by Karl Widerquist | Dec 24, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This audio is of talk I gave on why we need a Universal Basic Income. I gave the talk for the “Sydney Ideas” series in August of 2017, and I’m particularly happy with it. It summarizes the reasons I think are most important, and I think I did a relatively good job of delivering it. It discusses how Basic Income removes the judgment and paternalism that pervade the world’s existing social welfare systems, and why doing so is so important not only for people at the bottom but also for the average worker. It also briefly addresses how to craft a realistic Basic Income proposal, how much it costs, options for paying for it, and evidence about what it can do.
Following the lecture the audio file includes a question and answer session where I’m joined by Dr Elizabeth Hill, Chair of Department of Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney, and Professor Gabrielle Meagher, Department of Sociology, Macquarie University.
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 20, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in December 2005.
On November 6, at a conference on greater economic integration in the Americas in Brasilia, just after his 22 minutes conference in Brasilia, President Bush extended his hands Senator Suplicy, who asked:
Senator SUPLICY: “With respect to the integration of the Americas we should have the purpose of not only to have the free movement of capital, goods, and services, without any barriers but also and mainly of what is most important, that is, of human beings from Alaska to the Patagonia. More than that we should also have what you already have in Alaska with much success, a citizen’s basic income to all residents in that State.”
President Bush: “Well, in Alaska they have lots of oil.”
SUPLICY: “But we may have a basic income from all the forms of wealth that are created. I would like to suggest that in order to create the conditions for real peace based on justice in Iraq that we should stimulate the Iraqis to follow the example of Alaska that pays every year a basic income to all residents living in that State in the form of dividends that result from the Alaska Permanent Fund.”
BUSH: “We are working on that! We are working on that! Thank you.”
Suplicy also spoke about Brazil’s basic income at the Parliamentary Network Conference of the World Bank in Helsinki, Finland on October 21-23. About 180 members of the parliaments of about 100 countries of the world participated in the Conference. Senator Suplicy individually lobbied several members of parliaments on Basic Income. Suplicy presented the same lecture at the Austrian and Belgium Basic Income Network, in Vienna, October 9, and to the Training Department of the European Commission, on October 10.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Dec 18, 2017 | Opinion
This article is based on a research project conducted by a French student, Lucas Delattre, during the summer of 2016, and updated in October 2017
Introduction
A Citizen’s Basic Income is an unconditional, nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship.
In 2016, at a discussion on Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams’ book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a world without work (Verso, 2015) at the New Economics Foundation, Ed Miliband was asked what needed to happen to move us towards the implementation of a Citizen’s Basic Income scheme. ‘A pilot project’ was the answer. Others have made the same suggestion.
Existing pilot projects
Many of the projects that have been claimed as Citizen’s Basic Income pilots do not satisfy the criteria of being universal, unconditional and based on the individual. Those that do pay unconditional incomes to individuals cannot be absolutely universal, since they necessarily exclude those outside the sample. This is also an ethical issue that cannot be avoided. And the short duration of most projects enables some short-term effects to be detected, but not long-run or life-time effects. (A project in Kenya is giving 23 US$ per month to 40 villages for 12 years, which is much longer than the two years for which most experiments run.)
Some projects call for volunteers, and so are unlikely to be representative. Mandatory involvement of a representative sample is to be preferred; and even better is a saturation sample, covering a defined geographical area, which can enable effects to be picked up at a local level. Projects that compare the experience of pilot groups that receive an unconditional income to the experience of control groups that do not are preferable to experiments that do not employ control groups.
In 2008 and 2009 a privately-financed pilot project was held in the small rural settlement of Otjivero-Omitara in Namibia. 100 Namibian dollars (£7) was paid each month to every member of the population for a period of two years, and significant results were achieved in relation to health, education, crime reduction, economic activity, and poverty reduction. There was no control group with which to compare these results.
Between 2011 and 2013, similar projects in India paid 300 rupees (£3) per month to every member of several pilot villages, and in India the impressive results obtained in the pilot project villages could be compared with those in the control villages.
The Alaskan Permanent Fund (APF) is a sovereign wealth fund based on Alaska’s oil revenues, and invested in the international stock market. It gives an annual dividend payment to every Alaskan citizen, who has been resident for at least a year in Alaska. The APF has usually been able to provide a dividend of between $1,000 and $2,000 each year. Obviously, it is annual and variable, and is not sufficient to take on the role of social security: but it has had beneficial effects on the population of Alaska.
A micro-level pilot project in Germany provides Citizen’s Basic Incomes to selected individuals for one year. In Finland, a random sample of 2,000 people aged 25-58, who were unemployed at the end of 2016, are receiving €560 per month Income for two years in place of existing benefits, and the sample subjects can keep their payments after they have found employment. However, while being based on the individual and unconditional, this does not fulfil the Citizen’s Basic Income criteria of being universal. A similar approach is being considered by some Dutch municipalities. The current experiment in Ontario, Canada, is a Guaranteed Minimum Income project where a means-tested household-based benefit targeted on subjects aged 18-64 is being tested.
The Negative Income Tax experiments in the USA and Canada during the 1970s were based on the household, and so did not fulfil the criteria as a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot projects.
