by Claire Bott | Mar 4, 2018 | News
India’s Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanian, recently told reporters that he would “bet” that one or two Indian states would be implementing universal basic income (UBI) by 2020.
The high-level government advisor’s comments occurred within the context of the release of the 2017-2018 Economic Survey of India. The Economic Survey is a regular report which examines the country’s current economic status, and attempts to make some predictions regarding future growth.
The last Economic Survey, for 2016-2017, gave some details regarding the possibility of India adopting a form of UBI. The survey explored the possibility of an income which would be quasi-universal, being distributed to approximately 75% of the population. This does not match BIEN’s own definition of UBI, but was referred to as a UBI within the survey. This was not the only scheme that the government entertained, if you want to know all schemes of indian government in hindi visit:- Sarkari Yojana UP Here is All Information of the government yojana.
While its approach to the subject was broadly positive, the 2016-2017 Economic Survey stopped short of recommending that a UBI be implemented across the country. Subramanian has spoken positively on UBI in the past, saying during an interview in April of last year, “There could be, potentially, several positive impacts – you provide people with a minimum wherewithal with which they can access credit, with which they can invest – and one of the things I think is worth emphasising about UBI is the kind of psychological liberation you can provide for people.” However, in the same interview, he also indicated some issues which could arise, stating, “You can’t pay for it [UBI] unless you get rid of something else.”
A recent report from Carnegie India, India’s Basic Income Bedevilled by Details, by Shaksam Khosla, praised Subramanian for bringing “substantial rigour” to the debate on UBI in India, but also recommended that, prior to any implementation, a large-scale experimental test of the system should be carried out. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) describes itself as a global network of policy research centres with the aim of advancing peace through analysis and development of new policy ideas, as well as direct engagement with government, business and civil society. Khosla is a Research Analyst with Carnegie India, the CEIP’s sixth international centre to be set up.
Arvind Subramanian took office in October 2014. He previously worked for the International Monetary Fund, and has also been a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Global Development in America.
Edited by: Dawn Howard
by Karl Widerquist | Feb 21, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in December 2006.
Four basic income advocates died in November 2006. Noble-Laureate Milton Friedman (Nov. 16), Brazilian economist Antonio Maria da Silveira (Nov.21), former director of the Citizens Income Trust (Britain) Richard Clements (Nov. 23), and inventor and philanthropist Leonard Greene (Nov. 30). Below is a short discussion of the role of each in the debate over the basic income guarantee.
MILTON FRIEDMAN
Milton Friedman, the economist who most popularized BIG in the United States, died November 16, 2006. Friedman was on the most influential economists of the Twentieth Century. His work has been influential in diverse areas of economic theory, but most particularly in the area of monetary economics. Although his proposal of a strict rule for increasing the money supply each year by a given percentage has been largely discarded, his critical work on the mistakes made by the central bank that led to the Great Depression and other economic downturns has simply become part of common knowledge.
More than his contribution to the science of economics, Friedman is known for popularization of free market libertarianism in numerous books, articles, and a television show on the Public Broadcasting System. He opposed government regulation of industry and the privatization of state-owned industries right up to and including the Post Office. He was an early advocate of public school choice and of the privatization of Social Security. Thus, he became known as a spokesperson for conservative republicanism, but his libertarianism was never quite in line with traditional American conservatism. As early as the 1960s, he opposed the military draft and supported the legalization of drugs. None of his proposals seemed more out-of-line with the 1980-2006 conservative revolution than his advocacy of the basic income guarantee under the name of the negative income tax (NIT).
Welfare state policy in the United States, and to some extent across the industrialized world, has been dominated by an uneasy marriage of the liberal desire to help the poor with the conservative desire to force the poor to become better people. So, we have a hugely complex system that is stingy with some of the people who need it most, generous with people who fit into arbitrary categories, and makes everyone jump through hoops to meet the conditions of eligibility. One might expect a free-market libertarian to oppose using the tax system either to help or to improve the poor, but to a free market libertarian it is clear which of the two is the greater danger.
To a libertarian, government interference, control, and humiliation of the poor is a waste of time and money and whatever it might do to improve the poor, it does not make them more free. Through this kind of reasoning, Friedman became a supporter of the basic income guarantee.
