by Kate McFarland | Jan 24, 2017 | News
The Seven Pillars Institute (SPI) for Global Finance and Ethics–an independent, nonpartisan think tank headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri–has published a two-part introduction to the idea of basic income:
Part 1 – “Ethics of Universal Basic Income” by Victoria Tse (October 18, 2016).
Part 2 – “Universal Basic Income: Empirical Studies” by Abhishek Roy (October 31, 2016).
SPI states that its mission is to “highlight and analyze issues of moral philosophy in global financial markets with a view to enhancing ethical practice and policy.”
In November 2016, SPI was shortlisted for a Prospect Magazine think tank of the year award in the “US Energy and Environment” category, especially for its work on eco-tourism.
Photo: The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Chris Booth
by Kate McFarland | Jan 24, 2017 | News
The Indian Statistical Institute hosted its 12th Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development (ACEGD) on December 19-21, 2016. ACEGD’s plenary sessions included a 90-minute panel on universal basic income and its relevance for India.
Universal basic income (UBI) has become a hotly debated issue in India. At the end of January, the Ministry of Finance will release its Economic Survey, which is expected to include a chapter addressing UBI. Leading economists have defended various forms of UBI for India (see, for example, a recent e-symposium in Ideas for India), and MPs such as Varun Gandhi and Jay Panda have voiced support.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, a panel on UBI was also held as part of the latest Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development, held in December at the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) in Delhi. This conference included a panel on UBI, featuring five economists: Debraj Ray (New York University), Kalle (Karl Ove) Moene (University of Oslo), Rajiv Sethi (Columbia University), Himanshu (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and Amarjeet Sinha (Government of Bihar).
Ray and Moene have jointly developed a proposal for what they call a “universal basic share” (UBS) in India. Like a UBI, a UBS would provide each citizen with regular unconditional cash transfers of an equal amount. However, in contrast to most UBI proposals, a UBS fixes the amount of these transfers to a fraction of the GDP rather than a specific monetary amount. Ray and Moene recommend that India dedicate 12% of its GDP to the provision of a UBS. They calculate that, at present, this would provide each adult citizen with a basic income approximately equal to the country’s poverty line.
At the ACEGD panel, Ray introduces the idea of UBS, after briefly outlining the present worldwide interest in UBI, precursors such as the Alaskan Permanent Fund and Dividend and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, and several sources of the present interest in UBI in India, including the pilot studies in Madhya Pradesh, the Goan permanent fund, and political and popular “exasperation” with the nation’s current subsidies for the poor. Following Ray, Moene elaborates upon the UBS proposal and some of its advantages, such as encouraging risk-taking and allowing individuals to do the work they want. Moene also replies to the common objection that a basic income would discourage work, stressing that this is not what is observed in the most generous welfare states, nor what’s observed when wealthy people receive an inheritance.
Sethi, who has studied UBI primarily in the US context, presents additional arguments in favor of the policy, including its cross-partisan appeal and its ability to mitigate economic shock due to automation. He also raises questions concerning the precise design of a UBI, such as whether the basic income should extend to minors and how it would be linked with macroeconomic policies.
The last two panelists, Himanshu and Sinha, argue that India should prioritize public spending on universal basic services, rather than simply distributing cash to individuals. About UBI, Himanshu states that the question is not whether it should be adopted, but why and when. While allowing that UBI is a good idea in principle, he maintains that it is not yet time to introduce such a policy in India, given that many in the country lack clean water, access to education, and other essential public goods. Sinha, expanding on Himanshu’s thesis, stresses that “we should not lose sight of the need to craft credible public systems” — and worries that a UBI would divert money and attention from necessary improvements of education, health, housing, and public infrastructure.
Video, Part 1: Ray, Moene, Sethi
Video, Part 2: Sethi (cont’d), Himanshu, Sinha
The five presentations were followed by a 30-minute Q&A session, touching on such topics as private versus public provision of services (which Ray eventually describes as a distraction from the real issues), immigration and basic income, UBI versus UBS during economic downturns, and others.
Video: Q&A
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Photo: Delhi, India CC BY 2.0 Ville Miettinen
by Kate McFarland | Jan 23, 2017 | News
On Monday, January 30, BIEN Co-Chair Karl Widerquist will deliver a public lecture on “Basic Income: the centrepiece of a just society” at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU).
The event is hosted by Steady State Manchester — a community group dedicated to exploring the limitations of economic growth with a view towards an alternative “viable economics” — as well as the Research Center for Social Change and Community Wellbeing at MMU.
Details about Widerquist’s lecture, including registration information, are available on EventBrite. The event is free and open on the public.
