Of all the policy ideas being hashed out in this year's race for New York City mayor, none has animated progressives more than using unconditional cash payments as a way of alleviating poverty. During his presidential run, Andrew Yang became one of the biggest evangelists for the concept, calling on the federal government to provide a so-called "universal basic income" [UBI] of $1,000 per month. As a mayoral candidate, he has scaled-back that pitch considerably, stripping it of its reach and magnitude—his new plan aims to give about $2,000 a year to the poorest half million New Yorkers. That's for a city of 8.4 million residents, where the median asking rent for a one-bedroom is around $2,500.

Nonetheless, the argument for putting money directly in the hands of the poor has gained traction. In addition to Yang, two other Democrats in the race: Dianne Morales, a former non-profit executive, and Carlos Menchaca, have said they plan to unveil their own guaranteed income plans. The idea is not new. The conservative economist Milton Friedman championed a negative income tax in the early 1960s. Dr. Martin Luther King articulated a vision of guaranteed income for the middle class as part of his "Poor People's Campaign." Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter both introduced versions of guaranteed income that failed to pass in Congress.

What is different this time around, experts say, is a political moment shaped by the pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement, which have awakened more people to entrenched racial and social inequities.

Ester Fuchs, a public policy professor at Columbia University who advised mayors David Dinkins and Michael Bloomberg, called cash transfers the "hot ticket" in the progressive and Democratic socialist wing of the party.

"It's a signal that I’m going to represent your agenda," she said.

According to the most recent estimate, around 1.3 million New Yorkers live at or below the official federal poverty level, a number that experts say fails to take into account the effects of the pandemic. Although poverty levels have been falling over the years in the city, the racial disparities continue to be stark: In 2019, nearly 30 percent of Hispanic and 22 percent of Black residents lived in poverty, double the share of poor whites.

Most, if not all, of the mayoral candidates have said that the current crisis—which has left around one million city residents out of work—demands bold actions.

According to some economists, that is exactly what unconditional cash transfers, sometimes also referred to as guaranteed income, would represent in New York City.

"It sounds ambitious and grandiose, because it is," said Darrick Hamilton, a professor of economics and urban policy at The New School. "I think we're in a different framework of policy thinking, and a lot of credit can go towards young people, like Black Lives Matter and other movements."

Hamilton has earned attention for his proposal to create federally-backed “baby bonds,” another type of cash transfer program in which every child would be given $1,000 at birth. The money would be deposited in a government-funded trust account that could be accessed when they reach adulthood for “asset-enhancing endeavors" like buying a home, paying for school or starting a business. Senator Corey Booker campaigned on the policy during his presidential run. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy recently made a state-backed baby bond program a key part of his budget.

Shaun Donovan, the former Obama cabinet member, is among the mayoral candidates who have reached out to Hamilton. Donovan has come out with his own version of baby bonds, which he has dubbed "equity bonds."

The question of how best to address income inequality has been fiercely debated by politicians for decades. One of the turning points was in 1976 when Ronald Reagan during his presidential run promoted the myth of the “welfare queen," based on a Chicago woman who had reportedly received public aid and food stamps while driving a Cadillac. Democrats later tried to answer that Republican accusation through Bill Clinton's welfare reform in the mid-1990s, which installed work requirements and strict sanctions around public assistance with the intention of rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior.

Even New Deal programs like food stamps are imbued with a "paternalistic" attitude, according to Sewin Chan, a professor of public policy at New York University.

"Maybe you work in a restaurant and you have enough food, but you need medication, or you need books for your kids," she said.

Ultimately, she argued, "Households and families know what they need best. We need to trust them to make decisions for themselves."

There is mounting evidence in support of this view. In 2018, the city of Stockton in California undertook an experiment of giving $500 payments a month for 125 randomly-selected residents in high-poverty neighborhoods. Researchers wanted to see how the recipients would spend the extra cash. The answer was necessities: groceries, utility bills, credit card debt, dental work and even a prom dress.

The findings contradicted the pernicious belief that "poor people cannot be responsible," Fuchs said.

