by Guest Contributor | Nov 14, 2016 | Opinion
Written by: Dr. Louise Haagh
On September 22nd to 23rd, BIEN Danmark, the Danish affiliate of BIEN, hosted the Nordic Conference on Basic Income Pilots at the Danish parliament buildings of Christiansborg.
The event aimed to stimulate discussion and forge closer ties between local groups and fielded speeches by activists from Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland, as well as talks by politicians and researchers from inside and outside the region.
The first of its kind, there is talk the event may be the beginning of many more to come. I certainly hope so. It was one of the best organised and most fun of the BIEN events that I have attended. With Karsten Lieberkind from BIEN Danmark quietly leading proceedings and a large contingent of BIEN Danmark and other local actors present, it was both very well-organised and a site for constructive critique and self-reflection.
From my perspective, one of the most positive aspects of the conference was the way it engaged the union movement in debate. I was especially encouraged in the exchange I had with Bjarke Friborg and Finn Sørensen, who had both at the outset – Sørensen in particular – staked out their opposition to a BI reform.
Louise Haagh
Credit: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark
I tried to stress the different ways the historical objectives of workers’ movements and a BI reform had affinities, as well as ways the BI can be complementary to and upscale the policies and institutions the union movement supports and administers. I think that is generally true in any context. But, in addition, being Danish, and having worked with both the union movement and other social movements in the past, it seems important and feasible to me to bridge the divide that is perceived to exist.
In general, I argued that it is important to think about BI in terms of its general effects on human security and relational freedom, and in that sense its transformative potential in relation to changing and improving social relations and institutions’ quality. An upshot of that is that in thinking about finance proposals and transitions into a BI, the affinity with existing mechanisms of economic security needs to be thought about positively, and steps taken gradually.
Specifically, I tried to argue that the BI proposal does not have to be viewed as in conflict with the unemployment insurance funds and the unions’ administration of them. In fact, there is a strong potential affinity between the claim BI supporters make for a right to basic income without conditions, and the concern of trade unionists – expressed by Friborg – about the state using its subsidy of the unemployment insurance funds as a means to exercise greater leverage of the unemployed individual’s job search behaviour. This direction in the state’s role is precisely one that both BI supporters and trades unions want to reverse, so here is the basis for a natural alliance.
Finn Sørensen
Credit: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark
I made a similar point in response to Sorensen. I was encouraged to note that both Friborg and Sorensen in turn noted that – with this new perspective in mind – they might be able to engage more positively in an investigation into BI and what it might mean positively for unions, their members, other workers and citizens.
I have always argued (Haagh 2011, a.o.) that it is a mistake to necessarily pit the finance of BI directly against the state’s subsidy of the unemployment insurance in the Nordic states. It is possible to see each as elements in a multivariate structure of economic security that is more freedom-promoting by virtue of its composite form. There might have to be accommodations and details can be worked out in different ways, but I see no conflict in principle between a BI and state subsidy of a voluntary insurance. One can think about ideal institutions of work and mechanisms of developmental security. But it is also important to work with the existing institutions that act as life-style stabilisers within the capitalist economy such as it is. Considering that institutions transform gradually over time, what matters is that the steps taken at a given time have in general positive systemic effects.
Bjarke Friborg
Credit: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark
It is important to acknowledge the historical importance of the gains of organised workers in Nordic states – together with mechanisms and services of the public sector – in democratising education, work and welfare. Today, labour market institutions and welfare services are under different forms of strain, including from the influence of global competitive forces and ways state initiatives extend those pressures within the education and employment systems. BI supporters, the union movement and other defenders of public services and more stable and unconditional forms of distribution and services, have interests in fighting pressures to hollow out the taxation system. In this context of a race to the bottom in pubic spending, it is the more important not to stake claims for different elements of economic security as in conflict in principle. In reality, their stability rests on broad coalitions across social groups.
