NEW ZEALAND: Gareth Morgan’s new political party puts off UBI to “phase two”

NEW ZEALAND: Gareth Morgan’s new political party puts off UBI to “phase two”

The Opportunities Party flag

The Opportunities Party flag

In November 2016, Gareth Morgan–economist, investment manager, philanthropist, and advocate for a universal basic income in New Zealand–launched a new political party: The Opportunities Party (TOP). TOP will be unveiling in policy positions through early 2017.

Morgan has supported basic income (along with comprehensive tax reform) as part of his Big Kahuna plan for New Zealand. Thus, some hoped that basic income would also be included in the TOP platform. In its December newsletter, Basic Income New Zealand (BINZ) announced: “BINZ is supportive of the formation of this party [TOP] and we hope it will invigorate national debate on UBI, even though Morgan hasn’t yet committed to UBI for his party platform.”

On December 8, however, Morgan announced to reporters that UBI would “not be on the table” this time [1]. Although he speaks about UBI as a “great concept”, he believes that New Zealand’s present focus should be tax reform, such as removing tax breaks for homeowners that have driven up housing prices across the country.

Morgan states that UBI will be in “phase two” if TOP is still around.

Watch Morgan talk about UBI at approximately 8 min 2 sec into this video:

#Watch: Gareth Morgan joins us to talk politics and explain what The Opportunities Party will stand for.

Posted by Stuff.co.nz on Tuesday, December 6, 2016

 

The Big Kahuna

In 2009, Morgan called for a $10,000 guaranteed minimum income for all New Zealanders, combined with a flat-rate income tax of 25% (a negative income tax). In addition to the 25% income tax (which would apply to corporate as well as personal income), Morgan proposed a Comprehensive Capital Tax on all forms of capital (land, buildings, equipment, etc) [2]. Later, he adjusted his recommended figures to an $11,000 minimum income and 30% flat tax rate.

YouTube player

[1] Amanda Saxton, “Gareth Morgan’s divisive policy to tackle inequality,” The Dominion Post, December 8, 2016.

[2] Bernard Hickey “ ‘Big kahuna’ tax overhaul proposed,” NZ Herald, December 1, 2009.


Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı.

Cover Photo CC BY 2.0 Rosa Stewart1; Gareth Morgan is the adult pictured.

Himanshu, “Is India ready for universal basic income?”

Himanshu, “Is India ready for universal basic income?”

The idea of a universal basic income (UBI) is rising in popularity in India, where it is often seen as a way to streamline and expedite the distribution of aid to the poor, avoiding the corruption and wastefulness that plague current social welfare programs.

In a recent article for LiveMint, the economist Himanshu (Associate Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University) contrasts this view of UBI with its perception in developed nations that enjoy mature welfare states, such as the Nordic countries. Himanshu contends that developing nations are more likely view UBI as substitute instead of a supplement to existing programs.

He goes on to argue that, contra extreme forms of the “substitution” view, even developing nations such as India should adopt UBI only if it is accompanied by other reforms aimed at improving and increasing the availability of public services:

Given the huge deficits in availability of public education and health facilities, UBI can only increase the demand for these services without increasing the access to these services. While dependence on private providers may fill the gap in the long run, it does not absolve the state from providing universal provision for these services.

Himanshu states that UBI can promote better social and human development outcomes only given “adequate provision of basic social services”.

The article is clear to differentiate the question of universal/targeted transfers from that of cash/in-kind transfers. Leakages and corruption, he says, are problems that accompany targeting, and they have been largely eliminated in states that have shifted to universal provision of services. Yet this leaves open the question of whether the universal benefits ought to be provided in-cash, in-kind, or both.

For more contributions to these debates, see the recent articles by Maitreesh Ghatak, Abhijit Banerjee, Pranab Bardhan, and Vijay Joshi. Some of these economists, like Himanshu, stress that a UBI must supplement, rather than replace, other social services. At the same time, the inefficiency of the present welfare system is a clear common theme in their work.

Reference

Himanshu (November 8, 2016) “Is India ready for universal basic income?” LiveMint.


Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan 

Photo: Free medical camp held in India CC BY-ND 2.0 Welfare party

BIEN is 30: Interview with Philippe Van Parijs

BIEN is 30: Interview with Philippe Van Parijs

This year, BIEN celebrated its 30th anniversary. An event commemorating the occasion was held at the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium on October 1, in connection also with the 25th anniversary of UCLouvain’s Hoover Chair of economic and social ethics and the retirement of BIEN cofounder Philippe van Parijs as its director.

