by Citizens' Income Trust | Feb 13, 2015 | Opinion
Tony Fitzpatrick, Climate Change and Poverty: A new agenda for developed nations, Policy Press, 2014, x + 259 pp, hbk, 1 44730 087 8, £70, pbk, 1 44730 086 1, £24.99
Tony Fitzpatrick’s claim in this book is that climate change turns the tackling of poverty into a new agenda, for developed countries as well as for developing ones, because in developed countries such as the UK climate change exacerbates poverty and poverty has an impact on climate change.
The author defines poverty as:
a form of injustice, denoting a relative lack of those resources needed to ensure a minimal standard of living, equal opportunities, mutual social respect and participative inclusion in a society’s way of life, and without which it is difficult to flourish, to fulfil one’s potential and to achieve or sustain a decent level of wellbeing. Poverty is characterised by socioeconomic conditions that empower those who monopolise key resources at the expense of those who do not, such that poor individuals are disrespected by, for instance, being held responsible for social circumstances they did not create and over which they have limited control. (pp.11-12)
Fitzpatrick therefore parts company with a ‘capabilities’ approach to poverty, which regards as context-specific the capabilities required by someone if they are to experience such basic ‘functionings’ as sufficient food, shelter and health. Fitzpatrick’s argument is that both social and natural environments require a ‘just distribution of material and economic resources’ (pp.25, 34). It is adequate resources that make capabilities possible.
Fitzpatrick again links the natural with the social when he defines ‘ecosocial poverty’ as
falling below some decent minimum access to, ownership of and control over key socionatural resources due to malfunctioning social institutions and systems. (p.53)
Socionatural resources, such as land, take up space, so
ecosocial poverty implies an ecospatial deprivation, that is, an alienation and exclusion from (1) the socionatural resources dispersed across space, and (2) space as a distinct resource that shapes the life course of individuals and the value and distributions of those socionatural resources. (p.73)
Similarly, ecosocial poverty is time poverty: time overcontrolled by others, or time of poor quality, characterised by enforced inactivity or by lousy jobs. Fragmented space and time are at the heart of the ecosocial poverty that Fitzpatrick is discussing.
The second part of the book tackles particular ecosocial policies: energy and fuel poverty (both transitions to renewable energy sources and the protection of poor people’s access to energy are essential); food and food poverty (health-promoting regulation of the food industry is required, not denigration of the poor for unhealthy eating habits); land, housing, urban density, transport, flooding, and waste (rent-seeking in the property market has created both urban sprawl and housing poverty, and land value tax could be part of the solution); air and water quality ( – complex issues: any expansion of water-metering will require that poor people should be protected; and both air pollution and climate change can and should be tackled together).
Fitzpatrick’s conclusion is that ecosocial poverty
is something that can only be addressed through new forms of economic organisation and growth which are socially inclusive and egalitarian, deriving from renewable, low carbon sources of energy and dedicated to the restoration of natural environments that have been destroyed or eroded in the modern era. (p.214)
While Fitzpatrick’s agenda in this book is the resources that take up space, our access to those resources is mediated through a financial system, the characteristics of which influence the different levels and types of access to those resources that different people enjoy or suffer.
Any readers who wish to pursue that related agenda might with profit refer to the same author’s Freedom and Security: An introduction to the Basic Income debate (Macmillan, 1999), where he recommends ‘a Green policy package’ that would ‘include not only [a Citizen’s Income] but also land and energy taxes, working-time reductions and the expansion of informal exchanges in the third sector’, with the Citizen’s Income seen not as one of a number of ingredients, but as ‘the instrument by which that package is constructed in the first place’ (Freedom and Security, p.201).
Readers might also appreciate a recent essay by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett: A Convenient Truth: A better society for us and the planet (Fabian Society, 2014) in which they connect environmental sustainability and greater economic equality. In their view the required sustained increases in equality could be generated by greater workplace democracy, but they also recommend both a Citizen’s Income and a land value tax.
Both social justice and environmental sustainability are essential. Both deserve more discussion, and they deserve to be discussed together. Both Fitzpatrick’s and Wilkinson’s and Pickett’s recent books will help us to do that.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Feb 6, 2015 | Opinion
Bob Deacon, Global Social Policy in the Making: The foundations of the social protection floor, Policy Press, 2013, xii + 218 pp, 1 4473 1233 8, hbk, £70, 1 4473 1234 5, pbk, £24.99
In a world in which so many bad things happen, and in which so much media and academic reporting is of bad news, it is a real pleasure to read a good news story well told: for that is what this book is – a well-written report of a piece of very good news: that in 2012 the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the G20 agreed a proposal for global social protection floors (adapted to the circumstances of each country).
