Thread by @JustinSandefur

Quick thread on this:

https://twitter.com/MilanV/status/1029714322887327745

There is a key factual disagreement between IMF and @arvindsubraman's Economic Survey proposal for UBI as to whether the current public distribution system (PDS) is or is not progressive in practice -- and hence whether a move to UBI would be more or less so than status quo.

@arvindsubraman Chapter 9 of the 2016-17 Economic Survey concluded that the combination of (a) leakage and (b) mis-targeting in PDS was so great that less than 40% of spending reached the poorest 40% of the population.
indiabudget.gov.in/es2016-17/echa…

I summarized this argument at the time:
cgdev.org/blog/disinterm…

In contrast, the new IMF report comes to the opposite conclusion: PDS is mildly progressive, with just over 10% of spending going to poorest 10% -- so a shift to UBI would be a move in a regressive direction. Here's the relevant graph (Figure 1b):

Both calculations rely on NSS data. I suspect the difference is whether or not you account for systemwide leaking in PDS before doing the distributional analysis.

The skeptical question to ask @arvindsubraman is whether UBI could really ensure less leakage. Conversely for the IMF -- if my reading is correct -- why ignore one of the main proposed benefits of UBI, removing middle-men and reducing leakage?

@arvindsubraman In any case, for more on this, don't miss @khoslasaksham's great Carnegie report on India's UBI debate here:
carnegieendowment.org/files/CEIP_Kho…

/end