by Karl Widerquist | Nov 21, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
The devil’s in the details is a common saying about policy proposals. Perhaps we need a similar saying for policy research, something like the devil’s in the caveats. By this, I mean that the evidence any particular piece of research can provide is only a small part of the evidence people need to fully evaluate policy proposals. Non-specialists involved in the debate over that policy are often unable to translate caveats about the limits of research into a firm grasp of what that research does and does not imply about the policies they want evaluated. Therefore, even the best scientific policy research can leave nonspecialists with an oversimplified, or simply wrong, impression of its implications for policy.
For example, popular media reports about medical research often leave people in the United States today with the impression that the medical professionals make widely swinging recommendations about prevention and treatment of diseases, when medical consensus is actually slow to change and even slower to reverse a change once made. It is possible that the misperception of an erratic medical consensus exists because nonspecialists don’t have the background to understand the difference between a medical consensus and an oversimplified or sensationalized report of one study.
Whatever the problems of this type are with medical research, they are likely to be much greater with social science research in general and Universal Basic Income (UBI) experiments in particular. At least some medical research is fairly straightforward. Many medicines affect people only on an individual basis, and all we might want to know about a medicine is whether it is safe and effective. In many cases, medical research can address that question directly in a controlled experiment, and hopefully, it’s not too difficult to communicate the results to nonspecialists.
Although medical experiments might not always be this straightforward, UBI experiments can never be straightforward. I believe this problem is so big that I’m working on a book, provisionally titled Basic Income Experiments—The Devil’s in the Details, to discuss the enormous difficulty of conducting a UBI experiment that successfully raises the level of political debate over UBI.
UBI has complex economic, political, social, and cultural effects that cannot be observed in a controlled experiment. Researchers conducting experiments know that experimental evidence alone cannot fully answer the big questions about UBI: does it work? Is it cost-effective? Should we introduce it on a national level? They have to be content with making a small contribution to a large body of knowledge about UBI. When research is conducted of, by, and for specialists, mutual understanding of the limits of research usually requires no more a simple list of caveats, many of which can go without mention in a group with a great deal of shared, specialized knowledge.
The same is not true when policymakers and citizens make up part of the audience of research—as they do for research on major policy issues such as UBI. Citizens and policymakers want answers to the big questions mentioned above; they understandably try to interpret experimental results in light of those questions. But as I will argue throughout the book, they have great difficulty understanding what UBI experiments do and do not imply about those big questions. The devil is in the caveats.
Most academic specialists are professionals at writing for other academics within the same specialty but amateurs at communicating with nonspecialists. The book argues that these communications barriers affect not only how specialists report their research to nonspecialists but also how they design and conduct it.
It is no coincidence that UBI experiments are getting underway just after an enormous growth in the discussion of UBI in many countries around the world. In that environment, one of the goals of UBI experiments is—or ought to be—to raise the level of debate over UBI. The book will argue that past experiments have a mixed record in raising the level of debate over UBI: although all of them have provided valuable evidence, some have succeeded in raising the level of debate, and some have been so misunderstood that they might well have had an overall negative affect on the level of debate. This effort to raise the level of political debate (like the UBI debate) requires knowledge and skills that researchers have no special training to do and creates risks that research aimed purely at other researchers does not have, including the vulnerability to spin, misuse, sensationalism, or oversimplification.
The goal of the book is help researchers, policymakers, citizens, journalists, and anyone else interested in UBI experiments bridge gaps in understanding between them to help the experiments succeed in the goal of raising the level of debate. I hope that this effort will be valuable to researchers designing, conducting, and writing about UBI experiments, to policymakers commissioning and reacting to experiments, to journalists reporting on experiments, and to citizens involved in the debate or simply interested in the topic of UBI.
To help people bridge these gaps, the book has to explain how many significant barriers there are to conducting experiments that successfully raisr the level of debate. So, I will have a lot of negative things to say, but that should not distract readers from my overall enthusiasm for UBI experiments. They are worth doing, and worth doing well in all relevant ways. And to readers who are unenthusiastic about UBI experiments, I say, they are coming; it’s important to make the best of them.
A meeting during the Indian pilot project, c. 2011-2013
by Sara Bizarro | Nov 21, 2017 | News
Stockton, California and Mayor Michael Tubbs announced plans for a Basic Income trial – the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED). The project is still in its initial stage, and the design phase of the project will be launched in January 2018. The design period will last 6 to 9 months, and according to a Sukhi Samra, representative of the SEED project, the design phase is being used to “solicit community input and to ensure that SEED is really reflective of the needs of the Stockton community.”