So the book is in effect a single extended case study: and as the story is told we discover the internal dynamics of the ILO and of other international organisations, the relationships between the international institutional actors, and the other influences that led to the recommendation.
Of particular interest is a handful of individuals whose personal interests were particularly significant as the social protection floor policy evolved. Some of these individuals were in leadership positions in the ILO, but some were simply in significant positions in the organisation at the right time to reinforce existing trends. So, for instance, Deacon charts how an appreciation of the benefits of universal social provision had re-emerged as a neoliberal means-tested safety-net stance began to reveal its disbenefits, and how an influence on this process was Guy Standing’s work as head of a relevant departmental subsection. But however significant individuals might have been, the logic of the changing context comes across as an even more significant factor. The ILO’s focus was, and still is, on ‘labour’, so social insurance schemes have understandably received more attention than other social security provision. The increasing precarity of the labour market (another focus of Guy Standing’s work) has revealed the inadequacy of social insurance as the only or main social security mechanism, and has also revealed the benefits that universal benefits and services might offer.
Much of the book is about which organisation did or said what, and if this kind of narrative does not interest you then by all means skim some of this material: but don’t miss the way in which individuals, context and alliances can generate significant change within organisations such as the ILO; and don’t miss the ways in which one changing organisation can, in the midst of a changing social and economic context, contribute to change in other organisations – including the World Bank, where a process of change was facilitated by a change of leadership at the same time as the context and the ILO were changing.
The case study is of course a particular one, but it offers more general lessons, and Deacon is right to suggest that the study provides evidence for an ‘ASIP’ understanding of social policy formation: ‘agency, structure, institutions and discourses’ (p.143). If all four factors are moving in the same direction then policy might well change.
Social policy both will and must become more global: it will, because organisations that relate closely to each other increasingly behave like each other; and it must, because labour market, economic and social change will continue to be influenced by globalisation and by global financial institutions. This book is an excellent preparation for further study of globalising social policy, not only of the specific principles represented by the social protection floor recommendation – ‘universality of protection, based on social solidarity; entitlement to benefits prescribed by national law; non-discrimination …’ etc. (p.98) – but also of the factors affecting a direction of travel.
The story related here suggests a trajectory in the direction of universal provision. It will be interesting to see whether the trajectory can be maintained; and also whether the lessons will be learnt in relation to social security benefits. Increasing labour market precarity means that social insurance schemes will be increasingly irrelevant; the disincentives and other disbenefits of means-tested systems will be increasingly obvious; and universal benefits will be increasingly relevant. If this discourse becomes more widespread, if sufficient numbers of people in significant positions understand it, and if institutions and structures find themselves moving in more universalist directions, then we could well see a Citizen’s Income either nationally or regionally sooner than we might think.
by Unconditional Basic Income Europe | Jan 31, 2015 | Opinion
The European Central Bank’s attempt to counter-attack deflationary pressure by giving banks funds raised through QE is doomed to be both ineffective and anti-redistributive. The ECB must consider more unconventional policies if it hopes to get the real economy going again.
Press release by our affiliate Unconditional Basic Income Europe (january 23, 2015)
Update November 2015:
UBI-Europe is one of the 20 organisations that have joined the campaign “Quantitative Easing for People.” Citizens and organisations can join the campaign here: www.qe4people.eu
At the announcement of its quantitative easing program yesterday, the ECB showed that it has learned nothing from recent quantitative easing programs in the UK and the US, where the effects of QE on the real economy has produced no significant results.
“The experience of the US shows that QE is useful to the real economy only when they are combined with expansionary fiscal policies. In Europe, the idea is to combine QE with austerity policies, guaranteed to offset any potential benefits of QE. So, in the absence of a radical change in the eurozone’s fiscal stance, we expect the depression to continue.” said Thomas Fazis, member of UBI-Europe, referring to the conclusion of a recent paper he wrote.
Quantitative Easing is anti-redistributive
At its worst, such a program could increase inequalities. As the Bank of England itself concluded in a recent research paper (pdf): “By pushing up a range of asset prices, asset purchases have boosted the value of households’ financial wealth held outside pension funds, but holdings are heavily skewed with the top 5% of households holding 40% of these assets.”
