FATHER OF “WORKFARE” IN THE U.S. ENDORSES BIG IN IRAQ (from 2007)

This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in April 2007.

 

Republican Presidential Candidate Tommy Thompson has endorsed BIG—at least in a foreign country. On his campaign website, the former Wisconsin Governor calls himself “the reliable conservative in the 2008 presidential race.” The first reason he gives is, “Tommy Thompson is the father of welfare reform.” Thompson has a good claim to that title. Since 1996, welfare reform, also known as “workfare,” replaced conditional cash support for single mothers with work requirements, sometimes for less than minimum wage, without providing daycare. The plan was modeled on an earlier Wisconsin program initiated by then-governor Thompson. Workfare is usually motivated by the belief that poor people have a responsibility to take whatever jobs are offered, even if they have substantial childcare responsibilities.

Thompson is literally the last America one might expect to endorse BIG—a plan to provide unconditional cash benefits to every citizen. But Thompson has not only endorsed BIG, he has made it a major initiative in his campaign. He has discussed it in numerous interviews and speeches and at the Republican presidential debates. He hasn’t endorsed BIG for the United States but as part of his strategy to win the war in Iraq. The BIG element in Thompson’s Iraq strategy is that one-third of Iraqi government oil revenues will be reserved for a fund to provide every Iraqi with a small income guarantee modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). USBIG Newsletter readers will recall that the APF was the initiative of another Republican Governor, Jay Hammond. It provides a small but significant income guarantee to every Alaskan resident.

Of course, both the APF and any likely Iraq proposal fall short of the goals of most BIG supporters because they are not large enough to cover the recipient’s needs—a “partial BIG” rather than a “full BIG.” But Alaska experience has show that even a partial BIG can make a great difference to the needy and sets the right precedent.

Thompson’s plan is rather far from implementation, however. To introduce it, the U.S. would have to be continuing its involvement in Iraq two years from now, when a president Thompson would take office. At that point the U.S. will have been at war for nearly six years. Even then, Thompson could only recommend the plan to the Iraqi Parliament, which is formally recognized by the U.S. government as the sovereign government of an independent country. If the whole of Thompson’s plan is adopted, United States would likely remain at war in Iraq for four more years while we find out whether the military elements of his plan work.

Thompson has not discussed extending the Alaska-style plan closer to home, nor does he seem aware of the possible conflict between the goals of an APF-style BIG and his pedigree, Workfare.

What’s the big deal if a politician in one country supports BIG in another country where he may have little influence even if elected? It show that framed in the right context, BIG can have a great appeal even to work-ethic conservatives, and it demonstrates the growing appeal of the APF precedent. The APF is so obviously successful, so popular, and so cost-effective that it appeals even to the father of workfare. Much of the motivation for workfare has been popular American resentment against people who receive direct government payments. But there is little resentment in America for people who receive property income whether or not they work and whether or not they received their property through work. The APF makes some part of Alaska’s oil revenues into part of the personal property of every Alaskan. It’s theirs; they own it. It is quite natural to infer that if it is right for every Alaskan to own a share of their oil, then perhaps every Iraqi should own a share of their oil too. But once you have endorsed that principle it is quite natural to infer that every South African should own a share of their gold. Every Botswanan should own a share of their diamonds. Every Welshman should own a share of their coal. Every Bolivian should own a share of their tin. And the full inference is that everyone should own a share of all natural resources. If we put that principle into practice, single mothers would not need workfare at all.
-Karl Widerquist (Michael Lewis contributing), New Orleans, LA, April 2007

Stern, Erik “Growing need for fairness and respect. Negative income tax is better than welfare or workfare for the unemployed”

SG Hard Truth: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, July 24, 2012

This article argues that negative income tax is a bold alternative that fits Singapore better than other policies. Erik Stern writes, the negative income tax, “lets the labour market determine the wage that matches the skill set. It allows the government to decide what the base wage should be, for each level of employee or type of job, not only the minimum level.” The writer is president of Stern Stewart & Co, a business consultancy

This article was originally posted on Business Times Premium at:
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/premium/editorial-opinion/opinion/growing-need-fairness-and-respect
It was reposted and is currently online at:
https://sghardtruth.com/2012/07/25/growing-need-for-fairness-and-respect-negative-income-tax-is-better-than-welfare-or-workfare-for-the-unemployed/

Rentier Capitalism, the Precariat and Basic Income for China

Rentier Capitalism, the Precariat and Basic Income for China

Find the Chinese translation here for Guy Standing’s talk in China. The original English of the talk can be found below.

Throughout history, capitalism has evolved, changing character and changing the class structure defining each era. The changes in the 20th century can be understood by reference to what Karl Polanyi called the Great Transformation. Briefly, in his formulation, in the 19th century, mainly in Britain, there was an initial period in the evolution of industrial capitalism that was dominated by financial capital, in which old systems of distribution, regulation and social protection were dismantled, in what we would call the pursuit of a ‘free market economy’. 

In Polanyi’s terminology, this was a period in which the economy was ‘dis-embedded’ from society, that is, out of control by civilising social forces. As a result, inequalities and economic insecurities multiplied until there was a systemic crisis, and in his words ‘a threat of the annihilation of civilisation’. This manifested itself in the Great Depression, and the rise of fascism and a dehumanised form of state socialism in the Soviet Union. 

After the Second World War, there was an era in which the capitalistic economy was re-embedded in society through what is usually called welfare state capitalism, led by countries of western Europe, and welfare capitalism, mainly in the USA. There were many distinctive features of this period of capitalism, which we will not discuss here. However, most relevant for the narrative of this presentation, it was a period in which capital made concessions to the main working class, the proletariat. 

It was the era of a brief triumph of social democracy. In return for accepting capital’s right to manage and control the accumulation process, the state pursued policies that shared the gains from economic growth between capital and labour while partially decommodifying labour. The state provided labour-based security, and a broadening array of non-wage state benefits, while capital provided non-wage enterprise benefits to employees. What should be called the social income of workers shifted steadily away from the money wage, as the value of non-wage benefits rose. As we know, similar policies were part of Leninism in the Soviet Union and the danwei ‘iron rice bowl’ policy in the China of the 1950s and 1960s.

The proletariat under capitalism were, in effect, provided with labour-based security against what are called contingency risks, such as unemployment, accidents and illness, and lifetime hazards, such as maternity and old-age. But this security was made strictly conditional on the performance of labour and the willingness to perform labour, or being a dependent person on somebody performing labour. So, it was really fictitious labour decommodification. If you did not provide full-time labour, you had no security, or what you had was determined by being dependent on a wage labourer.

Two problems became acute in the 1970s. Because the money wage had fallen to being a low percentage of total labour remuneration, there was no incentive to perform labour productively. This reached extreme form in the Soviet Union, in which workers had a joke, ‘They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.’ 

The second problem was devastating for industrialised capitalistic economies. The welfare state capitalism model had in effect taken labour out of international trade. Countries producing competitive manufacturing commodities had similar levels of labour costs, with similar non-wage benefits, while developing economies had very low labour costs but were producing mainly complementary primary goods. That meant labour costs were not a major factor in international trade. But in the 1970s, this changed dramatically, with the emergence of export-oriented ‘newly industrialising countries’ (NICs), mainly in south-east Asia. For that and other reasons, welfare state capitalism experienced acute crisis. The embedded phase of Polanyi’s Great Transformation collapsed.

This led to the neo-liberal economics revolution, led by economists known as ‘the Chicago school’. Once again, advocates of capitalism were in ascendancy, advocating a ‘free market economy’, but really supporting financial capital and stronger state regulation of labour, designed to weaken the bargaining position of workers and to lower their social income. It was a period of labour re-commodification, in which non-wage benefits and social services were cut and in which social democratic political parties lost power.

But, as argued in my books, the ‘free market’ neo-liberalism was only a transitional phase. By the 1990s, financial capital was firmly in control, and a form of capitalism emerged that was the opposite of what the neo-liberals claimed they wanted. It is best described as global rentier capitalism. It was the triumph of private property rights, in which more and more of the income flowed to the owners of property – physical assets, financial assets and so-called intellectual property. 

This new system came into full effect in 1994, when an international agreement was reached called TRIPS, the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. This globalised the US system of intellectual property rights. It marked the hegemonic pinnacle of the United States. At that time, China was not included. It only joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, after which China rapidly expanded as a rentier state, soon filing more patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, giving monopolistic profits to leading corporations and financial capital.

The point of most relevance to this lecture is that globalised rentier capitalism meant that more and more income flowed to property owners and less and less flowed to those who performed labour and work. Real wages stagnated or fell in industrialised capitalistic countries and income and wealth inequalities rose all over the world. Making all that worse was that governments gave huge subsidies and tax breaks to their major corporations to increase their competitiveness in export markets.

…and the class structure changed  

Meanwhile, due to globalisation, an ongoing technological revolution and neoliberal labour and social policies, a new globalised class structure took shape. Every configuration of capitalism produces a new class structure, and it is a mistake of some Marxists to portray the class structure in dualistic terms, as if classes and the class structure are the same today as they were in Marx’s time in the 19th century. 

A class can be defined in terms of three dimensions – distinctive relations of production, distinctive relations of distribution and distinctive relations to the state. Bearing that in mind, we may briefly describe the global class structure under rentier capitalism.

In descending order of average income and state power, at the top is the plutocracy, made up of a tiny number of billionaires, making most of their vast income from forms of property. Below them is an elite, mainly in managerial positions, but also gaining from property. Then there is a small group of independent self-employed, which I call proficians, making a lot of money but living insecurely. Then, there is a larger salariat – those with salaried employment, occupational pensions, houses and shares. 

These four groups are defined in detail in my books. The crucial points for this lecture are that, first, all are recipients of rentier income, and second, all are objectively and emotionally detached from existing welfare states. They do not gain much from social policies and do not expect to need them. It is often overlooked that the salariat, as well as the plutocracy and elite, have done very well during the rentier capitalism era, gaining in particular from asset price inflation. The new class structure is not the “1% versus the 99%”, as too many commentators have claimed. 

All this means that those top strata – perhaps accounting for 25% of the population in most countries – have little inclination to defend wages, labour standards or state benefits, unless they are driven by fear of losing their privileges as a result of a revolt from disadvantaged majority below them in the structure.

Below those groups in the evolving class structure is the old proletariat, for whom social democratic political parties and labour unions were built, and whose interests were advanced globally by the International Labour Organisation. The key points here for this discourse are that, first, the proletariat was subject to proletarianization, that is, habituated to the disciplines of stable full-time labour, and second, they experienced fictitious decommodification, in that the money wage shrank as a share of social income, with more non-wage benefits giving them labour security. As stated earlier, it was not real decommodification, since they were obliged to sell labour (effort and time) in order to obtain those entitlements, or be married to someone prepared to do so.

For the proletariat, the norm was and is to be in a stable full-time job. They were induced to have a form of false consciousness. Their political representatives wanted as many people as possible in full-time labour. They romanticised being in a job, promising Full Employment, and quietly resorting to what is known as ‘workfare’, that is, by denying benefits to anybody not providing labour. As socialists, they conveniently forgot that being in a job is being in a position of subordination, and failed to recall Marx’s depiction of labour in jobs as ‘active alienation’. 

The norm of the proletariat’s relations of production was employment security, not occupational security, in that they have had to do what activity they are told to so. They have been exploited in workplaces and in labour time. As for their relations of distribution, those in the proletariat were never rent-recipients, having no income from property. But as a norm they were also not structurally exploited by rent mechanisms.         