In terms of the Danish context, the contribution of the political party The Alternative, hosting the conference in Christiansborg, and the information from municipalities experimenting with lifting conditionalities, gave the event a sense of a political momentum. Finally, hearing about the political initiatives in other Nordic states, the Pirate Party’s proposals in Sweden, the upcoming pilot in Finland, and thoughts about an experiment in an Icelandic city, suggest the basis exists for building a regional coalition for transformation of the Nordic welfare state.
Finally, Uffe Elbæk, leader of the Alternative, in his welcome speech, cautioned BI supporters about being too complacent and inwardly focused, and argued the BI movement should not be afraid of engaging critical voices. In my speech I echoed this view in the sense that I argued we should be more open and responsive to the views of our critics and be self-critical when we are unable to persuade others of the force of our ideas.
Overall, in my view the Nordic conference went some way to create a new platform for a more positive debate about BI in the wider society.
by Guest Contributor | Nov 14, 2016 | Opinion
Still More People Want to Discuss Basic Income
Written by David Lindh; translated and edited by Karsten Lieberkind
All over the world we are witnessing a growing interest in basic income – an unconditional basic allowance for all citizens. A number of experiments have been scheduled for next year, and on September 22-23, representatives for the Nordic basic income movements as well as researchers and politicians met at a conference in Copenhagen to discuss the upcoming pilot projects.
The conference took place in Christiansborg Palace, which is the seat of the Danish Parliament, situated in central Copenhagen. Organizers of the conference were the Danish branch of BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network) in collaboration with the political party the Alternative.
Guy Standing
Among the speakers were Guy Standing, Professor at SOAS, University of London and author of a number of books on the precariat, Thomas P. Boje, Professor of Social Sciences at Roskilde University and Annika Lillemets, MP for the Green Party of Sweden.
The conference was met with much anticipation and was fully booked. Journalists and other members of the press were present, and not only the invited speakers but even quite a few members of the audience were active, one way or the other, within the basic income movements in the Nordic countries, Europe and USA.
The first day of the conference focused on the pilot projects with basic income that are planned for Finland, the Netherlands and France. Nicole Teke, representing the French basic income movement, talked about the experiments that are to be carried out in the Aquitaine region. Sjir Hoeijmakers explained why, in recent years, ideas about basic income are spreading in the Netherlands, and Olli Kangs, Professor at Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, outlined the Finnish basic income pilots that are scheduled to begin in early 2017.
Thomas Boje
On the second day of the conference, there was an in-depth discussion on how the various basic income models could be implemented in the so-called Nordic Model, the social welfare and economic systems adopted by Nordic countries. Dorte Kolding, spokesperson for BIEN Denmark, in her opening speech of this day of the conference, explained how basic income might contribute to a development in society in which fear and control will be replaced by a sense of security, freedom and happiness.
A key element in the discussion during the second day was about the future relation between the basic income movement, which seems to be growing stronger each day, and the labour unions with their often quite critical or even negative view on basic income. Finn Sørensen, MP for the Red-Green Alliance and spokesperson for labour market affairs, took part in this discussion and was to be counted among the critics of a basic income society as, in his view, it would weaken the position of the labour unions relative to the employers.
During lunch, I asked Guy Standing whether the basic income movement and the labour organizations are likely to approach each other sometime in the future.
I am in favour of strong labour unions, but the labour movement must realize that we have witnessed dramatic changes in society, and we are now facing other conditions and challenges than in the 1970s and 80s. The labour unions are deeply concerned about the fact that they are losing members, but they are themselves partly responsible for the situation.
I also talked to Göran Hansson, active in the Malmö Basic Income Group, about the doubts that the labour unions have about basic income as a future model.
Many labour unions are critical towards basic income because they are afraid that they will have less power and influence. While this is true, it is also a fact that basic income would enjoy greater support from the population if the labour unions were to change their views on this issue.
Annika Lillemets
Annika Lillemets, is a Member of Parliament for the Green Party, but also a member of BIEN. She talked about how political parties in the Swedish Parliament, no matter their political orientation, in recent years have been almost obsessed with wage labour because they want to position themselves in relation to the increasing unemployment.
