The Role of UBI in Mitigating the Effects of Psychosocial Stressors: A Review and Proposal

Abstract

Psychosocial stressors and social disadvantages contribute to inequalities in opportunities and outcomes. In the current paper, we use an epidemiological perspective and highlight the role stress plays on individuals by reviewing the outcomes of major stressors such as poverty and unemployment. We further analyzed the psychological and physical cost of these stressors and their long-term impact. We examined the role of universal basic income and closely looked at income experiments that were implemented in the past, in terms of their effectiveness in enhancing the community as well as individual outcomes and propose the UBI as a tool for alleviating the impact of these stressors. At a time when a major pandemic (e.g., COVID-19) threatens economic stability and health globally, we believe the UBI is relevant now, more than ever.

Keywords

Universal basic income psychological well-being poverty inequality psychosocial stressors

Introduction

An individual’s psychological and physical well-being depends on multiple factors, including the dynamic interaction between nature and nurture. Neuronal connections are built throughout the course of human development, and there are specific periods during development that may be particularly sensitive to environmental stressors and have overarching effects on one’s life. Stressors are psychosocial experiences that lead to negative outcomes (Gorin, 2000). When stressors are encountered during sensitive periods, they can produce deleterious effects in a person, impacting their stress signaling pathways by disinhibiting them, which in turn leads to impairments of neural responses and symptoms of extensive prefrontal cortical dysfunction, commonly observed in psychosis (Bloomfield et al., 2019). The current paper seeks to examine the role of Universal Basic Income (UBI) in an epidemiological context as a preventive mechanism in alleviating the effects of psychosocial stressors and social disadvantages across different settings. We believe the UBI is in urgent need of implementation considering the global state of affairs due to COVID-19, with thousands being unemployed suddenly and a major threat of economic recession looming ahead. Globally, people are at risk of being homeless and unable to fend for themselves. Together, all of this could pose major mental health-risks in addition to the existing physical health risk.

UBI is an arrangement where the state provides all citizens with a periodic income on an individual basis, which helps them achieve a basic minimum living standard regardless of their income, employment, or other aspects of living arrangements. We also look into the ways in which environmental stressors affect individuals while attempting to elucidate how an unconditional basic income may serve as a means of alleviating existing outcomes of inequalities of opportunities and, therefore, indirectly inequalities of outcomes between different sections of society.

Though the consequences of stress have been studied time and again, they remain a crucial determinant of the quality of life and hence must be studied in emerging socio-economic contexts. There are many sources of stress, one of which is the lack of adequate finances. Our lives are spent in achieving upward social mobility, which, for the most part, is driven by financial capacity. Finances comprise an important aspect of our lives and might have a pronounced effect on our lifestyle and the course of our personal lives. There are stark differences in outcomes in practically every sphere of life (health, education, employment, etc.) between those who have sufficient access to monetary resources and those who do not. For the present review, we made use of research databases such as PubMed. We looked at income-based experiments done across the globe and in multiple contexts. Some of the keywords we used included: basic income, universal basic income, basic income experiments, and basic income poverty.

Why does financial security matter?

Our socio-economic status is, to a large extent, determined by our finances, which determines our access to resources (healthcare, housing, education, etc.). In developing countries, high mortality, as well as morbidity, are linked to poverty, illiteracy, as well as lower socioeconomic status (Aftab et al., 2012). Individuals from poor income backgrounds with lower levels of education are faced with serious economic difficulties, and in turn, face greater mental health risks as compared to individuals who are not from lower- and middle-income countries. The interaction between poverty and mental disorders is said to be a vicious cycle. Mental disorders add to further disabling individuals from sustaining themselves, whether it is in the form of work or in their daily life functions.

Why do stressors matter?

It has been observed that the stress response style of an individual is determined by his or her respective social environments (Taylor et al., 1997). According to Selye (1956), when faced with stressors, individuals react in ways that, in the long-term, lead to poor physical health. Repeatedly cycling through the phases of alarm, resistance and exhaustion take a toll on one’s health. Beginning from the early years of life, there are cascading relationships between one’s environment and genetic predispositions that, to a large extent, determine the differences found among individuals with respect to susceptibility to stress as well as disease in some cases. Our physiological systems constantly adjust to fulfill the demands of different situations, a term called allostasis. In the long-term, allostatic response to stressors accumulates, and this constitutes the physiological cost of continued exposure to heightened neural as well as neuroendocrine responses that are due to constant, repeated environmental stressors. One of the most crucial factors that affect the allostatic index of an individual’s health is access to adequate monetary resources to secure commodities essential for daily life (e.g., food, housing, etc.). Though allostasis is a protective response to threatened homeostasis, if the threats are consistent, in the long-term, the allostatic load becomes harmful and negatively affects a person (McEwen, 2000).

The role of income in unemployment and poverty

The distress wrecked on people who find themselves unemployed is significant, as it alters their quality of life, perceptions of self and affects their overall psychological well-being. Unemployment might be due to several factors and is more economically harmful to less developed than in developed countries (Paul & Moser, 2009). As per Jahoda’s (1981) latent deprivation model, unemployment causes distress in individuals because it leads to a lack of five latent functions that are the outcomes of employment. These are, namely, time structure, social contact, collective purpose, status, and activity, all of which serve crucial psychological needs (Jahoda 1981,1982; Paul & Moser, 2009). Unemployment and poverty, along with the outcomes of financial instability, might lead to chronic physiological stress, which might be reflected by the allostatic load.

