Papers on Feminism in the Basic Income Studies
Basic Income Studies, Volume 9, Issue 1-2. Pages 1-24
Basic Income Studies, Volume 4, Issue 1.
Basic Income Studies, Volume 3, Issue 3.
Basic Income Studies, Volume 3, Issue 3.
John Danaher, “Feminism and the Basic Income (Part One)”
John Danaher -IEET
This piece discusses feminist perspectives both for and against basic income as well as examines the possible effects of basic income for women. The author brings up potential effects such as: changing women’s labor market participation, the amount of money women (and mothers) receive, flexibility in work choice, re-valuation of unpaid work, positive psychological effects, bargaining power, loss of non-pecuniary advantages of paid labor, depreciation of women’s human capital, and increased systematic discrimination against women. The article then describes four feminist arguments in favor of BI and two feminist arguments against BI and concludes that there is no single feminist position on this debate.
John Danaher, “Feminism and the Basic Income (Part One)”. Philosophical Disquisitions, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, July 17, 2014.
Basic Income Takes a Hit in Korea
On March 9, South Korea took to the polls for the 2022 Presidential Election. Former governor of Gyeonggi province, Lee Jae-myung of the ruling Democratic Party lost by a narrow margin of less than 0.7% to Yoon Suk-yeol from the People Power Party. This election outcome will likely stunt the development of basic income in the country.
As Guy Standing has written previously, this election in Korea is a vital one as Lee Jae-myung is a proponent of basic income. Prior to his candidacy, Lee served as mayor of Seongnam and subsequently governor of Gyeonggi, the province surrounding the capital city of Seoul. Among other initiatives, he famously launched the Gyeonggi Youth Basic Income (YBI) in 2019, providing valuable insights into how this idea might work in a highly developed country as well as an Asian economy. It is not so often that we see a major presidential candidate championing basic income at a national level (Andrew Yang dropped out of the race in 2020). Lee vowed to gradually implement a universal scheme in Korea, focusing on the youth and expanding to cover the entire population.
As the world’s 10th largest economy, a nationwide programme implemented in Korea could lead to tremendous progress in the discourse on basic income. With an advanced economic structure, high automation rate, and rising youth unemployment, Korea has the conditions of a postindustrial society in which a strong case for basic income could be built. Instead, such a prospect was overshadowed by more salient topics such as economic inequality, inter-Korea relations, and China’s influence. Gender equality and anti-feminism were at the forefront of the political debate, with Yoon pledging to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
Dubbed the “unlikeable election” due to the prevalence of smearing campaigns, the presidential race was a very close one with neither candidate receiving majority support. Yoon garnered 48.56% of the votes nationwide, ahead of Lee’s 47.83%. A provincial breakdown of the election results reveals a highly divided country with democrat votes concentrated in the southwestern part of the country and conservatives in the east. Lee’s approval ratings in his own province seem to be falling – he barely received half of the votes in Gyeonggi this time, where he served as governor from 2018 to 2021. Now that Lee has resigned his governor seat and lost the presidential race, the cause for basic income in Korea will be affected to a certain extent.
This election outcome may not spell the end to basic income in Korea, however – outgoing president Moon Jae-in lost to Park Geun-hye in 2012, only to be elected as her successor five years later; moreover, a young Basic Income Party is seeking to bring this issue into the mainstream. The party fielded their own presidential candidate this year as well, critiquing Lee’s roadmap. Korea may not be the first country in the world to implement universal basic income just yet, but political tides could change and there is still room for this movement to grow.
On March 9 South Korea took to the polls for the 2022 Presidential Election. Former governor of Gyeonggi province, Lee Jae-myung of the ruling Democratic Party lost by a narrow margin of less than 0.7% to Yoon Suk-yeol from the People Power Party. This election outcome will likely stunt the development of basic income in the country.
As Guy Standing has written previously, this election in Korea is a vital one as Lee Jae-myung is a proponent of basic income. Prior to his candidacy, Lee served as mayor of Seongnam and subsequently governor of Gyeonggi, the province surrounding the capital city of Seoul. Among other initiatives, he famously launched the Gyeonggi Youth Basic Income (YBI) in 2019, which provides valuable insights into how this idea might work in a highly developed country as well as Asian economy. It is not so often that we see a major presidential candidate championing basic income at a national level (Andrew Yang dropped out of the race in 2020): Lee vowed to gradually implement a universal scheme in Korea, focusing on the youth and expanding to cover the entire population.
