by Kate McFarland | Mar 25, 2017 | News
BIEN co-founder Philippe van Parijs and his former student and recurring coauthor Yannick Vanderborght have coauthored a major new work: Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy, published in March 2017 by Harvard University Press.
In the book, van Parijs and Vanderborght present a thorough history of basic income as well as a philosophical and practical defense. In the first chapter, they elaborate upon the concept of a basic income (“a regular income paid in cash to every individual member of a society, irrespective of income from other sources and with no strings attached”), explaining the significance of each of the key characteristics: it is paid in cash (rather than in kind), paid to individuals (rather than to households), universal, and obligation-free. In the second chapter they proceed to contrast basic income with alternative (but often closely related) proposals — such as the negative income tax (which is sometimes conflated with basic income), basic endowment, Earned Income Tax Credit, job guarantee, and working-time reduction.
In the following two chapters, van Parijs and Vanderborght turn to the history of the idea of basic income, beginning in the sixteenth century with the writings of Thomas More and his fellow humanist Juan Luis Vives, then progressing alongside policy developments from England’s Poor Laws to the Speenhamland system to Bismarck’s social insurance to contemporary welfare states. The fourth chapter delves in more detail into the intellectual history of the idea, starting from Thomas Paine’s seminal proposal in Agrarian Justice and the competing proposal of his contemporary Thomas Spence. Van Parijs and Vanderborght relate the ideas of subsequent thinkers — including J.S. Mill, Bertrand Russell, George D.H. Cole (who coined the term ‘basic income’) — in their historical context. The authors describe the varied strands of support for minimum income proposals in the United States during the 1960s and early 1970s, briefly review the creation of Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, and overview the emergence of the European movement in the 1970s and 1980s, including the founding of BIEN.
After this history, the authors devote a series of chapters to analyzing and rebutting arguments against basic income — the ethically based “free riding objection” to the lack of a work requirement, the practical concern that a basic income could not be sustainably funded, and the worry that basic income is not politically feasible. Finally, they devote a chapter to the impact of globalization on the implementation of a basic income.
Basic Income has been featured as “Book of the week” by Times Higher Education, which published a review along with wide-ranging interviews with van Parijs and Vanderborght.
Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has described the book as “essential reading for anyone interested in the problems of deprivation and unfreedom that survive even in the richest countries in the world” — calling it “powerful as well as highly engaging—a brilliant book.”
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: CC BY-NC 2.0 Patrick Down
by Kate McFarland | Mar 23, 2017 | Research
Three University of Manitoba economists, Wayne Simpson, Greg Mason, and Ryan Godwin, have jointly authored a new research paper about the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (“Mincome”), a trial of a guaranteed income that took place from 1974 to 1979.
The Mincome experiment consisted of randomized studies in Winnipeg and rural Manitoba, as well as a saturation study in the town of Dauphin, where all residents were eligible for participation in the study. Participants received an income supplement that was phased out as personal earnings increased, and several combinations of minimum income level and taxation rates were tested. The guaranteed income scheme tested, a negative income tax, is equivalent in its distributional effects to a basic income that is taxed back with personal income over a certain amount. Decades after Mincome ended, its outcomes were analyzed by economist Evelyn Forget. The results are now frequently mentioned as evidence of the effectiveness of basic income / negative income tax.
At present, the province of Ontario is preparing a new major trial of a guaranteed income (which, as in Mincome, is likely to be designed as a negative income tax). In a lengthy discussion paper about the new trial, project advisor Hugh Segal notes that the Dauphin saturation study, showed “population health improvements, the potential for government health savings, and no meaningful reduction in labour force participation.”
In their new article, Simpson, Mason, and Godwin re-examine Mincome, and consider how it might answer questions about contemporary experiments in Ontario and elsewhere.
Abstract
The recent announcements of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot and Finland’s cash grants to jobless persons reflect the growing interest in some form of guaranteed annual income (GAI). This idea has circulated for decades and has now been revived, no doubt prompted by concerns of increased inequality and employment disruptions. The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (Mincome), conducted some 40 years ago, was an ambitious social experiment designed to assess a range of behavioural responses to a negative income tax, a specific form of GAI. This article reviews that experiment, clarifying what exactly Mincome did and did not learn about how individuals and households reacted to the income guarantees. This article reviews the potential for Mincome to answer questions about modern-day income experiments and describes how researchers may access these valuable data.