Again, we must differentiate between the loss of a job, which is an event, whereas unemployment is a state of remaining without a job over a period of time. Since unemployment is a prolonged loss of job over a certain duration, it leads to economic, psychological, and physical impacts. Employment has a manifold purpose in a person’s life, fulfilling different functions such as an opportunity to socialize and attain a social position among others, time structure, and a sense of purpose, among other things (Jahoda,1982), alongside a threat to financial security. Unemployed individuals have lower physical and psychological well-being than those who are employed. Evidence from cross-sectional studies indicates that those who were unemployed have lower well-being than those employed. Further research, in the form of longitudinal studies, also found that well-being reduces when people transition from employment to unemployment, while it increases as the person shifts back into employment. (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). In some cases, it may also be that poor psychological and physical health led to a loss of employment. But again, the extent to which unemployment will affect physical and psychological health depend on several factors.

McKee-Ryan and Kinicki (2002) formulated the coping-stress framework to explain the varied outcomes of job loss. The level of psychological or physical effect on the unemployed person will depend on coping resources, cognitive appraisal, coping strategies, human capital, and demographics. Coping resources include personal, social, financial resources and time structure. In comparision, cognitive appraisal includes stress appraisal, internal attribution, and expectations for reemployment. Coping strategies would include effort for job search, problem or emotion-focused coping (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). It has been found that unemployed workers had significantly lower mental health, life, marital, and family satisfaction and subjective physical health compared to people who were employed.

There can be multiple responses to a stressor, such as unemployment. For the same reason, the researchers suggested that future studies on unemployment and well-being would benefit from focusing on the unemployed person's personal preferences and needs. Also suggested was a focus on other variables such as substance abuse and other jobs stress-related physiological and behavioral outcomes that result from it. They also suggested a focus on the positive aspects of unemployment be researched, such as proactive coping, career development, and growth. A need for transactional research based on cognitive appraisal, strategies used to cope and their interaction with one another, and well-being when unemployed was suggested. More empirical studies also need to be conducted on this topic (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005).

Linn et al. (1985) found that when compared to men who were employed, unemployed men displayed somatic symptoms, depression, and a greater extent of anxiety. It was also found that unemployed males made more frequent visits to their physicians, had a higher intake of medicines, and had more frequent sick days.

Several variables moderate the effects of unemployment from a psychological perspective, such as gender. The male identity is dependent to a certain extent on the ability to play the provider’s role, which is enabled by being employed; to this end, unemployability may be rather threatening to a man. Another aspect to consider is that the stigma attached to unemployed men is greater than that attached to unemployed women, which could be partial attributed to their traditional gender roles. One’s socioeconomic status and occupational status might also exacerbate the effect of unemployment. Higher occupational status is associated with greater social and monetary resources and better-coping abilities compared to those with a lower occupational status. Unemployment is also said to be greater in those who are middle-aged compared to other age groups. The duration of unemployment also impacts psychological well-being, with a longer duration of unemployment being associated with greater deterioration of mental health as attempts to employ oneself might be met with failure, depletion of savings, and mounting financial pressures (Paul & Moser, 2009).

The economic development of a country is negatively associated with the number of individuals who are resolved to a fate of poverty. Unemployed individuals as a group may suffer from greater economic deprivation that is severe and is also at a greater threat of falling into poverty than other groups (Paul & Moser, 2009). Poverty might be a gradual outcome of unemployment or be due to wage rates being too less to provide more than a bare minimum, among other factors. Material deprivation is a sign of poverty, scarcity of food, inadequate housing, lack of rent money, lack of finances for healthcare influence overall health, including social and cognitive development. Regardless of its cause, the outcomes are almost always associated with poor mental health or an increased risk of poor psychological health.

The role of socioeconomic status in stress

Socioeconomic status (SES) consists of one’s social position, power, prestige, and economic well-being. Both unemployment and poverty influence SES. Socioeconomic status can be defined along the lines of financial capital or economic resources; human capital can be defined in terms of knowledge and skill-set. It also includes social capital, pertaining to the status of an individual in society, as well as their social network. In general, we can say that these three factors interact with each other. For instance, the financial resources available at one’s disposal would determine the quality and extent of educational opportunities, employment opportunities, etc., which would, in turn, affect their social standing as well (Coleman 1990; Conger & Donnellan, 2007). People from lower SES are reported to experience a greater number of stressors in life (Lefmann, 2014). Belonging to a lower SES increases exposure to change and instability, increasing levels of distress (Wadsworth, 2012).

According to the family stress model (FSM) of economic hardship, low income is linked to major developmental difficulties in children. Family functioning can also be undermined by severe financial hardships. This model was devised to explain the manner in which financial hardship affected the lives of families in Iowa during a slump in the agricultural economy during the 1980s. Economic struggles lead to pressure within the family, marked by low income, debts, work instability, and so on. According to this model, economic pressures may be in the form of material needs such as the need for proper food and clothing that are left unmet, making ends meet, cutting back on expenses, such as medical insurances, etc. The experiences that result from these unmet needs contribute to the psychological strain on individuals amid economic hardships (Conger & Conger, 2002; Conger & Elder, 1994).

Another model to explain the interplay between economic forces and their influence on the family is the family investment model (FIM). The FIM is based on principles of investment and posits that socioeconomic status plays a role in the ability to access resources. According to the FIM, those from a higher SES will have access to more financial, social, and human capital because access to greater amounts of economic resources allows families to invest in different aspects of their children ‘s lives. At the same time, disadvantaged families are more concerned with fulfilling their immediate needs. Being financially well-off allows for material investments for the family that fosters all-round development in children. In this way, human capital (such as education) in parents will also influence human capital in children. Therefore, having a higher SES would facilitate social, occupational, educational, and other capital in offspring, leading to better outcomes for them as compared to children from a lower SES (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). Ahmed and Kingsolver (2005) recommended that providing small loans or microcredit to poverty-stricken families might help them to develop their enterprises and, in the process, find a way to support themselves.

