sons in e ms o
income as well as a ec he income- ela ed isks o becoming homeless and he exi ba ie s in
place.
The simula ion s udy by Bach & Hambu g (2023) showed ha a basic income policy would
inc ease household ne income o he lowes income decile o he Ge man popula ion by 63
pe cen . Pa icula ly, he amoun o cu en social secu i y ans e s is lowe o homeless pe -
sons han o housed pe sons because local au ho i ies pay en o he la e g oup. Hence, he
basic income amoun would mos ce ainly exceed he amoun o p esen cash ans e s by un-
employmen and social assis ance o homeless pe sons. The e o e, a basic income may enable
indi iduals o gene a e sa ings while no ha ing o pay en , as was ound by he expe imen al
s udy on basic income o homeless pe sons in Vancou e (Dwye e al., 2023, p. 3). No ably
hough, as pa o he s udy in Vancou e homeless pe sons we e paid 7,500 Canadian dolla s
as an ini ial lump-sum ans e and, he e o e, e ec s on sa ings migh di e be ween one- ime
and egula basic income paymen s.36
34Fo mo e on he eal libe a ian idea o jus ice, see Sec ion 3.1.
35Un o una ely, he na ional s udies did no include in o ma ion on homeless pe sons’ incomes, which is why
he s udy on No h Rhine-Wes phalia, he Ge man s a e wi h he highes popula ion densi y, is used as e e ence
poin .
36Addi ional e idence o his in ui ion was p o ided by he e alua ion o a basic income s udy in Kenya ha did
no speci ically a ge homeless pe sons. While mon hly cash ans e s we e mo e likely o imp o e ood secu i y,
lump-sum ans e s we e associa ed wi h highe sa ings (Hausho e & Shapi o, 2016).
21
child en and g andchild en. Mo eo e , basic income was o en used o buy p esen s o iends
and amilies, s eng hening ela ionships (Wes b ook, 2023, pp. 7-8). In addi ion, amilies a
isk o homelessness would be able o spend mo e ime on unpaid ac i i ies such as child ca e
wi hou ea ing homelessness (Ke man, 2021, p. 8). Hence, a basic income may imp o e leisu e
quan i y and quali y o homeless pe sons, as well as he condi ions o unpaid wo k, suppo ing
communal ies, and, he eby, imp o e he basis o sel - espec (Ke man, 2021, p. 7; McKinnon,
2003).46
Finally, a basic income migh allow homeless people o mo e easily gain o mal employ-
men , which is a possible basis o sel - espec , because such a uni e sal income would emo e
disincen i es o pick up employmen due o wel a e paymen wi hd awal (Bi nbaum, 2020, p.
294; Ke man, 2021, p. 7). The mid e m epo o he Den e Basic Income P ojec s eng hened
his in ui ion, epo ing ha a basic income led o inc eases in pa icipan s’ o mal employmen .
Howe e , he ini ial employmen o pa icipan s in he Den e Basic Income P ojec was al-
eady qui e high ( hey included pa - ime, empo a y, and unde - he- able employmen ), wi h
only wo pe cen o pa icipan s epo ing o be unemployed a he beginning o he expe imen
(B isson e al., 2023, pp. 19-22).
Looking a isk ac o s o becoming homeless, a basic income migh ha e posi i e e ec s
on psychological p oblems i i is able o educe he s ess ela ed o sus aining a li ing and he
s igma a ached o wel a e paymen s (Ke man, 2021, p. 8). While his would only be ue i
s ess and missing communal ecogni ion a e causes and no symp oms o deepe psychological
issues, a basic income can u he enable indi iduals o seek suppo o indi idual psychologi-
cal p oblems “on hei own e ms, wi hou coe cion, and wi hou hei pe sonal p oblems being
blamed o , o ea ed as he key o add essing, hei homelessness” (Cla ke, 2023, p. 873). The
uncondi ionali y o he paymen could a leas make i easie o indi iduals a isk o homeless-
ness o access addi ional suppo se ices (Bi nbaum, 2023, p. 583). Ye , e idence ha a basic
income can imp o e men al heal h is ambiguous.
O e all, I con end ha he homeless popula ion in Ge many is cu en ly leas ad an aged
in e ms o sel - espec . The belie in one’s abili y o lead a meaning ul li e can po en ially
be posi i ely in luenced by a basic income policy i he policy imp o es men al and physical
heal h. Ye , he empi ical e idence on his opic is inconclusi e. Mo eo e , he in oduc ion
o a basic income policy may educe he nega i e pe cep ion associa ed wi h ecei ing wel a e
paymen s. Howe e , o he homeless popula ion, s igma may s ill be a ached o li ing in
po e y and being unhoused. Las ly, basic income has been ound o ha e a posi i e e ec on
communal ela ionships, which is a undamen al aspec o sel - espec . Hence, he e ec s o a
basic income on homeless pe sons’ sel - espec a e ambiguous, challenging he jus ness o he
policy om a libe al egali a ian pe spec i e.
46Ke man (2021) based his a gumen on wo s udies. One scoping e iew showed ha in Housing Fi s pilo s,
homeless pe sons ha e di icul y in es ablishing communal ela ionships (Ma shall e al., 2020). Howe e , an
expe imen al s udy wi h pa icipan s su e ing om men al illnesses showed ha uncondi ional cash paymen s a e
in es ed in ela ionship building and leisu e ac i i ies (Topo & Ljungq is , 2017).
