by Guest Contributor | Apr 9, 2019 | Opinion
Written by: Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy and Mônica Dallari
This January, we discovered an extraordinary pioneer effort towards poverty eradication in poor rural villages in Kenya: the transfer of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Through the initiative of GiveDirectly, an institution created by four graduates of Harvard University and MIT, Silicon Valley institutions and other organizations contributed to the formation of a US$30 million fund to benefit about 20,000 Kenyans in the most important and thorough study about UBI in history. In the visits to rural villages in the Kisumu and Siaya areas, reports were unanimous in stating that with UBI contributed to a significant improvement in the quality of life of all the beneficiaries.
Lula da Silva on the far left; Eduardo Suplicy on the far right
Upon learning that GiveDirectly was carrying out this experiment in Kenya, we decided to write a letter to them, in which I (Eduardo) introduced myself as the author of the Brazilian Law 10.835 / 2004, which establishes the implementation, in stages, the UBI for all people in Brazil, including foreigners residing here for five years or more. As honorary co-chair of BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network), I said I would like to know about the experiment. This request was accepted by Caroline Teti, GiveDirectly’s external relations director in Nairobi.
Eduardo Suplicy visits Grameen Bank with Muhammad Yunus, in Dhaka Bangladesh. July 2007
How the UBI program works
GiveDirectly´s office in Nairobi. January 2019
As soon as we arrived in Nairobi, we met with her and started a dialogue with the coordinator of a team of 34 people who work in the call center. The call center is responsible for the quarterly contacts with each one of the 21,000 adult beneficiaries of the UBI experiment. In 2016, GiveDirectly started the pilot to provide a UBI payment in Kisumu, Siaya and Bomet counties. More than 630,000 people in these counties live below the poverty line, defined by the Kenyan government as less than US$15 a month per household member, in rural areas, and $28 a month per household member in urban areas.
For the execution of the experiment, 295 villages (14,474 residences) were randomly selected, divided into four groups:
- Control Group: 100 villages that do not receive payments;
- Long-Term UBI: 44 villages in which adults (over 18 years old) receive sufficient income for basic needs, about US$0.75 per day, or $22 per month for 12 years;
- Short Term UBI: 80 villages where adults receive sufficient income for basic needs, about $0.75 per day or $22 per month for 2 years;
- Lump Sum UBI (or UBI Cash Payment): In 71 villages, families receive UBI in the fixed amount of US$1,000 divided into two payments of $500.
The transfers are made through M-Pesa, a mobile money service created in 2007 by Safaricom, a Vodafone telephone company in Kenya. The platform enables financial transactions that are safe, fast and cheap through a cell phone, such as deposits, transfers, and savings. The platform does not need a bank account.
View of the National Park at Nairobi. January 2019
Small retailers in rural villages across the country were trained and became agents of M-Pesa services. Beneficiaries can withdraw money or shop at accredited establishments in all villages in Kenya. Those who did not have cell phones were able to purchase a low-cost GiveDirectly device. Today, 80 percent of the country’s adult population has a cell phone.
From the visits to the beneficiaries of the Kenyan experiment of UBI, we can say that the improvement in the well-being of the people is very significant. This was what we were able to witness in all the residences we visited and in the dialogue with beneficiaries of UBI. Mothers and fathers spoke of the concern to prioritize the education of children and adolescents, ensuring attendance and completion of school. This became possible due to UBI, which even helped in the hiring of auxiliary teachers. In general, our respondents stated that they were better fed and had access to a greater variety of foods.
The benefit of the UBI resulted in people being able to work more intensely and productively, especially because they were able to acquire better working equipment, such as tools, motorcycles to transport people or make deliveries, livestock (goat and cattle) to supply meat and milk, fishing equipment to get more fish in the lake to sell them, land purchasing for vegetable and fruit trees planting. These activities directly increased their income. Some families have invested in systems to better capture rainwater or solar energy collectors in order to have electricity. Households purchased better furniture, such as mattresses, sofas, tables, chairs and small electrical appliances, such as a stereo or radio. Straw roofs have been replaced with steel that contains gutters.