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to conduct an email interview with Philippe Van Parijs about the past, present, and future of BIEN.

 

What’s the most striking difference between BIEN’s earlier years and now?

Participants in BIEN's founding meeting

Participants in BIEN’s founding meeting

The internet. It is hard for young people today to imagine what it meant to run an international network when all communication between its members had to happen through the post. The newsletter needed to be typed, then printed, then photocopied, then stapled. Each copy of the newsletter then had to be inserted in a big envelope, with a stamp stuck on it, and the whole lot had to be taken to the nearest post box. All this cost money. So, annual fees had to be collected. But bank charges were high for international transfers and would have absorbed half of these fees. We therefore asked people to send the money to Louvain-la-Neuve in an envelope in pesetas, deutsche Mark, French Francs, lire, etc. and I changed them at the bank before paying equivalent amounts in Belgian Francs into BIEN’s bank account. We more or less managed three issues per year, but given the time this cost to a tiny number of busy people, this was a recurrent miracle. To lighten the thankless burden of fee collection, we wisely switched in the late nineties to a life membership formula. And from 2000, thanks to increasing access to internet among BIEN’s members, we allowed ourselves to gradually switch from the tri-annual printed newsletter to more frequent e-mailed news flashes.

 

What were BIEN’s most memorable successes in its first 30 years?

The greatest success — and the first virtue of a good network —  is simply to have kept going, with a newsletter sharing intelligible and trustworthy information every few months and with a congress unfailingly organized every two years. These congresses enabled a core of highly committed people to get to know each other personally, to inform, encourage and inspire each other, but proved also a powerful instrument for making more people aware of the idea of basic income and ready to take it seriously. The first two conferences (in Louvain-la-Neuve in 1986 and Antwerp 1988) were very modest, low-budget events. The first grand congress was organized by Edwin Morley-Fletcher, with the support of Italy’s Lega Nazionale delle Cooperative e Mutue at the European University Institute (Florence) in September 1990. I thought at the time that organizing such big and expensive events would be unsustainable. But I was proved wrong by a long and so far uninterrupted succession of enthusiastic conference organizers.

Eduardo Suplicy (photo CC BY 2.0 Senado Federal)

Eduardo Suplicy (CC BY 2.0 Senado Federal)

The second greatest success — and the second virtue of a good network — is to have kept expanding. As time went on, more and more people from outside Europe attended BIEN’s congresses. Among them, Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy, who started suggesting, from 1998 onwards, that the Basic Income European Network should become the Basic Income Earth Network. Guy Standing was sympathetic to the suggestion from the start. I was very skeptical at first, partly because I knew too well how hard it had been to keep our little European network going, and partly because I thought that a broad interest in basic income could only arise in countries that experienced for a sufficiently long time the perverse effects of conditional income schemes. But by 2004, 25 percent of BIEN’s life members were from outside Europe. Moreover, in January 2004, Eduardo managed to get President Lula to sign his “basic income law”. And the internet was conquering the world. My resistance evaporated. At the Barcelona congress, in September 2004, the General Assembly approved our proposal to make BIEN a worldwide network.

Can these greatest successes be called memorable? Not really. A network acts discreetly in the background. It empowers its components, thereby helping them do a number of things, including memorable ones. Would there have been a basic income law in Brazil or a basic income referendum in Switzerland in the absence of the slow maturing and dissemination of the idea made possible by the existence of a lasting and expanding network? And would they stick as firmly in many people’s memories without an efficient and influential network that confers them a memorable rather than anecdotal status?

Can these greatest successes be called memorable? Not really. A network acts discreetly in the background.

What have been the biggest challenges?

Apart from the material concerns already mentioned, I can think of two main challenges. One is linguistic. Opting for English as the sole language of a European network was far less obvious thirty years ago than it has now become. There were voices rightly pointing out the elitism involved in this choice. In most countries, only bilinguals (or more) could be involved. Yet, given the resources available, only the monolingual formula was realistic. Consequently, a constant effort was required, far from fully successful, to correct the imbalance thereby created along many dimensions: from the overrepresentation of news and publications from Anglophone countries to the overrepresentation of Anglophones among active participants in our congresses or assemblies.