She thinks it is an indication of fear and to break this fixation we should question the very nature of work, what counts as work and what not. Annika Lillemets also criticized the Swedish culture of consensus.
Thomas P. Boje, Professor of Social Sciences at Roskilde University, pointed out that basic income reforms might have a positive effect on the democratic participation in society and contribute to the strengthening of democracy in the Nordic countries.
Safety and security encourage participation in society and a sense of wanting to contribute. Today, insecurity in jobs and economic inequality breed suspicion towards the democratic institutions and society as a whole.
Karl Widerquist
Karl Widerquist, Associate Professor at Georgetown University, has been attached to BIEN for a long time and is the author or editor of several books and articles on the subject of basic income.
He talked about how the basic income movement is growing fast in the USA, and I asked him why this is happening just now.
One reason is that both civil rights movements, political parties and businesses are beginning to realize the advantages of a basic income reform. Also, the fact that the subject is not linked to any particular political party or system helps spread the idea.
Photo: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark (more…)
by Guest Contributor | Oct 24, 2016 | Opinion
The article is meant to challenge Canadians and others to consider what precisely a basic income is and what goals it can accomplish. For BIEN’s official definition of basic income, click here.
By: Reza Hajivandi
Both as a concept and policy, basic income (BI) has been around for some time, losing and re-gaining traction at different points in history. However, the vague manner in which the term is sometimes used, and the lack of effort in providing any clear demarcations, has led to its obscurity.
To give the term clarity, first the question must be asked: What is basic income? Asking the question is not intended to provide a concrete and singular definition, nor is it a good idea to do so. The purpose is clarity, which could be achieved by first, asking the question; What is basic income? And second, journeying through the process of finding answers. The journey therefore takes priority here, by helping to provide clarity.
How can we approach the question in a way that provides answers and clarity? One possibility could be researching academic articles or the worldwide web to see how basic income is defined. However, as aforementioned, if the purpose is clarity, then skipping past the ‘journey process’ and jumping straight to the finish line will not be helpful. A more in-depth approach involves asking the ‘why’ question: Why Basic Income in the first place? By asking this question we will be forcing ourselves to embark on a journey of discovery, through which we may encounter difficult questions and decisions.
Why basic income?
Immediately we can respond by suggesting that the goal is to advocate for a policy that will effectively tackle obstacles such as precarity and poverty, which are preventing people from living with freedom and dignity. Such a response, however, immediately yields a new question: Do we not already have existing social security policies with the same purpose? And don’t some of those policies already possess elements that closely resemble the idea of basic income?
First, we have a social assistance program that is offered by each province. This is known as Ontario Works (OW) in Ontario, and British Columbia Employment and Assistance (BCEA) in British Columbia. Yet these services are quite distinct from basic income in that they are neither universal nor guaranteed, but targeted, means-tested, and subject to heavy claw backs and other conditions. The rates that are provided are also insufficient in the face of rising and already staggering living costs (rent, food, and other basic needs). It is for all these reasons that social assistance tends to perpetuate existing poverty, rather than helping people escape it. In addition, targeted assistance programs are known to be shouldered by government taxes that primarily target the middle class. This squeezes both the government and a shrinking middle class for scant funding. It also leads to class divisions by creating the popular perception that the lazy poor/refugee/immigrant etc on welfare are responsible for societal and economic problems, while wealthier segments stay off the tax and social radar and continue with their unfair and extensive accumulation of wealth.
Coming closer to the idea of basic income are other existing social security measures such as Old Age Security (OAS) and Canada Child Benefit (CCB). OAS is guaranteed to recipients aged 65 years or older almost regardless of income and other conditions. This might move us a little closer to what we want: A basic income that is the opposite of existing income security programs like OW and BCEA and more like guaranteed income ones like OAS.