28
4.3 Powe
In his sec ion, I a gue ha homeless pe sons in Ge many a e leas ad an aged in e ms o powe ,
de ined as hei abili y o secu e a posi ion o non-domina ion by ellow ci izens and s a e au-
ho i ies, which o ms he epublican idea o jus ice (Casassas & De Wispelae e, 2016, p. 285;
Ra en ós, 2007, pp. 62-64).47 Fi s , I conside he ela ion be ween homeless pe sons and
ellow ci izens. Homeless indi iduals a e o en subjec o g oup- ocused enmi y (Sonnenbe g,
2021, p. 57), which is based on “an ins i u ional imbalance o powe in a o o he economy”
(Hö e mann e al., 2015, p. 409) in con as o amily, iendship, eligion, and poli ics. A
so-called ma ke ized men ali y encompasses indi idualism, emphasizing indi idual success as
decisi e o mo al e alua ion. The e o e, homeless indi iduals who a e p esumed o be un-
employed a e pe cei ed as a socie al bu den. This ela ion be ween ma ke ized men ali y and
p ejudice agains homeless indi iduals was ound o be posi i e and signi ican o Ge many
(Hö e mann e al., 2015, p. 416; see also Da ido e al., 2011, p. 488).
Such p ejudice may legi imize e bal and physical iolence o sus ain subo dina ion o he
homeless popula ion (Küppe & Zick, 2014, pp. 243-247; Sidanius & P a o, 2012). In Ge -
many, almos 60 pe cen o homeless pe sons li ing on he s ee s o wi h hi d pa ies expe-
ienced iolence. Homeless pe sons wi h physical o men al heal h issues and women we e
mo e o en ic imized han o he s. Pa icula ly, almos 80 pe cen o women li ing on he s ee
expe ienced iolence, and one- hi d o all homeless women was subjec o sexual iolence. O
hose who expe ienced iolence, eigh pe cen we e exposed o comme cial sexual exploi a ion
(B üchmann e al., 2022a, pp. 51-54; Ge man Fede al Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s,
2022, p. 10). The s udy in Do mund showed ha undocumen ed sex wo ke s, in pa icula ,
we e mu ually dependen on subs ances and clien s o inance hei consump ion (Sonnenbe g,
2021, pp. 44-48). E en i no subjec o abuse, dependence on begging and collec ing bo le
deposi s makes some o he homeless popula ion dependen on o he s, a leas income-wise
(B üchmann e al., 2022b, pp. 47-51). The e o e, as an in e im esul , I ind ha homeless
pe sons in Ge many a e subjec o domina ion by ellow ci izens.
Mo eo e , homeless pe sons a e subjec o domina ion by s a e ins i u ions. Local agencies
check he eligibili y o applican s in need and sanc ion possible misdemeano s. While he e-
la ion be ween hose seeking suppo and hose deciding on i s p o ision is egula ed by law,
i is also one o pe cei ed dependency (Weishaup e al., 2023, p. 6). Fo example, 30 pe cen
o homeless indi iduals wi h en al a ea s had asked o suppo a job cen e s, he ci y, o a
counseling cen e s, bu did no ecei e i (B üchmann e al., 2022a, pp. 40-42).48 Hence, I
conclude ha homeless pe sons a e leas ad an aged in e ms o powe acing bo h ellow ci i-
zens and s a e en i ies. The e o e, in he ollowing, I discuss how a basic income policy would
47Fo mo e on he epublican idea o jus ice as conside ed in his a icle, see Sec ion 3.3.
48He e, while I will no weigh in on whe he s a e powe is used a bi a ily in his con ex , I ocus on he pe -
cei ed imbalance o powe be ween homeless pe sons and s a e ins i u ions. Mo eo e , ac ual abuse is no decisi e
conce ning he concep o non-domina ion, en ailing ha he possibili y o a bi a y in e e ence is su icien o be
conside ed subjec o domina ion (Casassas & De Wispelae e, 2016, p. 285; Pe i , 2007).
29
a ec hei li ing si ua ion in e ms o powe , as well as how i a ec s he powe - ela ed isks
o becoming homeless and exi ba ie s o being homeless.
The e ec s o a basic income policy on enmi y conce ning he homeless popula ion a e am-
biguous. On he one hand, i is plausible o assume ha enmi y owa d he homeless popula ion
would be educed i a basic income would cause he economical sphe e o be less dominan ,
mi iga ing ma ke ized men ali y. Ad oca es o he basic income a gue ha he policy would
adically al e he socie al s uc u e by enhancing he alue alloca ed o non-ma ke ac i i ies
(Hende son, 2023). The eby, compe ing sphe es o he ma ke , like communi y and amily (Fis-
che , 2023), iendship, eligion, and poli ics (Hö e mann e al., 2015), may gain impo ance.
