by Guest Contributor | Oct 24, 2016 | Opinion
The article is meant to challenge Canadians and others to consider what precisely a basic income is and what goals it can accomplish. For BIEN’s official definition of basic income, click here.
By: Reza Hajivandi
Both as a concept and policy, basic income (BI) has been around for some time, losing and re-gaining traction at different points in history. However, the vague manner in which the term is sometimes used, and the lack of effort in providing any clear demarcations, has led to its obscurity.
To give the term clarity, first the question must be asked: What is basic income? Asking the question is not intended to provide a concrete and singular definition, nor is it a good idea to do so. The purpose is clarity, which could be achieved by first, asking the question; What is basic income? And second, journeying through the process of finding answers. The journey therefore takes priority here, by helping to provide clarity.
How can we approach the question in a way that provides answers and clarity? One possibility could be researching academic articles or the worldwide web to see how basic income is defined. However, as aforementioned, if the purpose is clarity, then skipping past the ‘journey process’ and jumping straight to the finish line will not be helpful. A more in-depth approach involves asking the ‘why’ question: Why Basic Income in the first place? By asking this question we will be forcing ourselves to embark on a journey of discovery, through which we may encounter difficult questions and decisions.
Why basic income?
Immediately we can respond by suggesting that the goal is to advocate for a policy that will effectively tackle obstacles such as precarity and poverty, which are preventing people from living with freedom and dignity. Such a response, however, immediately yields a new question: Do we not already have existing social security policies with the same purpose? And don’t some of those policies already possess elements that closely resemble the idea of basic income?
First, we have a social assistance program that is offered by each province. This is known as Ontario Works (OW) in Ontario, and British Columbia Employment and Assistance (BCEA) in British Columbia. Yet these services are quite distinct from basic income in that they are neither universal nor guaranteed, but targeted, means-tested, and subject to heavy claw backs and other conditions. The rates that are provided are also insufficient in the face of rising and already staggering living costs (rent, food, and other basic needs). It is for all these reasons that social assistance tends to perpetuate existing poverty, rather than helping people escape it. In addition, targeted assistance programs are known to be shouldered by government taxes that primarily target the middle class. This squeezes both the government and a shrinking middle class for scant funding. It also leads to class divisions by creating the popular perception that the lazy poor/refugee/immigrant etc on welfare are responsible for societal and economic problems, while wealthier segments stay off the tax and social radar and continue with their unfair and extensive accumulation of wealth.
Coming closer to the idea of basic income are other existing social security measures such as Old Age Security (OAS) and Canada Child Benefit (CCB). OAS is guaranteed to recipients aged 65 years or older almost regardless of income and other conditions. This might move us a little closer to what we want: A basic income that is the opposite of existing income security programs like OW and BCEA and more like guaranteed income ones like OAS.
This is perhaps where basic income takes its own character. It has to be universal, because if it isn’t, then it’s going to closely resemble what we already have in place, and prone to falling victim to the same problems that have historically plagued the social security system. Therefore, unless we are after a simple re-branding or name change, basic income has to be radically different from (and perhaps the opposite) of existing social assistance. Even the term ‘basic income’ seems to orient itself towards something that’s universal and guaranteed, because that’s what income is, anyway – a form of earning that is guaranteed. And if something is universal it needs to be guaranteed and come with almost no conditions, otherwise it cannot really be called universal. Not to play with semantics, a responsible BI program must therefore be universal, and tax the rich in ways that sufficiently redistribute the wealth in society [1]. By doing so it will be able to effectively reduce poverty, and strengthen class solidarity and people’s position against austerity and neoliberalism.