The concrete outline of the project is still in the early stages, but there are some starting points. The basic income stipend will be $500 per month and will apply to anywhere from 25 families for 5 years to 100 families for 1.5 years. The project has secured a $1 million grant from the Economic Security Project and a grant from the Goldhirst Foundation of $250,000 which was announced last Thursday. The project also hopes to be able to raise additional funds. According to the guidelines in the SEED website, the demonstration will gather both research and storytelling partners, and those who are interested in participating can follow the info here. The site also states the project will prioritize high quality data with the cooperation of academics and academic institutions, while also engaging in storytelling, encouraging documentary filmmakers and creative storytellers to join the team.
The city of Stockton has had a difficult past. In 2012, it became the first city in the United States to file for bankruptcy. Since then, the city has been recovering, but it continues facing important challenges since 1 in every 4 residents still live below the poverty line. Mayor Michael Tubbs became the youngest Mayor in history, and the first African American Mayor of Stockton, in 2017. He has a progressive agenda in many areas, and the Basic Income demonstration is intended as a way to show what happens when a group of people have an income floor that is guaranteed. Stockton will be the first public/private trial in the United States with significant leadership from a public official. Mayor Tubbs is inspired by Martin Luther King Jr. who defended a guaranteed basic income. Tubbs is interested in finding out “if a guaranteed income will unleash potential and provide the needed stability.”
More Info:
Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration Website.
Economic Security Project.
Dylan Matthews, ”Three years ago, Stockton, California, was bankrupt. Now it’s trying out a basic income”, Vox, October 18, 2017
Alexis C. Madrigal, “Free Money at the Edge of the Tech Boom”, Atlantic, October 19, 2017
by Patrick Hoare | Nov 20, 2017 | News
Reverend Dr William Barber. Credit to: Flickr
Reverend Dr William Barber of Birmingham, Alabama, has spoken of the need for a “breakthrough” in the civil rights movement in the US, citing an acceptable development being a point where “every poor person has a guaranteed income”. During his tour across 14 states, Rev Barber talked of the need for a “moral revival across the US”, and hoped that the content of his talks would lay the foundation for a new ‘Poor People’s Campaign’ – a 1968 campaign which attempted to push Congress into passing an economic bill of rights including a package of equitable funding, funds for poor communities and a guaranteed income.
Though one’s interpretation of a “guaranteed income” can differ significantly from a Universal Basic Income (UBI), given the context of Rev Barber’s comments in referring to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and therefore to Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Junior’s repeated reference to “guaranteed income” in speeches and writings at the time, the form of “guaranteed income” being referred to would seem to share many qualities with the standard conceptions of a UBI. In his book published in 1967, ‘Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community’, Dr King dedicated a whole section in Chapter 5 (titled ‘Where Do We Go’) to his idea of why a “guaranteed income” was necessary, and what it would look like.
The premise of his discussion was based on the need, as he saw it, to abolish poverty on the grounds that “if democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking”. Though he accepted that the causes of this poverty are the indirect consequence of multiple social evils – limited educational opportunities; poor housing; fragile family relationships – Dr King said that the solution could not also be indirect, since in order to be effective the programs required to improve those situations sufficiently would have to be coordinated and comprehensive, which, to date, has never been the case. In addition, he stated “that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands it does not eliminate all poverty”. His conclusion, therefore, was that the simplest approach to the issue was also the most effective, which was to provide people with a direct guaranteed income.
Other than a guaranteed income being a way of addressing the moral quandary we face as a society, Dr King pointed out that “we are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of proceeding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished”. He also talked about the psychological benefits to the measure, including a flourishing of individual dignity, the ability for people to seek self-improvement, and a reduction in the friction experienced in personal relations “when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated”.
Dr King did expand on the specifics of what such a program should look like, stating two key conditions he deemed indispensable in ensuring that the guaranteed income remained a progressive measure. The first of these was that a guaranteed income should be pegged to the medium income of the society in order to avoid perpetuating welfare standards. The second was that the level of the income should be dynamic, such that if the income of society grows so does the payment. This latter measure would be necessary to avoid the system becoming regressive.
More information at:
Oliver Laughland, ‘Inspired by Martin Luther King Jr, a new civil rights leader takes center stage’, The Guardian, 25th October 2017
Matt Orfalea, ‘Martin Luther King Jr. on the record for a Guaranteed Income’, Medium, 9th January 2017
Mat Orfalea, ‘MLK on Guaranteed Income: In his own words…’, Medium, 11th November 2015
by Sara Bizarro | Nov 18, 2017 | News
Peter S. Goodman, a veteran economics journalist, wrote a comprehensive piece about the recent Basic Income developments for the New York Times. In this piece, Goodman refers to the main motivations behind the idea of Basic Income as including the current wage stagnation, the lack of jobs to support the middle class and the threat of automation. The idea, Goodman says, is “gaining traction in many countries as a proposal to soften the edges of capitalism.” Basic Income can be use to insure “food and shelter for all, while removing the stigma of public support.”
