by Peter Knight | Oct 5, 2022 | Events, News
Leading thinkers, politicians and policymakers come together to debate and explore basic income pilots, macro-economic models, the prospects for basic income in developing economies, and political economy of social and economic change.
Join Bristol Ideas for ‘Back to Basics: Income for Everyone?’ – the third conference from the University of Bath Institute for Policy Research (IPR) and Bristol Ideas, supported by the Basic Income Forum.
In recent years, interest in basic income has grown around the world. Basic income is an unconditional income paid to every individual. It is a payment that is not means-tested or made conditional on work-status. Advocates of basic income argue that it represents a fair, simple and efficient way of supporting individuals, in contrast to the complexity and intrusiveness of existing welfare states. Many also argue that automation and the rise of precarious work makes a basic income necessary to replace or supplement wage labour.
The Covid-19 pandemic and cost of living crisis has thrown these issues into sharp relief, as governments around the world have scrambled to close gaps in social safety nets and prevent people falling into poverty. At the same time, treasuries and central banks have mobilized the full range of fiscal and monetary policies to prevent today’s crises tipping economies into deep recessions. State intervention in the economy has expanded, while ideological support for austerity has sharply receded. Arguments about whether a basic income is affordable are being made in a dramatically changed intellectual and political context.
Read more here.
by Guest Contributor | May 16, 2022 | Opinion
On March 9th, 48.56 percent of Korean people voted for Yoon Seok-yeol of the People Power Party which won only 0.7 percent more compared to 47.83% for Lee Jae-myung who pledged to implement basic income. With less than 1 percent difference in his loss, there is a local election coming in two weeks and another general election in two years. Where will Korea’s basic income movement go after Lee Je-myeong ‘s defeat?
Yoon Suk-yeol can no longer ignore Universal Basic Income, and the world is on the verge of realizing basic income. Yoon Seok-yeol, who became the new owner of Cheongwadae (Blue House), cannot pass any legislation without the consent of the Democratic Party with 172 seats, 57 percent overall. HIs People Power Party only holds 110 seats which represent 36 percent. This will remain the case unless they get more seats in the upcoming general election in two years. On the contrary, it is also a story that the Democratic Party of Korea can legislate the basic income that Lee Jae-myung promised if he is elected as a member of parliament in the by-election.
I interviewed Oh Jun-Ho, who was the presidential candidate for the Basic Income Party about the difference between Lee Jae-myung’s basic income pledge and his.
Oh Jun-Ho: There are three differences between my UBI policy from Lee Jae-myung’s:
1) First of all, the amount of the UBI is different. We promised 650,000₩ (533$) per month, which can support enough basic need for a living in Korea but Candidate Lee Jae-myung offered a very low amount of 83,000 ₩ (68$) per month.
2) In order to raise the financial resources, I insisted on reforming the tax and tax system to solve the polarization of wealth, and to expand basic income through redistribution of wealth, but candidate Lee Jae-myung does not seem to redistribute wealth because he drew a line about raising taxes. He is weak on that point.
3) Compared to us, presenting universal basic income as a policy and pledge, candidate Lee kept it as a pledge but hid or made his choice ambiguous in the election. It was disappointing for those who supported basic income with Lee, saying, “If there is public consent, we can do it, but if not, we won’t” (as quoted by The Korea Economic Daily, Dec. 2nd, 2021). Conversely, this is also the reason why those disappointed with Lee’s basic income supported me, Oh Jun-Ho.
Limitations:
The election was only focused on both parties so there were no alternative policy debates. As a voter and candidate, there was no such place where I could talk about UBI. Since only both camps had fights and policy spaces were not open, it was difficult to inform us of alternatives by ourselves as minor and minority parties.
Nevertheless, because I was there, there could be a future alternative to basic income or a justification for basic income. Because I criticized Lee Jae-myung’s timid basic income and the attitude of the Justice Party and other political parties toward selective welfare. I was able to inform the public that basic income was justifiable a little. In addition, public voters who support basic income have been created.
