AUSTRALIA: Basic Income discussion at ACOSS National Conference (Nov 18)

AUSTRALIA: Basic Income discussion at ACOSS National Conference (Nov 18)

The 2016 Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) National Conference, convening in Sydney on November 17-18, will include a discussion of universal basic income.

The opening session of the second day of the conference is titled “Should Australia Implement a Basic Income?” The following description is provided in the official conference program:

With Finland and Netherlands to introduce a universal basic income, attention has been turned to whether Australia should consider adopting such an approach. The changing nature of employment due to technological change has led some commentators to suggest a universal basic income would provide a buffer for those employed in industries with uncertain futures. Others argue that a universal basic income would dismantle overblown welfare bureaucracies and give people the freedom to purchase their own services. What is the role of a basic income? Is it to provide a safety net or is it to provide assistance to all? And is such an approach even feasible in Australia with its highly targeted social security system?

Founded in 1956, ACOSS is an advocacy group dedicated to combating poverty and inequality in Australia. Its annual conference focuses on practical strategies to realize this aim.

In recent years, the ACOSS National Conference has drawn over 500 attendees from non-profit organizations, government offices, businesses, unions, universities, and other backgrounds.

Instead of centering on lectures, the conference aims to encourage conversation between panelists and attendees. Panels will also be streamed live, and remote viewers will also be encouraged to join the discussion.

See acossevents.org.au for more information.


Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Alex Proimos

US: Washington DC think tank releases report on universal child benefit

US: Washington DC think tank releases report on universal child benefit

The Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, has produced a new report on the potential of universal child benefit: “Toward a Universal Child Benefit” by Samuel Hammond and Robert Orr. The report proposes an unconditional benefit of $2000 annually for every child under the age of 18, which would be phased out for higher-income families.

Although clearly not universal, Hammond and Orr’s proposed policy might be considered a “basic income guarantee for children”. Significantly, the benefit is paid in cash rather than in kind (as discussed at length in the report), and it is distributed to all families in need–irrespective of whether a child’s parents or legal guardians in the workforce, seeking work, or able to work. As the authors note, the latter is a significant difference from the Child Tax Credit supported by front-running US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, which is only available to households with earned income (leaving households without income to rely solely on in-kind benefits).

Hammond and Orr’s proposal is modeled after Canada’s Child Benefit program, previously covered in Basic Income News.

Hammond has previously written for the Niskanen Center in support of a basic income guarantee in the form of a negative income tax. He believes that a universal child allowance could provide a bridge to a guaranteed annual income for adults as well.

We might note that Hammond is not alone in envisioning this path toward a basic income in the US. Progressive commentators such as the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal and New York journalist Joel Dodge have advocated a universal child allowance as a policy that is both desirable in itself and a possible route to a universal basic income.  

Shortly after the publication of the Niskanen Center report, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute (another DC-based libertarian think tank), published a response in which he expressed sympathy for the proposal but called for caution in pursuing such a policy. (Tanner is the prior author of a similarly cautious policy report on basic income guarantees for the Cato Institute.)

Founded in 2014, the Niskanen Center says that it “works to change public policy through direct engagement in the policymaking process” — targeting Washington insiders such as legislators, presidential appointees, congressional committee staff, interest group analysts, and civil servants in planning, evaluation, and budget offices. It branched into welfare policy earlier this year. For information about the think tank’s specific libertarian approach to social welfare, see Will Wilkinson (March 29, 2016) “Libertarian Principles and Welfare Policy“.

More Information and Background:

Samuel Hammond (October 25, 2016) “Toward a Universal Child Benefit” Niskanen Center blog.

Samuel Hammond (June 9, 2016) “‘Universal Basic Income’ is just a Negative Income Tax with a leaky bucket” Niskanen Center blog.

Michael Tanner (October 27, 2016) “Not So Fast on Universal Child Benefit Cato at Liberty blog.


Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan

Photo CC BY 2.0 Pedro Ribeiro Simões

Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed, “Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?”

Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed, “Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?”

Earlier in the year, Stewart Lansley (Visiting Fellow at the University of Bristol and at City University) and Howard Reed (Director of Landman Economics) co-authored an extensive report on basic income for the British think tank Compass.

As described in the executive summary, “This paper examines the desirability and feasibility of introducing a universal basic income (UBI) scheme in the UK. It examines the merits of such a scheme, how it might be implemented and what role it might play in the search for a good society, one that is more equal, sustainable and democratic. In particular, it presents the results of a number of simulations of how such a scheme would work in practice, including its cost, distributional impact and feasibility.”

More recently, Lansley and Reed summarized their conclusions and policy recommendations–a gradual and incremental approach to the introduction of a UBI–in an article for the London School of Economics blog.

