Villagers gathered to celebrate their basic income in the local church building
By: Billy Juma Munda, Evans Ododa, Lena Stark
Kowiti-A is a small village in Kisumu County in Kenya. It is twenty-three kilometres away from Kisumu town and has a population of 782 people of which 415 are adults and 367 are children below 18 years. Most of the people are engaged in farm-related livelihood activities. The village population is distributed among six clans. The nearest town Ahero is about 3 kilometres from the village.
About a year ago, two teachers from this village made a chance acquaintance, through social media, with members of an organisation called Mission Possible 2030 (MP2030). The context was basic income. They had heard about the idea of basic income from a local politician and began exploring it on the internet, only to realise that a global movement for it exists. MP2030 believes that without waiting for nation states to implement a basic income policy, we should start implementing a basic income by mobilising both individual donors and communities. This conversation led to MP2030 launching a project in Kowiti called Equalize in a humble way. From September 2020, the project gave a basic income of about 1100 Kenyan Shillings(KES) (10 US Dollars) per month to 10 people randomly selected through a raffle.
To facilitate money transfers, the teachers formed a local community-based organisation called Rural Action CBO (RACBO) so that it is a community initiative and money transfers happen in a transparent way. MP2030 transferred money to RACBO which in turn transferred to individuals via M-PESA, which is the popular mobile money transfer platform in Kenya.
These ten people received money for about eleven months, when another chance acquaintance gave a big boost to the project. This time the acquaintance took place between MP2030 and impact Market. impactMarket is a decentralized poverty alleviation protocol built by impactLabs, a company based in Portugal. It uses blockchain technology to enable any vulnerable community to implement poverty alleviation mechanisms, such as for instance, an Unconditional Basic Income. The protocol uses Celo Dollars, or cUSD, a stable-coin whose value is pegged to the US Dollar.
Ordinarily, you need an app for it and therefore a smartphone. As most of the villagers have no smartphone in Kowiti-A, collaboration with Fintech partners Refugee Integration Organisation and Kotanipay were needed to make sure the villagers would receive a currency they can actually use for buying goods and services: Kenyan Shillings – KES.
M-pesa outlet in Kowiti-A
Money transfers in Kenya are relatively easy, because of the widespread use of m-pesa, a mobile payment system. After the so-called USSD integration (where the CELO dollars are exchanged for KES in the background), someone with a sim card can receive KES, and withdraw cash at an m-pesa shop in the village. One phone can have two sim cards, so two people can receive per phone line. it is not entirely without intermediaries yet, but less than 6% is lost in the transfer from CELO dollar to cash-KES.
Because of the collaboration with Impact Market and its Fintech partners, the process accelerated very quickly and by mid-August about 240 adults began getting a basic income of 7 USD a week. By end September 2021, all the 415 adults will get the basic income for a period of one year. The total amount allocated to Kowiti project is 166,000 US Dollars, i.e., KES 18.28 million. Each individual will get a total amount of KES 44,000 (USD 400). If this sounds unbelievable, the results that will flow from this initiative will be more so, several times over.
What kind of basic income is it?
It is very interesting and also surprising that this humble project almost fulfils all the five main characteristics of the BIEN’s definition of basic income.
Universal: Basic income is given to the entire adult population. Children are not included more for technical reasons – in the smart contract adopted by ImpactMarket only those who have a mobile phone line can be provided money.
Cash: The recipient encashes the transfer into the national currency at any m-pesa store in the village
Individual: Money is transferred to individuals and not households.
Periodic: Money is transferred once a week.
Unconditional: There are no conditions whatsoever that the recipients need to fulfil after having received the money.
What does this money mean for these villages?
Based on a 2015 household budget survey, Kenya defines its overall poverty line in rural areas as an individual per capita monthly consumption expenditure of less than 3252 KES (USD 30), and extreme poverty as per capita consumption expenditure less than 1954 KES (USD 18).
In this project, the recipients receive a monthly top up of 3000 KES (USD 28) which is a substantial boost to their income levels. In this first month of receiving the money, it was observed that many people who never used to eat a breakfast, have begun to eat breakfast. Food seems to be where the money is visibly going. In the coming months, this project is certainly going to have a big impact on the lives and livelihoods of the people of Kowiti-A. These narratives will be published on the website of Mission Possible 2030 in the coming months.
