by Leire Rincon | Apr 19, 2020 | Opinion
Cash-for-corona: why the current policy proposal being discussed in Spain has nothing to do with a universal basic income
This article was updated on the 19th April 2020
Since the outbreak of coronavirus and the subsequent social and economic lockdown, there have been numerous appeals from economists, journalists, public figures and policy makers, that the time was ripe for the implementation of a universal basic income. However, the media and public discussion of the imminent need for a universal basic income does not resonate with the measures which are currently being discussed for implementation to tackle the economic crisis derived from the coronavirus pandemic.
In Spain, there has been recent discussion to implement a minimum living income (ingreso minimo vital, IMV, in spanish) as a means of alleviating the economic downturn that is approaching. Some media outlets (see for instance the posts in Bloomberg, the independent, Business Insider, The Local, or Forbes) have used the concept of a universal basic income, instead of a minimum income, to repot the current policy proposals being discussed in Spain. The term basic income was even used by a Spanish journalist in an interview with the third Vice-president of the Spanish government, Nadia Calviño, when she asked her about the minimum income policy that is currently being discussed.
The media’s inaccurate portrayal of Spain’s minimum income policy is not only causing confusion amongst the general population or public opinion, but is also misleading political leaders. Some British members of parliament for instance have tweeted about the possibility that Spain will be introducing a universal basic income. See for instance, Rebecca Long Bailey, sharing the Morning Star’s news post, Douglas Chapman’s tweet, or Dr Philippa Whitford, sharing the Independent’s post.
Despite the media’s insistence in using the label of a basic income, the current policy in question is far from a universal and unconditional policy as such. Although the Spanish government is still considering the implementation details, Minister of Social Security and Migration, José Luis Escrivà confirmed in a recent interview that this policy is a minimum income to be targeted to vulnerable households, and the generosity will be dependent on the the family typology (mono-marental households will receive more generous quantities) and upon the number of number of children. In a recent article by La Vanguardia, the quantity has been stipulated as for 500 euros for individuals living by themselves, and up to 1000 euros for families with children. Currently, the ministry is working in the elaboration of household typologies and calculating how many households would be eligible for such benefit. However, although the generosity has not been defined still, it is known that this measure will not be temporary but permanent, as a last resort safety net that is more durable than other types of benefits.
This is a non-contributory cash payment, which adds to current policies in different ways: those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits can have access to it, and those who are not eligible for unemployment benefits will have access to it if they comply with other criteria. Very importantly, in principle this is a permanent measure, so it is not exhausted until the recipient is employed. Such a design is convenient to target particular vulnerable groups of people like domestic workers without contracts, or self-employed people who have seen their activity come to a halt. According to calculus made by the minister of employment, Yolanda Diaz, this measure could benefit a total of 5 million people, which is close to 10% of the Spanish population.
Although it adds to current policies in several ways, this is far from a basic income in various ways as it is not individual, unconditional or universal, which are three of the key characteristics of the so called universal basic income policy that some media outlets are are using to label the future policy that will be implemented in Spain. Quite on the contrary, the type of policy being discussed is a non-contributory last resort benefit that will go to the most vulnerable households, and precisely, will be given to households and not individuals, closer to current non-contributory pensions than a basic income, as summarised in the table below:-
|
Characteristics
|
IMV (current proposal being discussed in Spain)
|
Basic Income
|
|
Universal
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Unconditional
|
No: the aid is conditional on the number of children, previous income, household typology
|
Yes
|
|
Cash payment
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Individual
|
No: households; currently elaborating a household typology and calculating the number of households that will be covered
|
Yes
|
|
Non-contributory
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not only a cash-for-corona policy
The minimum living income currently on the political agenda in Spain is not a unique response to coronavirus. The implementation of such a policy was part of the governmental agreement signed between the two coalition parties PSOE and Podemos, already in 2019, as specified in article 2.4.2. of this document. In this scenario, there was an estimation of 600 euros per person, with some households reaching to a top 1,200 euros and with an approximate cost of 10.000 million euros. During an interview in early April, in La Sexta channel, the third Vice-president, Nadia Calviño announced that the introduction of the IMV that is currently being discussed was intended as a pilot of the policy that was agreed upon in the governmental agreement in 2019. In this sense, regardless of the shape that this policy takes now, its implementation is intended to be structural and with a permanent character.
