Andrew Yang, the only Democrat presidential candidate to the US elections in 2020 announcing a basic income policy in his platform, has been on CNN Presidential Town Hall, solo featured on the latest 14th of April.
At this televised campaign event, Yang was clear about his intentions to help Americans transition through these present times of great transformation and uncertainty. Central to his campaign is the Freedom Dividend policy (unconditional 1000$/month for every adult starting at 18) which, according to him, will be a key policy to help people to retrain, gain other skills and stay active in entering this new age of automation. He points out other potential benefits to be gained from the Freedom Dividend, such as deep reduction of bureaucracy, paternalism in social services, stigma for beneficiaries and social security running costs. He also referred the increased leverage power accruing to individual workers and unions, if they had such a thing as the Freedom Dividend to fall back onto.
In the show, he was faced with most of the important questions asked to any presidential candidate, namely related to policies in economy, employment, health, education, housing, drug use and possession and gun control. The environment was, however, a clear absence in this CNN’s Town Hall show, which could be an indication of what really are the priorities in the minds of American people. Specifically, speaking about the employment issue, Yang was direct to say that “the goal should not be to save jobs, the goal should be to make our lives better”, which is very different from what other Democratic candidates (e.g.: Bernie Sanders) are saying (Federal Jobs Guarantee). Nevertheless, Andrew Yang is certain that the Freedom Dividend “does not solve all problems for all people, but it will move us in the right direction”.
Faced with the inevitable question on how to pay for the Freedom Dividend, Yang underlines the importance of “we have to go where the money is”. As an experienced entrepreneur, and specifically one related to technology, Yang has an idea about how much money tech giants (e.g.: Facebook, Uber, Google, Amazon) have, and how much they owe in federal taxes. So, according to him, effectively taxing these companies will make up for the most part of the Freedom Dividend cost, plus any savings possible from eliminating obsolete social benefit schemes (due to the implementation of the dividend).
He also attributes the rise of hate ideologies (e.g.: white supremacy) as a result of a dysfunctional economy, because poor, stressed people are easier to scare into these hateful discourses. Removing, therefore, “the economic boot off people’s throats” will definitely help diminish these polarizing hate agendas which, according to him “have no place in our society”. Yang also believes the Freedom Dividend will improve people’s chances of getting better housing conditions (although refers municipal intervention as important, in order to provide for affordable housing) and better school performance. On the latter, he cites research that says 75% of kid’s performance at school depends on non-school factors, among which one of the most important is economic condition. Hence, the Freedom Dividend can also help kids learn more, and better.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is once again in the news as a promising program in the upcoming general election in India after finding its place in India’s 2016-17 economic survey. Proponents say UBI is economically prudent and could make a significant dent on poverty in the country. UBI bypasses India’s weak system of existing welfare schemes which are riddled with misallocation, leakages, and exclusion of the poor. It also makes sense from the perspective of an individual, who is assumed to be economically rational and thus can spend in accordance to his priorities and choices.
Having said there is insufficient empirical evidence to demonstrate how UBI could accomplish social justice and poverty reduction, especially in a country like India which is still held down by a regressive social structure in the form of a caste system. The caste system leads to a lack of mobility, producing a semi-feudal system of land ownership. Land is held by a small fraction of the population with the rest being landless or having little property, especially in rural areas. The fact that most of the poor are also concentrated in India’s rural areas makes the case that UBI could be successful at alleviating poverty.
Moreover, the proposition that UBI will reduce poverty assumes that the market works competitively and allocates resources efficiently. However, markets do fail in providing an efficient and just outcome in the presence of informational asymmetry, externalities, and monopolies. This is especially true in the case of India where the market is disproportionately in the hands of a few big players who can influence it to their advantage. For instance, giving out cash as opposed to goods and services in kind may not help in remote places if the corresponding supply of essential goods are not there (this role is otherwise performed by the public distribution system in India which may be dismantled to make fiscal space for UBI). A monopoly supplier may hike the prices to neutralise the extra income. To the extent the purchasing power of cash transfers in the form of UBI is curtailed by market fluctuations, the efficacy of basic income to alleviate poverty could be limited.
UBI even in the presence of efficient market can capture only poverty in terms of economic deprivation, whereas factors such as poor health, lack of education, discrimination and lack of entitlements cannot be addressed by the market but are crucial from the perspective of eradicating poverty.
