by Kate McFarland | Jan 20, 2017 | News
A Parliamentary session on universal basic income (commonly known in the UK as “citizen’s income”) was held at the University of Birmingham on January 12, 2017.
This session had the status of an “inquiry”, a formal call for information on the topic of citizen’s income, in the form of an oral evidence session to the Work and Pensions Committee of the UK Parliament.
While this is not the first time in recent history that citizen’s income has been discussed in the UK Parliament (in September 2016, MPs debated the topic in the House of Commons), it is the first event of its status as an oral evidence session, at which selected experts were called to address questions from a cross-party committee of MPs.
Seven panelists took part in the session, selected by the committee on the basis of their background and interest in the basic income (and in part on the basis of the results from a request for participants released in October 2016). During the event, each panelist was given time for opening and closing statements on basic income, with about an hour allotted for addressing questions and concerns from the MPs on the committee. Questions focused on general information about basic income, its relationship to the existing welfare state, and arguments for and against it.
An article by André Coelho on the content of the oral evidence session in forthcoming in Basic Income News.
The entire session can be viewed here:
Panel Participants
• Louise Haagh (Reader at the University of York and Co-Chair of BIEN). Haagh supports a basic income as part of a system of progressive reforms.
• Annie Miller (Chair of Citizen’s Income Trust and founding member of BIEN’s affiliate Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland). Like Haagh, Miller supports a basic income, but only in conjunction with other benefits. Specifically, she believes that separate housing and disability benefits are needed in addition to a basic income.
• Becca Kirkpatrick (Chair of UNISON West Midlands Community Branch). Kirkpatrick agrees with Haagh and Miller that basic income should be adopted as part of progressive reforms (cf. her union’s 20-point manifesto, which includes a proposal for a basic income “micro pilot”).
• Ben Southwood (Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute). Southwood is not only on the viewer’s right of the first three panelists but also the political right: he supports a basic income or negative income tax but only as a replacement to the majority of the UK’s existing welfare system.
• Peter Alcock (Emeritus Professor at the University of Birmingham). Alcock opposes basic income, which he describes as “such an appealing idea that it’s too good to be true” (referencing his 1989 article “Unconditional benefits: misplaced optimism in income maintenance”). He believes that, in the current system, demands for a citizen’s income are distractions from more pressing issues.
• Declan Gaffney (independent political consultant; policy advisor to the previous Mayor of London). Like Alcock, Gaffney believes that universal basic income is “too good to be true” — which, as it happens, are the precise words used in the title of a piece he wrote on the topic for The Guardian after Finland announced its pilot plans in late 2015. According to Gaffney, basic income is a useful “thought experiment” but not practically feasible or necessary.
• Andrew Harrop (General Secretary of the Fabian Society). Harrop endorses a related policy of “individual credits” for adults in the UK (cf. his report for the Fabian Society published last year); he stresses, additionally, that basic income and similar policies should be viewed through the lens of tax reform.
Photo: University of Birmingham at twilight, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Samuel George
by Kate McFarland | Jan 19, 2017 | News
Photo: Buchanan Institute team at a brainstorming event.
The Buchanan Institute, Scotland’s only student-led think tank, has prepared a report (“A Secure Foundation to Build Our Lives”) that makes a case for universal basic income in the UK.
The report will be launched at a University of Edinburgh event on January 26.
The Buchanan Institute’s recommendations for a UBI draw upon previous work by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), especially the report “Creative Citizens, Creative State” by Anthony Painter and Chris Thoung, and the Citizen’s Income Trust. In particular, it looks to the RSA’s proposal as one that meets three core requirements laid out in the report: “that the proposal is fiscally sound, practically achievable and is within reasonable budget constraints; that it ensures that the least-well-off, particularly low-earners with children, are well supported; and that it ensures low marginal deduction rates, making work pay for the majority of earners.” However, the Buchanan Institute proposes some adjustments to the RSA’s basic income scheme, specifically concerning the amount of the basic income allotted to adults aged 18 to 24 (who, under the RSA’s scheme, would receive transfers lower than those paid to adults over age 25) and to children.
After assessing previous models and research on basic income, the Buchanan Institute proposes a UBI of £7,420 per annum for adults over age 65 (i.e. current pensioners), £3,692 for adults aged 18 to 65, £2,925 for children aged 5 to 17, £3,839 for firstborn children under age 5 and £3,387 for additional children under age 5. The report estimates the cost of such a UBI, implemented across the UK, at between £14 and £19 billion per annum — an amount that the author claims is not out-of-line with previous revenue decisions (e.g. tax cuts) and “affordable and achievable with the necessary political will”.
