by Kate McFarland | Sep 28, 2016 | News
A Constituent Assembly of Mexico City is currently developing the city’s first constitution. A proposal for the constitution, currently under deliberation, includes an article specifying a right to a basic income to secure a dignified life.
Miguel Ángel Mancera CC-BY-SA 4.0 ProtoplasmaKid (Wikimedia Commons)
On September 15, Mexico City Chief of Government Miguel Angel Mancera delivered a proposal for the city’s constitution, and a constituent assembly was formed to analyze, debate, modify, and ultimately vote on and approve a constitution.
Mancera’s proposal draws much inspiration from the Mexico City Charter for the Right to the City, developed in 2007 by a coalition of organizations associated with Mexico City’s urban popular movement. The “Right to the City” charter includes a demand for the “right to sufficient income to guarantee a dignified life” (3.4.1). Additionally, another article in the charter’s section on ensuring a “productive city” states, “To democratize productive employment opportunities in the city, it is necessary to … promote the establishment of a universal citizen income” (3.4.3).
A more recent precedent was a seminar on basic income and wealth redistribution organized in April 2016 by the Senate of the Republic of Mexico and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) of the United Nations. In its position document released in the following month, ECLAC further encouraged its member states to investigate a basic income guarantee.
Meanwhile, there has been growing political interest in basic income in Mexico. For one example (amongst others), the young left-wing political party Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (Morena) has expressed interest in advancing the policy.
These precedents lay in the background of the September 15 meeting to move forward the development of Mexico City’s constitution.
A major purpose of the constitution is to formally specify rights of all residents of the city. The stated objectives of the document include the following (emphasis added):
To include new rights such as those of families, non-salaried workers, the right to the city, to public space, to democracy, to proper administration, to a progressive basic income, to memory, to care, to the protection of animals and cultural rights, among others …
The specific article where basic income is proposed reads as follows:
Right to a dignified life
Every person is entitled to a standard of living that is adequate for him or herself and their family, as well as to the continuous improvement of their living conditions. The right to a basic income will be guaranteed giving priority to the persons in situations of poverty, and those that can’t fulfill their material needs by their own means, as well as priority assistance groups. The rules for accessing basic income will be established in this article’s common dispositions.
Note that, despite the potentially confusing wording of second sentence, the proposal here is not for a targeted or mean-tested benefit; instead, the constitution is recognizing a need to establish some priorities for accessing the basic income grants.
One model of the basic income under consideration is Mexico City’s pension program for individuals aged 68 and older. The pension is universal (among seniors), unconditional, distributed to individuals, and mandated by law. Among its proponents, the basic income is seen as an extension of the pension from the elderly to all.
Describing the proposed constitution, Pablo Yanes of BIEN Mexico states, “Without a doubt, we are at the outset of an intense debate around basic income, and unprecedented moment in the history of Mexico City.”
Yanes says that while “the specific wording [in the constitution] can be improved and made more precise”, the recognition of a basic income as a right is “an immense step forward”:
In addition to the federal constitution reform initiatives presented before Congress by Congresswomen Araceli Damián and Xóchitl Hernández and the one introduced before the Senate by the Senator Luis Sánchez, the inclusion to the right to basic income in the Mexico City Constitution project constitutes, without a doubt, a turning point for basic income’s recognition in Mexico.
A new starting point has been set. This is Mexico City’s contribution to the growing international movement for basic income.
The Mexico City Constitution ultimately approved by the constituent assembly will go into force in February 2017.
Debates will take place ensuing months, including on the topic of basic income.
Information from Pablo Yanes (personal communication).
Reviewed by Pablo Yanes and Cameron McLeod.
Featured image: Mexico City CC BY 2.0 Blok 70.
Special thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 27, 2016 | News
The Canadian Initiative for Basic Income has created an online petition asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and members of the Canadian Parliament to “implement a basic income program for eligible Canadians in a timely manner”. As of Monday, September 26, the petition has gathered nearly 22,000 signatures.
The petition was developed last spring by a group of participants in the Leadership and Community Engagement training of North York Community House (NYCH). To conclude the training, participants were asked to select one important practicum issue and to develop an action plan to generate change within the community. As one member ofCanadian Initiative for Basic Income described in a blog of the NYCH, the idea originated in a class exercise that required attendees to use one of several tools to determine the priority of issues. The group selected a two-by-two matrix that measured importance against urgency:
Out of all, we deemed basic income to be the one with both the highest urgency and most importance. This was due to our belief that our existing income security system in place has become ineffective when it comes to helping people afford life’s basic necessities – food, housing, and other general expenses (“NYCH Participants Lead Basic Income Petition”; September 12, 2016)
Although originally designed just to fulfill a class exercise, the petition gained over 15,000 signatures in the first week alone–with signatories coming from across the nation. In light of the petition’s success, the Canadian Initiative for Basic Income decided to continue the project, developing a more detailed proposal to submit to the government of Canada (which the group eventually hopes to have translated into French).
