by BIEN | Oct 13, 2016 | News, Testimonies
Interview by Scott Jacobsen
*Transcribed from informal Skype chat, content not quoted in full.*
How’d you get an interest, and how’d you get involved, in basic income?
There were two phases. My initial interest came from early on, when I was in my late teens. My involvement started one year ago.
As a teenager, I was interested in Ayn Rand and Libertarianism. I believed in freedom, free markets, no restrictions on the pursuit of self-interest –but I noticed a tension between this view and other things, as a teenager, such as underground music.
I was into certain bands at that time. If bands went to make money in the marketplace, it wasn’t something for them to do without becoming ‘sellouts’. If you want music artists to pursue their own interest, you expect them to not really ‘give a rat’s ass’ and to make great music. This conflicts with selling to the public.
In this one area, I was concerned about it [Libertarianism]. I could see places for people to not make a profit. These ideas conflicted with the Libertarian ideals –this free-market framework.
For a while, I had cognitive dissonance and unresolved tension. That is, a conflict between a ‘morally correct economy’ and my deeply held conviction of people pursuing art and knowledge for its own sake. They shouldn’t have to worry about profit.
At some point, in a random Libertarian publication, I learned about the basic income experiment in Manitoba –the Mincome experiments. This didn’t seem like a bad idea: give people enough money for their basic needs, and with these met, people have the freedom to pursue whatever they want to pursue.
I stuck with this for a while. This fulfilled the need for believing in something morally decent to me. It wasn’t relevant to college or graduate work. I wasn’t politically active at all during my 20s. However, I had this shoved away in the back of my head.
My involvement came about a year ago. The circumstances of this were finishing my PhD in early 2015. I became involved in late 2015. One thing that influenced me was not having a basic income. For the first time in my life, I did not have economic security.
All through college and graduate school, I was paid through stipends from scholarships and fellowships, and graduate assistant positions. There were either no work requirements or the connections to jobs (like teaching and grading) were at best rather nebulously defined.
All of a sudden, without ever thinking of education as job training or working a normal job, I was left on my own post-graduation. I still didn’t know what I wanted to do. I very much did not want to look for a standard job. Obviously, a basic income would have helped me.
At the same time, we have the rise of the Bernie Sanders movement. Many friends were followers and part of the Fight for ’15 Movement. I didn’t understand how a living wage would help someone like me.
That is, I work on things that interest me; it seems like a good idea. [But] a $15/hr minimum wage does not help if you’re not in a waged position. There is plenty of good work that needs to get done which is not necessarily suitable for wage labour.
I began thinking again about basic income. It accomplishes the basic goal of eliminating poverty. So, I started mentioning it to people. And it turned out I had friends who had heard of it. I started researching what had been written on it. As it turns out, there were some articles being written, and groups and individuals working on it.
I started subscribing and following these articles and people, respectively. Later in the year, I started following Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) on Facebook. They started putting out calls for reviewers. I reviewed for them and then began writing for them.
From this work from PhD to basic income, it is a passion for you. It takes a lot of time. What is the main passion in this initiative for you to become an activist and devote a tremendous amount time to it? I can look at the number of publications alone.
(Laugh)
There are a few motivations. So, one thing is I enjoy the type of work. It’s challenging. I’ve done work writing for newsletters before. I am continuing to do this. I am doing an annual newsletter for my academic department.
What I do with BIEN is so much more challenging. I learned a couple different software platforms. In addition, I have to keep up on the day-to-day research. I have to do a lot of investigation. I have to find a lead about some topic, new announcement, or new study.
I am coming into this as a non-expert by any means. However, I want to present the information in an accurate way. There is a demand to do research and figure out things that I’m learning for the first time.
Also, I want to represent information without leading readers astray.
(Laugh)
I do not want them to have false inferences or beliefs. I want them to have true beliefs via true information.
I [also] really like the fact that this work is something I can do on my own time in my own place. I don’t have to go into an office. I don’t have bosses looking over my shoulders, at least directly. If I were to have a job, this is embodying my own ideal. I can sit and write. It is variety and a challenge. It is for a good cause. I deeply believe in this. I work with cool people.
I do not work in an office. I interact via Skype and email. I am totally independent. I can work from my apartment, a coffee shop, and at the bar, whatever. It’s like the perfect job, even though it doesn’t pay.
I have multiple aspects of work that align with my values, personality, and work preferences. It seems like the perfect fit. If I can continue to afford doing this without relying on a job, and if I keep doing this for the sake of the movement and myself, and if I stick with this, I want to see where this goes.
I’ll at least do something that I tremendously enjoy that is a fit for a while.