Sunset at Lake Victoria. January 2019
It is important to note that we do not perceive any use of alcohol or other drugs. A study by Innovation Poverty Action1, IPA, corroborates our observation since there was no increase in spending on tobacco, alcohol or gambling. The impression we have goes in the opposite direction; behaviors based on solidarity and cooperation between individuals have been reinforced.
Perhaps most remarkable was the redefinition of gender roles. Because women also receive the benefit, we hear from them how they feel freer in deciding where to spend their money, and we record reports of how couples have come to the table on UBI payday to talk about the household budget. Households frequently organize groups to pool money for a larger purchase or to assume a higher value expenditure. In Kenya, polygamy is allowed. We sometimes see that the UBI contributed to greater solidarity between the wives of one husband, and even between his widows and children.
The agility and speed provided by the digital income transfer system were also fundamental. Each beneficiary is notified by SMS when the transfer is made, being able to make purchases in the M-Pesa accredited establishments, or if she prefers, to exchange the credit for money.
City of Kisumu. January 2019
Another important development was numerous reports demonstrating a noticeable decrease in violence against women and other criminal acts, such as theft in the villages. The direct income transfer done in this way has avoided incorrect procedures and corruption.
M-Pesa Agency. January 2019
For those who want to know more about this Universal Basic Income (UBI) experiment in Kenya and other countries, please access the website. The website provides testimonials from beneficiaries of the UBI collected by the people who work in the call center, available to everyone. You will have confirmed the positive impression of this remarkable pioneering experiment on Universal Basic Income. In addition, you will have the opportunity for this remarkable and important experiment. If you would like more information, write to info@givedirectly.org.
Call Center at the GiveDirectly´s Office. January 2019
Visiting Barack Obama’s Grandmother Sarah Obama
Eduardo Suplicy visits Mama Sarah Obama, in Kogelo. January 2019
On our last day in Kenya, we visited Mama Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s grandmother, at her farm in Kogelo, another rural village. At first, we would have only three minutes to be with her because of her age, 98 years, but we talked with Mama Sarah and Obama’s aunt, Marsat Oniango, for almost 30 minutes. Enthusiastic about the conversation, they assured me they would send President Obama a letter that I had with me, the same one I had handed to him on October 5, 2017, during a lecture in Sao Paulo.
I spoke of my enthusiasm when I watched on TV the homage Obama paid to South African President Nelson Mandela on his 100th birthday in the packed stadium of Johannesburg. In that speech, the former US president made an important statement, expressing concern about “artificial intelligence that is accelerating. Now we will have automobiles without drivers, more and more automated services, which will mean the need to provide work for all. We will have to be more imaginative because the impact of change will require us to rethink our political and social arrangements to protect the economic security and dignity that comes with work. It’s not just money that a job provides. It provides dignity, structure, a sense of place and purpose. And we will have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, such as universal income, review of working hours, how to train our young people in this new scenario, how to make each person an entrepreneur of some level.”
I concluded by expressing my certainty that this positive experiment in the Universal Basic Income in the country of Obama’s father and grandfather, whose graves we visited on the grounds of Mama Sarah’s house, will resonate very favorably throughout the world.
Steps after the trip
Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy
Steel Roof to capture rainwater
The fact of having experienced a real immersion in the subject of Basic Income in such a short space of time and in two very different dimensions, that is, the theoretical academic approach of the conference in Cambridge and the opportunity to make field observations during our visits to Kenya, provoked a series of reflections, which made me desire to act.
The trip was made throughout the month of January 2019, coinciding with the inauguration and first month of the government of Jair Bolsonaro. The campaign of the victorious candidate in the 2018 election, his statements after confirmation of his election and the movements of the transition process between the Temer government and the new occupants of the Planalto indicate that the new government has an economic agenda that is based on intentions to resume growth and development of the country, generate jobs and guarantee some stability in public accounts. Despite the fact that I belong to the party that opposed the Bolsonaro candidacy, I believe that certain principles of equity, income distribution, and assistance to the most excluded are values of democracy that are not exclusive to this or that political aspect. So I decided that it was time to warn President Jair Bolsonaro, Minister of Economy Paulo Guedes and the Special Secretary of the Federal Revenue of Brazil Marcos Cintra Cavalcante de Albuquerque about the pertinence to take the steps towards the Citizenship Basic Income.