This is perhaps where basic income takes its own character. It has to be universal, because if it isn’t, then it’s going to closely resemble what we already have in place, and prone to falling victim to the same problems that have historically plagued the social security system. Therefore, unless we are after a simple re-branding or name change, basic income has to be radically different from (and perhaps the opposite) of existing social assistance. Even the term ‘basic income’ seems to orient itself towards something that’s universal and guaranteed, because that’s what income is, anyway – a form of earning that is guaranteed. And if something is universal it needs to be guaranteed and come with almost no conditions, otherwise it cannot really be called universal. Not to play with semantics, a responsible BI program must therefore be universal, and tax the rich in ways that sufficiently redistribute the wealth in society [1]. By doing so it will be able to effectively reduce poverty, and strengthen class solidarity and people’s position against austerity and neoliberalism.
Now that we have a clearer idea of what BI could be, we have to be mindful of a piece of the puzzle that is not quite making sense: the government, and in our case, the current provincial and federal governments. We have to ask ourselves why the government is suddenly so interested in providing people with a new form of welfare? Let’s be honest, governments are almost never excited about spending on social security and welfare services. Instead, it tends to be the case that persistent and consistent mobilization from grassroots are necessary to secure even minor social gains. Yet absent is precisely this strong push from below, while instead the government seems to have filled the vacuum by acting as both the ‘activist’ and ‘saint’[2]. This is indeed a strange development. But what’s even odder is its occurrence in an era of neoliberalism and austerity, where the pressure is to cut services and spend less, not more. The goal here is not to undermine the groups that have been courageously fighting the government to pass a good BI policy [3]. But there is no doubt that the government has played a significant leadership role in advocating for BI as well.
Perhaps then it is useful to ask what ‘BI’ means to the government. In some sense, BI can provide the government a convenient way to increase the efficiency of social security by streamlining all or most of its existing services into one. This could save the government money through reducing the resources required to administer social security programs, and even more by keeping assistance at its current (insufficient) rates. Another way a BI program could save the government dollars – one that has community groups and organizations worried – is the implementation of BI with the aim of gradually reducing funding for existing welfare services such as health, housing, and community development. Therefore, BI can be an opportunity for the government to cut back and save resources, and this makes sense in an age of austerity and accumulation by dispossession. But it is likely that if subsidized services such as housing and food banks are scrapped and replaced with BI, social security recipients are going to be worse off than they were before, or, at best, live under the same conditions as today. It is also the case that a uniform rate under a streamlined system could actually serve to increase inequality and poverty by providing the poorer recipients with a lower rate than before [4].
In this conjecture then, BI seems to be a valuable opportunity for two parties (people and government) with nearly distinct and opposing goals. Many see the grossly insufficient social assistance rates and rapidly rising living expenses as their critical juncture to push for a BI. On the other hand, the government sees this critical juncture in other terms: one in which it can continue to make good with neoliberalism by cutting, streamlining, and creating more ‘efficient’ services. To the rest of the population the government may present this as evidence that it’s listening, ‘seeing’, and coming up with the appropriate solutions, even though it is more likely that the solution is for the benefit of the government, than for those who need it most [5]. Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is who is more likely to prevail and close this critical juncture in their own terms? The push from below is certainly strengthening, but to ensure an effective universal BI, more organizing and capacity building may be necessary. The goal then should not be to abandon BI, but to realize the risks involved and work together to build and strengthen the movement.
[1] This can be done through progressive forms of taxation, and with taxes that do not affect low-income and the poor, such as varieties of luxury and large-estate taxes.
[2] Senator Art Eggleton is starting a tour to promote Basic Income across Ontario. Also see:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sen-art-eggleton/art-eggleton-basic-income_b_9331180.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/17/wynne-touts-basic-income-pilot-project-to-help-poor.html
https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/12/scrapping-welfare/
[3] The Kingston BI Group in Hamilton, and others.
