by Andre Coelho | May 6, 2019 | News
John McDonnell (left) and Guy Standing (right)
This week, on May 7th, Guy Standing will be presenting a report prepared at the request of the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell MP. The complete title of the report is “Piloting Basic Income as Common Dividends”.
The event is organized by the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) and the Progressive Economy Forum (PEF), and will take place at the RSA’s Great Room Auditorium, at 11 am. It will be introduced by RSA’s Director Anthony Painter and PEF’s Chair Patrick Allen, followed by an opening keynote by John McDonnell himself. After that Guy Standing will present the fifty-page report in about thirty minutes, which will then be openly discussed by commentators Ed Miliband, former Labour Party Leader, Margaret Greenwood, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, and Caroline Abrahams, Age UK Director, as well as in a round of questions and answers with the audience.
Although other books and reports have been made public, focused on basic income for the British reality (e.g.: Annie Miller’s “A basic income pocketbook”, Malcolm Torry’s “Why we need a Citizen’s Basic Income”), this was the first time a British politician has specifically asked for a report on basic income. As Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell and the Labour Party had been flirting with the idea, however, since early 2016 (even though McDonnell had been a basic income supporter as far back as 2014).
More information at:
Kate McFarland, “United Kingdom: Labour Party to look into Basic Income”, Basic Income News, June 6th 2016
Toru Yamamori, “United Kingdom: Labour Party considers universal basic income”, Basic Income News, February 21th 2016
Toru Yamamori, “United Kingdom: Basic income supporter John McDonnell becomes shadow chancellor”, Basic Income News, September 18th 2015
by Andre Coelho | Apr 14, 2019 | News
David Khan. Picture credit to: Sylvan Lake News
This Monday, April 12th 2019, David Khan, leader of the Alberta Liberals, announced a series of fundamental changes to the way social policies are practiced in this Canadian province, if elected next Tuesday (Alberta Votes 2019). These changes include large investments in oil-related infrastructure, public and health services, eliminating or considerably reducing income tax, and setting up a basic income pilot test.
The party’s platform ranges a large number of issues, from finance, employment, poverty, energy, democratic reform, down to indigenous relations and drug possession. However, the Alberta Liberals are clear in their overall message: if elected, they are here to put the economy growing. That pervading principle of contemporary economics has been contested extensively, but (economic) growth still attracts strongly, and David Khan is focused on achieving it.
Khan boldly states: “I encourage all Albertans to read our policies because we have the best pro-growth fiscal strategies of any party in this election.” In this case, it means to move from a tax policy based on income tax, to another resting on an 8% Value Added Tax. Even though that number is 60% below the standard VAT rate of many European countries (generally above 20%), Khan is certain “it’s the least harmful way of collecting tax”. That would cumulate with a generalized income tax break, effectively exempting 70% of the Albertian population from paying income tax.
Revenues, then, for governmental investments such as mental health services, social health care, affordable housing and, the basic income pilot test, would mainly come from energy-related commerce, particularly oil, which if an expansion does happen, might lead to more professionals with experience in the oil industry, looking to Find Work in Canada or possibly find work in other similar projects. There might however be some possible backlash. That is professed at the same time as strictly defending the environment, where “we will not tolerate industry damaging our future and our children’s future” can be read on the party’s platform first text page. However, it seems to go unnoticed that the oil industry’s record on environmental protection has not been admirable, to say the least. The idea is to restart the Trans Mountain and the East pipeline projects, both stalled for a long time due to constitutional and environmental reasons. For some reason these projects have been kept waiting, or stored in place for later elimination, because, at put by Jon Biger Skjærseth and Tora Skodvin in their book on climate change and the oil industry, “these companies share the same core aim of selling as much oil and gas as possible at the highest possible price and the lowest possible cost within the same global market”. And, of course, eventually all that oil and gas gets burned, adding up to the already alarming CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
As for the basic income test pilot, the Alberta Liberals are invested in rolling it out, since they “support the creation of a Basic Income.” The arguments for such a belief come from reduced bureaucracy, financial security for all and the elimination of jobs through automation.
More information at:
Sarah Rieger, “Alberta Liberal platform promises basic income pilot project, no income taxes for most“, CBC News April 8th 2019
Damian Carrington, “‘Worrying’ rise in global CO2 forecast for 2019“, The Guardian, January 25th 2019
by Andre Coelho | Dec 22, 2018 | News
Jean-Yves Duclos. Picture credit to: The Star.
