ABSTRACT There are compelling arguments for why basic income may be a powerful, transformative eco‐social policy tool in advanced welfare states. However, closer scrutiny reveals that the relationship between BI's ecological and social objectives is also marked by deep tensions. This second part of the article—Part 2 of 2—identifies and explores four paradoxes that seriously complicate the green case for basic income. These paradoxes help explain why the ecological and social goals expressed in post‐growth BI discourse often conflict more deeply than green BI proponents may admit. They also suggest that common claims of BI as a radically transformative, green policy are overstated. Still, the tensions exposed are paradoxes, not fatal contradictions. Rather than undermining the eco‐social case for BI, they can be addressed constructively and used to guide the formulation of BI's precise role and value in the green transformation of welfare states.
Simon Birnbaum (Fri,) studied this question.