by Cordelia Holst | Mar 8, 2017 | News
The Stanford University Philosophy Department organized the first in a series of events focusing on aspects of unconditional basic income. Facilitated by Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure, Assistant Professor in the Philosophy Department of Stanford University, with an affiliation to the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society, the panel consisted of researchers in pilots and experiments of basic income: Guy Standing (Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, University of London; BIEN co-founder), Elizabeth Rhodes (Research Director of Y Combinator’s basic income experiment), and Joe Huston (Regional Director at GiveDirectly). The topic for the panel discussion was “What do people do when they are given cash with no strings attached?”
Juliana Bidadanure
Bidadanure opened by setting a definition for unconditional basic income: cash, given individually, unconditionally, and universally, so people can enter an existence free from economic insecurity. She flagged some of the most common concerns around a universal income policy –too many people will withdraw from the work force, or it can be wasteful, taking away from government investments in poverty, education, roads, etc.
The Speakers
Guy Standing
First up was Guy Standing to discuss his research results from a pilot of universal basic income in India. Standing provided some background, saying he is pleased there is an explosion of pilots around the world; however, he warned that while pilots teach us how to form policy and legitimize our agenda, we don’t need pilots to pursue universal basic income on the basis of social justice, freedom, and basic security for all. This is something we can pursue now.
The pilot in India took a year to plan, working with the local governments, and registering background data on over 11,000 people in 20 villages. Standing stressed that conceiving of the survey required envisioning the possible stories that might come out of the data so that the metrics were in place both before and after the test. Eight villages were selected to participate, 12 other villages were used as the control group, data was collected from everyone at 6 month intervals through the trial, and the cash was paid out for 18 months. Data was also collected 2 ½ years after the pilot. Results were gathered by independent data collectors.
Standing outlined the changes that took place in the villages that received the basic income:
- Residents invested in improvements in sanitation and housing
- Weight relative to age, for especially girls, improved dramatically
- Spending on alcohol, tobacco went down
- Health care spending increased, incidents of ill health decreased, and the health status of the disabled improved (because they were able to pay for continual medicine with no breaks in treatment)
- Spending on schooling went up, with the greatest improvements for girls
- Registration and attendance in schools improved for teenage girls
- Men worked more, and earned income increased for those getting the basic income
- The only group where there was a reduction of labour was children
The best result, in his opinion, was that the emancipatory value of the basic income. When people needed cash due to an illness or an accident, they were able to use the liquidity and pool together to cover the costs, rather than borrow at 50 percent from the money lender (as they had done previously). The basic income kept people out of debt bondage.
In January 2017, the government of India included a special chapter on basic income in its Economic Survey, which referred to these pilots.
More reading on the India pilot.
Elizabeth Rhodes
Next up was Elizabeth Rhodes from Y Combinator. A Silicon Valley based venture capital firm, Y Combinator provides seed money and advice to tech start-ups. In 2015 they started Y Combinator Research, a non-profit research lab. Their motivation behind sponsoring and executing a basic income pilot came from their president, Sam Altman. He, as well as many others in Silicon Valley, are concerned about current struggles in the US with growing inequality, unpredictable employment, deep poverty, the gig economy and the fact that the existing safety net is based on work. With millions looking for borrowing options like high risk payday loans, falling into deeper debt which they probably spend a lifetime to pay back, and the decrease in job security over time, it became important to come up with a solution. They are especially concerned about the potential worsening of these struggles as workers are increasingly displaced from their jobs through robotics and AI.
Y Combinator’s pilot is in the design phase, and Rhodes explained its context as one step in a larger agenda, cautioning that the current specs may change. Rhodes took care to note it is not an ideologically driven study, but rather a study of a promising potential solution in the name of social science. It will not be a test of the effects of universal basic income, but the effects of individual cash transfer, missing the community level effects, but focusing on the individual level effects, due to the practicality of the expense of making the study community level. The study currently planned in Oakland, California, will include 2000 to 3000 participants, who will have a variety of demographic backgrounds, range in age from 21 to 35, and whose household incomes will not exceed the area median. Of these, 1000 will receive $1000 a month for 3 years (5 years for a smaller test group). The rest will be the control group. Quantitative data will be collected and a large subset will be followed up with a qualitative component as well.
The Y Combinator study will look closely at the central question “What do people do when they are given cash with no strings attached?” in the context of the US. The research plans on collecting before-and-after data on the follow metrics:
- How does it affect time use?
- Work hours
- Entrepreneurial/ gig employment/ self employment
- Education/ training
- Do parents spend more time with their children?
- Do people volunteer more? Get involved in their community?
- How do cash transfers affect physical and psychological well being?
- Health and mental health
- Subjective well being
- Healthy behaviors like cutting back on smoking and drinking, improving fitness and diet
- Decrease in stress
- What is the effect on financial health?
- Payday lending, title lending, savings, credit cards
- Do political and social attitudes change?
- Inner-group prejudice
- Economic conservatism
- Are there network and spill-over effects?