After the cancellation of the Ontario basic income experiment, country-wide discussions about the issue continues in Canada as the Federal Government approaches the policy, although a direct intervention in Ontario is unlikely. Prime Minister Trudeau and his Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos have already stated that the Federal Government does not intrude into regional policy programs. However, Duclos has said, this month, that existing benefits will eventually cover more people than those already eligible for state (not universal) guaranteed minimum income. In his words: “At some point, there will be a universal guaranteed minimum income in Canada for all Canadians”.
So, despite all the opposition, rallies and advices against the Ontario axed basic income experiment, apparently it is indeed buried. However, it seems, interest in the concept is higher than ever, which is not surprising since the causing needs are still there (poverty, bureaucratic conditional welfare, precariousness, unemployment). Pundits on television agree over the concept, while looking at it as a tool to reduce the government influence radius (a more conservative approach to basic income), but certain that other basic income pilots will effectively be tried out in Canada (if not by other reasons, for beefing up the liberal agenda). Trudeau, on his end, has expressed sympathy for basic income, as a way to support workers, giving people some stability. That and a myriad of other considered policies, according to him: “I don’t think I’d be speaking out of turn to say that [basic income] it’s still something that is in the universe of all sorts of tools that we’re looking at on how to best help Canadians”.
Even though the Federal parliamentary budget office has calculated that supplying a guaranteed financial floor to all Canadians (up to an average of CAN$ 9421/year) would implicate an expenditure rise on social benefits of around 30%, basic income captures interest even on the Conservative side of the political spectrum. Karen Vecchio, MP for the Conservatives, has favoured the concept, although rising cost implications and questioning eventual long-term benefits for Canadians. That’s exactly why Hugh Segal, one of the Ontario basic income experiment designers (and former Conservative senator), affirms that such pilots are necessary: “to figure out whether the idea works”. Segal, as well as Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, argue that the Federal Government should pick up the cancelled Ontario basic income experiment, or at least help in financing further regional pilots.
More information at:
Kate McFarland, “Ontario, Canada: New government declares early end of guaranteed income experiment”, Basic Income News, August 2nd 2018
Shawn Jeffords, “4 Ontario mayors asking feds to take over basic income pilot”, Global News, September 7th 2018
Kate McFarland, “Ontario, Canada: Project advisors oppose termination of pilot study”, Basic Income News, August 7th 2018
“Health officials and poverty advocates call on PC government to reverse decision on basic income pilot”, Global News, August 9th 2018
Jordan Press, “Liberals looking at national basic income as a way to help Canadians cope with job instability”, Global News, December 19th 2018
by Andre Coelho | Nov 19, 2018 | News
City Leaders attendees in L.A. at City Summit. Credit to: NLC.
The National League of Cities (NLC), an organization serving the interests of 19000 cities, towns and villages across the United States territory, has released, in a partnership with the Stanford Basic Income Lab (BIL), a basic income report to serve as guide to piloting UBI in cities. Framed as a toolkit, it is directed at city leaders and aims to guide policy rather than blueprint UBI pilots. It is intended to help cities considering introducing basic income experiments, providing historical background, prior experiment reports and results and present-day efforts in that regard.
The UBI is seriously contemplated by the NLC as a possible solution – although not a panacea – to growing automation, labour precariousness and peaking inequality. Basic income is also seen as an effective way to boost entrepreneurship, while providing a solid safety net. City leaders are conscient, though, that cities are limited in their ability to introduce basic income schemes, as they are part of wider nation-state organizations and governments. However, cities can act as experimental grounds to provide results and identify hurdles, both crucial aspects of an eventual nation-wide UBI implementation.
The basic income toolkit for cities is also meant to be a piece in what has been called a Theory of Change (ToC). A ToC is a study built as a roadmap to introduce meaningful change to a complex system such as a city. It is designed to help cities articulate their short, medium and long-term goals, and, within this context, draw important and already available outcomes from unconditional cash-transfer programs. Conversely, the ToC helps in calibrating the UBI experiment, informing on which data to collect, and when.
In a nutshell, the basic income report for UBI experiments in cities issues recommendations on identifying the goals (of the experiment), choosing those involved and when these should participate, defining the choice of recipients, specifying how to measure success and creating an effective communication strategy.
More information at:
Brooks Rainwater, “Yes, Cities Can Pilot Universal Basic Income”, National League of Cities, November 9th 2018
Juliana Bidadanure et al., “Basic Income in Cities – A guide to city experiments and pilot projects”, National League of Cities and Stanford Basic Income Lab, 2018
by Daniele Fabbri | Sep 30, 2018 | News
Four Ontario mayors, with a letter addressed to Jean-Yves Duclos, who sits in the present Canadian federal cabinet as Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development, appeal to the Federal Government for assuming oversight over the Basic Income Pilot project in their communities.
