The idea of a ‘basic income’ as a social fix has gained unprecedented prominence across the political spectrum in recent years. But now there may be a new kid on the block.

A universal basic income (UBI) is a flat cash benefit paid to everyone, regardless of wealth (or need), proposed as everything from a way to save humanity from robot-induced unemployment and/or labour drudgery to a means of replacing ‘inefficient’ welfare states. The new proposition is ‘universal basic services’ (UBS) – an attempt to beat UBI at its own game.

The fullest formulation of the idea comes from University College London academics who costed the notion of expanding the core services provided for free by the welfare state (what is left of it).

As with a basic income, this could reduce the pressure on people to accept any job they can get to survive. With free services meeting basic needs, it would also free up income to spend elsewhere.

But, they argue, UBS would also avoid many drawbacks of a UBI: most importantly the risk that its introduction could be used by rightwing politicians to dismantle existing public services such as healthcare and education.1 And while their model is costed and designed for Britain, the core debate – universal basic services versus universal basic income – is relevant for countries, rich or poor, around the world.