[4] See Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
[5] This is not to pit ‘government’ and ‘people’ as two antithetical forces; such a characterization would be both simplistic and inaccurate. Instead, the current conjecture and active promotion of BI from ‘above’ and weak push from ‘below’ serve to indicate that the government has a different purpose in promoting a BI model of social security, one that is at odds with the model imagined by BI advocates.
by Guest Contributor | Oct 17, 2016 | Opinion
By Jennifer Lawson
Per capita payments, or ‘per caps’, as they are known in Indian Country, function as a kind of basic income for tribal nations that have them. In this piece, I want to examine the distinct difference between the thinking about such a basic income in Indian Country and the United States in general.
The other day, I was talking to a small group of non-native Americans about basic income. One of them said to me, “Basic income seems like something like that would take a long time to gain ground.”
In the United States in general, the thinking about basic income is not as far along as it is in Indian Country, where per caps have been a staple for many tribes for several years.
One of the first questions, for tribes that gained discretionary income in the last decade, has been, “What do we do with this money?”
Many tribal nations have tribally owned businesses and, unlike the general thinking in the United States, no one worries that this may be a form of communism or socialism. It is simply, for many tribal nations, in keeping with their tribal values to have a collectively owned business.
The revenue from such businesses, as well as the revenue from natural resources and other ways tribes gain money, provide the discretionary income that tribal nations work with.
The answer to the question, “What do we do with this money?” is answered differently by different tribal nations. Some provide services to their citizens, such as childcare, early childhood education, hospitals, and so forth. Others provide per caps to their members.
I do not want anyone to come away thinking that tribal nations are flushed with cash or that Native people are, in general, rich from per caps. Rather, I want to look at the differences between the tribal way of thinking and the United States’ way of thinking
From the tribal point of view, when you have a collectively owned business, it makes sense that one option would be to divide the revenue up and disperse it among citizens of the tribe. In general, what to do with the money is voted upon and the decision about what to do with the money is decided that way.
For non-native people, we do not have collectively owned businesses to decide how to divide the revenue. A large portion of people in the United States would rebuke such a business as socialism or communism.
However, we do have other ways of gaining access to a basic income without having collectively owned businesses. Some have suggested taxing pollution, for example.
For tribal nations, some of the arguments that are familiar to people in basic income have been espoused, both for and against. One worry, for example, is that people will not attend college because the thinking What’s the use? is in effect. That is, if you don’t need to attend college for future employment, why go? This thinking saddens many tribal people, who have a pre-colonial history of being interested in education, contrary to stereotypes.
But the biggest issue for tribes, which has become a real problem, is that of disenrollment. Disenrollment is, in effect, making people ineligible to be tribal citizens. While many tribal nations are growing as of late, some tribal nations with per caps have closed and/or tightened up their citizenship requirements to make per caps go further, and to allow each individual to have as much money from per caps as possible. If a tribal nation is doing pretty well economically, it does even better when the tribe is small.
With the large population of the United States, as well as our open citizenship requirements, where people may become citizens after completing various acts and learning about our government and founding documents, what we can afford to give our citizens depends on how we collect that money.
Because the issue of having collectively owned businesses seems to be less compatible with the values of the United States than of tribal nations, we of the United States have to be creative in how we decide to fund a basic income.
No matter the problems that tribal nations have experienced due to per caps, what is clear is that tribes that have the ability, and vote accordingly, can provide a basic income for their citizens. This should make us wonder why the United States, which has more wealth, opportunity, and so forth, cannot.
Looking over the state of per caps in Indian Country has made me, at least, realize that it can be done, and that we should do it. After all, if we had a basic income, I might be able to be in Standing Rock right now, standing with my Native brothers and sisters against the Dakota Access Pipeline—or engaging in other activist or cultural activities.
