by Andre Coelho | Mar 3, 2017 | News
On February 6th Paulo Pinto published a podcast on basic income for the Portuguese radio station Rádio Renascença. Motivated by the recent growth in interest for what is often considered the “radical project” of basic income in Finland, Paulo Pinto condenses all the available information about basic income and shortly interviews André Coelho, Basic Income News’s lead-editor and activist.
After presenting a possible definition of basic income, André cites a couple of problems related to the Finish experiment, namely the quantity disbursed to individuals not covering basic expenses in the Finish context, and only unemployed people participating in the experiment. He also clarifies that many criticisms are covert manifestations of lack of trust in people, who allegedly cannot be trusted with unconditional money.
Listen to the full conversation:
(Language: Portuguese)
Paulo Pinto, “Dinheiro grátis [Free money]”, Rádio Renascença – Economia das coisas, 6th February 2017
by Kate McFarland | Feb 26, 2017 | News
The city of Barcelona is preparing to test an income maintenance program in one of its poorest districts. While it has been called a ‘basic income’, the tested programs diverge in several ways from BIEN’s definition of the term.
Urban Innovative Actions (UIA), an initiative of the European Commission that supports projects investigating “innovative and creative solutions” in urban areas, has allocated €4.85 million (about $5.15 million) to fund a three-year pilot study of guaranteed minimum income (GMI) in Barcelona, Spain. The project is dubbed “B-Mincome” in reference to Mincome, a well-known study of GMI conducted in the late 1970s in Manitoba, Canada.
In the B-Mincome experiment, 1,000 randomly selected households in the Besos district — one of Barcelona’s most economically disadvantaged areas — will receive cash subsidies of an amount sufficient to ensure that their earnings exceed the poverty line. At the time of this writing, the City Council of Barcelona is still finalizing the design of the study. However, the city plans to test several types of GMI schemes, and it plans to investigate them in conjunction with improvements in public services.
According to Project Manager Fernando Barreiro, the objective of B-Mincome is to “test and analyse how effective forms of universal economic support, combined with access to services such as housing, education, work and community participation can reduce poverty.” Results from the pilot will be used in a comparative analysis of the cost and effectiveness of different anti-poverty policies, “with the ultimate goal of developing more efficient welfare services.”
While the B-Mincome pilot bears some similarity to a universal basic income (UBI), and has been called by this name, it should be noted that the program to be tested is neither universal nor individual. Moreover, some of the GMI schemes to be tested may not be unconditional.
First, the B-Mincome program will provide a cash supplement to boost low incomes rather than a uniform and universal cash grant (as was also the case in the Manitoba’s Mincome experiment). These supplements will guarantee that no participant in the study has a household income below poverty level. However, as typical of GMI schemes, the amount of the supplement will be reduced if a household’s income increases during the course of the experiment.
Moreover, the design of the study will promote the targeting of the most disadvantaged recipients. Researchers will employ a randomized block design to ensure the representation of various types of households that tend to suffer the most poverty (e.g. immigrants, single-parent families, the long-term unemployed, and unemployed youth).
Second, as already implied, the payments will be to households rather than individuals.
Finally, some of the variations to be examined are likely to impose conditions of the receipt of the benefit. Barreiro has related, for example, that the city is considering testing a GMI program that makes benefits conditional searching for a job, participating in a training program, or doing work for the community. Such a program would be analyzed for its efficiency and effectiveness against a GMI lacking these conditions.
To develop B-Mincome, the Barcelona City Council has partnered with four research organizations and institutions: the Young Foundation, the Institute of Governance and Public Policy (IGOP) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, and the Catalan Institution for Evaluation of Public Policies (IVALUA). The city is also consulting with contacts within the governments of Finland, the Canadian province of Ontario, and the Dutch municipality of Utrecht, which are currently running or about to run their own similar pilot studies.
Sources
The Young Foundation, “Young Foundation partners with Barcelona City Council to help deliver radical project in the fight against poverty” (press release), October 28, 2016.
“Linking the Urban Development Network and the Urban Innovative Actions in Barcelona,” Urban Innovative Actions, January 9, 2017.
