by Karl Widerquist | Feb 14, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in October 2008.
In January 2008, a Basic Income Grant (BIG) pilot project began in the Otjivero-Omitara area in Namibia. All residents below the age of 60 years receive a Basic Income Grant of 100 Namibian dollars per person per month, without any conditions attached. According to BIEN, the grant is being given to every person registered as living there in July 2007, whatever their social and economic status. This BIG pilot project is designed and implemented by the Namibian Basic Income Grant Coalition (established in 2004) and is the first universal cash-transfer pilot project in the world. The BIG Coalition has just published its first assessment report on the project, which compares the results of a baseline study and a panel survey after the first six months of implementation.
1. The community itself responded to the introduction of the BIG by establishing its own 18-member committee to mobilize the community and advise residents on how they could improve their lives with the money. This suggests that the introduction of a BIG can effectively assist with community mobilisation and empowerment.
2. Since the introduction of the BIG child malnutrition in the settlement has dropped remarkably. Using a WHO measurement technique, the data shows that children’s weight-for-age has improved significantly in just six months from 42% of underweight children to only 17%.
3. Since the introduction of the BIG, the majority of people have been able to increase their work both for pay, profit or family gain as well as self-employment. This finding is contrary to critics’ claims that the BIG would lead to laziness and dependency.
4. Income has risen in the community since the introduction of the BIG by more than the amount of the grants. There is strong evidence that more people are now able to engage in more productive activities and that the BIG fosters local economic growth and development. Several small enterprises started in Otjivero, making use of the BIG money being spent in the community.
5. More than double the number of parents paid school fees and the parents prioritized the buying of school uniforms. More children are now attending school and the stronger financial situation has enabled the school to improve teaching material for the pupils (eg. buying paper and toner). The school principal reported that drop-out rates at her school were 30-40% before the introduction of the BIG. By July 2008, these rates were reduced to a mere 5%.
6. The BIG supports and strengthens Government’s efforts to provide ARV treatment to people suffering from HIV/AIDS by enabling them to access governments services and afford nutrition.
7. The residents have been using the settlement’s health clinic much more since the introduction of the BIG. Residents now pay the N$4 payment for each visit and the income of the clinic has increased fivefold.
8. The criticism that the grants are apparently leading to more alcoholism is not supported by evidence from the community. On the contrary, the introduction of the BIG has induced the community to set up a committee that is trying to curb alcoholism and that has worked with local shebeen [unlicensed tavern] owners not to sell alcohol on the day of the pay-out of the grants.
9. The introduction of the Basic Income Grant has helped young women recipients to take charge of their economic affairs. Several cases document that young women have been freed from having to engage in transactional sex.
10. Economic and poverty-related crime (illegal hunting, theft and trespassing) has fallen by over 20%.
11. The BIG has helped to achieve progress towards all eight Millenium Development Goals.
In brief, according to the report the initial results of this pilot project are very encouraging and by far exceed the expectations of the BIG Coalition. The local community has embraced the pilot project and is engaged in efforts to make it work well. According to BIEN, as commented by one of the community’s residents: “Generally, the BIG has brought life to our place. Everyone can afford food and one does not see any more people coming to beg for food as in the past. What I can say is that people have gained their human dignity and have become responsible.” (Jonas Damaseb, June 2008) Bishop Dr. Z. Kameeta, speaking at the report launch on October 2nd, said: “We, as a Nation, cannot wait to address poverty head on. We cannot wait to implement a universal Basic Income Grant nation wide. This is a challenge for the whole country.”
-Karl Widerquist, Oxford UK, October 2008
Further information about the project is available on www.bignam.org.
Including a video of the presentation of the report at https://www.bignam.org/page4.html.
An article on the report published by “The Namibian” (October 3, 2008) in online at https://allafrica.com/stories/200810030605.html
by Citizens' Income Trust | Dec 18, 2017 | Opinion
This article is based on a research project conducted by a French student, Lucas Delattre, during the summer of 2016, and updated in October 2017
Introduction
A Citizen’s Basic Income is an unconditional, nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship.
In 2016, at a discussion on Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams’ book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a world without work (Verso, 2015) at the New Economics Foundation, Ed Miliband was asked what needed to happen to move us towards the implementation of a Citizen’s Basic Income scheme. ‘A pilot project’ was the answer. Others have made the same suggestion.
Existing pilot projects
Many of the projects that have been claimed as Citizen’s Basic Income pilots do not satisfy the criteria of being universal, unconditional and based on the individual. Those that do pay unconditional incomes to individuals cannot be absolutely universal, since they necessarily exclude those outside the sample. This is also an ethical issue that cannot be avoided. And the short duration of most projects enables some short-term effects to be detected, but not long-run or life-time effects. (A project in Kenya is giving 23 US$ per month to 40 villages for 12 years, which is much longer than the two years for which most experiments run.)