The full text of the letter (sans footnotes) reads as follows:
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Members of Parliament,
As Canadians in poverty, we are calling for strengthening the income security system with the adoption of a Basic Income policy. Our petition for Basic Income has generated over 20,000 signatures from across Canada.
The sharp surge in basic living expenses, added to a large wealth and income gap, precarious work, stagnant wages, and diminishing social services is forcing Canadians to live with ever poorer access to basic necessities and the mental and physical deprivation that accompany this way of life. Currently, over 4.9 million Canadians are living in poverty. A report by Statistics Canada lists Canada as having one of the highest percentages of low-paid workers among industrialized nations.
Existing federal and provincial income security programs have not achieved their intended goals, as evidenced by their failure to provide vulnerable recipients with the ability to afford basic living needs such as adequate housing and food. These needs are basic human rights, as set out in The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Canada on May 19, 1976. Yes, that was four decades ago and we refer to; Part 3, Article 11.
We believe that a basic income policy in tandem with the existing income security system will be the most effective way of providing Canadians living with poverty the ability to afford basic living expenses. There is a rich history behind Canada’s existing income security system, and though some reform may be necessary for a basic income policy to be adopted, dismantling the existing welfare system would be dangerous and may leave those that already live in poverty in a similar or worse state.
A basic income program will cost Canada just over 1% of its GDP. This level of spending is within Canada’s means. We strongly believe that Canadians can afford this relatively modest expenditure, given the scope of the proposed policy and the significant benefits it will provide. Basic income will pay for itself in numerous ways; by decreasing healthcare costs, reducing social problems, boosting the economy, and providing low income Canadians with secure and productive job opportunities.
Basic income experiments are already being carried out in various European countries – but such experiments are not unique to Europe. The Croll Report, published under the Trudeau government in the 1970s put basic income policy in a favorable light, and the corresponding pilot program implemented in Dauphine, Manitoba yielded successful results. We are calling on your government to reintroduce Basic Income and move forward with its adoption. A basic income policy will not just mean upholding Canada’s human rights values and obligations, it will reduce poverty and create a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable society that will benefit every Canadian.
Sincerely,
Canadian Initiative for Basic Income
Feroza Mohammed is the lead coordinator for planning and organizing the group’s activities to move the petition forward. She comments on the inspiration and values behind this work:
We do believe that the existing income security system in place has become ineffective, by way of providing assistance that is unsustainable. People are struggling to meet their basic daily living expenses for food, housing, accessible services, transit, and good jobs, as recommended by residents through local community consultations, across the City of Toronto. I believe that a Basic Income is necessary to improve the living standards for the most vulnerable population within our society. Currently there are about twenty percent, or approximately five million people in Canada living in poverty. To quote from comments on the petition, “Poverty should not exist in Canada”. This resonates with my belief, and I hope the government will act to implement a strong Basic Income policy that will improve lives for all Canadians. A basic income will provide people with the ability to afford life’s basic necessities.
Reza Hajivandi, the lead policy research and analyst behind the petition, adds:
We believe that the time for the reform of income security is overdue. Current programs are not providing people with the basic resources to survive, let alone live in dignity. In this light, a Basic Income policy could be the right step to take. A BI would not only provide people with resources to live a dignified life, but it can also reduce the discriminatory surveillance mechanisms and other conditions that are prohibiting recipients from achieving their aspirations and goals in life. A BI would also act to create and extend solidarity amongst people. However, with all the positive impact of BI, we need to be very careful about how or what we dismantle from the existing system. This system is the culmination of many years of thinking and history, and without first having a thorough understanding and discussion of its history and design, notions of wiping out certain components or wiping the whole slate clean can be counterproductive and unhelpful to the basic income and larger social justice movement.
Created on the Change.org platform, the Canadian Initiative for Basic Income petition is not an official e-petition of the Canadian government. Thus, the petition is not en route to be presented in the House of Commons, and the government has no formal requirement to take any action in response. However, as Change.org points out in describing its function, “When hundreds or even thousands of people raise their voices about an issue they care about, the message is very hard to ignore.”
