Rudy Karsan, co-founder and former CEO of the former human resource software company Kenexa (sold to IBM in 2012) recently held a TEDx talk in Calgary where he advocated a universal basic income as a means of stimulating innovation.
“We are in the golden age of our species,” Karsan begins his talk. He argues that we already have multiple solutions for the lack of food, water, and energy, and even for global warming; thus, our number one risk is none of these. Instead, he argues, “Meaningful work is about our choice of who we are,” and the lack of it is going to be the number one risk.
Karsan continues by explaining that this problem will not be solved by jobs:
“Jobs are getting decimated in an accelerating pace and they are not coming back.” […]
“We have to break the mental construct that jobs equal work.”
“No!” Karsan continues firmly. Jobs do not equal work. “Meaningful work has been with us forever and will be with us forever. It is not jobs. Jobs are simply a subset of work.” Jobs have created money for us since they came into our lives at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, 250 years ago. “But work can exist without jobs.”
The second mental construct we have to break, according to Karsan, is about entitlement:
“We need to discard all forms of social programs and replace it with one: Universal Basic Income, which is the individual right for every citizen to unconditionally get an income from the state on a regular basis.”
“UBI is not about creating dependence; it is about the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs at the lowest level. […] The notion that this entitlement to a UBI makes us smaller and weaker is absolutely untrue”, Karsan states. It is also not a new idea, and the data that came out of Manitoba in the seventies already showed that minimal income had many positive effects.
Karsan even takes it further and states that a UBI is not only something we can afford, but it will also make us greater. “Innovation did not start with homeless people.”
Karsan encourages his public to demand a UBI from their leaders, because he is convinced that our species in the golden age can move a lot further and he hopes and dreams that “we may find a way, not only to find meaning in our lives, but meaning in the universe itself.”
“The Earth offers enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed” is the opening sentence of the election-program of the Party for the Animals (“Partij voor de Dieren”, PvdD). This document has been released in advance of the Dutch parliamentary elections, which will be held on March 15th, 2017.
One would expect huge attention to be paid to environmental issues in the election-program of the PvdD, but economic issues also receive extensive attention. In fact, its first chapter is titled “Economy and Labour, Your Money or Your Life?”
According to the PvdD, the economic crisis was not caused by scarcity, but by flaws in the economic system. They argue that we are capable of producing all we need very efficiently – with ever decreasing demands on labour – which offers great opportunity to spend more time on caring for each other, our environment and ourselves. However, we have organized our economy in such a way that spending time on these latter goods is in fact increasingly difficult. People are forced to work more rather than less. Many people are excluded and production and consumption are forced to grow, regardless of the demands of the people. Labour is very expensive due to taxes which employers as well as employees have to pay, while at the same time being abundantly available. In contrast, raw materials are scarce but cheap and their mining causes imbalances in nature.
“The current economic system causes growth-and-debt slavery, on account of which everything will jam. We will have to organize this differently,” PvdD states in its program.
PvdD proposes making labour cheaper and non-sustainable goods more expensive. Shorter working hours should be available for everyone, they argue, which will help to tackle unemployment and create possibilities to combine paid labour with other activities, such as care work, parenting or voluntary work. PvdD strives for “a society in which paid labour is no longer seen as the only or most important goal in life”.
Party for the Animals sees an unconditional basic income as a possible solution:
“A basic income for everyone will have to be seriously investigated. With such an income we can perform work and activities that today remain untouched because we don’t have time for them or because they are too expensive. […] A basic income could allow a lot more activities that are beneficial to society to be developed.”
According to the PvdD, polls say 19% of Dutch voters are considering voting for the party in the upcoming elections.
Info and links
The election program of PvdD can be found here (in Dutch)
In a recent IMPAKTER interview, as part of a series exploring the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Ian Bassin (Chief Operating Officer, Domestic, of GiveDirectly), explains how his organization is moving from unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) towards unconditional basic income (UBI) in Kenya.
GiveDirectly traditionally provides UCTs to the extremely poor, operating in Kenya and Uganda.
“We started our program in Kenya because they had a very robust mobile money payment system there, and that’s the means by which we transfer cash to poor households”, Bassin says.
The primary goal of GiveDirectly is to help demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of cash transfers. The research done so far shows that giving money to poor people works.
“Poverty in its simplest terms is a lack of money and resources. It is not a lack of capacity or ability”, Bassin notes. “If we’re not doing more with our dollar than the poor could do for themselves, we should probably just be giving them the dollar.”
