by Claire Bott | Jun 12, 2018 | News
Manitoba, the Canadian province which was the location of one of the most well-known basic income experiments of the last century, may be re-examining the possibility of instituting a basic income guarantee (BIG) following a recommendation from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.
The Winnipeg Chamber, which describes itself as “Winnipeg’s largest business association”, recently contributed to the local Manitoban government’s consultation on poverty reduction strategies. Among the suggestions made by the Chamber was a further study into the viability of what is called minimum income, mincome, or a basic income guarantee.
A mincome differs from BIEN’s own definition of basic income due to being means-tested, and tapered off for higher income groups. However, it also differs from more traditional benefits systems for several reasons: it is not targeted at specific groups such as parents or those with disabilities; there are no requirements to spend it in certain ways; and it is guaranteed to all those below a defined income level. Some regard mincome as a stepping-stone to universal basic income (UBI), while others see it as an end in itself.
A policy paper released by the Winnipeg Chamber stated: “Minimum income supports the concept that all work has value, including non-paid work. Examples of non-paid work would be volunteering in the community or working in the home supporting family members. People have been taking on those roles without pay and some may think their work doesn’t have or create any value. Yet without those volunteers and homemakers, our society would suffer greatly. Earning an income increases an individual’s feeling of personal worth and value, which is invaluable.”
In 1973, one of the most well-known experiments on basic income took place in Manitoba, in a number of areas including the town of Dauphin. All residents of the town were provided with regular income, free of conditions, for a period of several years, and analysis of the data collected has shown that a number of positive effects resulted from this, ranging from improved school results for children to a reduction in several mental illness.
by Andre Coelho | May 23, 2018 | Research
Political Quaterly has just published a series of papers devoted to Tony Atkinson’s Participation Income (these will appear in print later in 2018, but all articles are available online at the moment). These have been presented and discussed at the 2017 BIEN Congress.
Participation Income has been an idea introduced by Tony Atkinson in the 1990’s, which can be summarized as follows (by Jeremy Williams):
“The participation income is a compromise that overcomes both of these issues [definition of citizenship and “money for nothing” moral hazard]. Rather than a true universal and non means-tested payment, it would be conditional. To receive the basic income, people would need to be participating in society. That could be formal work, it could be unpaid work such as care. It could be volunteering, or education, and of course people who were disabled or unable to work wouldn’t be excluded. Anyone who was contributing to society in some way would be eligible to enjoy its rewards.”
More information at:
Stirton, Lindsay, “Symposium Introduction: Anthony Atkinson’s “the Case for a Participation Income””. The Political Quarterly: 1–2, May 3rd 2018
Jurgen De Wispelaere and Lindsay Stirton. “The Case Against Participation Income — Political, Not Merely Administrative”. The Political Quarterly, May 7th 2018
Heikki Hiilamo and Kathrin Komp. “The Case for a Participation Income: Acknowledging and Valuing the Diversity of Social Participation”. The Political Quarterly: 1–6, April 30th 2018
Cristian Pérez Muñoz, “Participation Income and the Provision of Socially Valuable Activities”. The Political Quarterly: 1–5, May 4th 2018
Almaz Zelleke, “Work, Leisure and Care: a Gender Perspective on the Participation Income“. The Political Quarterly: 1–7, May 13th 2018
by Michael Lewis | May 18, 2018 | Opinion
Facebook and Economic Security Project (ESP) co-founder, Chris Hughes has a new book out. Called Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn, the book is part memoir, part policy proposal. The memoir chronicles Hughes’ childhood growing up in a North Carolina working class family, his school days, including four years at Harvard, his co-founding of Facebook, his failure as owner of the New Republic, and his efforts trying to figure out how best to give away his new-found fortune. The things Hughes learned during this thirty-year journey led to the policy proposal part of the book.