Mo eo e , empi ical e idence showed ha public suppo o policies a ge ing homeless pe -
sons is highe i policies bene i he socie y as a whole (Pa sell e al., 2023, p. 16). Since basic
income is paid o he popula ion uni e sally, he g oup o ne bene icia ies exceeds he home-
less popula ion. Hence, he public’s a i ude owa d basic income may be mo e posi i e han
owa ds a ge ed social wel a e measu es (Cla ke, 2023, p. 872; Dwye e al., 2023, p. 7). To
sum up, a less powe ul ma ke ized men ali y and posi i e a i udes owa d basic income may
educe p ejudices placed on he homeless popula ion. On he o he hand, i he in oduc ion o
a basic income policy os e s he idea ha homeless pe sons a e a socie al bu den and p ejudice
is s ill a ached o li ing unhoused, enmi y and esul ing iolence could pe sis o e en become
wo se. Hence, a basic income policy may a ec homeless pe sons’ powe wi h espec o el-
low ci izens and he socie al mains eam ei he way. Mo eo e , e ec s a e in e wined wi h he
discussion on s igma in he p e ious sec ion and, he e o e, wi h he e ec s o a basic income
on sel - espec .
Schola s ha e deba ed whe he a basic income ends o os e ei he emancipa ion o pe -
sis ing gende inequali ies (Lenczewska, 2022);49 ye , he e ec s o a basic income policy may
di e subs an ially om he cu en deba e when conside ing homeless women’s powe . In pa -
icula , Came on e al. (2023) ex ac ed h ee hypo heses om he li e a u e on he e ec s o a
basic income on gende -based iolence. Fi s , cash ans e s could inc ease women’s inancial
ba gaining powe , enabling hem o exi iolence-based ela ionships. Second, cash ans e s
could h ea en male dominance wi hin he household se ing and, he eby, inc ease gende -
based iolence. Finally, cash ans e s could dec ease inancial s ess, which is a possible cause
o gende -based iolence (Came on e al., 2023, pp. 17-18). A e iew on empi ical s udies
by Wong & Fo ge (2024) showed ha uncondi ional cash ans e s we e associa ed wi h de-
c eases in physical in ima e pa ne iolence agains women, while e idence on men al abuses
was ambiguous. In addi ion, emale pa icipan s had o p os i u e hemsel es less o en.
While he e is no empi ical e idence on he e ec s o a basic income on homeless women
in pa icula , he p esen ed esul s indica e posi i e e ec s on homeless women’s li ing si ua-
ion. Homeless women who li e wi h hi d pa ies could educe inancial dependence on hose
49See also he special issue in Basic Income S udies 2008 3(3) (h ps://www.deg uy e .com/jou nal/key/bis/3/3/
h ml).
30
housing hem, hus a ec ing he powe imbalance in hei a o . Mo eo e , o sex wo ke s,
in pa icula , a basic income may enable homeless women o educe dependency on clien s,
he eby eeing up esou ces o coun e a possible dependency on subs ances, e en ually se-
cu ing an empowe ed posi ion.50 Hence, while i is unclea whe he a basic income would
gene ally inc ease homeless people’s powe wi h espec o hei ellow ci izens, a basic income
may indeed inc ease homeless women’s powe .
Conce ning homeless people’s powe wi h espec o s a e agencies, uni e sali y and uncon-
di ionali y o he basic income paymen would educe s a e agencies’ powe . Public o icials
could no longe e alua e eligibili y, make beha io al demands, o decide on sanc ions; hence,
powe imbalances o he cu en sys em may be educed by a basic income policy. This in u-
i ion is s eng hened by empi ical e idence. Mid e m esul s o he Den e Basic Income P ojec
indica ed ha homeless pe sons wi h basic income educed con ac wi h se ice p o ide s ad-
d essing basic needs o homeless pe sons (B isson e al., 2023, pp. 29-33), bu hey inc eased
con ac wi h hose aiding o secu e housing (Wes b ook, 2023, p. 12).51 This e idence sug-
ges s ha wi h he secu i y o a basic income, homeless pe sons p e e no o ely on se ice
s uc u es ha help wi h immanen needs and a e able o decide mo e au onomously on how
o use he mos e ec i e suppo s uc u es o hei indi idual cases. Hence, a basic income
may con ibu e o secu ing an empowe ed posi ion o homeless pe sons wi h espec o s a e
agencies.
A simila a gumen can be made conce ning isks o becoming homeless and ba ie s o ex-
i ing homelessness. Indi iduals wi h en al a ea s egain au onomy when hey a e able o pay
en on hei own wi hou being dependen on s a e ins i u ions, o example, ha ing o apply o
housing subsidies. The abili y o pay en au onomously would ha e u he e ec s on people’s
isk o becoming homeless and ying o exi homelessness when dealing wi h landlo ds. On he
one hand, he uni e sali y o he basic income paymen may educe disc imina ion by landlo ds
agains hose who o me ly elied on s a e agencies o en paymen s, since income is secu ed
o e e yone.52 On he o he hand, housing disc imina ion may emain due o o he cha ac-
e is ics o homeless pe sons, such as sexual o ien a ion, ace, o igin, unemploymen (Ge man
Fede al An i-Disc imina ion Agency, 2024; Ke man, 2021, pp. 6-7), o me ely he ac o being
homeless.
Mo eo e , wi hou he secu i y o en paymen s ia s a e agencies, ba ie s o een e he
housing ma ke o homeless pe sons may become highe , because landlo ds may no us
o me ly homeless pe sons o pay en egula ly. Fu he exi ba ie s may emain, like e-
qui emen s on being deb - ee and possessing posi i e c edi a ings (Busch-Gee sema, 2017,
50Recall ha he s udy in Do mund showed ha undocumen ed sex wo ke s, in pa icula , we e mu ually de-
penden on subs ances and clien s o inance hei consump ion (Sonnenbe g, 2021, pp. 44-48).