Recipients of UCTs don’t spend the cash transfer on vice consumption, like alcohol or tobacco, nor does the transfer discourage people from working, Bassin explains. He refers to a recent World Bank Study that has shown UCTs are in fact more likely to reduce than to increase the consumption of vice goods.
“Our recipients use the funds incredibly wisely. […] They tend to spend it on positive goods and what we saw in our original RCT was that after the transfer had ended our recipients saw their incomes rise by thirty-four percent and saw their assets increase by fifty-eight percent.”
Bassin highlights that this research can “help drive cash as a benchmark for decision-making in the aid sector.”
From unconditional cash transfers towards unconditional basic income
GiveDirectly is now planning a major implementation and evaluation of a universal basic income, to launch shortly in Kenya. Instead of giving money to the poor only, a program by which everyone receives cash will be implemented and evaluated.
“A ‘guaranteed basic income’ or ‘basic income guarantee’ is the idea of providing a minimum floor for all members of a community. It’s enough to meet basic needs, so it would be enough to live on without work or other forms of income. It’s guaranteed over the long term so that you can make decisions about major life plans with a minimum level of basic security. And it’s universal in that everyone gets it.”
(…)
“We’re going to be providing whole communities with a regular basic income for 12 years. And we have three of the world’s leading researchers on board to rigorously evaluate it: J-PAL co-founder Abhijit Banerjee, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Alan Krueger, and MIT professor Tavneet Suri. We’ve raised $22 million so far for the project and need to raise another $8m to run the full randomized controlled trial”
(…)
“Six thousand individuals in Kenya will receive a full basic income for twelve years and around 20,000 individuals will receive cash for a shorter period of time.”
In a recent review, the World Bank estimates that around 150 countries in the ‘developing world’ have implemented cash assistance programmes, which together reach approximately 800 million people.
The impact of such programmes in sub-Saharan Africa was thoroughly evaluated, using experimental data from two Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) programmes implemented by the Government of Zambia, where each programme is accompanied by a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
A UCT is similar to an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) in that beneficiaries are paid directly in cash with no requirements on their actions. The main difference between the types of programmes concerns the inclusion criteria for participation. A UBI is targeted at every citizen, regardless of (for instance) socioeconomic status, whereas the UCT’s are often available for the poor population only, often with specific inclusion criteria, such as the presence of children of a specific age in a household or geographical criteria.
In 2010, the Zambian government began testing two different UCT-programmes. The programmes are still on-going. One of them is targeted at households with a child under age 3, while the other is targeted at households with various types of vulnerabilities (female or elderly headed households taking care of orphans or disabled children). Neither of the programmes is explicitly poverty targeted at the household level, but the (geographical) inclusion criteria resulted in 90% of beneficiaries below the Zambian poverty line. The outcome-parameters are identical in the two programmes. In each case, the annual amount transferred to a household is $144 ($24 every two months).
The effects after 2 and 3 years were compared to baseline. Far-reaching effects were reported in both groups, not only on the primary objective, food security and consumption, but also on a range of productive and economic outcomes.
A relatively simple flat cash transfer, unconditional and paid every two months, is shown to have wide-ranging effects on ultra-poor households in rural Zambia, significantly raising consumption and increasing food security, children’s schooling and material well-being, while at the same time strengthening economic capacity and assets.
After three years, household spending was -on average- 59% larger than the value of the transfer received.
A Basic Income News article by Tyler Prochazka about a recent meta-analysis (of 165 studies) on the effects of Cash Transfers can be found here.
cover photo (published with permission) and full citation of the paper:
Handa, Sudhanshu; Natali, Luisa; Seidenfeld, David; Tembo, Gelson; Davis, Benjamin. Can Unconditional Cash Transfers Lead to Sustainable Poverty Reduction? Evidence from two government-led programmes in Zambia, Innocenti Working Papers no. IWP_2016_21, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence
Special thanks to Josh Martin and Kate McFarland for reviewing this article.
On the first day of International Basic Income week and just six months before the election of a new House of Representatives (“tweede kamer”) in March of next year, a debate on unconditional Basic Income was held in the Dutch parliament on September 19th. This debate was initiated by Member of Parliament Norbert Klein of the Cultural Liberal Party (Vrijzinnige Partij), who wrote a ‘note of initiative’ (“initiatiefnota”) in January this year, called “Certainly Flexible: about thinking differently about work and social security with an unconditional basic income”
Klein asked for three things:
1. The government’s reaction
The Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, Lodewijk Assher (Labour Party, PvdA), answered in writing on May 31st, that introducing a basic income is simply too expensive as the number of people paying taxes will decrease dramatically.