John Rawls in his seminal work propounding the concept of distributive justice is guided by the ‘difference principle,’ which stresses that goods and services should be arranged in a manner that serves to benefit the least advantaged and foster growth towards equality of opportunity. To the extent that everyone will receive the same amount of cash transfer irrespective of his or her requirement, the UBI fails to ensure distributional justice, in accordance with the ‘difference principle’. In this case, justice would require maximizing assistance to those who need it most, which at present our welfare schemes (despite its weaknesses) strives to achieve. UBI at best can only work in conjunction with the existing policies. In order to fully eradicate poverty, the welfare state should work towards increasing its capacity to deliver and regulate rather than leaving it to the market.
Rishi Kant
Currently pursuing Master’s in public administration (MPA), LKY school, National University of Singapore. Graduated in Economics from Delhi University and Post Graduated in Economics from Jawaharlal Nehru University. 5year experience of teaching in various colleges of Delhi University and working with the government of India under various capacities. He has worked as a researcher in the field of Labour economics and evaluated major labour market policies in India such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Program. He has also part of capacity development programs organised by IMF in the areas of Macro-Economics, Fiscal and monetary policies, and Financial Programming and policies.
References
Ackerman. B, et al (2006), ‘Redesigning distribution: basic income and stakeholder grants as cornerstones of an egalitarian capitalism’, The Real Utopias Project, Vol. V. London.
Khera. R (2016) ‘A Phased Approach Will Make a Basic Income Affordable for India’, The Wire.
Michel. H (2008), ‘Global Basic Income and its Contribution to Human Development and Fair Terms of Global Economic Co-Operation: A Political-Economic Outlook’, A Paper for the Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network, University College, Dublin, Ireland.
Pettit. P (2007), ‘Basic Income and the Republican Legacy’, Basic income studies, International Journal of Basic Income Research Vol. 2.
Porter. E (2016), ‘A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty’, New York Times.
Standing. G (2002), ‘Beyond the New Paternalism: Basic Security as Equality’, London.
Standing. G (2015), ‘India’s experiment in basic income grants’, Global Dialogues, Vol. 5.
Taylor. T (2014), ‘Economics and Morality’, Finance & development, a quarterly publication of the international monetary fund, Volume 51.
Todaro, Smith (2015), ‘Introducing Economic Development: A Global Perspective’ Economic Development, 12th edition, chapter 1, Pg 20.
Tobin. J, et al (1967), ‘Is a negative income tax practical’? The Yale Law Journal.
Van. P (1995), ‘Real Freedom for All’, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
The evaluation of the Finnish BI Experiment reveals the problems in the current conditional labour market policies
The first results of the Finnish Basic Income (BI) experiment were published at the beginning of February 2019. According to the results, the benefit mimicking basic income did not have any positive employment effects when compared to the control group, i.e. those not included in the experiment. There are several possible reasons for this result.
Firstly, we must keep in mind the specific characteristics of the target group of the experiment. Both the treatment group and the control group were drawn from the unemployed job seekers receiving unemployment benefits from the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela) in November 2016. In order to understand the specificity of the group, we have to take a cursory look at the Finnish unemployment system.
An unemployed individual who is a member of a voluntary unemployment fund and meets the employment condition of 26 weeks during the previous 28 months is eligible for earnings-related unemployment benefits. At the average wage level, the benefit is about 65 percent of previous earnings. The benefit can be paid up to 300-500 weekdays depending on the work history and the age of the claimant.
An unemployed individual who is not entitled to the earnings-related unemployment benefit (the right to the benefit has expired due to long-term unemployment or the unemployed individual does not yet fulfill the employment condition) can qualify for unemployment benefits paid by Kela [1]. These Kela’s ‘basic security’ benefits (basic unemployment allowance and labour market subsidy) are not income-related. In principle, the labour market subsidy is income-tested and the duration is unlimited.
At the end of the year 2017, 369,058 people received unemployment benefits in Finland. Out of them, 196,452 (53.2%) received labour market subsidy and 31,460 (8.5%) basic unemployment benefits. Hence a minority, i.e. 138,949 (37.6%), were entitled to an earnings-related daily allowance from unemployment funds.