51E idence om On a io also showed ha basic income pa icipan s, in gene al, isi ed doc o s and eme gency
ooms less o en (Fe dosi & McDowell, 2020, pp. 23-24).
52Fo example, pa icipan s o he Mincome expe imen in Canada epo ed o ha e ewe p oblems wi h land-
lo ds while ecei ing he uncondi ional paymen (Calni sky, 2016, pp. 50-52).
31
p. 78; Busch-Gee sema e al., 2020, p. 90). The e o e, while basic income “has he capaci y
o add ess he income side o he housing a o dabili y c isis” (Cla ke, 2023, p. 870), access
o a o dable housing emains a necessa y condi ion o exi homelessness. To sum up, a basic
income may imp o e he powe o people a isk o becoming homeless wi h espec o s a e
ins i u ions, bu hese people’s powe wi h espec o landlo ds may emain low, pa icula ly o
pe sons a emp ing o exi homelessness.
In conclusion, I con end ha homeless pe sons a e leas ad an aged in e ms o powe wi h
espec o ellow ci izens and s a e agencies. The in oduc ion o a basic income policy may
impac exis ing animosi y owa ds homeless pe sons in di e en ways, depending on whe he
p ejudice is p esen ly based on being a wel a e claiman o li ing unhoused. In he la e case,
a basic income only imp o es powe imbalances i i con ibu es o exi ing homelessness. The
pa icula g oups o homeless women who li e wi h acquain ances and homeless sex wo ke s
may expe ience posi i e e ec s om a basic income, as i enhances hei inancial indepen-
dence. Addi ionally, indi iduals’ powe may inc ease when dealing wi h go e nmen agencies
ha no longe assess eligibili y o wel a e paymen s. Ye , being able o independen ly pay
en wi hou in ol ing s a e agencies, may weaken he s anding o pe sons ying o exi home-
lessness when i comes o landlo ds. Consequen ly, basic income can only pa ly secu e an
empowe ed posi ion o homeless pe sons, making i unclea whe he he policy can be deemed
jus om a epublican pe spec i e.
5 Conclusion
This a icle pu s o he es he h ee main jus i ica i e a emp s in a o o a basic income,
namely eal libe a ianism, libe al egali a ianism, and epublicanism. To do so, I discuss
whe he he basic income policy inc eases income, sel - espec , and powe o homeless pe -
sons in Ge many, which ep esen he leas ad an aged g oup in socie y. The eby, I challenge
whe he he policy sa is ies he unde lying demands on a jus socie y as p oposed by basic in-
come ad oca es. The discussion is based on a policy p oposal as analyzed by Bach & Hambu g
(2023) and e alua es exis ing empi ical as well as heo e ical e idence. The esul s indica e ha
a basic income could e ec i ely inc ease homeless people’s income, enable hem o de elop
communal ela ions, and inc ease powe wi h espec o s a e agencies, bu c i ical issues e-
main. In pa icula , he s igma-dec easing e ec o a basic income is ques ionable o homeless
pe sons, as is i s e ec on homeless people’s powe wi h espec o o he ci izens and landlo ds
in he low-income housing ma ke . Ul ima ely, he analysis emphasizes ha he e alua ion o
he jus ness o he basic income policy depends on he unde lying assump ions o basic income
ad oca es, he iden i ica ion o he ele an ca ego y o analysis, and, inally, he s uc u al em-
bedding o he basic income policy.
Thus a , he li e a u e on basic income and homelessness has ag eed ha while a basic in-
come may educe homelessness, i only add esses pa s o he unde lying s uc u al causes. To
32
end homelessness, addi ional e o s a e needed, o example, on inc easing access o a o d-
able housing (Cla ke, 2023) and on implemen ing suppo s uc u es o men al illness (Ke -
man, 2021). In his a icle, I a gue ha o basic income schola s, he ele an ques ion is no
necessa ily whe he basic income ends homelessness bu a he whe he i imp o es he li ing
si ua ion o homeless people in e ms o income, sel - espec , and powe . The app oach shows
ha when ocusing on he homeless popula ion, he basic income policy can be deemed jus
om a eal libe a ian pe spec i e, bu equi emen s om a libe al egali a ian and epublican
pe spec i e a e mo e s ic . Bo h sel - espec and non-domina ion a e concep s ha de ia e
om he sole ocus on he indi idual, emphasizing one’s ela ional embedding. In u u e e-
sea ch, analyzing he cons i uency o s igma ela ed o homelessness would be p omising when
a emp ing o de elop policies coun e ing s igma, he eby inc easing sel - espec . Mo eo e ,
he analysis s esses again ha access o a o dable and secu e housing is a necessa y condi ion
no only in coun e ing homelessness bu also when imp o ing he li ing si ua ion o homeless
pe sons because su icien access may coun e powe imbalances be ween unhoused applican s
and landlo ds.
