by Andre Coelho | Feb 7, 2017 | News
This twenty-seven-minute audio broadcast from BBC World Service is dedicated to discussing basic income, on general terms, and has been played for the first time on the 20th of November, 2016. The discussion is chaired by Ed Butler, who has invited Louise Haagh (University of York and Basic Income Earth Network Co-chair), Michael Faye, Michael Tanner (economist, senior fellow at the Cato Institute) and Ian Gough (visiting professor at the London School of Economics).
Michael Faye starts out by saying that giving cash directly to people is more effective than all the advice and control any “expert” can provide. He communicates that Give Directly is presently launching the most ambitious program ever in the organization, providing a basic income for 25,000 people in East Africa, for 15 years. According to him, there is plenty of positive evidence from these trials, with people investing the money in improving their lives. He concludes that cash transfers are effective, whether given to less or more developed nations (in spite of their differences).
Louise argues that the case for basic income does not rely solely on evidence collected from pilots, but also by verifying the limitations and problems with welfare states. State’s response to growing precariousness, lower wages and rising economic insecurity has been ineffective and ever more punitive. The moral error here, according to Louise, is to qualify people as deserving and not deserving, in order to provide them with social benefits (even just for the bare minimum of subsistence). She refers to basic income as possibly cost neutral (although some critics challenge this notion), using tax structures to transfer money from the relatively wealthy to the relatively poor. Louise points out that most current basic income proposals are not meant to replace the welfare state, with its wide range of public services, but to complement it.
Louise Haagh (credit to: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark)
Michael Tanner states that in principle the basic income idea is a good one. It is less paternalistic, and creates more incentives within the system. He feels the problems arise in the practical aspects of implementation, citing the (presumed) prohibitively expensive cost for rolling out the policy in the United States. This, he thinks, means that basic income will not be taken up in the US any time soon. However, he recognizes that the present social security system is failing, regarding a basic income strategy as more humane and efficient. He also agrees that delinking income from work is beneficial when it comes to some aspects of social security, and that this may actually eliminate the associated disincentives to work (of the present system). Treating people like adults and not paternalizing them with conditions is, according to him, the way forward. In his final words, Tanner expresses that basic income is one of the most promising ideas for social development.
On the critical side of basic income, Ian Gough does not believe that basic income experiments in poorer countries are helpful for the case of (basic income) implementation in wealthier countries. He dismisses basic income as unaffordable or incapable of providing a decent level of security. Furthermore, he associates basic income with the dismantling of public services such as health and education. Gough also mentions that providing a basic income at the poverty line would mean an average tax level of 50%, which he thinks is not attainable.
Listen to the full conversation:
BBC World Service, “Universal Basic Income – Has its time come?”, BBC World Service – In the Balance, November 20th 2016
by Kate McFarland | Jan 22, 2017 | News
On November 19, 2016, the BBC podcast In the Balance aired an episode called “Universal Basic Income: Has its Time Come?”
Special guests included Michael Faye (cofounder of GiveDirectly, the non-profit launching a basic income experiment in Kenya), Louise Haagh (Reader of Politics at the University of York and Co-Chair of BIEN), Michael Tanner (Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute), and Ian Gough (Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics).
During the approximately 25 minute episode, host Ed Butler questioned the guests on the many common concerns surrounding basic income, from its affordability to its political feasibility to charges of causing inflation and disincentivizing work. The guests also debated what types of programs and services a basic income would replace, as well as the question of whether and when cash transfers are more effective than transfers in-kind. Another topic to emerge was the role of pilot studies, with Faye defending the relevance of GiveDirectly’s studies in Kenya to the developed world and Haagh raising the point that, while useful, pilot studies are not needed to justify basic income, which she sees as motivated by the need to eliminate dysfunction in the current welfare system and make the disbursement of support “more humane”.
Faye, Haagh, and Tanner spoke generally favorably about basic income, although their precise reasons for supporting such a policy varied. Gough, meanwhile, maintained that the idea is impracticable, with any basic income scheme being either insufficient or unaffordable.
Listen to the full episode here.
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg and Dawn Howard
Image: British Coins CC BY 2.0 Images Money
by Kate McFarland | Jan 17, 2017 | News
Juliana Bidadanure, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, has designed a graduate seminar on the philosophy of basic income, which she is currently teaching for the winter term.