This interview is continued in Part Two, where McFarland discusses her values in news reporting.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 12, 2016 | News
Unconditional Basic Income Europe is holding a meeting and conference, “UBI is Coming!”, at the Centro Cultural Moncloa in Madrid, Spain, October 15-16.
Sunday will feature a roundtable discussion with Karl Widerquist, Irina Studhalter, Lena Stark, Nicole Teke, and members of Marea Básica, Red Renta Básica (BIEN Spain), and Attac.
More information (in Spanish) is available at Marea Básica’s website.
Reviewed by Barb Jacobson
Madrid photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Jose Maria Cuellar
by Tyler Prochazka | Oct 12, 2016 | News, Research
After many years writing scholarship on the citizen’s income (or basic income), Malcolm Torry was constantly asked about the feasibility of the policy. A new book by Torry, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income, seeks to answer this question.
Below is an interview with Torry on he came to write the new book and some of the conclusions he made in his research.
What prompted you to write this book?
It was about two years ago that the Citizen’s Income debate started to become seriously mainstream. I had already published Money for Everyone: Why we need a Citizen’s Income (Policy Press, 2013), a general introduction to the subject. Although the book was designed to be accessible to the general reader, a number of people had said to me that something shorter and cheaper would be useful so I wrote 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income (Policy Press, 2015). Both of these books were designed to show that Citizen’s Income is a good idea. They might or might not have contributed to the increase in interest in Citizen’s Income among think tanks, political parties, and the press. (Both international developments and increasing concern about the future of the employment market were probably more significant causes.) I had frequently been asked questions about the feasibility of Citizen’s Income. At both BIEN and Social Policy Association conferences I had presented papers about feasibility that built on articles about political feasibility by Jurgen De Wispelaere and his colleagues; and then, following a presentation for Cambridge economists on different kinds of feasibility, Karl Widerquist, who was the other presenter at the seminar, asked me if I would turn my presentation into a book for the Palgrave Macmillan series that he edits. Some of us had already noticed that the Citizen’s Income debate was becoming at least as much about feasibility as it was about desirability, so I agreed to Karl’s proposal.
What was the most surprising and/or interesting element you discovered while researching for this book?
A combination of related elements: that the policy process (the process by which an idea finds its way to implementation through a variety of interconnected institutions) is extremely diverse; that understandings of it are equally diverse; and that ideas can sometimes achieve implementation without passing through what we might call a normal policy process: that is, that policy accidents can occur. The book therefore contains chapters on political feasibility and on policy process feasibility, as well as a final chapter, ‘From feasibility to implementation’, in which policy accidents are discussed.
Which aspect will be most challenging to overcome in achieving a citizen’s income: political or psychological barriers? Why?
It became clearer to me as I researched and wrote the book that political feasibility relies heavily on psychological feasibility. Only if a significant proportion of a population are convinced of the case for a policy change, and significant proportions of particular groups within populations (journalists, academics, policy-makers, etc.) are convinced of the case, is there any chance of political feasibility. Psychological feasibility therefore precedes political feasibility – except when political accidents occur, and even then potential psychological feasibility is required. Psychological feasibility will not be easy to achieve because in the UK we have been means-testing benefits for four hundred years, and it takes a significant paradigm shift to recognise that in the presence of a progressive income tax an unconditional payment can do the same job as means-tested benefits and can do it a lot more efficiently and without all of the side-effects of means-testing. Given the further popular ‘deserving/undeserving’ mindset, building psychological feasibility for a Citizen’s Income for everyone is going to be difficult. However, building psychological feasibility for such ‘deserving’ groups as elderly people, the pre-retired, children, and young people, would not be so hard: so a feasible implementation method might be to implement Citizen’s Income one age group at a time, beginning with those thought most deserving. This would eventually build the psychological feasibility required for a Citizen’s Income for working age adults.
Is a citizen’s income feasible just using current revenue? If so, would this be the most desirable way to implement basic income?
A Citizen’s Income certainly is feasible just using current revenue if income tax allowances (‘standard deduction’ in the USA; ‘Personal Allowance’ in the UK) are adjusted appropriately, and Income Tax rates and other aspects of a tax and benefits system are adjusted appropriately. We have shown that in the UK a Citizen’s Income of £60 per week for working age adults (less for children and young adults; more for elderly people) would require no additional public expenditure if Income Tax Personal Allowances were reduced to zero, Income Tax rates were raised by just 3%, and National Insurance Contributions (social insurance contributions) and means-tested benefits were adjusted appropriately.
Whether this would be the most desirable way to implement a Citizen’s Income scheme is of course debatable: but it would probably be the most feasible way to begin implementation.
What would the most significant effect of the citizen’s income be on households?