As the world’s 10th largest economy, a nationwide programme implemented in Korea could lead to tremendous progress in the discourse on basic income. With an advanced economic structure, high automation rate, and rising youth unemployment, Korea has the conditions of a postindustrial society in which a strong case for basic income could be built. Instead, such a prospect was overshadowed by more salient topics such as economic inequality, inter-Korea relations, and China’s influence. Gender equality and anti-feminism were at the forefront of the political debate, with Yoon pledging to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
Dubbed the “unlikeable election” due to the prevalence of smearing campaigns, the presidential race was a very close one with neither candidate receiving majority support. Yoon garnered 48.56% of the votes nationwide, ahead of Lee’s 47.83%. A provincial breakdown of the election results reveals a highly divided country, with democrat votes concentrated in the southwestern part of the country and conservatives in the east. Lee’s approval ratings in his own province seem to be falling as well – he barely received half of the votes in Gyeonggi, where he served as governor from 2018 to 2021. Now that Lee has resigned his governor seat and lost the presidential race, the cause for basic income in Korea will be affected to a certain extent.
This election outcome may not spell the end to basic income in Korea, however – outgoing president Moon Jae-in lost to Park Geun-hye in 2012, only to be elected as her successor five years later. Moreover, a young Basic Income Party is seeking to bring this issue into the mainstream, fielding its own presidential candidate in the election this year as well. Korea may not be the first country in the world to implement universal basic income just yet, but political tides could change and there is still room for this movement to grow.
Truston Yu is a BIEN life member and former resident of Seoul, specializing in Southeast Asian studies including Korea-Southeast Asia relations. Their commentaries have been featured by numerous outlets including the Diplomat, the Jakarta Post and the Straits Times.
Korea: Sea Cucumber Fisheries as Shared Property of Islanders – “rediscovering rural basic income experiments”
Editor’s note: The use of the term ‘basic income’ for the sheme in Janggo Island does not correspond to BIEN’s definition of basic income, since it is paid not to all residents but to only participants in communal fish farming activities for 20 years, and paid not to individual but to household.
A forum took place on the meaning and issues of the basic rural income social experiment, which Gyeonggi Province plans to conduct in the second half of this year. Entitled, “The Meaning and Issues of the Community-centered Basic Income Social Experiment,” the first Rural Basic Income Policy Forum was held on the 29th of January and introduced cases and discussed India’s basic income experiment, distribution of shared assets in Boryeong, Chungcheongnam-do, and Jeju Island. The Hankyoreh Economic and Social Research Institute with the Gyeonggi-do Agricultural and Fisheries Promotion Agency, the Basic Income Korea Network, Lab 2050, the Korea University Institute of Government Studies, and the Korea Regional Development Foundation all participated in organizing the January event. Some of the presenters and debaters participated online.
Lessons from the Indian basic income experiment
Sarath Davala, the keynote speaker, is the architect of India’s basic income social experiment and chairman of the Basic Income District Network, which leads the discussion on basic income worldwide. He laid out the implications of basic income experiments conducted in India and Namibia.
Namibia and India conducted basic income experiments—in 2008 and 2011, respectively—during which Namibia paid USD 12 and India USD 4 per month to 2,000 people for a span of 12 months. “Contrary to many people’s expectations, people who received basic income did not become lazy. Start-ups and economic activity increased, new transportation facilities were opened, school attendance rates rose, household debt decreased, and other good things occurred. In Namibia, the consumption of alcohol remained unchanged,” Dr. Davala explained.
Dr. Davala also introduced changes in policies following basic income social experiments. “After the social experiment, the local government in India began providing cash allowances to all farmers proportional to their farmland area in 2018, and through this policy, the party won three-quarters of the local council. […] However, the program excluded sharecroppers and non-farmers and allowances were paid only to owners of land in rural areas, and basic income discussions focused mainly on ‘the excluded.’ […] The implications of the Indian outcomes on other basic income experiments is that one needs to follow the principle of individuality and avoid excluding anyone in the region.”
Dr. Davala emphasized the role of social experimentation in promoting social dialogue beyond the collection of evidence. “In the past, we did not conduct small-scale social experiments in advance before abolishing slavery or winning women’s suffrage. These policies were based on values, philosophy, and human rights. Obviously, the policy effect rationale is important, but the policy is not implemented only with evidence. In India, political movements took place after social experiments, and there was a close review and public discussion of what was better,” he said. Another aspect of the social experiment he emphasizes is that it triggered dialogue between the public and the media, experts, and political parties to discuss desirable alternatives. “In Korea, there have been experiments with things such as youth dividends in Seongnam City, a basic income for young people in Gyeonggi Province, and national disaster support funds amid the Corona crisis, which has attracted the attention of politicians and the public.”