Philippe Van Parijs and Eduardo Suplicy at the University of Cambridge. January 14th, 2019
Soon after coming back to Brazil, I wrote a letter to these three government officials who had just taken their first steps and offered two copies of works that I believe are fundamental to understanding the concept of basic income: My book “Citizen’s Income: The Exit is Through the Door,” and “Basic Income – A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy” by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, which contains a foreword by myself.
In my argument, I stress the fact that Law 10.835 / 2004, which establishes the Citizen Basic Income, Universal and Unconditional, was approved by all the parties in both houses of the National Congress, including by the then deputy Jair Bolsonaro. I reminded the President “in case the President of the Republic wishes to comply with Article 3 of the Constitution on the fundamental objectives of the Republic of Brazil, in a manner compatible with what is expressed in its program of government, to guarantee a minimum income for all Brazilian families, as liberal thinkers like Milton Friedman argue, the most effective way to do so will be through the implementation of the Citizenship Basic Income, a concept that Friedman considered another way to apply the Negative Income Tax.”
Beneficiary receives credit by SMS. January 2019
In the letter, I also summarized some up-to-date information on the subject, such as the fact that today “more than 40 countries are debating, conducting experiments and considering the implementation of Unconditional Basic Income.” I briefly reported on the visit I had just made: “The results so far are highly promising, as I found out in person. Brazil would have all the conditions to carry out local experiments, as indeed has been the desire of several municipalities like Santo Antônio do Pinhal, Apiaí and Maricá. In the City Council of São Paulo, a Law Project of Mayor Fernando Haddad is in process, already approved in the Commissions of Constitution and Justice and Public Administration, to establish, in stages, UBI in cooperation with the state and federal governments.” Finally, I suggested that a Working Group, possibly coordinated by IPEA, to study the steps towards the Citizenship Basic Income. I stated that I had already spoken with both the Perseu Abramo Foundation of the Workers Party and the Fernando Henrique Cardoso Foundation, linked to the PSDB, who have already been willing to discuss basic income with the newly elected government.
The letter, as well as the volumes, were delivered to Marcos Cintra Cavalcante de Albuquerque, current Special Secretary of the Federal Revenue of Brazil, with whom I had a hearing on February 1, 2019. At the same time, I delivered a letter to the then president and future president of IPEA, Ernesto Lozardo, and Carlos Von Doellinger, detailing how this Working Group could be constituted and reporting my dialogue with former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso during the electoral process. “Given that a number of Presidential candidates were in agreement with this objective, we could very possibly meet the various economic teams of the various candidates to work on this subject.” Sérgio Fausto, the working coordinator of the FHC Foundation, suggested that this meeting should be held after the elections in the first half of 2019.
On the other hand, Márcio Pochmann, President of the Perseu Abramo Foundation, accepted the proposal to create a Working Group for this purpose, and two meetings of this group have already been held. I believe it will be common sense for IPEA to coordinate the efforts of these various institutions linked to the parties whose candidates have made proposals to do this.
It is up to the Government to take the suggested steps.
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 6, 2019 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
The website, Revista Libertalia, recently published an article in Spanish with extensive quotes from an interview conducted with me. The article is entitled, “Voces sobre la renta básica (II): ¿Está justificada? [Voices on basic income (II): Is it justified?].” It’s author is Pablo Magaña. The Spanish version was published on February 28, 2019. The author created, but did not publish an English version of the article. The quotes below reproduce the entire English version with no additional editing.
Voices on the basic income (II): Is it justified?
The idea of a basic income raises many hopes and some eyebrows. In this article, some of its defenders will explain to us which is, in their view, the best way to justify it. However, in order to make the discussion more interesting, we also asked them to answer one common objection that is often raised against the proposal: the free-riding objection. What does this objection say? Quite simple. Unlike other social security schemes, a basic income is unconditional, which means that you can be entitled to it regardless of your socio-economic condition. And, more crucially, regardless of the extent to which you contribute to your society.
For some people, this is plainly unfair. The viability of a basic income depends upon the existence of enough contributors to a common public fund. But, as long as this scheme is already in place and working in a stable manner, if any individual decided not to contribute to it, there would be nothing we could do in response: given the income’s unconditional character, the supposed free-rider would still be as entitled to it as any other citizen. Let us suppose – so goes the classical example[i] – that I decided to spent all my time living high, surfing the waves in Malibu, playing guitar under the moonlight, driving along endless highways on the wheel of an old van. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Still, since such a plan would only be possible if others work and contribute to a common fund, my decision might look like an injustice, a clear case of free-riding. But is it really like this?
