by Kate McFarland | Oct 18, 2017 | News
The Social Prosperity Network, a research network at University College London’s Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), released a report this month arguing for Universal Basic Services for the UK.
The authors propose that the UK expand its set of free and universal public services to include shelter (social housing), food, transportation (e.g. bus passes), and information (e.g. internet access), in addition to the National Health Service, public education, and public legal services.
Like universal basic income, Universal Basic Services (UBS) are intended to secure the necessary means to a life for everyone, unconditionally. The unconditionality of the benefits is a key distinctive feature. As IGP’s Andrew Percy writes in the introduction to the report, the Social Prosperity Network has been motivated by the challenge to design a modern social safety net that is “[m]ore flexible and effective than the conditional benefits system we have inherited”.
As IGP Director Henrietta Moore mentions in the forward to the report, the authors have been inspired in their thinking by the recent global interest in basic income. Percy refers to the policies as “complementary components of a sustainable future for social welfare”:
Progressive proponents of a UBI assume the pre-existence of a platform of social welfare services, and advocates of UBS must acknowledge that there are both personal and specific needs that will require some form of monetary distribution to preserve freedom and agency.
While it is clear that Percy does not rule out UBI on matters of principle, he does maintain that UBS is a more effective use of available government revenue.
Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King’s College London, contributes a discussion paper to the report in which (in part) he contrasts UBS with several other potential solutions to challenges currently facing the UK economy. Although he devotes more attention to basic income than other competing options, Portes worries that UBI fails to address the main shortcomings of the UK welfare system (housing and disability benefits), that it would be prohibitively expensive if paid at an adequate level, and that it could devalue the importance of workforce participation. He concludes that “while some version of a basic income may be a useful complement to ambitious reforms of the welfare system, expecting basic income on its own to be ‘the answer’ is neither realistic nor desirable”.
Technical analyses of the cost and distributional impact of UBS are contributed by Howard Reed of Landman Economics (a name familiar in UBI circles as the coauthor of last year’s report “Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?” for the UK think tank Compass).
Download the full report here: “Social prosperity for the future: A proposal for Universal Basic Services”
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Demonstrators in London, UK, CC BY 2.0 DAVID HOLT
by Kate McFarland | Oct 14, 2017 | News
Notice of correction to and retraction of the article “World Economic Forum recognizes Madhya Pradesh basic income pilot studies”
On September 9, Basic Income News published an article with the headline “World Economic Forum recognizes Madhya Pradesh basic income pilot studies”, which announced that the World Economic Forum (WEF) had bestowed a “best practice in governance award” to Sarath Davala and the India Network for Basic Income (INBI) for their submission of a case study of basic income in Madhya Pradesh, India.
The submission and award are part of WEF’s New Vision for Development competition, an international competition seeking new global approaches to inclusive growth.
This announcement was made in error. In actuality, the Madhya Pradesh case study was deemed eligible for an award in the “best practice in governance” category. However, the case study is one of multiple applications eligible for the award, and WEF has not yet selected the recipient of the award.
The original article has been retracted.
Additional updates, information and background:
The WEF invited Dr. Sarath Davala, an independent sociologist and coordinator of INBI, to join other applicants to the New Vision for Development competition at a Sustainable Development Impact Summit held in New York, New York, from September 18 to 19.
The case study on the Madhya Pradesh basic income pilot, of which Davala was the lead author, was also selected for inclusion on WEF’s Inclusive Growth and Development Platform, at interactive online platform to be launched publicly in early 2018.
Regarding the significance of the New Vision for Development competition, Davala states,
The point is not whether one case-study gets an award or one person gets it. The main point is that the idea of Unconditional and Universal Basic Income is being recognised and endorsed by the mainstream global institutions as an idea that can potentially answer some of the most troubling questions of our times, such as chronic poverty, future of employment, meaning of work, and so on. This is truly a big victory for the idea itself.
