by youthscholars

 

As China explores solutions to youth employment, an academic debate regarding welfare expansion is growing in the country. For BIEN’s UBI Youth Scholars Program, students held their own debate and evaluated the feasibility of basic income’s implementation in China as one possible solution. 

The UBI Youth Scholars Program provides university students the opportunity to learn about basic income and conduct research under the mentorship of global UBI academics. In their mock debate assignment, students Kai Lechman-Su and Zhuoer Evelyn Li highlighted the structural and philosophical challenges surrounding UBI.

Lechman-Su outlined China’s evolving labor landscape. He argued that automation is steadily eroding low-skill employment, particularly in the vast manufacturing sector that powered China’s economic rise. For these workers, he explained, opportunities are contracting without adequate state compensation to ease the transition. A universal basic income, from his perspective, could serve as a economic cushion. “Low-skill labor is being phased out,” he stated. “UBI would be a really good way to offset a lot of the harm that’s being done in those industries.”

In his analysis, UBI functions as a platform for security and growth, rather than a simple handout. He contrasted it with traditional social assistance systems, which often involve means-tests and filters. UBI could streamline support by reducing administrative hurdles and broadening access to financial aid. Lechman-Su suggested that financial security empowers individuals to pursue education or entrepreneurship. To address funding, he proposed a strategy of fiscal reallocation. This would involve redirecting certainl subsidies, introducing more taxation, and trimming inefficiencies. Such an approach would largely redistribute existing revenue, not necessarily inflate the national budget. “It would free up funds in other sectors,” he said, “and could overall in the future increase China’s GDP.”

Zhuoer Evelyn Li countered that the gross cost may be too high for China. Citing a 2014 estimate, she noted that even a modest UBI program could have absorbed nearly half of China’s total government spending for that year. She questioned the fiscal prudence of such a massive expenditure for a government also tasked with major investments in infrastructure, technological innovation, and support for an aging population. “These numbers would only get bigger over time,” she remarked, pointing to the compounding pressures of inflation and rising living standards.

Li’s analysis also emphasized a critical factor for China: regional disparity. China’s economy is not monolithic. Incomes and costs of living in megacities are vastly different from those in rural villages. She argued that a uniform national payment would fail to account for these differences and could paradoxically worsen inequality. “A UBI that works in downtown Shanghai would be way too high for a small village in Guizhou,” she explained.

Her critique extended to the efficiency of social support. Li contended that China’s current welfare programs are specifically designed to assist the most vulnerable populations. Replacing this targeted aid with universal payments could dilute its impact. “We would be spending money on people who are already financially stable,” she said. “That spreads resources thinner and weakens support for people still struggling.”

This student debate illuminates a divide over the nature of social welfare. China’s system is built on targeted intervention. It is a model where officials assess needs, determine eligibility, and tailor support to local conditions. 

A universal program like UBI makes eligibility automatic for everyone. This concept may resonate with a younger generation navigating a highly competitive job market defined by unpredictability. Amid the issues of youth unemployment and the rise of platform-based gig work, traditional welfare may face increasing pressure. UBI speaks to a new form of economic stress in a world of Artificial Intelligence and automation..

The discussion also touched upon the potential impact on the labor supply. Li questioned whether workers in essential sectors, including logistics, construction, and factory production, would remain in their jobs if provided an unconditional financial floor. She suggested that even with a strong cultural work ethic, a UBI could lead some to reduce their hours or leave certain industries, potentially weakening productivity.

Lechman-Su responded by citing research from the United Nations Development Programme. The findings indicated that most respondents would continue working even with a UBI, driven by career goals and family responsibilities. From his viewpoint, this suggests the financial freedom from UBI would enable people to pursue more meaningful work. “People would continue to work,” he argued, “but maybe on things that they have more passion for.”

While Lechman-Su and Li disagreed on implementation in the mock debate, they both saw value in exploring the idea through smaller pilot programs. Conducting trials in specific provinces or for targeted groups, such as recent graduates or migrant workers, could provide valuable data on UBI’s real-world effects.

The core issue this debate raises is whether citizens be granted economic autonomy without direct oversight. UBI offers a model of simplicity and universality, but it requires relinquishing the filters that policymakers have historically used to target aid. Lechman-Su’s arguments emphasized the individual’s capacity to make productive choices. Li argued that often the government can direct resources more efficiently.

Ultimately, the debate between Lechman-Su and Li reveals that the most important question about UBI in China may not be whether it is affordable, but what it is for. Is the goal to patch the existing safety net or to build the foundation for a new one? The students’ dialogue signifies that automation will challenge us to keep asking these questions and probing the future of welfare for all countries.

Below is a video of additional Youth Scholars, Jenny and Sandy, showcasing their own debate on basic income in China.