by Kate McFarland | Jan 25, 2017 | News
In a reversal of a decision last December, the council of the Eastern Ontario town Smiths Falls has voted to send a delegate to an upcoming convention of municipalities to lobby for the town’s selection in Ontario’s basic income pilot study.
Background: Ontario’s Pilot Plans
The Canadian province of Ontario is currently in the consultation phase of the design of a pilot study of a basic income guarantee. According to the recommendations of the project adviser Hugh Segal, the pilot should test a guaranteed minimum income of approximately $1320 per month, plus an additional $500 for those with disabilities, which would replace the province’s current welfare and disability programs (Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program) for at least three years. Segal proposes that this basic income guarantee take the form of a negative income tax, in which participants with no income would receive the full $1320 cash transfer, with no strings attached. The amount of the transfer would be gradually clawed back with additional earnings, with the result that participants whose income remains sufficiently high would receive no money as a result of participation in the pilot. The pilot will likely be designed to assess a variety of outcomes, such as health, food security, education, and employment.
While the final design of the pilot has not yet been announced, Segal has recommended that it include the selection of three saturation sites: communities in which every adult resident would be assured of the guaranteed minimum income. Saturation sites allow the province to investigate the effects of a basic income guarantee at a community level (such as effects on crime, utilization of public services, and civic participation), as well as to examine the process of administering the program within an entire municipality. (Segal advises that government test the basic income guarantee in such saturation in addition to conducting a randomized control trial in a large urban area.)
Segal further suggests that three saturation sites be chosen to represent three different “faces” of the province: Southern Ontario, Northern Ontario, and indigenous communities. He recommends that the communities be relatively geographically isolated, to limit “contagion” effects from surrounding communities, and to have stable populations. (For more discussion of the desired characteristics of saturation sites, see “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario”.)
The final design of the study is expected to be announced in April 2017, after which the pilot will enter its implementation phase.
New Support from Smiths Falls Council
Smiths Falls, an Eastern Ontario town of around 9,000 residents, now plans to lobby the provincial government for selection as one of the saturation sites. On January 16, 2017, the town’s council voted to send a delegate to the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) Conference, which will take place at the end of the month in Toronto. At the conference, municipal delegates will have an opportunity to present their cases before Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS).
The council’s vote reversed a decision of December 19, 2016, when it voted 3-2 against sending a delegate to ROMA to lobby for the town’s selection in the pilot — a decision that defied the wishes of Mayor Shawn Pankow and incited protests among the Smiths Falls residents.
Prior to the December 19 meeting, Pankow had written to MCSS, expressing a desire that the provincial government consider Smiths Falls as a site for its basic income pilot. This action was taken without the knowledge of full council, leading some councillors to hesitate endorsing the proposal (with one later stating that he had felt “blindsided” by the mayor’s action). Pankow himself was unable to attend the meeting during which the council voted down the motion to lobby in favor of the pilot, having been stuck in holiday traffic en route from Ottawa.
The December 19 vote was not a vote against participation in the pilot per se (as the provincial government could still select Smith Falls for the pilot, even if the town itself does not produce a delegate lobby for it), and not all councillors who cast negative votes were themselves opposed to the idea of a basic income guarantee (or even, necessarily, its implementation in Smiths Falls). Nonetheless, some councillors did use the opportunity to voice their general opposition to basic income. Councillor Dawn Quinn, for example, was widely cited in the press for her assertions that the distribution of unconditional cash transfers is the wrong approach to poverty and that, instead, poor people must learn how to better budget their money.
The council’s initial decision faced a backlash from residents. One resident, Carol Anne Knapp, started a petition in the days after the vote, calling upon the council to conduct a re-vote on the matter. In early January, Knapp and another resident, Darlene Kantor, interrupted a city council meeting to demand the council support efforts to bring the basic income pilot to Smiths Falls.
The town has faced economic hardship following the closure of a Hershey’s chocolate plant in 2008, as well as the loss of other manufacturing plants such as Shorewood Packaging and Stanley Tools. Residents like Knapp and Kantor believe that the council should welcome the basic income pilot (if Smiths Falls is selected) as a potential solution to its high rate of poverty.
On January 12, a public information session on the basic income pilot, convened by the Smiths Falls council, drew a crowd of more than 250 people.
The response of constituents was influential in the council’s reversal of its decision at the January 16 special meeting.
References and Further Information:
Evelyn Harford, “Smiths Falls town council won’t have ultimate sway on basic income pilot project’s location, says province,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 6, 2017.
Evelyn Harford, “Protesters make a stand in support of basic income pilot at Smiths Falls town council,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 9, 2017.
Hillary Johnstone, “‘An occupy moment’: Smiths Falls residents demand basic income pilot project,” CBC News, January 10, 2017.
Evelyn Harford, “Council votes to send basic income delegation to ask questions, lobby province,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 16, 2017.
Chris Must, “Council reverses stance on basic income lobbying,” Hometown News.
See also:
John Chang, “CANADA: Council of small town Smiths Falls rejects basic income trial, residents disagree,” Basic Income News, January 16, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Bridge near Smiths Falls, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 David McCormack
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Opinion
One needn’t spend too much time examining the current state basic income movement to deduce that pilot projects are en vogue this year.