- Are people helping friends and family?
- Outcomes for children
- Possibly grades, test scores
- Any effect on crime?
Rhodes concluded by noting they would be looking at sample size to see which metrics would end up being statistically significant, but the goal would be to address these questions.
Joe Huston
Last to present was Joe Huston, from GiveDirectly, a non-profit that gives unconditional cash transfers directly to the extremely poor people living in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Over the last 5 plus years of operations GiveDirectly has transferred over 135 million dollars through their program. GiveDirectly’s most common model is giving 3 lump sums (total roughly $1000), transferred through mobile phones over a 5 month period, to the poorest people in each village. They have been building a body of evidence of the effects of cash transfers, over the last 5 years, over 65,000 households, and are able to speak to the question “What do people do when they are given cash with no strings attached?”
The GiveDirectly pilots focused on the poorest people and gave lump sums. Huston started with an explanation of the purpose of the pilots: they have seen in other tests around the world that cash is very functional; it removes the bulk of the costs of delivering the aid, and people can spend it in ways that improve their lives. For example, in some cases they have seen that when young women are given money, they get married later, become pregnant later, and have lower rates of HIV. In others, they have seen people investing in assets or increasing earnings. In GiveDirectly’s research, they consistently do not see people stopping working or an increase in gambling, alcohol or other “temptation goods.” They have seen the effects of the cash transfers having a longer term effect as well: even after the cash transfers have stopped, income is up, investment in assets are up, and decreases in malnutrition and improvements in mental health remain.
Huston explained that GiveDirectly is interested in the current debate around basic income. As their tests have show with lump sum cash transfers, there is evidence to expect positive outcome from an ongoing cash transfer, yet there is much debate and many hypotheses, especially among economists, about how human nature will respond to a basic income over a long period of time (for example, will it lead to alienation and idleness?). GiveDirectly wants to participate in gathering evidence on these questions in order to prove or disprove some of the theories.
GiveDirectly has added a basic income pilot, a change from previous work, in that instead of giving only to the poor, this test will be universal; all adults within the village will be treated the same. Forty or so villages will receive cash, a basic minimum level of subsistence (based on local poverty levels), for a period of 12 years. GiveDirectly wants to look at this long-term program versus the effects in a short 2-year program. How does this change the way families make decisions? They also want to see the effects of monthly income structure as opposed to lump sum transfers. Does it motivate people to make different choices? And they want to compare giving universally versus giving to the poorest. What are the community outcomes? Do they see a reduction in crime or conflict? Do communities take on projects together? Huston notes that the pilot will use randomization and control villages to have reference points. GiveDirectly would like to frame this debate around the evidence that comes out of this pilot. They are hoping this data can help inform different policy goals in societies.
In closing, Huston showed a chart from Brookings depicting the decreasing total cost of closing the poverty gap, and the increase in foreign aid over the years on a global scale. The chart gives a clear picture that the aid needed to close the poverty gap is available; we just need to deliver it effectively to the poor. GiveDirectly has evidence that cash transfers are very effective, and they look forward to testing universal basic income as the method of payment. Huston explains the proof of the former claim this way: before we go into a village there will be a larger portion of their society living in extreme poverty; when we leave, no one will, and that shows a direct mechanical way that basic income mitigates poverty.
Panel Discussion
The facilitator, Bidadanure, then changed gears to the panel discussion focused around the question of what people might do with cash in several counterfactual scenarios: basic income vs nothing, basic income vs microfinance, and basic income vs investment in children and education?
Standing answered that he think the counterfactuals involve paternalism of various sorts.
For example, in India the welfare system has provided subsidized food, kerosin, wheat, sugar, etc., and repeatedly the government has admitted that something like 93% of every rupee spent on the programs never manages to reach the recipient of the aid. The government subsidized fuel, which amounted to 3 or 4% of GDP. If they were to spend 3 to 4% of GDP on basic income, that would be half the poverty line.
In addition a very common issue or concern in both developed and developing countries has been the labour requirement, where recipients only get income when they do paid labour. There has been a tradition in developing countries of not giving cash transfers. In 1999 the World Bank had no records of cash transfer programs; now there are hundreds of pilots. These pilots have tested, and are testing, targeting (only to the poor) or conditionality (on sending one’s children to school or paid work) against universal programs.
Standing believes that targeted or conditional programs are very paternalistic; they don’t allow the recipient to decide what is best for themselves and their families. This kind of targeting can also create poverty traps, where people lose their benefits as soon as they get some kind of income. This is seen in developed countries and impoverished countries. Universal programs are more progressive at affecting the income distribution and lead to better outcomes.
Rhodes added that many people in this discussion are worried that if people aren’t working, where are they going to find meaning? So one alternate idea is subsidizing work for people who are able to work. Y Combinator is not able to test it in its study, but that can be a counterfactual.
Huston, agreeing with the other panelists, noted that we are used to complicated programs to help the poor, and we should instead ask what would happen if we took the money that we are spending trying to help the poor and just gave it to them.