Now that we have a clearer idea of what BI could be, we have to be mindful of a piece of the puzzle that is not quite making sense: the government, and in our case, the current provincial and federal governments. We have to ask ourselves why the government is suddenly so interested in providing people with a new form of welfare? Let’s be honest, governments are almost never excited about spending on social security and welfare services. Instead, it tends to be the case that persistent and consistent mobilization from grassroots are necessary to secure even minor social gains. Yet absent is precisely this strong push from below, while instead the government seems to have filled the vacuum by acting as both the ‘activist’ and ‘saint’[2]. This is indeed a strange development. But what’s even odder is its occurrence in an era of neoliberalism and austerity, where the pressure is to cut services and spend less, not more. The goal here is not to undermine the groups that have been courageously fighting the government to pass a good BI policy [3]. But there is no doubt that the government has played a significant leadership role in advocating for BI as well.
Perhaps then it is useful to ask what ‘BI’ means to the government. In some sense, BI can provide the government a convenient way to increase the efficiency of social security by streamlining all or most of its existing services into one. This could save the government money through reducing the resources required to administer social security programs, and even more by keeping assistance at its current (insufficient) rates. Another way a BI program could save the government dollars – one that has community groups and organizations worried – is the implementation of BI with the aim of gradually reducing funding for existing welfare services such as health, housing, and community development. Therefore, BI can be an opportunity for the government to cut back and save resources, and this makes sense in an age of austerity and accumulation by dispossession. But it is likely that if subsidized services such as housing and food banks are scrapped and replaced with BI, social security recipients are going to be worse off than they were before, or, at best, live under the same conditions as today. It is also the case that a uniform rate under a streamlined system could actually serve to increase inequality and poverty by providing the poorer recipients with a lower rate than before [4].
In this conjecture then, BI seems to be a valuable opportunity for two parties (people and government) with nearly distinct and opposing goals. Many see the grossly insufficient social assistance rates and rapidly rising living expenses as their critical juncture to push for a BI. On the other hand, the government sees this critical juncture in other terms: one in which it can continue to make good with neoliberalism by cutting, streamlining, and creating more ‘efficient’ services. To the rest of the population the government may present this as evidence that it’s listening, ‘seeing’, and coming up with the appropriate solutions, even though it is more likely that the solution is for the benefit of the government, than for those who need it most [5]. Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is who is more likely to prevail and close this critical juncture in their own terms? The push from below is certainly strengthening, but to ensure an effective universal BI, more organizing and capacity building may be necessary. The goal then should not be to abandon BI, but to realize the risks involved and work together to build and strengthen the movement.
[1] This can be done through progressive forms of taxation, and with taxes that do not affect low-income and the poor, such as varieties of luxury and large-estate taxes.
[2] Senator Art Eggleton is starting a tour to promote Basic Income across Ontario. Also see:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sen-art-eggleton/art-eggleton-basic-income_b_9331180.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/17/wynne-touts-basic-income-pilot-project-to-help-poor.html
https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/12/scrapping-welfare/
[3] The Kingston BI Group in Hamilton, and others.
[4] See Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
[5] This is not to pit ‘government’ and ‘people’ as two antithetical forces; such a characterization would be both simplistic and inaccurate. Instead, the current conjecture and active promotion of BI from ‘above’ and weak push from ‘below’ serve to indicate that the government has a different purpose in promoting a BI model of social security, one that is at odds with the model imagined by BI advocates.
by Jenna van Draanen | Oct 20, 2016 | News
The 9th Annual Dalla Lana School of Public Health Student-Led Conference, entitled “Secure Income, Secure Heath” is happening October 21st and 22nd, 2016. The conference will take place at the Health Sciences Building on the University of Toronto campus, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario. This event is partially sponsored by the Basic Income Canada Network and will be featuring several presentations on basic income.
Each year, students of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health host a conference to examine a critical and timely public health issue. This year, the conference organizers are trying to create an, “action-oriented and critical platform to address one of the gravest societal issues, income insecurity.” Dr. Evelyn Forget, a well-known basic income scholar, will be one of the keynote speakers at the conference.
