by Guest Contributor | Dec 11, 2015 | Opinion
By Otto Lehto
People have different ideas on what society should look like, but they can still agree that a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is a good idea. The struggle for BIG should be the struggle for a specific policy measure, not for a utopian ideal. We are trying to make BIG a reality. That’s it. We are engaged in an ambitious project with limited boundaries. We are not trying to find a panacea for world hunger, domestic abuse or global warming. All we need is for a critical mass of people, and a few shrewd politicians, to do the right thing and vote for BIG.
In Finland, nearly 70% of the population supports basic income. For the first time ever, more than half of members of parliament do too. Historically, BIG has been advocated in Finland by the Green Party, the Left Alliance and the Center Party, joined recently by the Pirate Party. Advocates are found in all political parties and across all sectors of society. The Finnish National Union of University Students has officially endorsed a universal basic income, and so have many academics and think tanks. Post and neo-Keynesians are calling for it, as are leftist intellectuals. Even the banker Björn Wahlroos repeatedly endorsed BIG on newspapers and TV shows. He is one of the richest men in the country and a free market enthusiast.
We need a broad consensus if we want basic income to become reality. As recently reported in mainstream news across the world, a basic income experiment is about to be implemented, under the new center-right government headed by Prime Minister Juha Sipilä from the Center Party. The experiment is set to begin in 2017. Hopefully, this is just the prelude to a nation-wide implementation of a universal basic income.
There is nothing wrong in being utopian and in favor of radical solutions. But utopianism is not a necessary condition for engaging in the struggle for BIG. Sometimes it can be a hindrance. As basic income supporters, we may disagree on how high a basic income should be. We may have different views on whether to use the tax system, as in the case of a negative income tax, or social welfare instruments, as with most other forms of BIG. We may see basic income as a socialist principle or a free market mechanism. But we all acknowledge the need for a universal, unconditional and simple solution. We do not have to agree on anything else. We believe that BIG is important, because it does three things:
1) it eradicates absolute poverty;
2) it reduces bureaucracy;
3) it lays the foundation for a new, sustainable relationship between states and markets.
In order to achieve this, we need to build alliances between utopians and realists of different persuasions. At BIEN-Finland, our national branch, we are confronted every day with the various political leanings and aspirations of our members. Our diversity is something we celebrate, even if sometimes it causes friction and animosity. A one-sided approach to basic income would seriously hurt the prospects of BIG becoming a reality.
We should learn from popular struggles that have rallied mass support, such as the campaign for extending the right to vote to women in the late 19th and early 20th century. Universal suffrage was advocated by various classes and social groups. Driven by the same goal, farmers and workers marched together. Women were joined by their husbands. Newspapers representing different interests endorsed the idea. After some time, opposition to it was frowned upon. It was not the exclusive battle of Marxists, or trade unionists, or social liberals, or enlightened aristocrats. It was a struggle owned by the whole population. From a marginal idea, universal suffrage became common sense. The opposition did not disappear overnight. But it gradually lost steam, until it became a remnant of the past, deprived of any real power. BIG will succeed when it will achieve the same broad consensus. Our goal is to make opposition to BIG unfashionable and a little reprehensible.
The danger is not that the “wrong people” like the idea. Rather, the problem is that some people want to appropriate the name to implement different policies. If a proposed basic income is not high enough to cover basic human necessities, like food, shelter and clothing, then it cannot be called basic income. BIG should also not be confused with means-tested grants or workfare schemes. We need to be clear about this. In Finland, the government’s position oscillates between a real basic income and austerity or workfare policies, but public pressure and intellectual debate are creating a space for a BIG experiment.
A universal basic income should gain the support of Marxists, trade unionists, neoliberals, businessmen, teachers, farmers, feminists, tech nerds, American billionaires and Nigerian chicken farmers. The alliance must be broad and deep, and focus on common human needs. The emerging domain of populist politics, increased media attention and the growing intellectual debate around BIG, provide an unprecedented opportunity to further our cause.
Of course, we should not kid ourselves that humanity would finally overcome its differences under the guise of a BIG campaign, nor that left-wing and right-wing interpretations would lead to the same result. BIG organizations should be democratic forums for people from different backgrounds. Some of them are naturally inspired by a variety of utopian visions. Broad-based BIG has the potential to act as a true meeting ground for popular struggle, in which conflicting visions of the good society can strategically talk to each other and put forward a shared, simple solution. People should be able to set aside their differences – at least for a short while.