Bidadanure’s next question was, “Do targeted benefits created resentment or a stigma in a community that we don ´t see with universal programs?”
Huston noted that GiveDirectly discusses this a lot internally. They have mainly done programs with targeted benefits where between 40% and 80% of each village has received benefits, but will start a universal program, where everyone in the village will receive benefits. GiveDirectly has not seen resentment or stigma outweigh the happiness factor in the targeted programs, likely because the criteria for who gets benefits are clear and understandable to the community.
Standing is a strong advocate for running universal pilots instead of giving benefits to randomly selected individuals. He explained that if one member of a household of five gets the income, and the rest don’t, it will be worth a lot less to that individual than a household of one. Additionally, once it becomes know that an individual is getting this money, family and friends in need may come looking for assistance. Referring to his pilot in India, he said that the importance of examining community and network results cannot be overstated. Standing did note, on the issue of migrants, that the India pilot did block migrants from joining the universal basic income program; only residents of the village at the time the pilot started (except for new babies) were included. Children got half the amount of parents, given to the mother.
Next, Bidadanure focused on the panelists’ experience with politicians and local governments.
GiveDirectly works with the Kenyan government to gain permission to be there, and to work together to extract policy questions or possible lessons that could drive their cash transfer programs. The Kenyan government currently runs 4 cash transfer programs that are focused on the most vulnerable portion of the populations: the disabled and the elderly. They have see means testing as easier to pass, so they are interested in the results of the universal pilot to see how different demographics respond when given cash. In general, do people who can work, stop working? Also of interest to the Kenyan government is the difference between individuals receiving cash versus their current program where cash is delivered on a household level.
Rhodes explained that they Y Combinator has found it difficult to get permission to give people money. The organization is working with the California state government, and even the federal government, to look at the implication of this cash transfer in terms of taxes and other benefits. They are securing waivers to allow people to keep Medicaid, and the process has been challenging.
Standing noted that it took him 3 or 4 years to get through the Indian and Namibian bureaucracy. This negotiation is very difficult. Standing explained that he was involved with negotiating the program in Finland, which did not end up according to his vision. He is currently involved in discussion around the possibility of a big pilot in Fife, Scotland, where his best ally to date is the Police Chief of Fife, who sees the possibility of crime reduction in that part of Scotland as a result of the pilot. Similarly, in the Netherlands 25 municipalities are working through negotiations with bureaucracy, but have put the work on ice until the country’s elections in April. Difficulties in negotiating with local governments will teach you a lot of humility, says Standing.
Q&A from the Audience
Adding a few minutes to the session for question and answer, Bidadanure turned the floor over to a line of interested audience members:
- What are you excited to see in the upcoming studies?
Huston stated he is excited about the number of questions they will start to see answers for — not just will people work less, for example, but will we see more risk taking and entrepreneurialism? He is interesting in seeing the studies talk to each other, where are they consistent, where we see differences. Rhodes added that the studies are being developed to enable data sharing and analysis.
Standing is excited to see momentum grow around the search for a new income distribution, and warns that dangerous waters lie ahead due to the growing income inequality. He is excited about the release of his new book, The Corruption of Capitalism, which calls for a new income distribution system, where Universal Basic Income can be an anchor in that new system.
- What is the reason for not requiring a contribution? Shouldn’t everyone getting income be cooperative, or contributing in society? And why give to millionaires?
Standing tackles this question on principle: if you say a person has to do some form of labour, or something like 35 hours of care work, you immediately become paternalistic, you immediately lead to inclusion errors and exclusion errors, and then you have to have bureaucrats monitoring it. Additionally it distorts the labour market, which can lower wages for low-skilled labour. He warns against creating a system of bureaucracy that has to be monitored; that introduces social engineering. Standing sees no danger in giving to millionaires, since you can just tax it back.
- Will any of these tests look at “in-kind benefits” up against UBI?
Huston noted that this is an exciting field of research, thinking about giving one group of people $1,000 cash versus giving another group of people $100 worth of tuition, food stamps, etc. GiveDirectly is planning a test in Rwanda where they would look at giving cash up against giving medicine, peanut butter, etc. There is a lot of evidence around giving cash and not a lot about the effects of other types of transfers. Rhodes added that in the US it would likely need to be a government run study to be practical.
- Are micro loans as or more empowering than direct aid? Is there research on this?
Huston answered that there has been a lot of research on this, and the results were disappointing. People will start more businesses, but you don’t see that flow through into the aspects that we care about like higher incomes, or higher overall welfare. Additionally, the cost of collecting the loans back from the recipient has proven to be counterproductive.
- How do you choose the threshold of $1000? What constitutes a basic income? Why cap at some high income level?
Rhodes answered this question for the Y Combinator pilot: $1000 is the current level set by Y Combinator in the planning phase, obviously the cost of living is different in Oakland versus rural Louisiana. The income cap is to see results, giving $1000 a month to someone earning $200,000 a year isn’t going to make a big difference for them.