The other challenge is sectarianism. When people sharing the same conviction form an association, there is a danger that their meetings and publications will largely reduce to a rehearsal of the common faith and a denunciation of the stupidity or wickedness of those who don’t share it. It has been crucial to the vitality and impact of BIEN that it has resisted such sectarian degeneration. It has kept inviting to its congresses speakers who spoke against basic income. It has kept reporting in a fair way on criticisms and setbacks. And it has kept insisting that its membership is open to people “committed to or interested in” an unconditional basic income in a precise yet broad sense that does not stipulate a specific funding method, rationale, level or set of accompanying measures.

 

Has BIEN ever run the risk of dying?

Twice, I think. First, it could have been still-born. Driven by the pioneers’ enthusiasm, the initial plan, at the September 1986 founding conference, was to hold a conference every year, and someone offered to hold the next one in Maastricht in September 1987. But the proposal fell through and instead there followed a long silence. It is only in February 1988 that BIEN’s first newsletter was sent out, announcing a second conference, which Walter Van Trier, BIEN’s first secretary, managed to put together in Antwerp, in September 1988.

The second time agony seemed close was in the mid-nineties. With my four children, Louvain’s Hoover Chair to run and my Real Freedom for All nearing completion, I was struggling to combine the jobs of BIEN secretary and newsletter editor. To my great relief, at the London 1994 congress, a founding member who was hardly involved until then agreed to become the newsletter editor. I still dealt with the first issue following the congress, but thereafter, despite many reminders and repeated promises, nothing happened for many months. I took back the editor job and laboriously published a treble Christmas 1995 issue, after a full year gap. It made me realize both how crucial a newsletter is to the very existence of a network and how important it is for the sustainability of a network that people should only commit to what they are really able to do.

 

Philippe Van Parijs (photo credit: Enno Schmidt)

Philippe Van Parijs (photo credit: Enno Schmidt)

What do you see as BIEN’s biggest challenges moving forward?

One big challenge is to keep track of the countless fast swelling stream of relevant developments worldwide and to make their nature and significance intelligible to people across the world. Internet is no doubt a fabulous asset for a worldwide network. But working out the right hierarchy, in terms of relevance, significance and reliability, among the mass of information to which we now have easy access is both essential and difficult. BIEN’s current team is doing a terrific job in this respect.

Another challenge is to constantly find the right balance between utopianism and pragmatism, between on the one hand an attractive, stirring vision of a better world that can boost our hopes and stimulate our actions and on the other an acute, clear-headed awareness of difficulties, obstacles, defeats and disappointments.

 

What do you see as most exciting?

The fact that so many different people in such different countries discover, discuss and appropriate the idea and that this helps them regain the hope they had lost in a better future for themselves and for their children.

 


Philippe Van Parijs has been chair of BIEN’s international board since 2004. He was the organizer of BIEN’s founding conference (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1986), BIEN’s newsletter editor from 1988 to 2004, BIEN’s secretary from 1994 to 2004. He is the author (with Yannick Vanderborght) of Basic Income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy, Harvard University Press, Spring 2017.

Cover Photo: Van Parijs at BIEN’s 30th Anniversary event (credit: Enno Schmidt). 

VIDEO: BIEN’s 30th Anniversary Reunion

VIDEO: BIEN’s 30th Anniversary Reunion

This fall, BIEN celebrated 30th anniversary of its founding. Video recordings of its founders’ reunion are available online.  

On October 1, several founding members and other past and present BIEN leaders — comprising three generations of basic income advocates — united at the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium for a conference held in commemoration of the occasion in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of UCLouvain’s Hoover Chair of economic and social ethics and the retirement of BIEN cofounder Philippe van Parijs as its director. (See also a Basic Income News interview in which Philippe discusses the past, present, and future of BIEN.)  

Reflecting on the event and the history of BIEN, Belgian entrepreneur and long-time basic income advocate Roland Duchâtelet said:

What impresses me most is that during the 30 years of BIEN many different personalities expressed many different views regarding UBI models, implementation, and the way the organisation should behave… and yet, I do not believe there have been any defectors. Moreover, despite the highly diverse background of the members and their desire to succeed, the organisation managed to keep its harmony.

To me this was the prevailing feeling of the 30th anniversary event: we are a (strong) group of friends.