“B-MINCOME – Combining guaranteed minimum income and active social policies in deprived urban areas,” Urban Innovative Actions.
Fernando Barreiro, personal communication.
Photo: “Homeless in Barcelona” CC BY-NC 2.0 Melvin Gaal
Note: A previous version of this article incorrectly listed IESE as one of the City of Barcelona’s partners in the pilot. It has been corrected to IVALUA. (Edited March 2, 2017.)
by BIEN | Feb 20, 2017 | News
(Image Credit to University of Toronto)
You are a family doctor, with unique insights into the Canadian health care system. Your new book, Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for All Canadians, poses, as per the title, six big ideas to improve the Canadian health care system. What inspired you to write this book?
Each chapter in the book was named after a patient in my practice who I was inspired by and this is a book about their stories. I think that when people pick up a copy of Better Now, they will see themselves in the stories, or a friend or a family member. Many of us have had similar experiences in the doctor’s office, or we know of someone who has. As a family doctor, I see the challenges my patients face because of problems in the system. These problems often feel outside the control of both individual patients and providers. But as someone who studies health system issues, I know that a lot of those problems can be fixed, and importantly we can fix them in ways that build on the value of fairness that is so important to Canadians. I felt a book was a good way to give voice to these issues and to try to get people like my patients and your readers more engaged in pushing for improvements.
Big idea 1 is the return to relationships. What does this mean for Canadian health care?
We know that around 85% of Canadians have a family doctor, so that’s a great place to start. But having a good relationship with your doctor comes next. This relationship should be one where there is open communication, so that we as doctors have the chance to really understand what patients need when they come in to see us. In my book, I say that the notion of being seen by “someone who knows you” is central to primary care. The best place to integrate all your health needs is a place where, like the bar in Cheers, everybody knows your name. So, for example, if you come in to see me for a cold, I would help you with that, but while you were there, we might also sit and talk about other concerns you may be having, discuss your family history with a disease, talk about screening and what we need to better manage your health. This relationship can also help to guard against overtreatment or over-doctoring. For example, in my book, I talk about my patient Abida and how we’ve worked to reduce the number of medications she takes and the specialists she meets with over the years, to her benefit. We’ve also tried to limit the number of times she goes in to the emergency room by making sure that she sees me more often, vs. other healthcare providers who many not know about as much about her health history.
Big idea 2 is a nation with a drug problem. What is our drug problem in Canada? What is the remedy or the solution for it?
Drugs have always been an issue, whether legal or illegal. For example, lots of families have seen their loved ones experience horrible side effects because of prescription drugs that have been through rigorous trials. You can visit website to find out more about how they seek compensation for this. Anway, a bigger issue with drugs is that some people just can’t afford them. We know that one in five Canadian households report that someone in that household is not taking their medicine out of concerns about costs. We need a public drug plan that covers all Canadians and does not have high co-payments so that patients can afford to take their life-saving medications. A strong national pharmacare program would solve our access problems and save Canadians billions of dollars. If done right, a pharmacare program could also help to reduce overmedication and inappropriate prescribing – problems that affect too many Canadians, especially seniors. Canadians believe in the principle that access to health care should be based on need, not ability to pay. That principle needs to be extended beyond doctors and hospitals to include universal access to a publicly-funded formulary of essential medicines.
Big idea 5 is a basic income for basic health. That is important to BIEN. It is, specifically, a basic income guarantee. What is the specific definition of a basic income guarantee in big idea 5? How would this impact the Canadian health care system?
A basic income guarantee means that if your income falls below a certain level, you would be topped up to a level sufficient to meet your basic needs. It’s a departure from our current social assistance program in two ways:
- A basic income would ensure that everyone in Canada has income above the “poverty line.”
- It would work through the tax system and be easier to administer with the only eligibility requirement being a person’s income. Who you live with or whether you were searching for work or attending a training program wouldn’t be factored into whether you are eligible to receive support.