Before introducing some possible answers to this challenge, we will look first at some arguments in favor of a basic income.
According to Hillel Steiner[ii], “the best way to defend the right to UBI involves a dual strategy: (a) showing that this right is implied by some more basic and uncontested principle, and (b) showing that this right is compatible with, and does not encroach upon, other widely accepted rights”. As a left-libertarian, Steiner regards the Earth as humanity’s common possession[iii], which entails that if somebody intends to appropriate herself of any portion of it, she should compensate her fellow co-owners. If she didn’t, she would be illegitimately appropriating of something that is not really hers. In other words, she would be stealing. Steiner’s emphasis on natural resources colors both his model of basic income and his preferred justification of it:
“In my view, a right to UBI should be funded by a 100% tax on the ownership of natural resources, commonly termed a ‘Land Value Tax’ or, more accurately, a ‘Location Value Tax’. This tax would be levied on the value of those locations themselves, and not on the value of any improvements made to those locations by human labour. A right to a UBI funded in this way satisfies (a) since those taxable natural resources/locations, not being the product of any person’s labour, are rightfully available for use by everyone. So if someone wants to privatise some of them, and to exclude all others from using them, then it seems only fair that the privatizer should compensate those others. The UBI I’m proposing simply is that compensation.”
This is a fairly common way to defend the right to a basic income, also employed by Guy Standing[iv], author of Basic Income: And How we Can Make it Happen[v]. In Standing’s view, “the right to a basic income can be justified on three ethical grounds. First, it is a matter of common justice. The land, the air, water, and even ideas inherited from our ancestors are all part of the commons which belong to everybody equally. But elites and the wealthy have been given, have inherited or have used the commons for their benefit. Therefore, they should compensate the commoners who have lost the commons, and the fairest way to do that is give everybody in society a common payment, a ‘common dividend’ on our collective public wealth”.
Again, the basic income is presented as a way of compensating human beings for having deprived them of what is, in essence, a public good. However, as we have seen, Standing believes there are additional reasons on behalf of a basic income. “[A] second fundamentally ethical reason for a basic income”, he contends, “is that it would enhance individual and societal freedom. In particular, it would strengthen republican freedom — the freedom from domination by figures in unaccountable positions of power. Whether you are on the political left or right, we all claim (or most of us do!) to believe in freedom. But you cannot be free unless you have the capacity to say ‘no’ to people who can oppress or exploit you. If you do not have basic income security, you do not have that capacity.”
Note that this argument is slightly different from the previous one. Granted, here the argument is also premised upon the existence of an injustice. Yet in this case the injustice does not involve the illegitimate appropriation of what is commonly owned, but rather the presence of a structure of domination under which individuals cannot really be considered autonomous or free. According to this argument, justice requires that nobody ever feel the need to be subjected to another’s arbitrary will, an aim which would only be secured by implementing a right to a basic income[vi].
Political philosopher Karl Widerquist[vii], author of many books and articles on the basic income[viii], has defended a similar view. As he puts it, we need acknowledge that:
“[I]t’s wrong for anyone to come between another person and the resources they need to survive. It’s wrong for anyone to put conditions on people’s access to the resources they need to survive. Don’t ignore this fact: poverty is the lack of access to the resources you need to live a decent life. A healthy person with the right skills and access to a healthy environment can do many things that are impossible for an impoverished person in society today. They can build their own house; fish, farm, or hunt their own food; they can work with who they want. They call work alone or with whoever they want. They don’t need a boss. They never have to follow orders.”
“Our societies create poverty by interfering with people who would like to use the resources of the Earth for themselves. We do it because better off people want to control all the world’s resources. By allowing a small group to control the world’s resources without paying compensation to the people they thereby make propertyless, we put most people in the position in which “work” becomes synonymous with “a job.” Making a living means taking orders. This is not a fact of nature. It is the outcome of society’s rules. We need to change those rules.”
“UBI rectifies that problem. It says if you’re going to hold more resources than others, you have to pay something back in compensation, so that no one ever again is forced to live in poverty and no one is ever forced into the position where they must take orders to survive.”