In addition to the economic arguments against a Basic Income, the Minister states: Having a job is more than having an income. (…) A job offers people a social network, structure in life, self esteem and personal development.” That participation in (paid) labour is good for everyone, is the broadly supported position of the Dutch government. This is what Klein refers to as a “one size fits all” policy.
In this context it is worth noting that in the current Dutch participation legislation (“participatiewet”), people are not allowed to choose the job or activities they like. The government decides which work is suitable, prohibiting many kinds and types of participation with extremely high penalties for people who participate in other activities without specific permission of the (local) government. There is very little freedom of choice and many people report to be forced into meaningless jobs. The Minister refers to this policy as “support with an activating character”.
Apparently the characterization “one size fits all” for the current policy hurts, because the minister bounces it back at Klein, by saying that a basic income is a “one size fits all” idea. He states that in case of an unconditional basic income, every citizen would receive the same income support, even if they don’t need it. He ignores the fact that the richer part of the population would be paying back most of it through taxes as was indicated by Klein in his note of initiative.
He also ignores the fact that people will regain their freedom of choice to either participate in (paid or non-paid) labour, education, caring roles or anything else that helps them create structure in their lives, build social networks, and nurture self esteem or personal development.
Furthermore, the Minister argues that European legislation might be a roadblock on the way to implementing a Basic Income in the Netherlands. However, no definite answer is given about this possible hurdle, nor is the minister referring to any specific European legislation that might stand in the way of implementing a Basic Income in The Netherlands.
During the meeting the Minister confirms he is not in favour of new research, as enough research has been done. He indicates the possibility that the House of Representatives would have to order an investigation by itself.
2. More extended research on the effect of a basic income on the state’s budget
Klein states, the research on the impact on the state’s budget done so far, has been incomplete regarding the domains in which the effect of basic income can be expected. He questions the conclusions of previous research on the effect of a Basic Income on the state’s budget and formulates a list of examples of positive side effects that were not included in the calculations (i.e. effect on health, housing market, executional costs, increased entrepreneurship and participation in labour). He asks for new research where these effects will be included.
3. A debate in the House of Representatives
During the meeting of the Committee of Social Affairs and Employment on September 19th, seven political parties of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament were represented: Socialist Party (SP), Green Left (GL), Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), Democrats 66 (D66), Labour Party (PvdA) and of course Klein / Cultural Liberal Party (Vrijzinnige Partij).
The main decision to be made during the debate: Is the House of Representatives willing to order an investigation by the Central Planning Agency (CPB) and the Socio-Cultural Planning Agency (SCP) for an explorative study on the financial / socio-economic as well as the behavioral aspects of an unconditional basic income?
The VVD is firmly against a basic income, where in the past the option was openly supported by the VVD-Minister of Economic Affairs, Gerrit Zalm. An unconditional Basic Income is an unfair solution according to the right wing-party nowadays, arguing as follows: the working part of the population pays for the people sitting at home. It is senseless, anti social and unaffordable. What if everyone chooses to do fun things instead of going to work? The effect of an unconditional Basic Income will be less participation in labour, resulting in a decrease in tax-income. We already have too many regulations that discourage people to go to work. Freedom of choice for people that is paid by others is not a dream but a nightmare. No further research is needed according to the VVD.
All other parties first have questions about the note of initiative and ask for further information. What will happen to the current social security system, what will be the cost of a basic income and how will it be financed?
In response to these questions, Klein hands out an estimate of the cost (130 billion euros) of implementing an unconditional Basic Income of 800 euros per person and a proposal of how this could be financed. He also alters his initial inclusion criterion for a basic income (living 10 years in the Netherlands) towards people with a Dutch residence permit. He emphasizes the starting point is a positive image of citizens, where most people want to participate in society in a good way. A basic Income should be seen as a springboard, not a safety net. He states that unpaid work can be as beneficial for society as paid work.
Green Left is the party most positive towards researching the effects of a Basic Income, but does not support the idea of an income guaranteed for everyone. Green Left is in favour of a looser link between work and income but wants different options to be investigated, e.g. Basic Income, negative income tax and dividend on robotics.
All parties, except the VVD, asked for a suspension of the meeting to another date to be able to study Kleins’ financial proposal. A date will be chosen during the next meeting of the committee.
To be continued…
Info and links
A report of the meeting can be found here (in Dutch)
Both letters (Klein’s note of initiative and Assher’s response) can be found here (in Dutch).