His submission detailed the pilot study of basic income conducted in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh from June 2011 to November 2012, co-sponsored by UNICEF and the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA). During this 18 month experiment, 6,000 individuals in nine villages received monthly unconditional cash transfers equivalent to about one quarter of the median income in the state. The transfers were delivered to all adults in each village in the pilot, with smaller amounts for every child. Similar villages were used as controls. It was found that, relative to the residents of control villages, individuals receiving the cash transfers were seen to be significantly more likely to obtain adequate nutrition, receive regular medical treatment, invest in improved energy and sanitation, start new businesses, and send their children to school, among other improvements. (The study and its results are described at length in Basic Income: A Transformative Policy for India, authored by Davala, SEWA’s Renana Jhabvala SEWA, Soumya Kapoor of the World Bank, and BIEN cofounder Guy Standing.)
Davala and other researchers have recently completed a legacy study investigating the long-term impacts of the Madhya Pradesh pilot, and Arvind Subramanian, Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India consulted the experiment in preparing a chapter on universal basic income for the 2017 Economic Survey of India. In this document, Subramanian cites evidence from Madhya Pradesh to support a rebuttal of claim that unconditional cash transfers would lead to a reduction in the labor supply, stating that, on the contrary, “the study shows that people become more productive when they get a basic income”.
In its Inclusive Growth and Development Report (2017), the WEF states that basic income alone cannot adequately substitute for what it considers the “five crucial institutional underpinnings of a well-functioning labor market” (labor-market policies, equal access to quality education, gender parity, non-standard work benefits and protections, and effective school-to-work transition); however, its authors remark that the policy may “form part of an appropriate policy response” or “serve as a useful complement” to other strategies.
The World Economic Forum does not endorse basic income but encourages the sharing and discussion of a wide range of approaches to inclusive and sustainable growth.
Post reviewed for content by the World Economic Forum and copyedited by Heidi Karow
Photo: Valleys of Madhya Pradesh, India CC BY 2.0 Rajarshi MITRA
by Kate McFarland | Oct 8, 2017 | News
Silicon Valley’s Y Combinator has concluded its pilot in Oakland and released a draft proposal for a large-scale randomized control trial of basic income in the United States.
In January 2016, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sam Altman announced his intention to spearhead a privately funded trial of unconditional basic income in the United States, hiring social work and political science PhD Elizabeth Rhodes as Research Director later in the year, and eventually assembling a team of expert advisors.
Since this time, Y Combinator has conducted a feasibility study in Oakland, California, and is now working to finalize the design of its full scale experiment. (Contrary to some misconceptions, the Oakland project was not itself an experiment. Its purpose was merely to test and fine-tune the mechanisms for conducting the experiment–such as the selection of participants, disbursement of funds, and collection of data–not to analyze the effects of unconditional cash transfers on recipients. The latter will be the goal of the project described in the new research proposal, which has yet to be launched.)
Although some details of the experiment remain to be decided, including the precise outcome variables and methods of data collection, Y Combinator has decided to design the experiment as a randomized controlled trial, conducted on a random sample of poor and low-income young adults from two US states (using a stratified sample to ensure adequate representation across race, gender, and income categories).
On the tentative design, the researchers will select a total of 3000 participants, randomly assigning 1000 to the treatment group–who will receive a regular cash payment of 1000 USD per month unconditionally for the duration of the experiment–and the remaining 2000 to the control group. (Individuals in the control group will provide the same type of feedback and data to researchers but receive only a much smaller cash payment, tentatively set at 50 USD per month.) The experiment is planned to continue for three to five years.
Y Combinator expresses an interest in a “holistic approach to understanding the individual-level effects of basic income”, in contrast to past and present experiments which have focused on the labor market impacts of unconditional cash payments, such as Finland’s current basic income experiment and the negative income tax experiments conducted in the United States in the 1970s. Among these individual-level effects, the research group is particularly interested in time use, mental and physical health, subjective well-being, financial health, decision making and attitudes toward risk, as well as political and social attitudes. Furthermore, although individual-level effects will be the focus of the experiment, researchers also hope to examine spillover effects on recipients’ families, friends, and communities.