“UBI is not the end of the market or the end of paid labor. It is simply a market where income doesn’t start at zero, and workers are freed from the threat of destitution. With UBI, workers enter the labor market as free people. Employers have to pay enough to make it worthwhile for workers to take those jobs. UBI will give us a high-wage economy that works for everyone.”
One view in this vicinity has been defended by philosopher Elizabeth Anderson[ix], who, nonetheless, does not believe that a basic income would necessarily be the best option. Now, if it was, she says, the best way to ground it would be as follows:
“The best case for the UBI is as follows. Automation, and changes in the nature of employment, are bringing about the disappearance of stable jobs and the rise of a precariat class whose members are unable to support themselves with steady employment. UBI is needed to provide the security and basis for a decent life for a rising number of people in the world. BI should be universal to ensure its political stability and to avoid the costs of means testing and intrusive investigations of people’s lives.”
Among other things, Anderson is well-known for her defense of so-called “relational egalitarianism”[x], the view that theorists of justice should focus a bit less on how resources are distributed and more on how we treat each other (the latter having obviously implications for the former). This is to say, what matters the most is not who gets what, but whether we treat each other as an equal or not – without distinctions based on social status or power asymmetries.
Before finishing this part of the article, let us look at another possible strategy to justify a basic income. Until now, the arguments we have seen have focused either i) on a compensation for an illegitimate appropriation of a common good, or ii) on the need to make sure that individuals enjoy a minimal independence, in that they ought not to be forced to choose between accepting orders or starve. But there is a third line of argument, which would stress iii) the alleged positive consequences of a basic income. This is Guy Standing’s third argument:
“The third ethical reason for wanting a basic income is that it would tend to provide basic security, which is what we call a public good. We all want basic security in our lives, and basic security is a superior public good in that if everybody in our community has basic security, it increases the value of it for everybody. Basic security has been shown to increase tolerance, resilience, altruism and mental bandwidth (or mental health and IQ).”
This is all very well, one might say. But, what happens with our Malibu surfer? Isn’t he objectionably free-riding on his fellow citizens? Isn’t it unfair that he can live a highly pleasant life while I have to break my back from 9 to 5?
In Steiner’s view, the answer is no: “[E]veryone – lazy, as well as industrious – is entitled to that compensation”. For remember that, according to him, a basic income is not just another subsidy, but the compensation that those who want to possess more than their fair share of the Earth’s natural resources have to pay to the rest of us – whether we are surfers or not.
Widerquist, in his reply, invites us to cast some doubt on the value judgments and the assumptions presupposed by the objection:
“The thing that most detracts people from UBI is the belief that prosperous people have the right and responsibility to tell less prosperous people what to do. We, the prosperous, want to think we are better than the less prosperous. We want to think our virtue—rather than a less-than-perfectly-fair system—is the reason people are less prosperous than we are. We like to think that we know what the less prosperous need to do to become prosperous—even though the vast majority of us have no idea what it is like to grow up poor and how different people’s circumstances can be.”
“Not only are these beliefs unfounded, they are not good for the middle class. Because we want to put the very poor in the position where they have to do what more prosperous people want, we put the vast majority of people in the position where they have to do what the wealthiest few want. Probably well more than 90% of people in every country have no choice but to take a job for a living. The vast majority of us—even some very prosperous people—are unfree to work for ourselves. And so, we must go to an employer—most of whom represent very wealthy corporations—get a job, and take orders all day. That is neither freedom nor fairness.”
“UBI will put the middle class in a much better bargaining position. In most countries, the middle class is not significantly better off than they were 40 years ago. Virtually, all the benefits of the last 40 years of economic growth have gone to the wealthiest 1%. UBI will help the other 99% command the better wages and the shorter working hours that they have earned.”
