The 18th annual North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress will be held next June 15-16th, 2019, at the Silberman School of Social Work of the Hunter College in New York City. The Congress Major Theme is: Basic Income on the Policy Agenda, and the call is out for proposals. The deadline for proposal submissions is February 18th, 2019.
Fifty years after a basic income bill was first introduced in the U.S. Congress, basic income is once again on the policy agenda in North America. Pilot programs, controlled trials, documentaries, and debates are bringing basic income into mainstream policy conversations. The 2019 NABIG Congress invites participants to consider how to advance basic income on the policy agenda at local, national, and regional levels.
Sri Lanka, one of India’s closest neighbours, is starting to be the stage for a wide campaign to grow awareness about basic income. Talal Rafi, an entrepreneur, consultant and columnist from Sri Lanka is heading this awareness effort, since he is convinced automation will disrupt the economy, particularly by leaving millions of people unemployed.
Associated with Jim Pugh, ex-Director of Analytics for ex-US President Barack Obama, and Scott Santens, prominent international basic income activist, Talal Rafi has been referenced in Daily News, where he is cited for making an argument for basic income based on the onslaught of automation on jobs: “Artificial Intelligence will bring ease to humans, but would take away many of their jobs. Less than one fifth of jobs lost could be replaced. With half a billion people expected to be unemployed in the coming decades, crime alone would reach unprecedented levels. Self-driving cars, growing online shopping and robots for factories, mean millions of jobs taken over by machines. With IBM Watson, even doctors and lawyers are not safe. A possible solution is a guaranteed basic income for all.”
Rafi went on to be interviewed on Sri Lanka’s national TV (morning show, in English), where he was confronted with the usual questions concerning working productivity and financing. The answers surfed between automation and its consequences, results from already performed basic income pilots worldwide, and the prompt elimination of extreme poverty.
Minho, Portugal. Picture credit to: Notícias ao Minuto
Last Wednesday there was a Conference on Basic Income at Universidade do Minho, called “Rendimento Básico: uma Ferramenta para uma Europa Social? [Basic Income: a Tool for a Social Europe?]”. It was organized by Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade [Center for Ethics, Politics and Society] (CEPS), together with several institutional partners, for instance Universidade do Porto (Porto University) and Ministério do Trabalho, Solidariedade e Segurança Social (Social Security, Solidarity and Work Ministry).
On the aftermath of this event, several interviews and articles were published, confirming the rising interest in basic income within the Portuguese reality. Interviewed by Público newspaper, van Parijs clarified that, although automation is largely seen as the prime mover of basic income, at least in “developed” countries, it is “not at the bottom of the basic income proposal”. According to him, basic income is, rather, a way to include everyone in work. Answering a series of questions focused on the perceived problems with basic income – work disincentive, contrary to work ethic, social cleavages, menace to the welfare state – van Parijs defended the proposal as non-conflicting with the work ethic, since people can choose better what to work for with a basic income, and also as collaborating with the welfare state and its function to provide material security.
Minister Vieira da Silva, also interviewed by Público, believes that basic income, if ever to become a reality, can only be implemented at an European scale. His greatest fear is that, with basic income, society will become polarized between the employed, who would (in his view) be financing basic income, and the unemployed, who would only be surviving on that unconditional stipend. He also claims that basic income experiments “have not been very successful”, and that basic income in Portugal “seems an option still far away from implementation”. The minister has not justified any of these assertions, which may unveil doubts on his knowledge about the successful experiments already undertaken (e.g.: India, Namibia, Canada), and the most recent events in India related to unconditional cash transfers. Nevertheless, Vieira da Silva acknowledges that in an era of robotization, basic income can be seen as an investment, “guaranteeing access to consumption for everyone”.
Ex-Work and Solidarity minister, Paulo Pedroso was also interviewed in this sequence of opinion on basic income. To Pedroso, people should simply not be exempted from their duty to contribute to society. However, he also acknowledges that creating a financial floor which eliminates the possibility of not having enough resources to live with dignity, is a good idea. Hence, he supports universality, but not unconditionality. More, according to Pedroso, basic income “aims to replace the welfare state”, which is an opinion shared by many on the Left on the Portuguese political spectrum, namely Francisco Louçã. The ex-minister assumes that the implementation of a basic income in Portugal will demand so much financial resources that the government would be forced to cut on essential services, like education and health, although that has aldready been proven unnecessary. Pedroso’s views on basic income do not come as a surprise, though, as he already had delivered his opinions before, having then stated that basic income “amounts to suicide”.
Discussions in Portugal about welfare, taxation and, ultimately, basic income, do not seem to share a rational basis. From several interviews it becomes clear that opinions get formed on emotional grounds – particularly fear and hesitation – and not over evidence. However, the conversation continues, in the midst of international experimentation (with basic income-related policies) and tentative implementation moves (India).
The main opposition party in India, the Congress party, has just promised to implement a “nationwide minimum income for the poor”, rolling out the unprecedent scheme starting as soon as May 2019, if it gets elected. The party’s president Rahul Gandhi, has announced this on Monday, while speaking to farmers in Chhattisgarh state, where Congress was elected after promising statewide loan waivers.