Hughes advocates what he calls a guaranteed income (GI) and is clear about how his proposal differs from a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI would periodically provide everyone with a certain amount of money without any means-test or work requirement. Hughes’ guaranteed income proposal has two provisions which distinguish it from a UBI: it is means-tested and it does have a work requirement. His idea is that we should provide every adult living in a household with an income of less than $50,000 a year a guaranteed income of $500 per month. So if Tara and Willow were a couple with a household income of $45,000 per year, each would each receive $500 per month. Thus, each would end up with $6,000 per year or $12,000 per year for the two of them. If Buffy and Angel had a household income of $60,000 per year, they would be ineligible for the program.
One reason Hughes is so interested in distinguishing his proposal from UBI is that he believes UBI has become too associated with automation. That is, the most frequently heard argument for UBI is that as robots and automation destroy jobs, we will need to reorganize society so people will be able to get their needs meet without having to sell their labor. Hughes rightly points out that there is a fair degree of debate about the extent to which jobs will be destroyed and, therefore, the extent to which concern about automation is a compelling enough reason to advocate UBI. Hughes also rightly reminds us that whether or not automation will destroy all, most, or whatever number of jobs; the job market is already unstable enough for there to be a need now for a policy that promotes economic security. And he believes his GI proposal is that policy.
As an “old timer” in the basic income “movement” I feel obligated to point out that UBI was discussed long before folks in Silicon Valley were paying attention. And many of those discussions had little to do with robots or automation. Thus a name change, from UBI to GI, is not necessary to suggest there may be reasons to support UBI other than worries about robots taking our jobs. But here we get to the crux of the matter: Hughes’ proposal does not appear to be just a name change but a different policy altogether. As I said above, GI would not be universal and would not be granted to those who are not working. The means–tested nature of GI is clear: those in households with incomes under $50,000 per year would get it, while those in households with higher incomes would not. I’m not a fan of this aspect of Hughes’ proposal, but, for the purposes of this essay, I’m going to set this aside. The work conditioned nature of Hughes’ proposal is less clear. This is what I want to focus on in the rest of the essay.
Even though Hughes’ GI would require people to work in order to receive it, however it does not have to be wage-work. That is, Hughes is willing to expand the definition of “work” to include care work, such as uncompensated child and elder care, as well as studying for a formal degree or training programs. So someone caring for their child or studying for a B.A. would be considered a worker and, therefore, eligible for the benefit, as long as their income was under $50,000 per year.
Hughes places such emphasis on work because he believes it is good for us; he tells us that it makes us, “happier, healthier, and more fulfilled” (p. 103).
As I was reading this discussion of the problems faced by the unemployed, I found myself wondering how much stem from an inability to find something fulfilling to do and how much from stigma. I do not think it is unfair to say that our society denigrates people whom we think can work but choose not to.
But let’s say Hughes is right and people do feel more fulfilled if they engage in wage work. Let’s say that engaging in wage work makes us less prone to depression, irritability, and insomnia. Going to college or caring for one’s kids is not wage work. So what do studies showing we are less prone to psychological and physical problems when we engage in wage work have to do with the kinds of non-wage work Hughes wants to compensate with his GI? I suspect it’s fulfilling, at least some of the time, to take care of one’s kids or to attend college. Is this why care takers and students, along with wage workers, should be compensated with a GI? But if something being fulfilling is sufficient to warrant compensation, why stop at wage work, care work, or going to school? People do all kinds of things, besides these three, they find fulfilling. Why not give them a GI too?
On page 92 of his book, Hughes says that, “everyone who contributes to their community” should receive a GI. It seems that engaging in something fulfilling is not what warrants receipt of a GI — making some social contribution does. This raises the question of whether being a wage worker, care taker, or student are the only ways to contribute to one’s community. Hughes’ answer seems to be “no.” On page 112, he argues for a more expansive definition of “work” which would include not just wage work, care work, and studying but also community service, religious service, and artistic work.
Here I found myself wondering how far Hughes is willing to go. That is, how expansive a definition of “work” does he want? The more expansive his definition becomes, the more fuzzy the distinction between GI and UBI (the unconditional part) becomes. To see what I’m getting at consider the following example.