“He believed that if you wanted to fight poverty you should give the poor more money and let them figure out how to use it,” as Renée Montagne of National Public radio summarized his thinking. He, therefore, advocated BIG in the form of the NIT: a small in-cash grant to everyone who had a low income with a low “marginal tax” rate that would give them plenty of incentive to earn money on the private market if they could.
Friedman did so much to popularize BIG that many BIG supporters today tend to forget that he never lost his free market attraction to the idea that perhaps the government should do nothing for the poor. Friedman’s support for the NIT almost always came with the disclaimer to the effect that as long as we are spending money to help the poor, we might as well use the most efficient method to help them. He even sometimes described the negative income tax as a transitional program toward the complete abolition of all government assistance to the poor—not quite what most BIG advocates hope for.
Nevertheless there is good reason to think of Friedman as a champion of the BIG movement. Friedman’s NIT was broad and generous to those who needed it most. Daine Pagen, of the Caregivers Credit Campaign complained that many recent articles on Friedman treated the NIT as the precursor to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Although the EITC is a form of negative tax that was an outgrowth of the NIT movement, it is actually a very narrow and water-down alternative. Friedman’s NIT was a comprehensive solution to poverty aimed at everyone, not only at low-income workers as the EITC is.
Under the NIT, the government would make no judgment about why a person was poor. It would help everyone in need, and create an incentive system so that everyone who worked more had more a higher take-home pay. It would leave it up to the individual to decide whether that was in their best interest. This kind of thinking is diametrically opposed to “welfare reform” under Temporary Assistance to Needed Families, which is designed to force ever single parent into the labor market whether or not she believes the needs of her children make that impossible.
Friedman wrote extensively on the NIT between 1960 and 1980, but he paid less attention to the topic in the last 25 years of his life. However, in an interview with Brazilian Senator and economist Eduardo Suplicy in 2000, Friedman reiterated his support for BIG. When Suplicy asked what Friedman thought of basic income as an alternative to the NIT, Friedman responded, “A basic or citizen’s income is not an alternative to a negative income tax. It is simply another way to introduce a negative income tax.”
A quick web search will produce thousands of articles on Friedman. For a broad view of his career and contributions, see Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/cms/s/cb74eef8-7599-11db-aea1-0000779e2340.html
ANTONIO MARIA DA SILVEIRA
Antonio Maria da Silveira, professor of economics at Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, died on November 21. According to his long-time friend, Eduardo Suplicy, “Antonio Maria was the first Brazilian economist who proposed the institution of a guaranteed minimum income program through a negative income tax. It was in the article Redistribuição de Renda (Redistribution of Income), published in Revista Brasileira de Economia, in April 1975.” Drawing inspiration from Economists as diverse as J. M. Keyns and F. A. Hayek, Antonio Maria argued that it would soon become feasible for the government to secure a decent living for everyone. Suplicy credits him with being a consistent voice in favor of a basic income guarantee right through the passage of a bill to gradually phase in a basic income in Brazil. Suplicy’s tribute to Antonio Maria da Silveira is in the December issue of the BIEN NewsFlash (www.basicincome.org).
RICHARD CLEMENTS
Richard Clements, former director of the Citizens Income Trust (CIT), died November 23, 2006. According to the CIT, “The Citizen’s Income Trust has been sorry to hear of the death of Richard Clements. After being editor of Tribune and running Neil Kinnock’s office, Richard was Director of the Citizen’s Income Trust from 1993 to 1996, when sadly he had to retire because of his own ill health and to look after his wife Bridget. He was a most effective Director, and we were very sorry when he had to leave. Not surprisingly, he was particularly good at raising the profile of the Citizen’s Income debate in the press.” Clements was also a campaigner against nuclear weapons and editor of the British left-wing newspaper, the Tribune. The British newspaper the Guardian article on Clements is on the web at: https://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1955580,00.html.
