Contrasting primitive conceptions of Basic Income Guarantee
by John Marangos
International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment (IJEWE), Vol. 2, No. 1, 2006

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to outline and compare the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) proposals by Thomas Paine and Thomas Spence. In assessing the two proposals using the current version of BIG criterion, each proposal has consistent and inconsistent elements. It can be argued that the two proposals are 'primitive' versions of BIG, as espoused today by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) and the United States Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG Network). Nevertheless, beyond what would be perceived today as flaws in both proposals, Paine and Spence equally contributed to the historical development of BIG.

Online publication date: Wed, 22-Mar-2006

The full text of this article is only available to individual subscribers or to users at subscribing institutions.

 
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.

Pay per view:
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.

Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment (IJEWE):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:

Username:        Password:          Forgotten your password?

Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.

If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com