This leads to the emerging mass class of rentier capitalism, the precariat. This is not an ‘under-class’, which is a category cut off from society. The precariat’s distinctive relations of production include having unstable, insecure labour, having to do a lot of work that is not labour, including work for the state, having no occupational or organisational narrative to give to themselves, and being exploited and oppressed off workplaces and outside labour time as much as within them. 

Many are being drawn into what in the economics literature is called ‘platform capitalism’, as ‘concierge’ workers or as ‘cloud taskers’, controlled and manipulated by apps and other labour brokers. Above all, they are being habituated to precariatisation – the opposite of proletarianisation, that is, pressured to accept and adapt to a life of unstable labour without a secure occupational identity. The nearest equivalent in China is the vivid idea of ‘the ant tribe’.  

The precariat’s relations of distribution are distinctive. First, they must try to survive solely on low, volatile and uncertain money wages, with few if any non-wage benefits or assured state benefits. Second, they are systematically subject to exploitation by rental mechanisms, living constantly on the edge of unsustainable debt. The insecurity they experience is unlike that of the proletariat, being characterised by chronic uncertainty and fragility in the context of  unpredictable but common shocks to their lives. 

That is bad enough. However, it is the distinctive relations to the state that most define the precariat. The primary antagonist of the precariat is the state, rather than capital directly. The reality is that they are losing or not gaining the rights and entitlements of citizens. Above all, they are reduced to being supplicants, dependent on the discretionary benevolence of landlords, employers, parents, charities and strangers, hoping they will show them pity. The etymological root of precariousness, from the Latin, is ‘to obtain by prayer’. The precariat are almost like beggars; they must rely on people’s charity. They have no secure rights, and so experience constant insecurities.

It is important to emphasise that the precariat is a class, in that capital and the state want it to exist as a functional part of the productive system. But below the precariat is a huge and growing lumpen-precariat, an ‘underclass’, consisting of millions of people living and dying in the streets prematurely, from social illnesses, opioids and suicidal depression. The underclass represents a threat to the precariat. It reminds them that unless they conform to the new norms, they could fall into an even worse existence.

The precariat is the core working class of the 21st century. But it is important to emphasise that the precariat is a class-in-the-making not yet a class-for-itself. What this means is that, whereas members of the precariat are conscious of the conditions that define themselves, they are not yet united in having a common vision of what type of transformed society they want. Indeed, the precariat consists of three groups.

The first can be called Atavists. These are people who came from old proletarian families or communities and who look back to a real or imaginary life of labour security. They tend to be relatively low-educated, and want to recover the Past. This group has tended to support neo-fascist or populist politicians, like Donald Trump, who promise to bring back some imaginary glorious Yesterday.

The second can be called Nostalgics. These are mostly migrants and racial minorities, who feel they do not have a home anywhere. They do not have a Present, a Here-and-Now. They will not support neo-fascists or populists, but feel and are dis-enfranchised, left out of society. There are a huge number of people in this group, and from time to time they indulge in ‘days of rage’.

The third faction in the precariat can be called Progressives. These are mainly the young and educated, who were promised a Future if they went to university or college, but who come out with no Future other than the prospect of persistent debt and uncertainty. They too will not support a neo-fascistic agenda. But across the world they are looking for a new Future.

It is this third group that could be the vanguard of a new progressive politics. The reason why they are a new dangerous class is that they do not identify with either capital or labour. They do not suffer from a false consciousness, of believing that an ideal situation is to be in full-time jobs. Of course, most do want jobs, out of necessity. But they see jobs as instrumental, not defining their lives, identities or aspirations. We must appreciate that the precariat are not just ‘victims’. They are also active and are seeking an alternative reality to what is the norm of today.   

This is behind the new phenomenon in China and elsewhere of ‘lying flat’, simply not conforming to the norms imposed by capitalism, norms that say people should strive to be successful economically and should labour hard in the hope or expectation of upward social mobility. Political leaders must respond to the precariat’s sense of agency and their aspirations

The Age of Uncertainty

The precariat is growing in size in the context of an unstable global economy, in which the main feature is unpredictable uncertainty. This is made more severe by a unique combination of historical forces. Capitalism has always been unstable, as Marx first made clear. But he could not have anticipated the way today’s rentier capitalism has coincided with a seismic technological revolution and an ecological crisis, in which financial crises, natural disasters and pandemics are increasingly widespread and global in character.

We are living in a transformational moment, a time of constant crisis, in which, to recall Karl Polanyi’s assessment of the 1920s, the world could either lurch into a dark night of authoritarianism, philistinism and neo-fascism or it could make a decisive turn into a new age of Enlightenment. At the moment, the first seems more likely. But it can be averted. 

The key point on which to concentrate is that we are living in an age of chronic uncertainty, in which crises pile into one another, plunging masses of people in almost every country deeper into social and economic insecurity, impoverishment, stress and ill-health. 

There was the financial crash of 2008, followed by more than a decade of ‘austerity’ in western countries (when state benefits and public social services were severely reduced), a series of six pandemics just since the beginning of the century culminating in Covid, with more to follow. And now a ‘cost-of-living’ crisis as inflation surges, exposing more people to unsustainable pressures. In the background are disgusting wars that are little more than neo-colonial land grabbing. If we are not scared by all that, we should be. 

In 2007, a Lebanese-American financier Nassim Taleb coined the term ‘black swans’ to designate social and economic shocks that are rare, unpredictable and have devastating consequences. It was a good metaphor. Most swans are white; it is a shock to see a black one. However, today social and economic shocks are not rare at all. But they are uncertain in terms of when, where and why they occur and who will be adversely affected. As such, you and I cannot be confident that we will not be among the victims. Most people feel vulnerable.

There is something else too. It looks as if a growing proportion of the population will be affected by the shocks. It was predicted, for example, that two-thirds of the population of Britain would suffer from fuel-related hardship during the winter of 2022-2023, bringing more deaths and ill-health. That is what has happened, resulting in more homelessness, more queuing outside ‘food banks’ (places where food donations are given out to the poor) and more debt. And, of course, Britain is not alone. Everywhere, natural disasters, such as extreme weather events, hit numerous whole communities, and being in a job these days is far from a guarantee of escaping poverty or economic insecurity.

Three deductions should flow from this bleak scenario. First, more rapid economic growth will not overcome the threats; it could merely accelerate global warming and the existential crisis. Second, the old social policies are not valid for tackling the new crises. Third, there is an unprecedented need to build societal Robustness (immunity to shocks) and societal Resilience (the ability to cope with and recover from shocks), based on a new income distribution system and a new social protection system. ‘Targeting’ assistance on a minority would be futile and inequitable, if only because it is a majority who are actually vulnerable. 

This is the modern reality. Yet there is an awful hesitancy among politicians. It appears as if even nominally socialistic parties are sleepwalking into self-defeating timidity, bringing to mind Gramsci’s chilling aphorism written from prison in 1930:

‘The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.’

Appeasement is in the air. So-called leftish political parties criticise the plutocracy, and yet accept their largesse in the form of donations and media support. Their leaders take every opportunity to tell ‘business’ that it will be safe in their hands. In the west, the political landscape is occupied by social democratic ‘think tanks’, exuding respectability, seeking ‘relevance’ and eagerly expressing ‘moderation’, granting them continuing access to benevolent ‘donors’. Governments are reacting to events, not being prepared to control them.

There is a fear of the grand narrative or vision of the Future, and a willingness to play a game with rules set by the rulers, the financiers and the plutocracy. That must end.

Basic Income: Anchor of Freedom, Security and Eco-Socialism

So, in China and in all significant countries, it should be clear that the old income distribution system has broken down – the labour share of income has fallen, the precariat has grown and will become more restless, alienated, insecure and angry unless structural change takes place – and there will be more ecological and economic crises, and more pandemics. 

It is a transformational moment. It is a time for a new Manifesto, not the old Communist Manifesto of 1848, but a Precariat Manifesto. There is no time in this lecture to consider all elements in such a Manifesto. I want to conclude by just considering one fundamental policy, which almost every country could afford. And I want to argue that its justification is philosophically grounded.  

The proposal is that everybody in society should be provided by the state with a modest basic income, a monthly amount paid individually, without behavioural conditions, paid regardless of income, wealth, work status, marital status or gender. It should be paid equally to men and since the intention would be to give each resident citizen and equal ‘share’ of public wealth, strengthening social solidarity. The level of basic income would be set by a government-appointed but administratively independent council, and could be paid from a Commons Capital Fund, a form of sovereign wealth fund, as elaborated in my recent books.            

There are three philosophical rationales for a basic income. The first is that it is a matter of common justice. The income and wealth of all of us in society are determined mainly by the contributions of many generations of our ancestors. But it is impossible to know whose ancestors contributed more or less. If we allow for the private inheritance of private wealth, as every society does, then we could see a basic income as a form of common dividend, a share of inherited public wealth.

In addition, all societies were built on the commons, which belong to all of us equally – the land, sea, seabed, the natural resources and the social amenities built by past generations. Karl Marx was radicalised in the 1840s not by anger at exploitation in capitalistic factories or mines but by seeing how the commons were being taken away from the peasants and other commoners.    

In every country, over the centuries elites and commercial interests have taken the commons, depriving commoners of their heritage. The demand for a basic income is a demand for compensation for that deprivation.

A basic income would also be a matter of inter-generational justice. In every country there are areas where economic growth and capital accumulation have been more rapid than elsewhere. But often, areas of past growth become areas of decay and backwardness, whereas the wealth was taken elsewhere. An equal basic income paid to everybody across the country would equalise the gains and actually raise living standards in poorer areas relative to richer areas, reducing income inequality.

A basic income would also be an instrument of ecological justice. The rich cause far more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions than the poor. But the poor suffer much more from pollution, which damages health and living standards. Every country needs to raise taxes on carbon and fossil fuels more generally. This will only be politically feasible if it is guaranteed that the revenue is recycled as part of the basic income.

It would also be an instrument of what should be called compassion justice. Instead of reducing citizens to supplicants, relying on state charity in times of emergency or relying on other forms of charity, each citizen would have an equal economic right. In other words, a basic income would reduce the role of the state as charity provider, which should surely be an objective of any socialist.

A basic income would also be an instrument of work justice. Under capitalism and old-stye state socialism, only the performance of labour has been regarded as deserving of remuneration by a money wage. This is sexist and absurd. The performance of care work, done mostly by women, is just as productive – it is reproductive – and in ageing societies is becoming even more important as contributing to a Good Society. A basic income would encourage and reward care work and community work on which society depends.

The second ethical or philosophical justification for a basic income is that it would be an instrument for promoting freedom. Most social thinkers, not just Marxists, claim to be in favour of freedom. But freedom requires assured access to material resources. There are three forms of freedom that a basic income would strengthen.

First, there is what can be called libertarian freedom. This is the freedom that is what neo-liberals and other capitalist advocates emphasise – the freedom to choose. The trouble is that is meaningless or insulting if people are poor or chronically insecure, in which case they have to do whatever is necessary in order to survive. The freedom to say “No” to an exploitative employer or landlord can only exist if the person has access to material resources with which to survive.

Second, there is what should be called liberal freedom. This is more interesting for a Marxist. It is the freedom to be moral, the freedom to take decisions that one believes are morally consistent with one’s values and culture. Again, unless a person has basic income security, they cannot easily take the moral course of action. But the state should wish to strengthen its citizens capacity to be moral.

Third, a basic income would strengthen republican freedom. This is the freedom from arbitrary interventions in a person’s decision-making. A person is not free if she has to seek approval from a husband or father or other figure of authority, even if that person is a very benevolent person. A person is only really free if they can make decisions themselves, whether or not others approve.