LEONDARD GREENE
Can you imagine a better way to make a fortune than to invent a product that saves lives? Can you imagine a better thing to do with a fortune than use to fight poverty and disease? Leonard Greene made his fortune inventing safety products for airplanes. His stall warning device (a safety feature that is now standard equipment on commercial aircraft) has saved an uncountable number of lives. After Greene was a well established business owner with dozens of patents and a multimillion-dollar business to his credit, he founded the Institute for SocioEconomic Studies, which funded research on healthcare policy and on the Basic Income Guarantee. Greene wrote two books on the Basic Income Guarantee, Free Enterprise Without Poverty and The National Tax Rebate. Greene’s BIG idea was simple: What if they United States replaced everything it is now doing to maintain someone’s income and replaced it with a basic income in the form of a tax credit or tax rebate? Greene found that the revenue currently devoted to tax deductions, welfare policies, farm subsidies, and many other programs could be redirected to a basic income large enough to virtually eliminate poverty in the United States. His ideas have not caught on with mainstream politicians, but they have continuing appeal. His idea for redirecting all U.S. income support spending into a basic income has been virtually reinvented by Charles Murray in his latest book, In Our Hands, and the idea of BIG in the form of a tax credit is very much the idea behind the BIG bill submitted in the 109th Congress by Representative Robert Filner. He is survived by eight children. He son, Donald Greene died in United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. Leonard Greene died November 30, 2006 at the age of 88.
EDITORIAL NOTE
When I volunteered to write the USBIG Newsletter in 2000, I did no realize how many obituaries I would have to write. It is a particularly sad duty that I have never quite gotten used to. Friedman’s death, following Herbert Simon in 2001, James Tobin in 2002, John Kenneth Galbraith early this year, marks the end of an era when the great economists who seemed to disagree on everything else, all seemed united behind the guaranteed income as the best way to reform anti-poverty policy. Friedman was first among these because of long-term efforts to popularize the idea. Although Friedman considered himself a liberal (or libertarian) who believed freedom was the overriding value that should guide policy and who believed that freedom conflicted with egalitarianism and economic equality, he had something to teach egalitarians. His logic (if you really want to help the poor, give them money and let them decide how to use it) leads me inevitably to the belief that unconditional assistance, in the form of some kind of basic income guarantee, must be the centerpiece of any truly egalitarian program. It has also made me suspicious of anyone who calls himself egalitarian but advocates conditional assistance to the poor. There can’t be egalitarianism without respect for the poor, and how can we say we respect the poor if we advocate policies designed to promote “equality but…”? For example, I support equality but only for the truly needed. I support equality but only if they are willing to work. I support equality butnot one of them is going to get their hands on one red cent of my tax dollars if they’ve ever refused a job. I can’t help but be suspicious. I can’t help but come back that that idea, if you really care about the poor, if you really want to help them, you will give them money unconditionally, with no supervision, without asking for anything in return. Sometimes it takes a libertarian spot a true egalitarian.
-Karl Widerquist, New Orleans, LA, December 20
by Faun Rice | Feb 19, 2018 | News
Image by MaxPixel: Trakai Castle Lithuania
On December 6, 2017, Swedbank published a report on the Baltic Sea Region entitled “Heart-warming growth is a poor excuse to postpone reforms.” The report includes a chapter on Universal Basic Income, wherein the bank models the current economic feasibility of UBI in the Baltics.
Swedbank is a bank based in Stolkholm, Sweden. Its research arm publishes annual economic assessments of Baltic Sea region countries, which include Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The December 2017 report and executive summary focus primarily on Swedbank’s four main markets: Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
The report highlights a time when global economic growth has helped Baltic Sea region countries reach cyclical economic peaks. However, it states that geopolitics, and populism in particular, remain risks to further growth.
Swedbank suggests that rising income inequality, combined with fears about unemployment driven by automation and globalization, contribute to populism and need to be combatted in order to ensure sustainable economic growth. The report proposes that populism can be circumvented by socioeconomic policy that ensures that growth is inclusive (i.e., where prosperity is distributed equitably across all of a country’s economic classes).
As such, Swedbank’s report argues that this period of prosperity in the Baltic Region has created an ideal context for reform and investment in long-term economic wellbeing. The report delivers an in-depth analysis of the economies of Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, commenting on GDP growth and the potential to create new socioeconomic policies. It also targets specific needs in each country, referencing indicators based partially on the UN’s sustainable development goals.