While the research group has not finalized its choice of data sources and collection methods (see its project proposal for a discussion of possibilities currently under discussion), it plans to combine quantitative analysis with regular surveys and interviews (in contrast, for example, to the Finnish experiment, in which researchers have abjured the use of surveys and interviews during the duration of the experiment). Rhodes has explained, however, that participation in surveys and interviews will be voluntary for participants; that is, the payments will continue for the duration of the experiments even if recipients do not respond to requests for data and information.
The research team acknowledges that the experiment does not, strictly speaking, test a universal basic income. For one, as mentioned, the sample will be limited to young adults (aged 21 to 40) with incomes below the area median. The researchers justify this limitation, however, by noting that “the marginal effect of the additional income on many of the outcomes is expected to be relatively small at higher income levels” and that, under most plans, “the benefit received by higher-income individuals would be paid back in taxes in order to fund the program”.
Additionally, due to the use of a randomized controlled trial, the research will not capture multiplier effects that might result from the implementation of a universal basic income (in contrast, for example, to the saturation study in Dauphin, Manitoba, or GiveDirectly’s recently launched village-level RCT of basic income in Kenya). However, researchers note that “ the intervention is very expensive and our sample size is constrained by the budget. We will not have enough statistical power to detect effects with a geographically saturated study and the increase in sample size required to allow for clustering is financially infeasible.”
To conduct the experiment, Y Combinator has partnered with the Center on Poverty and Inequality (CPI) at Stanford University. The research has been approved by Stanford’s Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects.
Y Combinator is currently working with state and local governments to coordinate mechanisms for distributing payments without affecting recipients’ future eligibility for existing government benefits, and to obtain the use of registries to collect individual data.
With many details still to be settled, no specific launch date has been set for the experiment (although Rhodes stated at the recent BIEN Congress that the research group hopes to begin the study in “early 2018”), and the states from which subjects will be sampled have not been publicly announced.
The full research proposal can be read on Y Combinator’s blog (see “Basic Income Research Proposal,” published September 20, 2017).
The organization invites comments and feedback on its project proposal.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo (Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline, Oakland) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 MagicMediaProduction
by Kate McFarland | Oct 7, 2017 | News
The 18th Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Basic Income and the New Universalism: Rethinking the Welfare State in the 21st Century, will take place 23-26 August 2018, at the University of Tampere in Finland.
Organizers have released a call for papers, inviting proposals for individual papers as well as themed panels (up to three panelists) and roundtable discussions (up to five discussants). Proposed papers, panels, and roundtables may concern “any aspect of the justification, design, implementation, or politics of universal basic income.”
Proposals must be submitted online (at the linked web form) by Monday, January 15, 2018.
Confirmed invited speakers include Jamie Cooke (Head of RSA Scotland), Evelyn Forget (Professor in Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba), Loek Groot (Associate Professor Economics of the Public Sector at the Utrecht University School of Economics), Louise Haagh (Chair of BIEN and Reader in Politics at the University of York), Renana Jhabvala (President of Self-Employed Women’s Association in Bharat, India), Olli Kangas (Director of Governmental relations at Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland), and Lena Lavinas (Professor of Welfare Economics at the Institute of Economics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro).
The BIEN Congress will be preceded by a one-day event focusing on the basic income debate in Nordic countries.
See the official website of the 2018 BIEN Congress for more information.
Post reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Kalevan kirkko, Tampere Finland CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Marjaana Pato
by Kate McFarland | Sep 28, 2017 | News
The Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, which has published a series of reports on the feasibility and implementation of basic income, commissioned a recently published survey on attitudes towards basic income in the UK.
The survey was conducted by the British market research organization Ipsos MORI, who interviewed a sample 1,111 individuals from the UK population aged 18 to 75. Interviews were conducted online in August 2017. In the recently published results, the survey data are weighted to represent the general UK population according to age, gender, region, employment status, social grade, and educational attainment.