So, a basic income would strengthen all three forms of freedom. It remains to consider the third ethical or philosophical justification for basic income. And this is perhaps the most distinctly relevance for our era. A basic income would promote basic security

Basic security is a fundamental human need. It is also what economists call a public good, in that if one person has it, that does not deprive others from having it. Indeed, I would call it a superior public good, in that if everybody has basic security, the whole community is likely to gain. 

But we should distinguish basic security from total security. If you are too secure, you are likely to become careless or indolent. What is needed is basic security so that you know that you will be able to survive even if you have an accident, an illness or make a mistake in your life. And psychologists have shown that unless a person has basic security, their mental capacity declines, their intelligence actually drops and their capacity to make rational decisions drops. Seen that way, it is unfair of the state to expect people to behave with a sense of social responsibility if its people are economically insecure. A basic income responds to all that.

And here we come to the crucial points of most relevance in this age of uncertainty. Throughout the 20th century, social policy was built on the presumption that the state would provide protection after an adverse event hit somebody, such as unemployment or an illness, for which a probability of it occurring could be calculated and a rough estimate of the likely cost could be calculated. But today every part of the world is struggling with chronic uncertainty. People live in fear, feeling a new shock will hit them and their community at any time, but not knowing in advance how it will affect them and if they will be able to cope and recover. 

In such circumstances, we need a system of ex ante social protection, that is, a full guarantee that basic security will exist. A basic income is the only way to provide such protection. Of course, it is not sufficient in itself, but it is necessary as an anchor of a Good Society. 

Besides the three philosophical justifications – justice, freedom and security – a basic income is also justifiable economically. It could provide an automatic macro-economic stabiliser, that is, it could be adjusted upwards in times of economic crisis and downwards in times of economic boom, or at least have a component that could be adjusted in that way.

And there is evidence of its positive effects from basic income experiments. This speaker has been fortunate enough to be able to help put into practice a policy in which he believes. Experiments, using independent objective methods, have been done in which thousands of peoples from very different types of community have been provided with basic incomes, with the results being monitored over several years. They have been done in countries as different as Canada, India, the USA, Spain and Kenya. 

Everywhere the results have been broadly similar. Basic income results in improvements in health, particularly mental health. In low-income communities in particular, it results in better nutrition, most notably for young children. It results in improved attendance in school and fewer drop-outs from school. It has an emancipatory effect for women. And, contrary to critics, it results in an increase in work, not less, and in increased productivity in work. And it results in a reduction in income inequality, not just because the amount is proportionately more for low-income people but because it enables the lower-income people to increase their economic activity. Perhaps most encouragingly of all, if all members of a community are provided with basic incomes, that induces a strengthening of social solidarity.

Basic income is not a panacea. But it an imperative if society is to experience a reduction in all the ills of chronic economic and social uncertainty. In his speeches, President Xi has said dozens of times that income inequality must be reduced in China. In other parts of the world similar sentiments are expressed. Providing a basic income would be a powerful way of reducing the inequalities that could otherwise become explosive over the next decade. Let us promote it.

Congress papers

BIEN 2022, Brisbane

Maria Ozanira da Silva e SilvaTHE “BOLSA FAMÍLIA” PROGRAM AND THE “AUXÍLIO BRASIL” PROGRAM: advances and setbacks in the construction of a Basic Income in Brazil
Fernando FreitasCash transfer with social currency in Brazilian Cities: poverty relief or guaranteed income?
Michael W. HowardBasic income, climate change, and the future of work
Peter T. KnightWhy We are Moving Toward a Federal Universal Basic Income in the United States
Milena KowalskaImpact of unconditional basic income on the individual socio-economic situation of women in Poland
Steven McAteeFunding Basic Income
Iain B MiddletonRealising a Basic Income
Anne MillerThe Definition of Basic Income and Uniformity
Mark O’LearyA Politically Achievable pathway to a Basic Income in Australia
Alina PlitmanCreate vs. Toil: A New Concept of Work
Enno SchmidtGötz Werner Tribute Panel
Jane ScottUBI presentation
Alejandro SewrjuginPhiEconomy’s response to the health, ecological & social crises
leveraging together exponential technologies & the minimum expected income as a balancer for global equality
Dr Jan StroekenBasic income: from redistribution ideology to work as life fulfilment and socio-cultural revolution, and what this means for the implementation strategy
Malcolm TorryA research agenda for Basic Income
Sam Whiting
Creative People, Products and Places (CP3) Research Centre, UniSA Creative, University of South Australia

BIEN 2021, Glasgow

Videos of all plenary sessions are available on youtube. Abstracts of all the concurrent sessions will be published as soon as available. 

BIEN 2019, Hyderabad

Videos of all the plenary sessions are available on youtube. Abstracts of all the concurrent sessions are available here. Full papers and slides of some presentations are available below. 

Joffre BalceFrom Austerity to Prosperity: How Dealing with a Meltdown Can Lead to a Universal Basic Outcome
Diana BashurThe Applicability of Universal Basic Income in Post-Conflict Scenarios: The Syria Case
Sanishtha Bhatia and Tanya RanaImpact of human behaviour on the perception of the government’s Universal Basic Income (UBI) scheme
Peter BrakeImplementation of a Universal Basic Income
Chloe HalpennyA “State” of Possibility? Reconfiguring basic income’s feminist potential through the lens of the state
Michael W. HowardThe Atmospheric Commons and Carbon Dividends: Implications for global and national basic income policies
Aleeza HowittRoadmap to a Government-Independent Basic Income (UBI) Digital Currency
Kristiina HyryläinenFrom Negative Human Concept to Newtural Human Concept
Valerija KorošecUnconditional Basic Individual Universal Child Grant for Belgium following the Slovenian approach
Julio Linares and Gabriela CabañaTowards an ecology of care: Basic Income after the nation-state
Shobana NelascoGrowth versus Development in the light of Universal Basic Income – A focus on India Case
Michael PughCommunity Organising & Basic Income: Reflections from North America
Malcolm TorryResearch and education in the Basic Income debate
Wu GaohuiFrom Technology to Anti-technology: How does Technical Governance Transform the Local Cadre Behaviors in China’s Rural Anti-poverty?

BIEN 2018, Tampere

Papers and presentations from the 2018 BIEN Congress in Tampere, Finland are available below.

Videos of the plenary sessions are viewable on YouTube.

Jan Otto AnderssonFrom Citizen Wage to Basic Income: The Nordic Experience
Jan Otto AnderssonThe global ethical trilemma and basic income
Marc de BasquiatA Universal Basic Income for Social Inclusion
André CoelhoUniversal Basic Income Funded by the People
Odra Delgado and Gerardo VelasquezUniversal Basic Income in the Mexican labour market: Financial sustainability in the context of flexibility, high informality and low-income tax
Anna DentFrom Utopia to Implementation: How Basic Income has progressed from radical idea to legitimate policy solution (presentation)
Bettina DuerrBasic Income Experiments: A Political Feasibility Analysis
Guido Erreygers and John CunliffeWas Basic Income Invented in Belgium in 1848? Exploring the Origins and Continuing Relevance of a Simple Idea 
Fernando FreitasBasic Income in Brazil: Analysis of arguments advocated by Brazilian publications (1975-2017)
Yannick FischerBasic Income, Labour Automation and Migration – An Approach from a Republican Perspective
Susanna Groves and John MacNeilEconomic and Policy Impact Statement – Approaches and Strategies for Providing a Minimum Income in the District of Columbia (presentation)
Dirk von HeinrichshorstHorizon – United Basic Income (white paper) (presentation)
Pertti HonkanenSimulations for Basic Income Experiment in Finland
Michael HowardCosmopolitanism and an ecological basic income
Karen JoostePower, Poverty and Socio-Economic Policy in South Africa
Shari LaliberteYoung people’s perspectives on the meaning and determinants of mental health: Implications for developing & evaluating guaranteed income and inter-sectoral policies
Elina LepomäkiThe Life Account
Mark Lindley and Karan KumarUniversal Basic Income and Ecological Economics
José A. NogueraWhat is the ‘Net Cost’ of a Basic Income? Some Conceptual Problems
Michael OpielkaBasic Income and Guarantism: Why a Basic Income favors the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Social Sustainability
Andrew PercySocial prosperity for the future: A proposal for Universal Basic Services
Carmen García PérezDoes the Right to Basic Income Already Exist? An Overview of the European and Spanish Legal Framework
Bill RaleyThe Citizen’s Dividend (presentation)
Thiago RochaThe Citizen’s Basic Income as a Fundamental Right in the Brazilian Legal System
Charles SampfordPaying for Basic Income: a ‘virtuous’ problem
Scott SantensSocial Media Workshop for Basic Income Advocates
Sabine StadlerThe means tested basic income in Austria, a new right in power
Eugen TornquistBasic Income and the Welfare State
Malcolm TorryBasic Income and Basic Income schemes: definitions and details
Jens WamslerModels for introducing basic income in Denmark (presentation)
Andrew WhiteThe rise of the superstar (digital) economy and the case for a universal basic income (paper)
Karl WiderquistThe Devil’s in the Caveats: A Brief Discussion of the Difficulties of Basic Income Experiments
Gunmin YiHow can basic income activate and encourage labor-managed firms? A two-track strategy for economic democracy

BIEN 2017, Lisbon

Elena Ambuhl, Nicole Teke and Aurélie Hampel (France)Considering basic income through the lens of agriculture: an innovative food policy measure to support fairer and more sustainable food systems
Julio Andrade (South Africa)Implementing a basic income: An income stream through a reconceptualization of data
Helen BlakemanUtopia of the Zero Hour Contract
Eugenio R.Borrallo (Spain)Basic income as a tool to dignify the work of landless peasants
Peter Brake (New Zealand)Implementation of Basic Income
Geoff Crocker (UK)Overcoming the Objection of Affordability of Basic Income – A Radical View
Alexander de Roo (Netherlands)Campaign to get basic income in the Dutch government program
Pablo Fernández del CastilloBasic Income in complementary currency: Thinking outside the box
Andrea Fumagalli (Italy)The correct definition of basic income as primary income: remuneration of life in bio-cognitive capitalism
Katarzyna Gajewska (France)The Future of Work in a Basic Income and Post-Employment System: The Scenario of Peer Production
Karen Glass (Canada)Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario
Troy Henderson (Australia)Options for a Basic Income in Australia
Neil Howard (Belgium)Basic Income and the Contemporary Anti-Slavery Movement
Michael W. Howard (USA)Basic Income and Degrowth
Lynn Johnson and Peter Lanius (Australia)Can a Basic Income Stop The Illegal Wildlife Trade?
Jaeseop Kim (South Korea)Basic income pilot project by Korean youth : imagine another world
Marcelo LessaUm passo à frente: Ferramenta econômica acelerando a transformação social
Lowell Manning (New Zealand)Strategies of Communication in the Implementation of Basic Income in New Zealand and its Relationship with the Existing Income Support Structure
Jean-Philippe MartinMitigating technological unemployment through shared work
Bastiaan MeindersBasic Income and the Epistemic Problem of Happiness
Sandra MillerSolving Basic Income’s Most Intractable Problem of Secure Distribution
Annie Miller (UK)A New Poverty Benchmark For Basic Income Schemes
Tadashi Okanouchi (Tokyo)Global Basic Income or Human Heritage Dividend
Maria Ozanira da Silva e Silva (Brazil) and Valéria Ferreira Santos de Almada Lima (Brazil)The Political and Economic Conjuncture in Brazil Post Lula’s and Dilma’s Governments: a step back in the direction of implantation of a Basic Income in Brazil
Bonno Pel (Belgium) and Julia Backhaus (Maastricht University)Realizing Basic Income: shifting claims to expertise in Basic Income advocacy
Lisa Perrone (Australia), Margaret H. Vickers (Australia) and Debra Jackson (UK)Introducing Financial Freedom: What It Can Teach Us about Basic Income
Ville-Veikko Pulkka (Finland)A Free Lunch with Robots – Can a Basic Income Stabilise the Digital Economy?
Marcela Ribeiro de Albuquerque (Brazil), Rogério Mendonça Martins (Brazil)PolíticaLeen_Scholiers_SMart_a_cooperative_for_freelancerss Governamentais de Inclusão Produtiva para a Redução da Pobreza no Brasil
Sonja ScherndlArticle 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Universal Basic Income
Leen ScholiersThe Future of Work and Technological Unemployment
Charles SheredaThe Modern Talent: An Earth-Backed Democratic Digital Currency System
Thaís Amanda Silvestre (Brazil), Carla Maria Freres Stipp (Brazil), e Marcela Ribeiro de Albuquerque (Brazil)Aspectos do Processo de Terceirização no Direito Trabalhista Brasileiro: Precarização de Direitos Fundamentais
Eduardo Suplicy (Brazil)Lectures to the XVII International Conference of the Basic Income Earth Network in Lisbon
Cristian Tod (Austria)Free Lunch Society
John Tomlinson (Australia)When will the BIG wheel turn? Basic Income in Australia
Malcolm Torry (UK)What’s a Definition? And how should we define ‘Basic Income’?
Anikó Vida (Hungary)With or Without Work? The dilemmas surrounding basic income from the perspective of full citizenship
Gunmin Yi (South Korea)The Effects of Basic Income on Labour Supply

This table contains the papers uploaded to the congress website prior to the congress. If other authors submit their papers then they will be added to this list.

