by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Opinion
One needn’t spend too much time examining the current state basic income movement to deduce that pilot projects are en vogue this year.
Finland’s two-year experiment–in which 2,000 randomly-selected unemployed people will receive an unconditional payment of €560 per month instead of the country’s standard unemployment benefits–was launched on January 1. Several Dutch municipalities are also planning experiments, expected to begin early in 2017, in which existing welfare benefits will be replaced by unconditional benefits for current claimants. Meanwhile in Canada, the government of Ontario is finalizing its plan for a pilot study of a minimum income guarantee (most likely in the form a negative income tax), also set to commence early in 2017, and Prince Edward Island is seeking federal support to run a pilot of its own. And, in Scotland, the councils of Fife and Glasgow are actively taking steps to develop basic income pilots.
In the private sector, some organizations are not waiting for government-run pilots, and have taken it upon themselves to instigate studies. Non-profit organizations like GiveDirectly, ReCivitas, Eight, and Cashrelief have launched, or will soon launch, pilot studies of unconditional cash transfers in poor villages in Kenya, Brazil, Uganda, and India (respectively). In the states, the Silicon Valley startup incubator Y Combinator has initiated a short-term pilot study in Oakland, intended to pave the way for a larger scale basic income experiment.
And this is not to attempt to enumerate all of the various individuals, political parties, unions, and advocacy groups who have issued calls for basic income pilots in their own countries, states, or municipalities. Indeed, it has become commonplace, it seems, for basic income supporters to demand pilot studies of basic income rather than, say, just to demand a basic income straight-out.
This wave of pilot projects–with more, most likely, on the horizon–should rightfully excite basic income supporters, as well as those who are merely “BI-curious”. No doubt these studies will provide many useful and interesting data on the effects of cash transfers. At the same time, however, I caution strongly against the fetishization of pilot studies. A pilot study in itself is never a final goal–such is the nature of a pilot–and such a study is neither sufficient nor (presumably) necessary to secure the implementation of basic income as a policy. Furthermore, significant dangers can arise from a narrow and myopic focus on the goal of running pilot studies.
The first problem is this: excessive attention to experimentation threatens to trigger the presupposition that the question of whether basic income should be adopted is a question subject to experimental evaluation. To be sure, even if one is antecedently convinced that a basic income should be adopted, there are many reasons for which one might run a pilot study. It could, for example, help to identify and resolve potential hitches in implementation. But, more commonly, pilot studies are framed as mechanisms for determining whether a basic income is desirable in the first place. Skeptics and supporters alike speak in terms of finding out whether basic income “works”. The experimental approach tend to invoke an instrumentalist view of basic income as policy: the policy should be adopted if, and only if, it is more effective than other candidate policies in achieving certain socially desirable outcomes.
I would contend that this instrumentalist view should be rejected. We can remain neutral on this point, however, and assert only that the debate surrounding the justification of a basic income is severely and artificially constrained by the implicit assumption that this justification rests on empirical grounds. (And, specifically, empirical grounds amenable to testing in a pilot study!) Consider, for example, the view that all individuals deserve a share of society’s collectively generated wealth, unconditionally, merely in virtue of being a member of that society. On this view, it would be entirely beside the point to run an experiment to determine whether a basic income is justified.
If individuals are owed an unconditional basic income simply as their right–whether as a share of a common inheritance, as a condition on individual freedom, or as a realization of a right to the means to survival–then asking whether basic income “works” has the flavor of a category mistake. It is a nonsensical question to ask. (Conversely, if we assume that the question does make sense, we implicitly rule out the position that a basic income is simply a basic right.)
At this point, perhaps, the activist might say, “I don’t need experimental evidence to pursue me that a basic income should be adopted. Policymakers, however, do–and basic income experiments are the best way to convince policymakers that basic income ‘works’ according to the their criteria.” But this maneuver, I believe, goes to far to countenance whatever criteria policymakers use to judge the “effectiveness” of basic income.