In a series of three multi-part questions, Ipsos MORI queried respondents about their views on universal basic income (UBI), which it defined, similarly to BIEN, as “a regular income paid in cash to every individual adult in the UK, regardless of their working status and income from other sources In other words, it would be: universal (i.e. paid to all), unconditional (i.e. paid without a requirement to work); and paid to individuals (rather than to a household).”
Interviewees were also instructed to assume, for the purposes of the survey, that the amount of the UBI “would be set roughly at the amount the UK government judged to be necessary to cover basic needs, e.g. food and clothing (but not housing costs).”
Before laying out the description of UBI, the survey questionnaire additional mentioned, “As you may be aware, some countries are considering introducing a basic income.”
Results
Asked whether they would support UBI described as above, 49% of respondents replied affirmatively (15% “strongly support” and 33% “tend to support”), while 26% replied negatively (17% “strongly oppose” and 9% “tend to oppose”).
Reported levels of support decreased substantially, however, when funding mechanisms were specified. Only 30% would support UBI if it entailed an increase in taxes, with 40% opposing UBI in this case. Meanwhile, 37% would support, and 30% would oppose, a UBI funded by cuts on spending on current welfare benefits. If both funding mechanisms were put into place, support for UBI decreases to 22%, while opposition increases to 47%.
The preceding result is similar to what was observed in a 2016 poll conducted by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute, which saw that respondents tended to favor basic income in principle, but would not support an increase in taxes to fund it in their country.
In the second question, respondents were asked “Regardless of whether you support or oppose the UK Government introducing a basic income, which of the following, if any, would be your most preferred way of mainly funding a basic income, if it was introduced?” Options included “increasing taxes on wealth” (34% favored), “cutting existing welfare benefits” (28% favored), “raising income tax” (12% favored), and “other” (3% favored).
The second part of this question broadens the definition of a “basic income scheme” from the initial definition, asking respondents if they would support such as program if certain compromises were made to universality and unconditionality. More than half of respondents replied that they would support a policy “only paid to those who are in work, in training, doing voluntary work, or pensioners” (52% strongly support or tend to support) or one “only paid to those on low incomes” (57% strongly support or tend to support), with only 18% and 17%, respectively, reporting opposition to the policies. (It should be noted, however, that it would conflict with most established uses of the term–including that of BIEN–to call such a policy a “basic income” scheme.)
Support decreased if the program were only to benefit young people (aged 18 to 24) “who are in work, full time education, or in training”: 35% would support (or tend to support) such a program, while 33% would oppose (or tend to oppose) it.
The third and final question queried interviewees on the “how convincing” they personally found each of six arguments that have been made in favor of basic income. The results tentatively suggest that, among British adults, arguments that emphasize the ability for UBI to support unpaid work tend to have more pull than those that emphasize the policy’s potential to encourage traditional paid work.
The argument judged most convincing was one that framed UBI as a way of recognizing the value of unpaid work: “Many people do very important work that is unpaid, such as caring or other voluntary work. A basic income would be a way of rewarding and encouraging others to do this type of work.” A full 79% of respondents found the argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, while only 15% judged it “not very” or “not at all” convincing.
All arguments provided were found to be more convincing that not (i.e. considered by a majority of survey respondents to be “very” or “fairly” convincing). However, the least persuasive was found be the following: “Many unemployed people do not have an incentive to find a job because benefits they may currently be receiving are withdrawn. As everyone would receive it, a basic income would encourage unemployed people to get a job by allowing them to keep that basic income if they find work.” A relatively small 57% deemed this argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, and 35% found it unconvincing (or “not very” convincing).
Other arguments focused on automation, job insecurity, bureaucracy in administering welfare, the “harsh and unfair” nature of conditional welfare programs.
More information about the survey, including all weighted and unweighted data, is available here:
Ipsos MORI, “Half of UK adults would support universal basic income in principle,” 8 September 2017.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo (Newquay, Cornwall, United Kingdom) CC BY 2.0 Giuseppe Milo