Another way to answer the free-riding objection involves calling into question its relevancy. Why should we care so much, the rejoinder goes, about something that is actually very unlikely? A rejoinder of this type has been endorsed by Guy Standing:
“The normal human condition is to want to work, to improve ourselves, to improve our living conditions, to improve the life prospects of our children and so on. I would feel sorry for somebody who would not work because he or she had a modest basic income. But of course this is not what happens or is likely to happen to more than a tiny number of people. We have found in our pilots that people with a basic income work more, not less, and are more productive, not less.”[xi]
Indeed, Standing believes that even if free riding was as likely as the objection assumes, the good consequences of a basic income would probably outweigh its potential defects or unfair aspects. As he puts it, a basic income “would encourage more of us to spend more time doing work that is not labour, such as caring for elderly frail relatives or children or doing community work. Most of us will go into old age wishing we had done more of that type of work and less of labour”.
Finally, one can accept the core of the objection – namely, that justice requires some degree of reciprocity – while denying that one’s contributions to society must be measured solely according to their market value. In Elizabeth Anderson’s words: “Everyone ought to contribute to society. But not all positive contributions to society need be via paid employment on the market. Much of women’s work taking care of children and elder dependents is not paid, although it is socially necessary. Much nonprofit work makes a huge difference for others, but it is also not paid. Most people want to make a positive contribution and will do so in one way or another. Society should expand opportunities to make a contribution, but not insist that they survive a market test”.
What this view suggests is that Californian surfers needn’t be free-riding on us. Though their economic contribution to society may border on nothingness, this wouldn’t necessarily imply that they cannot contribute in other ways, nor that they are unable to provide us with valuable things. Suppose we discovered that no member of the Rolling Stones has ever paid a dollar in taxes since they became famous. Would that mean they haven’t contributed to society as much as they should? Probably. Would it also mean they haven’t contributed anything at all? That seems harder to stomach. For many people, listening to their songs, going to their concerts, or simply learning to play guitar by imitating Keith Richards or Roon Wood are in themselves valuable experiences that would not vanish of a sudden.
Are these arguments convincing? Do they answer adequately to the free-riding objection? Do they really succeed in justifying a basic income? That is something for the reader to decide.
—————-
[i] This objection was famously formulated by John Rawls in his article “The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good” (1988), Philosophy & Public Affairs 17(4): 257, n. 7. For an equally well-known response, see also Philippe van Parijs,“Why Surfers Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income” (1991), Philosophy & Public Affairs 20(2): 101-131.
[ii] https://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/hillel.steiner/
[iii] See, for instance, Steiner’s article “Left Libertarianism and the Ownership of Natural Resources” (2009), Public Reason 1(1): 1-8.
[iv] https://www.guystanding.com/.
[v] For the Spanish tradition, see: https://www.marcialpons.es/libros/la-renta-basica/9788494769474/.
[vi] Let us remember that a similar argument was put forward by Matt Zwolinski in this article’s predecessor: https://www.revistalibertalia.com/single-post/2019/02/09/Voces-sobre-la-renta-basica-I-La-renta-basica-y-el-libertarismo.
[vii] https://www.qatar.georgetown.edu/profile/karl-widerquist.
[viii] See, for instance, https://www.amazon.com/Independence-Propertylessness-Basic-Income-Exploring/dp/1137274727.
[ix] https://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/.
[x] The locus classicus of this discussion is “What is the Point of Equality?” (1999), Ethics 109(2): 287-337.
[xi] These results are discussed in chapter 8 of the book mentioned in note iv.
“Voces sobre la renta básica (II): ¿Está justificada? [Voices on basic income (II): Is it justified?]” by Pablo Magaña, Libertalia, February 28, 2019
by Andre Coelho | Feb 2, 2019 | News
Minho, Portugal. Picture credit to: Notícias ao Minuto
Last Wednesday there was a Conference on Basic Income at Universidade do Minho, called “Rendimento Básico: uma Ferramenta para uma Europa Social? [Basic Income: a Tool for a Social Europe?]”. It was organized by Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade [Center for Ethics, Politics and Society] (CEPS), together with several institutional partners, for instance Universidade do Porto (Porto University) and Ministério do Trabalho, Solidariedade e Segurança Social (Social Security, Solidarity and Work Ministry).
This Conference featured presentations and contributions from several specialists, politicians and students, such as Philippe van Parijs, Jurgen de Wispelaere, Jamie Cooke, Evelyn Forget, Roberto Merrill, Gonçalo Marcelo, José António Vieira da Silva (Social Security, Solidarity and Work minister) and Ana Carla Pereira (European Commission Social Protection Systems Head of Unit), among others.
