Karl Widerquist
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses strategies for providing a social safety net and argues that the Basic Income Grant (BIG) is the best way forward for Namibia. BIG is a regular, unconditional income given to all individuals as a right of citizenship. This paper draws on international experience from countries (such as the United States, Brazil, India, Kenya, and others) that have experimented with BIG or employed some form of cash transfer. It compares these experiences with the more traditional targeted approach, in which recipients are required to work unless they can show they are unable to work or unable to find work. It discusses the successes and weaknesses of various approaches and the pros and cons of implementing unconditional cash transfers versus targeted programs. It assesses the potential financing of a fiscally sustainable BIG and the impact of BIG on poverty and inequality for Namibia.
Karl Widerquist is an Associate Professor at SFS-Qatar, Georgetown University. He holds two doctorates—one in Political Theory from Oxford University (2006) and one in Economics from the City University of New York (1996). He was a founding editor of the journal Basic Income Studies. He has published articles in journals such as Political Studies; the Eastern Economic Journal; Politics and Society; and Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. He has published six books including: Independence, Propertylessless, and Basic Income: A theory of freedom as the power to say no (author), Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research (co-editor); and Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World.
Karl Widerquist, “The Basic Income Grant as Social Safety Net for Namibia: Experience and lessons from around the world,” in Social safety nets in Namibia: Assessing current programmes and future options, Research Department of the Bank of Namibia (editor), Windhoek, Namibia: Bank of Namibia, September 26, 2013, pp. 43-67
– Without showing a rational self-interested motivation for individuals to (1) obtain employment, (2) demand prudent government budgeting and (3) demand minimal inflation from monetary expansion, the implementation may fail in practice unless it is indexed to GDP. The program may need both the carrot and the stick to garner widespread support of financial policy makers, business owners and working individuals.
– How the positive effects of the business cycle counter-cyclical measures may work to benefit producers and consumers is not shown.
– How the producer::consumer costs may need to be adjusted for future automation of production without adverse effects to producers and consumers is not shown.
– Specifically earmarking individual contributions for the BI to avoid pooling of funds with other programs is not shown
– How the old welfare state will be phased out without adversely affecting current stakeholders
– The more I look at BI, the more it seems that it may be presented as an insurance, not a grant per se, ie, an extended form of Social Insurance Policy. Insurance rather than grant may be a more readily acceptable form for a business-minded audience to critique.
– just my 2 cents…