by Karl Widerquist | Aug 21, 2019 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This is a draft version of my forward to the book, Implementing a Basic Income in Australia: Pathways Forward edited by Elise Klein, Jennifer Mays, and Tim Dunlop New York: Palgrave-Macmillan 2019
Back in 1999, when I first started following international developments on Basic Income (BI), not much was going on in Australia. Allan McDonald had been writing about BI in the newsletter for a group called Organisation Advocating Support Income Studies in Australia (OASIS-Australia), but when he stepped down in 2002, no one was available to take over.
But over the last several years, interest in BI in Australia has picked up greatly. Australians inside and outside of academia are producing a lot of research and literature on it, and that work is beginning to have a major impact on politics. Australia’s two major parties might not yet be ready to endorse BI, but they can no longer ignore it. And in fact, the Australian Greens, a party that often holds the balance-of-power in Australia’s federal Upper House, have officially adopted BI as party policy.
Australia has become not simply one of the countries where BI is regularly discussed, but very possibly a major world centre for UBI activity. One sign is that the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), the only worldwide BI network, has selected Australia for the location of its 2020 conference.
Another sign became obvious to me in 2017 when Elise Klein invited me to come to Australia to speak at a BI conference. Members of Basic Income Guarantee Australia (BIGA) took the opportunity to set me up for as many talks or meetings as I could do in the time I had. That turned out to be a whirlwind of seven appearances in four days in three cities—Canberra, Sydney, and Melbourne. I spoke with members of parliament, with members of the media, with academics, and with university students. I slept on a train and on a plane, and I managed to stay awake for all or most of the two-day, BI research conference in Melbourne, where I learned a lot and had the chance to meet many of the authors of this book. I was impressed by the breadth and depth of BI work going on in Australia.
A third sign that Australia has become a major world centre for BI research can be found in the publication of the book, Implementing a Basic Income in Australia: Pathways Forward edited by Elise Klein, Jennifer Mays, and Tim Dunlop (Palgrave Macmillan 2019). It includes a dozen authors from fields as diverse as Anthropology, Development, Economics, Geography, Journalism, Political Economy, Political Science, Public Health, Social Work, and Sociology. It addresses major empirical and philosophical issues of implementing BI in Australia. Although all or most of the chapters are written in a way that will be interesting to an international audience, parts of the book’s focus is on issues that will be especially interesting in the Australian context, such as the specific problems and opportunities for BI in very remote areas as well as its value as a tool to counter the effects of Australian settler colonialism.
The book pays special attention to the political barriers in the way of implementation of BI in Australia and to the opportunities and prospects for political strategies to move BI forward. These include proposals to start with group-focused transfers, such as BI for young people; proposals for how community groups, professionals, and activists can effectively advocate for BI; and proposals for fitting BI into the existing welfare system.
Although these lessons come from the Australian context, the value of this book for the BI movement all over the world needs to be appreciated. It’s a book about implementation—an issue that needs much more analysis by the global BI researchers and activists. Social, economic, and political strategies for BI need to be explored in different ways in every conceivable context. Comparative analysis of different strategies in different contexts is how we’ll truly learn what works and what doesn’t, and this book provides a valuable contribution to that effort.
The book is an excellent read and a valuable resource for researchers, students and anyone interested in BI.
-Karl Widerquist, Doha, Qatar, December 8, 2018
Table of contents (14 chapters)
- Introduction: Implementing a Basic Income in Australia
Pages 1-20
Klein, Elise (et al.)
- Basic Income in Australia: Implementation Challenges
Pages 23-43
Marston, Greg
- Basic Income in the Current Climate: If Australia Can Implement Other Universal Provisions, Then Why Not a Basic Income?
Pages 45-68
Mays, Jennifer
- Feminist Perspectives on Basic Income
Pages 69-85
Cox, Eva
- Basic Income and Cultural Participation for Remote-Living Indigenous Australians
Pages 87-109
Altman, Jon (et al.)
- Diversion Ahead? Change Is Needed but That Doesn’t Mean That Basic Income Is the Answer
Pages 111-126
Bowman, Dina (et al.)
