by Karl Widerquist | Sep 23, 2015 | Research
ABSTRACT: This article examines the potential to tackle the roots of inequality by the introduction of one or more social wealth funds. Such funds would aim to capture some of the financial gains from the private ownership of capital—a principal driver of inequality—and use the proceeds for wider community benefit, such as investment in social infrastructure. In recent decades a number of countries have introduced a variant on such funds, mostly taking the form of state-owned sovereign wealth funds resourced through the exploitation of oil, and used for a diversity of economic purposes. In contrast, the UK has failed to take the opportunity to create such funds by, for example, reinvesting the revenue from the sales of public assets. So would it be possible to build one or more such collectively owned funds in the UK, and if so, how should they be financed? As well as funding social investment and anti-inequality programmes, could such a scheme also help finance a regular Citizen’s Dividend payment or a Citizen’s Income scheme?
Stewart Lansley, “How Social Wealth Funds Could Help Tackle Inequality.” The Political Quarterly Volume 86, issue 4, 2015.
The Political Quarterly
by Andre Coelho | Sep 10, 2015 | News, Research
After the resounding commercial and critical success of Thomas Piketty’s book “Capital in the twenty-first century”, the author himself responded, in the form of an article in the latest release of Basic Income Studies, to critics and to proponents of Basic Income (BI). As Michael Howard puts it in the introductory paper of the referred edition of Basic Income Studies, “he is wary (…) of treating a cash transfer as a ’magic bullet’.”. However, Thomas Piketty has been a defender of progressive taxation and some forms of BI ever since 1997, particularly the negative income tax (NIT). Although he remains consistent with his prior views on the role of the welfare state, he supports “universal cash transfers for dependent children” and “basic income for all adults with insufficient market income.” Nevertheless despite disagreements, he views basic income as a valid subject of discussion.
In the same Basic Income Studies volume, other authors discuss Piketty’s book from various perspectives. For instance George Grantham evaluates whether Piketty’s view can be reconciled with mainstream economics, while acknowledging that capitalism is surely compatible with a modest basic income. Also Louise Haagh in her article underscores, like Piketty, that BI is not a magic bullet, but indeed an important component for a progressive agenda which promotes social equality and development. In turn, Karl Widerquist stresses that not only entrepreneurs have a tendency to become rentiers but also that inequality depends both on the difference between the rate of return of capital and growth rate of the economy (the famous “r > g” inequality) but also on how much capitalists actually spend in the economy. He adds that, besides progressive taxation, resource taxes should also be imposed, coupled with some form of resource dividend or basic income.
All these authors, among some others that also shared their views on “Capital in the twenty-first century” in the latest issue of Basic Income Studies (Ruben Lo Vuolo, Geoff Crocker and Harry Dahms), essentially agree that social problems are caused by inequality and that new forms of redistribution (or reinforcement of present forms) are essential to restore social balance, or at least reduce inequality for the time being. In the background, remaining to be addressed is the dark cloud of political control, at the moment very much tilted towards the wealthiest members in our society.
Basic Income Studies (cover)
More information at:
Thomas Piketty, “Le Capital au XXIe siècle [Capital in the twenty-first century]“, Catalogue Sciences Humaines et Documents SEUIL.com, September 2013
Ed. by Haagh, Anne-Louise / Howard, Michael, “Basic Income Studies“, De Gruyter, 2015
Credit picture CC Universitat Pompeu Fabra
by BIEN | Sep 7, 2015 | Research
This report examines the impact of an emergency cash grant distributed by churches in Namibia modeled on the Basic Income Grant Pilot in Otjivero. During the 2012/2013 summer months, the precipitation deficits varied between 20% and 90%, which resulted in one of the worst recorded droughts in Namibia that left 36% of the population food insecure. The cash grant’s impact was significant and life saving. During the baseline, 63% of people involved suffered from insufficient food daily or at least once a week. Following the grant, 77% of people did not lack food during the month Individuals used the remaining 40% of the money to meet health related expenditure, to invest in schooling and farming. Prior to the project, about 60% surveyed preferred cash over food aid or fodder for the animals, after five months of receiving the grant, this figure rose to nearly 95%.
Claudia and Dirk Haarmann, “Relief through cash: Impact assessment of the emergency cash grant in Namibia” BIG Coalition Namibia, July 2015.
by Josh Martin | Sep 5, 2015 | Research
This task force report on democracy, economic security, and social justice in a volatile world considers three promising democratic innovations, among which is the formulation of economic citizenship. Among the suggested routes to achieve economic citizenship was the implementation of a universal basic income scheme.
American Political Science Association, “Democratic Imperatives: Innovations in Rights, Participation, and Economic Citizenship: Report of the Task Force on Democracy, Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile World”, April 2012.
by Toru Yamamori | Aug 18, 2015 | Research
Sascha Liebermann (2015) Aus dem Geist der Demokratie: Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen [In the Spirit of Democracy: Unconditional Basic Income],
Publisher: Humanities Online, Frankfurt, Germany 2015
This book addresses a wide audience of people interested in basic income and tries to shed light on the “revolving effect” a UBI would have on all aspects of our lives. The chapters are based on blog posts which the author has published in the last seven years on www.freiheitstattvollbeschaeftigung.de. These posts have been completely revised, updated and adapted to the book format. The chapters deal with democracy, socialization, early childhood, education (from crèche via kindergarten to school and university), family, demography, economics, automatization, social work, welfare state as well as other topics.
by Josh Martin | Aug 6, 2015 | Research
Skidelsky, a distinguished academic in history and economics, writes on the Conservative government in the UK and their budget that was released in early July. They plan to cut £12 billion in welfare, with £9 billion of that coming from cuts in tax credits, which are in place to help working families reach some semblance of a living income. While the government plans to raise the minimum wage, Skidelsky worries that such a policy re-emphasizes the importance of income generated by labour in a time when automation looks set to make millions of jobs redundant. Instead, Skidelsky believes a basic income is necessary as labour markets shift.
Robert Skidelsky, “Minimum Wage or Living Income?”, Project Syndicate, 16 July 2015.