Expectations:
Though the results of the vote did not appear to be significant due to the phenomenon of leaning toward both parties, it cannot be evaluated only in this election, and it will be evaluated in the long-term trend later. Even if the people did not support this time, positive perceptions must have grown, and I am optimistic that Korea will return to positive support for the subsequent movement in the next election.
Considering that we are a new party, one member of the National Assembly, and only a small number of members, I don’t think we had too few votes (0.05%). Since other parties with a lot more party members won fewer votes than us, there is still a task of expanding the organizations and the number of voters who supported us, and we have to solve it well to expand our support.
Under the Yoon Seok-yeol administration, it is unclear whether Lee Jae-myung or his supporters will be one who can lead UBI in Korea from now. However, Seoul, which held a hopeful and important election, has enough potential to ignite it again.
Local Elections:
Local governments themselves do not have tax rights, so they cannot collect and distribute taxes. We can’t talk at the national level. However, whether it is real estate or industry, there has been a problem that the common interests created within the common body have not been distributed, so we will talk about returning them to basic income, universal welfare, and universal services that must go to the majority in each province.
I also interviewed An Hyo-sang, the chair of BIKN about the election.
An Hyo-sang: We need time to think about evaluating the process and results of the presidential election. But we have the local election soon. So we quickly need to talk about it. From a broad viewpoint, we must think about the weak points and strong points we had.
We considered 2 viewpoints.
First, what conditions can BI have in its position before the election? Basic Income gained traction for implementation because of a confident and strong politician. Lee embraced the Basic Income idea as his election pledge. Since the base of BI movement is not strong, there was a very broad gap between the front line candidate Lee was based and where the basic Income movement is positioned. So after Candidate Lee was defeated, the bubble of basic income ideas that people enjoyed blew up.
We need to face the reality of where the basic Income movement is positioned. We will have to try to gain broad and strong support from the ordinary people step by step with education, campaigns, propagation, organizations, and so on.
Despite Lee’s defeat and still our weakness, his idea planted the seeds of the basic income idea worldwide which will be widespread someday. We will harvest the fruits of our effort. We need to take time to see these fruits.
Second, as a center of the Basic Income movement, the Basic Income Korean Network (BIKN) will have two directions for the local election.
1) We will deepen our theory of our basic Income because we need a stronger theory and legitimation in order to gain wide popular support.
2) We have Basic Income supporters without and with political preferences. Some politicians still support BI idea as his policy, especially at the local level. Academics and activist social movements still support the BI idea so we will try to link personalities, individuals, and groups who support BI.
Korea’s basic income movement, beginning with the 2007 presidential election pledges from the socialist party, has become widespread within just 15 years. According to Kanta Korea Research Company, 38.6 percent of the respondents said they were in favor of basic income, 52.3 percent did not know and 9 percent didn’t answer. 1,012 men and women aged 18 or older nationwide were targeted (Seoul Economy, Feb. 20, 2020).
The BIEN congress will be held again in Korea on Aug 24th-26th, 2023. The title is “Basic Income in Reality.” I expect the Basic Income Party to gain wide popularity in 17 cities with 19 candidates at the local election and the 2023 Korea BIEN Congress to draw attention worldwide so that it can lead a great success in the general election for Basic Income implementation.
Local elections will be held on June 1, in two weeks. Can the Democratic Party promote the universal basic income of the entire nation as a pledge in local elections?
Since Lee Jae Myoung is running for the MP, Lee’s election camp says ‘this is whether Lee ‘s life or death’ as former president Lee Myong bak was trying to kill Roh Moo-hyun, and he seems to be winning. But he doesn’t talk about BI in his pledges during the democratic party’s local elections as well. But the Basic Income Party does out front, promoting basic income in all cities with a UBI of $78 a month.
Where will Koreans raise their hands again, when Yoon Seok-youl refuses to work at Cheong Wa Dae (Blue House) given by them, but they started to work in Yongsan District all of sudden due to his private beliefs?
Lee Jae-myung’s basic income pledge was as follows below in the presidential election:
- Universal basic income for all citizens
- After the public debate of the Presidential Basic Income Committee, it will be implemented by collecting public opinion.
