Institute for Policy Research releases “Assessing the Case for a Universal Basic Income in the UK”

Institute for Policy Research releases “Assessing the Case for a Universal Basic Income in the UK”

The Institute for Policy Research (IPR) at the University of Bath has released a policy brief titled “Assessing the Case for a Universal Basic Income in the UK”.

The 94-page policy brief surveys the rise in popularity of the idea of universal basic income (UBI), especially in the UK context, and examines its feasibility and possible implementation strategies.

The report’s author, IRP Research Associate Luke Martinelli, draws upon his previous microsimulation studies, including “The Fiscal and Distributional Implications of Alternative Universal Basic Income Schemes in the UK” (March 2017) and “Exploring the Distributional and Work Incentive Effects of Plausible Illustrative Basic Income Schemes” (May 2017). He supplements his own work with the simulation analyses of other researchers, including Malcolm Torry (Citizen’s Income Trust) and Howard Reed and Stewart Lansley (Compass) in the UK and Olli Kangas (Kela) in Finland. Martinelli argues that microsimulation techniques, which can be used to model the economic effects of UBI at a national level, allow researchers to address questions about the feasibility and desirability of UBI that are out-of-reach by “real-world” experiment–given that the latter “do not test for the crucial effects of accompanying tax changes, nor examine how changes in income and behavioural responses would be distributed across different demographic groups in the case of a truly universal payment” (p 16).

In Chapter 3 of the policy brief, Martinelli applies these simulation studies to the question of the affordability of UBI. Investigating both full and partial UBI schemes, Martinelli investigates the fiscal implications of the policy for the UK government, taking into account potential adjustments to the existing tax and benefit system, as well as their consequences for poverty and inequality. Overall, Martinelli finds that data “appear to suggest” that “it is possible to design a UBI such that it is both affordable and adequate” (emphasis in original), with the most feasible option being a partial UBI on top of existing means-tested benefits (p 48). However, he issues several notes of caution in interpreting this (apparent) consequence.

One cautionary note concerns the fact that the simulation studies use only static models, which do not provide for possible changes in labor market participation resulting from the introduction of UBI. In Chapter 4, however, Martinelli examines the labor market effects of UBI in detail, again drawing upon simulation studies. Here, he considers the results of studies that model the impact of UBI schemes on financial work incentives, concluding that UBI does significantly improve incentives, especially for low-income groups and recipients of means-tested benefits (although, as the author admits, monetary incentives are “by no means the only factor affecting labour supply decisions,” p 63). In this chapter, Martinelli supplements the simulation analysis with empirical findings from previous experiments on unconditional cash benefits (including, especially, from the negative income tax experiments conducted in Manitoba in the late 1970s). He also reviews a range of theoretical considerations, including the prima facie tension between the positions of UBI supporters who see the policy as a way of incentivizing employment (e.g. as contrasted to means-tested benefit schemes) and those who advocate the policy as providing an “exit option” from employment.

In the final chapter of the policy brief, Martinelli scrutinizes implementational challenges facing UBI in the UK, including complications building political coalitions around the idea. As Martinelli stresses, apparent political consensus around UBI is likely to dissolve when specific policy implementations are issue. In concluding the report, he urges supporters of UBI not to demand a full basic income immediately, but instead to consider an incremental approach. As potential first steps, Martinelli mentioned a small universal payment (“partial basic income”) or a basic income restricted to certain age groups (e.g., as suggested by Malcolm Torry, young adults or adults nearing pension age).

 

The full report can be downloaded here:

Luke Martinelli, “Assessing the Case for a Universal Basic Income in the UK”, Institute for Policy Research, September 2017.


Reviewed by Russell Ingram

Photo (Bath, England) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 David McKelvey

FRANCE: “Monthly Dossiers” debuts with issue on UBI

FRANCE: “Monthly Dossiers” debuts with issue on UBI

Cairn’s Monthly Dossiers is a free online publication designed to highlight the work of francophone scholars in the social sciences and humanities. Each month, the publication focuses on a topic of current social or political relevance.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) was the topic selected for the debut issue, released on June 15, 2017. As the introduction to the dossier notes, the issue came to prominence in France earlier in the year due the campaign of presidential candidate Benoît Hamon, who won the Socialist Party primary after making a UBI proposal a cornerstone of his campaign.

The dossier features the work of Stéphan Lipiansky, Jean-Éric Hyafil, Denis Clerc and François Meunier.

Lipiansky, an associate professor of economics and management, examines the rise of interest in UBI in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s, linking it to the decay of a “social consensus” around the goal of full employment. He emphasizes UBI’s potential role in a cultural shift in which occupational identity is no longer the key defining attribute of an individual’s social role.  

Hyafil, a leader of the French BIEN affiliate Mouvement Français pour un Revenu de Base, presents UBI as a means to emancipate individuals from the need to work (in view of the fact that, in present society, the pressure to work leads to the creation of and participation in “bullshit jobs” of little or no social utility). In his article, he delineates a UBI proposal for France, and describes a path to introducing the policy through a series of reforms to the revenu de solidarité active (RSA), the country’s existing minimum income scheme for the poor and unemployed (currently €460 per month).