The article also refers to several Basic Income experiments currently underway. In Europe, the article includes the experiments in Finland, Netherlands and Barcelona. In the USA, the article mentions the experiments being prepared in Oakland and Stockton, CA. Also mentioned are the Canadian experiment in Ontario and the experiment in Kenya organized by Give Directly.
Regarding how to finance Basic Income, Goodman says that the cost of Basic Income is a simple multiplication of amount of money distributed by the amount of people. He says: “Give every American $10,000 a year — a sum still below the poverty line for an individual — and the tab runs to $3 trillion a year. That is about eight times what the United States now spends on social service programs. Conversation over.” This argument however, has been challenged by several Basic Income researchers, including Karl Widerquist, who is was interviewed and quoted in the piece. In his paper “The Cost of Basic Income: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations”, Widerquist says that the cost of Basic Income is “is often misunderstood and greatly exaggerated.” In the paper, Widerquist argues that a Basic Income of “$12,000 per adult and $6,000 per child with a 50% marginal tax rate” would cost “$539 billion per year: about one-sixth its often-mentioned but not-very-meaningful gross cost of about $3.415 trillion.“
Beyond the issue of financing, the article covers a lot of ground regarding current discussion of Basic Income and its motivation, as compared to other social security schemes. Goodman refers to the bureaucracy of social support and the poverty trap, when “people living on benefits risk losing support if they secure other income” and the idea that “poor people are better placed than bureaucrats to determine the most beneficial use of aid money.” The article also refers to the left wing worry that Basic Income could be an excuse to cut social programs, “given that the American social safety programs have been significantly trimmed in recent decades.”
The piece closes with an acknowledgement that Basic Income “appears to have found its moment” and a quote by Guy Standing, saying that, “The interest is exploding everywhere, and the debates now are extraordinarily fertile.”
More information:
Peter S. Goodman, “Capitalism Has a Problem. Is Free Money the Answer?”, New York Times, November 15, 2017
by Kate McFarland | Nov 17, 2017 | News
The US charity GiveDirectly has officially launched its trial of basic income in rural Kenya, and is now enrolling experimental participants.
The US$30 million experiment will be the largest trial of basic income to date, in terms of both size and duration. All residents of about 120 rural Kenyan villages, comprising more than 16,000 people in total, will receive some type of unconditional cash transfers during the experiment; some of these villages, moreover, will receive the universal basic income for twelve years.
It is also unique among current experiments in that it is designed as a randomized controlled trial in which the experimental units are villages rather than individuals. This means that, unlike the studies occurring in Finland, Ontario, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, the GiveDirectly experiment will be able to capture community-level effects of the basic income [*].
The experiment will include three treatment groups. In two groups, villages will receive a universal basic income of about US$23 per resident per month (roughly half of the average income in rural Kenya). In one group, comprising 80 villages, the payments will continue for two years; in the other, comprising 40 villages, the payments will continue for twelve years. In the third treatment group, all residents of each village will receive a single lump-sum payment equal in amount to the two-year basic income (i.e. about US$276). Another 100 rural Kenyan villages have been randomly assigned to a control group.
Chief Financial Officer Joe Huston announced the official launch in a blog post dated November 13, declaring, “It has begun! As I write, field officers in Bomet County, Kenya are beginning to enroll the first (post-pilot) households into the largest basic income initiative in history.”
The launch had been delayed from its originally anticipated date in September, due in part to political disruptions in Kenya surrounding a contested presidential election.
Since October 2016, GiveDirectly has been running a preliminary pilot in a single Kenyan village. All residents of this village (numbering 95 at the start of the pilot) were guaranteed a monthly unconditional cash payments, which will continue in this village for 12 years.
This preliminary study was conducted to help the researchers fine-tune the implementation of the full-scale experiment, and data collected from the pilot village will not be included in the analysis of the experiment. Because of the latter, GiveDirectly has decided to make data and information from pilot village available to the public (no data collected from the experiment itself will publicized until the trial has concluded). For example, the charity has published responses to a survey of participants and is now running a three-part series on “lessons drawn” from a year of observing the pilot village.
[*] In describing the experiment on its website, GiveDirectly suggests that it is interested mainly in individual-level (rather than community-level) effects of basic income, stating, “We will assess the impact of a basic income against a broad set of metrics, including: economic status (income, assets, standard of living); time use (work, education, leisure, community involvement); risk-taking (migrating, starting businesses); gender relations (especially female empowerment); aspirations and outlook on life.” This does not render the community-level effects irrelevant, however, since individual attitudes and behavior can be influenced by social multiplier effects.
Correction (Nov 17): An earlier version of this article stated that the experiment would include 200 villages in total (with 80 in the lump-sum payment treatment group), amounting to around 26,000 total recipients. This statement was based on out-of-date information, and has now been corrected. In fact, approximately 120 villages will be included in the study (totaling more than 16,000 recipients), with a reduction of the number of villages in the lump-sum treatment arm.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo CC BY-SA 2.0 David Brossard