Some projects call for volunteers, and so are unlikely to be representative. Mandatory involvement of a representative sample is to be preferred; and even better is a saturation sample, covering a defined geographical area, which can enable effects to be picked up at a local level. Projects that compare the experience of pilot groups that receive an unconditional income to the experience of control groups that do not are preferable to experiments that do not employ control groups.
In 2008 and 2009 a privately-financed pilot project was held in the small rural settlement of Otjivero-Omitara in Namibia. 100 Namibian dollars (£7) was paid each month to every member of the population for a period of two years, and significant results were achieved in relation to health, education, crime reduction, economic activity, and poverty reduction. There was no control group with which to compare these results.
Between 2011 and 2013, similar projects in India paid 300 rupees (£3) per month to every member of several pilot villages, and in India the impressive results obtained in the pilot project villages could be compared with those in the control villages.
The Alaskan Permanent Fund (APF) is a sovereign wealth fund based on Alaska’s oil revenues, and invested in the international stock market. It gives an annual dividend payment to every Alaskan citizen, who has been resident for at least a year in Alaska. The APF has usually been able to provide a dividend of between $1,000 and $2,000 each year. Obviously, it is annual and variable, and is not sufficient to take on the role of social security: but it has had beneficial effects on the population of Alaska.
A micro-level pilot project in Germany provides Citizen’s Basic Incomes to selected individuals for one year. In Finland, a random sample of 2,000 people aged 25-58, who were unemployed at the end of 2016, are receiving €560 per month Income for two years in place of existing benefits, and the sample subjects can keep their payments after they have found employment. However, while being based on the individual and unconditional, this does not fulfil the Citizen’s Basic Income criteria of being universal. A similar approach is being considered by some Dutch municipalities. The current experiment in Ontario, Canada, is a Guaranteed Minimum Income project where a means-tested household-based benefit targeted on subjects aged 18-64 is being tested.
The Negative Income Tax experiments in the USA and Canada during the 1970s were based on the household, and so did not fulfil the criteria as a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot projects.
None of this is to suggest that the projects that have been undertaken are not of value. They are. Valuable lessons have been learnt in Namibia, India, Alaska, and the various states in Canada and the USA where Negative Income Tax experiments have taken place; and additional useful lessons will be learnt in Berlin, in the Netherlands, and in Finland. But we still await a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project. It is arguable that the Indian and Namibian experiments were as near to genuine pilot projects as possible because they were of sufficient duration to enable trends in behavioural change to be evaluated and trajectories predicted.
The UK
Might it be possible to run a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project in the UK? A genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project? Multiple problems present themselves:
- the project would have to be for a sufficiently long period for a sufficient number of assessments of behavioural change to be made to enable trajectories to be plotted and reliable estimates made of the likely behavioural changes that would accompany a permanent Citizen’s Basic Income scheme;
- any Citizen’s Basic Income viable in the short to medium term in the UK (and in any developed country) would have to be funded wholly or in part by changing income tax and social insurance contribution levels and thresholds. So a genuine pilot project would require government departments to make those adjustments just for the individuals involved in the project, and to recycle the savings into pilot project participants’ Citizen’s Basic Incomes – a somewhat unlikely proposition;
- the project would need to involve a cross-section of the population if it were to stand some chance of modelling a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income; and
- because any revenue neutral or almost revenue neutral scheme would impose losses on some households (- preferably on households in the higher income deciles), some participants in the pilot project would lose disposable income at the point of implementation.
A feasible Citizen’s Basic Income experiment
What would be feasible would be to provide a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income to a small community on top of existing benefits provisions and without altering National Insurance contributions or Income Tax payments. This would avoid government departments having to change current tax and benefits provisions: but it would require additional funding and it would not mirror the tax and benefits changes that would be required to fund a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income. This is why I have called it an ‘experiment’ rather than a ‘pilot project’. Important lessons could be learnt: but nobody would be able to regard the experiment’s results as evidence for how a Citizen’s Basic Income would work in practice.
A further feasible option would be to give a Citizen’s Basic Income to all sixteen to eighteen year olds and not give them an Income Tax Personal Allowance. This approach would create minimal problems for the tax and benefits authorities and for employers, and it would result in almost no losses at the point of implementation. The important question would be whether to promise permanence – in which case it would be a genuine pilot project; or whether to limit the experiment to a stated number of years – in which case it would be an experiment. (Microsimulation research on such a pilot project/experiment can be found in a recent working paper. )
by Albert Joerimann | Dec 17, 2017 | News
In a 2016 vote regarding a Basic Income initiative in Switzerland (rejected by 76% of the people), two districts in Zurich voted in favor of the initiative. In November of 2017, the Zurich parliament accepted a parliamentary postulate that proposes the launch of a Basic Income pilot project in these two districts. The city council has two years to examine the proposal and to evaluate the conditions and necessities of such a pilot project. It may be likely that the city council will reject the proposition since the Councilor in charge, Raphael Golta, has already expressed his negative stance towards the principles of Basic Income as well as towards the postulate—which was brought to parliament by his own social-democratic party.
