by Andre Coelho | Jun 12, 2019 | News, Research
According to a recent report (May 2019) by UCL Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), guaranteeing universal basic services (UBS), such as health care, education, child care, transportation and digital information, would be more beneficial to low income groups than universal basic income (UBI).
It is argued, in the referred report authored by Anna Coote, Pritika Kasliwal and Andrew Percy, that “extending public services is likely to be more effective in addressing poverty, inequality and wellbeing than unconditional cash payments to individuals”. That assertion is linked to a yet to be published article by Coote and Yazici called “Universal Basic Income, A literature review”, while the present report does not “consider the case for UBI in any depth”. The discussion defending UBS, in the report, seems then to be unilateral. However, cost considerations between the two systems, for the United Kingdom reality, have been done in a previous report (from 2017). From these calculations, the authors have reached the conclusion (stated after the 2019 report’s release) that UBS would cost around 10% less than UBI to implement in the country.
Andrew Percy, co-author of the report (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) and Citizen Sponsor at IGP, has said that “universal access to basic public services must be the foundation of 21st century welfare that delivers real social security, allows people to make meaningful choices about their work, and can be delivered in an affordable and practical way”, which doesn’t seem to pitch UBS against UBI. Others, like Will Stronge (Autonomy think tank) and Mathew Lawrence (Common Wealth think tank), explicitly consider UBI and UBS to be complementary in an evolving model for society.
Anna Coote. Picture credit to: Green European Journal
Anna Coote and co-author Edanur Yazici have also recently (April 2019) published another report (signing for the New Economic Foundation), entiled “Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective”, which clearly rejects UBI in favour of a UBS. That study has been published by the global trade union federation Public Services International (PSI), financially supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. This particular report was analysed by UBI activist Scott Santens, who has written that it is “a prime example of a disinformation campaign designed to manipulate public opinion against the idea of universal basic income”, and a “shameless propaganda” move.
The publication of the 2019 report on universal basic services, by the IPG, has also spurred a reaction in Guy Standing, a lifelong researcher, economist, author and activist for UBI. According to him, in an article published in Open Democracy, “there is no contradiction between having some public quasi-universal basic services and a basic income”. He adds, concluding, that these systems “address different needs and stem from different rationales. But having cash enhances freedom of choice, is potentially more empowering and can be more transformative. I plead with those advocating ‘Universal Basic Services’ to stop juxtaposing the idea of more and better public services with giving people basic income security.”
More information at:
Laurie MacFariane, “Universal services more effective than a Universal Basic Income, argues new report”, OpenDemocracy, May 16th 2019
Scott Santens, “‘Universal Basic Income Doesn’t Work’ Says New Prime Example of Fake News”, Medium, May 31st 2019
Guy Standing, “Why ‘Universal Basic Services’ is no alternative to Basic Income”, Open Democracy, June 6th 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 10, 2019 | News
The World Health Organization (WHO) is organizing a High-level Conference on Health Equity, happening on the 11–13th June 2019, in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Hosted by the Government of Slovenia, it will provide evidence and information on the solutions that can be implemented to reduce health inequalities and accelerate progress towards better health, well-being and prosperity for all in the European Region.
This conference will envolve public health and other senior government officials from throughout the European region, and will be condensed in a report which will also be available in Russian. It will also feature an extensive paper on basic income, authored by Louise Haagh and Barbara Rohregger, where basic income policies are analysed under the light of health effects and inequities.
by Andre Coelho | Jun 8, 2019 | News
Louise Haagh, presently Reader at the University of York, and Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), just released a new book, through Polity: The case for Universal Basic Income. A summary is featured on the editor’s page:
Advocated (and attacked) by commentators across the political spectrum, paying every citizen a basic income regardless of their circumstances sounds utopian. However, as our economies are transformed and welfare states feel the strain, it has become a hotly debated issue.