Ne e heless, he p o ision o a egula basic income can also a ec s uc u al ac o s o he
phenomenon o homelessness. In pa icula , homeless women may imp o e hei ba gaining po-
si ion when li ing wi h hi d pa ies. Mo eo e , uncondi ional ans e s dec ease gende -based
iolence (Came on e al., 2023; Wong & Fo ge , 2024). In gene al, a basic income can inc ease
homeless people’s powe wi h espec o s a e agencies. Ye , he sugges ed basic income policy
does no co e immig an s wi h unclea s a us o esidence o asylum seeke s, he eby wo sen-
ing hei li ing si ua ion in ela ion o homeless pe sons ecei ing a basic income. While he
s a us quo conce ning income emains una ec ed by he exclusion, sel - espec and powe may
be e en wo sened (Lö le , 2021). The analysis emphasizes ha a comp ehensi e assessmen o
a basic income policy needs a heo e ical unde pinning ha includes an in e sec ional pe spec-
i e. Tha way he policy may be mo e cong uen wi h challenges aced by he mode n wel a e
s a e.53 One p omising s a ing poin o such a heo y was p o ided by Nwogbo (2021).
Finally, he analysis shows ha mo e empi ical e idence is needed o add subs ance o an
impo an deba e. I he maximin dis ibu ion ule is a he hea o an in e sec ional heo y
o jus ice on basic income, he discussion canno u he neglec he policy’s e ec s on he
homeless popula ion. Exis ing empi ical e idence is p omising, bu i is sca ce and in some
cases s ill pending, limi ing he applicabili y o he p esen ed a gumen s. Mo e e idence is
needed on he e ec s o a basic income policy on pe sons who a e homeless and who a e
subjec o disc imina ion due o disabili y, ace, o igin, gende , o sexuali y. The ambigui y
o he exis ing esul s adds ele ance o implemen ing u he pilo s. When designing hese
expe imen s, mo e a en ion needs o be paid o he pa icula i ies o a angemen s and how
hese may a ec esul s. This is especially ue conce ning he basic income amoun and i s
53Empi ical e idence on he ele ance o in e sec ional disad an ages o economic secu i y was p o ided, o
example, by Ma o o e al. (2019).
33
paymen in e al. The Den e Basic Income P ojec (B isson e al., 2023; Wes b ook, 2023)
could ac as a model, and i could be mo e p omising o use he p ojec as a s a ing poin o
de eloping a ideli y assessmen o basic income expe imen s a ge ing he homeless popula ion,
as is al eady in place o Housing Fi s pilo s.
Acknowledgmen s
I wan o hank Hen ike Bloemen, Jan Wol gang Ha en, Kim Leonie Kelle mann, and Ce-
les e B ennecka, as well as pa icipan s a he Basic Income Ea h Ne wo k Con e ence in Seoul,
he Eu opean Con e ence on Homelessness in Leu en, and he Annual Mee ing o he F eibu g
Ins i u e o Basic Income S udies o encou aging suppo as well as o e y help ul commen s.
34
Re e ences
Ad iso y Boa d o he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Finance. (2021). Bedingungsloses G un-
deinkommen ( ech. ep. No. 2). Ge man Fede al Minis y o Finance. Be lin. Re ie ed
Decembe 27, 2023, om h ps : / / www. bundes inanzminis e ium . de / Con en / DE /
Downloads / Minis e ium / Wissenscha liche - Bei a / Gu ach en / bedingungsloses -
g undeinkommen.h ml
A scha ian, D., Mulia ka, V., Os owski, M. S., & Siegel, L. (2022). The S a e o he UBI
Deba e: Mapping he A gumen s o and agains UBI. Basic Income S udies,17(2),
213–237. h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/bis-2021-0030
Amo e, K. (2013). Focusing on concep ual alidi y: A esponse. Eu opean Jou nal o Home-
lessness,7(2), 223–236.
Bach, S., & Hambu g, M. (2023). Simula ionsanalysen zu Finanzie ba kei des bedin-
gungslosen G undeinkommens ( ech. ep. No. 195). Ge man Ins i u e o Economic Re-
sea ch. Be lin.
Bap is a, I., & Ma lie , E. (2019). Figh ing homelessness and housing exclusion in Eu ope: A
s udy o na ional policies. (Eu opean Commission Di ec o a e Gene al o Employmen ,
Social A ai s and Inclusion & Eu opean Social Policy Ne wo k, Eds.). Publica ions
O ice. Re ie ed July 27, 2023, om h ps://da a.eu opa.eu/doi/10.2767/624509
Benz, B. (2012). Poli ik soziale Inklusion in o male , inhal liche und p ozedu ale Pe spek-
i e. In H.-J. Balz B. Benz, & C. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Soziale Inklusion (pp. 115–140). VS
Ve lag ü Sozialwissenscha en. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-531-19115-7_7
Bidadanu e, J. U. (2019). The Poli ical Theo y o Uni e sal Basic Income. Annual Re iew o
Poli ical Science,22(1), 481–501. h ps://doi.o g/10.1146/annu e -polisci-050317-
070954
Bi nbaum, S. (2010). Radical libe alism, Rawls and he wel a e s a e: Jus i ying he poli ics o
basic income. C i ical Re iew o In e na ional Social and Poli ical Philosophy,13(4),
495–516. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09692290.2010.517968
Bi nbaum, S. (2020). Uncondi ional Basic Income and Du ies o Con ibu ion: Explo ing he
Republican E hos o Jus ice. In A. Ele eld T. Kampen, & J. A s (Eds.), Wel a e o Wo k
in Con empo a y Eu opean Wel a e S a es (1s ed., pp. 281–306). B is ol Uni e si y
P ess. h ps://doi.o g/10.46692/9781447340133.013
Bi nbaum, S. (2023). The E hics o Basic Income. In M. To y (Ed.), The Palg a e In e na ional
Handbook o Basic Income (pp. 581–596). Sp inge In e na ional Publishing. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/978-3-031-41001-7_29
Bi nbaum, S., & De Wispelae e, J. (2016). Basic Income in he Capi alis Economy: The Mi age
o “Exi ” om Employmen . Basic Income S udies,11(1). h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/bis-
2016-0013
35
Bi nbaum, S., & De Wispelae e, J. (2021). Exi s a egy o exi ap? Basic income and he
‘powe o say no’ in he age o p eca ious employmen . Socio-Economic Re iew,19(3),
909–927. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/se /mwaa002
Blöme , M. J., & Peichl, A. (2021). Mik osimula ion e schiedene Va ian en eines Bedin-
gungslosen G undeinkommens in Deu schland ( ech. ep. No. 121). Leibniz Ins i u e
o Economic Resea ch. Munich. Re ie ed Decembe 27, 2023, om h ps://www.i o.