Critics from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), currently in power, dismiss this minimum income for the poor as a false promise from Congress, taken in a populist fever given the upcoming general elections, but Congress leaders have replied with the fact that they are fulfilling their promises on farm loan waivers in the states where they have been elected to recently. According to them, namely though BJP leader Ravi Schankar, this is just one more announcement, among many others which never saw the light of day. As Shankar speaks, though, regional leaders are fulfilling some of the Congress party regional electoral promises. Ashok Gehlot, just recently elected as chief minister of the Rajasthan region, India’s largest state located on the East side shouldered by Pakistan, just said on Monday that “whatever promises [Rahul Gandhi] made during assembly elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarth, we are fulfilling them, be it farm loan waiver or allowance to unemployed youths.”
Rahul Gandhi has firmly stated: “Nobody will remain hungry and nobody will remain poor as all poor people will be entitled to a guaranteed income. We will do this in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and all other states as well. All you have to do is to give us an opportunity”. Particulars have not yet been revealed (for instance, what are the parameters defining “poor” in India), but this announcement from Congress comes on the wake of the 2016-2017 Economic Survey, which suggested the implementation of a basic income to support the bottom 75% of the population in terms of income. In that document, the scheme’s realization would include the rollback of several (conditional) subsidies.
Running up these last months to the general election, spirits are agitated. There has been speculation on whether Narenda Modi and his government would attempt to implement a nationwide basic income on this week’s presentation of the interim budget, as a response to farmers protests all over the country. That led some to think that Ghandi’s move was meant as a strike to turn the table and get Congress one step ahead facing the impending elections. Could be. However, government officials are sceptical about how to finance such a bold policy, without cutting on State essential services and unleashing “runaway inflation”, which discourages the belief that government will make history in only three months.
As expected, the Congress party leadership was quick to support Gandhi’s announcement, with messages and statements from Chidambaram, Sheila Dikshit and Bhalchandra Mungekar, all Congress heavyweights (Chidambaram occupied ministerial positions for ten years, from 2004 and 2014, and Sheila was the longest serving Chief Minister of Delhi). Chidambaram as stated that “the poor in India have the first charge on the resources of the country and the party will find the resources to implement the promise of Rahul Gandhi.” He has been nominated the Congress Manifesto chairman for the 2019 elections, steady on the belief that “now we should make a determined effort to wipe out poverty in India”.
Chidambaram. Picture Credit to: The News Minute
Whoever gets to implement basic income in India, the proposal as it stands seems to be framed as a Negative Income Tax (NIT), since it is being direct to the poor. Arguably, the financing mechanism will expectedly use taxes and savings on welfare schemes to make direct cash transfers to those who fall below a certain poverty threshold. The next few months will be critical to Indian politics, and probably to the world’s social landscape. Right now, all eyes are on India. Sarath Davala, a long-standing basic income activist in India and internationally, has stated on Facebook:
“Indian National Congress, the main opposition party now announces Basic Income to the poor. Details are yet to be worked out. I cannot ask for more. Ironically though, our real challenge begins NOW – translating the idea plus evidence into concrete national policy without diluting the spirit of basic income.”
“The answer is blowing in the wind”. Picture credit to: BBC News.
It’s official. Twenty-seven Nobel Laureate economists, four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, fifteen former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers and two former secretaries of the US Department of Treasury now agree: a carbon-tax must exist, and its dividends should be distributed back to all US citizens. It is relevant to say that most of these co-signatories are ‘former’ actors of these important economic institutions, which may leave an open question mark on whether the present officials at these institutions also corroborate their support for this basic income-like carbon taxation policy.
According to long-time basic income advocate and researcher Philippe van Parijs, “this amounts to the endorsement of the Paine argument for basic income by a remarkable congregation of US top economists of all colors”. That would be granting a basic income as a right of existence to each citizen, in this case for sharing the Earth’s atmosphere; hence the right to live in a clean, climate change-free version of it – at least while there are anthropogenic carbon emissions being dispersed into the atmosphere.
Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.
I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.
II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.
III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long-term investment in clean-energy alternatives.
IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.
V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.
It may also be relevant to acknowledge that “economic growth” and “competitiveness of American firms” can be read as central in this statement, which might leave another question mark on whether these top economists and advisers would still support a related policy if it, by any chance, didn’t involve these iconic aspects of modern-day capitalist economy. Also interesting is the reference to “cumbersome regulations”, which should be scrapped, and of the acceleration and “diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services”. This also sounds reminiscent of a contemporary known driver of orthodox, 21st century economic theory: green growth.
Guy Standing, another long-time defender of the basic income policy, writing from Davos, where the world’s richest discuss money and politics at the highest level, has said that he considers this Economists’ Statement as “a major move toward basic income”, adding that he “even had agreement from Larry Fink on one panel debate.” This could indeed be very relevant, since Fink is one of the richest people alive today and therefore his net contribution to a basic income-like policy is, potentially, very large. Other participants at Davos, such as Martin Wolf from the Financial Times, have expressed more cautious approaches to this radical proposal, having said, “I have not been in favor, but I would not be against it, if it were introduced”. This could arguably be the equivalent of saying if a basic income were introduced, he would not reject the payment, but would not support it, either.
The complete co-signatory list for the Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends can be read here.