Read more:

Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed (October 13, 2016) “How to make a Universal Basic Income a reality” LSE blog.

Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed (May 2016) “Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?” Compass.

Also see Tyler Prochazka’s Basic Income News exclusive interview with Lansley about the Compass report.


Image CC BY 2.0 Steven Depolo

LATIN AMERICA: Major conference recommends BI to increase women’s autonomy

LATIN AMERICA: Major conference recommends BI to increase women’s autonomy

The Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean has recently produced a report in which it recommends a universal and unconditional basic income as one measure to promote the equality and autonomy of women.

The Thirteenth Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean, organized by the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), was held in Montevideo, Uruguay from October 25-28. It brought together politicians and policy researchers with expertise in the rights and welfare of women in the region.

In the 150-page report titled “Equality and women’s autonomy in the sustainable development agenda”, conference participants discuss their policy recommendations to ensure the equality, autonomy, and empowerment of women.

While the report covered a wide range of policy areas, its section on women’s economic equality and independence is particularly noteworthy for Basic Income News–since, in addition to other reforms, it clearly recommends a universal and unconditional basic income (cf. pp. 50-51).

The report notes that women often “face the most vulnerable and precarious [economic] situations” and thus stand to benefit considerably from a basic income (p. 50).

Summarizing the impact of basic income, the authors write:

While the basic income would not resolve all the problems caused by inequality and the sexual division of labour (as this would require broader structural reform covering different variables), it would have some positive effects, including: (i) increasing women’s freedom by giving them economic independence; (ii) reducing the feminization of poor households; (iii) distributing domestic and care work better, as a basic income would increase women’s bargaining power. In addition, women would gain not only in economic terms but also in terms of rights and autonomy (Raventós and Wark, 2016). The introduction of a universal basic income for women would have at least three further outcomes: (i) a more balanced distribution of resources; (ii) recognition of gender equality by guaranteeing a basic income for both sexes; (iii) enhancing women’s individuality and hence the possibility of furthering women’s representation.

A minimum wage policy, coupled with a basic income policy, would create synergy, helping to increase women’s economic autonomy and to improve distributive equality in countries of the region; in turn, this would contribute to sustainable development (p. 51).

In addition to basic income and a minimum wage, the report calls for a reduction in work hours, which would permit more women to balance employment with domestic work, while also allowing men to devote greater time to childrearing, housework, and so forth.

Elsewhere in the report, while summarizing a range of programs to combat poverty, the authors mention (in passing) “the possibility of recognizing the right to a guaranteed basic income as a new human right” (p. 41).

This is not the first time in recent months that ECLAC has recommended a basic income. In its position document released in May, ECLAC encouraged its member states to investigate the possibility of adopting a basic income guarantee (here presented chiefly as a response to technologically-driven unemployment and instability). The commission’s recommendations have been instrumental in the movement in Mexico City to secure a basic income as a constitutionally-recognized right.

In past years, ECLAC has also been a participant at BIEN’s biennial Congress (2014) and released a report specifically on basic income (2010).


Reviewed by Robert Gordon.

Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 World Bank Photo Collection.

 

International: BIEN participates at CO-ACTE meeting in Romania

Romanian Orthodox Cathedral in Timisoara

Romanian Orthodox Cathedral in Timisoara

 

The last thematic meeting of the CO-ACTE project was held in Timisoara, Romania, on the 16th and 17th of September. This international meeting, titled “Democratic governance of common goods for the well-being of all today and in the future”, was attended by Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Executive Committee member André Coelho, as well as individuals from several other organizations, such as the Community Land Trust, Giuseppe Mastruzzo, Mairie de Saillans Municipality and the School of Peace. Members of local Romanian organizations were also present.

 

Like previous CO-ACTE meetings, the event was organized by the Together association, in collaboration with a local partner based in Timisoara, a beautiful historical city at the southeast edge of the Banat plain.

 

This meeting was an important step towards the final presentation of the project, which has been reported on before, to be held in Braine-l’Alleud (Belgium), November 2-4. At this event, project participants will present CO-ACTE’s 10-year development results to political actors, including top officials at the European Commission. The CO-ACTE project focuses on societal developments and public policies for the well-being of all, using the results from a large popular consultation effort (an application of a technique called the SPIRAL method).

 

Basic income is one of the policies defended within the CO-ACTE project, where it is considered central to achieving a balanced state of economic activity which aligns with the well-being of all, both now and for future generations. This relates perfectly with the aforementioned meeting on democratic governance, since it has long been realized  that there is no real freedom, hence the shared management of common goods and direct forms of democracy, without economic security.

 

More information at:

CO-ACTE website