On the aftermath of this event, several interviews and articles were published, confirming the rising interest in basic income within the Portuguese reality. Interviewed by Público newspaper, van Parijs clarified that, although automation is largely seen as the prime mover of basic income, at least in “developed” countries, it is “not at the bottom of the basic income proposal”. According to him, basic income is, rather, a way to include everyone in work. Answering a series of questions focused on the perceived problems with basic income – work disincentive, contrary to work ethic, social cleavages, menace to the welfare state – van Parijs defended the proposal as non-conflicting with the work ethic, since people can choose better what to work for with a basic income, and also as collaborating with the welfare state and its function to provide material security.
Minister Vieira da Silva, also interviewed by Público, believes that basic income, if ever to become a reality, can only be implemented at an European scale. His greatest fear is that, with basic income, society will become polarized between the employed, who would (in his view) be financing basic income, and the unemployed, who would only be surviving on that unconditional stipend. He also claims that basic income experiments “have not been very successful”, and that basic income in Portugal “seems an option still far away from implementation”. The minister has not justified any of these assertions, which may unveil doubts on his knowledge about the successful experiments already undertaken (e.g.: India, Namibia, Canada), and the most recent events in India related to unconditional cash transfers. Nevertheless, Vieira da Silva acknowledges that in an era of robotization, basic income can be seen as an investment, “guaranteeing access to consumption for everyone”.
Ex-Work and Solidarity minister, Paulo Pedroso was also interviewed in this sequence of opinion on basic income. To Pedroso, people should simply not be exempted from their duty to contribute to society. However, he also acknowledges that creating a financial floor which eliminates the possibility of not having enough resources to live with dignity, is a good idea. Hence, he supports universality, but not unconditionality. More, according to Pedroso, basic income “aims to replace the welfare state”, which is an opinion shared by many on the Left on the Portuguese political spectrum, namely Francisco Louçã. The ex-minister assumes that the implementation of a basic income in Portugal will demand so much financial resources that the government would be forced to cut on essential services, like education and health, although that has aldready been proven unnecessary. Pedroso’s views on basic income do not come as a surprise, though, as he already had delivered his opinions before, having then stated that basic income “amounts to suicide”.
Discussions in Portugal about welfare, taxation and, ultimately, basic income, do not seem to share a rational basis. From several interviews it becomes clear that opinions get formed on emotional grounds – particularly fear and hesitation – and not over evidence. However, the conversation continues, in the midst of international experimentation (with basic income-related policies) and tentative implementation moves (India).
More information at:
[in Portuguese]
São José Almeida e Sónia Sapage, “O rendimento básico incondicional é um remédio para a armadilha do desemprego [Basic Income is a medicine for the unemployment trap]”, Público (online), January 27th 2019
Tiago Mendes Dias, “Para Vieira da Silva, o rendimento básico deve ter uma escala europeia [To Vieira da Silva, basic income shall have na european scale]”, Público (online), January 24th 2019
Sónia Sapage, “O Rendimento Básico Incondicional ainda não passou da fase da utopia [Basic Income has not yet passed the utopian phase]”, Público (online), January 29th 2019
André Coelho, “Portugal: Basic income event attracts politicians and social science experts”, Basic Income News, Mat 28th 2017
by Andre Coelho | Jan 29, 2019 | News
“The answer is blowing in the wind”. Picture credit to: BBC News.
It’s official. Twenty-seven Nobel Laureate economists, four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, fifteen former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers and two former secretaries of the US Department of Treasury now agree: a carbon-tax must exist, and its dividends should be distributed back to all US citizens. It is relevant to say that most of these co-signatories are ‘former’ actors of these important economic institutions, which may leave an open question mark on whether the present officials at these institutions also corroborate their support for this basic income-like carbon taxation policy.
According to long-time basic income advocate and researcher Philippe van Parijs, “this amounts to the endorsement of the Paine argument for basic income by a remarkable congregation of US top economists of all colors”. That would be granting a basic income as a right of existence to each citizen, in this case for sharing the Earth’s atmosphere; hence the right to live in a clean, climate change-free version of it – at least while there are anthropogenic carbon emissions being dispersed into the atmosphere.
The “Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends” is written in the form of a short list; short enough to be replicated here:
Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.
I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.