Wayne Simpson, Greg Mason and Ryan Godwin (2017), “The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment: Lessons Learned 40 Years Later,” Canadian Public Policy.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo: Northern Lights in Manitoba, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AJ Batac
by Kate McFarland | Mar 22, 2017 | News
The government of Ontario has released an overview of the results of three months of public consultations on the design of the province’s impending “Basic Income Pilot”.
The provincial government of Ontario, Canada is currently designing a pilot study of a guaranteed minimum income (a “basic income” in its terminology [note]), which it plans to launch in the spring of 2017. On November 3, 2016, project advisor Hugh Segal released the paper “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario” to serve as the focus of discussions on the design of the pilot (see the summary in Basic Income News). Concurrent with the publication of the paper, Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services released a call for feedback from the public via public meetings, online surveys, and written submissions.
Public consultations continued through January 31, 2017, and, in the end, 32,870 people responded to the public online survey, 1193 attended the public meetings, and at least 537 individuals and community groups submitted written feedback–according to a newly released summary of the results of the consultations.
The new report, “Basic Income Consultations: What We Heard” (March 2017), provides an overview of feedback received from the public, although no details have yet been provided as to how this feedback will inform or influence the design of the pilot.
One issue addressed in the consultations was which of the potential measurable outcomes were most important to Ontarians. Segal suggested ten in his discussion paper, and consultations revealed “general agreement” that, of these, four were “particularly important” to residents: health, housing, food, and work behavior.
The level of the minimum income was also a topic of discussion–with the widely announced amount of $1320 per month called into question by some. This $1320 per month amount, which Segal recommended in his discussion paper, was based on a calculation of 75% of the Low-Income Measure (LIM). Some participants in public hearings recommended instead that the minimum income be set at 100% of the LIM.
Participants also discussed the selection of sites for the pilot, with widespread agreement that a variety of locations should be chosen, representing urban, rural, and northern areas, but that the government should also strive to focus on areas of greatest need (i.e. highest poverty rates).
Read about other results here.
[note] As is common in Canada, the Ontario government uses the term ‘basic income’ more broadly than does BIEN. The report above, for example, describes a basic income as a “payment from the government to a person or family to ensure they receive a minimum income level” and lays out several methods of implementing such a policy: “giving the same amount of money to everyone” (i.e. the specific approach that organizations like BIEN refer to as a “basic income”, sometimes also called a “demogrant”), “topping up the incomes of people who earn less than a certain amount”, and “setting up a system where people who earn less than a certain amount get a payment from the government, instead of paying taxes” (i.e. a negative income tax).
Often, ‘basic income’ is used to refer specifically to schemes in which all members of a community receive an equal amount of money, paid to individuals, while a term like ‘guaranteed minimum income’ is applied to the broader category of “payment[s] from the government to a person or family to ensure they receive a minimum income level”. Thus, although the Ontario government has titled its project “Basic Income Pilot”, it might be more accurate to describe it as a “minimum income pilot” to avoid confusion with BIEN’s more specific use of ‘basic income’.
Segal himself strongly recommended that the pilot avoid testing a “demogrant” (“universal basic income”) in favor of a negative income tax. However, as the new report reveals, some participants in the consultations suggested the adoption of a demogrant model.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo (Ottawa, Ontario) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Stuart Williams
by Kate McFarland | Mar 20, 2017 | Opinion
I appreciate André Coelho’s recent response to Francine Mestrum’s article “The Alternative Facts Of The Basic Income Movement“, especially his clarification of the role of Basic Income News. However, I believe that Coelho’s reply fails to give due attention to what struck me as Mestrum’s main contention: that organizations like BIEN should not use the term ‘basic income’ to refer generally to guaranteed minimum income programs (which are typically means-tested rather than universal).
We must make no mistake here: the terminology is confusing. Although BIEN has adopted one specific definition of ‘basic income’, this definition is not universal. Indeed, even some of BIEN’s affiliates adopt definitions of the term that are not coextensive with BIEN’s. Many of the discrepancies between here reflect a different dimension of the semantic dispute: whether, by definition, a policy called a ‘basic income’ must provide a livable income. BIEN itself has rejected this constraint, but not without controversy (for more on this dispute, see Basic Income News articles by Toru Yamamori and Malcolm Torry). Mestrum is correct, though, to identify what we might call the question of “universality” or “uniformity” as another source of discrepancies between different uses of term.