- Finding a Political Strategy for a Basic Income in Australia
Pages 129-145
Hollo, Tim
- Basic or Universal? Pathways for a Universal Basic Income
Pages 147-161
Quiggin, John
- Stepping Stones to an Australian Basic Income
Pages 163-178
Spies-Butcher, Ben (et al.)
- What About Young People? Why a Basic Income for Young People Matters
Pages 179-198
Kaighin, Jenny
- Situating a Basic Income Alongside Paid Work Policies
Pages 199-213
Scott, Andrew
- Social Work, Human Services and Basic Income
Pages 215-235
Ablett, Phillip (et al.)
- Basic Income in Canada: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead
Pages 237-257
Mulvale, James P. (et al.)
- Concluding Remarks and an Invitation
Pages 259-262
Klein, Elise (et al.)
Elise Klein
by Claire Bott | Sep 14, 2017 | News
In a recent video released by the BBC, anthropologist Dr Jason Hickel argues for a form of planned de-growth which includes the provision of basic income.
Hickel is employed by the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), which for several years has been ranked second in the world for social sciences by the QS World University Rankings. In the video, he argues that modern society is harmfully addicted to economic growth, and that this is destroying the planet. He also states “Introducing a basic income and a shorter working week would allow us to get rid of unnecessary jobs and redistribute labour.”
The video is part of the BBC’s “Viewsnight” series, which is released on Facebook and YouTube with the intention of stimulating debate.
Jason Hickel, “Our addiction to economic growth is killing us”, 10th August 2017
by Furui Cheng | Jun 15, 2017 | News, Research
In an article published in the Journal of Political Ecology, Professor Alf Hornborg of the human ecology division of Lund University proposes that each country establish a complementary currency for local use only, which would be distributed to all its residents as a basic income. In this way, humanity as a whole would regain justice and sustainability.
In pre-modern societies, monetized exchange was largely limited to long-distance trade in preciosities, while most basic needs were met through socially embedded relations of reciprocity and distribution. Radical institutional changes in the nineteenth century then made money a medium for obtaining all kinds of goods and services – what we might call “general-purpose money”.
Efficiency is the inherent logic in general-purpose money. Adam Smith identified the benefits of general-purpose money at the local level. Yet when such efficiency is pursued at the level of a globalized economy (possible because fossil fuels have minimized transport costs), the potential for power differences, polarization, exploitation and collateral damage is vastly greater. In this way, the claimed “efficiency” is perhaps even inverted. As long as we subscribe to the assumption of general-purpose money as the medium of exchange organizing human societies, exploitation and underpayment are inevitable implications of production processes.
Economists often deplore such negative aspects of globalization: environmental damage, increasing inequalities, growing regulations, and resource depletion. Yet few tend to consider general-purpose money as a cultural peculiarity to which there are alternatives. Not even Adam Smith drew this conclusion, nor did Karl Marx.
Hornborg suggests that current concerns with climate change and financial crises offer a historical moment for reflection on how the operation of the global economy might be reorganized in the interests of global sustainability, justice, and financial resilience. The societal objective must be to strike a balance between such distinct interests and concerns as market principles and capitalism, everyday local life versus global finance, and long-term sustainability and survival versus short-term gain. In Hornborg’s opinion, the solution is to establish ways of insulating these competing values from one another, rather than allowing one to be absorbed by the other.
To increase sustainability, reduce vulnerability, and diminish inequalities, he advocates a complementary currency issued as basic income. To the long list of questions one may have regarding this policy proposal, Hornborg provides some preliminary answers in his article.
In fact, addressing the negative aspects of general-purpose money itself is not a new idea. Silvio Gesell (1862-1930), a German-born entrepreneur living in Buenos Aires, was an early pioneer of this endeavor. John Maynard Keynes mentioned Gesell in his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:
“It is convenient to mention at this point the strange, unduly neglected prophet Silvio Gesell, whose work contains flashes of deep insight and who only just failed to reach down to the essence of the matter. …their significance only became apparent after I had reached my own conclusions in my own way. …I believe that the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx. The preface to The Nature Economic Order will indicate to the reader, if he will refer to it, the moral quality of Gesell. The answer to Marxism is, I think, to be found along the lines of this preface.”