II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.
III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long-term investment in clean-energy alternatives.
IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.
V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.
It may also be relevant to acknowledge that “economic growth” and “competitiveness of American firms” can be read as central in this statement, which might leave another question mark on whether these top economists and advisers would still support a related policy if it, by any chance, didn’t involve these iconic aspects of modern-day capitalist economy. Also interesting is the reference to “cumbersome regulations”, which should be scrapped, and of the acceleration and “diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services”. This also sounds reminiscent of a contemporary known driver of orthodox, 21st century economic theory: green growth.
Guy Standing, another long-time defender of the basic income policy, writing from Davos, where the world’s richest discuss money and politics at the highest level, has said that he considers this Economists’ Statement as “a major move toward basic income”, adding that he “even had agreement from Larry Fink on one panel debate.” This could indeed be very relevant, since Fink is one of the richest people alive today and therefore his net contribution to a basic income-like policy is, potentially, very large. Other participants at Davos, such as Martin Wolf from the Financial Times, have expressed more cautious approaches to this radical proposal, having said, “I have not been in favor, but I would not be against it, if it were introduced”. This could arguably be the equivalent of saying if a basic income were introduced, he would not reject the payment, but would not support it, either.
The complete co-signatory list for the Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends can be read here.
Article reviewed by Dawn Howard.
by Karl Widerquist | Jan 22, 2019 | News, Opinion, The Indepentarian
Erik Olin Wright, a long-term advocate of Universal Basic Income and one of the most influential sociologists today, recently announced that his doctors have advised him that he has only a few weeks left to live. (Update: he passed away on January 23.) He is best known for his work on social stratification, egalitarian alternative futures to capitalism, deep democracy, and interstitial revolution.
But he has also had an important influence over the Basic Income movement. He was the first to describe basic income as “a permanent strike fund for all.” He wrote about it and provided platforms, such as the Real Utopias project that allowed other people to write about it when few people thought it had any chance.
Wright announced his diagnosis in a very brave and optimistic statement:
strange state of existence
Journal entry by Erik Olin Wright — Jan 5, 2019
I have roughly three weeks left of existence. Three weeks. Let’s call that January, 2019. January 2019: my month, my last month. There can be surprises — both ways of course. My liver is the main source of leukemia’s havoc. It is greatly enlarged now, filled with AML. This is why I need transfusions of platelets and red blood cells every day. The graft did not survive the return of AML so it produces no products, and the AML-clogged liver seems to be filtering out some of the transfusions so I am not getting full benefit from those. The result is that my platelets remain extremely low even after a platelet transfusion and my hemoglobin remains very low even after a hemoglobin transfusion. So, eventually these become too low to sustain life, or an opportunistic infection does me in. The doctors say “a few weeks” — a nice surprise would be to slide into February; my birthday is February 9. We’ll see what happens.
This is all hard to take in fully. I am not in great turmoil over dying. I am sad about many things, desperately sad about those connected to my family. But I’m not afraid. I wrote about this early on; my feelings haven’t changed: I am stardust that randomly ended up in this marvelous corner of the milky way where some stardust ended up in conditions where it became complexly organized in a way we term “alive.” And then even more complexly— conscious stardust that is fully aware that it is conscious: amazing — stardust, inanimate products of exploding supernova, organized in such a complex way that it is conscious of its own aliveness and consciousness — the greatest privilege in the whole, immense universe. It may be for a limited time — this complex organization ends and the stardust that is me will dissipate back to the more ordinary state of matter. Nothing to do about that. As creative fanciful minds, we humans are good at inventing ways for our existence as conscious beings to continue after the stardust dissipates. It would be nice. I don’t believe in that sort of thing, but I’ll find out by some time in February.
Some of his works on basic income include:
I am one of the many people who have been influenced by his work, and his talents affected me personally. He was the editor of my first published academic article, “A Reciprocity Argument for the Guaranteed Income,” in 1999 (before the name Basic Income became standard). His ability to see my intuitive leaps and to explain how to fill them in was amazing. That kind of ability takes not only strong intellect, but strong empathy. A combination that even many great academics lack. It’s the mark of an exceptional person.
–Karl Widerquist, Doha, Qatar, January 9, 2019; revised Cambridge, UK, January 12, 2009