- Starting at 250,000₩ ($205) a year. A goal of 1,000,000₩ ($820) per year within the term by 2027
- Land profit dividends and carbon dividends
- Basic income is paid in local currency
- Basic income and allowances by target
- Basic income of 1 million₩ ($820) per year to young people aged 19-29 from 2023
- Expanding the scope of child and youth allowances (step-by-step expansion, until the age of 18 in 2027)
- Payment of seniority allowance
Written by: Mok Hwakyun (Moka)
by Guest Contributor | Apr 9, 2022 | Opinion
Which country in the world arguably needs a Basic Income most?
Singapore, because she has the highest reserves per capita in the world, is in the top five for per capita income in the world, the fifth most expensive city in the world (The Economist) – and yet Singapore has no minimum wage, the greatest inequality amongst developed countries (Gini coefficient before government transfers), the biggest wage gap between the top and bottom percentiles, the lowest social welfare spending among developed countries, most expensive public housing in the world (price to income ratio), highest national pension contribution rates in the world (typically up to 37 percent of income), one of the most expensive electricity, water, public transport, public universities’ tuition fees, etc, in the world.
In addition to the above, Singapore has a unique fiscal policy (from a cash flow perspective) of limited spending on the nation’s pension scheme, public housing, and healthcare. However, the annual inflows exceed the outflows in each of these three areas, currently and historically.
Some recent statistics (April 2022) demonstrate that 10 percent of households cannot pay their water bills (media reports), and 10 percent of households do not have enough money to eat nutritionally (2019 pre-Covid-19, SMU-Lien Foundation Hunger Report 2019), etc.
So, perhaps in the final analysis – without Basic Income – many Singaporeans may have to continue to struggle to make ends meet. At the same time, Singapore has one of the highest per-capita suicide rates in the world, in spite of it being a criminal offense to attempt to try to kill oneself!
Singapore’s Reserves are estimated to be $1.97 trillion. If this is the case, perhaps it is time Singapore considers a basic income and shares this wealth with the people.
Written by: Leong Sze Hian
by Peter Knight | Mar 16, 2022 | Events, News
The University of Freiburg Institute for Basic Income Studies, together with the Berlin based think tank
polisphere are holding a digital conference on Wednesday 23.03.2022 chaired by Geoff Crocker,
author of ‘Basic Income and Sovereign Money‘ and editor of the web site www.ubi.org.
The focus of the conference is on economic development in East and South-East Asia, specifically on
three elements
Profiling current welfare systems
The constraint of debt/GDP ratios
The potential for basic income and debt-free sovereign money proposals
The conference is of specific interest to professional economists, including government economists,
academic economists, central bankers, politicians, economics journalists, aid agencies, and think tanks.
For the full program click here
Please register by clicking here.
by Peter Knight | Mar 10, 2022 | News
New publication! Basic Income and the Social Investment State: Towards Mutual Reinforcement? by Luke Martinelli and Yannick Vanderborght in European Journal of Social Security
https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627221085019
Is a social investment strategy compatible with the provision of an unconditional basic income? Prima facie, these two scenarios look like incongruent policy alternatives. While social investment – an influential policy paradigm at the level of the European Union – aims at promoting public services and maximum labor market participation, basic income is paid in cash and has sometimes been presented as the key component of a post-work future.
In this article, Luke Martinelli and Yannick Vanderborght explore this apparent incongruence and show that these two visions for welfare reform are not necessarily incompatible. Martinelli and Vanderborght even argue that they may share a number of substantial points of agreement, and indeed may reinforce one another according to a logic of institutional complementarity. In particular, they claim that a partial basic income (i.e., a modest unconditional income guarantee, whose amount would be insufficient if one lives alone) could enhance or complement the key functions of a social-democratic version of the social investment strategy. By doing so, Martinelli and Vanderborght conclude that the integration of a basic income into a social investment package could contribute to overcoming criticisms of the social investment agenda. At the same time, it could rescue basic income from the numerous critics who see it as an unrealistic policy proposal.