When consulting the above percentages, we can argue that the basic income experiment covered the population group that represents a majority of unemployed job seekers in Finland. However, despite this, the experiment was targeted to the long-term unemployed or those unemployed with a very short working history. Maybe the experiment would have yielded different results if it had included those unemployed individuals receiving earnings-related unemployment benefits, not to mention low-income earners, free-lancers and micro-entrepreneurs [2].
Secondly, at the beginning of 2018, the center-right government implemented a new labour market policy measure, namely ‘the activation model’. The aim of the reform was to increase labour market participation by sanctioning the unemployed by benefit cuts if specific activation criteria are not met [3]. While the activation model contaminated the control group, the results may be distorted.
A third possible explanation is that people do not react on monetary incentives as strongly as is usually supposed e.g. in the economic literature. But once again, we must keep in mind the specific characteristics of the target group. It may be that this group would react more strongly on services than on income transfers.
The fourth explanation to the “zero” result may relate to the possibility that the effects of a basic income counteract each other. In the treatment group, the strong monetary incentive to accept jobs (€560 net a month) might have increased employment, while the less stringent conditionality might have made the BI receivers ‘lazier’. Thus, these opposite effects may have repealed each other resulting in an overall zero outcome.
Too strong an emphasis on labour market behaviour?
The proponents of basic income disagree with the above view of laziness. On the contrary, they argue that by empowering people and giving them the freedom to choose for themselves the outcomes are more positive than what is achieved through sanctioning the unemployed. As desired outcomes of basic income, they emphasize not only the increased activity in the labour market but also increased the wellbeing of the citizens.
In fact, the proponents of basic income hardly consider the activation to employment as the main aim of BI, but rather the wellbeing of its receivers. For the supporters of BI, the economic activity e.g. in the labour markets is not a sin non qua for a functional society even if it was widely considered to be the prerequisite for it, at least if we aim to obtain the present welfare state model that is financed via income tax.
When the Finnish government decided to launch the basic income experiment, its main interest was in the employment effects of BI. The government obviously wanted to see if BI is good for employment. Thus, the government’s goal was rather limited and only when discussed in the parliamentary committees, the interest was laid in the wider wellbeing aspects of BI. However, the main interest still was – and still is – in the labour market behaviour of the BI recipients.
The preliminary results for the first year do not display any employment effects, making the opponents of the BI claim that the BI does not solve a low labour supply. However, we can turn the focus upside down. The zero result is an interesting one. According to the proponents of mainstream labour market policies in Finland, we should have witnessed a clear decrease in the labour supply among the basic income recipients compared to the control group. However, we did not observe anything like that. Neither was the employment rate better in the control group that remained in the current, conditional and punitive benefits system.
Hence, in regard to the long-term unemployed (which was the case for most of the recipients in Finland’s basic income experiment), the mechanism improving their labour market status is much more complex and perhaps more attention should be paid in the wellbeing effects of the experiment than on the employment effects. This is done in many other experiments outside Finland – in the evaluation of the experiments the focus in on the sine non qua for activity, namely wellbeing.
What should then the political decision makers do based on the results? Shall they abandon basic income, if it does not increase employment, even if it improves people’s well-being? Or shall they abandon basic income, while strengthening the conditionality of the existing system in order to more effectively “activate” labour, even if it decreases people’s wellbeing? Considering the recent developments in Finland’s labour market policies, one should perhaps bet on the latter option.
[1] If the unemployed person violates the Unemployment Security Act, he/she may lose the right to the unemployment benefits and he/she may to apply for last resort social assistance of in need for financial support.
[3] The activity is monitored in periods of 65 days of payment. The activity requirement are met if an unemployed person, over the course of a single payment period, has been in salaried employment for at least 18 hours, or have earned an income of at least EUR 245.64 from self-employment, or if he/she has participated in five days of employment-promoting services or some other employment-promoting activity arranged by the Employment Services.
Basic Income Network Italia (BIN Italia) has released a new editorial production. Titled “QR9 (Quaderni per il Reddito) – Notebooks for Income: Big Data, WebFare and basic income for all! We are on the net, we produce value, we want basic income“, it’s freely accessible over the Internet.
This publication (March 2019) features 16 authors, offering different perspectives thanks to an included variety of articles written by several italian and international authors.
As reported in the back cover: “Today the Capital expresses its value and lives within neurons and silicon and this evolution changes the relationship between Labor and Capital. Identifying a sort of WebFare Manifesto, could mean a new speech to claim an unconditional basic income, the fruit of our being connected to the network”.