There is much that Indian Country can teach us. The issue of basic income is one we should look into further.
by Guest Contributor | Sep 21, 2016 | Opinion
Evidence indicates that Universal Basic Income (UBI) policies would benefit our society’s least fortunate, decreasing poverty and improving the prospects for long-term income mobility. However, one UBI critic has asserted that a basic income replacing current forms of welfare would make it harder for immigrants to become naturalized citizens of the United States because of political pressures. An excerpt from an interview journalist Megan McArdle gave to PBS News Hour:
A lot of immigrants are low-wage workers. They’re not skilled, a lot of them. They don’t have as much education as most Americans and so they never do get up to the point where they would ever pay enough in taxes to make back that check. Even if you just limited it to their children, the political support for importing people whose children will then be entitled to the same $15,000 a year as your children — I don’t think that would ever be politically viable.
So if you want to have a guaranteed minimum income, you need to shut down, pretty much effectively, shut down immigration, or at least immigration from lower skilled countries…
There are three reasons why McArdle’s conclusion, that UBI would complicate the immigration debate and necessitate an end to immigration, is very incorrect. First, naturalized immigrants are already the recipients of welfare transfers in the status quo; distributing this aid through a UBI will lower administrative costs, be less controlling, and help those in poverty more than existing welfare policies do. Second, the UBI’s political effects on immigration are largely unpredictable, but the reform could be sold to the public in a bipartisan fashion. It is not hard to imagine that UBI would have broad appeal if constituents knew it offered a simplified benefit structure, created clear incentives for legal immigration, and eliminated some of the perverse incentives embedded in current welfare policies.
Welfare policies already exist – and naturalized immigrants already participate in these programs at relatively high rates because immigrants are more likely to be low-income than the average American citizen. This is worth repeating for emphasis: naturalized are already eligible to receive social security benefits, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, TANF benefits, and benefits from other transfer programs. This fact alone means that UBI, as a phased-in alternative to current welfare policies, would not increase the amount of money transferred to naturalized immigrants.
While it is feasible that welfare transfers to new citizens could be viewed as unpopular, the balanced approach of a UBI could help mitigate these concerns while leaving everyone better off. Policymakers who answer to constituents with negative views on immigration could effectively communicate that a UBI would reduce the total cost of welfare by reducing administrative costs. Policymakers who answer to constituents with positive views on immigration could argue aid would be given to those in need in a better way, a way that empowers new immigrants to make their own choices rather than choices dictated by the government.
Depending on implementation, a UBI policy may slightly increase or decrease aid to the families of illegal immigrants. Although immigrants illegally residing in the U.S. are generally ineligible to receive welfare, illegal immigrants are permitted to apply to receive food stamps on their children’s behalf. A UBI equal to the value of the food stamps the family would have otherwise received should be the preferred policy. Various states already have their own forms of supplementary assistance for illegal immigrants in addition to food stamps: these states could bridge any perceived gaps by offering the same assistance they do now.
Lawful, non-citizen residents, such as students, exchange visitors and foreign workers, are eligible for certain welfare transfers depending on their circumstances. Current laws also require waiting periods and point systems for noncitizens to become eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) transfers. These rules could be maintained to alleviate concerns that noncitizens would take advantage of the UBI: as it stands now, non-citizens receive substantially less welfare transfers than their citizen counterparts. Essentially, a UBI would end up looking very similar to the SSI – the general idea would be to have fewer onerous requirements on how welfare dollars are spent.
The political implications of UBI implementation are nearly impossible to predict, especially in the context of immigration. For example, even though illegal immigration has been falling over the last decade, voter concern is relatively high. Additional demographic changes will likely change the political realities surrounding immigration reform and welfare policies.
It is also unlikely that a UBI would drastically change the rate of naturalization or where non-citizens choose to call home. After all, research shows that welfare spending does not have large effect on immigrants’ decisions on where to live (the biggest factor appears to be economic opportunity). It also appears that citizenship fees are a bigger factor in determining whether immigrants will pursue naturalization than welfare is.
It is clear that UBI would not lead to the cataclysmic outcomes McArdle expects: we would have already seen those consequences with current welfare policies. A UBI would just improve the existing system.
About the author:
James Davis is an undergraduate at Columbia University studying Economics and History.