Fuchs said that the debate over cash payments is valuable in part because it acknowledges a difficult reality for cities.

"Federal programs have been what we relied on for income distribution. But they are not sufficient. That is why the UBI is so enticing," she said.

However, she added: "The question becomes, 'Can cities do this?'"

The viability of cash payments, especially at a time when there are billions in shortfalls, is where policy experts diverge on the merits of the proposal.

"Assuming you have limited public resources and you want to invest them in human capital to improve their own lives, why wouldn’t you build on the system of supports we have?" argued James Parrott, who worked as chief economist for Mayor David Dinkins and is now a professor at The New School.

Parrott said the problem with proposals like UBI is that it is "incredibly costly and is meant to supplant an array of targeted assistance that has evolved over generations."

The latter has been the one of the reasons why Hamilton has said he does not support UBI, calling it a "tragic choice" if it involves dismantling social safety nets.

"The way it was presented was poor people would have the option to keep their social benefits, or forego their social benefits in order to get UBI," he said, adding that, especially in a high-rent city like New York, offering people the option between cash and an established benefit like housing assistance is problematic. "Is it really a choice when you're a subsistence population, with very little resources to begin with, to be choosing between the fungibility of income versus a home?"

Yang has put a $1 billion price tag on his cash payment plan. However, he is yet to release the full details for financing the program. He has said that part of the money could come from philanthropy.

That has in turn raised eyebrows among some policy experts. "If we care about this as a society, then society should pay for it and have it codified in the law," Chan said. "Why should we rely on the largesse of rich people?"

She said that among the candidates who support cash payments, she would like to hear them explain who they are targeting and why, as well as how their plan would intersect with pre-existing social benefit programs.

Fuchs said that voters need to understand that most of the city's costs are fixed and that funding cash payments for the poorest will mean that it will come at the expense of other programs. On top of that, she asked, "Is now the time, during a fiscal and economic crisis, for the city to commit $1 billion a year to a new program without really knowing where the money will come from?”

She argued that the smarter course for a mayor would be to lobby for cash payments to be included as part of the safety net programs at the federal level. Several of the candidates, including Yang and Donovan, have touted their connections in Washington. The legislation already exists: In 2019, a Michigan lawmaker introduced a bill calling for direct cash payments between $3,000 to $6,000 to the lowest income Americans.

Even at a moment where all the candidates have taken pains to acknowledge income inequality, some moderate Democrats have made efforts to distance themselves from Yang's signature policy.

Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, has said that UBI should be studied further. He has instead proposed increasing the city's earned income tax credit, which would direct tax refunds to the working poor.

"He believes growing this existing program is the best, fastest way to help the New Yorkers who really need it," a spokesperson for Adams said.

During a virtual press event on Wednesday, Ray McGuire, the former Wall Street executive, took a swipe at UBI, saying, “Those plans are neither universal nor are they basic income.”

He later added: “Give people a chance to get back to work and earn more money.”

McGuire has announced an economic recovery plan that seeks to create 500,000 jobs. His proposal hinges on wage subsidies to small businesses, covering 50 percent of rehires for the first year, as well as providing temporary tax relief. He has also pledged to provide "childcare for all."

While they have not embraced cash payments, both Adams and McGuire, who are Black, have leaned heavily on their life stories of overcoming poverty. Raised in Jamaica, Queens by a mother who worked as housekeeper, Adams rose up through the ranks of the NYPD before winning a state Senate seat. McGuire was the son of a single-mother in Dayton, Ohio who used scholarships to forge a path to Harvard and eventually, a lucrative career in investment banking.

For some, concepts like guaranteed income are rooted in a deeply progressive vision of government and society that recognizes the limitations of the "pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps" doctrine.

"It's a notion that there's a public responsibility to provide a baseline level of economic rights so that people can have authentic agency and really be able to thrive," Hamilton said.

"Of course, there's scarcity, and particularly at a local level, it's not a panacea for all our socially established problems. That's why it should not erase our social safety net," he said. "But on the other hand, if we could, what better way to address poverty than to literally erase it by offering people enough money so that they're not poor anymore?"