de/publika ionen/2021/monog aphie-au o enscha /mik osimula ion- e schiedene -
a ian en-eines
Bo s el, D., Sonnenbe g, T., & Szczepanek, S. (Eds.). (2021). Die "Unsich ba en" im Scha en
de Gesellscha - Fo schungen zu Wohnungs- und Obdachlosigkei am Beispiel Do -
mund. Sp inge VS. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/9783658312626
B een, K. (2017). Non-Domina ion, Wo kplace Republicanism, and he Jus i ica ion o Wo ke
Voice and Con ol. In e na ional Jou nal o Compa a i e Labou Law and Indus ial
Rela ions,33(3), 419–439.
B em, D., & Seebe ge , B. (2009). Al und wohnungslos in Deu schland. Eine Un e suchung
übe o handene Da en zu Lebenslagen äl e e wohnungslose Menschen. Soziale
Fo sch i ,58(9-10), 226–234. h ps://doi.o g/10.3790/s o.58.9-10.226
B isson, D., Hoops Calhoun, K., Codding on, L., Je Flaxman, Z., Johnsen, M., & Locke, S.
(2023). Den e Basic Income P ojec - In e im Repo ( ech. ep.). Uni e si y o Den e .
Re ie ed Janua y 10, 2024, om h ps://www.den e basicincomep ojec .o g/ esea ch
B üchmann, K., Busch-Gee sema, V., Heien, T., Henke, J., Kiesne , T., P is e , M., & Schöpke,
S. (2022a). Empi ische Un e suchung zum Gegens and nach § 8 Absa z 2 und 3
Wohnungslosenbe ich e s a ungsgese z (Ge man Associa ion o Inno a i e Social Re-
sea ch and Social Planning (GISS) Kan a Public, & Ge man Fede al Minis y o Labou
and Social A ai s, Eds.; ech. ep. No. 605). Bonn. Re ie ed July 19, 2023, om h ps:
//www.bmas.de/DE/Se ice/Publika ionen/Fo schungsbe ich e/ b-605-empi ische-
un e suchung-zum-wohnungslosenbe ich e s a ungsgese z.h ml
B üchmann, K., Busch-Gee sema, V., Henke, J., Schöpke, S., & S e en, A. (2022b). Woh-
nungslose ohne Un e kun und e deck Wohnungslose in No d hein-Wes alen ( ech.
ep.). Minis y o Labo , Heal h and Social A ai s o No h Rhine-Wes phalia. Düssel-
do . Re ie ed Augus 1, 2023, om h ps://b oschue ense ice.mags.n w/mags/shop/
Wohnungslose_ohne_Un e kun _und_ e deck _Wohnungslose_in_NRW
Bundes e band Housing Fi s . (2023). Unse e Mi gliede - Bundes e band Housing Fi s . Re-
ie ed Janua y 15, 2024, om h ps://bundes e band-housing i s .de/p o il/unse e-
mi gliede /
Busch-Gee sema, V. (2014). Housing Fi s Eu ope – Resul s o a Eu opean Social Expe imen-
a ion P ojec . Eu opean Jou nal o Homelessness,8(1), 13–28.
Busch-Gee sema, V. (2017). Housing Fi s – inno a i e Ansa z, gängige P axis ode schöne
Illusion? wohnungslos,59(2/3), 75–80.
36
Busch-Gee sema, V., Henke, J., & S e en, A. (2020). Homelessness in Ge many. Eu opean
Jou nal o Homelessness,14(1), 81–91.
Bu e wegge, C. (2023). „Mie enwahnsinn“ und Wohnungsno als Resul a eine neolibe alen
Poli ik ü meh Ungleichhei . In D. Bo s el J. B ückmann L. Nübold B. Pü e , &
T. Sonnenbe g (Eds.), Handbuch Wohnungs- und Obdachlosigkei (pp. 1–7). Sp inge
Fachmedien. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-658-35279-0_53-1
Calni sky, D. (2016). “Mo e No mal han Wel a e”: The Mincome Expe imen , S igma, and
Communi y Expe ience. Canadian Re iew o Sociology,53(1), 26–71. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1111/ca s.12091
Came on, A., Tedds, L. M., & Yu, W. (2023). Economic Secu i y Policy and Canada’s Na ional
Ac ion Plan o End Gende -Based Violence: Is he e a Role o Cash T ans e s in Ad-
d essing In ima e Pa ne Violence? SSRN Elec onic Jou nal. h ps://doi.o g/10.2139/
ss n.4487319
Casassas, D. (2007). Basic Income and he Republican Ideal: Re hinking Ma e ial Independence
in Con empo a y Socie ies. Basic Income S udies,2(2). h ps://doi.o g/10.2202/1932-
0183.1081
Casassas, D., & De Wispelae e, J. (2016). Republicanism and he Poli ical Economy o Democ-
acy. Eu opean Jou nal o Social Theo y,19(2), 283–300. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
1368431015600026
Cla ke, A. (2023). Can a basic income help add ess homelessness? A Ti mussian pe spec i e.