One week later in a newspaper interview, Philip Kovce rejected the proposed Basic Income pilot project in Zurich as well as pilot projects in general. Kovce is the co-author of a manifesto on Basic Income and of other publications, together with Daniel Häni, one of the leading promotors of the 2016 popular initiative. Kovce argues that the principles of a Basic Income should not be experimented with on a small scale, but rather fully understood through large popular discussions. With this view, he stands in opposition to the majority of Swiss Basic Income supporters, namely those of “Dein Grundeinkommen”, a spin-off of the “Generation Grundeinkommen”, which was the movement carrying the popular initiative.
More information at:
[In German]
Strad Zürich, “Auszug aus dem Protokoll des Stadtrats von Zürich [Excerpt from the minutes of the City Council of Zürich]“, May 17th 2017
Strad Zurich, “Existenzsicherung durch Erwerbsarbeit? Ein Beitrag zur diskussion über ein bedingungsloses grundeikommen [Livelihood through employment? A contribution to the discussion on an unconditional basic income]“, May 4th 2017
by Sara Bizarro | Dec 2, 2017 | News
Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities of the Scottish government announced that a fund of £250,000 is available for feasibility studies of the Basic Income pilots proposed in Scotland. In addition to the fund, the government will also help the pilot authorities to assess cost and feasibility of their plans. The grant is to “help develop a research design and undertake a limited amount of community engagement, not to fund the pilots themselves.”
The Scottish Government does not have the powers over tax and benefits necessary to pilot a full Basic Income and the proposals need to be aware of “the legislative and practical basis for implementing a pilot including the consideration of reserved and devolved powers and administrative complexities”.
The Scottish government will provide further guidance to the pilot authorities in January 2018 and a deadline for bids will be set for late March 2018.
More info:
Kate McFarland, ”SCOTLAND: Fife and Glasgow to investigate Basic Income pilots”, Basic Income News, November 29, 2016
Kate McFarland, “GLASGOW, SCOTLAND: Basic Income pilot feasibility study approved by City Council”, Basic Income News, February 21, 2017
Hamish Macdonell, “£250,000 citizen’s income pilots a ‘shameless waste’”, The Times, November 24 2017.
by Claire Bott | Nov 3, 2017 | News
A short-term universal basic income (UBI) pilot in India has been found to have positive effects years after it concluded, according to a recent follow-up study. Researchers who returned to the villages involved in the original pilot study, which took place in 2012-2013, found that many of the improvements caused by a year of basic income had been wholly or partially maintained.
In a few cases, there had even been what are called “momentum effects”, in which behaviour changes due to the year-long UBI had continued to build during the intervening years. For example, in the original study, it was found that, prior to the provision of the UBI, women (or “the spouse of the head of the household” as it is expressed in the report) made decisions on how to spend money only about 9% of the time. At the end of the original study, women were making monetary decisions nearly a quarter of the time, while in the recent follow-up, this had gone up to virtually one-third of the time.
Other instances where positive and long-term effects have been maintained well after the end of the subsidy include an improvement in regular income (related to using the UBI to invest in farming equipment or to set up businesses), and a considerably larger percentage of girls in education.
However, there are also some areas where the effects of the UBI have been found to have been rolled back over the years. One of the most prominent of these is in the area of indebtedness. In the original study, the villagers who were provided with the UBI found that 70% had reduced their debt, but the new study found that there is no longer any statistically significant difference in indebtedness between those who had received the UBI and those who had not.
The study also includes a number of case studies and quotations, including one from the head of the village school, who stated, “The experiment gave a major push to the economy of the village in many ways. In front of my eyes, I could see things changing. Equally, I have also noticed a major positive behavioural change in these people because of that experiment.”
The original study, which was a pilot to test the effects of UBI, involved nearly 140 people in two villages, one of which was provided with a UBI and one of which acted as a control. Every precaution was taken to ensure that the two villages were as similar as possible in all socio-economic characteristics.
The study’s authors include Guy Standing, who is a Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and co-founder of BIEN, as well as Sarath Davala, a sociologist who co-wrote a book entitled Basic Income: A Transformative Policy for India with Standing and Renana Jhabvala, another of the study’s authors. The report concludes by recommending that further UBI pilot studies take place, that existing welfare studies be analysed, and that an Independent Commission on Universal Basic Income is established.
Asked to comment, Davala provided the following statement: “We went back after four years to the same village that received Basic Income for a year in 2012. It was heartening to see that some of the effects still continued when we compared with the situation in the control village. So, what does that show? That unconditional basic income payments have a deeper psychological impact, and that even when they are given for a short period like a year, they do leave a lasting positive impact. They provide people with a sense of economic security. This is a very valuable insight for us and policy makers.”
