by Kate McFarland | Sep 8, 2016 | News
Nickolaus Hines, a writer based in New York City, has published a new article on automation and basic income in Inverse, a year-old website concentrating on tech news. (This is not Hines’ first article for the site on the topic; in July, he wrote a piece on the White House roundtable discussion with Martin Ford and Robin Chase.)
Despite the article’s title, Hines does not focus exclusively on the modern issue of automation; he also takes some time to look back at the movement for guaranteed income in the 1960s and 1970s. In doing so, he clarifies an often elided distinction between the then-popular guaranteed income and “basic income” as it is often discussed today (including as it is defined by BIEN):
“Nixon, King, and others were championing a guaranteed income, however, not a universal income. Government funds would be allocated only to the working poor, not every man, woman, and child.”
Hines draws upon interviews with two American BIEN members named ‘Michael’: Michael Howard (Professor at the University of Maine, coeditor of Basic Income Studies and organizer of BIEN’s US affiliate) and Michael Lewis (Associate Professor at CUNY).
Among other topics, the article touches upon the question of how worries about automation might help to push America towards a basic income. According to Lewis:
For a country that is so committed to work ethic, the only way to convince people that a basic income is necessary is if they are convinced that people can’t find work. If it’s going to happen, automation is going to bring it about.
Read the full article here:
Nickolaus Hines, “Robots Could Make Basic Income a Necessity“, Inverse; Aug 11, 2016.
Photo CC BY-ND 2.0 Jeff
by Kate McFarland | Sep 8, 2016 | News
Event Announcement: BIEN’s 30th Anniversary
An event commemorating the anniversary of BIEN’s founding will take place on Saturday, October 1 in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium–the location of BIEN’s first meeting 30 years ago.
The anniversary event has been organized by the Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics at the Université Catholique de Louvain in collaboration with BIEN.
Participants in the conference that launched BIEN
About the Anniversary Event
The anniversary event will begin, after a short welcome, with tales of BIEN’s birth as related from several cofounders: Paul-Marie Boulanger, Annie Miller, Guy Standing, Claus Offe, and Robert van der Veen.
Two parallel sessions will take place in late morning: one on the history of basic income (featuring Pierre-Etienne Vandamme on “Voltaire before Paine”, Guido Erreygers on “Brussels 1848” and Walter Van Trier, BIEN’s first secretary, on the British interbellum period); the other on implementations of basic income (featuring Philippe Defeyt on an income-tax-funded basic income of EUR 600, David Rosseels on micro-taxes on electronic payments, and Karl Widerquist on sovereign funds).
In the afternoon sessions, Enno Schmidt, co-founder of the Swiss popular initiative on basic income, and University of Lucerne Research fellow Nenad Stojanovic will review lessons learned from the Swiss referendum campaign. Then, discussion will turn to basic income experiments of the past and future. Guy Standing will talk about his work on pilots in India. University of Tampere Research Fellow Jurgen De Wispelaere will discuss the upcoming experiment in Finland, and BIEN cofounder Alexander de Roo (now chair of the Dutch basic income network) will discuss those to come in The Netherlands.
Finally, the conference will examine where the movement is heading next, with talks from Louise Haagh (BIEN co-chair), Stanislas Jourdan (co-founder of UBI-Europe), Roland Duchatelet (former senator and founder of Vivant), and Yasmine Kherbache (member of Flemish Parliament and, previously, chief of cabinet of former Belgian Prime Minister Di Rupo).
The event will conclude with reflections from two co-founders of BIEN, Claus Offe and Gérard Roland. They will be joined by political philosopher Joshua Cohen (UC Berkeley) and sociologist Erik Olin Wright (University of Wisconsin – Madison).
The anniversary event follows a two-day conference Utopias for our Time, which marks the 500th anniversary of the publication of Thomas More’s Utopia. Some participants in the BIEN anniversary event will also be speaking at this preceding event. For instance, Erik Olin Wright is to deliver a keynote address on the theme of the future of democracy, and Wright and Philippe Van Parijs will contribute to a special session on the question “Should academics engage indulge in utopian thinking?”
For more information on both events, see the event page at Université Catholique de Louvain.
Prospective attendees can register online through September 20.
Scene from BIEN’s founding meeting
About BIEN’s Founding
In 1984, three young researchers linked to the Université Catholique de Louvain–Paul-Marie Boulanger, Philippe Defeyt and Philippe Van Parijs–formed a group called the “Collectif Charles Fourier” to explore what they had chosen to call “allocation universelle”.