Videos are available of many of the congress sessions. Click here to see them.

BIEN 2016, Seoul

The Proceedings of the 2016 congress are contained in a single document, in which can be found plenary session addresses and parallel session papers. Click here to download the document.

BIEN 2014, Montréal

AuthorsPapers
Timothy Roscoe CarterThe One Minute Case for a Basic Income
Malcolm TorryA Basic Income is feasible: but what do we mean by ‘feasible’?
Sarah M. Mah, Yuly ChanGuaranteed Livable Income as the way forward to Abolishing Prostitution
Doctress NeutopiaUniversal Income, Women’s Liberation, and Neutopian Thoughts
Edward James MillerDemand Side Economics And Its Consequence- The National Dividend
Emanuele MurraLimiting Economical Instrumental Action: Basic Income in Habermasian Perspective
Nam Hoon KangBasic Income for Precarious Workers in Korea
Katarzyna GajewskaHow Basic Income Will Transform Active Citizenship? A Scenario of Political Participation beyond Delegation
Sheila RegehrBasic Income and Gender Equality: Reflections on the Potential for Good Policy in Canada
John TomlinsonReal freedom for the filthy rich – precariousness for the rest of us: Why we must fight for a Basic Income
Robert W. Glover, Michael W. HowardA Carrot, Not a Stick: Examining the Potential Role of Basic Income in US Immigration Policy
Maria Ozanira da Silva e SilvaThe Conditionalities Of The Bolsa Família: Its Conservative Face And Limitations To Implement The Citizenship Basic Income In Brazil
Charla VallBuilding On The Basics: Impact And Insights From The Basic Needs Fund

BIEN 2012, Munich

AuthorPaper
Herbert WilkensBasic Income and Minimum Wages – Temporary or Permanent Complements?
Luis Henrique PaivaThe Bolsa Familia Programme and Basic Income
Ulrich SchachtschneiderEcological basic income: an entry is possible
Joerg DrescherArguing for Basic Income from a Jurisprudential Perspective
Giovanni PerazzoliWhat are the arguments in favor of the Basic Income? Let’s talk about Italy
Philippe van ParijsPersonal reflections on the 14th congress of the Basic Income Earth Network
Baptiste MylondoCan basic income lead to economic degrowth ?
Wolfgang MüllerThe Potential of an Unconditional Basic Income within Social Security Systems in Europe
Gwang-Eun ChoiBasic Income and Deepening Democracy
Jan Otto AnderssonDegrowth with basic income – the radical combination
Tomohiro InoueEconomic Sustainability of Basic Income Under a Citizen-centered Monetary Regime
Bruno Andrioli GalvãoThe good intention and the hard truth of basic income in Brazil
Myron J. FrankmanUniversalizing the Universal Declaration (of Human Rights)
Erik ChristensenA basic income reform as part of the abolition of economic privileges and the creation of a sustainable society
Eduardo Matarazzo SuplicyHow and when will the Brazilian Law that institutes a Citizen’s Basic Income really be fully implemented?
Maria Ozanira da Silva e SilvaThe bolsa família and social protection in brazil: problematizing the conditionalities as limits for the implementation of the citizens’ basic income
Claudia & Dirk HaarmannPiloting Basic Income in Namibia – Critical reflections on the process and possible lessons
Ugo ColombinoDesigning a universal income support mechanism for Italy. An exploratory tour
Leonardo Fernando Cruz BassoSaving the euro: creating social regional currencies, taxes on financial transactions, and minimum income programs
Hayato KobayashiThe Future ofPublic Assistance Reform in Japan:Workfare vs. Basic Income?
Michael W. HowardBasic income, resource taxation, and inequality: Egalitarian reservations about tax shifting
Jens-Eberhard JahnA Basic Income for Rural Areas? A proposal for a strategic realignment of agricultural, social and structure policy within the EU
Malcolm TorryThe political feasibility of a Citizen’s Income in the UK
Richard ParncuttUniversal basic income and flat income tax: Tax justice, incentive, economic democracy
Ronald BlaschkeOpportunities and Risks on the Way to a Basic Income in Germany – a political assessment
Toru YamamoriThe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Basic Income
Reima LaunonenBasic
 Income,
 Property-owning
 Democracy
 and
 the
 Just 
Distribution 
of 
Property
Johanna PerkiöThe Struggle over Interpretation: Basic Income in the Finnish Public Discussion in 2006-2012
Mikko Jakonen, Jukka Peltokoski, Tero ToivanenOccupy Life! Precarity and Basic Income
Mingull JeungEcological Expansion of Basic Income: Beyond Capitalism
Sascha LiebermannFar, though close : Problems and Prospects of Basic Income in Germany
Erik ChristensenBasic income – A transcultural perspective
Kaori KatadaBasic Income and Feminism: in terms of “the gender division of labor”
Hiroya HiranoThe Potential of introducing Basic Income for the“New Public Commons”in Japan: A Road to Associational Welfare State?
Stanislas JourdanA monetary approach towards an unconditional basic income in Greece
Micheál CollinsEstimating the Cost of a Basic Income for Ireland
Marcia Ribeiro de AlbuquerqueIncome Transfers Policies In Brazil Facing To Recent Global Economic Crisis
Karl Widerquist & Michael HowardAlaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining Its Suitability as a Model
Nam Hoon KangThe Necessity And Effects Of Ecological Basic Income In Korea
Wouter van GinnekenPoverty, Human Rights And Income Security In Europe
José Luis Rey PérezBasic Income In The Discussion About Human Rights: Right Or Guarantee?
Valerija KorošecBasic Income Proposal in Slovenia
Kelly ErnstThe Basics of an Economic Rights Movement: APublic Economy
Javier Alonso MadrigalBasic Income and the Constitutional Principles of Fiscal Justice
Tadashi OkanouchiTowards Abolition of Wage-Slavery;Perspective to a Non-Violent World Revolution for the Guaranteed Global Basic Income Society, Launching from Elimination of Hunger and Poverty
Vivan StorlundBasic income and the value of work
Rosangela Lodigiani and Egidio RivaCapability Income: A policy proposal in the fight against poverty and social exclusion
Joonas LeppänenBasic Income as Participatory Parity
Anne B Ryan & John BakeReflections on Developing a National Campaign for Basic Income in Ireland
Marina P. Nobrega, Tereza Nakagawa, Francisco G. Nobrega, Eduardo M. SuplicyA Feasible Path to Basic Income in Brazil
Anne MillerA rule-of-thumb Basic Income model for the UK, with and without an earnings/income disregard.
Hamid TabatabaiFrom Price Subsidies to Basic Income: The Iran Model and its Lessons
Valerie TimmUnconditional basic Income – A call for a human right ?
Leon SegersBasic Income & perverted global labour market
Pertti Honkanen & Jouko KajanojaSteps towards Basic Income – Case of Finland
Seán Healy, Michelle Murphy, Seán Ward and Brigid ReynoldsBasic Income – Why and How in Difficult Economic Times: Financing a BI in Ireland
B. Michael Gilroy, Mark Schopf, Anastasia SemenovaBasic Income and Labor Supply: The German Case
Andrea Fumagalli, Cristina MoriniThe Precarity-Trap and Basic Income: the Labour Market in Cognitive Bio-capitalism. The Italian Case
Roisin MulliganUniversal Basic Income and Recognition Theory
Marguit Neumann Gonçalves, Marcela Ribeiro de Albuquerque, Rosalina Lima IzepãoIncubation Of Solidarity Economic Enterprises: The Experiences Of The Incubator Unitrabalho-Universidade Estadual De Maringá-Uemin Paraná State-Brazil
Borja BarraguéThe feasibility of extending the safety net in times of crisis: A view from Spain
Juergen GreinerThe Evolutionary Dimension of Basic Income and its Integration in Society
Nyc LabretšThe Future of Workplace Automation Has Already Arrived