- Have you seen inflation in your pilots?
Standing has not seen that, quite the opposite. In low income communities, the income that comes into people’s pockets increases demand for products and services, and therefore the supply is increased. What he saw in the Indian villages, for example, is that unit prices went down, and farmers’ income went up, because more people entered the market.
- If necessity breeds innovation, what happens to society?
Huston answered briefly that capital is also useful for breeding innovation.
Next in the Series
See the event here. The room was full, and we ran out of time to answer questions from the audience, which indicates the interest in this topic and may indicate an interest for the rest of the series that will focus on basic income and feminism, basic income and unions, basic income and racial justice.
Do you need money quickly? A loan could be the solution to your financial worries. Head to www.forbrukslån.com to compare lenders and find a loan that works for you.
The next event is on April 12th: Philippe Van Parijs will discuss his forthcoming book Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy.
Read more about Stanford’s graduate seminar here.
by Kate McFarland | Mar 7, 2017 | News
As previously announced in Basic Income News (and BIEN’s calendar), the 2017 Summer School in Political Philosophy & Public Policy at University of Minho (Braga, Portugal) will be on the theme “Philosophical Ideas for a Brave New World of Work”. The conference will take place from July 13 through 15.
A second call for papers for the conference has recently been released:
If you would like to participate, please send us an e-mail at bragasummerschool@gmail.com with your name and institutional details by 20 May 2017. If you would like to present your work to the summer school please send us a title and abstract of 300-500 words. The registration fee is 70 euros.
The conference is organized by Jurgen De Wispelaere (University of Tampere), James Hickson (University of York) and Roberto Merrill (University of Minho), and will feature keynote speakers Ruth Yeoman (Oxford University) and Lucas Stanczyk (Brown University/Harvard University).
For more information, see PHILOSOPHY OF WORK @BRAGA.
Photo: CC BY 2.0 University of Washington
by Kate McFarland | Feb 21, 2017 | News
VIDEO: “Basic income – real social security”
Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland (CBINS), BIEN’s Scottish affiliate, was launched in Glasgow in November 2016. It held its second public event in Kelty, Fife, on January 28, 2017.
Videos of all presentations and Q&A sessions are available online.
Background
Public officials in Fife are currently working to establish a pilot study of basic income in the region, which is likely to be designed as a saturation study in a town (in which all residents of the chosen site are eligible to receive the basic income for the duration of the pilot). In November 2015, the Fairer Fife Commission (an independent commission created by the Fife Council) released a report that called for a basic income pilot as one of 40 recommendations to achieve a “fairer Fife”. Specifically, the commission encouraged the community planning board, the Fife Partnership, to select a town in Fife in which to run a pilot informed by “leading practice around the world” (with the planned study in Utrecht cited as an example of global leading practice at the time). In November 2016, the Fife Council voted to convene a group to carry out an initial feasibility study in early 2017.
The potential Fife pilot is still being designed. When asked about its details at the Kelty event, Paul Vaughn, Head of Community and Corporate Development at the Fife Council, relayed that the Council wishes to select a town of 2,000 to 5,000 people for the study, and that the pilot would run for at least two years. Otherwise, the details of the study’s design (including the amount of the basic income) are still “up for grabs”.
Meeting in Kelty
At CBINS’s Kelty meeting (titled “Basic income – real social security”), participants addressed broad issues concerning the motivation to pursue a basic income in Fife, the promises and potential pitfalls of pilot studies, and political support for a basic income in Fife and Scotland.
After introductory remarks by CBINS’s Willie Sullivan and Maddy Halliday, guest speaker Karl Widerquist (BIEN co-chair and associate professor of philosophy at University of Georgetown-Qatar) presented a justification of basic income as compensation for individuals’ deprivation of access to natural resources due the institution of private property. Widerquist argued no person should be forced to work for others out of necessity, and that a basic income would provide an incentive for employers to provide better wages.
After Widerquist spoke on the general question of “why basic income”, Vaughn turned to the question of “why Fife”. Vaughn provided an overview of the challenges currently faced by the council area, especially with respect to poverty and deprivation, noting that Fife tends to be representative of Scotland as a whole on measures such as health, employment, community safety, and other indicators used by government and community planners. Further, Vaughn presented the work of the Fairer Fife Commission that instigated the investigation into the pilot. Although the commission report made dozens of recommendations, the suggestion of a basic income pilot has generated the most interest among local authorities, according to Vaughn. However, as Vaughn described, a great deal remains to be completed, from awareness raising to gaining political and financial support to working out the implementation details and other preparatory work.
During the afternoon CBINS’s Annie Miller chaired a session in which Mike Danson (CBINS trustee and Professor of Enterprise Policy at Heriot-Watt University) and Widerquist offered two different perspectives on basic income experiments. Danson encouraged the audience to begin thinking through the myriad challenges related to implementing a basic income and even a pilot study thereof — raising many examples himself. Should students receive the benefit? Who counts as a “citizen” for the purpose of the basic income? Will the databases used to track recipients miss some of the most vulnerable (e.g. the homeless)? Given that a pilot would ideally be conducted at the national level (since the central government exerts control over taxation and other welfare benefits), how can local and regional pilots be useful?