Medicine isn’t the only thing that makes us healthy. If you can’t afford good food, your rent or safe housing, it’s harder to be healthy, so we need a basic income for basic health. By ensuring that everyone has access to a basic income, we can improve health and decrease costs in the health care system by reducing or eliminating poverty. For example, in Manitoba in the 1970s, a small income top-up for people in poverty reduced hospitalizations by 8.5%. If we could find a drug as effective as that, we would put it in the water supply!
About the Author
Danielle Martin is a family physician in Toronto and Vice President, Medical Affairs and Health System Solutions at Women’s College Hospital. Her book, Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for All Canadians, was released by Penguin Random House in January 2017. For more information on her current book tour watch here and follow @docdanielle on Twitter.
by Andre Coelho | Feb 18, 2017 | News
(From left to right: Louise Haagh, Annie Miller, Becca Kirkpatrick, Ben Southwood)
As reported recently, a formal hearing called by the Work and Pensions Committee of the UK Parliament was carried out on the 12th of January 2017, in Birmingham, for a session dedicated to basic income. This hearing was recorded on video, and can be watched here.
From the Work and Pensions Committee, the members present (formally named as witnesses) were Steve McCabe (Chair), Mhari Black, Ms Karen Buck, James Cartlidge, Frank Field and Craig Mackinlay. On the witness bench, supporters and critics of basic income were aligned: Louise Haagh (Reader in Politics from the University of York and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network), Annie Miller (Chair of the Citizen’s Income Trust), Becca Kirkpatrick (Chair of the UNISON West Midlands Community Branch), Ben Southwood (Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute) and Andrew Harrop (General Secretary of the Fabian Society) on the supporting side, along with Declan Gaffney (independent political consultant) and Peter Alcock (Emeritus Professor of Social Polity and Administration at the University of Birmingham) on the critical side.
The purpose of the hearing was one of collecting evidence from experts, specifically on the issue of basic income, on which Chairman Steve McCabe noted there seemed to be a “newfound interest”. He then went on to ask whether the witnesses were for or against the idea of basic income, and why, beginning with Louise Haagh.
Louise is firmly in favor of basic income, which she sees as a very important – crucial even – policy that welfare states need to implement, in order to relieve what she regards as a tendency towards more punitive strategies in present day social security schemes. Basic income can help a lot in providing “a more humane form of social security at the bottom of the welfare state”.
Louise Haagh
Seated next to Louise, Annie Miller starts by undersigning all her previous statements. In addition, she points to some definitional information about basic income, such as individuality, universality and non-conditionality except that of age. Miller also clarifies that basic income is only intended to cover basic needs, not luxurious lifestyles. That implies, given regional cost variations and various personal circumstances, that for instance housing and disability benefits would still need to be kept in place, at least in the United Kingdom (UK). She closes this initial statement by saying that basic income schemes will vary depending on the policy maker’s objectives.
Becca Kirkpatrick also began with her support for basic income, including the UNISON West Midlands labor union in that support. She cites ongoing discussions about basic income within the union she represents, which include a right to a dignified existence, as unconditional cash transfer, or as more widely conceived strategies to eradicate or alleviate poverty. Becca frames the question more generally not on a matter of technical or economic feasibility, but as an issue of political will, on “what the public of this country would like to see and believe they are entitled to”.
Following this, Ben Southwood went on to say that, although he supports basic income, he stands somewhere slightly different in relation to the issue. He defends basic income as a simplification of the welfare state, where he sees great opportunity for reducing or eliminating disincentives to work. Cutting most social benefits and replacing them with the basic income would, in his view, allow people currently on benefits a greater degree of freedom.
Annie Miller
On his part, Peter Alcock, while recognizing basic income’s appeal as a progressive idea for society, feels that it is “too good to be true”. Afraid of the co-option of basic income by neo-liberals – as an excuse for slashing away the welfare state – he looks upon it with as a “distraction from other more pressing issues”. He was followed, and supported by, Declan Gaffney. He was also weary that basic income supporters so often defend BI with promises of unconditionality even when, when practically considered, a basic income would still need to be attached to conditions. However, he does give the idea credit as “a thought experiment”.
