Publication Review

What Do Unemployed Workers Want: Guaranteed Jobs or Guaranteed Income?
by Lukas Lehner (University of Edinburgh) [1]

An analysis of the specific preferences of unemployed individuals when choosing between two highly debated social and economic policy frameworks: (a) Job Guarantee — a policy offering publicly funded employment to anyone willing and able to work, and (b) Guaranteed Income (Universal Basic Income) — direct, unconditional cash transfers to individuals regardless of employment status.

Extract of the preface

“This paper studies unemployed workers’ preferences for two widely debated social policy innovations often framed as rivals: a job guarantee and a basic income. It addresses how support for the two policies compares, how policy generosity shapes that support, and which groups are most supportive. Leveraging a randomized experiment in a representative survey of unemployed workers in Austria, the analysis documents broad support for both policies: consistently higher for guaranteed jobs though a majority support both policies. Increasing generosity raises support for each policy, and crossing a pay threshold above average unemployment benefits sharply increases willingness to accept guaranteed jobs. Support and willingness to participate are strongest among disadvantaged respondents, while a small socio-economically advantaged minority opposes both policies across generosity levels. The results suggest that guaranteed jobs and guaranteed income are better understood as complementary rather than opposing strategies for strengthening the welfare state in the twenty-first century.”

Comments by Pavlina Tcherneva (president, Levy Economics Institute) [2]

The Job guarantee and a Basic Income are often framed as rival policies. A recent Levy Institute working paper by Lukas Lehner surveys unemployed workers in Austria on their preferences between the two. He finds that support is broad for both, but is consistently higher for guaranteed jobs, with a majority backing both. Raising generosity increases support for either policy, and pay above the average unemployment-benefit level sharply boosts willingness to accept a guaranteed job. Support is strongest among disadvantaged respondents; only a small, socioeconomically advantaged minority opposes both regardless of generosity. Lehner concludes that job guarantees and basic income are better understood as complements than rivals for strengthening the twenty-first-century welfare state.

Comments by Wayne McMillan

While guaranteed income replaces existing social benefits, guaranteed jobs add an extra layer to the social safety net.

The reported results indicate widespread support for both guaranteed jobs and guaranteed income. Support is high across all generosity levels. On average, support amounts to 84% for guaranteed jobs and 62% for guaranteed income.

Support for both schemes increases with higher generosity. Support for guaranteed jobs rises from 73% at the unemployment-benefits level to 88% at the low-wage level and 91% at the living-wage level. Support for guaranteed income increases from 53% to 63% and 71%, respectively. Moving from the unemployment-benefits level to the low-wage level increases support by 15% for guaranteed jobs and 10% for guaranteed income. At the living-wage level, both schemes see an 18$ increase relative to the unemployment-benefits level. These differences are statistically significant.

A majority of respondents support both policies, indicating a complementary rather than oppositional sentiment. This trend towards mutual support strengthens progressively with higher generosity levels, suggesting mutually reinforcing support among respondents.

The second-largest group consists of respondents who show support for guaranteed jobs but not for guaranteed income. Their share remains relatively constant at 26% for the un-emploment benefits generosity level, 29% for the low-wage generosity level, and slightly lower at 21% for the livingwage generosity level.

Third in size is the group that does not support either policy. While their share amounts to 21% at the level of unemployment benefits, it drops markedly to around 8% with higher generosity levels. The increase from the low-wage to living-wage category barely reduces the share of this group, indicating a threshold beyond which further increases in generosity do not substantially diminish the core opposition against the policies.

A minimal subset of the cohort exhibits support for guaranteed income while withholding support for guaranteed jobs, with their proportion dwindling from 6% at the lowest generosity to 1% at the highest.

In conclusion: (a) Support is broad for both policies, though consistently stronger for guaranteed jobs, and the two policies are more often viewed as complementary than as rivals; (b) Experimentally increasing generosity raises support for both schemes and sharply increases willingness to accept a guaranteed job once pay moves just above average unemployment benefits; and (c) Analyses of determinants show that support and job acceptance are concentrated among more disadvantaged respondents, whereas a small socio-economically advantaged minority remains opposed to both policies regardless of generosity.

My thinking on Lehner’s paper is that under this specific, research design, the findings suggest that guaranteed jobs and guaranteed income are best understood not as competing alternatives, but as complementary strategies for strengthening the welfare state in the twenty-first century. However it should be mentioned that no questions were asked to unemployed workers about whether they (a) would be happier with government providing work on a living wage or a basic income at the same level, (b) believed that providing a guaranteed income at a living wage was inferior or superior to a guaranteed job at the same level, or (c) believed that government realistically could, or would, provide both a basic income and a job guarantee.

Comments by Alan Prout

The paper reports an empirical study of views about guaranteed jobs and income policies among unemployed workers in Austria. The sample was based on pre-stratified, non-clustered random selection by municipality (n= 1,215). The survey was administered via computer assisted telephone interviewing in five languages. The survey relied on a self-reported measure of non-employment that captured both registered and non-registered job seekers.

(1) Sources:
Levy Economic Inst, working paper 1125 https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/what-do-unemployed-workers-want/
[2] LinkedIn network, 20 Aug 2026
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/share:7495920463068540929/