More on the nitty-gritty of the UBI mechanism advocated for Guyana - the Americas fastest rising Petrostate,

Thus, these are dependent on:

the dollar value of the transfer commitment: [Note I have recommended a “tithe” or about ten percent of Government Take]

the institutional capability of the UBI mechanism [hence my proposals on operationalizing the mechanism]

Note from an ideological perspective: All households benefit!

The ninth feature is a list of recommended readings, citing Development Agencies that express support for cash transfers as a poverty policy intervention tool [ see Table 1]

To be frank, technical challenges will remain intrinsically acute in the Buxton Proposal. These, however, ultimately drive my call for a feasibility and pilot study. Ultimately the fate of the Proposal is dependent on the level of political support it can garner nationwide.

Finally, two other observations are worthy of note. One is a major “appeal” of the Buxton Proposal is that it is straightforward, in comparison to other government poverty intervention programmes. It avoids having to design target groups and to control their discretionary features. This is not to deny grey areas in the practical determination of a Guyanese household. Decades of socioeconomic surveys however ensure this capability does reside in the Bureau of Statistics, BoS, which has regularly used the household as a cornerstone of innumerable official surveys.

Second, a major aim of the Proposal is to reduce both poverty and inequality. Consequently, cash transfers must be large enough to have a meaningful impact. The other observation is the distinction between conditional and unconditional transfers. In the instance of the Buxton Proposal; cash transfers to all Guyanese households pose a “false dichotomy”. Thus, while all households qualify automatically the transfer is without any explicit condition.Conclusion

The next topic addresses directly the drivers and metrics that undergird this UBI mechanism termed the Buxton Proposal.