Finland’s two-year experiment–in which 2,000 randomly-selected unemployed people will receive an unconditional payment of €560 per month instead of the country’s standard unemployment benefits–was launched on January 1. Several Dutch municipalities are also planning experiments, expected to begin early in 2017, in which existing welfare benefits will be replaced by unconditional benefits for current claimants. Meanwhile in Canada, the government of Ontario is finalizing its plan for a pilot study of a minimum income guarantee (most likely in the form a negative income tax), also set to commence early in 2017, and Prince Edward Island is seeking federal support to run a pilot of its own. And, in Scotland, the councils of Fife and Glasgow are actively taking steps to develop basic income pilots.
In the private sector, some organizations are not waiting for government-run pilots, and have taken it upon themselves to instigate studies. Non-profit organizations like GiveDirectly, ReCivitas, Eight, and Cashrelief have launched, or will soon launch, pilot studies of unconditional cash transfers in poor villages in Kenya, Brazil, Uganda, and India (respectively). In the states, the Silicon Valley startup incubator Y Combinator has initiated a short-term pilot study in Oakland, intended to pave the way for a larger scale basic income experiment.
And this is not to attempt to enumerate all of the various individuals, political parties, unions, and advocacy groups who have issued calls for basic income pilots in their own countries, states, or municipalities. Indeed, it has become commonplace, it seems, for basic income supporters to demand pilot studies of basic income rather than, say, just to demand a basic income straight-out.
This wave of pilot projects–with more, most likely, on the horizon–should rightfully excite basic income supporters, as well as those who are merely “BI-curious”. No doubt these studies will provide many useful and interesting data on the effects of cash transfers. At the same time, however, I caution strongly against the fetishization of pilot studies. A pilot study in itself is never a final goal–such is the nature of a pilot–and such a study is neither sufficient nor (presumably) necessary to secure the implementation of basic income as a policy. Furthermore, significant dangers can arise from a narrow and myopic focus on the goal of running pilot studies.
The first problem is this: excessive attention to experimentation threatens to trigger the presupposition that the question of whether basic income should be adopted is a question subject to experimental evaluation. To be sure, even if one is antecedently convinced that a basic income should be adopted, there are many reasons for which one might run a pilot study. It could, for example, help to identify and resolve potential hitches in implementation. But, more commonly, pilot studies are framed as mechanisms for determining whether a basic income is desirable in the first place. Skeptics and supporters alike speak in terms of finding out whether basic income “works”. The experimental approach tend to invoke an instrumentalist view of basic income as policy: the policy should be adopted if, and only if, it is more effective than other candidate policies in achieving certain socially desirable outcomes.
I would contend that this instrumentalist view should be rejected. We can remain neutral on this point, however, and assert only that the debate surrounding the justification of a basic income is severely and artificially constrained by the implicit assumption that this justification rests on empirical grounds. (And, specifically, empirical grounds amenable to testing in a pilot study!) Consider, for example, the view that all individuals deserve a share of society’s collectively generated wealth, unconditionally, merely in virtue of being a member of that society. On this view, it would be entirely beside the point to run an experiment to determine whether a basic income is justified.
If individuals are owed an unconditional basic income simply as their right–whether as a share of a common inheritance, as a condition on individual freedom, or as a realization of a right to the means to survival–then asking whether basic income “works” has the flavor of a category mistake. It is a nonsensical question to ask. (Conversely, if we assume that the question does make sense, we implicitly rule out the position that a basic income is simply a basic right.)
At this point, perhaps, the activist might say, “I don’t need experimental evidence to pursue me that a basic income should be adopted. Policymakers, however, do–and basic income experiments are the best way to convince policymakers that basic income ‘works’ according to the their criteria.” But this maneuver, I believe, goes to far to countenance whatever criteria policymakers use to judge the “effectiveness” of basic income.
In many cases, the goals deemed valuable in status quo politics–increases in jobs, increases in consumption, increases in economic growth–can themselves be called into question (and, I would argue, ought to be). Yet these conventional goals are likely to guide researchers and policymakers in their selection of “success conditions” of basic income experiments. Finland’s experiment, for example, has been designed specifically to assess whether employment increases with the replacement of means-tested unemployment benefits by unconditional transfers.
Indeed, I believe that a main reason to agitate for a universal and unconditional basic income is to challenge conventional social and political values, such as (especially) the Protestant work ethic. To allow to those same conventional values to provide the metric of whether basic income “works” is to subvert this critical role of the movement.
In a worst case scenario, a pilot study could lead policymakers to categorically reject basic income on the grounds that the policy has been shown to be associated with politically undesirable outcomes, when there is reasonable dispute over whether these outcomes are genuinely undesirable. There is some historical precedent here: in the 1970s, experiments of the negative income tax were held in several US cities; however, they were widely dismissed as failures in light of reports that they showed the policy to be associated with a decrease in work hours and increase in divorce rates [1].