Roland Duchalet (photo credit: Enno Schmidt)

Roland Duchatelet (credit: Enno Schmidt)

For Jose Luis Rey Pérez (Adjunct Professor of Philosophy of Law at Universidad Pontificia Comillas in Madrid), BIEN’s 30th anniversary event rekindled memories of studying with van Parijs and others at UCL years earlier:

I was in Chair Hoover [in UCL] two months in April and May 2003, while I was writing my PhD. I learnt a lot from Philippe van Parijs during that time, and I had the opportunity to read everything that was published about basic income in that time. (In those years where books and articles were not on internet like now.) I had also the opportunity to share coffees, time and discussions with Axel Gosseries, Hervois Portouis, Yannick Vanderborght, Jurgen De Wispelaere and Myron Frankman who were in the Chair at that time.

It was nice, 13 years later, to listen and learn again from some authors that I have studied deeply. I wish Philippe a very rich retirement. I know that he will continue through his conferences, books and articles to enrich the philosophical thought. We have a lot of things to learn from him yet. Because he is one of the best philosophers of this XXI century.

Two other attendees, Bonno Pel and Julia Backhaus of the TRANsformative Social Innovation Theory (TRANSIT) research project, have written an extended feature article on the event (“BIEN Celebrates Thirty Years: Basic income, a utopia for our times?), looking at the 2016 UCL event as a reflection of (a photo of) the founding meeting in 1986.

 

Video Footage

Belgian filmmaker Steven Janssens videotaped six conference sessions: (1) BIEN’s improvised birth, (2) Basic income implemented in the short and the long run (note: a parallel session on the history of basic income was not recorded), (3) Lessons from the Swiss referendum, (4) Promises and limits of past and future experiments, (5) Moving forward, (6) Final reflections.

(Janssens is also the driving force behind the documentary about a basic income pilot in a Ugandan village, with a planned launch date of October 2018.)

 

1. BIEN’s Improvised Birth: Testimonies by Some Co-founders

Featuring Philippe van Parijs, Paul-Marie Boulanger, Annie Miller, Guy Standing, Claus Offe, and Robert van der Veen.

https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference1

 

2. Basic Income Implemented in the Short and the Long Run

Featuring Philippe Defeyt (“An income-tax-funded basic income of EUR 600”), David Rosseels (“A micro-tax on electronic payments”), and Karl Widerquist (“Sovereign funds and basic income”).

https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference2

 

3. Lessons from the Swiss Referendum

Featuring Nenad Stojanovic and Enno Schmidt.

https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference3

 

4. Promises and Limits of Past and Future Experiments

Featuring Yannick Vanderborght (overview), Guy Standing (on India), Jurgen De Wispelaere (on Finland), Alexander de Roo (on The Netherlands).

https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference4

 

5. Moving Forward

Featuring Louise Haagh, Stanislas Jourdan, Roland Duchatelet, Yasmine Kherbache.

https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference5

 

6. Final Reflections

Featuring Claus Offe, Gérard Roland, Joshua Cohen, Erik O. Wright.

https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference6


Reviewed by Tyler Prochazka.

Cover Photo: BIEN’s 30th anniversary renunion , credit Enno Schmidt.

 

VIDEO: Guy Standing on the impending revolt of the precariat

VIDEO: Guy Standing on the impending revolt of the precariat

Photo: “Thomas Heatherwick – Thames Garden Bridge” CC-BY-2.0 準建築人手札網站

The controversial Garden Bridge is a proposed privately-owned bridge over the River Thames in London, intended to open in 2018. According to the “Lady of the Future”, its construction was a triggering event to the Precariat Revolt; listen to the lecture below to learn more…   

As previously announced in Basic Income News, BIEN cofounder Guy Standing (SOAS, University of London) was invited to speak on the “politics of utopia” at Oktoberdans, Norway’s most prestigious contemporary dance festival, on October 25, 2016.

He was asked to speak without notes and standing atop two pallets, creating the feel of a speaker’s corner:

Standing framed his talk as the received word of the “Lady of the Future”, who informed him about the precariat revolt of 2017, which eventuated in a series of reforms beginning with basic income. Throughout his talk, he stressed the importance of the arts (e.g. their “subversive potential” and thus capacity to effect political change). Although adapted to the unique setting and audience, Standing drew from material in his latest book, The Corruption of Capitalism, as well as his previous works on the precariat.

Watch Standing’s complete performance, including Q&A, above.