In conclusion, the report recommends that the British government commission a pilot study in a “medium-sized” city or town (defined as having a population between 250,000 and 500,000), in which participants are provided with an unconditional basic income at levels matching those proposed by the Buchanan Institute. Additionally, it recommends the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons, which recently held an oral evidence session on basic income, to investigate the Buchanan Institute’s proposed UBI.
The report is authored by Jonny Ross-Tatam, founder of the Buchanan Institute and a student of history at the University of Edinburgh.
Launch Event
The official launch of the report will take place at a public event at the University of Edinburgh on January 26, 2017.
The event will also feature talks from Glasgow Councillor Matt Kerr, who has been instrumental in spearheading the movement for a basic income pilot in the city, and RSA Scotland leader Jamie Cooke, who is also involved in the planning of regional pilots in Scotland. At present, basic income pilot studies are being considered in both Fife and Glasgow.
While emphasizing that the Buchanan Institute is “very supportive of pilot projects being commissioned anywhere in the UK,” Ross-Tatam expresses hope that the organization can begin to act on its recommendations within the Scottish context: “As part of our launch, we will call on those leading the basic income pilots in Fife and Glasgow to consider the payment levels we have proposed for these pilot projects. We hope that the Buchanan Institute and our work on basic income can contribute to any pilot projects that take place in Fife and Glasgow.”
For more details about this free event, as well as registration information, see its pages on Facebook and Eventbrite. (Note that, as is just and fair, wine and beer will be served at the beginning of the event.)
More Information
• Ross-Tatam has written a summary of the report for the RSA’s blog (December 21, 2016).
• “A Secure Foundation to Build Our Lives” develops ideas that Ross-Tatam earlier articulated in his TEDx talk “Why we shouldn’t have to work just to survive” (February 2015), in which he argues that a basic income should be supported as a way to allow people to pursue their passions:
N.B. Two days following the Buchanan Institute event, BIEN’s Scottish affiliate, Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland, will be holding an event in Kelty, Scotland, with further discussion of the pilots currently being planned in Scotland.
Article reviewed by Jonny Ross-Tatam and Danny Pearlberg.
Images used with permission of Jonny Ross-Tatam.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 15, 2017 | Research
The quarterly Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare (based at Western Michigan University) published a symposium on the basic income guarantee (BIG) in its September 2016 issue.
The symposium includes five articles on the topic, plus an introduction written by two members of BIEN: Richard K. Caputo (Wurzweiler School of Social Work at Yeshiva University) and Michael Lewis (School of Social Work at Hunter College, CUNY). The first three articles present arguments for the adoption of a BIG in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, respectively. The fourth argues that a BIG is more politically feasible in the United States than alternative approaches to economic security, such as a Swedish-type welfare state. The fifth proposes a feminist argument for a BIG, although cautioning that more empirical work is needed.
Titles and abstracts, with brief descriptions of the authors, are given below. Links to manuscripts are provided where available.
Jennifer Mays and Greg Marston – “Reimagining Equity and Egalitarianism: The Basic Income Debate in Australia”
“Reimagining equity and egalitarianism calls for rethinking traditional welfare responses to poverty and economic security in Australia. Similar to other advanced Western democracies, Australia has pursued policies underpinned by neoliberal economics in an effort to curtail perceived excesses in public expenditure over the past three decades. In response to these policy settings, commentators and policy activists have increased their attention to the potential of a universal and unconditional basic income scheme to address economic insecurity. This paper positions basic income within the context of Australia’s welfare state arrangements and explores the potential of the scheme to respond to economic insecurity, particularly precarious employment and poverty traps created by a highly targeted social security system.”
May is a Course Coordinator in the School of Public Health and Social Work at the Queensland University of Technology, and Marston is Head of School at the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland.
Mays and Marston are both active members of Basic Income Guarantee Australia (BIGA), BIEN’s Australian affiliate, and were co-editors (with John Tomlinson) of Basic Income in Australia and New Zealand: Perspectives from the Neo-Liberal Frontier (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
James P. Mulvale and Sid Frankel – “Next Steps on the Road to Basic Income in Canada”
“Canada has had recurring debates about guaranteed or basic income over several decades. This article outlines reasons for implementing basic income in the Canadian context–reducing poverty and inequality, addressing precarious employment, and building an ecologically sustainable economy. Recently there has been a strong renewal of interest in basic income in Canada. Expressions of interest have come from the Liberal federal government elected in 2015, from provincial governments, from political parties not in power, and from municipal governments. Support for basic income also is found in a growing range of prominent individuals and organizations. While basic income advocates are encouraged by recent developments, several large and complex questions remain on how this approach can be implemented in Canada. These questions encompass the specifics of design, delivery, funding, and political support. How can basic income build on existing income security programs and leave Canadians better off in the end? How can we ensure that basic income is not used as an excuse to cut vital services such health care, social housing, early childhood care and development, and social services for those with disabilities and other challenges? How can basic income be set in place in Canada,given its complicated federal-provincial nexus of responsibility for, delivery of, and funding for social programs? The article concludes with principles that might help guide the implementation of authentically universal, adequate, and feasible basic income architecture in Canada.”