Effect of financial stress on parental mental health

When financial pressures increase, parental mental health is at risk. Parents may experience emotional distress in the form of depression, anxiety, alienation, and behavioral concerns in the form of substance use and behaviour that is antisocial. These problems go on to affect marital relationships and create conflict. It has been proposed that economic deprivation threatens child well-being through parenting style. Due to the toll that poverty takes on individuals, parenting behavior might be affected as the burden of trying to make ends might lead to a reduced ability to support their child emotionally as well as provide substantial care, all of which could lead to mental health risks in the child (Mistry et al., 2002; Skinner et al., 1992).

The stress associated with poverty leads to heightened levels of psychological distress, depression, and feelings of hostility in parents who are poor. This distress may then have a spillover effect, and influence marital as well as other relationships in the family. Parent’s psychological distress may then have an impact on parenting ability or style; in other words, parents could resort to more punitive, harsh, and detached parenting techniques that might be characterized by less nurturing, and responsiveness (Duncan et al., 2017). Overall, with negatively nurturing parental patterns, the child’s cognitive, emotional, and physical well-being may be jeopardised (Conger & Donnellan, 2007).

Resilience to economic struggles is determined by factors such as martial support, the ability for effectual problem-solving, and mastery over one’s environment. A nurturing parenting style buffers the difficulties experienced by children and adolescents exposed to economic stressors (Conger & Conger, 2002).

According to Gary Becker (1991), child development is influenced by both endowments and parental investments. As per his theory of household production, it is suggested that children from poor households lag behind those from advantaged families partly because their parents do not have the purchasing power to give them access to greater amounts of resources. They also have less time to spend with their children due to reasons, such as single parenthood, unspecified work hours, and work schedules that have low flexibility. The extent to which children receive cognitive stimulation also varies with family income (Duncan et al., 2017; Votruba-Drzal, 2006)

Halliday Hardie and Lucas (2010) found that economic hardships were linked to greater discord between married as well as cohabiting couples and that economic factors can predict conflict among both. Given these and the above-mentioned findings, we suggest that financial support for couples might serve as an effective means of reducing the stress inflicted on them due to economic difficulties.

Effect of financial stressors on women and maternal health

Gender plays a role in the extent to which individuals exert control over their health in the form of factors such as economic and social status, accessibility to resources, and treatment in society. Patel et al. (2006) sought to determine the association of factors that might indicate gender disadvantage and reproductive health with the risk of common mental disorders (CMD) in women. They found that the most common diagnoses were of mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, mild depressive disorder, moderate or severe depressive disorder, phobic disorder, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Overall, they found that the risk of acquiring common mental disorders was much higher in those who had been at the receiving end of gender disadvantages and economic difficulties. Lower socioeconomic status in women also puts them at an increased risk of both physical and sexual abuse along with depression.

Additionally, being from a lower socioeconomic status leads many women into forced prostitution, such as those found in Asian countries, among others (Tinker, 2000). In countries such as low-income countries such as Nepal, poverty and unemployment are significant issues. Researchers found that female sex-workers in Nepal have limitations in terms of economic opportunities and reported that the most common reason for joining the sex-trade was due to poor economic conditions. A limitation of the study was that it was based on non-probability sampling (Sagtani et al., 2014). With the Democratic Republic of Congo's economic collapse, many females were forced into the sex trade. Researchers found that female sex-workers engaged in unprotected intercourse to earn higher pay. They also found that these same women were significantly more likely to be living in lower socio-economic areas. The authors hypothesized that one of the reasons for this high-risk practice was due to their dire socioeconomic conditions; these women also had to care for at least one child under the age of six (Ntumbanzondo, 2006). In India, socioeconomic circumstances were the main reason for a woman’s involvement in sex work; again, dire economic conditions led to them engaging in unprotected intercourse and put them at risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (Reed et al., 2010).

Experiences during pregnancy can have a substantial impact on health outcomes for both mother and child. Stress during pregnancy might be worsened by other aspects such as poor food security, poor housing facilities, violence, etc., that are realities faced when one lives in the midst of poverty. Anemia may be an outcome of the inability to buy adequate supplies or access to quality food. When a pregnant woman undergoes severe stress, the formation of neural connections is affected, leading to a reduction of synaptic plasticity as well as activity of neurotransmitters that, in turn, affect both behavioral and cognitive functioning in the child (Weinstock, 2008). When faced with severe stress in the course of gestation, the hippocampal volume reduces, and neurogenesis is affected (Coe et al., 2003).

Most complications associated with pregnancy, such as preterm labor, haemorhage, and other problems, are commonly found in women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Antenatal care is crucial in reducing risk factors, but again the likelihood of utilizing these services is influenced by poverty (Nisar & White, 2003). In Pakistan, it was found that the low status associated with women kept them from taking part in health development and consequently was linked to high morbidity in women. It was reported that a Pakistani woman has a 1 in 23 chance of dying due to maternal complications as compared to 1 in 5,000 in the industrialized world (Mahsud-Dornan, 2007).

Aftab et al. (2012) suggested that financial contribution would be empowering for women as it would prevent them from moving into poverty as well as help them gain a certain degree of financial independence. Being financially dependent might induce a certain sense of vulnerability in women as it is linked to helplessness, fear as well as insecurity. In such contexts, a universal basic income might serve as a source of income to bolster financial independence in women while at the same time lead to their betterment.

Effect of stressors on the mental health of children and adolescents

Stressors may be socially structured, with their outcomes are predominantly borne out by the less advantaged members of society (Pearlin, 1989). The role of gene-environment interactions is significant where psychopathology is concerned. Research indicates that poverty in early childhood might have long-term impacts on health, as neural developmental is generally rapid during this period. Poverty in childhood has been associated with poor health as well as social outcomes, greater instances of disease, lower school achievement as well as behavioural and emotional concerns (Moore et al., 2002).

Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) identified pathways through which poverty might exert an influence on children. These pathways include health, nutrition, home environment, parental interactions with children, parental mental health, and neighborhood conditions. The likelihood of poor mental health outcomes is greater for children living in the clutches of poverty. This tends to be the case because these children experience ever-increasing levels of hardships, while at the same time having little chances of replenishing resources to cope effectively. Poverty has been linked to both internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression as well as externalizing disorders such as antisocial and oppositional behavior in children (Strohschein & Gauthier, 2018).