Sea cucumber seeds become basic income for islanders
The forum also presented a case where a local community shares the profits generated from a shared asset. Kang Je-yoon, head of the Island Research Institute, explained how Janggo Island allocates the profits from collected seafood to the islanders. Janggo is a small island with 81 households and 200 residents and began allocating profits from sea cucumber farming grounds in 1993. In 2019, 11 million won (around USD 10,000) was paid annually to each household in basic income. Kang said, “Unlike other fisheries, sea cucumbers grow on their own when the residents sow seeds. There is nothing residents have to do with them until they are ready for harvesting. Residents of Janggo Island receive a basic income from sea cucumber farming, which requires minimal labor, and the same amount is allocated as labor income from collecting clams ten times over two months. “Since the village community provides a basic income and labor income together worth 20 million won per year (USD 19,000), Janggo Island residents earn equal and stable income, unlike residents of other islands, where large income gaps exist between those in the aquaculture industry and those who are not.
However, Janggo Island also went through a slow and painful process before residents received a consistent dividend. Initially, the fishing village fraternity rented out fishing grounds around Janggo Island to fish farmers, who paid rent to the village society. Director Kang said, “It is illegal to rent out fishing grounds, which no one owns, and beside that, the rent was 500,000 won a year, which was an absurdly low price for 1983. In 1983, the village’s newly appointed head persuaded residents to reclaim the fishing grounds, after which they managed the profits from the fishing grounds (now village property) for ten years, and gave out loans. After much controversy, the dividend first began in 1993, and residents’ complaints about fishing grounds profits subsided, and the community’s common interest in the fishing grounds increased the quality of management.” A fair distribution system supported the management of shared assets.
Kim Ja-kyung, an academic research professor at Jeju National University, who presented on the possibility of basic income through shared assets on Jeju Island, said, “Jeju Island has a tradition of distributing profits through communal operation of pastureland and fisheries. For example, one village harvests seaweed fusiforme and agar together and distributes them among the participants while allowing individuals to keep the collected seaweed for themselves. One hundred and one fishing village fraternities had their own unique customs and order.”
Recently, wind and wind power generation has been drawing greater attention as a new shared asset on Jeju. Professor Kim gave a wind farm in Haengwon-ri, Gujwa-eup, eastern Jeju Island as an example. “Six villages in Haengwon-ri receive part of their wind power generation profits and set aside the funds. […] There is always a possibility of conflict and disagreement in the village, which prevents certain people from arbitrarily exercising their decision-making authority.” There is still work left to be done to develop a system to distribute the new shared asset profits fairly.
Consideration of the impact of distribution system on residents
Lee Chang-han, director of the Korea Regional Development Foundation, which designed the basic income social experiment in rural areas in Gyeonggi Province, said the experiment’s primary purpose is to closely examine the impact of basic income on the local community. “Because of the name “basic rural income,” many people are confused whether it only benefits farmers. However, farmers in rural areas in Gyeonggi-do Province make up only about 16% of the total population. It is crucial how farmers and non-farmers interact in the same living space in these rural areas. Like Janggo Island, we will observe the impact of the distribution system on resident communities.”
Park Kyung-chul, a researcher at Chungnam Research Institute, said, “Since 2019, various local governments have introduced farmers’ allowances, and there has been a discussion on farmers’ basic income. […] However, since non-farmers are also, directly and indirectly, involved in agricultural activities in rural areas, and together they form local communities, expanding the scope of payments to all rural residents is the concept behind basic income.”
Lee Ji-eun, CEO of the Basic Income New Research Network, said, “The basic income social experiment in rural areas can be reevaluated in terms of climate justice.” She added, “We hope this experiment will lead to discussions on rediscovering ‘the commons’ (shared assets), discovering small sustainable economic models and revitalizing ecological feminism, reflecting the peculiarity of rural areas.”
Lee Won-jae, CEO of Lab2050, who headed the debate, said, “I think the basic income social experiment in Gyeonggi Province has a unique status, as does the basic income experiment in Finland…where the prime minister in power conducted a policy experiment. In Korea, the experiment is taking place when basic income is becoming a central political topic.” This means that it is an environment in which the country’s overall policy will follow the results of the social experiment.
For more information, check out Gyeonggi Rural Basic Income Social Experiment’s blog page: https://gg-rbip.medium.com/
Written by Yoon Hyeong-joong, visiting fellow at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute, philyoon23@gmail.com
Translated by Eunjae Shin, researcher at the Hankyoreh Economy and Society Research Institute, eunjae.shin@hani.co.kr Reviewed by Toru Yamamori, Academic Research Editor of BIEN
Photo: Credit: Janggo Island, South Korea, is experimenting on sharing dividends from sea cucumber farming grounds with its residents. Provided by Kang Je-yoon.