Jou nal o Sociology,95(4), 860–878. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/14407833221135986
Da ido , E., Thö ne , S., Schmid , P., Gosen, S., & Wol , C. (2011). Le el and change o g oup-
ocused enmi y in Ge many: Uncondi ional and condi ional la en g ow h cu e models
wi h ou panel wa es. Ad ances in S a is ical Analysis,95(4), 481–500. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1007/s10182-011-0174-1
Den e Basic Income P ojec . (2022). Inclusion C i e ia O e iew ( ech. ep.). Uni e si y o
Den e . Re ie ed Janua y 10, 2024, om h ps://www.den e basicincomep ojec .o g/
esea ch
Dwo kin, R. (1981a). Wha is Equali y? Pa 1: Equali y o Wel a e. Philosophy & Public A -
ai s,10(3), 185–246.
Dwo kin, R. (1981b). Wha is Equali y? Pa 2: Equali y o Resou ces. Philosophy & Public
A ai s,10(4), 283–345.
Dwye , R., Palepu, A., Williams, C., Daly-G a s ein, D., & Zhao, J. (2023). Uncondi ional
cash ans e s educe homelessness. P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o Sciences,
120(36), 1–9. h ps://doi.o g/10.1073/pnas.2222103120
Eu os a . (2023). Glossa y: Housing cos o e bu den a e. Re ie ed Decembe 15, 2023, om
h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/eu os a /s a is ics-explained/index.php? i le=Glossa y:Housing_
cos _o e bu den_ a e
37
Van Pa ijs, P. (2021). Unjus inequali ies: Is maximin he answe ? (Tech. ep.). Ins i u e o Fis-
cal S udies. London. Re ie ed No embe 30, 2023, om h ps://i s.o g.uk/inequali y/
unjus -inequali ies-is-maximin- he-answe /
Van Pa ijs, P., & Vande bo gh , Y. (2017). Basic Income: A Radical P oposal o a F ee Socie y
and a Sane Economy. Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Weishaup , J. T., Hin ichs, C., & Weckwe h, J. (2023). Wohnungslos in de S ad : Soziol-
ogische Pe spek i en au Exklusionsdynamiken im Wechselspiel indi iduelle , aum-
s uk u elle und ins i u ionelle Kon ex e. Pola isie e Wel en. Ve handlungen des 41.
Kong esses de Deu schen Gesellscha ü Soziologie in Biele eld.
Wes b ook, M. (2023). Den e Basic Income P ojec - Quali a i e Resea ch - Mid e m Repo
( ech. ep.). Uni e si y o Den e . Den e . Re ie ed Janua y 10, 2024, om h ps://
www.den e basicincomep ojec .o g/ esea ch
Wong, M., & Fo ge , E. (2024). Basic Income and Violence Agains Women: A Re iew o Cash
T ans e Expe imen s. Basic Income S udies, 1–46. h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/bis-2022-
0032
Zelleke, A. (2022). Wages o Housewo k: The Ma xis -Feminis Case o Basic Income.
Polí ica y Sociedad,59(2), 1–13. h ps://doi.o g/10.5209/poso.78022
Zwolinski, M. (2015). P ope y Righ s, Coe cion, and he Wel a e S a e: The Libe a ian Case
o a Basic Income o All. The Independen Re iew,19(4), 515–529.
44
Appendix
In he ollowing, he social secu i y measu es ha would be eplaced by a basic income scheme
a e in oduced in mo e de ail. Highe educa ional suppo and manda o y unemploymen insu -
ance a e in mos cases no applicable o homeless pe sons, which is why hey a e no discussed
u he a his poin . In gene al, he desc ibed measu es di e om he basic income policy
p oposal in h ee main cha ac e is ics: he amoun o paymen , eligibili y c i e ia, and co -
esponding condi ions on beha io al aspec s. The ollowing desc ip i e accoun explo es he
speci ics o hese di e ences (in Janua y 2024).
The mos well-known social secu i y measu e is he Ge man unemploymen assis ance. I
con ains o a basic paymen (Regelbeda , § 20 SGB II) plus paymen s acco ding o special
needs (Meh beda e, §§ 21, 24-27 SGB II). The basic paymen amoun s o 563 eu os o an
adul li ing alone. The amoun dec eases o 506 eu os o each adul li ing in a mul i-pe son
household. The amoun inc eases o each child by 357 o 451 eu os, depending on age (Ge man
Fede al Employmen Agency, 2023c). Mo eo e , cos s o en and hea ing a e co e ed as long
as hey a e deemed app op ia e. Hence, he amoun di e s acco ding o egion and household
composi ion and is di ec ly paid o he en e (§ 22 SGB II). Fu he , in-kind bene i s o enable
socie al pa icipa ion o child en and you h a e p o ided (§§ 28-30 SGB II).