Read–and sign–the petition here.
Thanks to Feroza Mohammed and Reza Hajivandi for contributions to this article.
Photograph: Canadian Initiative for Basic Income.
Thanks, as always, to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 27, 2016 | News
The third US Basic Income Create-a-thon took place in New Orleans, Louisiana from September 9 to 11. The event was organized and hosted by Scott Santens, and attended by two members of BIEN’s Executive Committee: Karl Widerquist (co-chair) and Kate McFarland (news editor).
One project launched at the create-a-thon was “Basic Income MediaBites”–a database of timestamped videos (e.g. the “most quotable” moments of lectures and interviews about basic income) and images based upon quotes from said videos. Basic Income MediaBites is intended to be an ongoing collaborative project. The database is a shared document to which anyone can contribute.
One of the images created at the create-a-thon, featuring a quote from BIEN cofounder Philippe van Parijs’ TEDxGhent talk
Also at the create-a-thon, Karl completed his article “The Third Wave of the Basic Income Movement“–which, as the abstract states, “puts the current wave of support into this historical context to help understand why the movement is taking off now and how to build on it”.
The first two Basic Income Create-a-thons were held in San Francisco and Los Angeles in November 2015 and April 2016, respectively. The Universal Income Project promotes and assists the convocation of create-a-thons throughout the United States.
For more details about the projects pursued at the New Orleans create-a-thon–and a variety of quote and slogan images–see the official Tumblr page of the event.
Special thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon (for helping her to both write news like this and attend events like this).
by Kate McFarland | Sep 26, 2016 | News
The Trades Union Congress, a federation of trade unions that represents nearly six million workers in the UK, has passed a motion endorsing basic income.
As previously announced in Basic Income News, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) voted on a motion to endorse universal basic income at its 148th annual congress held from September 11 through 14.
The TUC is a federation of trade unions in the UK, currently representing 51 unions and a total of more than 5.8 million workers [1].
The full text of the successful motion on UBI is as follows:
Universal Basic Income
Congress notes the growing popularity of the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ with a variety of models being discussed here and around the world. Congress recognises the need for a rebuilding of a modern social security system for men and women as part of tackling poverty and inequality.
Congress believes that the TUC should argue for a progressive system that incorporates the basis of a Universal Basic Income system paid individually and that is complementary to comprehensive public services and childcare provision.
Congress believes that such a system would be easier to administer and easier for people to navigate than the current system which has been made increasingly punitive and has effectively been used to stigmatise benefit claimants. The operation of sanctions pushes people into destitution for trivial reasons.
Congress recognises that until the housing crisis is resolved there would also be a need for supplementary benefits to support people on low incomes with high housing costs and that there will always be a need for supplementary benefits for disabled people.
The transition from our current system to any new system that incorporates these principles should always leave people with lower incomes better off.
Congress believes that our social security system must work in tandem with our agenda for strong trade unions and employment rights and secure, decently and properly paid work.
The motion was introduced to the TUC by Unite, the UK’s largest individual union, which passed a motion endorsing basic income on July 11.
Becca Kirkpatrick — a UNISON and Unite member whose Regional Sector Committee was responsible for moving the successful motion at Unite’s policy conference — had this to say about the TUC decision:
This important decision is only the beginning of a big conversation to be had across the unions, about our preferred level of UBI, how it should be funded, and what additional policies must go alongside it to ensure that it is progressive. But most importantly, no great social change has ever been won by working people passing a motion in a conference room. We must organise and build a powerful movement in order to see the kind of Basic Income — and the kind of future — that we want [2].
To stay up-to-date with future news and announcements, follow Basic Income UK Trade Unionists on Twitter and join their discussions on Facebook.
[1] According to the TUC’s website (accessed September 15, 2016).
[2] Personal communication.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 xpgomes12.
Special thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 26, 2016 | News
On September 9, the New South Wales Fabians hosted a discussion of universal basic income in Haymarket.
The event featured a lineup of three speakers. First, Ben Spies-Butcher (Department of Sociology at Macquarie University) argued that Australia should pursue a universal basic income as a way to provide individuals with more freedom and control over their own lives and work. Next, Peter Whiteford (Crawford School of Public Policy at Australian National University) outlined the cost of a UBI. Finally, Louise Tarrant (formerly of United Voice) laid out many of the pros and cons of the policy. The three individual speeches were followed by the question and answer session with the audience.
About 80 to 90 people attended the event, which had been widely publicized on social media. Lachlan Drummond, president of the NSW Fabians, states that this crowd was the largest that the group has seen at any of its events over the past three years.