BIEN2010, São Paulo

Author 
Borja Barragué 
Michèle Billoré 
Gianluca Busilacchi 

BIEN 2008, Dublin

AuthorPaper
Borja BarraguéPigovian Taxes, Cap-and-Trade System, or Environmental Adders? A Green Financial Model for a Basic Income
Michèle BilloréNoospheric Ethical/Ecological Constitution for Mankind
Document 1
/ Document 2
Gianluca BusilacchiThe different regimes of minimum income policies in the enlarged Europe
Richard CaputoThe Way Forward – the political dimension
Erik ChristensenA Global Ecological Argument for a Basic Income
William CleggBasic Income-Greater Freedom of Choice Through Greater Economic Security of the Person in a Globalized Economy
Jörg DrescherEconomic view of model proposals for funding a basic income on the basis of the value creation of goods and services
Julieta ElgarteBasic income and the gendered division of labour
Pat EvansChallenging Income (In)security: Women and Precarious Employment
Myron J. FrankmanJustice, Sustainability and Progressive Taxation and Redistribution: The Case for a World-Wide Basic Income
Manuel FranzmannAn Unconditional Basic Income from the Perspective of the Sociology of Religion
Andrea Fumagalli and Stefano LucarelliBasic Income and Counter-power in Cognitive Capitalism
Anca GheausBasic Income, Gender Justice and the Costs of Gender-symmetrical Lifestyles
Áine Uí GhiollagáinBasic income and caring: Why aren’t all caregivers interested in basic income?
Johannes HanelBasic Income and Social Justice
Michael W. HowardCosmopolitanism, Trade, and Global (or Regional) Transfers
Markku IkkalaBasic Income Discussion in Finland
Bill JordanBasic Income and Social Value
Celia Kerstenetzky and Gary DymskiGlobal Basic Income and Financial Globalisation
Celia Kerstenetzky and Lionello PunzoSustainable tourism: basic income for poor communities
Katja KippingMoving to Basic Income – A left-wing political perspective
Richard LawsonIntroducing Basic Income by the Back Door in a Recession
Sascha LiebermannThe German experience of bringing Basic Income into the National Debate
Rubén M. Lo VuoloLabour markets informality and welfare regimes in Latin America. Why Basic Income is better
John MacnicolThe politics of non-contributory pensions
Francisco Javier Alonso Madrigal and José Luis Rey PérezWhat Type of Taxes Demands Basic Income?
Francisco Jose Martinez MartinezDebate on Basic Income in the Spanish Parliament
Gösta MelanderHow a basic income may be achieved politically
Marc MeurisA Basic Income Allowance as a solution for the social unification of the EU
Heiner MichelIs a Global Basic Income a Remedy for Poverty?
Annie MillerDesigning and Costing Simple Basic Income Schemes
James MulvaleThe Debate on Basic Income / Guaranteed Adequate Income in Canada: Perils and Possibilities
Mary Murphy and Orla O’ConnorIs basic income the answer to the feminist demand to individualise Irish social security?
Maria OleynikBasic Income in a Changing Ireland
Ian Gareth OrtonEliminating Child Labour: The Promise of Unconditional Cash Transfers
Ian Gareth OrtonWhy we Ought to Listen to Zygmunt Bauman
Carole PatemanDemocracy, Human Rights and a Basic Income in a Global Era
Eric PatryThe Basic Income Debate in Switzerland: Experiences and Perspectives
Sergio Luiz de Moraes PintoBasic Income and Stakeholder Grants: Jointly Breaking the Long History of Endemic Poverty and Economic Inequality in Brazil
Hugh D. SegalMoving to Basic Income – A Right-Wing Political Perspective
Steven ShafarmanBasic Income and the 2008 Campaign in the United States
Al SheahenThe Rise and Fall of a Basic Income Guarantee Bill in the U.S. Congress
Al SheahenHow the U.S. Can Afford a Poverty-Level Basic Income Guarantee
Maria Ozanira da Silva e SilvaThe Bolsa Família Program and the Reduction of Poverty and Inequality in Brazil
Eduardo Matarazzo SuplicyThe Transition from the Bolsa Família Program to the Citizen’s Basic Income in Brazil
John TomlinsonTimor Leste: Minimum Wages, Job Guarantees, Social Welfare Payments or Basic Income?
Alexander VarshavskyBasic income and increasing income inequality in Russia
Pablo YanesNews from the South: Perspectives on Basic Income in Mexico and Latin America
Almaz ZellekeReconsidering Independence: Foundations of a Feminist Theory of Distributive Justice
Almaz ZellekeShould Feminists Endorse a Basic Income? Institutionalizing the Universal Caregiver through an Unconditional Basic Income
Clóvis Roberto ZimmermannThe Citizenship Principle in Income Transfer Programs in Brazil

BIEN 2006, Cape Town

NamePaper
Karen AllanSocial Security for Children is a Human Right
Christian M. BrutschBetween Universalism and Political Survival: Trade Unions Politics and Economic Security in the Middle East
Richard K. CaputoStanding Polanyi on His Head: The Basic Income Guarantee as a Response to the Commidification of Labor
David CasassasCorporate Watch, Consumer Responsibility, and Economic Democracy:
Forms of Political Action in the Orbit of Basic Income
Maria Ozanira da SilvaThe Scholarship Family Program a national program to universalize income transfer to all poor families in Brazil?
Julieta ElgartaGood for women? Advantages and risks of basic income from a gender perspective
Aart Roukens de LangeSubmission to the Portfolio Committee on Social Development relative to the Taylor Commission Report
Isobel FryeA study of international examples of cash transfer programmes with specific reference to issues of targeting; grant administration; the financing of social security and the potential developmental stimulus of cash transfers.
Japhet GaomabBiblical Justification for Basic Income Grant: The contribution of the silenced voices through a dialogical reading of John 5:1-9
Louise HaaghEquality and Income Security in Market Economies: What’s Wrong with Insurance?
Claudia & Dirk HaarmanWhy a universal income grant needs to be universal: The quest for Economic Empowerment vs. Charity in Namibia
Katharine HallUnder what conditions? Social Security for children in South Africa
Philip HarveyThe Relative Cost of Income and Job Guarantees
Michael HowardA NAFTA Dividend:A proposal for a guaranteed minimum income for North America
Karen KallmannTowards a BIG paradigm shift: A rights based approach to poverty alleviation
Bishop Dr. Z. KameetaA Basic Income Grant in Namibia: A response by the needy
Cons KaramataEffects of free trade on Namimbian Workers – Is BIG part of the solution?
Nanna KildalUniversal old age pensions: Arguments at time of introduction in Canada, Mauritius and Norway
Margaret LegumGrowth and the Basic Income Grant
Irkus LarrinagaBasic Income for immigrants too
Michael LewisThe Cost of Caring: The Impact of Caring for the Elderly on Women’s Wages
Sascha LiebermannPolitical Communities – Constituents of Universalism
Jennifer MaysAustralia’s Disabling Income Support System
Anna McCordAre Public Works an alternative to a Basic Income Grant?
Charles MethImplications of the impossibility of defining vulnerability among children in a theoretically rigorous way
Thabisile MsezaneFaith Community support for a Basic Income Grant
Eric PatryWhy Switzerland? Basic Income and the Development Potential of Swiss Republicasim
Michael SamsonUniversalism Promotes Development: Evidence from Southern Africa’s Social Transfers
Fabian SchuppertJustice and Income for All? The Limits of Political Reality for a Truly Universal Basic Income.
Guy StandingIncome Security: Why Unions should campaign for a basic income
Guy StandingHow a Basic Income is Working in Africa
Sen. Eduardo SuplicyThe possible Transition from the Bolsa-Famlia Program towards the Citizen’s Basic Income or The Political Difficulties and Budget Obstacles to Implement the Basic Income in Brazil
John TomlinsonAustralia: Basic Income and Decency
Robert van der VeenGift-sharing as the Basis of Real Freedom for All
Hubertus von HeynitzBasic Income Model for SA confronted by an AIDS Pandemic
Monika WallmonBasic Income beyond Wage Slavery: In search of transcending political aesthetics
Karl WiderquistProperty Rights by General Agreement
Pablo YanesUniversal Citizen’s Pension in Mexico City: An Opportunity for Debate on Basic Income
ClÛvis Roberto ZimmermannThe Brazilian social programs under the human rights perspective:
The case of the Family Scholarship (Bolsa FamÌlia) Program of LULA`s government

BIEN 2004, Barcelona

NamePaper
Antoni DomènechBasic Income and the Present Threats to Democracy
Eri Noguchi & Michael A. LewisBasic Income: A Basic Condition of a Better Society?
Irkus LarrinagaBasic Income and the Requirement of Impartiality in Deliberative Processes
Karl WiderquistFreedom as the Power to Say No
Philip HarveyA Comparative Assessment of Basic Income Proposals and Proposals to Secure the
Right to Work and Income Support
Martin Watts & William MitchellA Comparison of the Macroeconomic Consequences of Basic Income and Job
Guarantee Schemes
Guy StandingWhy the Right to Work Requires a Basic Income
José A. NogueraCitizens or Workers? Basic Income vs. Activation Policies
Jeffrey J. SmithCan Rents Fund an Extra Income for Everyone?
Charles BazlintonThe Dangers of a Basic Income Without Land Value Taxation
Malcom GreenCosmic Accounting: A New Energy Economic System of Basic Income
Ada Ávila AssunçãoWhen Income Transfer is Not Able to Eradicate the Practice of Working in Pernicious
Environments. A Case Study of the Bolsa Escola Program
Maria Ozanira da Silva e SilvaFrom a Minimum Income to a Citizenship Income: the Brazilian Experiences
Elenise SchererProgramme on Elimination of Child Labour in Brazil: Reinforcing Poverty and Denying Human Rights
Araceli Brizzio de la HozChild Labour, a Contemporary Form of Slavery
María Julia BertomeuProperty and Basic Income
Simon Eli BirnbaumReal Freedom and the Challenge of Structural Subordination
Julieta Magdalena ElgarteNon-domination, Real Freedom and Basic Income
Hans HarmsPrecariousity versus Flexicurity
Joel F. HandlerThe False Promise of Workfare: Another Reason for Basic Income Guarantee
Felicia KornbluhIf the Goods have Ceased to Be Urgent, Where Is the Fraud? The Work Ethic in the History of the Basic Income in the U.S.A.
Jorn LoftagerThree Third Ways
Erik ChristensenWelfare Discourses in Denmark Seen in a Basic Income Perspective
Myron J. FrankmanAmple Room at the Top: Financing a Basic Income
Jean Pierre MonSocial Money for Financing Basic Income
Eduardo Calderón & Óscar ValienteBasic Income as a Policy to Fight Child Poverty
Horacio Levy & othersChild Poverty and Family Assistance in Southern Europe
Michael HowardBasic Income and Migration Policy: A Moral Dilemma?
Luis BellvisBasic Income, Information Society and the Info-Poors
Nicoli NattrassThe Challenge for Basic Income Posed by AIDS: Why an Incremental Approach Is
Inadequate in South Africa
Jose Luis Rey PérezA New Gender Perspective for Basic Income?
Manfred FuellsackBI as a ‘Medium’? An Un-ethical Approach to the BI Debate
Ilkka VirjoDoes Minimum Income Have Negative Incentive Effects on the Young?
Christian BrütschFrom Decent Work to Decent Lives?
Jaione Mondragón & Amaia IzaolaThe Making of the Programs Against Social Exclusion in the Basque Country: From Cash Benefits to Overcoming Job Insertion
Brigid Reynolds & Sean HealyIntroducing a Basic Income System Category by Category in Ireland
Rafael Pinilla & Luis SanzoIntroducing a Basic Income System in Spain – Feasibility and Cost
Lena LavinasExceptionality and Paradox: Basic Income and Minimum Income Schemes in Brazil
Cláudio da Rocha RoquetePerspectives for Basic Income in Brazil + powerpoint presentation
Jorge Iván Bula & Diego F. HernándezMoving Away from Conditioned Subsidy Towards Universal Basic Income
Clovis ZimmermanBasic Food Income in Low Income Countries
Loek Groot &
Robert J. Van der Veen
Why Launch a Basic Income Experiment
Jordi Arcarons, Samuel Calonge, Daniel Raventós & José A. NogueraThe Financial Feasibility and Redistributive Impact of a Basic Income in Catalonia
Axel Marx & Hans PeetersWin for Life. What, If Anything, Happens After the Introduction of a Basic Income?
Jurgen De Wispelaere &
Lindsay Stirton
The Administration of Universal Welfare
Jens-Eberhard JahnProblems of a Programmatic UBI Debate in the German Party of Democratic
Socialism
Jose Luis Rey PérezA Juridical View on Basic Income
Richard K. CaputoEqualization of Meeting Needs vs. Equalization of Income Distribution: Reconsiderations of Basic Income & Economic Justice in Light of Van Parijs and Zucker
Toru YamamoriBasic Income and Capability Approach: On Recognition and Deconstruction for
Difference
Cristian Pérez MuñozBasic Income vs Market
Coordinators/Chairs: Àlex Boso, Sergi Raventós & Yannick VanderborghtDo Trade Unions Represent an Obstacle to the Introduction of a Basic Income? Lessons from the Belgian, Canadian and Dutch debates
Commentary by Juan González (Central de Trabajadores de Argentina)
Commentary by Iñaki Uribarri (ILP promoter – Member of ESK, Spain)
Commentary by Joan Coscubiela (General Secretary, Comisiones Obreras Catalonia, Spain)
Patrick DanaheyEducation and the Democratic Sovereignty of the People: A Human Rights Approach
Towards Universal Basic Income
Christine BoutinBasic income as a response to systemic crisis: the French Case.
Eduardo SuplicyThe approval and sanctioning of the Basic income bill in Brazil

