A/HRC/35/26 goal. As Anthony Atkinson has observed, inspired by Amartya Sen’s work, “the aim is progressive reform rather than transcendental optimality”.96 62. The most prominent path chosen to date has focused on respect for labour rights.97 But significant questions arise as to whether the tools used to tackle economic insecurity in that context have been, or are likely to be, effective in responding to the emerging conditions in the global labour market. For example, in its general comment No. 18 (2005) on the right to work, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights calls on States “to reduce to the fullest extent possible the number of workers outside the formal economy”, “to ensure that privatization measures do not undermine workers’ rights”, and to ensure that enhanced labour market flexibility does “not render work less stable or reduce the social protection of the worker”. All of these important objectives are grounded in human rights law, but the question is how best to respond to the reality that the trends in most industries seem to be heading rapidly in the opposite direction. 63. Similarly, an ILO report entitled Decent Work in Global Supply Chains responded to the “negative implications for working conditions” of “the dynamics of production and employment relations within the global economy” by proposing a series of steps such as promoting international labour standards, closing governance gaps and promoting inclusive and effective social dialogue. 98 Unsurprisingly, after lengthy debate on the report, the 2016 International Labour Conference expressed its “concern that current ILO standards may not be fit for purpose to achieve decent work in global supply chains”.99 64. It does not follow from the gap between theory and practice that labour rights should be compromised, let alone abandoned, but it does highlight the fact that traditional approaches might not have much traction in the face of the systematic weakening of labour market institutions, the dramatic increase in more flexible working conditions, and the greatly increased insecurity, including the loss of nonwage benefits, for those who remain employed. 100 65. This is where the basic income debate comes in. A focus on social protection more broadly defined might be a more propitious entry point to tackle these issues. Governments remain centrally responsible for ensuring appropriate levels of social protection within their borders, they have a self-interest in promoting stability and economic security, and they control the resources needed. 66. One of the biggest challenges in relation to basic income is to move beyond its chameleon-like character. There are many versions of it, and each is supported by a diverse array of actors, precisely because they see different attractions in the concept. To assess the utility and acceptability of basic income from a human rights perspective, it is helpful to identify the main categories of motivation. (a) Discouraging laziness and incentivizing work; (b) Efficiency, in terms of avoiding welfare fraud, duplicative programmes, double-dipping, and bloated bureaucracies. As one commentator rejoiced: “we get to fire a couple of million bureaucrats”;101 (c) Adaptation to technological advances, both in terms of compensating for vast numbers of jobs lost in an age of automation and robotization and to ensure some 96 97 98 99 100 101 18 Anthony B. Atkinson, Inequality: What Can Be Done? (Harvard University Press, 2015), p. 236; and Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (Harvard University Press, 2009). For an important analysis of the challenges to labour rights in the context of economic reform and austerity measures, see A/HRC/34/57. “Decent work in global supply chains”, report IV, International Labour Conference, 105th session (2016). Resolution concerning decent work in global supply chains, adopted on 10 June 2016, para. 25. Tim Vlandas and Daphne Halikiopoulou, “Why far-right parties do well at times of crisis: the role of labour market institutions”, European Trade Union Institute working paper 2016.07, p. 5. Tim Worstall, “Krugman’s argument in favour of a universal basic income”, Forbes, 5 May 2015.