Psychoimmunological evidence indicates that experiences of chronically elevated physiological stress responses influence a child’s stress response system adversely. It also interferes with brain regions that are necessary for self-regulation. Children from low-income households are also observed to have higher levels of stress hormones compared to those from higher-income households. Furthermore, these high levels of experienced physiological stress are associated with a decrease in immunological and cognitive functioning, all of which have long-lasting implications for developing inflammatory diseases later in life (Duncan et al., 2017).

A specific type of antisocial behaviour that is life-course-persistent is characterized by learned responses to chronic adversities during childhood, which includes economic deprivation. Children who grow up in poorer households develop a pattern of behavior that is characterized by aggression towards their environment, which stabilizes over time and is difficult to unlearn (Moffitt, 1993).

Childhood experiences of poverty have been linked to higher morbidity and a shorter lifespan in adulthood. It’s also been linked to stress dysregulation (G. W. Evans & Kim, 2007). Chen et al. (2002) found that both poverty and low SES were associated with increased basal blood pressure in under 13-year olds. In a study that sought to evaluate the influence of current poverty and duration of poverty on depressive symptomology for white-adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, it was found that the duration of time spent in poverty was a predictor of adolescent depression (Butler, 2014). Heightened risk exposure to poverty in early childhood compromises the ability of the body to deal with environmental demands effectively.

Developmental research and social epidemiology point toward the inequalities in health in socially disadvantaged adults and children in the form of heightened risk for physical, emotional, and behavioural problems. Conger et al. (1999) found that adolescents' sense of mastery of control over time was affected because of their perceptions of family economic hardships, leading to increased emotional distress. Lower socioeconomic status has been associated with impairments in short-term memory functioning in childhood (G. W. Evans, 2016).

Childhood trauma and other stressful life events have been linked to the development of mental health conditions, including psychosis (Mayo et al.,2017). As traumatic life events and family stress can have such a longstanding impact on mental health (Bøe et al.,2018), buffering children from the stressors that arise out of the lack of resources becomes extremely important, which may be achieved to a certain extent by providing basic financial support.

Effect of financial stressors on adult mental health

Adult mental health outcomes have been linked to childhood disadvantages. A prospective, longitudinal study found that poverty during childhood could predict psychological well-being in adulthood. It was found that adults who belonged to low-income families had a higher allostatic load (a measure of chronic physiological stress), meaning that their propensity to develop chronic illnesses would be much more in comparison to other individuals. Consequently, these individuals also had greater levels of externalizing symptoms, such as aggression and behaviours that demonstrated powerlessness. In developing countries, evidence shows that when economic decisions have to be made under conditions of scarcity, behavioral self-control is reduced in adults, thereby reducing their capacity to regulate their behavioral repertoire and achieve their long-term goals (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). Poverty during childhood was also found to predict short-term spatial memory in adulthood (G. W. Evans, 2016).

Epidemiological research points to the role of childhood disadvantage in adult physical health. Chronic exposure to uncontrollable stressors might induce feelings of helplessness due to a reduced sense of mastery. In disadvantaged families, experiences such as turmoil due to unemployment, substandard housing, reduced food security, etc., might serve as agents of stress that, in turn, might degrade the individual’s sense of mastery as well as self-efficacy. Helplessness behaviours in adulthood were found to be greater as a function of childhood poverty. Higher levels of externalizing symptoms were found in adults from poorer households (G. W. Evans, 2016). The Royal College of Psychiatrists (2010) in their study, found that half of the adults who live with debts in the UK also have mental-health concerns. These consisted of feelings of anxiety and low moods, as well as other psychiatric disorders. A lot of the anxiety faced due to debts are from the lack of support from family, friends, and creditors, among others. In such cases, a bare minimum income might serve as a supportive measure.

The above literature of review suggests that low income, unemployment, and poverty are some of the major factors that increase stress levels that, in turn, leads to deterioration of physical and mental health. It has been shown that a basic level of financial support can reduce and alleviate mental stress that, in turn, is beneficial to overall well-being. Therefore, we propose that implementing a Universal Basic Income may act as a preventive tool for attenuating the effects of psychosocial stressors and social disadvantages. Next, we have discussed some studies in this context that suggests the psychological benefits of UBI.

UBI as a preventive tool for attenuating the effects of psychosocial stressors and social disadvantages

There has been growing discontent overusing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a robust measure of the well-being of a country (Stiglitz, 2010). Rising inequality and persistent poverty remain some of the significant impediments to the subjective well-being and happiness of a nation, irrespective of the economic wealth it produces (World Happiness Report, 2017). Currently, we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is believed to be ushering us into a global economic recession. Yet again, we are faced with stories of widespread unemployment, followed by diminishing savings, homelessness, and along with these mental health concerns such as anxiety and depression primarily triggered by the health and financial uncertainty. A study in India that looked at the psychological distress as a result of the pandemic found that, among other factors, the availability of resources affected the levels of stress in participants. They also found that family affluence was negatively correlated with stress, anxiety, and depression (Rehman et al., 2020). The socioeconomic status of individuals was found to impact on levels of depression in Nigeria during the pandemic (Agberotimi, 2020). In China, a study conducted on college students found that have parental support, living with them, a steady family income served as protective factors against developing anxiety during the pandemic; stressors included economic ones (Cao et al., 2020). According to one study done in Nepal, the current pandemic has only served to increase unemployment, loan defaults and caused severe economic concerns, leading to inequalities in health and social inequalities. Particularly affected are those who rely on a daily wage and small businesses, and others with limited income sources (Poudel & Subedi, 2020). As such, the current pandemic may prove to marginalize further and add to an increased economic and psychological burden due to increased job insecurity and challenges to accessing resources due to decreased means to do so (e.g., lack of finances/limited income).

