Read the extract (Extract 1), which is about an experiment with universal basic income in Finland in 2017. Then answer the following three questions.

3.1 Define what is meant by a universal basic income and explain how this differs from universal basis services. (4 marks)

3.2 Drawing upon Extract 1 and the module materials, outline two advantages and one disadvantage of a universal basic income for supporting financial well-being over other forms of social protection mechanisms. (6 marks)

3.3 Using the concept of opportunity cost, briefly explain why the author of Extract 1 may be right that a universal cash benefit model (such as rolling out universal basic income to the entire population) although expensive is not unaffordable. (5 marks)

Extract 1: Universal basic income hasnt made me rich. But my life is more enriching. The Finnish basic income trial, of which I am part, finishes at the end of the year. Having been interviewed by nearly 70 separate media outlets, from the BBC to Le Figaro, the question I have been asked most often has been: how has the basic income trial changed my life? My answer is simple. In money terms, my life has not changed at all. However, the psychological effects of this human experiment have been transformative. I vastly prefer basic income to a benefits system fraught with complicated forms, mandatory courses and pointless obligations. Before the trial, the risk of losing unemployment benefits and the cumbersome process of reapplying for them were an obstacle to accepting small job assignments. The bureaucracy involved made accepting some not worthwhile, or simply too risky. The basic income trial started at the beginning of 2017. A random sample of 2,000 people aged 25 to 58 was chosen to take part and receive a monthly income of 560 (475), with no requirement to seek or accept employment. The precondition was that the participants had received either a labour-market subsidy or a basic unemployment allowance from Finlands social insurance institution Kela in November 2016. At that point I had just run out of a grant I had received and was officially a jobseeker, making me eligible to take part. The Finnish government wanted to find out if jobseekers obtain work more easily when the basic unemployment allowance is replaced with a basic income. During the trial the participants had the right to keep their basic income even if they found work. The idea is that temporary and part-time work is becoming increasingly common, which may mean there is also a growing interest in social security models that support the acceptance of such work. The basic income trial has indeed resulted in work for myself and many other participants, from IT experts, artists and commerce professionals to new graduates. And there is little doubt that the trial benefits people in creative fields, freelancers, people doing expert work and project workers an ever-increasing number of people. My income consists of fees I charge as a writer and lecturer as well as grants I receive from various institutions. I have also had occasional brief periods of unemployment during which I have received unemployment benefits. My monthly income has varied from some 3,000 to nothing at all. The Finnish social security system allows an unemployed person to earn a maximum of 300 a month with a 50% tax set on any earnings exceeding that limit. While taking part in the basic income trial I have been able to accept speaking engagements in libraries and schools for a fee of 250, a seat in panel discussions in the SuomiAreena public debate forum and at book fairs. Concerns have been voiced about the high cost of the basic income model. But free school meals, free basic education and universal basic healthcare are expensive too. Critics say that basic income at the level used in the trial cannot be extended to cover the entire population as this would create an adverse balance of some 10-15bn. But atypical employment relationships are on the increase and our social security system has become outdated. The system requires more investment to boost the minimum income level, to improve the level of financial incentives and to simplify it. Source: adapted from Muraja (2018)