Sweden scores higher than the Baltics on most of Swedbank’s UN SDG-based indicators. However, the report comments on the need for all identified countries to take the opportunity to enact policy reform.
Swedbank addresses Universal Basic Income as one potential option for reform that will reduce income inequality and encourage sustainable growth. The report concludes that UBI is currently unaffordable for the Baltics, but that elements of a basic or guaranteed income, introduced carefully, could come with numerous social benefits.
Swedbank in Lithuania. Credit to: Delfi
UBI: Current feasibility for the Baltic Region
Swedbank identifies several arguments for UBI, including the idea that it will increase income security and thus reduce fears around unemployment and job loss, along with suggestion that UBI solves or mitigates problems with existing social security systems. The argument that UBI will minimize bureaucratic costs associated with social security systems is less relevant in the Baltics, where only 1.2 to 2.1% of total “social protection” expenditure is administrative.
The report provides a summary overview of some of the questions associated with UBI implementation, such as its impact on employment and the economy, or the concern that it would negatively impact assistance given to the disabled or elderly.
Using 2015 data on government spending on social protections in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Swedbank evaluates the feasibility of a budget-neutral UBI in these countries. The report tries two different models, one in which old-age pensions are retained by the elderly, and the other in which pensions are included in the money redirected towards UBI. For each of these two scenarios, the report presents two further options: one wherein all residents of a country receive UBI, and another wherein children up to the age of 16 receive only 50% of adult UBI payments. Swedbank does not make any changes to tax revenue in these examples.
The report finds that, given existing budgets, UBI monthly payments to individuals would only reach 48-55% of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold for each Baltic country, less if old-age pensions were retained for the elderly. A UBI at the poverty line, distributed to all residents equally, would require doubling social security budgets in Latvia and Estonia, or an 82% increase in Lithuania, becoming 20-25% of each country’s GDP.
While Swedbank concludes that a UBI is currently unaffordable in the Baltics, the report comments that some components of a “basic income model” might simplify and improve existing social security programs. The authors suggest that governments could improve their systems’ accessibility by eliminating means testing and other conditions currently in place for those trying to get support. They also propose that a gradual decrease in benefits, rather than a sharp removal once a person becomes employed, might help incentivize recipients to stay in the labour market.
Another alternative discussed is a “partial” guaranteed income delivered only to particular cohorts of people. For example, Lithuania has an existing program that provides lump-sum cash benefits to every child born, with no conditions placed upon family income.
More information at:
“Baltic Sea Report: Heart-warming growth is a poor excuse to postpone reforms,” Swedbank, December 6th 2017
“Sustainable Development Goals,” United Nations
“Swedbank Macro Research: Baltic Archive,” Swedbank, February 2018
Vlada Stankūnienė and Aušra Maslauskaitė, “Family Policies: Lithuania (2015),” Population Europe Resource Finder & Archive, 2015
by Karl Widerquist | Feb 14, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in October 2008.
In January 2008, a Basic Income Grant (BIG) pilot project began in the Otjivero-Omitara area in Namibia. All residents below the age of 60 years receive a Basic Income Grant of 100 Namibian dollars per person per month, without any conditions attached. According to BIEN, the grant is being given to every person registered as living there in July 2007, whatever their social and economic status. This BIG pilot project is designed and implemented by the Namibian Basic Income Grant Coalition (established in 2004) and is the first universal cash-transfer pilot project in the world. The BIG Coalition has just published its first assessment report on the project, which compares the results of a baseline study and a panel survey after the first six months of implementation.
1. The community itself responded to the introduction of the BIG by establishing its own 18-member committee to mobilize the community and advise residents on how they could improve their lives with the money. This suggests that the introduction of a BIG can effectively assist with community mobilisation and empowerment.
2. Since the introduction of the BIG child malnutrition in the settlement has dropped remarkably. Using a WHO measurement technique, the data shows that children’s weight-for-age has improved significantly in just six months from 42% of underweight children to only 17%.
3. Since the introduction of the BIG, the majority of people have been able to increase their work both for pay, profit or family gain as well as self-employment. This finding is contrary to critics’ claims that the BIG would lead to laziness and dependency.