In such situations, the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been increasingly seen as a ‘part’ of the solution and often cited as an idea whose time has finally come. A basic income is thus not merely a strategy for dealing with poverty; it is the elimination of income-poverty. The UBI is also seen as a step towards inequality reduction, as various studies have demonstrated a significant contribution of income transfer programs in decreasing the level of income inequality (Silva, 2008; Varshavsky, 2008). The concern that free money would encourage people to be lazy and spend money on alcohol or drugs has both been found to be inaccurate (D. K. Evans & Popova, 2014; Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016; Salehi-Isfahani & Mostafavi-D, 2017)

A basic income has been cited as key to democratic change; it is a right that extends over the life course of an individual (Pateman, 2004). Rights are considered to be basic if enjoying them is a precursor to enjoying other kinds of rights. Bertram Pickard (1919) considered a state bonus to be equivalent to rights pertaining to life, land as well as liberty. As per Henry Shue (1996), a basic right is a right that ensures that no individual has to survive beneath a certain level of subsistence. Shue insisted that subsistence is a basic right that grants one “a decent chance at a reasonably healthy and active life of more or less normal length, barring tragic interventions” (Shue, 1996 as cited in Barbara, 2017). One could say a basic income is a right that protects other rights (Barbara, 2017). It can be thought of as a democratic right that is essential to individual freedom (Pateman, 2004). Mays and Marston (2016) thought of UBI as an instrument of emancipation for those under welfare who might be experiencing a blow to their well-being and sense of self, their self-identity, and their personhood under existing policies.

UBI in times of global health threats

There is a huge economic cost when it comes to pandemics and other global health threats. Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on global markets, large and small businesses alike, and individuals who are now faced with job uncertainty. Financial security is threatened like never before.

Quarantines, restrictions on travel, and social-distancing measures may result in drastic measures on consumers with respect to spending, as demand for non-essential commodities reduces. Stay at home policies may lead to major losses of revenue for businesses, and consequently, employee layoffs and a sharp rise in unemployment. With falling business investments and increasing corporate bankruptcies, the pressure on financial and banking systems will also increase, and in turn, lead us into a downward spiral resulting in a recession (Craven et al., 2020). Several countries have begun to look at unconditional basic income or related income packages as a solution for the ongoing crisis. In the UK, the government has provided a scheme that seeks to provide immediate relief for those who have been furloughed. In the US also, federal government health was promised to households as well as businesses. All of these schemes have been specifically implemented due to the pandemic. They are not, however, UBI schemes, although they have features of the same (Prabhakar, 2020).

UBI as a source of basic financial security

A UBI, due to its unconditional nature, might provide a consistent source of income that could help individuals feel sufficiently safe to explore job opportunities or provide a form of financial security when unemployed or living in poverty (Van Parijs, 2004). However, Caputo (2007) found that employment may not necessarily guarantee stability. He found that almost a quarter of households spent a minimum of a year in the “working poor” criteria. Females and minority households were found to be in this category to a greater extent. As per Caputo’s recommendation, a UBI might be part of the solution to this problem. UBI might also be a preventive solution when faced with uncertain economic conditions. Canada is said to be facing economic uncertainty as a number of sectors are dependent on its fossil fuel industry, which is deteriorating. In Canada, the UBI acts as a means of protecting citizens from unpredictable employment conditions and the possible aftermath of automation (Mulvale, 2008; Mulvale & Frankel, 2016).

In 2011, two pilots funded by UNICEF were launched by the Self-Employed Women’s Association in Madhya Pradesh. All males and females were given an allowance of 200 rupees. The amount was later increased to rupees 300. The findings of the study indicated that many used the money received to improve their housing, latrines, walls, roofs, and also to take precautions against malaria. Nutrition was also noted to have improved, especially in scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) households. The basic income also led to small-scale investments, such as on better seeds, sewing machines, the establishment of shops, and equipment repair as well. An increase in labor and work was also noticed, there were greater levels of self-employment as well. Furthermore, there was a decrease in bonded labor. It was also found that among those who had received a basic income, there was reduced debt, and the likelihood of going into debt was also reduced, one of the reasons being that they didn’t need to borrow in the short-term (Standing, 2013).

The elderly can also benefit from a basic income. Given the lack of adequate pension coverage, senior citizens in a country like India, are largely dependent on their offsprings or others for maintaining their livelihood. The study also found that their body has less resilience to stress, making it difficult for them to accommodate the body’s natural stress response adequately. An assured income that is enough to meet basic needs could help this population to maintain autonomy, feel secur, and have enhanced meaning in life. They would not be required to be dependent upon their offsprings just to be taken care of. The MP case study shows us that cash grants led to frequent medical treatment and regular intake of medicines, which got reflected in better health indicators for the elderly (SEWA Bharat, 2014). UBI seems to have potentially wide-ranging tangible benefits on those who are no longer active in the labor market population on almost all the indicators chosen for measuring psychological well-being.

UBI, if accompanied by a reduction in working hours, could “allow people more time to make better connections with their family, friends, and society” (Psychologists for Social Change, 2017). This can be a positive step since healthy social relationships are beneficial not just for personal psychological well-being but also for community values like trust and solidarity (Psychologists for Social Change, 2017).

An unconditional income would also be extremely beneficial to women, particularly due to their generally socially disadvantaged position. Currently, in many instances, we still find that a sexist division of labor exists. There are also widespread inequalities with respect to wages paid to men and women. While most women are given the share of household duties and have the bulk of caring responsibilities on their shoulders, their participation in the labor market is disproportionate, while their job options also remain restricted because of this. A UBI, in this case, would grant them greater material freedom as well as the choice of reducing their paid working hours. In addition, chances to pursue educational inclinations would also help in case of marital breakdown or mental health concerns. In an unconditional cash-transfer program in Kenya called “GiveDirectly”, it was found that women recipients reported fewer worries and increased self-esteem (Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016). The Madhya Pradesh case study also brings out similar outcomes as most women (54%) receiving the basic income experienced more say in spending their basic income as compared to the control village where only 39% of the women reported equal sharing of household income (SEWA Bharat, 2014). Both studies found that cash transfers led to better food sufficiency, nutrition, and higher school enrolment (Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016; SEWA Bharat, 2014).