Billi Juma Munda and Evans Ododa are teachers living in Kowiti-A. Lena Stark is the Chair of Mission Possible 2030. For more information about the project, write to Lena at lena@missionpossible2030.com
New research from World Basic Income finds that more than half of the world’s people live in countries where UBI could reach only $5 to $18 per person per month on average, as a result of global inequality and national income constraints. To support UBI activism in lower income countries and ensure that people everywhere can receive a sufficient UBI, the group proposes topping up this amount with a worldwide basic income of $30.
The briefing uses World Bank data to uncover how much money flows through each country every year, and how much of it could be taxed and redistributed as UBI.
The analysis shows that UBI could reach a maximum of $12 per person per month in India, $3 in Afghanistan and just over $1 in Burundi, if governments tax and redistribute cash at the average rates for each continent. Even if these countries managed to spend as much as France (the highest-spending country) on cash benefits, UBI could reach only $36, $10 and $5 respectively.
Laura Bannister, World Basic Income’s campaign director, explained, “Global inequality is deeply unjust and much more severe than many people think. Gross national income is just $811 per person per year in an average low income country, and in Burundi it is $270. Governments of these countries should still be pushed to implement UBI, but there just isn’t enough money flowing through these economies to enable payments at the level people need and deserve.”
Frank Kamanga, Director of Universal Basic Income Malawi and a member of World Basic Income’s International Advisory Board said, “I was motivated to join the universal basic income global movement because of the inequality that I observed in the world, especially between the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Currently with our resources it isn’t possible to have a universal basic income in Malawi, but with support from development partners we could manage to have such a policy.”
The briefing proposes a new mechanism for such support – a worldwide basic income of $30 per person per month, which would underpin national UBI efforts. It would be funded at the global level through taxes and charges on transnational corporations, and would be paid directly to every person worldwide that registered with the scheme.
“An extra $30 a month for every adult and child would be hugely significant for at least half of the world’s people,” said Laura Bannister. “These people deserve better from the world economy. Today’s extreme inequality between North and South is the result of a shameful history that the UBI movement should be aiming to help redress. UBI has incredible potential to reduce inequality and it’s time to apply that between countries as well as within them.”
Frank Kamanga concluded, “Poverty by its nature is inhumane, it steals away dignity and it denies people opportunities. A radical approach to do away with poverty at the global scale is implementing universal basic income.”
From the website: The PhD project is part of the larger Basic Income research project that studies how basic income is potentially linked with nature protection and tackling climate change, and how these possible linkages can be addressed in an embedded social-ecological context that is highly relevant for climate stabilization and reversing biodiversity loss at planetary scale and, at the same time, enhancing human well-being. A context that is well-represented in jurisdictions that are rich in forest ecosystem and biodiversity yet with poor population as observed in the provinces in Indonesia where tropical rainforests remain intact such as those in Papua.
In the long-term, part of the project aims to explore a multi-year basic income scheme for nature and climate and undertake necessary trial in a pilot jurisdiction at appropriate scale. Rigorous scientific monitoring and evaluation should be in place for this to assess social and ecological impacts and derive lessons for potential upscaling in other jurisdictions. A policy dialogue (at sub-national, national, and international levels) about the scientific results from the intended study on basic income for nature and climate is to be initiated to prepare the grounds to achieve the purpose. Together with the team at FRIBIS, the PhD position is expected to contribute to providing science-informed insights related to a basic income for nature and climate in the target jurisdiction. Under a joint research initiative, the PhD candidate will be supervised by Professor Dr.rer.oec. Bernhard Neumärker at the University of Freiburg and Dr.rer.pol. Sonny Mumbunan at the University of Indonesia and in close collaboration with teams and members at FRIBIS, and at GIZ.
Michael j. Sandel has written a book about the deep causes of the inequality that is a key driving force behind the populist backlash of recent years. His analysis serves as a basis for justification of the introduction of a universal basic income. For the complete review, see: https://basisinkomen.nl/wp-content/uploads/Book-Review-Michael-Sandel-Jan-Stroeken.pdf
Here you will find a short summary, being the last part of the review:
Public Debate and Basic Income Sandel’s analysis is razor sharp. What he brings to the fore more than anything is how present-day populism is only indirectly fuelled by the unequal distribution of income and essentially dominated by an ethical and cultural component. A growing section of the population feels underrated. This has everything to do with the tyranny of merit driven by the meritocratic ethos that, over the past decades, has led to meritocratic hubris. This hubris is reflected in the winners’ tendency to let their success go to their heads, forgetting about all the luck and good fortune that helped them along the way. Those who make it to the top believe with self-satisfied conviction that they deserve their fate and that those who end up at the bottom do too. This leaves little room for the kind of solidarity that could arise if we were to realise just how haphazardly talent is distributed and how randomly fate can either be kind or cruel. Merit-based pay is, according to Sandel, thus a form of tyranny – an oppressive regime.