We may not like all our friends in the movement. Some of our allies are horrible people. (By the way, they probably think the same about you.) But we still have to live together in the same house. If people can, for the time being, agree on basic income, then we have already won. Bickering partisans can still keep on fighting over other issues. Trust me, there will always be something to fight about.
So bite your nails and be wise about strategy. Smile to your enemies. Shake hands with the most awful people. The smiling basic income activist is a silent, deadly assassin. If we want to think BIG, we need to act stealthily. We do not have the luxury to choose our political allies.
Otto Lehto is a philosopher and a political activist. He is the chairman of BIEN Finland.
by Vito Laterza | Dec 9, 2015 | News
In the last week, the basic income experiment in Finland has gone viral, making headlines around the world, from UK-based Telegraph to Russia Today. Not all the reports however were correct. Here is what we know.
Update March 2016: KELA has published its recommendations – see a summary here.
Some articles mistakenly gave the impression that the Finnish government has already made plans to introduce a nation-wide basic income. As we reported before here and here, for now the government has committed to implement a basic income experiment. KELA, the Finnish government agency in charge of welfare benefits, rectified the misperception on Tuesday.
In a previous statement released on November 19, KELA provided additional information about the experiment. It highlighted four objectives behind the program. It aims to find feasible options for an overhaul of the social security system in response to labor market changes. Some of these trends include the growth of temporary contracts and freelance work that is not covered by the current work-based benefits structure. The experiment will also explore how to make the system more effective in terms of providing incentives for work, and avoiding the poverty trap – benefit recipients are discouraged from taking up employment, if the additional income received from a job is only marginally higher than means-tested benefits. Another goal is to reduce bureaucracy and simplify complex and costly procedures for administering benefits.
The experiment will be carried out in a context marked by three years of economic downturn, which has led to rising unemployment and pressures on public spending. The current center-right government took office after general elections in April this year, and is carrying out a wide-ranging program of cuts that will affect education, health and welfare provisions.
A working group has been created with the task of providing a preliminary study that will lead to the actual experiment. The study will identify a model for basic income to be tested. The experiment will evaluate the effects of giving a basic income to members of different population groups, and produce an overall cost estimate.
The preliminary study is a collaboration between Kela’s Research Department, the Universities of Helsinki, Tampere, Turku and Eastern Finland, the Sitra Innovation Fund, the think tank Tänk, and the VATT Institute for Economic Research. Kela’s research director Professor Olli Kangas is the project’s head. The study is already under way. A decision by government on the details of the basic income experiment is expected in the second half of next year. The experiment is scheduled to start in 2017.
The American news website Vox published a PowerPoint presentation by Kangas that highlights some of the issues currently under discussion in the working group. BIEN-Finland President Otto Lehto stresses that this should be read as a general indication, rather than an official position of government or the working group.
The government has set aside 20 million euros for two years for the experiment. There are several options that the working group will consider. The first is a full basic income, where the amount paid to participants would be high enough to replace “almost all insurance-based benefits”, hence a significant monthly sum. As in other European welfare states, Finland has an insurance system where workers receive their unemployment and pension benefits from sector-specific funds. These are usually higher than the basic benefits administered to welfare beneficiaries regardless of their occupational status. The figure of 800 euros per month circulated by many news outlets is to be read as a possibility under this option, rather than anything set in stone.
The second option is a partial basic income that would replace basic benefits, but leave intact almost all existing insurance-based benefits. The presentation notes that, in this case, the monthly sum should not be lower than the existing level of basic benefits, which is around 550 euros per month. The same figure was reported in several media without the appropriate context.
A third option is that of a negative income tax, where income transfers are made through the taxation system. Other models might also be considered, including the option of a participation income given to unemployed people as an incentive to seek additional income – this alternative is discussed by Kangas himself and Jan Otto Andersson in a 2002 paper.
The size of the sample and the geographical areas covered are other key topics to be addressed. According to Kela, the next step will be the delivery of a review of available evidence from universal basic income models tested in other countries, which will be presented to government in spring 2016. In a recent survey carried out by Kela, nearly 70% of respondents support the idea of a universal basic income, and most of them think it should be set at around 1000 euros per month.