First written documentation of the existence of BIEN
Two years later — fueled by the unexpected earnings from a essay contest, for an essay on the “allocation universelle” — the Collectif Charles Fourier organized a international conference to discuss the idea. The conference, which convened in Louvain-la-Neuve in September 1986, gathered 60 invited speakers from throughout Europe.
Its final session would mark the genesis of the Basic Income European Network. (The name, suggested by Guy Standing, was chosen in part for the “good pun” of its acronym.)
In 2004, BIEN decided to become an inter-continental organization, owing to an increase in interest from outside of Europe. Unable to part with the acronym, the group decided simply to brand itself with the name it has today.
Read more about the history of BIEN.
Basic Income News will be providing continuing coverage of BIEN’s anniversary event.
Stay tuned for videos, photographs, and remarks from the participants, as well as other comments and reflections from current members of BIEN’s Executive Committee.
Text reviewed by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght.
Photographs and scanned document provided by Philippe Van Parijs.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 7, 2016 | News
In August, UK Prime Minister Theresa May declared that the revenues produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) should be invested in the communities in which the industry is based, possibly as cash payments to households. Many environmental groups oppose this shale gas dividend, which they see as a bribe to allow fracking. Basic Income UK has also released a critical statement, below.
The British government has announced plans to create a Shale Wealth Fund, which would be funded a portion of tax revenues (up to 10%) from shale gas. The funds would then be used for the benefit of communities that host sites where shale gas is obtained by fracking.
According to the consultation report (dated August 8), the Shale Wealth Fund could generate up to £1 billion in funds during its lifetime, which would be paid out to communities during the course of 25 years (which, according to the report, is the approximate lifetime of a fracking site; p. 7).
The report specifies that the communities which are local to shale developments “should be the first to benefit from the Shale Wealth Fund, and they should get to decide how a proportion of the funding is used” (p. 7). The national government suggests multiple possibilities, including infrastructure, local skills-training programs, “investment in the local natural environment”, and “funding for community groups and the development of community assets, such as libraries, or sports facilities” (p. 11).
Notably, the report also raises the suggestion of direct cash payments to residents:
We are also interested to hear whether an appropriate use of the Shale Wealth Fund would be to allow residents of communities to benefit by directly allocating funding to households. There will clearly be a trade-off for communities in either choosing to benefit from SWF funds directly, which may result in a relatively small per-household payment, depending on the revenues and the size of a particular community, or in investing in an asset which benefits the community at large (p. 12).
The latter proposal was added by Prime Minister May in August. She was quoted as explaining, “It’s about making sure people personally benefit from economic decisions that are taken – not just councils – and putting them back in control over their lives.”
Since the announcement, some have accused May of “bribing” individuals to allow fracking.
For example, The Guardian quotes MP Barry Gardiner, the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, as saying, “Appealing to people’s higher nature, Theresa May gives a £10,000-plus bribe if you live near a frack site. If you live near a wind farm, nothing … The asymmetry is amazing.” And Greenpeace scientist Doug Parr:
You can’t put a price on the quality of the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the beauty of our countryside. If Theresa May wants to show the UK is open for business, she should reverse the policies that have harmed our vibrant clean-energy sector and back the technologies that can supply cheap, homegrown energy for decades to come.
Basic Income UK has released the following statement on the proposal:
This proposal to pay local people a small share of the money from fracking operations in their area shows how desperate the UK government is to divide and silence the strong opposition shown by almost all UK communities where fracking has been proposed.
Given that the fall in oil and gas prices has made fracking unprofitable in many areas of the US, it is uncertain whether in the UK, local people will see any money from a tax on fracking profits. The payments (if they materialise at all) will vary from area to area depending on how many households live there, and how much tax is raised on each individual fracking operation. This idea comes as part of a package of local investment proposals about which the government has opened a consultation.
This is not really about ‘sharing the wealth’ from fracking. In Alaska it was recognised that a share of the oil wealth should go to everyone in the state as a common resource whether people live near the wells or not. Here the proposals are area-specific, and could bring complications around the question of who qualifies. Another way this is different is that the proposal here is to pay households, and not individuals. It is unclear from the consultation papers whether there would be regular, ongoing payments or one lump sum, and how transparent the government will be about taxes raised in any given area.
The environmental costs seen where fracking has already happened: earthquakes, degradation of land around fracking operations and most especially contamination of groundwater, will be much higher and longer-lasting than the benefit of any amount of money people might get. This proposal shows the strength of the opposition to fracking, and is not an endorsement of the principle of basic income.
