by Kate McFarland | Jun 2, 2016 | News
Research Eduardo Rodriguez-Montemayor writes about basic income in the blog of INSEAD, the Business School for the World.
After arguing that we should not fear the rise of automation, he defends basic income as a way to increase human productivity.
A citizen’s income (UBI) could become a centerpiece of social solidarity. It prevents absolute poverty while removing the stigma from state support. An immediate criticism of a UBI is that people will just not bother to work anymore, similar to criticisms leveled at unemployment insurance. But unemployment benefits are contingent on not working. A universal income is conferred on everyone, and would thus avoid that people have the interest to work less in order to meet the conditions for being eligible. Also, people would feel safer leaving employers, reskilling via lifelong learning, moving to another place or starting businesses. There is already evidence that such cash transfers increase one’s willingness to bear risk. This would encourage people to seek out the careers they desire, more in line with their skills and motivations, rather than the ones that put “food on the table”. The economy would thus become more productive by facilitating the efficient reallocation of talent.
Rodriguez-Montemayor is a Senior Research Fellow in INSEAD’s Economics Department. Additionally, he is a lead researcher of the Global Talent Competitiveness Index, and consults for the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Inter-American Development Bank, and United Nations Environment Program.
Read the article here:
Eduardo Rodriguez-Montemayor, 11 May 2016, “How to Share the Benefits of Technology,” INSEAD Blog.
Note: There are a couple of apparent factual errors in this article. Rodriguez-Montemayor implicates, falsely, that the Finns preparing actually to enact a basic income (as opposed to running a pilot), and he states, prior to the popular vote on June 5th, that the Swiss have rejected the referendum on basic income.
This obligatory robot picture is from Phasmatisnox, via Wikimedia Commons.
by Kate McFarland | May 31, 2016 | News
At its national convention in Winnipeg last week, the Liberal Party of Canada — the oldest federal political party in Canada, and the country’s current majority party — passed a resolution in favor of a guaranteed basic income.
This Priority Resolution states, “That the Liberal Party of Canada, in consultation with the provinces, develop a poverty reduction strategy aimed at providing a minimum guaranteed income.”
The rationale for the resolution draws upon Dr. Evelyn Forget’s analysis of the the success of the Mincome experiments, conducted in Dauphin, Manitoba in the late 1970s:
The ever growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in Canada will lead to social unrest, increased crime rates and violence. Research indicates that a guaranteed basic income can reduce this gap, and create social security while being cost neutral. …
… Dr. Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis of the [Mincome] program in 2009 which was published in 2011. Forget found that in the period that mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5%, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.
Roderick Benns, reporting on the resolution in Leaders and Legacies, contextualizes this breakthrough amid the growing popularity of universal basic income in Canada:
Quebec is currently looking into a form of basic income and Ontario has committed to doing a pilot project beginning this year to study the effects of a minimum income. Prince Edward Island has also expressed strong interest.
Senator Art Eggleton has been relentlessly pushing this issue, as has his retired counterpart, retired Conservative Senator Hugh Segal.
Mayors across Canada are also on board. In fact, no less than nine provincial and territorial capital leaders support basic income or at least pilot projects, with innumerable smaller city and town mayors across the nation declaring their support as well.
References:
Liberal Party of Canada, “Poverty Reduction: Minimum Income,” WPG 2016.
Daniel Tencer, “Basic Income Now Officially Liberal Party Policy,” Huff Post, May 30, 2016.
Roderick Benns, “Liberals ready to shake up Canada’s social policy with basic income guarantee,” Leaders and Legacies, May 30, 2016.
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
by Albert Joerimann | May 31, 2016 | News
When Namibia’s president Hage Geingob appointed Bishop Zephania Kameeta as minister of poverty eradication and social welfare last year, the Basic Income activists saw this as a step towards the introduction of a nationwide Basic Income Grant (BIG). President Geingob was considered to be amongst the supporters of a BIG within the ruling SWAPO party, while Bishop Kameeta was the chairperson of Namibia’s BIG Coalition and an initiator of the BIG pilot project in Otjivero. At the beginning of April 2016, the president presented his state of the nation address as well as the “Harambee Prosperity Plan”, which focused on combating poverty by the creation of jobs through economic growth. There was no mention of a systematic redistribution of the existing wealth, even though Namibia has among the greatest income inequality of all countries, with a Gini index of about 60. The only specific anti-poverty measures mentioned by Namibia’s president have been the establishment of a “food bank” to benefit of the urban poor and a promise to provide jobless youth with grants, provided that they contribute to the activities of the food bank, identify beneficiaries, help to keep the streets clean and assist with “community policing”.