In short: this QE benefits the rich, not the poor.
There is an alternative: Quantitative Easing for the People
Unconditional Basic Income Europe calls the ECB for an alternative monetary policy such as distributing QE money directly to the pockets of citizens.
“QE for the people is not just a more efficient approach for directly stimulating the real economy, it is also more fair in the current context of deep social inequalities and the rise of extreme poverty in the eurozone. By doing so, the ECB could target two objectives at once.” Thomas Fazi said.
This might sound radical, yet many economists such as Anatole Kaletsky and Steve Keen have backed the idea.
Several proposals for such a policy have emerged recently, notably from Oxford economist John Muellbauer and the chief European economist for the French investment bank Natixis, Sylvain Broyer. Muellbauer calls distributing 500€ to every citizen in the Eurozone, while Broyer’s proposal amounts to 3,000€.
The amount of QE money unveiled yesterday by the ECB could, alternatively, fund a €2100 annual cheque to all residents of the eurozone.
“Such a policy could be a pragmatic, direct pathway towards an unconditional basic income for all in the eurozone. It would set a precedent.” UBI-Europe’s coordinator Stanislas Jourdan said. “Where citizens can be counted on to spend, banks have not shown with previous QE programmes that they can be counted on to lend.”
Quantitative Easing for the People would not violate EU Treaties
“As opposed to having the ECB financing governments and public entities, handing cash directly to the citizens is not explicitly prohibited by the EU Treaties.” Thomas Fazi explained.
Moreover, such a program would be far more protective of the independence of the ECB. By targeting the quantitative easing money to all citizens without distinction, the institution could not be blamed for interfering with governments.
by Liam Upton | Jan 18, 2015 | Opinion
This is an interview with Nick Barlow, founder of the ‘Liberal Democrats for Basic Income’ group, you can read an article about the group here.
BINews: What stage is the Basic Income Liberal Democrat group at now and where do you see it going in the next 5 or so years?
Nick Barlow: We’re still very much at the coming together stage (top tip: don’t try organising a new group just before the Christmas break) and about getting the idea out there and discussed.(see this article for instance). There’s no formal structure to the group yet beyond an email list and a Facebook group, but people are joining up.
Realistically, I think the key time for basic income supporters in the party is going to be after the general election, when I think people will be looking at how we move forward and develop the party in the coming years. I would hope that in some point within the next couple of years we’d be able to take a proposal to party conference to be debated.
BINews: What makes you think the Liberal Democrats are particularly suited to adopt the policy of Basic Income?
Nick: First, because it was party policy before between 1990 and 94, and it was also suggested and discussed (usually alongside Land Value Tax) in the old Liberal Party.
I think there’s a need for a liberalism in the twenty-first century that understands a lot more has to be done to ensure positive liberty. For me, a basic income is a way of ensuring that basic level of provision for everyone which enables them to be free and to give them power. If we are serious about freeing people from poverty, ignorance and conformity – the party’s purpose, according to its constitution – then a basic income is one of the best ways of doing that.
BINews: What steps do you think are necessary for the idea to gain traction within the party and eventually be adopted?
Nick: First, I think we need to build awareness and challenge some of the preconceptions against basic income. A lot of people (in the party and society as a whole) just aren’t aware of the idea, so there’s work to be done in making people realise it is possible. In a wider sense, I think there needs to be a wider discussion about the future of the party and how people see liberalism. Basic income is just one idea that the party could adopt if it wants to be different, but we first have to answer the question of whether we strike out and be different, or just go for a centrist position.
BINews: Do you envisage it being adopted by the party within the next 10-15 years?
Nick: I think it’s entirely possible it could be adopted by the party within five years, if the party is willing to try a new direction.
BINews: What impact do you think the adoption of Basic Income would have on support for the party?
Nick: It’s very hard to say, because there’d obviously be a lot of negative publicity from the mainstream press, especially given the current coverage of anything to do with benefits, but it would open up a lot of potential new support (and reclaimed old support) who are people interested in doing things differently, As a key idea to show how we’re different from the big two parties, it would stand out, but the party would have to be willing to take the flak that comes with it in order to stand out.