Widerquist then spoke about limitations and potential dangers of pilot studies. For example, any pilot study, even a saturation study, cannot discern all impacts of a basic income on the labor market, given that the labor market is national (even global). Moreover, he cautioned that those who conduct pilot studies have a tendency to focus on whatever outcomes are easiest to record and measure (the “streetlight effect”), such as effects on work hours, rather than thinking broadly about the possible effects of a basic income. And he warned that policymakers are others are likely to try to spin results of any study to their advantage; for example, policymakers are likely to portray any decrease in work hours as a bad outcome.
Finally, public officials representing positions across the political spectrum briefly presented their views on the idea of a basic income for Scotland. Member of Scottish Parliament (MSP) Alex Rowley (Labour) enjoined Scotland to be ambitious and bold in tackling poverty. Fife Councillor Dave Dempsey (Conservative), a former student of mathematics, described basic income as an “elegant” solution, and revealed that the Fife Conservatives support the idea (although he could not speak for Scottish Conservatives in general). Maggie Chapman, co-convener of the Scottish Green Party, emphasized the ability of basic income to transform the nature of society and the economy. Chapman noted that, as well as ameliorating many problems with the welfare system, a basic income would support work that is currently unpaid or underpaid, such as care work. Another Fife Councillor, Lesley Lewis (Labour), addressed some of the issues and challenges in winning public support. Finally, Member of Parliament (MP) Ronnie Cowan (Scottish National Party), a long-standing supporter of basic income, also spoke about the uphill battle faced by proponents of the idea — especially given that money is highly valued in society as a mark of success. Cowan encouraged everyone to write a personal letter to their MPs and MSPs in support of basic income, stressing that letters do influence policymakers.
More information on the event
Gerry Mulvenna, “Basic income – real social security,” The Independence Live Blog, January 30, 2017.
“Flashback to Kelty: Maddy’s opening address at our Pilot event,” Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland blog, February 6, 2017.
Liam Turbett, “The Scottish Town Planning to Give Everyone Free Money,” Vice, February 1, 2017.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: Fife’s Roome Bay, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Tom Parnell
by Guest Contributor | Feb 11, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Katarzyna Gajewska
The argument that the system of peer production on a wide scale requires securing stable income for peers from the state is promoted, among others, by Michel Bauwens. In this article, I will argue that the reverse is also true. In order to be sustained, unconditional basic income (UBI) needs to be accompanied by changes in the realm of general interest services. This applies particularly to the domain of services of general interest that participate in the subsistence. Money transfer needs to be accompanied by de-commodification of subsistence measures.
Although UBI certainly would contribute to bettering the situation of the poor, it does not challenge the capitalist power relations. The domain of work and production is only one of the opportunities for the capitalist class to exploit inequalities and accumulate wealth. Other sources of wealth extraction are property rights, real estates, rent, access to natural resources, urban infrastructure, land grabbing. Elsewhere, I elaborate how, despite introducing a UBI, capitalist class domination would continue in the domain of subsistence1 and housing 2 if other elements of the system were preserved.
Technological unemployment due to robotization of production is indicated as one of the reasons for a UBI. Robotization would cause centralization of power in the hands of machine owners and technological elites. Since labor used to exercise influence on their wages through the threat of withdrawing from production, under the condition of technological unemployment it would lose its leverage.3 Therefore, adjusting the basic income to the level that enables a decent living would be increasingly difficult. On the other hand, the capital owning the means of production in the domain of services of general interest such as water, food, electricity, health or housing can demand higher prices once having dominant position, and there may even be additional costs for things like commercial water treatment products for businesses after the initial price is paid. Therefore, neoliberal pressure for privatization of subsistence-related services and goods is particularly dangerous. As a result of privatization, citizens can increasingly less meaningfully participate in the governance of general interest services, being left with the relatively passive roles of voter and client.4 The UBI movement needs to take this into account in formulating proposals for UBI reform, namely advocating for more democratic control over the means of subsistence.
Subsistence services in citizens’ hands: some inspirations
Representative democracy alone does not seem to prevent that services of general interest are privatized. Specific citizen mobilization around this issue is required. Three types of strategies can be pursued to bring more control over essential services: re-municipalization, overtake by citizen cooperatives, and commoning. I will give more space to the latter one because the two former have been described in other publications.
Remunicipalization
There are different models that incorporate the democratic dimension in the provision of services of general interest. For example, in water supply services privatization turned out to be dissatisfying for the customers both in terms of quality and prices. The book “HERE TO STAY: WATER REMUNICIPALISATION AS A GLOBAL TREND”5 analyzes examples of how this trend has been reverted by re-municipalization initiatives. It illustrates how significantly the quality can improve and prices lowered with the involvement of public authorities.