BIEN 2002, Geneva

NamePaper
Aho, SimoMore selectivity in unemployment compensation in Finland: Has it led to activation or increased poverty?
Andersson, Jan-OttoPopular support for basic income in Sweden and Finland
Archer, SeanSocial and economic rights in the South African Constitution: The role of a basic income
Atkinson, AnthonyHow basic income is moving up the policy agenda: News from the future
Ballas, DimitrisA spatial micro-simulation approach to the impact assessment of basic income policies
Balsan, DidierL’incidence de l’allocation universelle sur la propension à travailler
Basso, LeonardoMeritorious Currency: A currency against famine
Basso, Leonardo (with Marcelo Silva & Fernando de Pinho)Tobin Tax, minimum income and the eradication of famine in Brazil
Bhorat, HaroonA universal income grant for South Africa: An empirical assessment
Bienefeld, ManfredAn economic model based on ‘fear and insecurity’
Blueme, MarkusAutriche: vers un minimum inter-institutionnel
Bradbury, FarelBasic income and the advanced economy
Bruto da Costa, AlfredoMinimum guaranteed income and basic income in Portugal
Busilacchi, GianlucaActivation minimum income and basic income: history of a comparison of two ideas
Cantillon, BeaWelfare State protection, labour markets and poverty: lessons from
cross-country comparisons
Carsten, UllrichProspects of popular support for basic income
Casassas, DavidRepublicanism and basic income: The articulation of the public sphere from the repoliticization of the private sphere
Chetvernina, Tatyana (with Liana Lakunina)Endless insecurity? The reality of Russia
Christensen, EricFeminist arguments in favour of welfare and basic income in Denmark
Costantin, Paulo DutraThe positive externality of basic income in a capitalist economy
Cruz-Saco, MariaA basic income policy for Peru: Can it work?
D’Addio, Anna CristinaAssessing unemployment traps in Belgium using panel data sample selection models
Dasgupta, SuktiCare Work: The quest for security
Deacon, BobTracking the global social policy discourse: From safety nets to universalism
de Pinho, Fernando (with Silva Marcelo & Leonardo Basso)Tobin Tax, minimum income and the eradication of famine in Brazil
Dommen, EdouardGeneva connections: Calvin, Rousseau and basic income
Dore, RonThe Liberal’s Dilemma: Immigration, social solidarity and basic income
Dubouchet, JulienDe la dette au droit: principes et évolutions de la sécurité sociale en Suisse
Dyer, AlanSocial credit as economic modernism: Seven theses
Euzeby, ChantalFeasibility and limitations of a minimum income for pensioners
Farvaque, Nicolas (with Robert Salais)Implementing allowances for young people in France: Enhancing capabilities or increasing selectivity
Fernandez, José IglesiasStrong versus weak models of basic income in Catalonia – Spain
Frankman, MyronA planet-wide citizen’s income. Espousal and estimates
Füllsack, ManfredWork and social differentiation. And how it gives reason to a basic income
Fumagalli, AndreaBio-economics, labour flexibility and cognitive work: Why not basic income?
Funiciello, TheresaGetting on a path to just distribution: The Caregiver Credit Campaign
Gamel, Claude (with Didier Balsan & Josiane Vero)L’Incidence de l’allocation universelle sur la propension à travailler
Ghai, DharamPursuing Basic Income Security in Africa
Goldsmith, ScottThe Alaska Permanent Fund: A basic income in action
Handler, JoelSocial citizenship and Workfare in the USA and Western Europe. From status to contract
Harvey, PhilipThe Right to Work: Taking economic rights seriously
Healy, Sean (with Brigid Reynolds)From poverty relief to universal entitlement: Social welfare and basic
income in Ireland
Hernandez, DiegoSelectivity in social policy in Colombia during the 1990s
Hoskins, DalmerResurrecting universalism in social security
Howard, MichaelLiberal and Marxist justifications for basic income
Hrdina, JeanneUniversal basic livelihood is essential for world peace
Kangas, Olli (with Jan-Otto Andersson)Popular support for basic income in Sweden and Finland
Kallmann, KarelMobilising a Coalition for Basic Income in South Africa
Kildal, Nanna (with Stein Kuhnle)The principle of universalism: Tracing a key concept in the Scandanavian welfare model
Kratke, MichaelBasic Income, Commons and Commodities: The Public Domain Revisited
Kuhnle, Stein (with Nanna Kildal)The principle of universalism: Tracing a key concept in the Scandanavian welfare model
Kunnemann RolfBasic income: A state’s obligation under the human right to food
Lakunina, Liana (with Tatyana Chetvernina)Endless insecurity? The reality of Russia
Laurent, ThierryIncitations et transitions sur le marché du travail: une analyse dynamique
des trappes à inactivité
Lavinas, LenaThe bolsa escola in Brazilian cities
Le Clainche, ChristineLes préférences pour la redistribution: Une analyse du profil des
individus favourables à l’allocation universelle
le Roux, PieterThe benefits of a basic income in South Africa
Liebeg, StefanA legitimate guaranteed minimum income
Loftager, JornDeliberative democracy and the legitimacy of basic income
Lord, CliveThe mutual interdependence of a citizen’s income and ecological sustainability
Lo Vuolo, RubenThe basic income debate in the context of a systemic crisis: The case of Argentina
Manning, LowellBasic income and economic transformation in New Zealand
Marx, IveMass joblessness, the Bismarckian model and the limits to gradual adaptation in Belgium
Matisonn, Heidi (with Jeremy Seekings)Welfare in Wonderland? The politics of the basic income grant in South Africa
Matsaganis, ManosThe rise and fall of selectivity a la Grecque
Mau, SteffenA legitimate guaranteed minimum income
Meireis, TorstenCalling: A Christian argument for a basic income
Mon, Jean-PierrePour une conditionnalité transitoire
Moreira, AmilcarIndividual moral dignity and the guarantee of a minimum income
Morley-Fletcher, EdwinAlternative models of credit cards
Noguera, Jose(with Daniel Raventos)Basic income, social polarisation and the Right to Work
November, AndrasLe revenu minimum social à Genève: douze ans de débats politiques
Oberson, BertrandLes mesures d’insertion sociale dans le canton de Fribourg
Offe, ClausCitizenship Rights: Why Basic Income Security is Fundamental
Opielka, MichaelA Care-worker Allowance for Germany
Ostner, IlonaTargeted universalism?
Ozanira da Silva e Silva, MariaMinimal income programmes directed at infantile work eradication and to school inclusion in Brazil
Pinilla, RafaelA diversified basic income for federal states and multinational communities
Pioch, RoswithaMigration, citizenship and welfare reform in Europe: Overcoming Labour Market Segregation
Plant, RaymondCan there be a Right to Basic Income?
Ramji, VidyaIncome security and hidden care issues: Female care workers emigrating from Kerala (India) to the Middle East
Raventos, DanielRepublicanism and basic income: The articulation of the public sphere from the repoliticization of the private sphere
Raventos, DanielBasic income, social polarisation and the Right to Work
Reynolds, Brigid (with Sean Healy )From poverty relief to universal entitlement: Social welfare and basic
income in Ireland
Saith, AshwaniReflections on income security in development policy
Salais, Robert (with Nicolas Farvaque)Implementing allowances for young people in France: Enhancing capabilities or increasing selectivity
Salvatore, IngridA Philosophical Justification for Basic Income as Social Justice
Samson, Michael (with Ingrid van Niekerk)The macro-economic implications of poverty-reducing transfers
Santibanez, ClaudioEquality, human rights and social minima: An unconditional universal basic income proposal for Chile
Sanzo-Gonzalez, LuisAllocation universelle et garantie de ressources au Pays Basque
Schade, GünterThe Great Delusion about a remedy for unemployment
Schmitter, PhilippeA modest proposal for extending social citizenship in the EU
Schwarzenbach, SibylThe limits of production: Justifying guaranteed basic income
Shafarman, StevenMobilising for basic income
Seekings, Jeremy (with Heidi Matisonn)Welfare in Wonderland? The politics of the basic income grant in South Africa
Sheahan, AllenDoes everyone have a Right to a Basic Income?
Silva, Marcelo (with Leonardo Basso & Fernando de Pinho)Tobin Tax, minimum income and the eradication of famine in Brazil
Silver, HilarySocial insecurity and basic income
Sobhan, RehmanIncome security through asset distribution
Stadler, SabineAssessing selectivity, including Workfare, in Austria
Standing, GuyThe South African Solidarity Grant
Standing, GuyAbout Time: Basic security through income and capital
Stock, RosamundThe psychological rationale for basic income
Strengmann-Kuhn, WolfgangWorking Poor in Europe: A partial basic income for workers?
Suplicy, EduardoLegitimising basic income in developing countries: Brazil
Thorel, Jean-PierreUne allocation universelle pour la Suisse
Tons, KatrinIncremental disentitlement in German welfare policy
Van den Bosch, Karel (with Bea Cantillon)Welfare State protection, labour markets and poverty: lessons from
cross-country comparisons
Vanderborght, YannickBasic income in Belgium and the Netherlands: Implementation through the back door?
Van Niekerk, Ingrid (with Michael Samson)The macro-economic implications of poverty-reducing transfers
Van Parijs, PhilippeDoes basic income make sense as a worldwide project?
Van Trier, WalterThe conversion of Andre Gorz
Vero, Josiane (with Didier Balsan & Claude Gamel)L’Incidence de l’allocation universelle sur la propension à travailler
Vielle, Pascale (with Pierre Walthery)Emploi flexible et protection sociale : Pistes et esquisses de réconciliation
Virjo, Ilkka (with Simo Aho)More selectivity in unemployment compensation in Finland: Has it led to activation or increased poverty?
Walthery, Pierre (with Pascale Vielle)Emploi flexible et protection sociale : Pistes et esquisses de réconciliation
Watts, MartinA system of basic income versus the job guarantee
Widerquist, KarlA failure to communicate: The labor market findings of the NIT experiments and their effects on policy and public opinion
Wigley, SimonBasic income and the means to self-govern
Wohlgenannt, Lieselotte
(with Markus Blueme)
Autriche: vers un minimum inter-institutionnel
Zelenev, SergeiSocial protection imperatives in post-Socialist Russia
Zelleke, AlmazRadical pluralism: A liberal defence of unconditionality
Zoyem, Jean-PaulInégalités hommes-femmes et la place des enfants dans la protection sociale