Basic Income should be paid to each individual as a share of the general wealth of the society we all contribute to, whether in a job or not. A basic income for everyone would really ‘put people back in control of their lives’. Here people are asked to chose between a short-term financial windfall and long term environmental security. Many of the areas affected are desperate for income and investment, but fracking could badly affect their environment and wellbeing long after operations have ceased, and any payments have stopped. It would be far better if the government helped people set up renewable energy coops around wind farms and solar energy installations.
References
Shale Wealth Fund: Consultation
Daniel Boffey, “Local People to Get Cash Payments from Fracking”, The Guardian; August 6, 2016.
Chris Mason, “Households could get fracking payments under government plans”, BBC; August 7, 2016.
Rowena Mason, “Trying to bribe public to accept fracking won’t work, say campaigners”, The Guardian; August 7, 2016.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Victoria Buchan-Dyer
Article reviewed by Barb Jacobson
Thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Sep 6, 2016 | News
Arvind Subramanian, Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, has hinted during an outreach event that the next Economic Survey of India will address the pros and cons of universal basic income.
The Economic Survey is an annual document prepared by India’s Ministry of Finance and presented to Parliament. The survey describes changes and developments in the nation’s economy over the past year, including detailed statistical data, and discusses policy initiatives and the near-term prospects of the economy.
Last week, Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian spoke to students at an Economic Survey Outreach event in Bhubaneswar. In reply to a student’s question about basic income, he stated:
The idea is gaining a lot of resonance all over the world, especially in India. So you are really on the ball here. In fact, [I] am a bit unhappy with you for stealing the thunder of the next survey because it is going to be one of the big topics (we are going to address in that survey). What are the pros and cons of having an universal basic income?
Asked whether India was ready for a UBI, Subramanian added:
The answer to whether or not we could have a universal basic income could well be a ‘yes’, but under certain conditions. It is always easy to give but very difficult to take away politically. …
Even though ideally you might, say, use this to replace other subsidies, let me guarantee you that when it comes to trying to replace some subsidies there will be a lot of noise. Both in terms of politics and economic[s] there is a whole range of very important things we have to look into, and are going to look at, very carefully.
The Economic Times reports that Subramanian did caution, however, that the exploration of UBI remains an “academic exercise” at this stage. The article quotes:
It is an idea that’s exciting the whole development community around the world, we should not be behind the curve… The job of the survey is to explore new ideas. It is not just what the government will immediately explore.
BIEN cofounder Guy Standing, who has organized past pilot studies of basic income in India, calls the inclusion of UBI in the Economic Survey a “significant development in India”.
References:
Meera Mohanty, “Next Economic Survey might float Universal Basic Income balloon“, The Economic Times; September 5, 2016.
BI India Bureau, “Universal Basic Income could feature in the next economic survey, says India’s Chief Economic Advisor“, Business Insider India; September 5, 2016.
Guy Standing, personal communication.
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Photo: Arvind Subramanian at PopTech 2011 CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Kris Krüg
Thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Sep 6, 2016 | News
Owen Smith — the sole challenger to incumbent Jeremy Corbyn in the upcoming election for leadership of the UK Labour Party — has come out in opposition to universal basic income in remarks at a press conference.
Labour Party leadership candidate Owen Smith was asked about his views on UBI at a press conference in London on Monday, September 5. As reported in The Independent and Business Insider, he replied to the question “Could you see yourself fighting a general election advocating UBI?” as follows:
Honestly, no. I’ve looked at the arithmetic and I cannot see that this works. I’ve looked at three or four reports… it’s a lovely sounding policy but it’s another example of John McDonnell, and Jeremy Corbyn I’m afraid, not being credible on economic policies.
Smith later added, “I don’t think talking about universal basic income, however attractive an idea it is, is the answer.”
Smith announced his candidacy for leadership of the Labour Party in July, shortly after resigning from his post as the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (the official Labour critic of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from the Conservative cabinet).
Corbyn, the incumbent, has recently expressed interest in exploring UBI. His campaign manager, shadow chancellor John McDonnell, has been a long-time supporter of UBI. McDonnell has urged the Labour Party to consider endorsing UBI as official party policy–a position that he recently reasserted, following a report on the topic from the Fabian Society.
A YouGov poll published on August 30 shows Corbyn leading Smith 62 percent to 38 percent among those eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election (sample size 1236, weighted selection from party members, registered supporters, and union affiliates).
References:
Ashley Cowburn, “Universal basic income ‘not a credible’ idea, says Labour leadership contender Owen Smith“, The Independent; September 5, 2016.
Adam Payne, “Owen Smith has totally shot down universal basic income“, Business Insider; September 5, 2016.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo: Owen Smith (2013) CC BY-SA 4.0 Wykehamistwikipedian
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s patrons on Patreon
