Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would say that it was a pleasure to review the paper titled “Coping with Urban Poverty and Inequality by a Basic Income or a Basic Insurance Model? Some Theoretical Reflections". Theoretical or even philosophical studies generally rarely appear in scientific journals.

The aim of the paper was to critically discuss the unconditional basic income approach with respect to achieving the targets of SDG 1 ("no poverty") and SDG 10 ("reducing inequalities"). Here, I propose to consider also SDG 11: "Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable", particularly its target 11.B. The two approaches to social justice, presented in the paper, namely "unconditional basic income", and the "all citizens' insurance scheme" are very interesting and really inspire discussion and critique.

However, up to me, the article lacks a general critical approach to the possibility of achieving these goals of sustainable development without, inter alia, violating acquired property rights and the market principle of income and wealth distribution.

How can the Author critically relate to the feasibility of Goal 1: “End poverty in all its forms everywhere”, assuming, inter alia, the popular measure of poverty which is relative poverty? Would it finally mean egalitarian distribution of income and wealth? Similarly, how society can guarantee equal rights to economic resources? Rights to resources are generally determined by property rights (natural or acquired) or just by ownership. The same questions can be posed in relation to Goal 10 “Reduce inequality within and among countries” and its targets.

Since the beginning, mankind has been divided into poor and rich (also in communist countries or communities), so why do politicians and even some academic researchers believe that these differences can be eliminated within several dozen years? Is it their dream, desire, utopian idea, or strategy based on historical experience and scientific theories, especially economic, social, and political theories?

Let me quote Kukathas & Pettit “there are two aspects to political theory, traditionally conceived. It involves the analysis of what is politically feasible on the one hand and of what is desirable on the other” (Kukathas, C., Pettit,P, 1990: Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990, pp. 1–2).

Did the Author perceive any trade-offs or inconsistencies, for instance, “a reduction of inequalities of tax” (line 50) and “reduce (….) unequal tax policies” (line 56) versus striving for income equality and material poverty reduction? An example is a progressive tax system that is inherently unequal taxation but reduces income disparities.

Regardless of the imperatives associated with making specific political or public choices, poverty and social inequality are intractable and vital problems. However, any moves towards equality in education, health care, public transportation, cultural and sports institutions, etc. must negotiate the contradictions between equality and efficiency. If the services are free, are they used effectively? As an economist, I have to mention that "There is no such thing as a free lunch" (Friedman). We can imagine a happy world with people’s free-of-charge access to all basic services fully satisfying their needs, but someone (the government) has to finance their provision with some source of income (taxes). How to get people who would be willing to earn a high income and pay high taxes used to finance all basic needs of their co-citizens? They will vote with their feet, choosing other tax jurisdictions. The WHO data on Germany indicates that, in 2019, merely Social health insurance schemes accounted for 18.35% of the General government expenditure. Are the Germans' needs in health care satisfied?

When it comes to public health services during the Covid-19 pandemic, my country's experience shows that the public health sector has some shortcomings, but the private health sector (concerning the treatment of Covid-19) seems to have no interest in providing care at all. Doctors working in both sectors at the same time, provided remote counseling in public care, while in private health care they treated patients face to face in their offices.

Some specific comments:

44: “The targets of SDG 1 require by 2030, among other things, (i) to reduce relative poverty at least by half”. In fact, the target is: “reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions”

47: “In a similar vein, targets of SDG 10 demand (i) a sustaining income growth of the bottom 40 per cent based on a national average”. In fact, the target 10.1 is: “By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average”. Almost the same, but different nonetheless.

116: “Currently, the unconditional basic income (after that BI) and the general, equal and solidary citizens' insurance scheme (after that CIS) model”- The next part of the text uses an abbreviation IS.

140: “income of rents” – in economic vocabulary “rent” means income received for the use or occupation of the property, so “income of rents” is “income of income”, I propose a change for “rental income” or just rent

161-163: simulations do not include net public expenditure on administration of the BI program (extra BI administration costs minus administration savings due to abandoning all types of social welfare benefits)

173-174. “To tax consumption would also counteract efforts of a just climate and environmental protection policy, as consumption appears to be convenient and profitable”. Honestly saying I do not understand this statement. Does it mean that more consumption is better for climate and environment"?

208: “However, the following sections take the political and normative aspirations” – Political aspirations are usually normative aspirations. Politics is not value-neutral or not value-free, especially on such issues as justice, equality, and rights.

I propose to separate the "Research methods and sources" section or to write about the methods in the paper introduction.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your extensive review and valuable comments and advice, for which I am very grateful. My responses to your comments are in the document attached here.