Finally, Andrew Harrop said he was “sitting on the fence” with basic income. He thinks basic income should be seen more from a tax reform prism, rather than a change to social security. Harrop ultimately envisions a kind of hybrid system that combines universal unconditional cash transfers with means tested benefits for those “who have earned entitlement”.
Ms Karen Buck then raised the question of work and basic income: in an increasingly unstable labor market, with lower and less certain incomes accruing from work – how serious should these tendencies be regarded, and how might basic income address them? Declan Gaffney, in reply, doubted that, given the previous economic instability, we were witnessing permanent job loss due to technological change. In this he adhered to the views of others like Alan Manning. This was followed by a short discussion between Ms Karen Buck and Becca Kirkpatrick, over if the problem was the existence of conditions within the system, or the absence of the system. According to Becca, the system does not exist, not in a way as to “prioritize guaranteeing for everyone”, and went on to state the premises and broad results of UNISON internal debate on the issue of basic income. That survey, she says, has exceeded expectations as to the level of support for the idea, in general terms.
At that point, James Cartlidge joins the conversation, asking what he thinks is “the most important question”: how generous will this basic income be? Ben Southwood then introduces the issue of basic income versus the negative income tax issue. After clarification of the differences between these two systems of cash transfer, Annie Miller points out that the “housing benefit is not a problem of the basic income, it is a problem of the housing policy”. However, James, and to a certain extent, Peter Alcock state their opposition to basic income on a more fundamental basis: that people will not work if given a sufficiently generous basic income. James Cartlidge is also not convinced (about basic income), as some models, according to him, result in greater poverty with basic income.
Mhairi Black then raises the question of effects on the labor market, which she fears will be one without pay raises, if basic income is implemented. Louise doesn’t agree, arguing that people, with increased bargaining power, will only do difficult, unpleasant tasks if paid more to do them. On the other hand, going back to the quantitative value of basic income, Annie Miller reminds that 60% of the median equivalized household income is a good benchmark for quantifying the basic income in any given region, and elucidates about ways to finance it within the UK tax context. She goes on to state that this should actually be inscribed into a national constitution, if only the UK had one. On that point, Andrew Harrop states his preference for a hybrid tiered system, with both conditional and unconditional elements in it, plus some contributory part (for pensions and/or unemployment benefits).
Becca Kirkpatrick then introduced the issue of working conditions – on a general basis but also based on her own experience – which she thinks need to be addressed urgently, and strongly believes basic income is the way to do it. Louise then weights in by underlining that a basic income does not need to be a substitute for work regulations, nor to contributory benefit regimes. The two can go along in the same direction, one of reducing conditionality, complexity and punitive actions.
Craig Mackinlay from the Work and Pensions Committee was himself generally against the idea of a basic income, especially on the grounds that it will discourage work, plus it could increase poverty. Declan Gaffney, although also an opponent, recalls a study for the USA in which a 55% tax rate is applied to fund a basic income. Ben Southwood, on work changes due to basic income, sees a mixed effect which might somewhat reduce working hours – especially for single women with children – but at the same time increase income for extra hours worked. At this point, Louise introduces the calculations done by Malcom Torry, of the Citizen’s Income Trust, to fund a basic income in the UK, which predicts a 60£ a week for everybody, financed by progressive tax rates of 23% for incomes up to 42000£ per year, 43% up to 150000£ per year and 48% above that.
Peter Alcock
As final remarks, Andrew Harrop re-stated his vision of a hybrid social security scheme incorporating conditional and unconditional parcels. Declan declared himself reluctant to accept conditionality in the social security system, as well as some backstop sanctions regime. However, because he thinks basic income will discourage people from working, he favors a more traditional employment framework, with “permanent contracts, with proper in-work benefits with entitlements to holiday pay, sick pay and so on”. Peter Alcock firmly set his case against basic income, as something unachievable or that “isn’t worth pursuing”. Ben also concluded in support of basic income, although from a different point of view from other supporters. According to him, there is no principle distinction between a basic income and a negative income tax.