What would be the most significant effect must be a matter of personal opinion, because different households have different priorities: but among significant effects would be greater freedom to choose an employment pattern that worked for all of the members of the household; lower marginal deduction rates for all or many households, meaning that an increase in earned income would translate into a higher additional net income than under current means-tested benefits systems; and freedom from bureaucratic intrusion into the household’s relationships and circumstances.
What is the empirical evidence that universal programs are superior to means tested ones?
To decide whether one system is superior to another requires a list of criteria for a good benefits system, and then different systems need to be evaluated against those criteria. The book Money for Everyone contains a full discussion of the criteria for a good benefits system, discusses the ways in which the criteria are met or not met by different systems, and concludes that a universalist system meets the criteria more thoroughly than a means-tested one. The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income does not ask directly about the desirability of Citizen’s Income, but rather seeks evidence for Citizen’s Income’s ability to pass a variety of feasibility tests (although of course feasibility is required for desirability, and desirability for feasibility). Evidence is drawn from natural and constructed experiments, microsimulation results, and other empirical research.
What is the most desirable aspect of a citizen’s income? What is the main reason you support basic income?
Again, what is the most desirable aspect of Citizen’s Income will be a matter of opinion. Since we all have different preferences, the question then comes down to the second question asked: What is the main reason that I support Citizen’s Income? There is no main reason; there are lots of reasons: unconditionality; universality; lower marginal deduction rates; greater individual freedom; greater equality; decreased poverty; enhanced social cohesion; administrative simplicity; the absence of stigma, error, fraud, and bureaucratic interference in the lives of individuals and households.
What brought you to the citizen’s income movement?
From 1976 to 1978 I worked in the Department of Health and Social Security’s Supplementary Benefit office in Brixton in South London, administering means-tested benefits. We all knew how bad the system was, both for claimants and for the staff. The benefit that we and the claimants loved was universal Child Benefit, for its simplicity, its reliability, and the way that it reduced poverty, increased equality, and created social cohesion. Why shouldn’t the same principles and the same results be transferred to benefits for working age adults?
I was ordained, and served my first post in the Church of England’s ministry at the Elephant and Castle: the parish in South London in which the headquarters of the DHSS was located. I got to know people in the offices, and was invited to the department’s summer school. There I found the idea of a Basic or Citizen’s Income being seriously discussed. I was invited to join a group of individuals from a variety of backgrounds interested in the idea – the Basic Income Research Group, now the Citizen’s Income Trust – and have participated in its work ever since.
The motive has always been the same: to research the desirability and feasibility of an unconditional income for every individual as a right of citizenship. My new book concludes that Citizen’s Income’s implementation is feasible.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 12, 2016 | News
Joel Dodge is an attorney and writer based in New York City. Recently, he has been writing articles on the topic of universal basic income, several of which have been published in the online news publication Quartz.
Dodge’s interest in UBI stems in part from his attraction to the idea of a child allowance–a policy he encountered in the Netherlands while studying Dutch social programs. He cites the journalist Russell Shorto, an American expat living in Amsterdam, as an influence. In Dodge’s words, Shorto wrote about “the refreshing surprise of the Dutch government depositing money in parents’ bank accounts to help out with the cost of school books, diapers, and raising kids generally.” Commenting on the origins of his interest in UBI, Dodge explains, “The charm and user-friendliness of the policy stuck with me–how government wanted to be there to help out for the big moments in life, and it did so through simple automatic cash infusions.”
Read more: “The best way to fix child poverty in the US is to give poor kids free money”
With UBI’s recent increase in publicity and popularity, Dodge began researching earlier discussions of basic income guarantee programs in US politics — especially circa 1970, when the US federal government nearly passed a basic income guarantee in the form of President Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan, and Nixon’s challenger, George McGovern, developed his own basic income proposal (the “demogrant”).
Dodge says, “Part of learning about UBI has been excavating our past political debates, which is exciting. So it’s both an old idea and an extremely cutting edge, even revolutionary one.”
Read more: “When Basic Income Was Almost an American Reality“
In his most recent writings on UBI, Dodge has explored some of the main objections from both Right and Left. He dismisses the contention that it will “make people lazy” — pointing that, insofar as people do stop working, they might make other valuable social contributions (as did such “gentlemen of leisure” as Charles Darwin and Rene Descartes).
Read more: “Universal basic income wouldn’t make people lazy–it would change the nature of work”
The major worry from the left — that a basic income would disrupt the welfare state in a way that leaves many worse-off — is one that Dodge finds more pressing. In communication with Basic Income News, he describes motivation for writing “The progressive case against a universal basic income“:
I was motivated to write [it] for two principal reasons. First, I think some of the hype surrounding the cross-ideological embrace of UBI is overstated. The right and left have very different ideas about how UBI would interact with the current welfare state, and I wanted to draw attention to that disagreement.
