The Finnish government has just taken a first step towards delivering on its promise to implement a basic income pilot during its term in office.
After committing itself to conducting a basic income pilot in Finland the Finnish government is putting words into action. Formed after the general election last Spring the new government of Finland led by the Centrist party announced in September the allocation of a grant to a group of researchers from the Finnish social security and pension department (KELA).
The group also includes researchers from the University of Tampere, the influential Institute for Economic Research and the independent think tank Tänk, which previously published its own proposal for a basic income pilot project. This working group is now in charge of designing parameters for the pilot project, which should be delivered by 2016.
Otto Lehto, President of BIEN-Finland told Basic Income News this week, “We welcome the creation of this working group and are happy that KELA, Tänk and researchers from the University of Tampere are involved in it. They are authoritative organisations with people that actually understand what basic income means.”
Strong and persistent popular support for basic income
KELA has already started to work on the topic of basic income with a series of articles and studies. In September, it conducted an opinion poll which showed 70% of Finns in favour of basic income, confirming the strong popular support witnessed in similar polls in 2002 and earlier this year. The poll also revealed that most people think a good level of basic income would be about 1000 euros a month.
The publication of KELA’s Annual Report provoked a debate in the Finnish Parliament about basic income, where even skeptics and opponents thought it would be a good idea to organise a pilot study.
This resonates with an editorial published on October 11 in the influential newspaper ‘Helsingin Sanomat’ which argued that “the basic income pilot study is a good idea” while carefully stressing the need for a pilot programme. The editorial also said that whatever difficulties basic income might have, it is important to study its effects, and that the Finnish welfare system is in desperate need of a complete overhaul.
The pilot should start in 2017
Despite a push by one member of the Center Party Jouni Ovaska, to start the pilot project by 2016, the two ministers responsible for the project, Hanna Mäntylä (True Finns party) and Anu Vehviläinen (Centre Party) stressed that the experiment should not be conducted hastily since nobody wants a badly executed study. The pilot program should therefore not start before 2017.
BIEN-Finland fully shares the government’s concerns. “A pilot project organised without sufficient planning and on a low budget would not be scientifically significant,” stressed Mr Lehto.
“The worst option would be a geographical study that takes place in one location only, since it would be susceptible to uncontrollable local variables. Ideally, we would want to study the effects of basic income on a wide variety of people in different circumstances and different locations. This means either having a proper randomized trial across the whole population, geographically dispersed across the whole country (as suggested by the Tänk/Sitra study last winter); or a regional pilot involving many different locations with different sociological, economic and demographic profiles.”
Mr Lehto concluded, “We put our hopes in the KELA-led team to produce a good plan that actually helps moves forward the discussion on basic income.”
Credit Picture © Finnish Parliament
I noticed the Finnish proposal is leaning toward a NIT model. I’m trying to come up with a way to get some very rough basic income figures for some EU States to compare by running numbers through a crude model with crude data.
Example: Finland by EU State Figures
NGDP: Nominal Gross Domestic Product [1] ~$271bn = ~€239bn
WA: ~15 working age
RA: ~64 retirement age (2026)
Pop: Population [2] = ~5.5mn
WF: Workforce [4] of [3] of [2] = ~0.7 X ~0.64 X ~5.5mn = ~2.5mn
MW: Median Wage [5] = ~€1891 X 12 = ~€22K
PL: Poverty Level 60% of MW [6] = ~€13K
ZeroToPL: [7] (18-64) of WF = ~0.26 X ~2.5mn = ~0.65mn
PLtoMW: (WF/2 – ZeroToPL) = 2.5mn/2 – 0.65mn = 0.6mn number between PL and MW
Min = ZeroToPL X PL = 0.65mn X €13K = ~€8.45bn (labor unemployment subsidy: < PL)*
Taper = (PLtoMW X PL)/2 (0.6mn X €13K)/2 = ~3.9bn (business payroll subsidy: PL to MW)
Max = Min + Taper = €8.45bn + €3.9bn = ~€12.35bn** or (~€12.35bn/~€239bn) ~5.2% of NGDP
*Top-up for part-time work < FPL adjusted periodically.
** In comparison, basic income for entire workforce = WF X FPL = ~2.5mn X ~€13K = ~€32.5bn or ~13.6% of NGDP. National comparisons reveal fundamental EU-wide state imblance challenge. On the upside, it also shows the value of conducting multiple nation state approaches as a grading system of political economy. The US may benefit by similar competition to optimize and then incentivize balance for individual state performance for guidelines on employment levels, prices, exchange rates, basket currency pegs, interest rates, tariffs, trade balance equiibrium…
NOTE: Jobseeker allowance currently maxes out at ~€25/day or ~€25 X 30 = ~€750/month and the min is 80% of ~€750 = 600, means-tested and time limited. Disabled or late 50's age receive ~€565 to ~€635/month. Workmen's compensation is also 85-100% of wages and guaranteed for life in case of catastrophic disability accident or disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Finland#Unemployment_insurance
http://www.kela.fi/web/en/disability-pension_amount
Finland's debt/gdp is less than 60% which exceeds EU standards and that seems to be the worst figure for at least the last 35 years.
[1] List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)
[2] List of European Union member states by population (Pop)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_population
[3] Population age structure by major age groups, 2004 and 2014 (Pop%: 15-64)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Population_age_structure_by_major_age_groups,_2004_and_2014_(%25_of_the_total_population)_YB15.png
[4] Employment rate, age group 15–64, 2014 (WF%: 15-64)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Employment_rate,_age_group_15–64,_2014_(%25)_YB16.png&oldid=249064
[5] List of European countries by median wage (MW)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_median_wage
[6] EU Poverty Level (PL)
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=EU+Poverty+Level&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
[7] People at risk of poverty of social exclusion (ZeroToPL: 18-64)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion
Explain why, in your model, wage has anything to do with determination of Basic income and PL considering that automation persistently removes the need for human wages?
The true cost of normal living for the people is not represented by NGDP, MW, or some imaginary PL . Instead, you have to look at how much of people’s money are taken from them by business and governments a.k.a the personal costs. (by the way, the only true PL is about 2500 calories of sustenance a day and 18 degrees Celsius of warmth at the place you sleep. Below that is extinction.).
Other peoples spending is the only true way to determine how much Basic Income should be and, then, let the free market determine the MW. Such is the bottom-up approach, where as in your model you start with MW and then work out the Basic income. That is not good in my humble opinion, because your approach serves the interests of the concentrating capital that automates continuously)
(Also, NIT model has exactly the same flaw, it serve the interest of the concentrating capital.)