In many cases, the goals deemed valuable in status quo politics–increases in jobs, increases in consumption, increases in economic growth–can themselves be called into question (and, I would argue, ought to be). Yet these conventional goals are likely to guide researchers and policymakers in their selection of “success conditions” of basic income experiments. Finland’s experiment, for example, has been designed specifically to assess whether employment increases with the replacement of means-tested unemployment benefits by unconditional transfers.
Indeed, I believe that a main reason to agitate for a universal and unconditional basic income is to challenge conventional social and political values, such as (especially) the Protestant work ethic. To allow to those same conventional values to provide the metric of whether basic income “works” is to subvert this critical role of the movement.
In a worst case scenario, a pilot study could lead policymakers to categorically reject basic income on the grounds that the policy has been shown to be associated with politically undesirable outcomes, when there is reasonable dispute over whether these outcomes are genuinely undesirable. There is some historical precedent here: in the 1970s, experiments of the negative income tax were held in several US cities; however, they were widely dismissed as failures in light of reports that they showed the policy to be associated with a decrease in work hours and increase in divorce rates [1].
There is, to be sure, much to anticipate in basic income research in 2017. But our excitement and fascination at empirical studies mustn’t overshadow the basic normative question of what society should be like. It is only by keeping sight of this latter question that we can properly contextualize the demand for basic income (if any) and, in turn, the role that can be served by pilot studies (if any).
[1] See, e.g., Karl Widerquist, “A Failure to Communicate: What (If Anything) Can we Learn from the Negative Income Tax Experiments?” The Journal of Socio-Economics (2005).
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 sandeepachetan.com travel photography
This article was originally written for an editorial in USBIG Network NewsFlash, but posted here instead due to word length.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | News
Cashrelief.org, a non-profit organization based in New Delhi, India, plans to launch a two-year cash transfer program in a poor village in India by April 1, 2017. Like a basic income, the transfers will be unconditional and available to all residents of the village.
Pilot Design
Cashrelief’s planned two-year pilot study will examine the effects of unconditional cash transfers in a poor village in India. The cash transfers will be set at an amount just above India’s poverty level of 972 rupees (about 14 USD) per month for an individual, and will be distributed to households. For a household of four, this amounts to 96,000 rupees (about 1,413 USD) over the course of the pilot.
The organization will select a village with a high percentage of ultra-poor residents, and will distribute the unconditional cash transfers to every household in that village (although households may voluntarily opt out). At present, it has identified three possible villages: Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh (which was, notably, the site of a previous basic income pilot led by economist Guy Standing and India’s Self-Employed Women’s Association in 2011). In total, about 50 to 70 families will receive the two-year benefits.
Cashrelief decided to make the cash transfers universal within the chosen village (rather than, for example, distributing them only to a random sample of households) in order to examine the social effects of a universal policy, as well as to avoid social conflicts that might result when only a subset of residents receive money.
Throughout the pilot, researchers will study how the households use their unconditional cash transfers. In particular, they plan to measure four parameters–income, assets, health-related spending, and education spending–at the start, midpoint, and end of the experiment. To assist in this undertaking, Cashrelief plans to involve an experienced, institutionally-affiliated principal investigator.
Despite its research element, Cashrelief states on its website that its “main motivation” for the pilot is simply to “reignite hope into people leading lives of quiet desperation in extreme poverty.”
Background and Influences
Cashrelief originated in mid-2016, when entrepreneur Vivek Joshi and veteran non-profit worker Rahul Nainwal developed the idea of running their own study of the effects of direct cash transfers as aid. Joshi and Nainwal were inspired by the work of the US-based non-profit GiveDirectly–which has been distributing aid in the form of unconditional cash transfers since 2009 and has recently initiated a long-term study of basic income in villages in Kenya–and anthropologist James Ferguson’s 2015 book Give a Man a Fish: Reflections on the New Politics of Distribution, which argues in favor of non-labor-based transfers as “rightful shares” of collective resources.
Nainwal also states that he was influenced by his personal experience in the non-profit sector, where he observed many inefficiencies in the way in which aid is distributed.