The Social Change and Community Wellbeing research group is currently preparing a report on the psychological impact of a universal basic income. This report will be launched on February 18, 2017, at the Fair Living Festival at MMU. Information about this latter event will also be available on EventBrite.
Reviewed by Dave Clegg.
Manchester Ship Canal photo CC BY-SA 2.0 David Dixon.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 22, 2017 | News
On November 19, 2016, the BBC podcast In the Balance aired an episode called “Universal Basic Income: Has its Time Come?”
Special guests included Michael Faye (cofounder of GiveDirectly, the non-profit launching a basic income experiment in Kenya), Louise Haagh (Reader of Politics at the University of York and Co-Chair of BIEN), Michael Tanner (Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute), and Ian Gough (Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics).
During the approximately 25 minute episode, host Ed Butler questioned the guests on the many common concerns surrounding basic income, from its affordability to its political feasibility to charges of causing inflation and disincentivizing work. The guests also debated what types of programs and services a basic income would replace, as well as the question of whether and when cash transfers are more effective than transfers in-kind. Another topic to emerge was the role of pilot studies, with Faye defending the relevance of GiveDirectly’s studies in Kenya to the developed world and Haagh raising the point that, while useful, pilot studies are not needed to justify basic income, which she sees as motivated by the need to eliminate dysfunction in the current welfare system and make the disbursement of support “more humane”.
Faye, Haagh, and Tanner spoke generally favorably about basic income, although their precise reasons for supporting such a policy varied. Gough, meanwhile, maintained that the idea is impracticable, with any basic income scheme being either insufficient or unaffordable.
Listen to the full episode here.
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg and Dawn Howard
Image: British Coins CC BY 2.0 Images Money
by Kate McFarland | Jan 20, 2017 | News
A Parliamentary session on universal basic income (commonly known in the UK as “citizen’s income”) was held at the University of Birmingham on January 12, 2017.
This session had the status of an “inquiry”, a formal call for information on the topic of citizen’s income, in the form of an oral evidence session to the Work and Pensions Committee of the UK Parliament.
While this is not the first time in recent history that citizen’s income has been discussed in the UK Parliament (in September 2016, MPs debated the topic in the House of Commons), it is the first event of its status as an oral evidence session, at which selected experts were called to address questions from a cross-party committee of MPs.
Seven panelists took part in the session, selected by the committee on the basis of their background and interest in the basic income (and in part on the basis of the results from a request for participants released in October 2016). During the event, each panelist was given time for opening and closing statements on basic income, with about an hour allotted for addressing questions and concerns from the MPs on the committee. Questions focused on general information about basic income, its relationship to the existing welfare state, and arguments for and against it.
An article by André Coelho on the content of the oral evidence session in forthcoming in Basic Income News.
The entire session can be viewed here:
Panel Participants
• Louise Haagh (Reader at the University of York and Co-Chair of BIEN). Haagh supports a basic income as part of a system of progressive reforms.
• Annie Miller (Chair of Citizen’s Income Trust and founding member of BIEN’s affiliate Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland). Like Haagh, Miller supports a basic income, but only in conjunction with other benefits. Specifically, she believes that separate housing and disability benefits are needed in addition to a basic income.
• Becca Kirkpatrick (Chair of UNISON West Midlands Community Branch). Kirkpatrick agrees with Haagh and Miller that basic income should be adopted as part of progressive reforms (cf. her union’s 20-point manifesto, which includes a proposal for a basic income “micro pilot”).
• Ben Southwood (Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute). Southwood is not only on the viewer’s right of the first three panelists but also the political right: he supports a basic income or negative income tax but only as a replacement to the majority of the UK’s existing welfare system.
• Peter Alcock (Emeritus Professor at the University of Birmingham). Alcock opposes basic income, which he describes as “such an appealing idea that it’s too good to be true” (referencing his 1989 article “Unconditional benefits: misplaced optimism in income maintenance”). He believes that, in the current system, demands for a citizen’s income are distractions from more pressing issues.
• Declan Gaffney (independent political consultant; policy advisor to the previous Mayor of London). Like Alcock, Gaffney believes that universal basic income is “too good to be true” — which, as it happens, are the precise words used in the title of a piece he wrote on the topic for The Guardian after Finland announced its pilot plans in late 2015. According to Gaffney, basic income is a useful “thought experiment” but not practically feasible or necessary.
• Andrew Harrop (General Secretary of the Fabian Society). Harrop endorses a related policy of “individual credits” for adults in the UK (cf. his report for the Fabian Society published last year); he stresses, additionally, that basic income and similar policies should be viewed through the lens of tax reform.
Photo: University of Birmingham at twilight, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Samuel George
