Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Can American conservatives—some of the most rigid opponents to welfare policy in the US—be persuaded to support universal basic income (UBI)? I posit that UBI is distinct from other welfare programs in the US; such distinctions, in turn, make conservatives persuadable. I then argue that, by focusing on the distinct characteristics of UBI and the typical ideals among conservatives, framing can increase conservatives' support for UBI. To test this argument, I design a survey experiment that randomly exposes treated respondents to one of two frames: an equalizing-opportunity frame which emphasizes UBI as an opportunity-equalizing policy that promotes self-responsibility, and a limiting-government frame which highlights UBI as a policy that limits government and reduces bureaucracy. Evaluating the effects of these frames on conservatives' opinion on UBI, this study will inform the extent to which conservatives' support for UBI can be shaped by framing. In turn, it will shed light on the political feasibility of framing UBI in the US. In addition, this study will assess whether conservatives are more responsive to these frames than liberals are. Such a heterogeneous treatment effect, if present, will not only highlight an interesting ideological divide on UBI in the American context, but also challenge the conventional wisdom that conservatives are much harder to persuade in the context of American welfare politics.