For more information on the event see the conference website:https://www.dlsphconference.com/
by Kate McFarland | Oct 8, 2016 | News, Research
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)–a national independent research institute studying issues related to social, economic, and environmental justice–recently released two reports on basic income:
– David Macdonald (October 5, 2016) “A Policymaker’s Guide to Basic Income“
– Alex Himelfarb and Trish Hennessy (eds) (October 6, 2016) “Basic Income: Rethinking Social Policy“
David Macdonald, a senior economist at CCPA, considers two general types of basic income policies (defining a “basic income” as “a ‘no strings attached’ transfer from government to individuals or families”): a universal basic income, in which cash transfers of equal value are distributed to all Canadians regardless of income, and a negative income tax, in which benefits are tapered so that the poorest Canadians receive the full amount while the richest Canadians receive nothing.
For each of these two general approaches, Macdonald simulates four different scenarios, which vary according to the amount of the basic income and which (if any) existing programs are eliminated. He then analyzes, for each scenario, the effect on poverty reduction (for children, adults, and seniors), the consequences for net earnings across income groups, and the cost of the program to the government.
Based on his analyses, Macdonald concludes that basic income programs that replace all current welfare programs in Canada would result in “dramatically higher levels of poverty”. Even at relatively high levels of the basic income, a policy that eliminates Canada’s pension program would require “ethically and politically unsupportable compromises where seniors are pushed into poverty to lift up adults and children” (p. 8). Thus, he believes that the preferred approach, should the Canadian government pursue a basic income, would be to introduce the basic income guarantee in addition to existing programs. Moreover, Macdonald favors the negative income tax approach, as opposed to universal cash transfers, due to NIT’s lower cost and comparative effectiveness in reducing poverty.
Press coverage of Macdonald’s report tended to emphasize his point that basic income is not a “silver bullet” against poverty (see, e.g., reports in The Star, CTV News, and Huffington Post).
Alex Himelfarb and Trish Hennessy provide an edited volume of twelve short essays (not including their own introduction to the volume), which encompass a variety of viewpoints on both the benefits and limitations of basic income.
In a series of essays in the first half of the volume, proponents of basic income lay out several cases in favor of the policy–invoking (in different contributions) such considerations as homelessness, seasonal work and cyclical unemployment, and the social and economic determinants of health. Other contributions are more critical, although rarely opposed to basic income (at least in its progressive variants). For example, Jennefer Laidley critically assesses whether a basic income can really alleviate poverty, and Margot Young discusses limitations of basic income with respect to the difficulties faced by lone mothers. Michael Mendelson points out differences between right and left proposals of “basic income” and urges Canadians not to blindly consent to any program that bears the name, preferring a gradual approach to a progressive basic income. Louis-Philippe Rochon and Toby Sanger, meanwhile, argue that the government should focus its attention on full employment–which, while not incompatible with a basic income guarantee (as they admit), is a goal they believe should take precedence.
The CCPA was founded in Ottawa in 1980 by faculty Carleton University. Since this time, the organization has expanded, now holding branch offices in other cities and provinces, including Vancouver, Winnipeg, Regina, Halifax, and Toronto. While officially nonpartisan, the CCPA has been described as “left-leaning” and describes itself as “one of Canada’s leading progressive voices in public policy debates”.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: “Toronto Homeless” CC BY-NC 2.0 Anton Bielousov
by Kate McFarland | Oct 5, 2016 | News
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (at the University of Toronto) is holding a discussion of basic income (guaranteed annual income [1]) on Wednesday, October 12.
Panelists include federal Senator Art Eggleton and scholar Michael Mendelson (Caledon Institute of Social Policy).
Eggleton and Mendelson will discuss the extent to which left-wing and right-wing proponents of “basic income” really do agree on policy –and, in light of this, whether a progressive basic income policy is practically feasible:
While the idea of a ‘Basic Income’ or a ‘Guaranteed Annual Income’ is attractive to many across the political spectrum, this attraction may be due to the idea remaining vague enough to encompass a range of what are actually very different programs.