According to the official course description, the seminar will address questions such as the following: “[I]s giving people cash no strings attached desirable and just? Would basic income promote a more gender equal society through the remuneration of care-work, or would it risk further entrenching the position of women as caregivers? Would alternative policies be more successful (such as job guarantees, stakeholder grants, or a negative income tax)? How can we test out basic income? What makes for a reliable and ethical basic income pilot?”
The seminar will analyze and critique basic income from multiple perspectives in political theory, including feminism, liberalism, republicanism, communism, and libertarianism. Initial readings include classic works by Philippe van Parijs and responses from his critics. Subsequent sessions will address contemporary philosophical work on basic income, as well as potential alternatives, such as job guarantees. Additional topics include empirical work on the health (and other) effects of basic income, the role of automation in motivating basic income, and basic income in relation to gender and racial justice, among others.
Explaining why she was inspired to develop the course, Bidadanure says, “It has been my dream for a while to teach a class on the Philosophy of Basic Income. First, because I am committed to the idea that everyone has a right to an income and because I think that UBI deserves serious treatment; second, because I think it is a great lens through which one can teach Political Philosophy. There is great writing for and against basic income from within pretty much each and every school of political thought. And so my idea was to introduce students of a variety of disciplines to a broad range of writers in political philosophy by focusing on UBI. Given the recent interest in Basic Income in the US, including by computer scientists, engineers and economists, I thought that the timing was right to launch the class!”
On February 8, a special panel on basic income experiments will be held in connection with the seminar.
The panel will feature guests Guy Standing (Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, University of London; BIEN co-founder), Elizabeth Rhodes (Research Director of Y Combinator’s basic income experiment), and Joe Huston (Regional Director at GiveDirectly). Standing, Rhodes, and Huston will speak about basic income research in (respectively) India, Oakland, and Kenya. The event will be presented as a roundtable discussion and open to the public. More information on this event is available here.
Reactions from Students
Although housed in the Department of Philosophy, the seminar spans topics of interest to students in many disciplines. The seminar group is constituted by 10 enrolled participants as well as a further 10 auditors, comprising students of philosophy, political science, psychology, economics, computer science, engineering, and business.
Asked about his interest in the seminar, one participant, a PhD student in Economics, remarks, “Basic income is such a hot topic, but I’ve not come across much rigorous academic thinking on the topic, in any discipline. I now discover there is a whole bunch in philosophy, which I was unaware of and which is really exciting!”
Commenting on his reactions after the first session, he adds, “It’s awesome that the class is about a third economists, a third philosophers, and a third computer scientists – it seems like the venue for a truly exciting exchange of views; and the arguments for and against basic income are so much richer and more diverse than this economist expected!”
Another student in the seminar, Sage, is currently working towards a masters in Symbolic Systems while also finishing an undergraduate degree in Computer Science. Her interest in the topic derives from her work in the technology sector:
“My masters thesis is a work of political philosophy analyzing the responsibility of tech companies to help those in poverty. I am interested in Universal Basic Income because it has grown increasingly popular in the US due to the fear that one day all of our jobs will be completed by robots. I am interested in exploring the other reasons for Universal Basic Income and determining if it is a viable choice in the U.S. given our trajectory in the tech sector. I was impressed by how diverse our class was by region, interest, and background. Having the opportunity to discuss topics in basic income with students so different from me is a fantastic opportunity to round out my research.”
Anusha, a graduate student in Computer Science says her love for data structures (especially the top view of binary tree) made her focus on natural language processing and computer vision. She became interested in the seminar due to her background in AI:
“I was really interested in this seminar because Universal Basic Income has been receiving a lot of attention lately, especially in the Computer Science and AI communities, due to the potential impacts of automation on the future of work. There have also been a lot of discussions around the joint responsibilities of Silicon Valley and policymakers to help those whose jobs are most at risk. I’m really excited about this seminar because it addresses Universal Basic Income from several different perspectives, and I’m eager to learn about the various arguments for and against UBI from those standpoints.”
Nishith, an undergraduate senior in Computer Science who works on computer vision and reinforcement learning, became interested in UBI following a discussion of the economic impact of self-driving trucks and President-Elect Donald Trump’s emphasis on bringing manufacturing jobs back to America. He is excited by Bidadanure’s seminar, adding, “I was surprised to learn that discussions about UBI need not revolve around automation (as they do in Europe) and had a great time talking about the potential benefits and pitfalls of this proposed policy [at the first class meeting].”
Dr. Bidadanure, who holds a PhD in Political Philosophy from the University of York, has research interests at the intersection of philosophy and public policy.