Yet another re-appropriation of the UBI label
Once more however, the media response has been to appropriate the name of universal basic income to label policies that are far from it. In fact, the whole package of policies that comprise the government’s emergency response to the coronavirus resonate with the same targeted and means-tested logic of welfare state comprised of a patchwork of benefits to cover different needs, with many individuals falling through the cracks. The government has already implemented the ERTEs (temporary regulation expedients of employment), in order to prevent mass unemployment, a moratorium on mortgages, a fiscal moratorium for self-employed workers, with benefits for those who have seen their activity massively reduced, and, which belong to the same rhetoric of a patchwork of programs rather than an effective safety net without any cracks, like universal basic income. due to the complexity of the different conditions’ individuals face and are not captured by the all the series of programs and administrative processes.
Political process
This emergency policy took speed yesterday, in ameeting between Pablo Iglesias, Yolanda Diaz -Minister of Employment-, Jose Luis Escrivà -Ministerof Inclusion, Social security and Mogration- and key interest group representatives in Spain, including NGOs like Oxfam, Cáritas, Facua or Cermi, trade unions like CCOO and UGT, although key business organisations like the CEOE did not participate. There is another meeting which has been scheduled for today (10th April 2020) with the Minister of Employment, in which the CEOE has refused to participate. However, Pablo Iglesias had been in contact telephonically with key business and banking sector figures who spoke positively of this measure, and had also been in contact with Antonio Garamendi, CEOE’s president, with whom he had exchanged some documentation.
Emergency minimum living income – latest update 19th April 2020
Given that the implementation of the proposed IMV would take around three months, the government has been working to implement a ‘bridge’ minimum living income (IMVP given its acronym in Spanish), which would be a temporal and emergency measure to be implemented as soon as possible, to be expected in May, as announced on the 16th of april . This emergency IMVP will consist of 500 euros per households, and up to 950€ depending on the number of children, for those with lower incomes than 200 euros if they live by themselves, and lower than 450 if living with one person or more. The benefit generosity will be higher for those with children under their charge. The government has announced that while this measure is temporary it will remain in place until the approval of the permanent IMV, which has been estimated to last for about 3 months.
In a recent interview, Escrivà argued that this policy would arrive to one million households, up to 3 million individuals, with 10% of the households being mono-marental (N.B.: he called them monoparental). Importantly, he argued that this benefit would not be lost automatically once the recipient finds employment, but rather, when their economic situation is stabilised, being compatible with the recipients’ wage for sometime.
The limitations of such a policy
Although the details are yet not clear, it is evident that this policy is far from a basic income, and much further away of combating poverty in Spain. According to the latest report by the European Network against Poverty and Social Exclusion, only in 2019, there were 12,3 million of individuals at risk of poverty or social exclusion. However, this measure will not be getting to more than 3 or 4 million of individuals.
.
by Malcolm Torry | Apr 13, 2020 | News, Opinion
As in countries all over the world, a significant effect of the social distancing and other measures that the UK Government has put in place to slow the coronavirus’s spread is that individuals’ incomes are experiencing significant damage. This is particularly true of individuals working in the tourism, hospitality, and leisure industries, and workers on zero hour contracts or in the gig economy. Such income loss impacts both the individuals concerned, and the level of demand in the economy, making a recession a significant risk.
An obvious suggestion, now made frequently in the press and by members of parliament in most of the UK’s political parties, is that a temporary Basic Income – an unconditional income – should be paid to every individual legally resident in the UK.
Unfortunately, this option is not currently open to the UK, because there is no database that could be used for that purpose. There are lots of disconnected lists – driving licence holders, National Insurance numbers, National Health Service numbers, income tax references, passport holders, etc. – but no single list that contains names, contact details, dates of birth, and, crucially, bank account details, for every individual legally resident in the UK.
If the political will were available, government departments and a variety of financial institutions were willing to work together, and the necessary legislation could be passed, then it would not take long for systems analysts to construct the required database: but because the mechanisms that the Government has put in place to protect most workers’ incomes use existing tax and benefits systems, embarking on an emergency Basic Income project that would require a substantial amount of work to create the required administrative systems is not likely to be at the top of the Government’s agenda given the other challenges that it faces.