4. Income has risen in the community since the introduction of the BIG by more than the amount of the grants. There is strong evidence that more people are now able to engage in more productive activities and that the BIG fosters local economic growth and development. Several small enterprises started in Otjivero, making use of the BIG money being spent in the community.
5. More than double the number of parents paid school fees and the parents prioritized the buying of school uniforms. More children are now attending school and the stronger financial situation has enabled the school to improve teaching material for the pupils (eg. buying paper and toner). The school principal reported that drop-out rates at her school were 30-40% before the introduction of the BIG. By July 2008, these rates were reduced to a mere 5%.
6. The BIG supports and strengthens Government’s efforts to provide ARV treatment to people suffering from HIV/AIDS by enabling them to access governments services and afford nutrition.
7. The residents have been using the settlement’s health clinic much more since the introduction of the BIG. Residents now pay the N$4 payment for each visit and the income of the clinic has increased fivefold.
8. The criticism that the grants are apparently leading to more alcoholism is not supported by evidence from the community. On the contrary, the introduction of the BIG has induced the community to set up a committee that is trying to curb alcoholism and that has worked with local shebeen [unlicensed tavern] owners not to sell alcohol on the day of the pay-out of the grants.
9. The introduction of the Basic Income Grant has helped young women recipients to take charge of their economic affairs. Several cases document that young women have been freed from having to engage in transactional sex.
10. Economic and poverty-related crime (illegal hunting, theft and trespassing) has fallen by over 20%.
11. The BIG has helped to achieve progress towards all eight Millenium Development Goals.
In brief, according to the report the initial results of this pilot project are very encouraging and by far exceed the expectations of the BIG Coalition. The local community has embraced the pilot project and is engaged in efforts to make it work well. According to BIEN, as commented by one of the community’s residents: “Generally, the BIG has brought life to our place. Everyone can afford food and one does not see any more people coming to beg for food as in the past. What I can say is that people have gained their human dignity and have become responsible.” (Jonas Damaseb, June 2008) Bishop Dr. Z. Kameeta, speaking at the report launch on October 2nd, said: “We, as a Nation, cannot wait to address poverty head on. We cannot wait to implement a universal Basic Income Grant nation wide. This is a challenge for the whole country.”
-Karl Widerquist, Oxford UK, October 2008
Further information about the project is available on www.bignam.org.
Including a video of the presentation of the report at https://www.bignam.org/page4.html.
An article on the report published by “The Namibian” (October 3, 2008) in online at https://allafrica.com/stories/200810030605.html
by Guest Contributor | Feb 7, 2018 | Opinion
Looking back to the past, looking forward to the way ahead
The 6th General Assembly (GA) of Basic Income Korea Network (BIKN) was held in Seoul last Saturday. The GA, the highest decision-making body, is held every January, in which we examine the activities of last year and decide what activities we should carry out in the following year.
2017 was a watershed year for BIKN as well as for the politics in Korea. Popular resistance to the abuse of power and corruption of the former president and her coterie led to a snap presidential election in which Mr. Moon from the Democratic Party won. We have the most democratic government in a decade.
Grievances about social and economic inequality and insecurity have flowed under the popular resistance, although it was certainly an expression of the aspiration for democracy. Under these circumstances, interest and support for the basic income idea could be strengthened and become more prolific prolific. One of the more influential candidates presented basic income policy as an electoral promise.
BIKN had two main achievements in the turbulent year of 2017. Above all, the basic income agenda entered into the center of the public sphere. During this period, BIKN has been recognized as a prestigious institution around the discussion of BI. Secondly, we saw the quantitative growth of our organization, including an increase in individual and group membership, as well as the growth of local networks (chapter of BIKN). Now we have around 500 individual members, seven group members and six local networks.
Upon the those self-assessments, BIKN decided the following activities for the next year: we will spread understanding of the basic income concept through online basic income courses; we will make efforts to form basic income coalitions during the local elections this June in order to implement basic income policy; we will participate in the project to design experimental models for basic income which the government will commission this year (see another article); we will change BIKN into a corporation in order to secure institutional status.
We expect this year will be another watershed to realize the basic income idea.
Hyosang Ahn Executive Director of BIKN