The letter from the Mayors of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder Bay follows the early end of the pilot, wich was announced on July 31st by the new center right government of the Ontario province. It was and abrupt end, just three months after the pilot program was fully subscribed, following its announcement by the previous government in April 2017.
For the pilot, the province had enrolled 6,000 people, 4,000 to actually receive the payments, the others to act as a control group. In order to be selected for the pilot, the requisites were: being between the ages of 18 and 64, and living on a low income, defined as under $34,000 per year for singles and $48,000 for couples. Participants were to receive, under a tax credit model, $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income, or $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income.
The communities of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder bay were among those to be chosen as the sites for the pilot test, and Ontario’s pilot was at the center of a diffused international interest for the concept of basic income, with delegations from the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea and the Unites states visiting the communities in order to observe and learn from the experience. “We believe the results of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot would have provided crucial information that could enable not just the Ontario Government, but other jurisdictions around the country to determine the efficacy of such a program on a larger scale”, the mayors write.
The end of the project was justified by the minister of Community Social Services (CSS) because it supposedly provided a disincentive to work, ignoring that two thirds of pilot participants are currently working (some with part-time jobs), but nonetheless interested in contributing to the community and to upgrade their professional skills, the letter says.
The fallout from the Ontario government’s cancellation of the pilot is twofold, on the one hand it is detrimental to participants, and on the other one it is a step back in the research for a better, more comprehensive way, to assist citizens.
The pilot was in the first of the three scheduled years of duration, and its findings and level of success could not be determined appropriately, although many participants could already identify positive changes in their lives as a result of it. These reported having used the money to stabilize their housing, improve their health through better dieting and checking for opportunities to specialize themselves, going back to school and enhance their level of skills. The letter continues by saying that many participants reported an amelioration of their well-being and the regaining of confidence, self-esteem and dignity, as they become able to afford housing and improve their intake of healthy food. Futhermore, as a consequence of being able to afford the time for civic activities and volunteering, these people were becoming active members of their community.
The decision to stop the program is harmful the participants, as they made financial decisions having in mind the commitment of the Ontario government to supply them with a stable income over the next years. They were elected among the most vulnerable members of their communities and, once the pilot started, many incurred in expenses which are now irrecoverable. Planning ahead for the following three years period, some moved to safer rental accommodations, finding themselves locked in tenancy agreements they cannot afford, while others paid up-front to go back to school or to enhance their skills, and found themselves indebted.
In the letter, the mayors of the cities of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder Bay say that they fear that many of the participant will “inevitably fall into situations of homelessness and significant financial distress” without any fault of their own, and those struggling with mental health will now need additional support.
The mayors thus request that the federal government assumes oversight over the Ontario Basic Income project for the following two years, in order to complete it. They provide three reasons in support for their request. Firstly, the pilot infrastructure has already been built, with many of the up-front costs having been paid, the participants chosen and a project staff in place with given timelines and an evaluation team at work. Secondly, information gathered through the pilot, which is the greatest such test in the world and the first in Canada since Mincome in the seventies (the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment, conducted between 1974 and 1979), would benefit the Federal Government, providing a bonanza of valuable data. And thirdly, one third of the total cost of the project, $50 million, has already been spent. There is no hope of recovering that amount, which considering the negative fallout produced by the premature cancellation of the pilot, is an expense that would end up only creating distress in the communities which were taking part in the experiment.
“Minister, when the program was launched, you said that you would be watching it closely and looked forward to seeing the results – as did we. Federal oversight of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project would be the best option to revive the critical information that will be generated, protect pilot participants from crisis who entered into the program in good faith and ensure the funds that have already been spent on this program are not wasted.”
The termination of the pilot provoked turmoil and induced various reactions from the communities involved, and awaiting for an answer from the federal government, a judicial review has been requested over the cancellation of the experiment and a class-action lawsuit has been launched by Mike Perry, a social advocate for the program which is handling the cases pro bono, representing four pilot participants.
For more information:
Shawn Jeffords, “4 Ontario mayors asking feds to take over basic income pilot“, Global News, September 7th 2018
Chris Friel, Fred Eisenberg, Andy Letham and Keith Hobbs – Letter to Minister Duclos, September 4th 2018
Official Ontario Basic Income Pilot website
Kate McFarland, “ONTARIO, CANADA: New Government Declares Early End of Guaranteed Income Experiment“, Basic Income News, August 2nd 2018
Article reviewed by André Coelho