This is one reason for the Government not implementing a Basic Income to serve the UK’s population during the current crisis. Whether the fact that every other parliamentary party has members calling for a Basic Income is another reason for the Government not wishing to implement a Basic Income must remain a matter for speculation.
Different countries will be better able to construct the required database than the UK, and it would be interesting to know how much work different countries would have to put in in order to do so.
This article is based on two articles on the Citizen’s Basic Income website:
https://citizensincome.org/news/coronavirus-and-the-next-time-it-happens/
https://citizensincome.org/news/getting-basic-income-done/
by Malcolm Torry | Apr 13, 2020 | News, Opinion
On Easter Day, the 12th April 2020, Pope Francis sent a message to ‘our brothers and sisters in social movements and organizations’, during which he said this:
… I know that you have been excluded from the benefits of globalization. You do not enjoy the superficial pleasures that anesthetize so many consciences, yet you always suffer from the harm they produce. The ills that afflict everyone hit you twice as hard. Many of you live from day to day, without any type of legal guarantee to protect you. Street vendors, recyclers, carnies, small farmers, construction workers, dressmakers, the different kinds of caregivers: you who are informal, working on your own or in the grassroots economy, you have no steady income to get you through this hard time … and the lockdowns are becoming unbearable. This may be the time to consider a universal basic wage which would acknowledge and dignify the noble, essential tasks you carry out. It would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights. …
Fraternally, Francis
Vatican City, Easter Sunday, 12 April 2020
A question: Was he referring to a national or global statutory minimum wage, or was he referring to Basic Income? Comment would be welcome.
To read the full text of the Pope’s message, click here.
.
by Malcolm Torry | Apr 9, 2020 | News, Opinion
There is a translation of this article into French.
A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement (BIEN’s definition of Basic Income)
The coronavirus pandemic is causing huge suffering for those individuals who experience serious attacks of the disease, and for the families and friends of those who die from it. Everybody understands the social distancing measures that governments around the world are having to implement, because nobody wants health services to be put under so much pressure at any one time that those who need treatment cannot receive it. The global economy has been tanking as all sectors have had to shut down. Only two sectors – food and medicine – have really been keeping the economy afloat. As we all still shop for food, supermarkets have been a lifeline. However, an even bigger lifeline, quite literally, has been that of the medical industry. With medical devices and equipment such as needles and facemasks in such high demand, medicine has been keeping both people and the economy alive.
Governments have been doing what they can to protect employees’ incomes when their employers can no longer pay them, and to protect the incomes of self-employed people when their businesses have to cease trading either temporarily or permanently: but the measures put in place often struggle to protect the incomes of large numbers of workers in the informal sector and migrant workers.
Around the world we have seen legislators, journalists, think tanks, researchers, campaigners, and many others, calling for an emergency Basic Income. This is clearly to be welcomed. Also to be welcomed are changes to existing benefits systems that take them closer to being Basic Incomes. What is not to be welcomed is the use of the term ‘Basic Income’ for benefits that are not genuine Basic Incomes: that is, they are not ‘a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement’.
The reason for the increase in interest in Basic Income is that a genuine Basic Income would provide a secure layer of income when all other sources are either absent or insecure; it would inject demand into the economy and help us to avoid a recession; and because everyone would receive it, it would contribute to the social cohesion that every nation will need if it is to get through this crisis. It would not matter that Basic Incomes would be paid to people who didn’t need them, because it would be an easy matter to raise income tax rates on higher incomes so that those who already had secure incomes would not see their disposable incomes rise, and would be helping to pay for the Basic Incomes that everybody needed.
It is a significant problem that instead of paying Basic Incomes, governments are relying on increasing the coverage of existing means-tested benefits and on implementing new income-tested benefits. These benefits fall if earned income rises, so occasional and even permanent opportunities to earn additional income might be turned down because any increase in earned income would reduce benefit payments and could risk people losing their benefit claims entirely. A Basic Income would not fall if earned incomes were to rise, so any opportunity to contribute to the economy would be gladly taken, and there would always be an incentive to start the new businesses that any new economic situation would require.
