The newly emerging concept of sustainable welfare refers to welfare systems which aim to satisfy everyone's needs within planetary boundaries and to decouple the welfare-growth nexus. Both Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Universal Basic Services (UBS) have been discussed as suitable, but potentially competing, approaches that could support sustainable welfare. This paper contributes to this debate by asking how UBI and UBS compare in relation to four sustainable welfare criteria: a) planetary boundaries, b) needs satisfaction, c) fair distribution, and d) democratic governance. The paper argues that UBI and UBS are not so much conflicting but complementary approaches for supporting sustainable welfare. UBI focuses on the consumption side of the economy while UBS addresses the production side more directly, both of which would be relevant in any sustainable welfare system. Sustainable welfare outcomes of UBI and UBS would be shaped by the institutional contexts within which they operate, especially by the governance of markets, collective provisioning systems and decision-making at all levels. More attention needs to be paid to these institutional contexts when discussing potential sustainable welfare outcomes of UBI and UBS.

新出现的可持续福利概念是指旨在满足地球边界内每个人的需求并使福利与增长之间的联系脱钩的福利系统。普遍基本收入 (UBI) 和普遍基本服务 (UBS) 都被讨论为可以支持可持续福利的合适但可能存在竞争的方法。本文通过询问 UBI 和 UBS 在四个可持续福利标准方面的比较如何为这场辩论做出贡献：a) 行星边界，b) 需求满足，c) 公平分配，以及 d) 民主治理。该论文认为，UBI 和 UBS 在支持可持续福利方面并不是相互冲突，而是互补的方法。UBI 专注于经济的消费方面，而瑞银则更直接地处理生产方面，这两者都与任何可持续的福利系统相关。UBI 和 UBS 的可持续福利成果将受到它们运营所在的制度环境的影响，尤其是市场治理、集体供应系统和各级决策。在讨论 UBI 和 UBS 潜在的可持续福利成果时，需要更多地关注这些制度背景。