by Ian Orton | Nov 12, 2013 | Research
This article, in the New Statesman, criticizes the ineffectiveness of quantitative easing [QE] in the UK and how it has benefited the banking sector and the richest. It suggest the amount spent so far of 375bn could have be ‘given instead as around £6,000 per man, woman and child in the UK. So why not electronically add this to the current accounts of every member of the public? Why not give the QE money directly to ordinary people to spend, save or pay off their debts?’ In 2009, Australia actually did something similar when the global crisis hit, giving one-off cash payments to low- and middle- income groups, particularly pensioners and cash constrained families (ISSA, 2010). This helped soften the impact of the crisis and generated significant positive multiplier effects.
Mehdi Hasan, “We could fix our economy by giving every man, woman and child £6,000 in cash”. New Statesman, October 25, 2013.
For more information about the 2009 Australian payments see also:
ISSA, “Australia’s successful income-led response to the crisis”. ISSA, 2010.
by Ian Orton | Nov 10, 2013 | Research
The Economist
The evidence that simply giving cash to the poor and vulnerable households is successful is well accepted by those familiar with the BI. Elsewhere, in more mainstream debate this recognition has lagged somewhat behind the empirical evidence, until now where a change seems to be afoot. A recent article in The Economist: “Cash to the poor: Pennies from heaven” charts both the origins of cash transfers (both in their unconditional and conditional forms), and most importantly gives its seal of approval that giving cash, when combined with wider measures, is an effective way forward for addressing inequality and poverty.
The article reaffirms the overwhelming evidence that giving cash improves key human development incomes (increased vaccinations and school attendance/attainment), spending money on improved living conditions, bolsters psychological well being (e.g. reduced levels of the stress hormone cortisone in the blood of recipients), depicts positively the capabilities of the poor by illustrating how transfers unlock and resource their economic potential, resulting in increased micro-economic activity and entrepreneurialism.
However, the article goes far beyond this, showing a nuanced understanding of the different outcomes generated by the incentives of soft and tough conditions (the latter credited with giving more significant results); the fact that pilot projects or one-off basic income-type transfers from Google or Facebook (as has occurred recently via ‘GiveDirectly’ in Kenya), might distort relations between recipient and non-recipient villages therefore skewing regional developmental goals. Moreover, from a Real Politick position the article also recognises the important strategic complementarity between conditions and cash and therefore political viability: conditions are the easiest way to assure political support by reassuring middle-class taxpayers that the poor are not violating the ‘norm of reciprocity’ through something-for-nothingism. And perhaps most importantly it lends weight to emerging concerns about the tendency of politicians and media to transform ‘shame’ and cash transfers into an ironclad collocation, especially in OECD countries, by dispelling this idea: ‘[UCTs] dent the stereotype of poor people as inherently feckless and ignorant’. In short, the article represents something of a popular breakthrough in legitimising cash transfers, whether they be unconditional or the ‘soft’ and ‘tough’ conditional variants.
The Economist, “Cash to the poor, Pennies from heaven: Giving money directly to poor people works surprisingly well. But it cannot deal with the deeper causes of poverty”, The Economist, October 26, 2013.
by Yannick Vanderborght | Nov 9, 2013 | Research
WMCW International Plan of Action
[Aynur Bashirov]
The article published in the World Movement of Christian Workers (WMCW), talks about their meeting with the motto of “conducting a more just, fraternal, and sustainable society” where they decided that in order to reach the outcome of their motto, they need conduct a Universal Basic Income (UBI) awareness campaign. Analyses by many WMCW delegates around the World showed that many families living on Earth are living in poverty and do not have even the minimum means to make their ends. In the light of the current crisis, argues the article, there is a growing unemployment and inability to offer jobs and these problems cannot be tackled by current economic policies. There is a need to offer something different, such as UBI, which is, as its name suggests, universal (offered without condition to everyone) and basic (enough to fulfill basic necessities). The UBI is already on the agenda of several international institutions such as United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU).
Charo Castelló “WMCW International Plan of Action ‘for a Universal Basic Income’.” World Movement of Christian Workers, 18th September 2013.
by Yannick Vanderborght | Nov 8, 2013 | Research
[Craig Axford]
Switzerland’s successful effort to place a basic income guarantee (BIG) on the ballot would put “a floor under people’s income” according to Karl Widerquist of Georgetown University. BIG is “the idea that income doesn’t have to start at zero.” No date has yet been set for Switzerland’s BIG vote.
“$2750 A Month For Every Adult, Guaranteed? Switzerland’s Considering It”, Segacious News Network/PRI, October 23, 2013:
by Yannick Vanderborght | Nov 7, 2013 | Research
Tom Boland, TheJournal.ie
Switzerland is considering the introduction of a Basic Income scheme, which would guarantee a standard benefit income to every citizen, regardless of need. Tom Boland looks at how that system would work in Ireland. Tom Boland lectures in Sociology at Waterford Institute of Technology, and is co-ordinator of the Waterford Unemployment Experiences Research Collaborative.
Tom Boland, “Column: Should every citizen receive an unconditional basic income?” TheJournal.ie, October 30, 2013.
by Karl Widerquist | Nov 5, 2013 | Research
[Craig Axford]
In this blog the author questions the conventional standards of reciprocity. Recent economic downturns have left too many people seeking opportunities to reciprocate by ‘contributing’ in the usual way, via a traditional job. BIG will empower people to contribute through volunteerism or to more effectively democratically challenge society.
David Jenkins, “Why Reciprocity Might be Bullshit,” Basic Income UK, October 14, 2013.
Basic Income UK