Mulvale is Dean and Frankel an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba — the site of the 2016 North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress, which they helped to organize.
Keith Rankin – “Prospects for a Universal Basic Income in New Zealand”
“New Zealand is a small liberal capitalist country with a history of egalitarian values and political reform–including the early introduction of universal welfare benefits–and with an uncomplicated relatively flat income tax structure. As such, it has sometimes been seen as a “social laboratory,” a theme of writing about New Zealand and of New Zealand social historians. It therefore has all of the elements in place that could make New Zealand a candidate to become a world leader in integrating income tax and social welfare regimes into a form of universal basic income. Nevertheless, through a combination of intellectual inertia, media cynicism, and the requisite elements not all coming together at the same time, the outlook for an open and healthy discussion around public property rights and unconditional benefits remains constrained. Despite this unpromising intellectual environment, New Zealand may yet stumble upon such reform as a political compromise, as it might have done in 1988.”
Rankin is a Lecturer of Business Practice at the Unitec Institute of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand.
Almaz Zelleke – “Lessons from Sweden: Solidarity, the Welfare State, and Basic Income”
“Progressive critics of a universal basic income argue that most nations face a budgetary choice between a full basic income and investment in public goods, including universal health care, free and well-funded education, and universal pensions, and have prioritized a robust welfare state, or the “Swedish Model,” over basic income. But examination of Swedish economic policy reveals that the welfare state is only one of the ingredients of the Swedish Model, and that another is an interventionist labor market policy unlikely to be expandable to larger states without Sweden’s cultural and demographic characteristics. Indeed, evidence suggests that Sweden’s own recent diversification–not only of race and ethnicity but of occupational strata–will make the Swedish Model less stable in its own home. What lessons can be applied to the case for a basic income in the U.S. and other large and diverse nations or regions?”
Zelleke is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at New York University’s campus in Shanghai. She has written multiple journal articles and book chapters on basic income, and has been an active member of BIEN.
Sara Cantillon and Caitlin McLean – “Basic Income Guarantee: The Gender Impact within Households”
“The potential of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) to contribute to gender equality is a contested issue amongst feminist scholars. This article focuses on the nature of BIG as an individually-based payment to explore its potential for reducing gender equality, specifically intra-household inequalities in material or financial welfare; economic autonomy; psychological well-being; and time allocation, especially leisure time and time spent in household and care work. We employ a gender analysis of existing BIG pilots/schemes as well as close substitutes (e.g., universal child benefits) to assess some of the key claims about the effects of a basic income (BI) on gendered inequality. We also present findings from empirical work on intra-household allocation and decision-making which underscore the role of independent income. The article finds some support for BIG as a feminist proposal with respect to mitigating intra-household inequality, but concludes that further empirical research is needed to argue persuasively for BIG as an instrument for furthering gender equality.”
Cantillon is Professor of Gender and Economics at Glasgow Caledonian University. McLean is a lead researcher at the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at the University of California at Berkeley.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Cover photo by Christopher Andrews, CC BY-NC 2.0
by Kate McFarland | Jan 11, 2017 | News
Christo Aivalis, Adjunct Professor of Canadian Political and Labour History at Queen’s University (in Kingston, Ontario), provides a socialist perspective on basic income in an article for Canadian Dimension.
Aivalis presents an overview of the reasons for which various Canadian political parties have supported a basic income, noting that, for those on the right, interest in the policy is largely driven by interest in bureaucratic efficiency. In contrast, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) has historically differed from right-of-center parties in seeing basic income as a matter of providing an adequate standard of living as a universal human right.
Aivalis argues that contemporary progressive thought about basic income should follow the NDP in renewing the focus on human rights — as well as additionally addressing the “broader questions of who owns societal means of production and distribution.” He worries that, taken alone, basic income would “fail to engender economic democracy in Canada, and may even weaken it.” At the same time, he believes that, if conceived as part of a “general drive to democratize the economy,” a basic income could pave the way to a “post-capitalist Canadian future.”
Canadian Dimension is Canada’s longest-running periodical to specialize in left-wing political discussion. Notably, its summer 2016 edition was devoted to the topic of basic income.
National Context:
Basic income has recently generated serious consideration throughout much of Canada. The provincial government of Ontario, currently governed by the Liberal Party, is currently preparing a pilot of a basic income guarantee, with an anticipated launch date of April 2017. Prince Edward Island has also decided to pursue a partnership with the federal government in running a pilot. Other provinces have also shown active interest. For example, the Liberal Party of Quebec (Parti libéral du Québec) has been actively promoting discussion of basic income, as has the Green Party of British Columbia, and the policy has seen interest among officials in Alberta.