Clerc, the founder of Alternatives Économiques, considers UBI proposals of three different monthly amounts–€100, €460 (equivalent to the RSA), and €800 (equivalent to the minimum pension)–and argues that any potential benefits are too uncertain to merit the risks and certain costs of implementing the policy. As an alternative social policy, he proposes lifelong training to increase individuals’ employability.

Meunier, an economist and consultant, takes on two arguments commonly given for UBI: that it is more respectful to recipients due to its lack of surveillance and paternalism, and that it is easier to administer due to its simplicity. Meunier contends that conditional welfare is not objectionable in its level of oversight–which might be construed as the expression of care for beneficiaries–and that the simplicity is illusory.

The dossier also includes links to supplemental material (in French) by Anton Monti (on the Finnish experiment), Philippe Warin (on the phenomenon of non-usage of the RSA and its implications for UBI), and Yannick Vanderborght and Philippe Van Parijs (on the history of the idea of UBI and its differences from programs like the RSA).

The second issue of Cairn’s Monthly Dossiers was on the topic of Populism.


Parisian café photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Jeff Dzadon

COPENHAGEN: Danish newspaper hosts Guy Standing on basic income

Economist and BIEN cofounder Guy Standing (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London) will deliver a lecture on basic income at the University of Copenhagen on Tuesday, October 3.

Danish journalist Per Michael Jespersen, opinions section editor for the daily newspaper Politiken, will moderate.

Standing’s lecture is part of the series Det vi ved – det vi kan (“What we know – what we can”), a collaborative project of Politiken, the University of Copenhagen, and Carlsberg Foundation, which features experts from varied disciplines speaking on topics of contemporary relevance.

Founded in 1884, Politiken is one of Denmark’s most popular daily newspapers. According to Wikipedia, the print newspaper had a circulation of 88,597 copies in 2013, and its website experience traffic of approximately 800,000 users per month in 2011. Its design has earned the paper international awards in recent years. Politiken has a social liberal and center-left stance, and is historically associated with the Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre), although no longer partisan.

More information about the event with Standing, “Borgerløn – Utopi eller Nødvendighed?” (“Basic Income: Utopia or Necessity?”), is available on the website of Politiken Live.


Reviewed by Dave Clegg

Photo (Copenhagen’s Nyhavn canal) CC BY-NC 2.0 Nico Trinkhaus

Matt Wilder, “Debating Basic Income: Distributive Justice and the Normative-Technical Nexus”

Matt Wilder, “Debating Basic Income: Distributive Justice and the Normative-Technical Nexus”

Matt Wilder, doctoral candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto, won first place in the 2016 Progressive Economics Forum (PEF) graduate student essay contest with his paper “Debating Unconditional Basic Income”.

A revised version of Wilder’s award-winning paper has recently been published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science.

Abstract:

Much of the literature on unconditional basic income considers reciprocity to be necessary for its success. From a normative standpoint, receiving without giving is unjust. From a technical standpoint, the absence of mechanisms that promote reciprocation invites free riding which threatens to erode the economic structure upon which the system of distribution depends. As a solution, it has been proposed that communities adopt social norms that encourage basic income recipients to contribute to the productive capacity of society by engaging in volunteer work. This article interrogates whether this alternative to conditionality is consistent with the rationale for implementing unconditional basic income and finds the instillation of stronger norms to be unnecessary for the project’s success.

Wilder uses data from the World Values Survey to establish his claim that stronger social norms are unnecessary to reduce the threat of freeriding, arguing that individuals with income security are already inclined to act altruistically.  

The PEF student essay contest is open to all Canadian students, with separate competitions for graduate and undergraduate students. The graduate competition carries a $1000 cash award for the first prize.

Wilder also won the 2014 PEF graduate student essay contest for “Internationalization and Variable Confluence in State-Assisted Economic Sectors: Lessons from Canada’s Experience Under Free Trade”.


Reviewed by Caroline Pearce

Photo: Soup kitchen in Montreal, CC BY 2.0 Gerry Lauzon

Dates announced for 2018 North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress

Dates announced for 2018 North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress

The 17th North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress will be held in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada from May 24-27, 2018.

The annual congress is co-hosted by BIEN’s two North American affiliates, the US Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) network and the Basic Income Canada Network (BICN), with locations alternating between the US and Canada. The 2017 congress was held in New York, New York, and drew more than 100 attendees and 50 speakers.

The location of the 2018 congress is notable as one of three sites of a guaranteed annual income pilot project launched by the provincial government of Ontario. The government is currently enrolling participants from the Hamilton, Brantford, and Brant County areas, as well as the Thunder Bay area. A third pilot will begin in the city of Lindsay later in 2017.

During the three-year experiment, individual participants will receive up to $16,989 per year unconditionally ($24,027 per year for couples), an amount of the payments was chosen as equivalent to 75% of the Low Income Measure in the province. The amount of the payments will be reduced by 50% of any additional earned income. (The ) Although distinct from a basic income, the program is similar insofar as it provides regular and unconditional cash payments to beneficiaries. (It differs in that the amount of transfers depends on income and household status.) The effect of the unconditional payments will be examined with respect to health (including mental health), food security, housing stability, education, and workforce participation.

BICN will provide more information about NABIG 2018 on its website and social media when available.    


Reviewed by Robert Gordon.

Photo: Albion Falls, Hamilton, Ontario CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 JP Newell