Here is a list of relevant sources for more information:
Kela, “Universal basic income options to be weighed,” November 19, 2015.
Kela, “Contrary to reports, basic income study still at preliminary stage,” December 8, 2015.
Kela, “Experimental study on a universal basic income.”
Olli Kangas, “Experimenting basic income in Finland,” presentation, December 8, 2015.
Liam Upton, “Finland: New government commits to a basic income experiment,” Basic Income News, June 16, 2015.
Stanislas Jourdan, “Finland: Government forms research team to design basic income pilots,” Basic Income News, October 15, 2015.
“Kela to prepare basic income proposal,” Yle, October 31, 2015.
Ben Schiller, “How Finland’s exciting basic income experiment will work – and what we can learn from it,” Fast Company, December 7, 2015.
Dylan Matthews, “Finland’s hugely exciting experiment in basic income, explained,” Vox, December 8, 2015.
Jan Otto Andersson and Olli Kangas, “Popular support for basic income in Sweden and Finland,” Conference paper presented at the 9th BIEN Congress, 2002.
by Will Wachtmeister | Nov 23, 2015 | News
National charity Food Banks Canada has put basic income policy top of the list of recommendations in its recently published annual report.
From: https://www.foodbankscanada.ca/getmedia/01e662ba-f1d7-419d-b40c-bcc71a9f943c/HungerCount2015_singles.pdf.aspx
“It has been clear for many years that welfare is a broken system,” the HungerCount 2015 report says. “Benefit levels are unreasonably low, the administrative bureaucracy is extremely difficult to navigate, and stigmatization of those in need is widespread. The system seems beyond repair.”
Just over 850,000 Canadians turn to food banks each month – over a quarter more than before the global financial crisis – and over one-third of current users are children.
Levels of social security support are “plainly inadequate” in a situation where around 70% of households with social assistance are food insecure, Food Banks Canada says citing an earlier study by international research group PROOF.
HungerCount reports have consistently warned that the food bank network is an unofficial safety net that fills the gaps in Canadian provinces’ social assistance programs. Basic income as a policy solution has featured less prominently or not at all in earlier HungerCount reports.
Roderick Benns, “Food Banks Canada calls for basic income policy.” Leaders and Legacies, 17 November 2015
Food Banks Canada,”HungerCount 2015: comprehensive report on hunger and food bank use in Canada and recommendations for change.” www.foodbankscanada.ca, 3 November 2015
Tarasuk, V, Mitchell, A, Dachner, N. (2014). Household food insecurity in Canada 2012. PROOF, 6 February 2014
by BIEN | Nov 14, 2015 | News
The word unemployed changed to employed on torn paper
Kevin Boyd, an associate policy analyst at the R Street Institute, authored a post directly comparing the negative income tax, a variation of the basic income guarantee, to traditional welfare and the minimum wage. Boyd contends that a negative income tax would avoid the potential for job loss and price hikes caused by the minimum wage while avoiding the pitfalls of the current welfare bureaucracy. Boyd advocates for an income threshold set at 130% of the poverty line, which would amount to a guaranteed minimum income of $30,711.20. W-9 forms would be collected monthly and payments would be calculated each month based on the previous month’s income. Paired with the abolition of the minimum wage, Boyd believes that unemployment can be greatly reduced without an increase in poverty thanks to the negative income tax.
For the entirety of Boyd’s post, see
Kevin Boyd, “A negative income tax beats both the minimum wage and welfare” R Street Institute, September 12, 2014
by BIEN | Oct 7, 2015 | News
U.S. Department of Arts and Culture’s report, “An Act of Collective Imagination: The USDAC’s First Two Years of Action Research” recommends a universal basic income grant (BIG). The USDAC report highlights how artists under present policies have to acquire grant money for each individual project. Such a grant would be especially useful for artists to focus on their creative passions, but also beneficial for the rest of society. USDAC also argues that the adoption of the BIG would greatly reduce bureaucracy by guaranteeing every citizen a sufficient income to pay for basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.).
For the full report:
Arlene Goldbard, “An Act of Collective Imagination: The USDAC’s First Two Years of Action Research” U.S. Department of Arts and Culture.
So bite your nails and be wise about strategy. Smile to your enemies. Shake hands with the most awful people. The smiling basic income activist is a silent, deadly assassin. If we want to think BIG, we need to act stealthily. We do not have the luxury to choose our political allies.
