Economic Security: Ensuring Basic Income and Reducing Political Tensions

When we think about security, our minds usually jump to armies, borders, and police. But there is another kind of security that decides whether a person can sleep peacefully at night: the assurance of a steady income. Economic security sits at the very heart of human security, because without a reliable livelihood, almost every other freedom becomes fragile. A person worried about feeding their family cannot fully participate in democracy, pursue education, or stay healthy. This post explains what economic security means, why so few people in the world actually have it, and how its absence can quietly push societies toward political tension and even violence.

What economic security really means 🔗

Economic security is best understood as an assured basic income, ideally earned through productive and remunerative work, or, as a fallback, provided through a publicly financed safety net. The concept was given a clear shape in the UNDP’s 1994 Human Development Report, which is widely treated as the foundational document of the modern human security idea. The report defined economic security as the assured basic livelihood derived from work, public and environmental resources, or reliable social safety nets.

The same report argued that real security cannot be reduced to defending territory. It identified two core dimensions of human security: freedom from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression, and protection from sudden disruptions to daily life, whether in homes, jobs, or communities. Economic security cuts across both. A job lost overnight or a harvest destroyed by drought is exactly the kind of sudden shock that the framework warns about.

Income from work versus income from safety nets 🔗

There are two basic routes to economic security. The first and most dignified is income from productive work, a job or self-employment that pays enough to cover essentials. The second is a public safety net, which catches people when work is unavailable due to age, illness, disability, or economic downturns. A healthy system relies mostly on the first and uses the second to protect those who fall through. When neither exists, economic insecurity sets in.

A world where security is the exception 🔗

One of the most sobering claims in the human security literature is how rare economic security actually is. The 1994 report observed that genuine economic security was enjoyed by only about a quarter of the world’s people, leaving the vast majority dependent on uncertain wages, informal work, or no income protection at all. While the global economy has grown enormously since then, large populations still live without any dependable cushion against job loss or illness.

This insecurity is heavily concentrated in the informal economy. In countries with large informal sectors, most workers have no written contract, no pension, and no guarantee of work tomorrow. According to the International Labour Organization, informal employment continues to account for a majority of jobs in developing regions, which means the people doing this work absorb economic shocks with almost no protection.

The scale of informal work 🔗

Consider the domestic situation. The unorganised sector employs hundreds of millions of workers, including agricultural labourers, construction workers, street vendors, domestic helpers, and the growing number of gig and platform workers. The e-Shram portal, a national database for unorganised workers, has recorded over 30 crore registrations, which gives a sense of just how many people fall outside the formal social security system. These workers are precisely the ones most exposed when economic conditions worsen.

How economic insecurity feeds political tension 🔗

Economic insecurity is not only a personal hardship. It can become a political problem. When large numbers of people, especially young people, cannot find work or earn a living, frustration accumulates. That frustration can be channelled into protest, unrest, and in the worst cases, organised violence. The link between unemployment, poverty, and instability is one of the most studied relationships in political science.

The youth unemployment connection 🔗

Research consistently identifies young people without jobs as a major risk factor for instability. A working paper from the African Development Bank found that higher youth unemployment is associated with a measurably greater risk of armed conflict, particularly in countries with a large share of young people in the population. The logic is straightforward: idle, frustrated youth with few economic prospects are easier to mobilise for unrest, and the personal cost of joining a conflict feels lower when there is no good job to lose.

When grievances follow ethnic lines 🔗

Economic distress rarely stays neutral. It often attaches itself to existing social divisions. Scholarship on contemporary conflict notes that in poor and indebted societies, economic decline and shrinking resources tend to sharpen ethnic and religious tensions, as groups compete over a diminishing pie. Analysts have long observed that growing rivalry over a shrinking resource base accompanies the rise of political violence and internal wars.

This does not mean that poverty mechanically produces ethnic violence. The connection is more subtle. Analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies describes how economic hardship such as unemployment, falling wages, and rising prices can become the trigger that causes a society to split along pre-existing lines of grievance and perceived discrimination. In other words, economic insecurity provides the fuel, while political entrepreneurs often supply the spark by directing anger toward a rival group.

The inequality dimension 🔗

It is not just absolute poverty that matters, but the gap between groups. Research published in World Development revisits the old argument, traced back to Aristotle, that persistent inequalities between socio-economic groups can increase social discontent and the willingness of people to engage in unrest. When one community feels systematically shut out of economic opportunity while another prospers, the resulting resentment can be politically explosive. This is why fair income distribution, not just overall growth, is central to stability.

Building economic security 🔗

If economic insecurity is a driver of instability, then strengthening economic security is also a peacebuilding strategy. There are three broad pillars to this work, and a serious approach uses all three together.

Creating employment opportunities 🔗

The most durable form of economic security comes from decent, productive work. This requires investment in sectors that generate large numbers of jobs, skill development so that workers can fill those jobs, and support for small enterprises. Public employment guarantees can also play a direct role. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act guarantees up to 100 days of wage employment to rural households, providing a floor of income security that becomes especially important during agricultural off-seasons or economic shocks.

Providing social safety nets 🔗

Even in a strong economy, some people cannot work, and others lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Social safety nets, pensions, insurance, and cash transfers, protect these groups. Schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maan-Dhan pension programme and accidental insurance schemes attempt to extend a basic cushion to informal workers. However, coverage on paper does not always mean protection in practice, and ensuring that benefits actually reach intended beneficiaries remains a real challenge. The idea of a guaranteed basic income, debated in many countries, takes this logic to its conclusion by promising a regular income floor regardless of employment status.

Ensuring fair income distribution 🔗

Finally, the way income is distributed matters as much as how much is produced. Progressive taxation, public spending on health and education, and policies that lift the bargaining power of low-wage workers all help narrow the gaps that fuel grievance. When growth is shared broadly, the sense that the system is rigged against a particular group weakens, and with it one of the deeper roots of political tension.

Why this matters for peacebuilding 🔗

Economic security connects directly to the larger goal of building durable peace. A society where most people have a reliable livelihood is far more resilient against the politics of grievance and division. Conversely, when insecurity becomes widespread, it creates a reservoir of frustration that can be drawn upon by anyone seeking to mobilise anger. Investing in employment, safety nets, and fair distribution is therefore not merely social welfare; it is a foundation of stability. Treating economic security as a security issue, rather than a separate economic concern, is one of the central insights of the human security approach.

What do you think? Should a guaranteed basic income be treated as a fundamental component of human security, or is the focus better placed on creating productive jobs? And in a society with deep social divisions, which is more urgent for preventing unrest: reducing overall poverty, or narrowing the gap between groups?

References

1. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-1994
2. https://www.ilo.org/publications/major-publications/world-employment-and-social-outlook-trends-2024
3. https://eshram.gov.in/
4. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/working-paper-171-youth-unemployment-and-political-instability-in-selected-developing-countries-32646
5. https://www.csis.org/analysis/dangerously-hungry-link-between-food-insecurity-and-conflict
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X24002900
7. https://nrega.nic.in/
8. https://labour.gov.in/pm-sym