In 2011, two pilots funded by UNICEF were launched by the Self-Employed Women’s Association in Madhya Pradesh (a state in India). Every child was given 100 rupees. The amount was later increased to rupees 150. There was a significant improvement in the average weight-for-age of young children as well; this was found to be greater among girls. Diets were also found to have improved as finances improved. School attendance also subsequently improved.

Another experiment of note was the New Hope program that ran between 1995 to 1998 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was designed to support full-time workers, and enhance their financial status by reducing poverty and providing benefits to them. The outcomes of the experiment were positive, with increased work, lesser rates of poverty, better school performance for children, with fewer behavioral problems (Duncan et al., 2009).

A guaranteed annual income field experiment was conducted during the years 1974 to 1979 in Manitoba, Canada. The outcomes of MINCOME, as this program came to be known as, had an 8.5 percent decrease in hospitalization rates of participants compared to the controls, particularly with regards to accidents, injuries, and mental health. Additionally, it was observed that higher numbers of adolescents continued their education until the 12th grade. The findings suggest that a guaranteed annual income may serve to improve health, and in doing so, reduce spending on health as well (Forget, 2011).

A universal basic income, while not the absolute solution to economic hardships, can act as a preventive tool nonetheless, alleviating the existing burden of mental and physical health burdens that stem from the inability to care for oneself primarily due to the lack of financial means to do so.

Conclusion

As put forward in this paper, income determines access and has a pronounced impact on our lives. Physical and mental health reciprocally interact with each other and ultimately impact one’s quality of life. The determinants of both are multifactorial, and one of the factors that affect them is the availability of financial resources. Throughout the course of our lives, the lifestyle choices we make, revolve around the monetary resources available to us, sometimes we might be disempowered to make certain financial decisions for our betterment due to the lack of adequate finances to spare. An unconditional basic income has substantial emancipatory potential and can play a preventive role with regards to minimizing the effects of psychosocial stressors and their impact. It can ensure, to a certain extent, a healthy quality of life, as evidenced by global studies on unconditional cash payments, which have had an impact on reducing poverty and income inequality (Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016; Forget, 2011).

We do acknowledge that there are several factors that affect a person’s life and well-being, apart from income and finance. While finances alone may not necessarily guarantee a healthy life, it cannot be denied that economic forces play a huge role in inequalities of opportunities and outcomes, which may lead to adverse psychological outcomes. It is in this context that we propose the universal basic income as a preventive tool that could minimize the adverse effects of stressors on the individual and society in the long-run.

Figure 1.

Family stress model (Conger & Donnellan, 2007).

Figure 2.

Family investment model (Conger & Donnellan, 2007).

Figure 3.

A stage model of stress and disease (Cohen et al., 2016).

Footnotes

Author Contributions

RG, JJ, and GB have written the paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This is a theoretical paper. Therefore, no ethics approval has been taken.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:

Author Biographies

Rashmi Gupta is an assistant professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institue of Technology Bombay (IITB), India. She is the director of “Cognitive and Behavioural Neurosciences Lab” (CBN Lab) at IITB. This research lab investigates the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying various cognitive processes and their interaction with emotion.

Jemima Jacob completed her master degree in clinical psychology from the SNDT Women's University. She was working as a project staff at the CBN lab, IITB. Her current research interests include clinical psychology and cognitive neuropsychology.

Gaurav Bansal completed his M.Phil degree in planning and development from the Departement of Humanities and Social Sciences, IITB, India. Currently, he is pursuing his PhD in development studies at the University of East Anglia, UK. His current research interests include Agrarian political economy and Marxian class analysis.

References

Aftab

Ara

Kazi

Deeba

(2012). Effects of poverty on pregnant women. Pakistan Journal of Medical Research, 51, 5.

Ahmed

Z. S.

Kingsolver

(2005). Poverty, family stress & parenting. Available at www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/AhmedPovertyFamilyStressParenting.pdf (accessed 10 March 2020).

Antonovsky

(1979). Health, stress and coping. Jossey Bass.

Agberotimi

S. F.

Akinsola

O. S.

Oguntayo

Olaseni

A. O.

(2020). Interactions between socioeconomic status and mental health outcomes in the Nigerian context amid covid-19 pandemic: A comparative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2655.

Barbara

F. R. E. Y.

(2017). Henry Shue, basic rights: Subsistence, affluence and US foreign policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996) pp ix+ 236. Business and Human Rights Journal, 2, 189–194.

Becker

G. S.

(1991). A note on restaurant pricing and other examples of social influences on price. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 1109–1116.

Bloomfield

M. A.

McCutcheon

R. A.

Kempton

Freeman

T. P.

Howes

(2019). The effects of psychosocial stress on dopaminergic function and the acute stress response. Elife, 8, e46797.

Bøe

Serlachius

A. S.

Sivertsen

Petrie

K. J.

Hysing

(2018). Cumulative effects of negative life events and family stress on children’s mental health: The Bergen Child Study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53, 1–9.

Brooks-Gunn

Duncan

G. J.

(1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7, 55–71.

10.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Lerner

R. M.

Damon

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

11.

Butler

A. C.

(2014). Poverty and adolescent depressive symptoms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 82.

12.

Caputo

R. K.

(2007). Working and poor: A panel study of maturing adults in the US. Families in Society, 88, 351–359.

13.

Cao

Fang

Hou

Han

Dong

Zheng

(2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Research, 287, 112934.