In this compelling book, Louise Haagh, one of the world’s leading experts on basic income, argues that Universal Basic Income is essential to freedom, human development and democracy in the twenty-first century. She shows that, far from being a silver bullet that will transform or replace capitalism, or a sticking plaster that will extend it, it is a crucial element in a much broader task of constructing a democratic society that will promote social equality and humanist justice. She uses her unrivalled knowledge of the existing research to unearth key issues in design and implementation in a range of different contexts across the globe, highlighting the potential and pitfalls at a time of crisis in governing and public austerity.
This book will be essential reading for anyone who wants to get beyond the hype and properly understand one of the most important issues facing politics, economics and social policy today.
Louise Haagh will be featured in several events and talks in the next few months, given this recent publication. These include Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Institute for Public Policy Research, University of Bath, BIEN Ireland, BIEN Congress in India, BIEN-RSA Civic Forum in Scotland, and at a range of local venues in the United Kingdom, for instance the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, Café Economique, and North Yorkshire Humanists, as well as internationally at the World Health Organisation‘s (WHO) High-level Conference on Health Equity in the WHO European Region, to be held in Slovenia.
More details can be found in an online Appendix.
by Andre Coelho | Jun 7, 2019 | News, Research
Apart from experimental designs testing basic income-like policies, in small scales, theoretical evidence keeps mounting, showing that basic income is not a pipe dream, but a practical reality within our reach. Published earlier this year, a new report issued by the Compass think tank demonstrates just that. It proposes two models for change in the British social security system, one that installs a partial basic income for a cost of 28 billion £/year (approximately the benefits cut per year since 2010), and another that would rise the unconditional transfer of the first model through the operation of a “citizens’ wealth fund”.
As a summary, it can be read in the report’s conclusions:
The to models presented satisfy the feasibility tests set out earlier. Both models:
- Are progressive: they raise the incomes of low-income households at the expense of those on the highest incomes, cut poverty and reduce inequality; the greatest benefits go to the poorest;
- Provide a basic income for all, while reducing the level of sanctions; Britain would finally have a secure income floor set to rise over time;
- Become more progressive and more powerful anti-poverty instruments as basic income payments rise;
- Help to correct the gender imbalance of the present system;
- Ensure that there are almost no losers among the poorest households
- Apply a new 15% rate of income tax, an additional 3% on each rate of income tax, and an extension of national insurance payments.
It is still worthy to say that the 28 million £/year figure cited above can be collected in a variety of ways, for instance reversing the freezing of diesel and petrol excise duties since 2010 (9 billion £/year), reversing cuts in corporate tax rates from 18 to 28% (26-28 billion £/year), reduce the number and value of tax reliefs (ex.: eliminating the “entrepreneur’s relief”, saving 2,7 billion £/year), phasing out financial support to home owners and private landlords (which mainly benefit property developers) (8 billion £/year), among other possibilities. All these imply reversing tax cuts and attributed benefits to the relatively wealthier members of British society, which makes them quite progressive measures.
More information at:
Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed, “Basic Income for All: From Desirability to Feasibility”, Compass, January 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 5, 2019 | News, Research
The reading of results from basic income type of experiments is, apparently, dependent on who is reading them. The Ontario present government officials did not think, for instance, that there were particular advantages or benefits from pursuing with the Ontario basic income experiment. The particulars of the Ontario (basic income) pilot cancellation have been extensively reported on (some examples below), so much so that a new report was published with some evidence of the benefits experienced by more than 400 participants, according to their responses. This may be another case of dissonance between government power and common citizens: what is felt by the latter as beneficial is discarded as ineffective and wasteful by the former. Why, then, was this basic income pilot program cancelled is a legitimate question one might ask, if the participants themselves felt it as a success.
For example, the baseline survey reported that at the start of the pilot 81% of participants were suffering from moderate to severe psychological stress); At the end over 70% had reported their mental state to have improved in several categories. This is attributed to having fewer financial worries such as debt. In addition, participants were apparently better able to buy edibles online canada and other treatments for their conditions, whereas before they may have refrained due to budget concerns. Due to the legalization of medical marijuana in several countries, such as the United States and Canada, many scientists are looking into the effects of CBD and cannabis. In terms of the physiological benefits of Cannabis, compounds like CBD seem to have anti-inflammatory properties, helping to relieve chronic muscle and joint pain. Nevertheless, when ingested, these effects might be amplified, so these relief properties could be felt in even greater strength with THC edibles that you can purchase from get kush or other such cannabis retailers online. There is growing evidence that CBD is an effective monotherapy or complementary therapy for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Cannabis (rather a chemical in the Cannabis sativa plant known as cannabidiol) may be helpful in reducing anxiety, the most common mental health issue. The information provided here is not intended as medical advice and it is highly recommended that one consults a health expert before consuming CBD products. This is merely intended as an overview various types of CBD commodities (such as CBD Oil UK) of that may be of assistance to people suffering from anxiety or stress.