QR9 Index:
Sandro Gobetti and Luca Santini, “We are connected. Basic income and WebFare for all
Andrea Boggio, Big Data & Digital Labor”
Benedetto Vecchi, “The basic income between technocapitalism and social fragmentation”
Roberto Ciccarelli, “Why unconditional basic income and self-determination is a political revolution”
Daniele Gambetta, “From the network to the social network: self-determining the discourse”
Francesca Bria and Evgeny Morozov, “Digital rebel cities claim a New Deal on data”
Stefano Simoncini, “Populist Machines. The challenge of basic income and technological sovereignty between local and transnational”
Maurizio Teli, “WebFare, digital identity and collective freedom”
Andrea Fumagalli, “Network value and basic income: from the WebFare to the commonfare”
Roberto Paura, “From basic income to Universal Basic Assets: a manifesto for equityin the 21st century”
Giuseppe Bronzini, “Social cooperation between the big data economy and basic income”
Giuseppe Allegri, “The great convergence for basic income in the digital age”
Franco Berardi Bifo, “Thinking about basic income in the horizon of collapse”
Luther Blissett, “WebFare: income for all and all platforms for users!”
Bidar has started getting interested in basic income in 2015. As a defender of basic income, Bidar has tried, in the referenced book and in his speaking venues and interviews, to detach his arguments from strictly economic grounds, but to solidify a sound philosophical defence. According to him, the “how much” question amounts to an obsession, since present-day society is obsessed with money and its derived consumption habits. He doesn’t aim to minimize the economic issue, but to amplify the debate to a much larger sphere.
Because in order to mobilize people, to get them to stand up for their rights, time is needed. Most people are just too busy making ends meet, working to feed the children and paying the rent, so a basic income can come as way to provide people with the necessary time to become full-right citizens.
He says the times we live in are the “Kairos” of the age, an historical moment to act, to achieve crucial change. The capitalist system just captures and condenses wealth, leading to unprecedent levels of inequality. Our task now is to redistribute the abundance we are today are able to produce. Since we no longer need to work so much to produce wealth, in the XXI century, due to automation and computerization, we are now, or should be, able to free ourselves from the necessity to “work for a living”, and maybe start working to live…and be happy.
He cites new generations: according to him, young people are much less “docile” regarding impositions from the job market, than previous generations. They want to align their work with their beliefs and aspirations, and not only to work as a way to guarantee survival (in the midst of a hostile society). That may even include, sometimes, to stop completely from working, since everyone needs to breathe, to stop running and reflect at certain moments in their lives.
Bidar looks at basic income also as a tool that allows people to participate in their community and society at large, instead of just hoping that things arrive at their doorstep provided by a handful of politicians. He poses fundamental questions of what to do with our time: what mobilizes us? How do we choose to use our time?
Because, it seems, society is entirely unbalanced, and tilted towards work. That means that the availability of quality time will help people to re-centre their lives in a better balance between work, culture (each person’s place in society and their own choices within their social culture) and political activity (truthful, responsible and active citizens).
He says that “you cannot improvise freedom”, which in this case means that the actual societal freedom a basic income can supply must be a very concrete, planned and conscient step to take. It takes a lot of reflection, discussion and agreement to implement such conditions for freedom. According to him, children and youngsters in general should be supported in their education, so they develop self-confidence and trust in their creative freedom, rather than just being told what to do.
He defends opening up the marketplace, so people have true choice in what to do with their lives, in a sense trusting them to be responsible in living out their freedom. He also understands that suffering in the job market is rampant in today’s society, and that must end. People have little or no choice, which resembles totalitarian systems. To that end, the link between income and work must be broken. There is a social emergence, so basic income should be immediately implemented, even if in a partial form (for the most vulnerable members of society, e.g.: disabled, young people, women in some circumstances). However, he questions if people in general are ready for the level of freedom basic income allows, even though he states that such a policy is crucial to tackle the social and ecological crisis humanity faces nowadays.
To resolve the apparent paradox – that people may not be prepared for the kind of living they need to be living in order to solve the social and ecological crisis – he points to education. He believes in the human being, and that humans are capable of great things, but education and individual conscience are fundamental to evolve and transition to a new way of living.