14.

Chen

Matthews

K. A.

Boyce

W. T.

(2002). Socioeconomic differences in children's health: How and why do these relationships change with age? Psychological Bulletin, 128, 295.

15.

Coe

C. L.

Kramer

Czeh

Gould

Reeves

A. J.

Kirschbaum

, Fuchs, E. (2003). Prenatal stress diminishes neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of juvenile rhesus monkeys. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1025–1034.

16.

Cohen

Gianaros

P. J.

Manuck

S. B.

(2016). A stage model of stress and disease. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 456–463.

17.

Coleman

J. S.

(1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.

18.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

(2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373.

19.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

Matthews

L. S.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1999). Pathways of economic influence on adolescent adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 519–541.

20.

Conger

R. D.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199.

21.

Conger, Rand D. & Elder, Glen H., Jr. (1994). Families in Troubled Times: The Iowa Youth and Families Project. Conger, Rand D. & Elder, Glen H., Jr. in collaboration with Frederick O. Lorenz, Ronald L. Simons, and Les B. Whitbeck (Eds.) (pp. 3–19). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

22.

Craven

Liu

, Mysore, M., Wilson

(2020). Risk practice. COVID-19: Briefing note, March 16, 2020. Our latest perspective on the coronavirus outbreak. https://www.Mckinsey.com/∼/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Risk/Our%20Insights/COVID%2019%20Implications%20for%20business/COVID%2019%20March%2016/COVID-19-Briefing-note-March-16-2020-v2.ashx

23.

Duncan

G. J.

Bos

Gennetian

L. A.

Hill

(2009). New hope: A thoughtful and effective approach to “make work pay.” Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 4, 101.

24.

Duncan

G. J.

Brooks‐Gunn

(2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development, 71, 188–196.

25.

Duncan

G. J.

Magnuson

Votruba-Drzal

(2017). Moving beyond correlations in assessing the consequences of poverty. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 413–434.

26.

Eriksson

Lindstrom

(2007). Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and its relation with quality of life: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 938–944.

27.

Evans

D. K.

Popova

(2014). Cash transfers and temptation goods: A review of global evidence (Policy Research Working Paper). World Bank.

28.

Evans

G. W.

(2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423–451.

29.

Evans

G. W.

(2016). Childhood poverty and adult psychological well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 14949–14952.

30.

Evans

G. W.

English

(2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1238–1248.

31.

Evans

G. W.

Kim

(2007). Childhood poverty and health: Cumulative risk exposure and stress dysregulation. Psychological Science, 18, 953–957.

32.

Forget

E. L.

(2011). The town with no poverty: The health effects of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment. Canadian Public Policy, 37, 283–305.

33.

Gorin

S. H.

(2000). Inequality and health: Implications for social work. Health and Social Work, 25, 270.

34.

Halliday Hardie

Lucas

(2010). Economic factors and relationship quality among young couples: Comparing cohabitation and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1141–1154.

35.

Hanson

J. L.

Chandra

Wolfe

B. L.

Pollak

S. D.

(2011). Association between income and the hippocampus. PLoS One, 6, e18712.

36.

Haushofer

Shapiro

(2016). The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131, 1973–2042.

37.

Jahoda

(1981). Work, employment, and unemployment: Values, theories, and approaches in social research. American Psychologist, 36, 184.

38.

Jahoda

(1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis (Vol. 1). CUP Archive.

39.

Kahneman

Deaton

(2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional wellbeing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 16489–16493.

40.

Lefmann

T. A. (

2014). Effects of prenatal stress and poverty on fetal growth [PhD dissertation]. University of Tennessee.

41.

Linn

M. W.

Sandifer

Stein

(1985). Effects of unemployment on mental and physical health. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 502–506.

42.

Mahsud-Dornan

(2007). Pakistan, population programmes and progress. The Ulster Medical Journal, 76, 122.

43.

Marmot

M. G.

(2003). Understanding social inequalities in health. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 46, S9–S23.

44.

Marmot

M. G.

Stansfeld

Patel

North

Head

White

Smith

G. D.

(1991). Health inequalities among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. The Lancet,337(8754), 1387–1393.

45.

Maslow.

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.

46.

Mayo

Corey

Kelly

L. H.

Yohannes

Youngquist

A. L.

Stuart

B. K.

Loewy

R. L.

(2017). The role of trauma and stressful life events among individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 55.

47.

Mays

Marston

(2016). Reimagining equity and egalitarianism: The basic income debate in Australia. Journal of Social and Society Welfare, 43, 9.

48.

McEwen

B. S.

(2000). Allostasis and allostatic load: Implications for neuropsychopharmacology. Neuropsychopharmacology, 22, 108.

49.

McGrath

Griffin

Mundy

(2015). The psychological impact of austerity: A briefing paper. Psychologists Against Austerity.

50.

McKee-Ryan

F. M.

Kinicki

A. J.

(2002). Coping with job loss: A life-facet perspective. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17, 1–30.

51.

McKee-Ryan

F. M.

Song

Wanberg

C. R.

Kinicki

A. J.

(2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 53.

52.

McLeod

J. D.

Shanahan

M. J.

(1993). Poverty, parenting, and children's mental health. American Sociological Review, 58, 351–366.

53.

Ministry of Finance. (2017). The economic survey 2017 Vol 1. GOI.

54.

Mistry

R. S.

Vandewater

E. A.

Huston

A. C.

McLoyd

V. C.

(2002). Economic well‐being and children's social adjustment: The role of family process in an ethnically diverse low‐income sample. Child Development, 73, 935–951.

55.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1993). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 135–151.

56.

Moore

K. A.

Redd

Burkhauser

Mbwana

Collins

(2002). Children in poverty: Trends, consequences and policy options. Child Trends.

57.

