RighfulShare: An Income Movement is the first unconditional basic income transfer with GoodDollar in South Africa. The project is growing in strength, pioneering fairer income access bringing both resources and web3 solutions to the small town of Groblershoop in the Northern Cape.
“We need a new approach to addressing poverty in South Africa. The current system is not working and we can no longer pretend that there will be enough jobs for everyone. By bringing visibility to the benefits of a digital basic income transfer, we’re expanding the possibilities for South Africans”, says Karen Jooste, Founder of RightfulShare.
The participants are using their monthly basic income to alleviate day-to-day financial stress and open up space for creativity and entrepreneurship.
For example, Darryl Wessles who has been building his pig farm to address a gap in the market for smaller meat parcels for the community. Meanwhile Joyberne Neels has picked up an interest in cryptocurrencies and the potential global digital financial ecosystems can provide.
All the participants are bringing their own life experiences and outlooks, providing diverse stories and outcomes to this UBI project. However, each has spoken to how relieving the constant burden of unemployment has been life changing. See more testimony by participants here.
The project was recently recognized by the Swiss/South African Blockchain Innovation Challenge as one of the most innovative projects in the blockchain space.
Currently, RightfulShare is teaming up with GlobalGiving for Giving Tuesday, an effort to connect nonprofits to donors to create targeted meaningful impact. All donations go towards supporting more young entrepreneurs in South Africa kickstart their dream venture, escape poverty and overall reduce income inequality. It is super easy to donate, simply click on the link below. All donations will be matched on the 28th November 2023
China’s ongoing rural reforms are fostering practices akin to basic income, offering dividends to residents in the vast countryside. This development draws a parallel to the broader discussion of basic income within the context of China’s social security system and policies, such as the DiBao policy.
Since 2016, China has embarked on a reform of its rural collective property rights system. This reform, which involves a unified method of property verification by the central government, has enabled many villages across the country to establish clear ownership of assets. This foundational step has set the stage for the distribution of dividends.
The reform involves transforming collective operating assets into a shareholding cooperation system. The government mandates that villages and towns with these assets quantify them into shares for collective members, allowing for the distribution of earnings based on these shares. This approach leverages China’s collective economic base and equitably allocates previously undefined collective property to each member. Consequently, villagers now own shares and receive dividends, significantly enhancing their sense of financial gain.
However, these dividends differ from the traditional concept of basic income. They are conditional, require ownership in the collective, and do not necessarily follow a regular payment schedule. Despite these differences, the reforms have led to innovative institutional experiments across various pilot projects.
For instance, to include permanent residents and workers without shares in dividend distribution, some collectives have introduced new types of shares such as labor, land, and capital shares. This diversification enables broader participation, aligning more closely with the unconditional principle of basic income.
In terms of periodic distribution, some village groups, like Yongjiang Street in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, have moved from lump-sum to regular payments. This approach, now increasingly adopted by local cooperatives, ensures more consistent financial support for members.
The impact of these reforms is tangible. In Beijing’s Haidian district, for example, villagers like Zhong Ercui have transitioned from traditional employment to becoming shareholders and employees of village collectives, receiving substantial dividends. This shift has significantly improved the economic conditions of thousands of residents in the region.
These reforms represent a significant step in China’s rural development, blending traditional collective economic practices with modern principles of equitable asset distribution and financial empowerment for rural residents.
In the city of the future, citizens would feel secure and able to flourish. That includes income security. Technology is both forcing and enabling lifestyle change. The best response is to maximise the gains it offers and mediate any loss it imposes. Automation will continue to offer a plethora of accessible services, but will also continue to change employment patterns, and the income which goes with employment. Some jobs will be lost; other new services will create jobs.
In 1942, as people started to think about remaking society after the War, William Beveridge wrote a report for the British government that was to shape the welfare state in Europe. He wrote, ‘It is a time for revolutions, not for patching.’ What he meant was that it was useless to make minor changes to the old system. A new system was needed. The evidence was clear. Today, we are at a similar juncture. The social policies of the 20th century are outdated. Selective schemes for what economists call ‘contingency risks’, such as a spell of unemployment, an illness or an accident, do not deal with the defining challenges of our age. We live at a time of rentier capitalism, in which more income goes to owners of property – physical, financial or intellectual – while less goes to those who rely on labour and work for their incomes.
“Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity”, by Simon Johnson & Daron Acemoglu (two well-known MIT economists), is critiqued by BIEN member Geoff Crocker who argues that this book, just published in May 2023, presents a selective narrative, unsupported assertions, and wrong assertions about basic income. This opinion is contrary to extensive praise of the book, that you can read about here.
With regard to basic income, Crocker writes “The superficiality of their argument is particularly evidenced in their dismissal of universal basic income (p416-417) which they regard as ‘defeatist’ and ‘fanciful’, arguing instead for conditional targeted benefits and creation of new work opportunities from technology. They make no reference to the literature on UBI, to the huge deficiencies of conditionality creating unemployment and poverty traps as well as intrusion, humiliation, and low take-up rates. Working hours per week have reduced consistently over many decades and are set to continue to fall. In-work poverty and rising household debt show that work and wages are insufficient for household income. Technological automation is sucking income out of the economy and increased non-labour income is required, the best proposal being UBI.”