Among the unexpected attendees were two Italian members of the Five Star movement, who video-recorded the entire event:
The NWS Fabians have also released an audio-recording of the event as a podcast.
Drummond explains that several factors prompted the NSW Fabians to organize and host the event. First, the Fabians were interested in opening discussion of UBI simply because it is a “big transformative economic idea” that is already being talked about by the British Labour Party and some think tanks in the UK, as well as by other groups in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere. Second, the group saw a gap in Australian political discussion surrounding UBI:
We’ve seen some far-left and even some right wing groups talking about it here in Australia but none on what we might call the “mainstream centre left”. We wanted to help push that debate along. We know there are people in both the Greens and the ALP [Australian Labor Party] who are keen on the idea, but as yet we hadn’t seen one event where everyone was all brought together to discuss it.
Third, Drummond notes that many members of the Fabians are personally undecided on the issue of UBI–and yet, previously, UBI had never been given a fair hearing at any NSW Fabians event. When previous guest speakers had broached the issue, their comments were negative and dismissive. Notably, at a March event on The Future of Work, Dr. Victor Quirk of the University of Newcastle spoke against UBI in favor of a return to full employment.
Not content with such a swift rejection of UBI, Drummond said that the NSW Fabians “wanted to look at the policy in a systematic way–to go through the positives and negatives, to look at the numbers, and the political realities, and whether pilot studies have shown it to actually work”.
According to Drummond, the main goal of the event was to leave the audience better informed about the issues surrounding UBI–both moral and practical–and that, by this measure, the event was a “big success”:
I think when you see a big progressive idea like this, it can be easy to jump on it and say it’s a great idea without knowing the arguments and practicalities (or even some potential alternatives).
Ben Spies-Butcher was great on the moral arguments, and how it should interact with other parts of the welfare system. Peter Whiteford gave us some useful numbers on how much it would cost and what pilot studies had actually discovered. Louise Tarrant was also very clear headed on the positives and negatives, both practical, economic and political.
We also had great impromptu contributions from Eva Cox on shorter working hours, and Luke Whitington who rebutted the argument about inflation by stating we are currently in a deflationary environment, and by outlining some creative and progressive ways it could be paid for. The audience was really engaged and asked great questions.
Luke Whitington, Deputy Chair of the NSW Labor Party Economic Policy Committee, found it “well-organized” but believes that all three features speakers overlooked one of the most important reasons to support UBI:
None of the speakers talked about deflation, either in relation to the specific term of falling prices, nor in relation to the more general term for a long term low growth period, as exemplified by Japan since the 90s and the world in the 30s, and in milder form, advanced economies since the 70s, compounded and accelerating now with financialisation and automation. That none of the panel speakers raised the necessity of basic income as a counter deflationary mechanism was a pity, especially as Yanis Varoufakis’ speech on the topic has been on YouTube for a number of months. They did, however, inform the audience on a wide range of ethical and economic issues that a BI would affect.
As Drummond pointed out, though, Whitington was eventually able to broach the issue of deflation himself, in response to issues raised by Tarrant. On Whitington’s view, based on his experience as an organizer in the Labor Party, the most politically viable approach to a UBI in Australia is to promote the policy as a counter-deflationary measure and to support its financing through a sovereign wealth fund. This, he notes, was not stressed by the pro-UBI speakers at the NSW Fabians event.
In Australia it would be much more difficult to argue that unemployment benefits be paid without any activity or eligibility tests (which Spies Butcher correctly pointed out would immediately improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people currently stuck in the welfare ‘safety’ net), than to set up a fund that collected mineral or other revenue and distributed it equally to all citizens as a dividend.
Douglas Maclaine-Cross, who has previously worked with Whitington to promote UBI, also attended the event. Maclaine-Cross was struck by the apparent level of agreement: “Generally nobody seemed to object to the policy [UBI]; on the contrary it seemed that most people were very keen on it”:
[P]eople generally agreed that it could be afforded though it would of course mean raising more revenue. The estimates and suggested amounts involved a more generous payment than I was thinking of, which I took as a positive sign. …
From the floor there was a plea on commercial grounds from a libertarian. There were a few very positive and inspiring comments. I heard the word utopia mentioned a few times. There seemed to be a consensus from the audience that growing inequality was a very real problem and needed to be addressed somehow. So perhaps it was a case of preaching to the choir. However having made the case to people from a broad spectrum of politics myself, there is a chance for bipartisan support; so I have very high hopes for the policy in Australia.