I also saw certain influential liberal policy figures like Larry Summers, Jason Furman, and Jared Bernstein rapidly coalescing around the same critique of UBI in recent months: namely, that funding a UBI would inevitably come at the expense of other social welfare programs. And I think it’s an important critique. Those who advocate for UBI on the left need to come up with a clear and plausible way to fund a UBI while merging it with our existing social welfare regime.
Scott Santens and some other UBI advocates support retaining government healthcare programs and adding on certain UBI supplements, such as disability benefits. They point to the holes in our social safety net, but that’s really an argument for just plugging in these holes to keep people from falling through the cracks–a much more practical near-term project in our political tradition than a UBI, frankly.
And the reason progressives support certain in-kind benefits like food stamps, housing support, and public healthcare is because we think these are essentially fundamental rights that everyone should be entitled to. Would we really go back on those basic instincts if we replaced the welfare state with a UBI? That is, if someone exhausted their UBI, would we support the hard-line Charles Murray-style position that they are out of luck and must depend on charity? I doubt it, and certainly hope not. So I think UBI needs to be structured in a way that adapts to the moral imperative of guaranteeing that certain targeted, basic needs will be met, understanding that there’s social value to providing more than just cash benefits in some circumstances.
Overall, Dodge describes himself as “deeply curious about UBI” but, at the same time, cautious. He believes that it’s important to wait for the outcomes of upcoming studies of basic income before adopting such a policy. Meanwhile, he maintains that progressive reforms should be approached in an incremental manner. As he relates in other remarks to Basic Income News:
I’m deeply curious about UBI. I admire the ambition, simplicity, and utopian instinct of UBI. But it’s also important to pay attention to how basic income works in practice in the experiments that are just gearing up. The best data we have now are from experiments conducted more than 40 years ago, so we need to see how UBI works today.
I also tend to be an incrementalist when it comes to progressive reform. So I try to harness some of the energy surrounding UBI toward smaller scale reforms. Some of our refundable tax credits could be transformed into direct periodic payments from the government to help out families year-round. There are good fiscal and efficiency arguments to back this up, so the political path is clearer. And if we enact UBI-lite policies today, it could pave the way toward bigger and bolder UBI-style reforms tomorrow.
Bibliographical Summary: Joel Dodge on UBI
“The best way to fix child poverty in the US is to give poor kids free money” (August 19, 2016) Quartz.
“Universal basic income wouldn’t make people lazy–it would change the nature of work” (August 25, 2016) Quartz.
“When Basic Income Was Almost an American Reality” (August 30, 2016) Medium.
“The progressive case against a universal basic income” (September 23, 2016) Quartz.
See also J. DODGE blog.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Zoriah
by Kate McFarland | Oct 11, 2016 | News
The official launch event of Guy Standing’s new book, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay (Biteback Publishing), will be held on October 26. It will be held at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London, where Standing is a Professorial Research Associate.
From the event description:
There is a lie at the heart of global capitalism. While claiming to promote free markets, governments and international agencies have constructed the most unfree market system ever, fostering a plutocracy alongside a growing precariat mired in insecurity. This book shows how rentier capitalism, which Keynes predicted would die, is causing growing inequality. The income distribution system has broken down. A new one is needed, anchored on basic income (social dividends) and democratic wealth funds.
Guy’s talk will be followed by a “drinks reception”.
After the launch event, Guy will continue traveling to promote The Corruption of Capitalism. On November 1, he will head to New York City to speak about the theme of his book at a public lecture at the New School for Social Research. On November 8, back in England, he’ll present the book to an audience at the University of Huddersfield. And he’ll deliver a seminar on the book at Strathclyde University in Scotland on November 24. In addition, Guy will be speaking at the NOW Conference in Moscow (Nov 6), the Trade Union Leaders’ Summit in Nyon, Switzerland (Nov 15), and the Swedish Human Rights Conference in Malmo (Nov 16) — in addition to other talks and conferences. (Details on many of these events are forthcoming in Basic Income News.)
Guy Standing is a co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network, and was responsible for naming the organization (originally the Basic Income European Network). His previous books include The Precariat and The Precariat Charter.
For more information about the London launch event, and to register for free, see EventBrite. The event is sponsored by Biteback Publishing and the Movements & Development Cluster of SOAS Labour.
For a teaser, read Guy’s article in openDemocracyUK based on The Corruption of Capitalism:
Guy Standing (Sep 5, 2016) “The left must combat rentier capitalism” openDemocracyUK.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Guy Standing photo CC BY 2.0 BICN/RCRG Basic Income Canada