To be eligible o unemploymen assis ance, a pe son needs o be be ween 15 and 67 yea s
old, able o wo k a leas h ee hou s pe day, in need o help, and li ing legally in Ge many
o a leas h ee mon hs (§§ 7 I, 8 I SGB II). Whe he an indi idual is in need o help depends
on income and weal h o he pe son hemsel es and hei communi y o dependence (Beda s-
gemeinscha , §§ 7 II, III, 9, 11, 12 SGB II). Unemploymen assis ance is paid by job cen e s.
F om an adminis a i e pe spec i e, i is u he necessa y o in o mally apply o unemploy-
men , p o iding in o ma ion on income, weal h, pe sonal iden i ica ion, an add ess and a bank
accoun . Wi hou a bank accoun , a check is sen o he pos al add ess ha can be cashed in
a he Ge man Pos O ice and he associa ed Ge man Pos Bank (Ge man Fede al Employ-
men Agency, 2023a, pp. 14, 52–53; Ge man Pension Insu ance, 2023). Mo eo e , he Ge man
Fede al Social Cou (2023, p. 3) ecen ly decided ha i a pos al add ess canno be p o ided, el-
igibili y o unemploymen assis ance is gi en when a pe son inqui es o hei co espondence
a he job cen e on a daily basis (see also § 7b SGB II). Fu he condi ions on willingness o
wo k apply (§§ 14-16 SGB II). I hese condi ions a e no me , he amoun o unemploymen
assis ance is sanc ioned up o 30 pe cen (§§ 31-32 SGB II). In Decembe 2023, a p oposal was
discussed abou whe he long- e m unemployed who epea edly declined job o e s could be
cu o om he basic paymen o unemploymen assis ance o wo mon hs.
The amoun o social assis ance is calcula ed simila ly o unemploymen assis ance (§§ 27-
39, 42 SGB XII). Howe e , in con as o unemploymen assis ance, a pe son needs o be olde
han 67 o unable o wo k o a leas h ee hou s pe day o be eligible o social assis ance
(§ 41 SGB XII). I hese condi ions a e no me , he p o ision o social assis ance is decided on
45
a case- o-case basis (§ 19 SGB XII). While he adminis a i e de ails ha need o be p o ided
as pa o he applica ion p ocess a e simila , social assis ance is paid by a di e en local agency
(Sozialam ) and canno be educed by sanc ions.
The amoun o housing subsidies di e s acco ding o household composi ion, household
income, and amoun o en (§ 4 WOGG; Ge man Fede al Minis y o Housing, U ban De el-
opmen and Building, 2023). App op ia e en di e s egionally and acco ding o household
composi ion. In addi ion o en subsidies, households a e paid hea ing subsidies and a clima e
componen when hei la is clima e iendly, and, he e o e, mo e expensi e (§ 12 WOGG).
Eligible households a e only hose ha do no ge unemploymen assis ance, social assis ance,
o highe educa ional suppo (§§ 7, 20 WOGG).
Child bene i s amoun o 250 eu os pe child ha is younge han 18 yea s old and li ing
wi h hei pa en in Ge many o ano he s a e o he Eu opean Union. Child bene i s can be paid
up o he age o 25 i he child is no employed. Child bene i s do no depend on indi idual
o household income (§§ 1, 2, 6 BKGG). Supplemen a y child allowances a e paid in he case
o need and subjec o a means es on income and weal h o he household. I needs o be ap-
plied o e e y six mon hs and amoun s up o a maximum o 292 eu os pe child (§ 6a BKGG;
Ge man Fede al Employmen Agency, 2023b). Child suppo ad ance paymen s depend on he
age o he child and amoun be ween 230 and 395 eu os pe mon h depending on he age o
he child. I can be applied o in case o single pa en hood o child en younge han wel e
and up o he age o 18 depending on pa en al income and on whe he he pa en ob ains un-
employmen assis ance (§ 1 UhVo schg; Ge man Fede al Minis y o Family A ai s, Senio
Ci izens, Women and You h, 2023b). Pa en al allowance can be sha ed be ween pa en s o up
o 14 mon hs and depends on he income be o e bi h. I can be be ween 300 and 1800 eu os
and is only paid as long as pa en s do no wo k mo e han 32 hou s and do no ea n mo e han
175,000 eu os pe yea oge he .54 Th ee a iances o pa en al allowance exis , which can be
mixed and ma ched acco ding o household needs. Howe e , di e en applica ion p ocesses o
each a ian o pa en al allowance apply (§§ 1-4 BEEG; Ge man Fede al Minis y o Family
A ai s, Senio Ci izens, Women and You h, 2023a).
54In Decembe 2023, he law s ill allowed o a sha ed income o 300,000 eu os; howe e , his posi ion was up
o deba e due o cos -sa ing measu es, wi h 175,000 eu os being he discussed h eshold a he poin o w i ing
his a icle.
46
Uni e si y o F eibu g
F eibu g Ins i u e o Basic Income S udies (FRIBIS)
Albe -Ludwigs-Uni e si ä F eibu g
Rempa s . 10
79085 F eibu g
Ge many
www. ibis.uni- eibu g.de/en
FRIBIS Discussion Pape Se ies
ISSN No. [2702-5462]
FRIBIS Pape No. 01-2024