Kind regards,
Andreas Koch

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good paper and I enjoyed and learned a good deal reading it.

I nonetheless have a few suggestions to the author:

• The perspective you seem to have on the SDG, both SDG1 and the others that indirectly aim at contributing to poverty reduction is very much normative. In other words, somehow uncritical insofar you seem to assume that these macro- hydro-cephalic operations put together by the multi-layered system of international co-operation and financing are i) good in themselves; ii) can be operationalized in any meaningful way; and iii) do not rather hinder more universalistic and politically-driven attempts to revindicate social, economic, cultural and environmental rights. This is my principal underlining, philosophical objection to the paper; that is, a suggestion to take a boulder position. Even if you decide to give the SDGs a go, starting by saying this is what we have and it is not really something that helps achieving results on the ground would help. I would personally join those who are radically critical of SDGs, but it is not my paper!
• I strongly agree with your point at the beginning of the discussion section concerning the limits of an individualistic approach to poverty alleviation, social protection and so forth, but I shall say more. Sen's entitlement approach is profoundly individualistic as it eventually rests on the pillars of a scholar trained in classical economics. He cannot break with the logic of individual well-being and even in his most accessible books like Development as Freedom his examples are .... based on cases tailored on the problem of individuals, the sick but rich person, etc. Indeed, as Esping-Andersen indirectly showed us, the architecture of western social protection is based on one-to-one (individual - family) provision of services and goods. The re-discussion of the relationship between the compelling force of capital and communities, places, etc. is seldom at stake (Harvey, Fainstein, etc. in your bibliography).
• I also liked your discussion on self-determination (3.3.), if anything it is actually too short and it might provide material for a stronger discussion of existing instruments for poverty reduction... if you look at the core of the SDGs and other measures and measurements (even Alkire an Foster), they are still at the unmet basic needs approach; none of them has a transformative proposal like the BI has.
• Now, if we agree on that... than your Social Capital and Bourdieu become more important than they seem to be in the paper. in fact, the way BI tend to be administered (look at Italy under the 5 stars movement) is once again targeting individuals and not areas, communities, places with the complexity. Of course, the logic of social protection is based on individually paid benefits at least since the charities in 17th century England to 19th century Germany (Prussia) and its Bismarckian reforms... but it could be discussed at least.
• In 3.1., which I found a stand-by-itself piece and a good fitting section, the argument that the opposition to BI is hence not really technical but political (are we going to pay people to be idle?!) could be brought in to amplify the resonance of the argument made. 

And now a couple of critical but important points:

• I have already talked about the SDGs, either you buy or not my suggestions, you should definitely either pull the SDGs out of your abstract and making of them just an example, or restructure the text as a discussion that constantly articulate that initial input. I suggest the first solution!
• The same applies to the urban question, it appears in one of your main heading N. 2 but the debate is just sketched as a couple of references to Harvey and to the over-abused issue of the right to the city do really even approximate the complexities of 'framing the context of urban inequality and exclusion'. Besides as a scholar who was born in the global north but worked all his life in the global south... just this divide would imply you to bring in at least two literatures. Here you have a similar choice: a)drop the urban, you will write another more focused paper on it and concentrate on discussing your BI / CIS; or b) develop a strong section on urban inequality and exclusion, from Brenner to Sassen, etc. we've plenty of key scholars to start with.
• Finally, what about Sustainability, why publishing here if you do not address the analytical relationship between your paper and the overall scope / purpose of the journal?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your extensive review and valuable comments and advice, for which I am very grateful. My responses to your comments are in the document attached here.

Kind regards,
Andreas Koch

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents an overview of various instruments used to protect vulnerable groups, including 'unconditional basic income' and the 'all citizens' insurance scheme.'  The paper presents a "Good review" of these approaches. However, it does not contribute to the literature. It lacks analytical depth and robust analysis. I would encourage the author to revisit the entire document and include a detailed analysis to improve the quality of the paper. 

More specifically, I have the following comments:

1. The introductory section needs further clarity to establish motivation (research question) with reference to the study area? Why are alternative models to support target groups performed better than existing ones?
2. The author may also incorporate some discussion on the contribution of the paper at the end of the introductory section
3. The author should add a section to present the methodological framework of the study. This section will help to develop a working hypothesis (testable propositions) to be linked with the introduction
4. Lastly, evaluate (analyze) hypothesis using either empirical analysis or document analysis based on published literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your extensive review and valuable comments and advice, for which I am very grateful. My responses to your comments are in the document attached here.

Kind regards,
Andreas Koch

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper is fine for publication