None of this is to suggest that the projects that have been undertaken are not of value. They are. Valuable lessons have been learnt in Namibia, India, Alaska, and the various states in Canada and the USA where Negative Income Tax experiments have taken place; and additional useful lessons will be learnt in Berlin, in the Netherlands, and in Finland. But we still await a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project. It is arguable that the Indian and Namibian experiments were as near to genuine pilot projects as possible because they were of sufficient duration to enable trends in behavioural change to be evaluated and trajectories predicted.
The UK
Might it be possible to run a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project in the UK? A genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project? Multiple problems present themselves:
- the project would have to be for a sufficiently long period for a sufficient number of assessments of behavioural change to be made to enable trajectories to be plotted and reliable estimates made of the likely behavioural changes that would accompany a permanent Citizen’s Basic Income scheme;
- any Citizen’s Basic Income viable in the short to medium term in the UK (and in any developed country) would have to be funded wholly or in part by changing income tax and social insurance contribution levels and thresholds. So a genuine pilot project would require government departments to make those adjustments just for the individuals involved in the project, and to recycle the savings into pilot project participants’ Citizen’s Basic Incomes – a somewhat unlikely proposition;
- the project would need to involve a cross-section of the population if it were to stand some chance of modelling a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income; and
- because any revenue neutral or almost revenue neutral scheme would impose losses on some households (- preferably on households in the higher income deciles), some participants in the pilot project would lose disposable income at the point of implementation.
A feasible Citizen’s Basic Income experiment
What would be feasible would be to provide a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income to a small community on top of existing benefits provisions and without altering National Insurance contributions or Income Tax payments. This would avoid government departments having to change current tax and benefits provisions: but it would require additional funding and it would not mirror the tax and benefits changes that would be required to fund a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income. This is why I have called it an ‘experiment’ rather than a ‘pilot project’. Important lessons could be learnt: but nobody would be able to regard the experiment’s results as evidence for how a Citizen’s Basic Income would work in practice.
A further feasible option would be to give a Citizen’s Basic Income to all sixteen to eighteen year olds and not give them an Income Tax Personal Allowance. This approach would create minimal problems for the tax and benefits authorities and for employers, and it would result in almost no losses at the point of implementation. The important question would be whether to promise permanence – in which case it would be a genuine pilot project; or whether to limit the experiment to a stated number of years – in which case it would be an experiment. (Microsimulation research on such a pilot project/experiment can be found in a recent working paper. )
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 13, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in October 2005.
Dividend checks from the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) go out this month paying $845.76 (US), to every Alaska resident. (The APF is the only existing Basic Income in the world. It pays yearly dividends based on earnings from an investment fund created out of the state’s oil tax revenues.) The amount is down slightly from last year. The reason for the decline is that each year’s returns are tied to stock market returns over the last five years, and recent market returns have been much lower than returns in the late 1990s. The recent increases in oil prices are increasing the total size of the fund, but it will be years before their effects are felt in the yearly dividends.
The idea of the fund is gathering more and more attention around the world. The Alberta government is preparing to send checks of $400 (Canadian) to every resident of the province. The checks are a one-time response to the province’s large budget surplus, which has been caused largely by the recent increase in oil tax revenue. Although this is a one-time grant, the program’s architects credit the APF as inspiration. New Mexico, which also has a growing budget surplus thanks to the recent increase in oil prices, maybe the soon follow suit. Governor Bill Richardson and prominent members of the state legislature have been discussing a one-time tax rebate in the neighborhood of $50 (US) per person.
The spread of the Permanent Fund idea does not stop with Alberta and New Mexico. Recent editorials have discussed the idea around the world. Kevin O’Flynn, writing for Newsweek International, mentioned the APF as one of the possible models for reform of Russia’s oil industry. Two recent editorials have argued for a permanent oil dividend in Iraq. Lenny Glynn, writing for The Weekly Standard, argues than enshrining an oil dividend into Iraq’s constitution would be a force for democracy, national unity, and economic development. It would almost certainly make the constitution more popular. Ronald Bailey, writing for Reason on line: Free Minds and Free Markets, includes the creation of an “Iraq Permanent Fund” in his list of things the Bush administration should have done for a successful post-war Iraq (https://www.reason.com/links/links081805.shtml).
Petroleum.com: Latin American Energy, Oil & Gas included a commentary by Michael Rowan, entitled “the Sinkhole,” praising Permanent Fund and comparing it to Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil industry. Governor Jay Hammond began setting up the permanent fund at about the same time that Carlos Andres Perez nationalized Venezuela’s oil industry in 1976. Rowan argues that nationalization of 100% of Venezuela’s oil revenues had no noticeable effect on poverty in Venezuela, but the Alaska fund, which distributes only a fraction of the taxes on Alaska oil revenues, has provided a real and verifiable benefit to low-income Alaskans—and has been especially important in reducing poverty among indigenous Alaskans. “If [Perez] had done what Hammond did in 1976, Venezuela’s Permanent Fund would have about $120 billion this year, paying a dividend of $1,500 to each of 8 million Venezuelan families.” The editorial is hostile to activist government policies, but it is not hostile to policies that effectively help the poor. Rowan’s endorsement shows that the Permanent Fund idea is a good way to promote anti-poverty policies with the political right, but that’s not all there is to it. People who normally favor redistribution should not ignore Rowan’s argument that getting money into the hands of the poor can be more effective toward economic equality than putting a government in direct control of resources. Rowan’s commentary is online at: https://www.petroleumworld.com/Ed081105.htm.
-Karl Widerquist, Oxford, UK, October 2005