Since I began writing for Basic Income News, I have managed to internalize a certain dialect (“BIENglish” if you will). I must admit, however, that the relationships between terms in BIENglish sometimes make little antecedent sense. For one, in BIENglish, ‘basic income’, ‘universal basic income’, and ‘unconditional basic income’ are mutually synonymous (defined as “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement”). If I ignore my familiarity with a certain quasi-technical dialect, thinking merely as a competent user of the English language, this semantic equivalence might seem surprising. It might make more sense, it seems, to suppose that ‘basic income’ refers to something more general, of which ‘universal basic income’ and ‘unconditional basic income’ name specific variants. More confusing still, however, is the use of ‘basic income guarantee’ — which, in BIENglish, is not synonymous with ‘basic income’. Instead, in the dialect I have now internalized, ‘basic income guarantee’ seems to be roughly synonymous with ‘guaranteed minimum income’ — and is likely to extend even to some means-tested programs that Mestrum would support (but refuse to call ‘basic income’).
It is worth expanding on the latter point. BIEN’s US affiliate, the US Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG), defines ‘basic income guarantee’ (‘BIG’) as a “government ensured guarantee that no one’s income will fall below the level necessary to meet their most basic needs for any reason”. According to USBIG, a basic income is a specific type of BIG, one that “gives every citizen a check for the full basic income every month”. However, on USBIG’s definition, BIGs also include policies like the negative income tax (NIT), which “pays the full benefit only to those with no private income and phases out the benefit as people earn more private income” (thereby, perhaps, avoiding Mestrum’s main complaints against a truly “universal” basic income). We should stop here to note that, in the dialect of USBIG, the following sentence would seem to be true: “Francine Mestrum supports a basic income guarantee and opposes a basic income.” And we should expect ordinary English speakers to be at least a bit confused by something like that, assuming that they’re not already immersed in USBIG or BIEN lingo. This is the sort of potential linguistic weirdness to which we should be sensitive whenever we speak in “BIENglish” to a general audience.
To further confound the situation, however, we must mention the Canadian dialect. BIEN’s Canadian affiliate, Basic Income Canada Network (BICN), defines ‘basic income guarantee’ similarly to USBIG: “A Basic Income Guarantee ensures everyone an income sufficient to meet basic needs and live with dignity, regardless of work status.” Once again, this definition does not imply the absence of means test, and both a basic income and NIT (to use USBIG’s terminology above) would fall under its extension. In the Canadian context, however, I have not seen sharp definitional boundaries drawn between the terms ‘basic income’ and ‘basic income guarantee’. Notably, BIEN’s affiliate does call itself ‘Basic Income Canada Network’ — not ‘Basic Income Guarantee Canada Network’ — and seems to use the terms interchangeably on its “About Basic Income“ page (where the term ‘demogrant’ might be used roughly synonymously with the term ‘basic income’-as-used-by-USBIG). The latter is consistent with the Government of Ontario’s use of ‘basic income’ in naming and describing its upcoming (so called) Basic Income Pilot (which, in fact, is most likely to test an NIT rather than a “demogrant”).
Finally, we should stop to note that, given their names and affiliation with BIEN, one might reasonably assume that USBIG and BICN are concerned only with a universal and uniform basic income (i.e. a demogrant), paid out to all citizens regardless of means. This, however, would be incorrect. The stated primarily focus of each organization is a “basic income guarantee” — which, by definition, needn’t involve the payment of money to those who don’t need it (as Mestrum finds so problematic in traditional basic income proposals).
Now, I wish to make no claim as what the focus of these respective organizations ought to be. (After all, I am on the executive boards of both BIEN and USBIG.) I want only to use these examples to illustrate one claim: our terminology is confusing, unintuitive, and, at times, even conflicting.
We must not, however, pin too much of the blame on ourselves (though we are not fully innocent). The term ‘basic income’ is often used sloppily and, worse, equivocally in popular media. I sometimes witness speakers and authors who initially define ‘basic income’ as an unconditional cash grant paid equally and uniformly to all individuals — to go on later to claim that a “basic income” was tested in Manitoba’s Mincome experiment, championed by Martin Luther King Jr or Milton Friedman, or nearly introduced by President Nixon. That is, they use ‘basic income’ in a narrow sense (e.g. BIEN’s use) when defining it, but switch to broadest sense (e.g. the Canadian use) while illustrating it. This practice is misleading and deceptive.
This practice is in no way excused by the fact that, in some cases, an NIT could have the same ultimate distributional effects as a universal basic income. First, a basic income could be financed by means other than an income tax, in which case the final distributional effects would most likely differ. Second, even if we consider cases in which the distributional effect are the same, there remain other non-trivial differences between the two types of policies. They might differ, for example, in administrative cost or efficiency — and psychological and behavioral effects on recipients might vary depending on whether basic income checks are issued and later taxed back, or whether the initial payouts never occur. Beyond all this, however, the two types of policies are simply conceptually distinct — and there is no excuse to elide the difference between them without, minimally, alerting the audience and defending the decision to treat them as equivalent in context.