On the one hand, those on the right see a relatively small unconditional payment to all adults replacing almost all other income security programs and many social services. Libertarian advocates of a Basic Income see it replacing even Medicare for the poor and the young. The right sees the Basic Income or Guaranteed Annual Income as reducing government expenditure or at the worst with the income guarantee low enough so that it is fiscally neutral.
On the other side of the spectrum, the left sees the program as offering an unconditional benefit large enough to lift everyone out of poverty, while leaving social insurance and many other programs, and certainly all social services, intact. In the left’s vision, taxes would rise radically to cover the costs and the beneficial result would be significant income redistribution.
For those looking for progressive change that can meaningfully reduce poverty and inequality, the question is whether there is a practical way to implement a Basic Income or Guaranteed Income, which might not accomplish immediately the full-scale goals of sweeping away all poverty and radically redistributing income, but which would represent significant progress from where we are today. Or, are progressives advocating for a Basic Income or a Guaranteed Annual Income, actually playing into the hands of a right wing agenda?
Senator Eggleton has been an outspoken advocate of the basic income guarantee (BIG) within Canada’s Liberal Party. Last February, he tabled a motion in the Senate calling on the federal government to fund a pilot study of BIG. (For more information, see Eggleton’s HuffPost article “Time for Canada to Test a Basic Income“.)
Michael Mendelson has served as a consultant for Canadian governments and institutions, in addition to publishing numerous articles on social and fiscal policy. Along with Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Ernie Lightman, Mendelson wrote “A Basic Income Plan for Canadians with Severe Disabilities” (Nov 2010), a proposal to replace Canada’s welfare programs for persons with disabilities with a guaranteed minimum income.
The event is open to the public, with no registration required.
For more information, see the event page (“Is it Time for Basic Income?“) at the website of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
[1] In the event description, as in much of the Canadian discourse, the terms ‘basic income’ and ‘guaranteed annual income’ are used roughly synonymously to refer to programs that, through the use of direct cash transfers, aim to ensure that no individual’s income falls below a level needed to obtain basic necessities (similar to the use of the term ‘basic income guarantee’ elsewhere).
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Photo: Monument to Multiculturalism (a sculpture unveiled by Art Eggleton during his time as mayor of Toronto) CC BY 2.0 Shaun Merritt
by Kate McFarland | Sep 27, 2016 | News
The Canadian Initiative for Basic Income has created an online petition asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and members of the Canadian Parliament to “implement a basic income program for eligible Canadians in a timely manner”. As of Monday, September 26, the petition has gathered nearly 22,000 signatures.
The petition was developed last spring by a group of participants in the Leadership and Community Engagement training of North York Community House (NYCH). To conclude the training, participants were asked to select one important practicum issue and to develop an action plan to generate change within the community. As one member ofCanadian Initiative for Basic Income described in a blog of the NYCH, the idea originated in a class exercise that required attendees to use one of several tools to determine the priority of issues. The group selected a two-by-two matrix that measured importance against urgency:
Out of all, we deemed basic income to be the one with both the highest urgency and most importance. This was due to our belief that our existing income security system in place has become ineffective when it comes to helping people afford life’s basic necessities – food, housing, and other general expenses (“NYCH Participants Lead Basic Income Petition”; September 12, 2016)
Although originally designed just to fulfill a class exercise, the petition gained over 15,000 signatures in the first week alone–with signatories coming from across the nation. In light of the petition’s success, the Canadian Initiative for Basic Income decided to continue the project, developing a more detailed proposal to submit to the government of Canada (which the group eventually hopes to have translated into French).
The full text of the letter (sans footnotes) reads as follows:
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Members of Parliament,
As Canadians in poverty, we are calling for strengthening the income security system with the adoption of a Basic Income policy. Our petition for Basic Income has generated over 20,000 signatures from across Canada.