Describing his personal support for basic income in remarks to Basic Income News, Nainwal says that he sees the policy as a way to “level the playing field,” stressing that “it’s not people’s own fault that they’re poor.” He adds that it is not the role of the distributing aid to tell recipients what they need but that, instead, we “might as well give them the money and let them decide what to do with it.”
Article reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Cover Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 lapidim
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | News
On January 16 (Martin Luther King Jr. Day), American basic income activists will convene at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in the nation’s capitol, where they will set up a multi-media display to commemorate King’s support for a guaranteed income.
Source: Bob Fitch photography archive
Organized by videographer and basic income advocate Matt Orfalea, the event is intended to raise awareness of Martin Luther King’s support for a guaranteed annual income. Renowned for his leadership in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, King also championed a guaranteed income for all Americans, especially in his final book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community (1967). Orfalea states, “Everyone is familiar with MLK’s dream for racial equality but he also had a dream about economic justice. That’s what we want to showcase with our exhibit.”
The exhibit will include posters and banners with quotes from King related to guaranteed income, economic injustice, and job automation, in addition to looped video clip from King’s speeches.
Martin Luther King Jr. Day is a US federal holiday, held on the third Monday in January in connection with King’s birthday (January 15). Because of the holiday, many visitors–as well as reporters and journalists–are expected to be present at the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial. Because of this, Orfalea says, “What’s different about this from other actions is rather than march around, everyone will be coming to us!”
Orfalea has expressed additional plans to create a documentary that will combine coverage of the upcoming event with the historical video clips.
Read more about the event, and receive up-to-date announcements, at its Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1845391152385149.
Martin Luther King Memorial photo CC BY 2.0 Ron Cogswell
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Research
The Green Institute, an Australian non-profit organization devoted to education and action concerning green politics, has published a collection of essays on the ideas of universal basic income (UBI) and a shorter working week (Can Less Work Be More Fair?, December 2016).
In the collection’s introduction, Executive Director Tim Hollo states that the Green Institute “remains agnostic” on whether a UBI is an “appropriate mechanism” to achieve a reduction in working hours with no reduction in pay or working conditions–a goal which the organization does unequivocally support. Hollo adds that, despite its agnosticism, the Green Institute “believe[s] a conversation on the idea [of UBI], in the context of the need to grapple with the inevitability of less and less paid work in an ever more unstable world, is vital to [Australia’s] politics.”
Following are overviews of the 10 essays in the report and their authors.
1. “Why work less?” by Tim Hollo and Chris Twomey, Policy Director of the Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) and Chair of the Green Institute.
Hollo and Twomey discuss four reasons for which societies should pursue policies aimed at the reduction of working hours: inequality and insecurity of work (e.g. the rise the of the gig economy and zero-hour contracts), the threat of the automation of many jobs, widespread overwork and the need for improved work/life balance, and environmental destruction caused by the “work-to-consume / work-to-produce-to-consume” cycle.
Additionally, the authors critique two pervasive social norms, which they believe should be challenged by the debate around debate surrounding UBI and shorter working hours: the ideas that “only paid work is a noble pursuit” and that “a punitive approach to welfare is necessary to force people into this noble pursuit” (p. 15).
Finally, they propose three alternative ideals to frame the policy debate: “the ideal of universalism; the realisation that, while work is good, less work can be better; and the approach of encouraging and enabling meaningful work in resilient communities, rather than the punitive attitude to welfare that is failing both workers and employers” (p. 19).
Hollo and Twomey stop short of endorsing UBI as the preferred means to achieve these ideals, and they are clear that UBI would not be a one-stop solution (if it is part of the solution at all). However, they maintain that–as long as it is framed in the terms they describe–UBI in an crucial policy to consider and debate.
2. “Towards an historical account of Universal Basic Income” by Elise Klein, Professor of Development Studies at the University of Melbourne.
In her contribution to the collection, Klein traces the history of discourse about UBI from its roots in the ideas of Thomas More, Marquis de Condorcet, and Thomas Paine. She also provides an overview of the contemporary state of basic income debate, both globally and in the Australian context.
Klein has previously defended universal basic income in essays such as “Securing Economic Rights: The Time Has Come” (2015).
