This is a very one-sided article. I would have hoped The Economist would do a fair analysis of the pros and the cons of such an implementation. The cons in this

This is a very one-sided article. I would have hoped The Economist would do a fair analysis of the pros and the cons of such an implementation. The cons in this case are very clear. 1. First of all, diverting funds from vital food and fertilizer supply to the poorest of the poor in order to fund this scheme is a self-defeating idea. 2. Corruption in cases involving direct money would be far higher than schemes involving food. 3. The poorest of the poor would not have a bank account and therefore, would not be able to benefit from this scheme. A large population of India happens to live in slums. This is the population that is in the most need of such a program but would not receive its benefits. Just because of these conditions, UBI is far more likely to help the rich than the poor. Fundamentally, UBI would only work for advanced societies. For poor societies, there just wouldn't be enough wealth to be distributed amongst everyone. This is the reason why UBI has worked well in the Scandinavian countries - their GDP per capita is already in the $50K-$70K range compared to India's $3K-$5K. It is far more likely that the politicians floated this idea to appease the citizens after the hardship they faced during the demonetization scheme.