She has written on the theory and practice of equality, including, in particular, age-group justice and what it means to treat young people as equals. She has written on the specific arguments to give a basic income to young adults as well as on hybrids of basic income and basic capital.
Bidadanure plans to teach an undergraduate course on basic income at Stanford in the next academic year. She is also working to launch a basic income research initiative at Stanford as part of the Center for Ethics in Society in 2017.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
Information and photo provided by Juliana Bidadanure.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Opinion
One needn’t spend too much time examining the current state basic income movement to deduce that pilot projects are en vogue this year.
Finland’s two-year experiment–in which 2,000 randomly-selected unemployed people will receive an unconditional payment of €560 per month instead of the country’s standard unemployment benefits–was launched on January 1. Several Dutch municipalities are also planning experiments, expected to begin early in 2017, in which existing welfare benefits will be replaced by unconditional benefits for current claimants. Meanwhile in Canada, the government of Ontario is finalizing its plan for a pilot study of a minimum income guarantee (most likely in the form a negative income tax), also set to commence early in 2017, and Prince Edward Island is seeking federal support to run a pilot of its own. And, in Scotland, the councils of Fife and Glasgow are actively taking steps to develop basic income pilots.
In the private sector, some organizations are not waiting for government-run pilots, and have taken it upon themselves to instigate studies. Non-profit organizations like GiveDirectly, ReCivitas, Eight, and Cashrelief have launched, or will soon launch, pilot studies of unconditional cash transfers in poor villages in Kenya, Brazil, Uganda, and India (respectively). In the states, the Silicon Valley startup incubator Y Combinator has initiated a short-term pilot study in Oakland, intended to pave the way for a larger scale basic income experiment.
And this is not to attempt to enumerate all of the various individuals, political parties, unions, and advocacy groups who have issued calls for basic income pilots in their own countries, states, or municipalities. Indeed, it has become commonplace, it seems, for basic income supporters to demand pilot studies of basic income rather than, say, just to demand a basic income straight-out.
This wave of pilot projects–with more, most likely, on the horizon–should rightfully excite basic income supporters, as well as those who are merely “BI-curious”. No doubt these studies will provide many useful and interesting data on the effects of cash transfers. At the same time, however, I caution strongly against the fetishization of pilot studies. A pilot study in itself is never a final goal–such is the nature of a pilot–and such a study is neither sufficient nor (presumably) necessary to secure the implementation of basic income as a policy. Furthermore, significant dangers can arise from a narrow and myopic focus on the goal of running pilot studies.
The first problem is this: excessive attention to experimentation threatens to trigger the presupposition that the question of whether basic income should be adopted is a question subject to experimental evaluation. To be sure, even if one is antecedently convinced that a basic income should be adopted, there are many reasons for which one might run a pilot study. It could, for example, help to identify and resolve potential hitches in implementation. But, more commonly, pilot studies are framed as mechanisms for determining whether a basic income is desirable in the first place. Skeptics and supporters alike speak in terms of finding out whether basic income “works”. The experimental approach tend to invoke an instrumentalist view of basic income as policy: the policy should be adopted if, and only if, it is more effective than other candidate policies in achieving certain socially desirable outcomes.
I would contend that this instrumentalist view should be rejected. We can remain neutral on this point, however, and assert only that the debate surrounding the justification of a basic income is severely and artificially constrained by the implicit assumption that this justification rests on empirical grounds. (And, specifically, empirical grounds amenable to testing in a pilot study!) Consider, for example, the view that all individuals deserve a share of society’s collectively generated wealth, unconditionally, merely in virtue of being a member of that society. On this view, it would be entirely beside the point to run an experiment to determine whether a basic income is justified.
If individuals are owed an unconditional basic income simply as their right–whether as a share of a common inheritance, as a condition on individual freedom, or as a realization of a right to the means to survival–then asking whether basic income “works” has the flavor of a category mistake. It is a nonsensical question to ask. (Conversely, if we assume that the question does make sense, we implicitly rule out the position that a basic income is simply a basic right.)
At this point, perhaps, the activist might say, “I don’t need experimental evidence to pursue me that a basic income should be adopted. Policymakers, however, do–and basic income experiments are the best way to convince policymakers that basic income ‘works’ according to the their criteria.” But this maneuver, I believe, goes to far to countenance whatever criteria policymakers use to judge the “effectiveness” of basic income.