However, involving citizens in the process of decision making does not guarantee their influence on the final output. Incumbents’ initiatives in the realm of political participation do not seem to alleviate the democratic deficit. Participatory elements within the new public management and neo-Weberian state models can be motivated by the instrumental aim of overcoming resistance.6 Participatory and deliberative procedures can be used as ‘public relations’ tools by political elites to give citizens the illusion of engagement,7 so-called ‘participatory window-dressing.’8
Cooperatives
Citizens can organize to buy the infrastructure related to subsistence needs. In a small German town, Schoenau,9activists bought out electricity infrastructure to convert it into a cooperative of which citizens can buy shares. As an act of protest against the nuclear power, they turned to solar energy. Similar attempts have been undertaken by activists in Berlin to prevent the renewal of a contract with a multinational company of Swedish origin. Certainly, in the case of services that are sold on the market, there is a danger of degeneration of cooperative ideals due to the market pressure, which is quite common among worker and consumer cooperatives. Still it may be a better option in comparison to an accumulation of power in capitalist enterprises.
Commoning
The precariat, in the face of unresponsive state institutions, prefers the self-organized provision of services in order to become autonomous of these institutions.10 Heynen11 argues that the realm of social rights and the welfare state has diminished in recent decades in the US, so social movements have invented other forms of pursuing their struggles. Instead of trusting that delegation to the state will ensure the provision of public services and redistribution, activists create services themselves. For instance, Food Not Bombs produces and redistributes food. Furthermore, representatives of the recent generation of social movements believe that creating alternatives rather than reforming the system is a better way to bring about change, which reflects the mistrust of and awareness of the danger of cooptation by elitist politics and institutions.12 Activists focus on the ‘here and now’, practicing alternative forms of production and organization parallel to the state-based and market-based ones as everyday ‘revolutions.’13 For example, the domain of food-producing resources, although now mostly privatized, can be organized in a different way. In ancient times and still nowadays there are various communal arrangements in some parts of the world.14
In articles on People’s Potato, I describe a worker cooperative that coordinates the preparation of partly dumpster-dived food with the help of volunteers. Financed by fee levies, the meals are distributed for free. This type of the organization of food provision can be defined as peer production, which means a voluntary, spontaneous, and inclusive work contribution to produce a good or service in common that serves a broader community. Peers produce use value that is accessible even to those that have not contributed to its production. Initiatives such as Food Not Bombs or Incredible Edible follow similar philosophy. In the article on technological unemployment and work, I describe further initiatives of self-organized services: retirees time bank in Germany and subsistence cooperative in Catalonia.15 One could expect to optimize the costs and use of resources by restructuring production into commons. Las Indias’ Manifesto demonstrates potential gains that can be achieved by escaping the capitalist organization of production. Kibbutz movement managed to increase productivity and reduce the use of water in agriculture.16
Basic Income movement for other causes
“All we can ask of politics is to create the spaces in which the alternative social practices can develop.”17
Joining other movements in demanding the democratization of services, UBI movement could focus on a twofold struggle: mobilization against the privatization of services and for the re-appropriation of spaces for citizen participation and self-organization.
Elinor Ostrom argued in favor of creating institutional arrangements ‘for cooperative housing and neighborhood governance (…) to facilitate co-productive efforts for monitoring and exercising control over public spaces.’18Kooiman presents a model of ‘societal governance,’ a mix of self-governance, co-governance, and hierarchical governance.19
Bovaird predicts that the governance system may evolve into ‘self-organizing policy and service delivery systems – ‘governance without government.”20 The progressive theories of public administration have a vision of public administration that is ‘collaborative, facilitative, or transformational social role in support of citizen emancipation and self-governance.’ This type of re-conceptualization of the role of public administration has a longer tradition in the feminist movement and in the 2000s several authors have postulated this direction of change.21 In an academic article, I propose a change to the tax system. Taxpayers could allocate certain part of the due taxes to the organizations of their choice. In this way, the organizations can plan their yearly budget and produce as much as the collected sum allows.22 Also laws facilitating the access to unused spaces would make it easier for the self-organizing groups to start commons projects.
The example of People’s Potato, which struggles against corporate monopoly in food provision at Concordia University in Montreal, illustrates that the mobilization although it requires true determination, can begin now, case by case. I summarized the relations between People’s Potato, commercial food providers, and the university administration in another article:
“People’s Potato discovered that part of kitchen space previously used by Sodexho/Marriot was vacant, while the major part was overtaken by Chartwells. They started to use this space for their cooking. For another two years, People’s Potato struggled with the administration to get official use of the space. It is equipped with all necessary industrial kitchen facilities. The university charges the Potato for some repairs, like painting or heavy maintenance, but they pay all of their other utilities, such as garbage removal, electricity and hot water. The status of the collective within the university structure is ambiguous and there is always a fear of losing support from other organizations and the kitchen space as no official contract has been signed. “23
Instead of waiting for a more serious debate on UBI among political elites where activists could present a more encompassing reform, the change can arise from single initiatives. Späth and Rohracher point to the power of local experiments, which can mobilize actors. Niches, spaces protected from economic pressures can develop into full-fledged models for change. The local level change is possible in ‘off the radar’ spaces for interests of dominant economic actors. In this way, it is easier to overcome the problem of nested interests preventing change. Furthermore, institutional voids can enable introducing new practices.24
About the author: Katarzyna Gajewska is an independent writer. She has a PhD in Political Science and has published on alternative economy and innovating the work organization since 2013. You can find her non-academic writing on such platforms as Occupy.com, P2P Foundation Blog, Basic Income UK, Bronislaw Magazine and LeftEast. For updates on her publications, you can check her Facebook page or send her an e-mail: k.gajewska_comm@zoho.com. If you would like to support her independent writing, please make a donation to the PayPal account at the same address!