Overall, the participant experience compiled in this report partly mirror that of Finland’s basic income-type experience first results: more agency, anxiety relief, more social connection and financial security. The majority started eating better, and were able to make plans for the future…which evaporated as soon as the pilot was cancelled by Doug Ford’s government. In numbers, answers returned the following results (from Basic Income Canada Network):
- 88% of respondents reported less stress and anxiety and 73% had less depression.
- 58% improved their housing situation;
- 34% found the basic income supported employment by affording transportation to work, child care or ability to start or expand a business;
- 32% of respondents were able to go back to school or upgrade skills (note that a majority of employed participants in the government baseline survey – recipients and control group – said they were in dead-end jobs);
- 74% were able to make healthy food choices and 28% stopped using food banks;
- 46% were able to pay off debt;
- 52% were able to see friends and family more often, 55% were physically more able to do activities, and 45% reported fewer health problems;
- Many respondents talked about working hard their whole lives, often at multiple jobs, but never really having a life, until basic income made that possible.
More information at:
Kate McFarland, “ONTARIO, CANADA: New Government Declares Early End of Guaranteed Income Experiment“, Basic Income News, August 2nd 2018
Sara Bizarro, “Ontario, Canada: Reactions to Ontario Basic Income Pilot Cancelation“, Basic Income News, September 18th 2018
Daniel Fabbri, “Four Ontario Mayors asking the Federal Government to take over the Basic Income Pilot“, Basic Income News, September 30th 2018
André Coelho, “Canada: Ontario’s basic income experiment ended, but the ground is fertile for more pilots“, Basic Income News, December 22nd 2018
Sheila Rogehr and Joli Scheidler-Benns, “Signposts to Success: report of a BICN Survey of Ontario Basic Income Recipients“, Basic Income Canada Network, February 2019
André Coelho, “When a few drops of rain allow flowers to blossom: Finland’s basic income experiment generates its preliminary results“, Basic Income News, February 16th 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 3, 2019 | News
Just before the latest European Parliament (EP) elections, held on the 23-26th of May 2019, the Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBIE) activist group sent out a questionnaire to be answered by candidates, on the subject of basic income. The questions asked for their position on the European social policies, whether they would support European Union (EU) basic income experiments, and if they would vote in favour of a Eurodividend. That questionnaire was inserted in an introductory letter, to be sent to all EP candidates, written by Daniel Kruse.
Only a fraction of EP candidates actually responded, but those that did can find their answers posted here. These views, reflecting the opinions of these candidates from Belgium, Germany, Greece and Ireland, are mostly in favour of experimenting and implementing an EU-wide basic income, with a few variations. For instance, Olivier De Schutter argues that basic income should start for the youngsters, namely those between 18 and 25 years-old, fixed at 60% of the median income of their country. On the other hand, however, Olivier Maingain points out that paying a monthly basic dividend to all EU citizens is not within EU’s powers, at the moment.
Willie O’Dea, from the Fianna Fáil party in Ireland (which had also setup a candidate for the EP elections, Brendan Smith), had written, not long before these EP elections, an opinion article expressing his views on basic income, within a European perspective. In that article, O’Dea also takes the opportunity to clarify a few important aspects about the Finnish (basic income) experiment, linking its design features to its published results until now. According to him, these results are not surprising, given the way the experiment was setup, but are still encouraging, since he considers the social well-being of people to be “real and measurable tangible benefits”.
More information at:
Willie O’Dea, “Universal income pilot could point to a fairer future”, Independent.IE, April 7th 2019