In many cases, the goals deemed valuable in status quo politics–increases in jobs, increases in consumption, increases in economic growth–can themselves be called into question (and, I would argue, ought to be). Yet these conventional goals are likely to guide researchers and policymakers in their selection of “success conditions” of basic income experiments. Finland’s experiment, for example, has been designed specifically to assess whether employment increases with the replacement of means-tested unemployment benefits by unconditional transfers.
Indeed, I believe that a main reason to agitate for a universal and unconditional basic income is to challenge conventional social and political values, such as (especially) the Protestant work ethic. To allow to those same conventional values to provide the metric of whether basic income “works” is to subvert this critical role of the movement.
In a worst case scenario, a pilot study could lead policymakers to categorically reject basic income on the grounds that the policy has been shown to be associated with politically undesirable outcomes, when there is reasonable dispute over whether these outcomes are genuinely undesirable. There is some historical precedent here: in the 1970s, experiments of the negative income tax were held in several US cities; however, they were widely dismissed as failures in light of reports that they showed the policy to be associated with a decrease in work hours and increase in divorce rates [1].
There is, to be sure, much to anticipate in basic income research in 2017. But our excitement and fascination at empirical studies mustn’t overshadow the basic normative question of what society should be like. It is only by keeping sight of this latter question that we can properly contextualize the demand for basic income (if any) and, in turn, the role that can be served by pilot studies (if any).
[1] See, e.g., Karl Widerquist, “A Failure to Communicate: What (If Anything) Can we Learn from the Negative Income Tax Experiments?” The Journal of Socio-Economics (2005).
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 sandeepachetan.com travel photography
This article was originally written for an editorial in USBIG Network NewsFlash, but posted here instead due to word length.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | News
Cashrelief.org, a non-profit organization based in New Delhi, India, plans to launch a two-year cash transfer program in a poor village in India by April 1, 2017. Like a basic income, the transfers will be unconditional and available to all residents of the village.
Pilot Design
Cashrelief’s planned two-year pilot study will examine the effects of unconditional cash transfers in a poor village in India. The cash transfers will be set at an amount just above India’s poverty level of 972 rupees (about 14 USD) per month for an individual, and will be distributed to households. For a household of four, this amounts to 96,000 rupees (about 1,413 USD) over the course of the pilot.
The organization will select a village with a high percentage of ultra-poor residents, and will distribute the unconditional cash transfers to every household in that village (although households may voluntarily opt out). At present, it has identified three possible villages: Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh (which was, notably, the site of a previous basic income pilot led by economist Guy Standing and India’s Self-Employed Women’s Association in 2011). In total, about 50 to 70 families will receive the two-year benefits.
Cashrelief decided to make the cash transfers universal within the chosen village (rather than, for example, distributing them only to a random sample of households) in order to examine the social effects of a universal policy, as well as to avoid social conflicts that might result when only a subset of residents receive money.
Throughout the pilot, researchers will study how the households use their unconditional cash transfers. In particular, they plan to measure four parameters–income, assets, health-related spending, and education spending–at the start, midpoint, and end of the experiment. To assist in this undertaking, Cashrelief plans to involve an experienced, institutionally-affiliated principal investigator.
Despite its research element, Cashrelief states on its website that its “main motivation” for the pilot is simply to “reignite hope into people leading lives of quiet desperation in extreme poverty.”
Background and Influences
Cashrelief originated in mid-2016, when entrepreneur Vivek Joshi and veteran non-profit worker Rahul Nainwal developed the idea of running their own study of the effects of direct cash transfers as aid. Joshi and Nainwal were inspired by the work of the US-based non-profit GiveDirectly–which has been distributing aid in the form of unconditional cash transfers since 2009 and has recently initiated a long-term study of basic income in villages in Kenya–and anthropologist James Ferguson’s 2015 book Give a Man a Fish: Reflections on the New Politics of Distribution, which argues in favor of non-labor-based transfers as “rightful shares” of collective resources.
Nainwal also states that he was influenced by his personal experience in the non-profit sector, where he observed many inefficiencies in the way in which aid is distributed.
Describing his personal support for basic income in remarks to Basic Income News, Nainwal says that he sees the policy as a way to “level the playing field,” stressing that “it’s not people’s own fault that they’re poor.” He adds that it is not the role of the distributing aid to tell recipients what they need but that, instead, we “might as well give them the money and let them decide what to do with it.”
Article reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Cover Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 lapidim