References:
1Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work: Towards Prosumerist Services of General Interest. Journal of Evolution and Technology 24(1): 104-112.
2Gajewska, Katarzyna (May 2014) : UBI and Housing Problem, https://basicincome.org.uk/2014/05/housing-power-land/
3Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work: Towards Prosumerist Services of General Interest. Journal of Evolution and Technology 24(1): 104-112.
4 Elinor Ostrom, “A Communitarian Approach to Local Governance,” National Civic Review (Summer 1993): 226-233.
5HERE TO STAY: WATER REMUNICIPALISATION AS A GLOBAL TREND :https://www.tni.org/files/download/heretostay-en.pdf
6 William N. Dunn and David Y. Miller, “A Critique of the New Public Management and the Neo-Weberian State: Advancing a Critical Theory of Administrative Reform,” Public Organization Review 7 (December 2007) 345-358, 355.
7 Léon Blondiaux, “L’idée de démocratie participative: enjeux, impensés et questions récurrentes,” In M.-H. Bacqué et al. (eds), Gestion de proximité et démocratie participative. (Paris: La découverte, 2005). Léon Blondiaux and Yves Sintomer, “L’impératif délibératif,” Politix 15.57 (2002): 17–35.
8 Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright, “Countervailing Power in Empowered Participatory Governance,” in Deepening Democracy (London/New York: Verso, 2003), 265.
9Elektrizitätswerke Schönau Netze, https://www.ews-schoenau.de/
10 Christophe Trombert, “Expertise professionnelle et contre-expertise militante dans l’accès aux droits sociaux: tension à front renversé autour du général et du singulier,” SociologieS, Théories et recherches, 25 June 2013. URL : https://sociologies.revues.org/4360
11 Nik Heynen, “Cooking Up Non-violent Civil-disobedient Direct Action for the Hungry: ‘Food Not Bombs’ and the Resurgence of Radical Democracy in the US,” Urban Studies 47(6 2010): 1225–1240.
12 cf. Day, “From Hegemony to Affinity.”
13 Marco Silvestro and Pascal Lebrun, “La révolution à l’échelle humaine, une radicalité actuelle concrète,” Argument 12 (Spring-Summer 2010).
14Vivero, Jose Luis (2015) : Transition Towards a Food Commons Regime: Re-Commoning Food to Crowd-Feed the World, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2548928
15Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work: Towards Prosumerist Services of General Interest, Journal of Evolution and Technology 24(1): 104-112.https://jetpress.org/v24/gajewski.htm
16Las Indias’ Communard Manifesto, https://lasindias.com/the-communard-manifesto-html
17Gorz, A. (1999): Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage-based Society. Cambridge: Polity, p. 79.
18Ostrom, Elinor (1993): A Communitarian Approach to Local Governance, National Civic Review Summer, 226-233, 232.
19Kooiman, J. (2000): Societal Governance: Levels, Modes, and Orders of Social-political Governance. In Jon Pierre (ed.) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy, (pp. 138–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20Bovaird, Tony (2005): Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217–228, p. 226.
21Stout, Margaret (2010): Back to the Future: Toward a Political Economy of Love and Abundance, Administration & Society 42(1): 3–37.
22Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Peer production and prosummerism as a model for the future organization of general interest services provision in developed countries: examples of food services collectives. World Future Review 6(1): 29-39.
23Gajewska, Katarzyna (30 June 2014): There is such a thing as a free lunch: Montreal Students Commoning and Peering food services. P2P Foundation Blog, https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-such-a-thing-as-a-free-lunch-montreal-students-commoning-and-peering-food-services/2014/06/30
24P. Späth, H. Rohracher (2012): Local demonstrations for global transitions – Dynamics across governance levels fostering regime change. In: European Planning Studies 20(3), pp. 461-479.
by Kate McFarland | Feb 11, 2017 | News
A group of prominent Republicans has released a proposal for a carbon tax and dividend as an alternative to the Obama administration’s regulation-based approach to mitigating climate change.
The proposal would provide Americans with a small basic income, as it calls for revenue from the tax to be “returned to the American people on an equal and quarterly basis.”