And so, Sandel launches into a plea for a sweeping public debate on how to move from today’s individualisation to a greater sense of solidarity and more self-determination for all. What is essential in this respect is his conclusion that for many to be successful in life, all forms of education and work would have to be taken equally seriously. Without explicitly mentioning it, he points to the core of what the implementation of a universal basic income is all about: more equal recognition of current paid and unpaid work, as well as a stimulus to go to school. In an interview with Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (20 September 2020), Sandel describes this when he speaks about ‘that which contributes to the community’ as a key alternative criterion to purely performance/merit-based recognition:
‘It is, in any case, a more democratic method that allows us to recognise contributions that are currently ignored or undervalued. I mean contributions such as the unpaid work that is done within households, for example, such as raising children and caring for relatives. Or all the work that, due to the COVID-19 crisis, has turned out to be much more important than society gave it credit for: nursing care, cleaning work, waste collection, and logistics. Setting aside the matter of usefulness, the fact that there is equal dignity in every human being should also reverberate in the dignity of everyone’s work.’
Regrettably, Sandel hardly gets around to formulating specific solutions in his book. Nevertheless, his most concrete suggestion with respect to the revaluation of work is to improve wages at the bottom of the labour market, such as through wage supplementation schemes and by shifting the tax burden away from labour and onto consumption, speculation, and capital. While the latter suggestion is an excellent one, it would be even better if it were substantiated further to ensure that those who do unpaid work also benefit.
This further substantiation also takes us to a second key argument for downgrading the role of merit-based pay, which is that the link between current wages on the one hand and individual work performance on the other is loosening. Pay is increasingly less personal. Our current level of prosperity, as initially reflected in people’s primary income, is the result of many years of productivity growth to which many generations have contributed. Our high income levels can, therefore, not be put down only to the labour performed and capital invested in companies at this point in time. In this context, distributing primary income only to those directly involved in the production process seems to be increasingly less of a given and implementing a universal basic income for all is an obvious alternative, i.e. regardless of someone’s position in the productivity-driven labour process. The state collecting taxes directly at the source, i.e. at the level of companies’ production, would then be the obvious choice. This would also automatically shift the tax burden to sources other than labour, which is merely one production factor.
The figures provided in the book demonstrate that there is growing support among the general public for the idea of universal basic income. Even so, there is a hard core of people who are against it and keep using counter-arguments that they cannot back up with facts, such as a universal basic income having adverse effects on the labour market and being too costly. Their rejection might very well have little to do with those counter-arguments and rather be driven by a strong meritocratic bias. There is a clear relation between implementation of universal basic income and the public debate that Sandel wants to initiate.
Finally, the results of the most recent parliamentary elections in the Netherlands can be explained based on Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit. On the one hand, right-wing populist parties are on the rise. One in five Dutch people voted for populist right-wing parties that have become increasingly extreme since the days of Pim Fortuyn’s first populist revolt in the early 2000s: full of mistrust and bitterness directed at everything and everyone and not shy about avowing discrimination. Even in the knowledge that these parties will not be part of a coalition government and play no role in the actual governance of the country, people still vote for them. And people vote for these parties even though their election programmes are, at least in a socioeconomic sense, more likely to be prejudiced than to favour them. On the other hand, the two winners of the elections are supreme exponents of meritocracy, namely the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD, the party for the successful) and Democrats 66 (D66, the party for the highly educated). What we need to do over the coming years, therefore, is to assemble a left-wing populist programme that addresses three pressing issues:
How to achieve a sustainable world as soon as possible;
How to reach a post-capitalist state by shifting the balance of power;
How to accomplish lasting labour market change in line with the foregoing through a national debate as proposed by Sandel.
Some possible solutions include a large-scale shift from taxation of labour to direct taxation of companies’ production as well as implementation of universal basic income.
‘The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?‘ is available from Penguin Random House, published September 2020