BIEN 2000, Berlin

NamePaper
Archibugi, FrancoThe non-market activities and the future of Capitalism
Basso, LeonardoThe minimum income models of James Meade applied to Brazil
Bauer, MichaelExtending social citizenship at the European level: Proposal for a Euro-Stipend
Berteloot, BernardA basic income or a basic capital?
Blais, Francois (with Jean-Yves Duclos)Basic income in a federation: The case of Canada
Bresson, YolandBasic income as foundation of the new economy and harmonisation of social European politics
Burbidge, Duncan
(with Stuart Duffin)
Stumbling towards basic income: The prospects for tax-benefit integration
Christensen, ErikThe Rhetoric of Rights and responsibilities in workfare and citizen’s income
Costantin, Paulo Dutra
(with Leonardo Basso)
The minimum income models of James Meade applied to Brazil
Cunliffe, John (with Guido Erreygers)Basic income? Basic capital! Origins and issues of a debate
Dahms, HarryMoishe Postone’s critique of traditional Marxism as an argument for the guaranteed minimum income
De Deken, JohanFunded pensions, responsibility of ownership, and economic citizenship
De Wispelaere, JurgenBargaining for basic income? Justice and politics in welfare policy
De Wispelaere, Jurgen
(with Daniel Rubenson)
Participation through basic income: A social capital approach
Duclos, Jean-YvesBasic income in a federation: The case of Canada
Duffin, StuartRecognizing citizenship
Duffin, Stuart
(with Duncan Burbidge)
Stumbling towards basic income: The prospects for tax-benefit integration
Erreygers, GuidoBasic income? Basic capital! Origins and issues of a debate
Fischer, AndreaOpening Address
Franzmann, Manuel
(with Sascha Liebermann)
Saving citizenship from the Workhouse: Upholding the obligation to work undermines the citizen’s autonomy
Fumagalli, AndreaEleven propositions on basic income (basic income in a flexible accumulation system)
Giullari, SusannaEnabling the creative tension: Lone mothers, kin support and basic income
Godino, RogerBasic income, market economy, and democracy
Groot, Loek
(with Robert van der Veen )
Basic income versus working subsidies: An assessment of the Vandenbroucke model
Healy, Sean
(with Brigid Reynolds)
Progressing basic income on a range of fronts
Hoglund, MatsReflections about the basic income debate from a Swedish perspective
Huber, JosephFunding basic income by Seignorage
Jacquet, LaurenceDoes optimal income tax theory justify a basic income?
Janson, PerBasic income and the Swedish welfare state
Just, Wolf-DieterTowards a new understanding of work, income and life
Kildal, NannaWorkfare policies and the Scandinavian welfare model
Klammer, UteWorking women in the age of flexibility: New diversities, new needs for social protection
Kraetke, MichaelTaxation and civil rights. The Right to subsistance in the European Tradition
Krebs, AngelikaWhy mothers should be fed: Ein kritik an Van Parijs
Kutylowski, JanRelative income deprivation and its determinants and consequences in Poland
Leischen, Petra (with Wolfram Otto)Existential subsistence for everyone: The concept of BAG-SHI
Lerner, SallyThe positives of ‘flexibility’: Spreading work, promoting choice
Little, AdrianCivil societies and economic citizenship: The contribution of basic income theory to new interpretations of the public sphere
Martínez, Francisco JoséSalary work and free activity
Liebermann, Sascha
(with Manuel Franzmann)
Saving citizenship from the Workhouse: Upholding the obligation to work undermines the citizen’s autonomy
Mathers, Andrew
(with Graham Taylor)
Popular networks and public support for a basic income in Europe
Merle, Jean-ChristopheWould a universal basic income really leximin real freedom?
Moreno, LuisEuropeanization and decentralization of ‘safety net’ schemes
Moulier Boutang, YannThe link between global productivity and individual cumulative basic income: Some suggestions
Noguera, José AntonioBasic income and the Spanish welfare state
Opielka, MichaelParental income and basic income. Why family matters for citizenship
Otto, Wolfram
(with Petra Leischen)
Existential subsistence for everyone: The concept of BAG-SHI
Ozanira da Silva e Silva , MariaThe minimum income: A monetary transfer to poor families with children in school age in brazil
Pinilla, RafaelThe persistence of poverty in free market economic systems and the basic income proposal: An economic analysis
Pioch, RoswithaEU integration and basic income: Rethinking social justice in competitive welfare states
Reynolds, Brigid
(with Sean Healy)
Progressing basic income on a range of fronts
Robeyns, Ingrid CThe political economy of non-market work
Rubenson, Daniel
(with Jurgen De Wispelaere)
Participation through basic income: A social capital approach
Schmitter, Philippe
(with Michael Bauer)
Extending social citizenship at the European level: Proposal for a Euro-Stipend
Seel, BarbaraLegitimizing unpaid household work by monetarization – achievements and problems
Suplicy, EduardoIn the direction of a citizen’s income: The advancement of the battle in Brazil
Suplicy, EduardoUm dialogo com Milton Friedman sobre o imposto de renda negativo
Taylor, Graham
(with Andrew Mathers)
Popular networks and public support for a basic income in Europe
Tenschert, Ursula (with Matthias Till)Poverty and minimum income in EU-14: First results of the ECHP
Till, Matthias (with Ursula Tenschert)Poverty and minimum income in EU-14: First results of the ECHP
Töns, KatrinPaternalism and the right to take risks
Vanderborght, YannickThe ‘VIVANT’ experiment in Belgium: An issue-based political party focused on full basic income
Van der Veen, Robert (with Loek Groot)Basic income versus working subsidies: An assessment of the Vandenbroucke model
Van Donselaar, GijsTom Sawyers fence: On the border between leisure and income
Van Parijs, PhilippeBasic income: A simple and powerful idea for the 21st century
Walter, TonyHow to thrive while on sabbatical: A review of evidence
Widerquist, KarlCitizenship or obligation
Wigley, SimonThe right to equal choice and the problem of cumulative (mis)fortune

BIEN 1998, Amsterdam

NamePaper
Andersson, Jan-Otto (SUO)The History of an Idea: Why did Basic Income Thrill the Finns, but not the Swedes? (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Balfour, Christopher (UK)Selling Basic Income to UK Conservatives
Borovali, Murat (UK)Self-Ownership, Private Property, and Unconditional Income: A Variation on the Georgist Theme
Chapman, David (UK)Reforming the tax and benefit system to reduce unemployment
Chiappero, E. (IT), with M. Serati & F. SilvaBasic income: an insidious trap or a fruitful chance for the Italian labour market?
Christensen, Erik (DK)An analysis of the Danish political debate on Citizen’s Income in the period 1977-97
Clark, Charles (US), with Catherine KavanaghAnswering the Economic Questions and Objections to a Basic Income
Cunliffe, John (UK), with Guido ErreyghersBasic Endowments and Basic Income: Some Belgian Precursors
De Beer, Paul (NL)In search of the double-edged sword
(published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
De Beer, Paul (NL), with Loek GrootWhy launch a basic income experiment?
De Wispelaere, Jurgen (B)Job Rights, Reciprocity, and the Constitutional Approach to Basic Income
Duboin, Marie-Louise (F)The Civic Contract: a first step to a distributive economy
Erreygers, Guido (B), with John CunliffeBasic Endowments and Basic Income: Some Belgian Precursors
Ferge, Zsuzsa (H)Basic Income for the Poorer Part of Europe?
Fitzpatrick, Tony (UK)Into an Era of Post-Social Security: Globalisation and State Pluralism
Gamel, Claude (FR)The use of employment rents for the financing of basic income
Gortemaker, Philip (NL)Basic income, a matter of the heart
Healy, Sean (IRE), with Brigid ReynoldsFrom Concept to Green Paper: Putting Basic Income on the Political Agenda (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Hemerijck, Anton (NL)Prospects for Effective Social Citizenship in an Age of Structural Inactivity
(published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Howard, Michael (US)Basic Income and Cooperatives
Hughes, Gordon (UK), with Adrian LittleNew Labour, Communitarianism and the Public Sphere in the UK
Jerusalem, Erwin (AU)Basic Income: How it was introduced to the political agenda in Austria
Kavanagh, Catherine (IRE), with Charles ClarkAnswering the Economic Questions and Objections to a Basic Income
Lehmann, Mary (US)Opposing Globalization Could Justify Resource-Based Basic Income
Lerner, Sally (CA)Fear of freedom: a barrier to putting BI on the political agenda
Little, Adrian (UK), with Hughes GordonNew Labour, Communitarianism and the Public Sphere in the UK
Loftager, Jørn (DK)Solidarity and Universality in the Danish Welfare State
Lunde, Thomas (CA)The Family Basic Income Proposal
Manning, Lowell (NZ)The Economic Effects of Introducing a Full Universal Basic Income into the New Zealand Economy
Metz, Paul (NL)The daughter of Karl Marx en Adam Smith
Mitschke, Joachim (D)Pleading for a Negative Income Tax
(published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Morier-Genoud, Jean (SWI)Toward a renovation of economic circulation and institutionsMorley-Fletcher, Edwin (IT)
Opening AddressOzanira da Silva e Silva, Maria (BRA)
The Minimum Income as a Policy for Increasing Child Education in BrazilPelzer, Helmut (GE)
Funding of an Unconditional Basic Income in Germany via a Modified
Tax/Transfer SystemPioch, Roswitha (GE)
The bottom line of the welfare state in Germany and the NetherlandsQuilley, Steven (UK)
Sustainable Funding of Basic Income: Environment, Citizenship & Community, and a Trajectory for Basic Income Politics in Europe
(published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Reynolds, Brigid (IRE), with Sean HealyFrom Concept to Green Paper: Putting Basic Income on the Political Agenda (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Robeyns, Ingrid (B)An emancipation fee or hush money? The advantages and disadvantages of a basic income for women’s emancipation and well-being
(published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Roos, Nikolas (NL)Basic Income and the justice of taxationSalinas, Claudio Caesar (ARG), with Philippe Van Parijs
Basic income and its cognates. Puzzling equivalence and unheeded differences between alternative ways of addressing the new social question (published in Basic Income on the Agenda) Scharpf, Fritz (D)
Basic Income and Social Europe
(published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Schutz, Robert (US)More Basic IncomeSerati, M. (IT), with E. Chiappero & F. Silva
Basic income: an insidious trap or a fruitful chance for the Italian labour market?Silva, F. (IT) ), with E. Chiappero & M. Serati
Basic income: an insidious trap or a fruitful chance for the Italian labour market?Smith, Jeffery (US)
From Potlatch to EarthshareStanding, Guy (SWI)
Seeking Equality of Security in the Era of GlobalisationTerraz, Isabelle
Redistributive Impact of a Basic Income: A Focus on Women’s SituationVan Parijs, Philippe (B), with Claudio Caesar Salinas
Basic income and its cognates. Puzzling equivalence and unheeded differences between alternative ways of addressing the new social question (published in Basic Income on the Agenda) Widerquist, Karl (US)
Reciprocity and the guaranteed income


Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under the Creative Commons license CC BY NC SA.

The book, “The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee:” Free Version available

The book, “The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee:” Free Version available

The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee (2005) edited by Karl Widerquist, Michael Anthony Lewis, and Steven Pressman, published by Publishing is availed in a free version at this link.

This book available because most publishers allow authors and editors to post early version for free on their personal websites. That means it has lots of typos and other problems. But it’s a reasonable approximation of the final version. Please see the published version if you can. It’s available at university libraries.

Summary from 2005

This book is divided into four Parts. They cover the history of BIG, philosophical debates over the vision of society it represents, sociological and economic debates concerning its effects, and finally some practical proposals for a BIG in several countries.

The four chapters in Part One trace the history of the BIG proposal from its beginnings in the late eighteenth century to the present with special emphasis on the guaranteed income movement of the 1960s and 1970s in the United States.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPH8motGH_8/hqdefault.jpg

Steven Pressman

In chapter 2, Fred Block and Margaret Somers examine the relationship between the welfare reform passed by the United States Congress in 1996 and Speenhamland, a British town that (in May 1795) decreed the poor were entitled to certain public assistance. As the program spread among English parishes, it generated a great deal of controversy. Critics argued that it provided relief to the able bodied, and thus reduced work effort and increased the local tax rates (to support the poor). Block and Somers revisit the Speenhamland episode. Drawing on four decades of recent scholarship, the authors show that Speenhamland policies could not have had the consequences attributed to them. They then seek to explain how the Speenhamland story became part of the accepted wisdom regarding public assistance to the poor and how it contributed to the 1996 welfare reform legislation in the United States. This argument has important consequences of BIG proposals, since it points out that income guarantees have not had negative consequences in the past and so they should not be rejected for this reason.