If you look back at the party’s manifesto in 1992, basic income (Citizen’s Income as it was branded then) wasn’t just one policy, it was part of a wide-ranging set of policies that would have reshaped the whole relationship between the individual and the state. It was that commitment to doing things differently that I think helped rally the party from the low points of the late 80s and helped it recover.
BINews: Do you see the idea of Basic Income becoming a mainstream idea in British politics in the near future?
Nick: I think it’s unlikely in the short term, just because of the sheer level of demonisation the very concept of benefits is receiving at the moment. I think to get more widespread acceptance of basic income needs not just that to change, but for people to be more aware of how the way the economy works has changed. I’ve written before about the concept of ‘workism’, and how we fetishise the idea of people having to work, and that’s deeply rooted in our culture.
Basic income isn’t just a small adjustment to the system, it’s about a much more fundamental change than other policies, and to make it mainstream means a whole lot of wider attitudes need to change. To get back to the point, one of the reasons for looking to start a Liberal Democrats for Basic Income group was to help promote the debates and discussions we need to have, and keep having, to get the idea more widespread attention. Shifting widely-held attitudes takes a long time and a lot of conversations.
by Stanislas Jourdan | Dec 1, 2014 | Opinion
Yoland Bresson (1942-2014), one of the prominent advocate for basic income in France passed away during the summer.
A tribute by Jacques Berthillier originally published in French. Translated and adapted by Stanislas Jourdan.
In 1971, Yoland Bresson worked as an economist for the Concorde aircraft project, and observes a surprising fact: those who have more control over time and personal schedule are those with more financial resources (and those who are more likely to book flights on Concorde airlines). Moreover, people’s resources increase over time because freedom and time allow to take advantage from commercial discounts, and get access to social conditions which allow to escape from constrained social time.
Yoland started to dedicated himself into studying those notions until he found the theory linking spare time with income, which he published in 1981, and developped in the book ‘Post-Salariat’ in 1984. A conclusion emerged from this theory: the value of time is the value of the minimum income, the poverty line from which individuals become economically integrated. Therefore, we should distribute to people the monetary equivalent of the unit of time.
In 1986, Yoland Bresson was invited by Philippe van Parijs to participate to the very first meeting in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) where BIEN was founded.
Later on, he was contacted by Henri Guitton, reknown economist and very enthusiast reader of Bresson’s books. They decided together to found a working group around those concepts. After a series of meetings at the Polytechnic University, the “association for an existence income” (AIRE) was created. They insisted on the notion of ‘income’ as opposed to ‘allocation’ [allowance] because an income is linked with the contribution to the creation of wealth, while a social allwoance is refers to the notion of assistance. Indeed, every single exchange of time contributed to the creation of wealth, as Bresson proclaimed.
First, Henri Guitton was president of the AIRE, then Yoland Bresson replaced him after Guitton died. The association was striving for the instauration of an ‘existence income’, it explored the idea in order for all citizens and politicians to embrace it.
Since then, the AIRE kept spreading the idea. It notably organised a BIEN Congress at Paris Saint-Maur in 1992, a colloque at Cedias on june 12th 1996, and two other ones at the French National Assembly: one on November 26th, 1998, with more than 300 participants. Finally; and the second one on june 23rd 2004 with the sponsorship from Christine Boutin (Christian-Democrats leader).
In 2012, when the European Citizens’ Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income started to be organised, Bresson immediatly supported the efforts deployed by a new generation of activists. He partners his association with the launch of a new website revenudebase.info which resulted in the creation of the French Movement for a Basic Income, a new association which broadly federates all those who push for the idea of a basic income. Yoland Bresson had the wisdom and open-mindness necessary to trust the young new blood who made the movement grow.
Yoland Bresson also played an international role in the promotion of basic income, notably through his interventions in the french-speaking african countries, and until recently in Bulgaria. Shortly before he died on august 22nd 2014, he was invited for a conference at the Polish Parliament.
His contribution as an economist also include his last proposal: the creation of a eurofranc, a new national currency complementary with the euro currency. His idea was to unleash the possibility to finance a basic income with money creation, without transgressing the Lisbon Treaty – which would result in leaving the eurozone. Such scheme was set to be temporary, allowing a smooth transition for the introducion of a basic income.
If this very innovative (and even revolutionary) proposal was adopted, the introduction of a basic income would be facilitated, and the economic activity would be simultaneously stiumulated.