“Gesell’s specific contribution to the theory of money and interest is as follows. In the first place, he distinguishes clearly between the rate of interest and the marginal efficiency of capital, and he argues that it is the rate of interest which sets a limit to the rate of growth of real capital. Next, he points out that the rate of interest is a purely monetary phenomenon…This led him to the famous prescription of ‘stamped’ money, with which his name is chiefly associated and which has received the blessing of Professor Irving Fisher. According to this proposal currency notes would only retain their value by being stamped each month, …with stamps purchased at a post office… The idea behind stamped money is sound… But there are many difficulties which Gesell did not face.”
From the above, the reader can identify the similarities between Hornborg’s and Gesell’s proposals, from different perspectives, for redesigning and constraining the power of ‘man-made’ general-purpose money.
Alf Hornborg, 2017, “How to turn an ocean liner: a proposal for voluntary degrowth by redesigning money for sustainability, justice, and resilience,” Journal of Political Ecology.
John Maynard Keynes, 1936, Chapter 23 of “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” Palgrave Macmillan.
Article Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
by Cordelia Holst | Feb 22, 2017 | News
In a Fortune Insiders article published last month, Internet entrepreneur Marc Benioff says we “need to look at universal basic income” as a way to stimulate growth.
Marc Benioff is the founder, chairman and CEO of Salesforce, one of America’s highest valued cloud computing companies and the largest employer in San Francisco, California. A celebrated philanthropist, Benioff and Salesforce contribute cash, equity and employee volunteer hours to efforts focused around the issues of education, health, and equal pay for women.
In his article for Fortune Insiders, Benioff turns to the broader income inequality issues facing the US and the world. He frames the call to action to business leaders to ensure that change benefits all of humanity, not just stock owners, employees and customers. In passing, he endorses a closer look at Universal Basic Income as a path to stimulate growth.
Benioff outlines the opportunities and dangers in our rapidly developing technology, calling on business leaders to carefully apply this tech to solving our complex problems while protecting society and the planet. There are many small things that can improve business without affecting the planet using technology, this could be things like a business phone system, which uses the internet to provide a better connection and communication between business associates, clients, and more. Those phone systems are becoming a lot more popular for businesses these days. In order to transition over to VOIP phone systems, businesses could always consider contacting an IT support provider London to ensure it’s all set up and working correctly. That way, businesses can continue to communicate with their clients. Especially for startup companies, communication and marketing can play a pivotal role in their growth. They can analyze their competitors and build a content strategy with the help of dedicated public relations firms. The pr agency for startups that have trained copywriters, IT pros, and former reporters who can carry out the right content strategy. He also identifies four pillars for business leaders to evaluate for their company while they move toward an agenda of lessening inequality: build trust, stimulate growth, spur innovation, drive equality.
In his discussion of the second pillar, stimulating growth, he notes that while governments are promising more jobs, job creation is much more challenging for governments than in previous eras, as tech is changing the face of the job market so quickly. Benioff writes the following:
“Either the inequality gap continues to widen, leaving and the world much less stable, or we invest in the creating the policies and education programs that train young people for the jobs of tomorrow and retrain displaced workers. For those who cannot be retrained, and even those traditionally not compensated for raising a family or volunteering to help others, we need to look at universal basic income, where governments would provide citizens additional income beyond what they already earn at their jobs.”
However this is all Benioff says about Universal Basic Income, leaving it unclear how he is defining or envisioning the program. All that is evident is that he calls for business leaders to support governments looking at Universal Basic Income as a way to get income into consumers’ hands, both the stimulate growth and to protect vulnerable populations.
The Fortune Insiders article also contains a video of a panel discussion from Dreamforce, a conference Benioff’s company hosted in October 2016. On the panel, Benioff discusses the changes in tech and the impact business leaders can make in their own communities, as well as expresses a willingness to work with US policy makers, “sitting down with our President, whoever she may be”; however, he does not bring up universal basic income as a solution, as he does in this article, published post election.
Read the article here:
Marc Benioff, “Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff: How Business Leaders Can Help Narrow Income Inequality,” Fortune.com Fortune Insiders, January 17, 2017.
Photo CC Kenneth Yeung – www.thelettertwo.com
by Toru Yamamori | Sep 1, 2016 | News
The Forum on Shrinking Society is hosting its 35th symp
osium on 11 September 2016. The symposium’s theme is Unconditional Basic Income for Shrinking Society.
