by Peter Knight | Apr 24, 2024 | News
Photo by Darpan on Unsplash
Note: Like many pilot programs, this one does not meet the BIEN definition of basic income because it is not universal for residents in its geographic region.
“A Seattle-area guaranteed basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month to help reduce poverty. Employment in the group nearly doubled, and numerous unhoused residents secured housing.
The Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County launched a 10-month guaranteed basic income pilot program with 102 participants in fall 2022. New findings by research firm Applied Inference reveal that the $5,000 total payments improved participants’ quality of life, housing, and employment outcomes.”
To read the full Business Insider article, click here.
To read the full report by Applied Inference, LLC click here.
by Malcolm Torry | May 13, 2020 | News, Research
The Journal of Social Policy has published an article by Young-Kyu Shin, Teemu Kmppainen and Katai Kuitto, ‘Precarious Work, Unemployment Benefit Generosity and Universal Basic Income Preferences: A Multilevel Study on 21 European Countries’
The idea of universal basic income (UBI) has been attracting increasing attention globally over recent years. However, research on the individual and institutional determinants of UBI support is scarce. The present study attempts to fills this gap by analysing workers’ attitudes towards UBI schemes in 21 European welfare states and focusing on the roles of precarious work (i.e. part-time work, temporary employment, low-skilled service employment, and solo self-employment) and unemployment benefit generosity (i.e. net replacement rate, payment duration, and qualifying period). We estimate fixed and random effects logistic models by merging country-level institutional data with the European Social Survey Round 8 data collected in 2016. The findings show that temporary employment is associated with positive attitudes towards UBI schemes, whereas other types of precarious work do not have significant influences. In addition, the results reveal that the more generous a country’s unemployment benefits, the less likely are workers in that country to support UBI schemes.
For further details of the article, click here
–
by Claire Bott | Feb 25, 2018 | News
Alaska’s provision of regular, unconditional income to its inhabitants has had no overall effect on employment, a recent study has found.
The Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), provided by the Alaskan government to all citizens who apply for it, currently stands at approximately $2000 per person per year. The authors of the study have indicated that, although this seems a small amount, the fact that it is applied regardless of age means that a two-parent family with two children could claim $8000 per year, which is considerably more substantial.
The study was carried out by Associate Professor Damon Jones of the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, and Assistant Professor Ioana Marinescu of the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice. Jones is a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, while Marinescu has had her research published in a number of peer-reviewed journals.
Claims have previously been made that the provision of a universal basic income such as the PFD would tend to discourage participation in the workforce. However, the studies which seemed to support this have been based on situations where the money provided was given only to a small group of people. Jones and Marinescu posited that, in a situation where unconditional funds are provided to a large population, effects on employment could differ.
The study did in fact find that there was no overall decrease either in employment or in overall hours worked. The authors suggest that one reason for this could be that the PFD recipients, in spending their additional funds, are indirectly increasing the need for extra employees to provide goods and services to them.
The only significant change found by the study was a 17% increase in part-time work. Given that a greater percentage of women than men appeared to be taking up part-time work, it is possible that this change may have been, at least in part, the result of women using the extra funds to provide childcare, without which they would have been unable to remain part of the workforce.
The study was reported in a number of news outlets, including the New Yorker.
Alaska’s Permanent Fund originated in the 1970s, with a sudden influx of money due to revenue from newly exploited Alaskan oil reserves. Following concerns that a corresponding increase in government spending could be unsustainable should the amount of oil revenue decrease, the Permanent Fund was established, receiving 25% of “all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the State”, according to the wording of the relevant amendment to the Alaskan constitution.
The Permanent Fund Dividend was first provided in 1982, when it was only a few hundred dollars per person. It has since increased at an approximate rate of $500 per decade.
Edited by: Dawn Howard
by Kate McFarland | Oct 29, 2017 | Research
A basic income and job guarantee are commonly presented as competing solutions to poverty and economic insecurity. In a new paper for the Institute of Labor Economics, however, Felix FitzRoy and Jim Jin of the School of Economics and Finance University of St. Andrews make a case for combining the approaches.
According to the authors, proponents of a basic income often fail to give due attention to the importance of work and employment to subjective well-being and life satisfaction; unlike a basic income, a job guarantee can provide a good job for all those who want to work, and can also offer training and experience to allow individuals to advance to better jobs. At the same time, the authors argue that a job guarantee overlooks the importance of non-standard employment (they note, for example, that self-employed workers often report high levels of satisfaction, and value their autonomy) and unpaid labor, such as child and elder care.
FitzRoy and Jin develop a proposal for a modest basic income (or partial basic income) in conjunction with a guaranteed job offer for those able and willing to work, striving to combine the advantages of each approach in a policy package that is also both affordable and politically feasible.
Read the full paper here:
Felix FitzRoy and Jim Jin, “Basic Income and a Public Job Offer: Complementary Policies to Reduce Poverty and Unemployment,” Institute of Labor Economics (IZA) Policy Paper No. 133.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: Employment Office (1916), CC BY 2.0 Seattle Municipal Archives
by Andre Coelho | Oct 11, 2017 | News
Jim Chalmers. Credit to: Financial Review.
Jim Chalmers, a Labor Party MP in Australia, claims that basic income, a concept gaining traction in Australia, is a “backward step”. His concerns focus on perceived increases in inequality and affordability issues. Chalmers and Mike Quigley, former chief executive of NBN Co, have laid out these views in their latest book, “Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age”, released on the 25th September 2017.
According to Chalmers and Quigley, the way forward is to aim for full employment, in the face of technological change. This generally aligns with previous claims by Labor Party shadow treasurer Chris Bowen. They also agree that introducing basic income will also equate to slashing on the welfare state. As for unemployment, Chalmers is blunt: “feared widespread loss of jobs in the coming age of automation will not be fixed by giving everyone a basic income”. He also views basic income as basically unfair, since it would amount to giving the same support to a millionaire and to “a single mom struggling to keep food on the table”. That, however, is given out of tax context, since basic income proposals usually revolve around redistribution of tax money from the relatively richer people towards relatively poorer ones. Within this context, a millionaire will naturally be a net contributor to the basic income scheme.
However critical of basic income, Chalmers and Quigley present their own views of what can work for humanity in the near future, of which the Australian people are a close example. They think it is possible to use Big Data to predict “social problems at the household level before they emerge”. This, of course, comes along with high surveillance over people’s “work patterns, hours and wages”. With that and new ideas such as “income smoothing”, which will arguably complement low-paid workers incomes, or smooth their transition from better paid jobs to less paid ones (admitting that well paid jobs will definitely diminish, on average, in the foreseeable future). They also refer to reinforced unemployment benefits, financed by extra taxes on the general public and/or large corporations. To tackle future unemployment, Chalmers and Quigley recommend compulsory education on programming and robotics, while strengthening existing curricula with computational disciplines in order to elevate technological skills in everyone.
More information at:
Roberta Stewart, “AUSTRALIA: Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen (Labor Party) Urges Party NOT to Support Universal Basic Income”, Basic Income News, 16th July 2017
Gareth Hutchens, “Labor MP ridicules universal basic income push and says it would worsen inequality”, The Guardian, 24th September 2017
Daniel Raventós, “Basic Income – The material conditions of freedom”, Pluto Press 2007