The sharp surge in basic living expenses, added to a large wealth and income gap, precarious work, stagnant wages, and diminishing social services is forcing Canadians to live with ever poorer access to basic necessities and the mental and physical deprivation that accompany this way of life. Currently, over 4.9 million Canadians are living in poverty. A report by Statistics Canada lists Canada as having one of the highest percentages of low-paid workers among industrialized nations.
Existing federal and provincial income security programs have not achieved their intended goals, as evidenced by their failure to provide vulnerable recipients with the ability to afford basic living needs such as adequate housing and food. These needs are basic human rights, as set out in The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Canada on May 19, 1976. Yes, that was four decades ago and we refer to; Part 3, Article 11.
We believe that a basic income policy in tandem with the existing income security system will be the most effective way of providing Canadians living with poverty the ability to afford basic living expenses. There is a rich history behind Canada’s existing income security system, and though some reform may be necessary for a basic income policy to be adopted, dismantling the existing welfare system would be dangerous and may leave those that already live in poverty in a similar or worse state.
A basic income program will cost Canada just over 1% of its GDP. This level of spending is within Canada’s means. We strongly believe that Canadians can afford this relatively modest expenditure, given the scope of the proposed policy and the significant benefits it will provide. Basic income will pay for itself in numerous ways; by decreasing healthcare costs, reducing social problems, boosting the economy, and providing low income Canadians with secure and productive job opportunities.
Basic income experiments are already being carried out in various European countries – but such experiments are not unique to Europe. The Croll Report, published under the Trudeau government in the 1970s put basic income policy in a favorable light, and the corresponding pilot program implemented in Dauphine, Manitoba yielded successful results. We are calling on your government to reintroduce Basic Income and move forward with its adoption. A basic income policy will not just mean upholding Canada’s human rights values and obligations, it will reduce poverty and create a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable society that will benefit every Canadian.
Sincerely,
Canadian Initiative for Basic Income
Feroza Mohammed is the lead coordinator for planning and organizing the group’s activities to move the petition forward. She comments on the inspiration and values behind this work:
We do believe that the existing income security system in place has become ineffective, by way of providing assistance that is unsustainable. People are struggling to meet their basic daily living expenses for food, housing, accessible services, transit, and good jobs, as recommended by residents through local community consultations, across the City of Toronto. I believe that a Basic Income is necessary to improve the living standards for the most vulnerable population within our society. Currently there are about twenty percent, or approximately five million people in Canada living in poverty. To quote from comments on the petition, “Poverty should not exist in Canada”. This resonates with my belief, and I hope the government will act to implement a strong Basic Income policy that will improve lives for all Canadians. A basic income will provide people with the ability to afford life’s basic necessities.
Reza Hajivandi, the lead policy research and analyst behind the petition, adds:
We believe that the time for the reform of income security is overdue. Current programs are not providing people with the basic resources to survive, let alone live in dignity. In this light, a Basic Income policy could be the right step to take. A BI would not only provide people with resources to live a dignified life, but it can also reduce the discriminatory surveillance mechanisms and other conditions that are prohibiting recipients from achieving their aspirations and goals in life. A BI would also act to create and extend solidarity amongst people. However, with all the positive impact of BI, we need to be very careful about how or what we dismantle from the existing system. This system is the culmination of many years of thinking and history, and without first having a thorough understanding and discussion of its history and design, notions of wiping out certain components or wiping the whole slate clean can be counterproductive and unhelpful to the basic income and larger social justice movement.
Created on the Change.org platform, the Canadian Initiative for Basic Income petition is not an official e-petition of the Canadian government. Thus, the petition is not en route to be presented in the House of Commons, and the government has no formal requirement to take any action in response. However, as Change.org points out in describing its function, “When hundreds or even thousands of people raise their voices about an issue they care about, the message is very hard to ignore.”
Read–and sign–the petition here.
Thanks to Feroza Mohammed and Reza Hajivandi for contributions to this article.
Photograph: Canadian Initiative for Basic Income.
Thanks, as always, to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