Time of Symposium:
13:30-19:15 (UTC+9)
11 September 2016
Venue:
Lecture room 3, New Building of Faculty of Letters
Yoshida (main) campus, Kyoto University
(Number 8 on this map)
Speakers:
Toru Yamamori
Kimio Ito
Hiroshi Matsuhisa
The language used in the symposium is Japanese. However, at the reception (see program below), there will be some people who could communicate in English, including speakers of the symposium. One speaker is fluent in Italian as well.
To register online:
https://confreg.ate-mahoroba.jp/confreg?conf_idstr=byBxaD90pgTqIM9nkdINSvb3876
Detailed program:
13:30-15:00 Toru Yamamori (professor, Doshisha university): Keynes’s prophecy, Meade’s degrowth, and the Working Class Women Liberationists’ Prefiguration
15:15-16:00 Kimio Ito (professor, University of Kyoto): From Operaismo to Autonomia: Wages for Housework, Unemployment, Students, etc. in Italy
16:00-16:45 Hiroshi Matsuhisa（professor emeritus, University of Kyoto): A provisional plan for Shrinking Society based on UBI
17:00-17:30 Discussion
17:45-19:15 Reception（3000 yen at a different venue nearby）
About The Forum on Shrinking Society:
The phrase ‘Shrinking Society’ might sound unfamiliar to readers. The organization deliberately chose the term after collective discussion. They found that terms such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘degrowth’ are not sufficient to represent their purpose, because they believe that “it is necessary to shrink the physical size of society” (as they put it in their founding).
The whole statement is as follows:
The economic growth strategy is facing a dead end. Fossil fuel depletion and environmental concerns have been the topic of discussion recently, with the only solution provided being to hold some superstitious belief that future technological advancement will somehow overcome the problem. In order to maintain the current exponential economic growth, available resources and land must also increase annually. Even a 2 percent annual growth rate will in 100 years lead to a 7.2 fold, and in 200 years a 52 fold increase in necessary land and resources. This is obviously not possible and will only result in a world-wide corruption. The whole world will be fighting over scarce resources. In fact, the war over fossil fuel is already underway. This is why the discussion for “de-growth” and sustainability has come under the spotlight in recent years.
So what kind of “sustainability” are we talking about? Is it that of the current economic growth, lifestyle, environment, or resources? It’s simple – we’re talking about sustaining resource and environment for our future generations. For this, we must reduce our resource usage. Say we have a 100 years’ worth of fossil fuels. If we reduce our usage of this valuable resource by 1 percent a year, there will be another 100 years’ worth of fossil fuels left forever. If we reduce our usage further, the resource will be available for more than 100 years. This is the most practical way of preventing resource exhaustion.
In terms of the environment, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will perpetually increase as long as we continue to use fossil fuels. If we can reduce the usage of fossil fuels then we can also slow down the increase in carbon dioxide emission. If, in the future, a new resource or technology becomes available, then an adjustment can always be made to this reduction plan. However, it is not smart to continue the current growth with an unsupported hope “for an alternative resource to become available and make everything fine”.
The current economic system is based on mass production and mass consumption with quantitative growth and global competition. As a result, our lives are flooded with physical “stuff” which we have become addicted to. Our ever-growing society is already showing signs of discordance instead of happiness. The desirable model of shrinking
society on the other hand supports local production and consumption, which requires less energy, is more ecological, and more durable in the long-term. People will no longer be addicted to physical “stuff” but instead nurture each other and promote creative life.
After the drastic earthquake that hit Fukushima, Japan’s electric power usage has decreased by 10 percent. This in itself shows that the above-mentioned road to shrinking society is possible. Happiness comes from not only physical abundance but also affluent community life and creative work. By following the road to shrinking society we are taking responsibility for our future generations.
The economic growth strategy is facing a dead end. In order to avoid crisis, it is necessary to shrink the physical size of society. At present, there are many problems, such as resource depletion, environmental pollution, population explosion, expanding inequality and terror attacks and wars. The Forum on Shrinking Society is being created to link and unite professionals from various fields in hopes of finding solutions to these problems.
January 22, 2013