Some provincial sections of the NDP have recently advocated for a basic income, such as those of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. Overall, though, most of interest throughout Canada is not driven by the NDP, as Aivalis would seem to prefer.
Read More:
Christo Aivalis, “Basic income: libertarian wedge or a plank towards a socialist future?,” Canadian Dimension, November 7, 2016.
Photo (taken in Toronto, Ontario, Canada) CC BY-NC 2.0 Kat Northern Lights Man
by Guest Contributor | Jan 9, 2017 | Opinion
Seth Ackerman, Mateo Alaluf, Jean-Marie Harribey, Daniel Zamora. Contre l’allocation universelle , Lux Éditeur. Kindle Edition, 2016
Review by: Pierre Madden
This is a book written by and for French intellectuals. Hegelian and Marxist notions are bandied about like so many baseball scores. Nevertheless, the message is plain and the reason for the vigorous opposition to Basic Income (BI) is clear. Some of the points inviting skepticism are well taken. Tracing the origins of BI back to Thomas More and Thomas Paine is in fact quite a stretch. The same familiar More passage is always quoted but have you ever seen a different one? We are dealing here with a posteriori myth making to establish legitimacy.
For this group of authors, the concept of BI is a part of neoliberal ideology. “The concept of BI is tied to the emergence of neoliberalism both in its response to the crisis [in post-war social protection] and in the conception of social justice it embodies.” Furthermore, in the words of economist Lionel Stoléru “the market economy can encompass the fight against absolute poverty” but “it is incapable of digesting stronger remedies against relative poverty.” The latter refers to income inequality rather than to deprivation.
Neoliberalism is opposed to the concept of social rights. A generous BI would be prohibitively expensive without cutbacks in “collective” spending such as welfare, education, public pensions, health, etc. Market forces would replace the idea and institutions of social justice. The “equality of chances” defended by neoliberalism would lead to a society that is more meritocratic but no less unjust, claim the authors.
It is no secret that wealth has increased dramatically since the 1970s but that the rich have benefited disproportionately. BI is seen by the authors as a Trojan horse in the heart of Social Society, whose purpose is to undo all of the social programs developed in the 20th century before the advent of neoliberalism. Proponents in the libertarian left argue that BI would be the “Capitalist road to Communism,” in the words of Philippe Van Parijs himself. BI is seen as a synthesis of liberal and socialist utopias. A description of the conflicting attitudes towards work will best illustrate the divergence in approaches. The classic leftist view is that a citizen’s work defines his contribution to society and tends to conflate work and employment. It is up to society to validate each member’s work effort. The authors claim that BI proponents refuse to accept the idea that work can be a factor for social integration, thus their view that full employment is not a useful goal. On the contrary “the social utility of an activity cannot be established as valid a priori; it must be submitted to democratic approval.”
What democratic approval would mean in practice is not explained but then the Swiss were asked to approve BI with few details provided and 23% voted in favour. Another argument in favour of BI is that it would enable natural caregivers in the home to provide for the young, the sick and the elderly. The authors of this book cannot agree that these activities are valid work in the Marxian sense. To believe otherwise, they say, is “to espouse neoclassical propositions omnipresent in economic pseudoscience.” Some feminists also oppose BI because they see it as a trap to keep women in traditional roles.
So, is BI just a neoliberal plot to destroy the social protections developed in the post-war years by the social state that are inextricably linked to the strength of labour? If not a conspiracy, BI is presented as the culmination of the free market utopia in our collective neoliberal imagination.
The four writers of this tract are nostalgic of more coherent times:
“Since Durkheim,the sociological tradition considers that in developed societies, the division of labour and the resulting specialization of functions produces a solidarity that assures social cohesion. The assignment of individuals to social positions does not only depend on their own will. Impersonal social forces, determinism, belie the claims that attribute to individual merit alone the possibilities of emancipation. The more autonomous the individual the more dependent he is on society. We cannot therefore be but ourselves, anchored in our individuality, to the extent that we are social beings.”
This is no longer the world we live in. In a post-industrial sharing economy, we are still social beings but employment where labour is pitted against capital no longer defines us. The nostalgic socialist authors are justifiably suspicious of neoliberal aims to cut existing social programs but these have a long history and broad support. Making sure that BI beneficiaries do no receive less than before is a part of any serious discussion or test of Basic Income. Vigilance is always appropriate but not to the extent of, as we say in French, tripping on the flowers woven into the carpet.
Book reviewer biography: Pierre Madden is a zealous dilettante based in Montreal. He has been a linguist, a chemist, a purchasing coordinator, a production planner and a lawyer. His interest in Basic Income, he says, is personal. He sure could use it now!