Becca Kirkpatrick went back to fundamental philosophical grounds justifying basic income, by saying that it “could have an interestingly powerful, new cohesive effect on society that we are yet to really experience”. She also rested her case with a unifying message that, effectively, the human species needs badly to unite, helped by such a policy as basic income, to address all other challenges it is facing in the world today. Annie Miller wrapped up her position by clarifying that, under a basic income scheme, higher earners are net payers of basic income, not receivers. She also added the important aspect of gender inequality, so much in favor of men presently, and that would be made more fair and realistic with basic income, paid individually. She still had time to summarize the current system, which she claimed is “just a regressive system”, and went on to point out that “we have freedom of choice for rich people but not for poor people”. Finally, Louise Haagh presented her closing statement underlying that, although with different views on the subject, the whole witness panel seems to show consensus that the benefits system needs changing. And that change will inevitably go towards basic income, if it is to become less punitive and more humane.
To view the full recording:
House of Commons Committees Youtube Channel, “Session on Citizen’s Income”, Work and Pensions Committee, live streamlined on the 12th January 2017
by Hilde Latour | Feb 9, 2017 | Research
David Piachaud, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics and an associate of The Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE), published a discussion paper on Citizens’ Income (CI) in December of last year.
Abstract:
A Citizen’s Income, or a Basic Income, is not a new idea but it has been receiving
increasing attention. There is confusion about the idea and an attempt is made to
distinguish different concepts. Then a full Citizen’s Income is examined in relation to four key criteria: the justice of an unconditional benefit; the possibility and fairness of a simple individual benefit; economic efficiency; and political feasibility. On all four criteria, Citizen’s Income fails. It is concluded that Citizen’s Income is a wasteful distraction from more practical methods of tackling poverty and inequality and ensuring all have a right to an adequate income.
Summary
Piachaud first acknowledges that a CI, or a basic income, is attractive in its simplicity, and he cites article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948: “Everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family.”
Piachaud states, “A Citizen’s Income could ensure that right was achieved.”
He then describes four different concepts of a Citizen’s Income (CI):
- Bonus CI (a basic income based on a dividend)
- Partial CI (a basic income for particular groups only)
- Supplemental CI (additional income alongside a social security system)
- Full CI (an unconditional basic income adequate to live on to all citizens)
In the rest of his paper, Piachaud examines a full CI (which in his definition is not based on dividend but fully financed out of taxation) in relation to four key criteria. Through his analysis, he concludes that Citizens’ Income fails all four of these tests:
- The justice of an unconditional benefit
Piachaud discusses Philippe Van Parijs’s paper “Why Surfers Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income” and argues that it is unfair (and therefore unjust) for healthy people to live off the labor of others.
- The possibility and fairness of a simple individual benefit
A full CI is intended to ensure (in a simple manner) that needs are met, but not everyone has the same needs. Piachaud gives examples related to disability, diversity in housing costs, and diversity in living arrangements (people living alone or with others). Basing a CI on individuals and assuming their needs are identical, is therefore unjust, Piachaud argues. “The social security and in some ways the tax system attempt to take these factors into account, however inadequately.”
- Economic efficiency
Piachaud defines a full CI as an unconditional income fully financed out of taxation. With respect to the economic efficiency, he argues:
“A full CI goes to everyone unconditionally, whereas social security is targeted at certain groups who in the absence of social security would be most likely to be poor. In consequence, a full CI that replaces social security is far more costly than social security, and this has to be paid for from higher taxes on all incomes with far-reaching economic consequences. The inevitable conclusion is, therefore, that a targeted social security system was, is, and will be more efficient and equitable than a full CI.”
- Political feasibility
Piachaud finds it very unlikely any political party will adopt an unconditional CI as a policy proposal either in the full or supplemental forms
After this analysis, David Piachaud concludes, “Citizen’s Income is a wasteful distraction from more practical methods of tackling poverty and inequality and ensuring all have a right to an adequate income.”
Info and links
The full paper can be found here.
Special thanks to Josh Martin and Danny Pearlberg for reviewing this article
Photo: diversity by Nabeelah Is, january 2012, CC-BY-SA 2.0