Given the clear advantages of Basic Income, why are governments not implementing temporary or permanent Basic Income schemes? There might be several reasons for this. First of all, whether a country’s economy is more developed or less developed, there might simply be no mechanism available to enable the government to pay an unconditional income to every legal resident. What would be required would be a database that contained every individual’s name, contact details, date of birth, and bank account details. Given sufficient political will, many countries would be able to construct such a database within a fairly short period of time: but in the midst of this crisis it will generally be easier to use existing mechanisms to protect the incomes that can be protected fairly easily: through expansions of existing means-tested and contributory benefits systems; through using existing ‘pay as you earn’ income tax systems to enable employers to continue to pay employees who have been laid off; and to make grants to self-employed individuals on the basis of submitted annual accounts.
Where existing benefits systems are being used to maintain household incomes, the conditions for the receipt of benefits are often being relaxed: for instance, by no longer requiring stringent employment search requirements. Such changes are steps towards the complete unconditionality of Basic Income, and they are to be recognised as such, and are to be welcomed.
A trend that is not to be welcomed, though, is the use of the term ‘Basic Income’ for mechanisms that are not Basic Incomes. The recent short-lived experiment in Ontario was called a Basic Income, but it was household-based and therefore not ‘on an individual basis’, and it was income-tested and therefore was not ‘without means test’. It was not a Basic Income, and it should never have been called one. Similarly, during this crisis, governments are sometimes using the term ‘Basic Income’ for new or reformed benefits that are not Basic Incomes. This ought to stop, because it is misleading, and it makes rational debate more difficult to conduct.
So we should recognise and welcome the efforts that governments are making to adapt existing benefits systems so that they are closer in character to Basic Income; but we should point out that anything that is not a Basic Income will not exhibit the advantages that a genuine Basic Income would exhibit, and that if it is not a Basic Income then it should not be called one.
BIEN is gathering information from its affiliated organisations on their governments’ measures to protect incomes during the crisis, and in particular information on the extent to which those measures exhibit the characteristics of Basic Income, and the extent to which they do not.
In the meantime, information on the measures that governments are implementing can be found on the IMF website.
.
by Malcolm Torry | Apr 7, 2020 | News, Opinion
The Spanish newspaper El Pais has published an article, ‘La renta básica deja de ser una utopía‘ (‘Basic income is no longer a utopia’):
La pandemia lleva a diversos países a ensayar planes de transferencias directas no universales para compensar la reducción en los ingresos de sus ciudadanos …
The pandemic leads various countries to try non-universal direct transfer plans to compensate for the reduction in the income of their citizens …
An English translation can be found here.
by Tyler Prochazka | Apr 7, 2020 | Opinion
Reports are emerging that Spain is hoping to deploy a “permanent” basic income type program in the near future. The program comes as Spain aims to respond to the economic crisis from the global coronavirus pandemic.
Spain has one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the world with over 13,000 deaths.
Spain’s push for establishing basic income as a “permanent instrument” that “stays forever” will help reduce financial anxieties for many families worried about their jobs. Sending cash to families rather than corporations will better ensure economic security for the most vulnerable.
However, questions remain about the nature of the program and whether it will be truly universal and unconditional.
If Spain successfully implements basic income, it will become the first European country to implement the program on a national scale and one of the only places in the world to do so.
Finland famously experimented with a basic income pilot program. The experiment made recipients happier and healthier. Nonetheless, some government officials were upset the basic income pilot did not significantly affect employment status within a year for recipients.
Nadia Calviño, Spain’s minister for economic affairs, said the payments will be targeted to families and will differentiate based on their “circumstances.” In practice, differentiating based on circumstances will result in means tests that fall on the poor. If there are strict criteria, then some families who need assistance may be unnecessarily excluded or have their assistance delayed.
A better system is presuming each individual qualifies and allowing wealthier individuals to opt-out. If an individual who received basic income has a large income by the end of 2020, the government can phase out their basic income through the income tax system the following year.
Universality helps the poor, not the rich. It ensures all those who need assistance can receive it immediately. The true costs of universality are lower because it requires less administration and bureaucracy to implement the program.