3. “On shorter working hours” by Godfrey Moase, assistant general branch secretary at the National Union of Workers in Melbourne.
In his contribution, Moase traces the history of labor’s demand for shorter working hours and argues that we must “take up the struggle once again for a shorter working week” for the sake of economic security, quality of life, and ecological sustainability.
Moase has previously defended a basic income guarantee of $30,000 per year for all Australians; see, for example, his 2013 article published in The Guardian (“Why Australians deserve a universal minimum income“).
4. “Not Just a Basic Income” by Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology at Macquarie University.
The main objective of Spies-Butcher’s essay is to argue against a UBI as conceived as a replacement for the welfare state, concluding “UBI is part of the answer, but only if it builds on a broader project for social change” (p. 46).
Spies-Butcher has previously defended an Australian UBI (as a partial solution) in articles such as “Could a new ‘basic income’ protect Australia’s most vulnerable?” (October 2015, The Conversation) and, earlier in 2016, in a panel discussion on UBI hosted by the New South Wales Fabian Society (see his presentation).
5. “A Universal Basic Income: Economic considerations” by the political economist Frank Stilwell (Emeritus Professor at the University of Sydney).
After outlining several reasons for which UBI seems to a policy “whose time has come”, Stilwell raises the question of how a UBI could be funded in Australia, and describes some sources of uncertainty with respect to the policy’s economic effects. However, he concludes his essay by emphasizing that “these uncertainties are not a reason to eschew further investigation” and that the discussion surrounding UBI is important because it “directs our attention to the all-important questions of ends and means: ‘what sort of society do we want?’ and ‘how should we restructure our economy so that the desired social outcomes can be achieved?'” (p. 51).
Stilwell also defends basic income in a short radio interview with Hamish Macdonald (“Less work, more money: the argument for a universal basic income“), which was aired in response to the publication of the Green Institute report.
Harry Nilsson
6. “Goin’ where the weather suits my clothes” by Louise Tarrant, former National Secretary of United Voice.
Inspired by the 1969 Harry Nilsson hit “Everybody’s Talkin’“, Tarrant recounts several pivotal moments in the last 70 years of history of Western democracies, ultimately arguing that now is the time to recreate an effective democracy and new social compact. Tarrant discusses the threat of automation and the “over-valorization” of paid work as factors giving rising to this need. She finally describes how a new social compact might be formed around the ideas of less work and a UBI.
To hear more of Tarrant’s ideas about UBI, listen to her discussion of the policy’s pros and cons at the Fabian Society panel (in which she participated alongside Spies-Butcher).
7. “The emancipatory potential of a Universal Basic Income” by Clare Ozich, Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Employment Rights (AIER).
Drawing from the work of Guy Standing, Kathi Weeks, Paul Mason, and others, Ozich argues that the debate about UBI should be seen as a way to open discussion about “how we conceive of work and what value we place on what forms of work” (p. 71). She stresses that the emancipatory potential of UBI depends on the exact form of the UBI implemented; for example, a basic income set too low could merely act as a subsidy to low wages.
8. “Why a Universal Basic Income can address historic, gender and material inequities” by feminist advocate Eva Cox, currently Adjunct Professor at Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Cox supports a basic income as a way to recognize the value the unpaid labor: “By liberating people from the need to earn their basic expenses through paid work, we can open up many possibilities of creating better functioning societies. By recognising the value of unpaid contributions already made and encouraging their expansion, there can be more gender equity, social wellbeing and validation of diversity of lifestyle choices” (p. 82).
After making a case for the need to recognize unpaid work, Cox briefly outlines a possible incremental approach to welfare reform in Australia.
Indigenous Australian Dancer, CC BY-SA 2.0 Naparazzi
9. “Basic income makes basic sense for remote Indigenous Australia” by Jon Altman, research professor at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University in Melbourne and emeritus professor of the Australian National University in Canberra.