It is extremely doubtful that BIEN and Basic Income News lie at the source of this problem. (To claim otherwise would surely be to overstate the extent of our influence!) At the same, however, I believe that we merit some blame for doing too little to address or even acknowledge this terminological quagmire. I myself am not exempt from this charge. I have always, in my own writings, aimed to be precise in describing how the term ‘basic income’ is used by the speakers or groups on which I report, especially when their implicit or explicit definitions diverge from that of BIEN. Still, for me, a desire for “politeness” — a resistance to policing or condemning usage — has often led to my not being as forceful and overt in noting linguistic discrepancies as I otherwise might. It has always seemed pretentious and condescending to resort to scare quotes whenever another entity (e.g. the Government of Ontario) uses ‘basic income’ differently from BIEN — let alone to accuse said entity of misuse of a term — even if, at the same time, it reeks of equivocation not to.
If I were to offer a somewhat radical suggestion, I might encourage groups like BIEN and its affiliates to abandon the attempt to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for ‘basic income’. Now that uses of the term have proliferated in the mainstream, its definition is out of our control. In the hands of diverse and disperse natural language users, words have a way of acquiring different shades of meaning across regions and groups. (Think, for example, of how speakers from different geographical regions might argue about qualifies as ‘barbecue’.) There is no reason to assume that ‘basic income’ would be immune from such fracturing and fragmentation of meaning. While BIEN must aspire toward precision and accuracy in its own publications, it cannot place itself in the role of policing the linguistic practices of ordinary speakers. This is, by now, a losing game.
In the present context, in fact, we might hope to do little better than to offer a prototype. The prototypical basic income, we might say, is unconditional, universal, individual, stable, lifelong, and sufficient to meet basic needs (for example). At the same time, however, we would need to acknowledge — loudly and clearly — that the term ‘basic income’ is frequently used to denote programs and policies that, while possessing most attributes of this prototype, might lack one or two (e.g. that it might be sometimes be used to refer to programs that means-tested, or paid to households, or insufficient to meet basic needs). Writers would, of course, still bear responsibility for clearly and precisely articulating what their subjects mean by ‘basic income’ — but this is already necessary practice, given that we can seldom take for granted that speakers use ‘basic income’ to mean precisely the same thing as BIEN. However, if BIEN abandons the claim to provide necessary and sufficient conditions, we might mitigate the confusion that might arise when readers assume that occurrences of ‘basic income’ in our publications, which are not otherwise explicitly defined, correspond to BIEN’s definition.
Possibly, it will eventually become necessary that we consider the adoption of new terminology — should ‘basic income’ simply become too imprecise or ambiguous to contribute adequately to the understanding of what it is, exactly, that we study and promote.
Image: “Ambiguity” CC BY-SA 2.0 Lori Greig
by Cameron McLeod | Mar 19, 2017 | News
In his first piece for the Niskanen Centre, Edwin G. Dolan presents “three types” of libertarian who might be sympathetic to the idea of a universal basic income (UBI).
Dolan writes, a “UBI is a policy for pragmatic critics of well-intentioned but ineffective government, for classical liberals, and for advocates of personal freedom.”
For libertarian pragmatists, the issue with government – philosophical concerns aside – is that it so often does not get done what it sets out to get done. A UBI would dismantle today’s policies which diminish work incentives. With no benefit reductions, you would pay nothing but income tax which itself is low for those in poverty. UBI could also replace the benefits afforded to middle and upper class households. The result, for Dolan, would be no impact on the federal budget with a general streamlining of the system.
Secondly, Dolan argues classical liberals are more open to the legitimacy of the social safety net than we might imagine. For classical liberals the appeal of a UBI is its administrative efficiency. UBI administered as a universal demogrant is even superior, in the eyes of Dolan’s classical liberal, to Milton Friedman’s negative income tax.
Finally, the appeal for the lifestyle libertarian is the freedom to utilize the UBI as he or she sees fit. The UBI, for Dolan, stands in contrast the “nanny state mentality” of today’s policies, and offers a strong incentive for libertarians to ditch their rigid opposition to the redistribution of wealth.
Edwin G. Dolan, “WHY SHOULD A LIBERTARIAN TAKE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME SERIOUSLY?” Niskanen Center, February 6 2017.
Credit Picture CC khrawlings
Reviewed by Jenna van Draanen
