Publications:
This paper proposes a protocol to investigate preferences for unconditional basic income (UBI) through the lens of social preferences. Bridging economic philosophy and experimental economics, the design builds on the conceptual link between Van Parijs’s theory of justice, rooted in Rawlsian maximin reasoning, and social preference types such as maximin, efficiency, and inequality aversion. While a few previous studies have applied Rawlsian or Van Parijsian reasoning in laboratory settings to elucidate preferences for UBI, they often suffer from limited sample sizes, lack of monetary incentives, or incomplete theoretical frameworks. Broader empirical approaches, such as cross-sectional surveys, field experiments and referenda, offer insights into political feasibility but struggle to capture individuals’ underlying normative reasoning and are highly sensitive to context and framing. Responding to these limits, the protocol adopted here is modular and adaptable, allowing researchers to test various redistributive schemes, framings, or funding mechanisms. Beyond the UBI case, this framework contributes to a broader reflection on the understanding of fairness in distributive choices.
Jacob, E. (2025). "Responsabilité individuelle et revenue de base inconditionnel. En théorie et experimentation." Cahiers d’Economie Politique, 88(3), 45-80.
This paper aims to examine whether Van Parijs’s theory of unconditional basic income (UBI) addresses the criticism concerning the lack of individual responsibility among recipients. To this end, we consider both the theoretical framework of UBI and field experiments. Theoretical and empirical findings suggest that UBI does not necessarily lead to a decline in labor supply, though the absence of a sufficiently detailed and sustainable funding proposal limits their scope. Consequently, both Van Parijs’s theoretical argument and the results from experiments remain easily contestable.
Submitted Work:
Van Parijs versus Rawls: the (im)possible Rawlsian justification of UBI, R&R at The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, resubmitted in December 2025.
This paper shows how the Malibu Surfers controversy shaped Philippe Van Parijs’s justification of an unconditional basic income (UBI). While scholars have focused on whether UBI can be Rawlsian, its impact on Van Parijs’s own conceptual development has been overlooked. The exchange with Rawls compelled Van Parijs to refine a post-productivist justification of UBI, one that makes real freedom, rather than work contribution, the starting point of justice. Confronting Rawls’s concerns about incentives and reciprocity led him to integrate a cooperative dimension grounded in fraternity, revealing how new distributive ideals emerged within late-twentieth-century economic thought.
The purpose of this article is to experimentally analyze the assumed links between individuals’ social preferences and their support for a basic income, based on three possible types of preferences: efficiency-oriented, egalitarian, and maximin. To this end, we designed an original experimental protocol at the intersection of two strands of literature: one well-established, dealing with social preferences, and the other more recent and still emerging, focused on basic income. Our experiment yields two main findings. First, participants identified as having maximin-type social preferences significantly tend to choose a distribution including a basic income. Second, participants identified as efficiency-oriented or egalitarian deviate from their usual preference type in favor of the basic income whenever it provides a maximin type distribution. These two results clearly support a justification of basic income in maximin terms, thus following the theoretical argument put forward by Van Parijs.
Work in Progress:
Sixty Years of Basic Income Research, with Wirtz, K. (BETA, University of Strasbourg)
Basic income has emerged as a critical topic in contemporary debates, sparking discussions within political and academic spheres. This article examines the complexity of UBI’s theoretical foundations and its representation in the literature, with a focus on its conceptual overlap with Milton Friedman’s negative income tax (NIT). By employing quantitative bibliometric analysis, we trace the intellectual trajectory of UBI research, mapping out key networks, themes, and their evolution over time. Our approach combines the tools of quantitative history of economic thought with a dynamic analysis of how different academic disciplines contribute to the discourse. This method clarifies the conceptual boundaries of UBI and enriches its historical narrative, offering insights into the global dynamics of basic income research and its interplay with policy-making and societal change.
A Crossroad of Welfare Economics Traditions: Anthony B. Atkinson’s Inequality Measure, with Alvarez, A. (University of Los Andes).
From UBI to participation income: Atkinson’s evolving ideas in the political context of the UK in the 1990s.
Atkinson’s views on fair taxation, distribution and the influence of Meade, Friedman and Piketty
Comparative analysis of the participants' characteristics in the German Basic Income Pilot Project, with Bohmann, S. (DIW Berlin) and Schupp, J. (DIW Berlin)
Policy Paper:
Oschwald, P., Jacob E., Kamanzi, A. & Kaufmann, G. (2024). Decision-Making of Disadvantaged Individuals - A proposal for an Experimental Extension, FRIBIS Policy Debate.