In his contribution, Altman reviews decades of findings concerning the effects of welfare programs on indigenous communities, especially the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme and the “work for the dole” Community Development Programme (CDP) that eventually replaced it. Although originally intended to provide wages for part-time employment, the CDEP came to administered a basic income in some regions, where it was popular and successful. Altman argues that the CDP is less effective (calling it “neo-paternalism … masquerading as a work-creation program that is destructive and deeply impoverishing already impoverished people”, p. 93), and that a (re-)introduction of basic income scheme would greatly improve the status of indigenous Australians.
Altman has argued for the same thesis–that a basic income would improve the position of indigenous Australians–in previous works, such as the book chapter “Basic Income for Remote Indigenous Australians: Prospects for a Livelihoods Approach in Neoliberal Times” (published in the 2016 edited collection Basic income in Australia and New Zealand).
10. “The environmental impacts of a UBI and a shorter working week” by Greg Marston, Professor at School of Social Science at The University of Queensland and a leader of BIEN’s Australian affiliate, Basic Income Guarantee Australia.
Marston, one of Australia’s most prominent basic income advocates, presents an ecological argument for basic income in his contribution to the Green Institute report. As Marston argues, “Transitioning to a low-carbon slow growth economy is not simply a matter of social policy prescription or new economic incentives, but of transforming whole patterns of social life in terms of employment, family, mobility, housing and leisure” (p. 97), and such transformations require that work be organized differently. Some companies might opt to create a virtual working environment (often through registered address use at Companies House offices), potentially allowing employees to work from home and promote flexible working. These days, working from home is becoming more and more of an option, and technology is advancing at a rate that makes it entirely possible. Many companies already have some form of av system in place in order to facilitate things like virtual meetings and conferences with both employees and clients alike, so there are communications solutions already out there for remote working. Naturally, without modern communication technology, none of this would be possible. Implementing a cloud contact centre may encourage more businesses to retain a positive outlook on remote working.
Marston’s argument is one that he has also presented in earlier articles, including “Unconditional Basic Income and transitioning to a low-carbon society” and “Greening the Australian Welfare State: Can Basic Income Play a Role?” (the latter is a chapter in the book Basic income in Australia and New Zealand, which he co-edited).
Additional Press
Gareth Hutchens, “Take basic income and short working week seriously, Greens think-tank urges“, The Guardian, December 8, 2016.
Cover Photo: Surfer at Australia’s Byron Bay, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Richard Rydge
by Kate McFarland | Jan 4, 2017 | Research
As previously reported in Basic Income News, universal basic income was the theme of the 2016 Social Policy Conference of the independent think tank Social Justice Ireland (SJI). The conference explored current work on basic income in both the Irish and international contexts.
Local speakers included five members of SJI (Michelle Murphy, Eamon Murphy, Seán Ward, Seán Healy, and Brigid Reynolds), Roisin Mulligan (Basic Income Ireland), Michael Traft (Unite), Ursula Barry (University College Dublin), and Ronan Lyons (Trinity College Dublin). Additionally, Anthony Painter (the RSA, UK), Malcolm Torry (Citizen’s Income Trust, UK), Ville-Veikko Pulkka (Kela, Finland), and Sjir Hoeijmakers (independent adviser, The Netherlands) each spoke about proposals for basic income by their respective organizations and in their respective countries. SJI reports that the conference was attended by 125 delegates.
A compilation of the conference presentations is now available as a PDF book (Basic Income – Radical Utopia or Practical Solution?), downloadable for free from SJI’s website.
In addition to the traditional text-based format, the conference papers are available as cartoons.
Papers and cartoons for each of the individual presentations can be accessed here.
Excerpt of cartoon version of Seán Healy and Brigid Reynolds talk
Several participants have also published summaries and reflections on the conference:
“Basic Income as the key to resolving welfare and work challenges,” Social Justice Ireland, November 30, 2016.
Michael Staines, “Money for nothing – conference hears universal payment could solve social issues,” NewsTalk.com, November 22, 2016.
“Do you think welfare should be replaced by a basic income for all?” Irish Examiner, November 22, 2016.
Photo: “Ireland #3” CC BY-ND 2.0 Pierre Lognoul
