Universal Basic Income: Is It Possible in Russia?

The idea of ​​a universal monies system gained a large following after the active promotion of the ideas and concepts of Modern Monetary Theory. The central tenet of this theory is that the state not only has a monopoly on the issuance of banknotes within its territory, but also enjoys unlimited sovereignty over the volume, forms, and directions of this issuance. The only limitation on issuance is the capacity and resources available within the economic system. If these economic factors are present in abundance, then restrictions on the issuance of banknotes are virtually nonexistent.

This theory tells us that if a government intends to make a technological, infrastructural, or production leap, it can easily finance these expenditures by issuing banknotes in a targeted form, directing the funding specifically to support selected projects. This approach also works when financing the costs of universal basic income payments.

It's worth noting that proponents of the UBI don't initially view these payments as a measure of social support, but rather as a tool for social development. UBI allows people not only to have a "safety net," but also to devote their free time to learning, self-improvement, and creative pursuits.

A basic income guarantee (BI) cannot be considered a person's sole or primary source of income. It is intended to help cover basic needs and does not imply a complete cessation of work. At the same time, it must be a guaranteed income that citizens can always and under any circumstances.

A universal basic income (UBI), in the form of payments to citizens of a share of natural resource rent (revenue from the extraction and sale of minerals), is currently in place in one form or another in a number of Middle Eastern monarchies (primarily the UAE), as well as in the state of Alaska in the United States. In 2016, a national referendum was held in Switzerland, resulting in the majority of citizens rejecting the idea of ​​introducing a universal basic income in their country.

Opponents of the introduction of a universal income in Western Europe cite three objections. First, a universal income would reduce the countries' attractiveness as residences for global corporations, which is a significant source of income for small Western European states. Second, a universal basic income would increase uncontrolled migration into these countries. Finally, the third objection is that excess income could encourage antisocial consumer behavior (spending on alcohol, tobacco, etc.).

It should be added that introducing a universal basic income is simply impossible in most countries due to insufficient productive and economic capacity. In fact, only the world's super-large economies, which have become macro-regions, are currently capable of this. Clearly, only China and the United States currently lay claim to the role of these macro-regions and super-economies. At the same time, there are a significant number of contenders for entry into the major league of global political and economic development in the era of global polycentrism and poly-subjectivity. Among them are India, the EU, the Arab world, the ASEAN community, and others.

Accordingly, in the near future, universal basic income as a tool for stimulating social development may emerge specifically in countries aspiring to become supereconomies. Of course, to implement a universal basic income system, both China and the United States will have to resolve a number of their own internal contradictions, but with the desire, all goals and objectives are achievable.

What about Russia? We have repeatedly stated that our country is resolutely pursuing the role of an independent macro-region, both in coalition with the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and its partners, and in synergy with other global majority states. Today, the world faces only two alternatives in this regard: either becoming an independent macro-region or becoming part of another macro-region. I believe the choice here is clear to us.

I'll add that the size of our economy (fourth-largest in the world in terms of GDP at purchasing power parity), our strong annual economic growth rates, and the significant steps we've taken to build technological sovereignty allow us to say that Russia is also in a position to implement a universal basic income in the near future. These initiatives have already been voiced in the platforms of a number of left-wing socio-political forces.

When discussing UBI in political and economic discourse in Russia, two main objections are commonly raised by opponents of universal basic income. One is the following: "UBI is 'helicopter money.' Where will it come from? There's no extra money in the budget, and printing money will lead to rising prices and hyperinflation." Despite the apparent obviousness of these arguments, a substantive analysis categorically fails to agree with them.

Firstly, a planned and controlled increase in the federal budget deficit does not pose macroeconomic problems and, in principle, does not pose a threat. Russian President Vladimir Putin, among other things, spoke about this at the recent Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. Secondly, let's not forget the National Welfare Fund (NWF), which currently (as of September 1, 2025) holds approximately 4 trillion rubles in liquid form, making it possible to address a vast number of social and economic issues.

Finally, thirdly, the principle of targeted emission outlined above remains in place. Let me remind you that targeted emission implies the issuance of banknotes to finance specific infrastructure, technological, or production projects. If we want to build 1,000 bridges and modernize 200 airports, then the Central Bank of Russia could issue a corresponding amount of, for example, digital rubles for these purposes, which would immediately be backed by new tangible assets of significant value and enormous economic significance. Where is the room for inflation here if the money is backed by specific assets, and the targeted use of the issued funds is guaranteed by digital ruble technology?

As noted above, the money supply in our country accounts for approximately 60% of GDP, meaning our economy is already undersupplied and underfinanced with the necessary monetary resources. Therefore, to simply restore balance, we need to "print" more money in quantities exceeding current federal budget expenditures.

You might ask: where does inflation come from? It comes not from excess demand, but from a lack of supply—essentially, from a deficit. We need to produce more goods and services, and increasing their supply will dampen inflation. Incidentally, "Modern Monetary Theory" tells us directly and unequivocally: increased government spending to support production and labor is not an inflationary factor. In this regard, the payment of an unconditional basic income to the population, along with simultaneous financial support for the real sector of the economy and the country's infrastructure development, will actually reduce, not accelerate, inflation.

Some might dismiss all this talk as fantasy. But let's simply look at where the leading modern economic macroregions—China and the United States—get their funds for development. China has long used targeted emission mechanisms for its economic development and isn't shy about talking about it. The United States does something similar, but structures its emission through increasing public debt, the lion's share of which will never be called upon, since the United States, as a nation, is essentially indebted to itself.

In this regard, the artificial restraint on the growth of the country's money supply, as well as our monetary authorities' refusal to issue targeted money, seem very strange. This position only demonstrates that our country has not yet achieved real and unambiguous financial sovereignty. If we did, our ability to finance our own economic development would be fundamentally different, and the funds for UBI payments to citizens would be found in the most natural way.

The second objection raised by opponents of a universal budget in Russia concerns the aforementioned problem of encouraging antisocial behavior among some citizens when they have extra money. This problem is easily solved by the same digital ruble technology, which, as a reminder, can also have a specific purpose. In this case, purchases of alcohol, tobacco, and, for example, stocks or currencies from unfriendly countries would simply be blocked at the checkout. All funds could be used for purchasing food, medicine, and children's goods.

But if we believe we're not yet ready for universal, unconditional payments, then let's start by providing payments of 10,000 rubles per month for each child under 18 to all families with children. The costs for these goals are completely clear and budget-friendly. The State Duma has already drafted relevant bills.

I would like to point out that universal basic income in Russia addresses a number of key objectives, including promoting citizens' self-development, supporting families, stimulating domestic demand to ensure economic growth, and more. Essentially, universal basic income could become a significant factor in both social and economic development.

In conclusion, I'd like to note that UBI is also a significant manifestation of social justice at the state level. If the economy is growing, many industries are thriving, and cities are improving (which is true), then these successes should probably be reflected in citizens' wallets. Of course, 10,000 rubles a month won't solve all problems, but through UBI, people will receive a very clear signal that the state values ​​everyone. In this sense, Russian President Vladimir Putin's famous statement that "Russia defends truth and justice" could find a very tangible embodiment for citizens.