Following Yoland Bresson’s decease, we have received a very large number of letters expressing sympathy, esteem and gratitude to Yoland and his family. It would not be possible to publish all of them, but there is one we would like to communicate. The one from BIEN’s founder Philippe van Parijs:
Yoland was present at the founding Assembly of BIEN in 1986. Until now he remained a loyal camarade of thoughts and struggle. Like others before and after him, he passed away without witnessing the achievement of a proposal he kept believing. Nonetheless, the day when his country as elsewhere eventually will implement the basic income, we will owe him and others with such personalities »
by Stanislas Jourdan | Nov 25, 2014 | Opinion
Last month, the Icelandic Pirate Party made a significant move in order to create discussion in Iceland about basic income by submitting a resolution to the national parliament. While the proposed resolution remains to be discussed, we have contacted its author Halldóra Mogensen, Deputy MP of the Pirate Party of Iceland in order to get to know more about her initiative.
Can you tell us more about the Icelandic context in regards to basic income?
There is very little awareness of the ideas behind the unconditional basic income (UBI) in Iceland. There are a couple of groups that I know of that have put UBI on their agenda. One is Alda, Association for Sustainability and Democracy, the other is the Icelandic Humanist Party which ran in the 2013 national elections.
The best literature I have come across so far on UBI in Icelandic is a bachelors essay (pdf) written in 2013 by Bragi Þór Antoníusson. The essay looks at the UBI from an Icelandic point of view and attempts to calculate costs and benefits of introducing such a system in Iceland. The calculations however were incomplete due to the lack of transparency in government accounts.
I recently sat in parliament for two weeks as a deputy for Pirate Party MP Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson and used the opportunity to, amongst other things, ask the health minister and the housing and welfare minister for a written account of the total operational costs of the entire welfare system. The answers will help give us a better idea of the feasibility of introducing a UBI in Iceland.
Why is the Icelandic Pirate Party interested in the idea of basic income – and how did you come up with this resolution?
There are other Icelandic Pirates who are very interested in UBI ideas but it has never really been discussed on any proper channels within the party. I am a proponent of taking an holistic approach in all issues. As a society I feel we spend too much time and effort treating symptoms when we should be looking at the root disease causing these symptoms. I feel UBI has the possibility of addressing the root cause of the inequality and dysfunctional democracy we face as a society.
When I received the news of my short entrance into parliament my original thought was to write a speech about poverty and inequality and to touch upon the subject of UBI as a possible solution when Aðalheiður Ámundadóttir, human rights lawyer and employee of the Icelandic Pirate Party, suggested that I write a proposal instructing the housing and welfare minister along with the finance minister to put together a team to research the UBI idea. I delved into the project and rallied together individuals who have been writing about UBI in Iceland and sought out their help in writing the proposal (here on the parliament’s website).
What sort of reactions have you received so far?
Mostly curiosity, especially from other MP’s. Apart from Pirates MP’s who were very enthusiastic about the idea, other Icelandic MPs were very hesitant to sponsor the proposal but found the idea to be interesting and positive. No one I spoke with had heard of UBI before, and that most likely explains their hesitation. Hopefully the proposal will spark an interest in gathering more information on the subject.
What are the chance for the resolution to pass?
I have to admit that I am not incredibly hopeful that the proposal will pass, it might never even go to the vote. The first step in the process is for me to speak on behalf of the proposal in parliament after which time it will go to a committee to be discussed. The committee will then decide whether the proposal gets put through to a parliamentary discussion. After two rounds of spoken discussions there could be a vote.
This being said the main goal of writing this proposal was to start the conversation, not only in parliament but in the community. I wanted people to get acquainted with the ideas behind the UBI and start the conversation in Iceland, and to me this was the first step on that journey.
Can you tell us more on how you got into the idea of basic income?
I really cant remember how I got into the idea of basic income. I read a lot and spend time around strange, radical minded people I guess! I have enjoyed following the discussion going on in Europe and seeing the idea gaining support. I was very excited to see UBI being discussed in The Economist, going into the main stream is a big step. I am also very hopeful for the Swiss elections on a basic income. All of this international coverage seeps into the Icelandic conversation but there is a need for more literature in Icelandic. I hope to see this happen in the near future as the idea gains support.
Halldóra Mogensen, thank you!
Tony Fitzpatrick, Climate Change and Poverty: A new agenda for developed nations, Policy Press, 2014, x + 259 pp, hbk, 1 44730 087 8, £70, pbk, 1 44730 086 1, £24.99