In downtown Manhattan, there’s a famous, at least among many basketball lovers, outdoor basketball court on 4th Street and 6th Avenue. Basketball, in a sense, is a very communal game. A person may shoot jump shots all by themselves. But to play a full-court pick-up game requires ten people. So if someone decides to play, even for the “selfish” reason that they get fulfillment from it, they benefit the other nine players as well, simply by making the game possible. Now the folks who play at this Manhattan court are quite good. Many of us who’ve seen games at this court think it’s some of the best pick-up basketball we have ever witnessed. In fact, the quality of games at this court is so high, that large crowds of people usually gather just to watch the action. Presumably, these spectators get a great deal of enjoyment from watching these folks try to get the “ball in the hole.” Now here’s the question: are the players at this court, simply by playing, making a social contribution? They are not doing wage work, care work, art work, or religious service. Are they doing community work? If Hughes’ GI were enacted and all these players were from households with incomes of less than $50,000 per year, should they receive it?
Another way to get at the question above is this: under an expanded definition of work what would not qualify as work? If it turned out that anything done during one’s waking hours was work, then the difference between GI and the unconditional part of UBI would simply be semantic. Hughes could respond that semantic distinctions are not “merely semantic.”
In a society where work is a fundamental value it may be necessary to call something work, as well as convince others that it is, in order to give the person engaged in that activity a guaranteed income. This is a response I would agree with. But I would add that the importance of semantics cuts both ways.
Requiring an activity to be considered work before the person engaged in it can receive income support is also sending the semantic, or symbolic, message that only working people deserve economic security. I can understand why we might want to do this in a hunter-gatherer society where all are living on the brink of starvation. But do we really need to in the richest society the world has even known? Consider something that may at first appear unrelated.
The U.S. currently imprisons about 1.5 million people. Anyone familiar with the U.S criminal justice system is aware that our prison population is, arguably, one of the most despised groups of people in the nation. Yet we grant all these prisoners a right to food. Prison life is no doubt hard. And we certainly do not feed incarcerated people the best food possible. But we do feed them, and I suspect anyone who proposed that we stop doing so would not get very far. Now here’s a question: is refusing to make a social contribution worse than the most serious violent crimes we have imprisoned some people for committing? If not, why propose a policy which sends the semantic message that non-working people do not deserve income support, income that could help them obtain food, as well as meet other basic needs? Why send a semantic message which implicitly amounts to the claim that non-working people are worse than some of our most violent prisoners?
To anticipate a possible misunderstanding, I am not claiming that non-working people are better than some of our most violent prisoners. My point is simply that if all prisoners have a right to subsistence, why not grant non-working people that same right? Prisoners, non-working people, and all the rest of us are human beings in need of food and other means of subsistence. A UBI, at the semantic level at which I am speaking, acknowledges this. Hughes’ GI proposal does not.
Thanks to Chris Hughes for his very helpful comments on this piece. Any mistakes or errors are, of course, my responsibility alone.
About the author:
Michael A. Lewis is a social worker and sociologist by training whose areas of interest are public policy and quantitative methods. He’s also a co-founder of USBIG and has written a number of articles, book chapters, and other pieces on the basic income, including the co-edited work The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. Lewis is on the faculties of the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College and the Graduate and University Center of the City University of New York.
by Andre Coelho | Apr 24, 2018 | News
World Bank building. Picture credit to Financial Express.
The World Bank has released a draft report, published on the 20th of April, titled “The changing nature of work”, in which basic income is suggested as policy to “be read through the lens of ‘progressive universalism’”. This progress to a universal system should depend, according to World Bank analysts, on “basic social insurance” and also on a reliance on “flexible labour markets”, in a relationship that would not do without, though, targeting social assistance schemes.
The reason for maintaining conditional social assistance is, in this context, to “prioritize those at the bottom of the [income] distribution”. This maybe contrary to the (universal) basic income principle, but World Bank analysts consider important to identify those “who are the most vulnerable, where they live, and how vulnerable they are”. To address rising inequality and profound changes in the nature of work in the next few decades, basic income-like schemes are seen in this report as having “pros and cons”, which “may address challenges in coverage and take-up programs”. The advantages referred relate to more coverage and reduced stigmatization, but at the same time warnings are made to new possible challenges in administrative ruling and financing.