The ministry of poverty eradication is expected to present its own specific measures in the next few weeks, but it is doubtful that the introduction of a national BIG will happen in the near future. This is a serious setback for the hopes that have risen since the appointment of Bishop Kameeta. This is particularly disappointing since Namibia’s pilot project in Otjivero had not only shown how effective a BIG could be but also inspired people in Kenya to launch another big BIG pilot project in their country. This should have encouraged the Namibian government to implement the BIG on a national scale.
More information at:
Language: German
Von Herbert Jauch, “Food bank statt Grundeinkommen [A food bank instead of basic income]”, Junge Welt, April 13th, 2016
by Kate McFarland | May 29, 2016 | News
Dr. Guy Standing, co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network, was recently a featured guest on two episodes of Sputnik‘s Brave New World podcast.
The first episode provides a general introduction to universal basic income, including an overview of common arguments for and against the idea.
The second turns to practical issues in testing and implementing a basic income, as well as Standing’s forecasts concerning where and how the first realizations of the idea are most likely to emerge.
Listen to the episodes here:
1. “Is Basic Income Now Essential?” (April 29, 2016)
2. “Universal Basic Income: The Year of the Pilot” (March 13, 2016)
Image Credit: New Zealand Tertiary Education Union, via Wikimedia Commons
by Kate McFarland | May 26, 2016 | News
In a piece published in Equites, business writer Joel Anderson analyzes how a UBI might be feasible — “in three acts.”
Anderson begins (in “act one”) by asking why it is desirable to adopt a basic income. In answering this question, he highlights the potential of a UBI to enhance the bargaining power of workers. When people live in poverty, they might feel compelled to take any job — even a terrible, low-paying job — out of necessity. Furthermore, as long as there’s a pool of such impoverished would-be workers, workers who do want to bargain for more than a paltry wage are risk of replacement by someone willing to work for less. This would change drastically under a UBI.
Further bolstering the case for a UBI, Anderson examines the changing nature of the American economy. Due to advancements in robotics and IT, he says,
[W]e’re now living in a world where a large section of society is searching for a role to play without a clear sense that there will be one.
Instead of continuing to subdivide what work still needs actual humans into a series of low-wage, low-skill jobs that few people actually want to do, why not embrace our changing future and try to empower people to find how they can contribute value that’s unique to them? A UBI would hypothetically give every citizen the flexibility to make choices about how they use their time in a society that increasingly doesn’t need them to spend it working.
In his “second act,” Anderson asks how a basic income could be afforded in the United States. (To illustrate, he considers a UBI of $15,600 per adult per year, with an additional $5,000 per dependent.)
He provides a comprehensive look at savings due to elimination of current welfare programs, anticipated reductions in spending on crime and security, and anticipated increases in tax revenue due to economic growth. After this, he admits that the US would still need to raise taxes considerably to fund a UBI — but to a level that is still modest by global standards.
Finally, in the “third act,” Anderson presents empirical evidence that a UBI would work — including a brief summary of results from past basic income pilots.
Now, these studies were all relatively small, so it’s likely a mistake to simply extrapolate out their results, but they do seem to indicate a basic truth: people mostly want to do something with their lives. Overall, when freed from the need to work simply to fulfill basic necessities, most people in these studies tended to still find ways to be productive. Not everyone, to be sure, but a pretty solid majority. In many cases, they pursue things like a better education or job that will greatly increase productivity over the course of their lifetimes.
Reference
Joel Anderson, 10 May 2016, “Money For Nothing and Your Checks for Free: Why the Basic Income Makes More Sense than You Think,” Equites.
Image Credit: badgreeb Records via flickr