There is, to be sure, much to anticipate in basic income research in 2017. But our excitement and fascination at empirical studies mustn’t overshadow the basic normative question of what society should be like. It is only by keeping sight of this latter question that we can properly contextualize the demand for basic income (if any) and, in turn, the role that can be served by pilot studies (if any).
[1] See, e.g., Karl Widerquist, “A Failure to Communicate: What (If Anything) Can we Learn from the Negative Income Tax Experiments?” The Journal of Socio-Economics (2005).
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 sandeepachetan.com travel photography
This article was originally written for an editorial in USBIG Network NewsFlash, but posted here instead due to word length.
by Andrew Kaplan | Dec 28, 2016 | News
Filippo Nogarin, the mayor of the Italian coastal city of Livorno who launched an initiative to provide a guaranteed basic income to the city’s 100 poorest families in June 2016, is poised to extend the program in the beginning of 2017. A member of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S), Nogarin was elected in 2014.
Nogarin’s first basic income pilot, which began in June 2016 and lasted six months, provided each of the 100 families with $537 (roughly €517) per month. In January 2017, this pilot will be expanded to another 100 families. While the intervention is designed to provide meaningful support to each family, it will reach only a fraction of Livorno’s population: the coastal city boasts over 150,000 residents.
Nogarin, like many proponents of basic income policies, sees the initiative as a fundamental way to help those in poverty without the patriarchal overtones of traditional welfare programs. “I’ve never met the recipients, and this is a hugely important point,” he said, “I don’t want them to see me as a patriarchal figure handing out charity. This is the real power of this scheme: it’s the community helping the community.”
However, critics in Livorno, such as local trade union activists, are wary of the scheme: some believe the initiative to be misguided, while others see it as misleading. Though basic income provides cash support for the targeted families, it does not offer employment. Furthermore, the initiative’s focus on a small subset of the Livorno population has been criticized as too narrow for an anti-poverty program.
Other Italian municipalities led by M5S may follow Livorno’s lead in testing a cash transfer program. Ragusa and Naples are now considering basic income trials as well, and interest in such programs has spiked.
At the national level, M5S has proposed what it calls a “citizen’s income,” though some have pointed out that this terminology could be construed as deceptive, since the party’s proposal resembles a traditional unemployment benefit more than a basic income guarantee.
More information at:
Jamie Mackay, “Money for Nothing,” VICE News, December 6, 2016.
Sabrina Del Pico, “Italy: 5 Star Movement and the confusing proposal of a citizen’s income,” Basic Income News, March 14, 2013.
by Kate McFarland | Dec 20, 2016 | News
Roderick Benns, the author of a new book of interviews on Canadians’ views of basic income, interviewed Chris Ballard, a Liberal Party Member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament. In June 2016, Ballard was appointed as Minister of Housing and Minister Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, and he will now be overseeing the province’s pilot study of a basic income guarantee.
In the interview, Ballard expresses optimism about the basic income pilot, and speaks about how the changing nature of work creates a need for new social policies. He also discusses federal interest in Ontario’s pilot, mentioning that he will regularly share information with Jean-Yves Duclos, Canada’s Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.
Read More:
Roderick Benns (November 29, 2016) “Ontario Minister hopeful for Basic Income pilot,” Basic Income Canada Network.
Reviewed by Dawn Rozakis
Cover photo: Ontario Waterfront CC BY 2.0 Vlad Podvorny
by Kate McFarland | Dec 17, 2016 | News
Photo: Results of “ball poll” at UNISON West Midlands Regional Games in Birmingham (credit: Becca Kirkpatrick).
The trade union UNISON has called on West Midlands mayoral candidates to commit to running a basic income pilot in the region.
UNISON, a major public service employee union, has released a 20-point manifesto, calling on candidates in the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) mayoral election to declare which of the 20 “asks” they would implement if elected.
The election, which is to take place on May 4, 2017, will decide the first mayor of England’s West Midlands region. The WMCA was established to the govern the seven-authority area in June 2016.
One of the points of UNISON’s manifesto, which has been published in full on the West Midlands political blog The Chamberlain Files, is a demand for a “micro-pilot” of universal basic income (no further details of the pilot have been specified):
WMCA to run a micro-pilot on the use of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). A UBI could have many benefits including helping the long-term unemployed get back into work via part-time work and providing a basic income that would allow people to undertake entrepreneurial activities.
Unemployment is a pressing concern in the West Midlands. A new report from the Resolution Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, reveals that WMCA has an employment rate of 64.5%, as compared to an overall employment rate of 71.6% within UK city regions other than WMCA.
The UNISON manifesto also calls for a range of improvements in education, transportation, housing and development, and government accountability in the WMCA.
UNISON has approximately 1.3 million members across the UK. It has over 120,000 members in the West Midlands, making it the largest union in the region. Members in the region comprise employees in eight main types of work: local government, health care, education services, water, energy, community, police and justice, and private contractors.
Sources
Kevin Johnson, “Nationalisation, seats for unions and free public transport – Unison unveils mayoral manifesto,” The Chamberlain Files, December 15, 2016.
Neil Elkes, “Call for universal basic income trail [sic] in the West Midlands,” Birmingham Mail, December 15, 2016.
Becca Kirkpatrick, personal communication.