Mulder

E. J. H.

Robles de Medina

P. G.

Huizink

A. C.

Van den Bergh

B. R. H.

Buitelaar

J. K.

Visser

J. H. A.

(2002). Prenatal maternal stress: Effects on pregnancy and the unborn child. Early Human Development, 70, 3–14.

58.

Mullainathan

Shafir

(2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan.

59.

Mulvale

J. P.

(2008). Basic income and the Canadian welfare state: Exploring the realms of possibility. Basic Income Studies, 3, 1–26.

60.

Mulvale

J. P.

Frankel

(2016). Next steps on the road to basic income in Canada. Journal Social and Society Welfare, 43, 27.

61.

Nisar

White

(2003). Factors affecting utilization of antenatal care among reproductive age group women (15-49 years) in an urban squatter settlement of Karachi. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 53, 47.

62.

Ntumbanzondo

Dubrow

Niccolai

L. M.

Mwandagalirwa

Merson

M. H.

(2006). Unprotected intercourse for extra money among commercial sex workers in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. AIDS Care, 18, 777–785.

63.

Patel

Kirkwood

B. R.

Pednekar

Weiss

Mabey

(2006). Risk factors for common mental disorders in women: Population-based longitudinal study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, 547–555.

64.

Pateman

(2004). Democratizing citizenship: Some advantages of a basic income. Politics and Society, 32, 89–105.

65.

Paul

K. I.

Moser

(2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 264–282.

66.

Pearlin

L. I.

(1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 241–256.

67.

Pharr

R. J.

Moonie

Bungum

T. J.

(2012). The impact of unemployment on mental and physical health, access to health care and health risk behaviors. ISRN Public Health, 2012, 1–7.

68.

Pickard

(1919). A reasonable revolution. Being a discussion of the state bonus scheme—A proposal for a national minimum income (1919). In: Cunliffe J., Erreygers G. (eds) The origins of universal grants (pp. 134–140). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

69.

Poudel

Subedi

(2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on socioeconomic and mental health aspects in Nepal. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66, 748–755.

70.

Prabhakar

(2020). Universal basic income and Covid-19. IPPR Progressive Review, 27(1), 105.

71.

Psychologists for Social Change. (2017). Universal basic income: A psychological impact assessment. PAA.

72.

Reed

Gupta

Biradavolu

Devireddy

Blankenship

K. M.

(2010). The context of economic insecurity and its relation to violence and risk factors for HIV among female sex workers in Andhra Pradesh, India. Public Health Reports, 125, 81–89.

73.

Rehman

Shahnawaz

M. G.

Khan

N. H.

Kharshiing

K. D.

Khursheed

Gupta

Uniyal

(2020). Depression, anxiety and stress among Indians in times of Covid-19 lockdown. Community Mental Health Journal, 23, 1–7.

74.

Royal College of Psychiatrists. (2010). No health without public mental health: the case for action. Position Statement PS4/2010. Available at: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Position%20Statement%204%20website.pdf (accessed 10 March 2020).

75.

Sagtani

R. A.

Bhattarai

Adhikari

B. R.

Baral

D. D.

Yadav

D. K.

Pokharel

P. K.

(2014). Understanding socio economic contexts of female sex workers in eastern Nepal. Nepal Medical College Journal, 16, 119–124.

76.

Salehi-Isfahani

Mostafavi-D

M. H.

(2017). Cash transfers and labor supply: Evidence from a large-scale program in Iran. The Economic Research Forum (ERF).

77.

Selye

(1956). What is stress. Metabolism, 5, 525–530.

78.

SEWA Bharat and UNICEF-India. (2014). Piloting basic income transfers in Madya Pradesh, India: A little more, how much it is. New Delhi: SEWA Bharat and UNICEF-India.

79.

Shue.

(1996). Basic rights: Subsistence, affluence, and US foreign policy (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

80.

Silva

(2008). The Bolsa família program and the reduction of poverty and inequality in Brazil. XII International Congress of BIEN–Basic Income Earth Network.

81.

Skinner

M. L.

Elder

G. H.

Conger

R. D.

(1992). Linking economic hardship to adolescent aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 259–276.

82.

Snyder

J. S.

Kee

Wojtowicz

J. M.

(2001). Effects of adult neurogenesis on Synaptic plasticity in the rat dentate gyrus. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85, 2423–2431.

83.

Standing

(2013). India's experiment in basic income grants. Global Dialogue, 3, 24–26.

84.

Stiglitz

J. E.

(2010). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

85.

Strohschein

Gauthier

A. H.

(2018). Poverty dynamics, parenting, and child mental health in Canada. Society and Mental Health, 8, 231–247.

86.

Taylor

S. E.

Repetti

R. L.

Seeman

(1997). Health psychology: What is an unhealthy environment and how does it get under the skin? Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 411–447.

87.

Tinker

(2000). Women's health: The unfinished agenda. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 70, 149–158.

88.

Van Parijs

(2004). Basic income: A simple and powerful idea for the twenty-first century. Politics and Society, 32, 7–39.

89.

Varshavsky

(2008). Basic income and increasing income inequality in Russia. Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) 12th Congress.

90.

Votruba‐Drzal

(2003). Income changes and cognitive stimulation in young children's home learning environments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 341–355.

91.

Votruba-Drzal

(2006). Economic disparities in middle childhood development: Does income matter? Developmental Psychology, 42, 1154.

92.

Wadsworth

M. E.

(2012). Working with low-income families: Lessons learned from basic and applied research on coping with poverty-related stress. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 17–25.

93.

Watkins

(2010). Income and health-from a minimum wage to a citizen income? International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 4, 137–144.

94.

Weinstock

(2008). The long-term behavioural consequences of prenatal stress. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 1073–1086.

95.

World Economic Forum. (2017). The global gender gap report 2017.

96.

World Happiness Report. (2017). World happiness report 2017. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

97.

Yuill

(2009). Health and the workplace: Thinking about sickness, hierarchy and workplace conditions. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 239–256.