A carbon tax (or fee) and dividend has often been noted as a possible means of financing a basic income in the United States, endorsed by groups such as the Citizens’ Climate Lobby and Chesapeake Climate Action Network and even recommended by the California State Senate in an August 2016 vote.
While campaigners typically focus on the taxation of carbon as a strategy to mitigate climate change, basic income supporters call attention to the “dividend” component: in most proposals, revenue from the carbon tax would be distributed to all individuals in uniform cash grants paid out on a regular basis (e.g. monthly or quarterly). The amounts of dividends vary across specific proposals, but are small, relative to a full-fledge liveable basic income. For example, the California Senate resolution was estimated to lead to payments averaging $288 per month to family of four. And economist James K. Boyce and With Liberty and Dividends for All author Peter Barnes argue for a $200 monthly dividend to individuals, funded by taxes on pollution and other rents from “universal assets”. However, dividends funded by a carbon tax meet the main criteria for a basic income: they are paid in cash, with no strings or conditions, to all members of a community on a regular basis.
A group of prominent US Republicans has now issued a call for a carbon tax and dividend, which they present as a “free market” solution to climate change.
The Climate Leadership Council (CLC) includes, among others, two former Secretaries of State (James Baker III and George Shultz), a former Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Paulson Jr), and two former Chairmen of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw).
The CLC’s proposal, laid out and defended in “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” (February 2017), describes its dividend proposal as follows:
All the proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and quarterly basis via dividend checks, direct deposits or contributions to their individual retirement accounts. In the example above [a carbon tax beginning at $40 per ton and increasing over time], a family of four would receive approximately $2,000 in carbon dividend payments in the first year. This amount would grow over time as the carbon tax rate increases, creating a positive feedback loop: the more the climate is protected, the greater the individual dividend payments to all Americans. The Social Security Administration should administer this program, with eligibility for dividends based on a valid social security number.
In justifying the dividend, the CLC states, “We the People deserve to be compensated when others impose climate risks and emit heat-trapping gases into our shared atmosphere” — a claim reminiscent of much discourse surrounding basic income.
The CLC also notes that the dividend would be especially beneficial to poor Americans: “The Department of Treasury estimates that the bottom 70% of Americans would come out ahead under such a program. Carbon dividends would increase the disposable income of the majority of Americans while disproportionately helping those struggling to make ends meet.”
The CLC’s proposal has gained the support of other advocates for a carbon tax and dividend.
In remarks to CNN, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby spokesperson Steve Valk called the proposal “an aggressive, properly designed carbon tax that employs the power of the free market to do the work is more effective and efficient than regulations.” Peter Barnes, whose 2014 book With Liberty and Dividends for All helped to popularize the idea of pollution taxes and dividends, also welcomes the conservatives’ proposal. Barnes states:
“This is a real step forward for conservatives. They are proposing to pay dividends to all Americans with money generated by pricing a previously unpriced common asset, the air we all breathe. These eminent Republicans effectively agree that the air belongs to everyone, one person one share. In this sense they are heirs to the late Republican governor of Alaska, Jay Hammond, who created the Alaska Permanent Fund on the same premise, with oil rather than air as the co-owned asset.”
Michael Howard, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maine and Chair of the US Basic Income Guarantee Network, has written a Basic Income News feature in response to “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.” Howard calls the publication a “very welcome development” in both the fight against climate change and the movement for basic income. A carbon tax and dividend, he claims, is “closest analogue on the national scale to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend that we can hope for in the near term.”
Other responses, however, have been less enthusiastic.
In particular, some environmental advocates denounce the proposal’s demand that existing regulations on pollution be repealed. The National Resources Defense Council, for example, released the following statement in response to the CLC:
What’s important is that we cut carbon pollution fast enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Putting a price on carbon could be an important part of a comprehensive program. It can’t do the job alone, though, and is not a replacement for carbon limits under our current laws.
Likewise, Howard agrees that “unless the carbon tax is set high enough and is assured of rising regularly, to give away the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions might be a fool’s bargain,” and doubts that carbon tax alone is sufficient to combat climate change. As he notes in his Basic Income News feature, reduced consumption, development of alternative technologies, and assistance to poor countries in their transition to non-carbon energy sources might be necessary components of the solution.
Members of the CLC met with White House officials on Wednesday, February 8 to present the proposal.
However, the White House has yet to comment on any planned action, and most commentators agree that it is unlikely the Trump administration will pursue any climate legislation (even if that legislation is proposed and defended by prominent Republican statesmen) in the foreseeable future.
More information:
Climate Leadership Council, “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends,” February 2017.
Martin S Feldstein, Ted Halstead, and N Gregory Mankiw, “A Conservative Case for Climate Action,” The New York Times (op-ed), February 7, 2017.
Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin, “Senior Republican statesmen propose replacing Obama’s climate policies with a carbon tax,” The Washington Post, February 8, 2017.
John Schwartz, “‘A Conservative Climate Solution’: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax,” The New York Times, February 7, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Pollution photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Christina Carter