The report underlines the need to relax strict work regulations, stating that “stronger social protection systems can go hand in hand with more flexible labour markets”. A particular concern for labour costs to firms is expressed, especially when compared to technology. The World Bank’s view is that labour costs should generally go down (including unemployment benefits and minimum wages), associated with a “reformed social assistance and insurance systems”.
On the other hand, basic income – in the report often stated as “guaranteed minimum” – “may also ameliorate possible work disincentives”. That is clearly connected with the usually known as “poverty traps”, where people choose to remain eligible for social assistance, rather than risk going into formal employment and end up with less money (due to taxation). It is also linked to reduced administrative costs. Moreover, the report recognizes the importance of maintaining typical welfare services, like public health and education, and be careful in scrapping existing benefits, as some are not as prone to be immediately replaced by a basic income.
From a definition standpoint, World Bank analysts defend that basic income “is a process that serves the poor first, it recognizes that wider coverage is desirable (…) and allows countries to claw back benefits from the rich.” However, in their view, the progressive system envisioned should be a three-legged stool, as mentioned above: basic income, to cover “against catastrophic losses”, mandated social insurance, to “achieve an adequate level of savings”, and market-based voluntary savings, to complement the previous two.
Historically, the report recognizes, conditional benefits have gone a long way in achieving social security in many regions, both high and low income. That, combined with generally low uptake rates (60% in high-income countries and 20% of the poorest households in low-income countries), shows that there is room for improvement, although it remains unclear how conditional and unconditional social assistance should play out together, given this context, in the near future. Also, for financial reasons, the report advises low income countries to increase coverage (estimates put the elimination of poverty on a double-digit spending percentage relative to GDP, for those countries) of existing programs and enhance delivery platforms, instead of opting right now for a basic income. As far as financing is concerned, a particular emphasis is put on taxing “superstar corporations”, limiting their ability to escape taxation through loop-holes and tax havens, plus levelling the tax grounds between them (e.g.: Google, Facebook and others, which are usually less burdened with taxes than most other companies) and other companies. Eliminating energy subsidies, introducing or expanding carbon taxes and imposing inheritance or estate taxes are also possible routes for funding the “new social contract”, as envisioned by World Bank analysts.
More information at:
World Development Report 2019 Overview, “World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work”, The World Bank, 20th April 2018
by Andre Coelho | Apr 5, 2018 | Research
David Calnitsky has recently published a paper analyzing the impact of basic income on the labor market, on the Socio-Economic Review Journal. The Abstract reads as follows:
“How do firms react when the whole labor force has access to a guaranteed income? One view argues that the guaranteed income is an employer subsidy, facilitating low wages and a ‘low-road’ industrial strategy. The second view suggests that in providing an alternative to work, the guaranteed income tightens labor markets and pulls wages up. This article examines the impact of an understudied social experiment from the late 1970s called the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment, or Mincome. This research focuses on Mincome’s ‘saturation’ site, the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, where all residents were eligible for unconditional payments. Using an archived survey of local firms that inquires into wage rates, applications, hiring, and work hours, I find support for the second view. I close by examining the mechanisms behind the employer subsidy argument and considering the conditions under which a variety of income-support policies might increase or decrease wages, and more broadly, foster compromise or conflict in the labor market.”
Calnitsky concludes in this article that it is unlikely that business organizations will come to support basic income, if it can be shown to increase the bargaining power of workers. However, dependent on certain implementation details, basic income can be made to facilitate exploitation by employers, rather than obstruct it. For instance, if it replaces some welfare state functions, leaving people less economically safe as a result, and hence more vulnerable to (economical) abuse. At the very end, he also reminds readers that support for basic income may be more efficient if made upon “the policy features themselves, rather than a generic proposal suffering from overly malleable and mutable definitions.”
More information at:
David Calnitsky, “The employer response to the guaranteed annual income”, Socio-Economic Review Journal, February 16th 2018