In chapter 3, economists John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers focus on the historical antecedents of contemporary basic income proposals. Specifically, they focus on proposals put forth by the nineteenth century American writers Cornelius Blatchly, Thomas Skidmore, and Orestes Brownson. They argue that these writers may have been influenced by the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, American revolutionaries whose ideas about economic policy and distribution bear striking similarities to current basic income proposals.

Robert Harris gives an inside account, in chapter 4, of the politics behind the guaranteed income movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the conditional welfare system that had been in place since the New Deal, which was failing to eliminate poverty either for workers or for people unable to work, and which was causing significant poverty traps. Many people on the left and right began to see the guaranteed income as a simpler and more effective system for both the working poor and those on social assistance. Nixon’s modified guaranteed income was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives, but failed narrowly in the Senate thanks to opposition from both left and right and to lukewarm support from Nixon himself.

One offshoot of the guaranteed income movement was that five NIT experiments were conducted in the United States and Canada during the 1970s. These experiments divided a group of subjects into two groups. One group was part of a negative income tax plan; the other group was a control group that was subject to the regular United States income tax. The experiments were designed to measure the impact of NIT on labor force participation and marital dissolution in a rigorous scientific manner. These experiments were not only important for the basic income guarantee, but they were also the first large scale social experiments and had farreaching influence on policy research in a number of different areas. Some of the original scholars from the negative tax experiments reunite in chapter 5 to discuss their importance after 30 years. The panel members discuss the political reasons for setting up the experiments and their results. Although the results were largely positive, showing small workdisincentive effects and important effects on health, educational attainment, and well being, some politicians and pundits used the experimental findings to help quash the NIT.

Part Two examines the philosophical debate over BIG. The papers in this section of the book discuss various justifications for a BIG and compare the case for a BIG to the case for other types of income support plans.

In chapter 6, political theorist Almaz Zelleke examines political rights and BIG. Her concern is that social thinkers on both the right and left tend to agree that income policies should have work or social contribution requirements attached to them. After discussing and criticizing the arguments of thinkers such as Laurence Mead, Mickey Kaus, Anthony Atkinson and others who hold this view, she puts forth an alternative—the market should be regarded as a sphere of citizenship no less important than the polity. That is, the liberty that we grant to United States citizens is tied to the right to partake in the market as much as it is tied to the right to partake in politics. Thus, we should view income that lets people participate in the market as analogous to voting rights that let people take part in the political process. We grant people the right to vote and, likewise, the basic income should be viewed as a right to “vote” in the marketplace.

Philosopher Michael Howard’s article (chapter 7) is largely a discussion of the liberal neutrality principle associated with the philosopher John Rawls, and its relevance to the basic income debate. The neutrality principle roughly stipulates that an acceptable theory of justice cannot be biased toward any particular substantive conception of the good life. Howard’s thesis, presented with the argumentative and analytic skills philosophers are known for, is that any income policy that requires some contribution to society is biased toward those whose conception of the good life involves such contribution; a basic income isn’t biased in this way, rendering it the more just policy.

https://s27588.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/W4T1692.jpg

Michael A. Lewis

In chapter 8, Karl Widerquist defends basic income against the “exploitation objection,” which asserts that a basic income allows individuals to benefit from social cooperation without contributing to society, thereby exploiting those who do work. He specifically addresses Gijs van Donselaar’s version of this objection, and argues this objection has three critical flaws. First, the conclusion that a basic income is exploitive relies on holding the poor responsible for the level of scarcity in the world. Second, van Donselaar treats work rents differently than other rents. Third, van Donselaar’s definition of exploitation is unworkable in practice, and the connection between it and a case against basic income is weak.

In chapter 9, Michael A. Lewis enters the debate between basic income and the basic stake proposal put forth by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstot. This proposal stipulates that a lump some of $80,000 be provided to each high school graduate at age 18 if the recipient plans to attend college or age 21 if she does not plan to do so. Lewis addresses the question of whether basic income or the stake is better at promoting freedom. He suggests that if one makes assumptions associated with rational choice theory it would seem that the stake is more freedom promoting. However, he goes on to argue that there appear to be pervasive patterns in decision making that might result in people allocating their stakes in ways they might later regret, and that a basic income might be more freedom promoting because it would constrain people’s ability to make such decisions.

While Part Two is philosophical in its orientation, Part Three is empirical. The papers in this section address questions concerning the real world impact of a BIG and its alternatives.

Steven Pressman, in chapter 10, addresses one of the key tradeoffs faced in a BIG plan—the lack of incentives to work hard and make more money that are likely to occur as a result of giving people a sum of money with no strings attached. Generating greater equity with a BIG will therefore also reduce economic efficiency. If these efficiency losses are large enough, reduced efficiency would constitute a good case against BIG. Using an international dataset that stretches back over 20 years (the Luxembourg Income Study), Pressman examines the tradeoff between equity and efficiency empirically. He finds negligible efficiency losses due to government redistribution efforts, and concludes that any efficiency-equity tradeoff is likely to be small (as long as redistribution efforts remain in their current range).

In chapter 11, economist James Bryan focuses on poverty reduction as a central goal of any income policy, but also attends to the effect such policies have on work incentives. Bryan looks at the extent to which the mid-1990s welfare reforms reduced poverty by focusing on trends in poverty before the reforms, from

1993–1995, and trends afterwards, from 1995–1996. He arrives at three conclusions: (1) poverty among families with children declined in the post-reform period but the rate of decrease was slower than during the pre-reform period, (2) among poor single-mother families there were reductions in disposable income, and (3) these reductions in disposable income were only partially offset by cash and in-kind programs such as the earned income tax credit (EITC) and food stamps. Bryan argues that a basic income guarantee could decrease poverty to a larger extent while creating smaller work disincentives than the current package of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), workfare, food stamps, and EITC programs. He attributes this to the high benefit reduction rate in current programs compared to the lower reduction rates that would obtain in basic income plans. From an economic point of view Bryan sees two arguments against the basic income. First, the volume of transfers needed to achieve an acceptable minimum income guarantee may be very high compared to more highly targeted programs. Second, to maintain work incentives for beneficiaries, the benefit reduction rate must be low. This would, in turn, create a small net donor population, thus requiring a high marginal tax rate and generating a larger work disincentive for this group.

In chapter 12, Thierry Laurent and Yannick L’Horty examine the work incentive problems of a basic income guarantee. They argue that most previous studies of the work incentive problem take a static approach. People are thought to balance just the income from working now against the income received now from a guaranteed income plan. However, Laurent and L’Horty note that there are also dynamic considerations. People with jobs today are likely to get promotions and higher pay in the future. So the real choice is a dynamic one, where individuals must balance both the short- and long-term benefits of work against the BIG. The authors then model labor force participation in an intertemporal framework, and use data from French labor market surveys to test their model. Their results show that there are differences between short-run back to work incentives and long-term problems. They also show that there is no obvious link between short- and long-run incentive problems. Finally, their results explain why some workers may have an incentive to accept jobs that do not pay, while others do not.

In chapter 13, Stephen Bouquin presents research results on the effects of tax-credit systems in Europe that use “in-work benefits,” which are meant to be combined with the wages of the working poor. He examines the labor market policies of three European countries that have been increasingly relying on inwork benefits, including the United Kingdom (Working Tax Credit, Income Support), France (Tax Credit), and Belgium (several policies). He finds evidence of what he calls the “Speenhamland effect” on wages. That is, in-work benefits can reduce real wages, as employers capture some or all of the benefits (intended for workers) by reducing the wages they pay. Through these effects, expenditures intended to benefit poor workers end up benefiting their employers. The existence of Speenhamland effects raises serious doubt for any policy based on forcing individuals into the paid labor market.

BIG also raises practical questions. How much would a BIG cost? How can it be financed? What is the optimal level of BIG, given tradeoffs between poverty reduction on the one hand, and costs and work disincentives on the other hand? Part Four, the final section of the book, contains chapters that examine the political prospects of BIG and chapters with nuts and bolts proposals for making basic income work in various countries around the world.

In chapter 14, Nicoli Nattrass and Jeremy Seeking discuss the possibility of implementing a BIG in South Africa. South Africa is the only country in the world with a major grassroots movement pushing for BIG, and it has a unique political and economic situation that make BIG politically feasible. The authors argue that BIG has been on the agenda because of the coincidence of four main factors. First, the country already has a system of public welfare that is unusually extensive in its coverage, unusually generous in its benefits and unusually redistributive in its effects. Second, poverty persists due to unemployment and the absence of subsistence agriculture, and there is little prospect of reducing poverty through job creation or land reform in the short- or medium-term. Third, the existence of an extensive system of private welfare, through remittances sent by employed workers to rural kin, means that it is in the interests of the powerful trade union movement to support a BIG. Fourth, the extent of inequality, paradoxically, makes it easier to finance a BIG based on redistribution from the rich to the poor.

Karl Widerquist, credit: Enno Schmidt

In chapter 15, Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy discusses the movement for a BIG in Brazil. Suplicy and others have been pressing for BIG at the federal, state, and municipal level since the late 1980s. The measure was twice approved by the Brazilian Senate but languished until the Workers’ Party (of which both Suplicy and President Lula are members) took control of the presidency. Success was finally achieved in January 2004 when President Lula signed a basic income bill into law. The new law gives the executive wide authority to determine the timing of the phase-in, but it authorizes the gradual introduction of a small basic income guarantee within the next eight years.

In chapter 16, political scientist Yannick Vanderborght discusses recent debates over BIG in Belgium and the Netherlands. Reviewing the various arguments both for and against the basic income, he concludes that the supporters of a basic income have an uphill battle. Vanderborght views the main obstacle to the basic income in these two countries as the widely held belief that able-bodied recipients of income assistance should make some social contribution in return for assistance. He concludes with a discussion of the so-called “participation grant,” a policy that would provide a universal grant to all citizens or residents as long as they engaged in some socially beneficial pursuit. Such a pursuit does not necessarily mean one has to sell her or his labor. Thus, providing uncompensated (by the market) care for children, or for other friends or relatives, and a host of other “outside the market” activities would qualify. Vanderborght argues that such a policy might have a more promising future than the “pure” basic income.

In chapter 17, Derek Hum and Wayne Simpson provide some cost estimates for several possible Canadian BIG programs. Employing two different definitions of poverty, Hum and Simpson estimate that a BIG to eliminate poverty in Canada would cost between $141 billion and $176 billion (or around 15 percent of Canadian GDP). This, they believe, is too costly and would not be politically acceptable in Canada. They also provide estimates of alternative BIG plans that provide income guarantees below the Canadian poverty line. These programs would cost little more than current income transfer programs because they include a negative tax or claw back of the income guarantee. Hum and Simpson find that these programs would do much less to reduce poverty and the income shortfall facing the poor. They conclude by noting that there are many possibilities between these two extremes; these plans would not be very expensive, yet would be relatively effective in reducing poverty in Canada.

In chapter 18, Randall Bartlett, James Davies and Michael Hoy explore how to set up a negative income tax in the United Kingdom. Their goal was to formulate a set of programs with a guaranteed income and a single flat tax rate that collects the same amount of money as the existing United Kingdom progressive tax system. They then test whether their negative income tax is as progressive as the current United Kingdom tax and transfer system. Their findings are that it would be relatively easy to structure a negative income tax for the United Kingdom that is more equitable than the current system and that does not require high marginal tax rates.

The chapters in this book bring the debate over basic incomes into a contemporary and eclectic context. They provide many different perspectives to the BIG proposal in specific and to antipoverty policy in general. And they show that BIG is a feasible policy alternative.

 

The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee (2005) edited by Karl Widerquist, Michael Anthony Lewis, and Steven Pressman, published by Ashgate

A free version is available at this link.