by Kate McFarland | Dec 3, 2016 | News
Baijayant “Jay” Panda, a member of the lower house of the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha), believes that India should consider a universal basic income (UBI) to replace its current social welfare programs.
Panda describes India’s current socials programs as “grossly inefficient, corruption-ridden, misdirected towards the better-off, and thus unable to achieve stated objectives”. These wasteful programs already need replaced. With this in mind, Panda argues that a UBI could be more affordable in India than in a high-income nation like the United States or Switzerland–citing economists such as Pranab Bardhan (University of California, Berkeley), Vijay Joshi (Oxford), and Maitreesh Ghatak (London School of Economics) for additional support. (One might additionally mention Abhijit V. Banerjee, an MIT economist and adviser for GiveDirectly’s basic income pilot.)
Jay Panda belongs to Biju Janata Dal (BJD), a centrist party in the state of Odisha. BJD holds 20 out of 545 seats in the Lok Sabha, having won 20 out of 21 seats for Odisha in the 2014 general election, and eight out of 245 in the upper house (Rajya Sabha). BJD is the dominant party in the Odisha legislature, where it holds 117 out of 147 seats. Panda is a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce and the Consultative Committee for the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Earlier in 2016, Varun Gandhi, MP from India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, endorsed basic income in an article for The Hindu.
More recently, India’s Chief Economic Adviser, Arvind Subramanian, has stated that the government will investigate UBI as part of the next annual Economic Survey of India.
Read More:
Baijayant ‘Jay’ Panda (Oct 27, 2016) “Cash To All Citizens: Universal Basic Income could actually work better in India than in rich countries” Times of India.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: Baijayant ‘Jay’ Panda speaks at Brookings panel, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Brookings Institution.
by Andre Coelho | Oct 15, 2016 | News
(Photo credit to: Lonely planet – Taroko Gorge, Taiwan)
A political party in Taiwan, called the Basic Welfare Party (formerly known as the Taiwan Republican Party) includes the basic income as a core policy. The groundwork for the party is still being established as of January 2017. The BWP was initiated by members of Taiwan Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association and Yu Hua Zhai charity vegetarian restaurants in Taiwan. The party’s goal is to promote constitutional, legislative and judicial reform. With these goals, the BWP hopes to contribute to the realization of a country that acknowledges the importance of social welfare and the law, ensuring the right to a minimum livelihood through the establishment of an unconditional basic income for all people. As of January 2017, the BWP does not yet have a chairperson and is seeking individuals to fill the role.
One important figure in Taiwan is Dr. Tien-Sheng Hsu, Taiwan’s Family Medicine and Psychiatrist medical doctor as well as the Seth mental and physical clinic president. On June 5, Dr. Hsu spoke about Switzerland’s movement for the referendum on a basic income in a public speech. When discussing the basic income policy, Hsu said that hypothetically if he were the president of the Republic of China, he would give every citizen 30,000 New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) per month. In the same speech, he claimed that independence and reliance must forever be actively interwoven. In some ways, reliance allows our creativity to flourish. Because of this, Hsu said that if everyone’s basic security was taken care of with 30,000 NTD, then people would be more willing to take risks to achieve their ideal careers or life.
Dr. Tien Sheng Hsu
On June 8, Dr. Hsu and a doctor of international relations, Dr. Xinyi Ma, hosted the talk show “Voice of A-Sheng” which discussed international and domestic Taiwanese news from the perspective of mental and physical health. This program also brought up the Switzerland referendum on basic income. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma discussed the possibility of the people of Taiwan launching its own basic income referendum.
Dr. Hsu and Ma wondered whether such a referendum would pass in Taiwan, but Hsu said he approved of the essence behind Switzerland’s proposal, which was to guarantee a basic standard of living for every person. Dr. Hsu also said an important consideration is how such a basic income would be funded in Taiwan.
On several occasions, Hsu seemed to joke that he should become the President of the Republic of China so he could give 30,000 NTD to every citizen. It us unclear if Hsu is serious about his presidential aspirations or if the comments were meant to illustrate the effects of a hypothetical basic income.
During the program, Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma also analyzed the topic of unconditional basic income from a psychological perspective. They maintain that “You create your own reality.” They defend that, when people go back to their inner state of grace, with their basic survival guaranteed, they feel protected by love, wisdom, mercy, creativity and the magical power of the universe. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma begin with the premise that every person’s existence is loved, every person in the universe is cherished. From here the whole society is then built, letting our humanity gain greater degree of freedom within. They say that if most people move in this direction, perhaps the social system we desire could really be built. Take the people from Switzerland, Finland and Holland: these are regions from which the Taiwanese people can learn from.
According to Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma, if the idea of the basic income does not bring in our inner-selves, but rather employs the violent power of government, then it has again been distorted. Thus we must create the basic income from within, rather than from extrinsic pressure that makes everyone adhere to a certain system. So, Dr. Hsu and Dr. Ma urge, let’s use our intrinsic nature to embark on this endeavor. We can then achieve the feeling of inner richness and, in a state of grace, the proper external reforms will follow.
Editors note: The above article was revised on January 23, 2017 to add context about the nature of Dr. Hsu’s comments and included links to the original speeches. The article was also updated to reflect the current status of the Basic Welfare Party and to reflect the name change of the group from the Taiwan Republican Party.
Written by Juku Shenguang: Founder, Vice-president and Secretary-General of Taiwan Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association
Translated by Tyler Prochazka
Reviewed by André Coelho and Kate McFarland
by Citizens' Income Trust | Oct 14, 2016 | Opinion
There was an uncanny similarity between two referenda held in June: the UK’s referendum on whether to remain in the European Union, and the Swiss referendum on a Citizen’s Income. In each case, the ballot paper asked a simple question: whether to remain or leave, and whether to establish a Citizen’s or Basic Income – an unconditional income for every Swiss citizen. In the latter case, the wording was explicit that the Swiss federal government was to decide on the level of the Basic Income and on the means of funding it.
And then in both cases the campaigns leading up to the referenda were less about the referenda questions than about very different issues.
In the Swiss case this was largely the fault of the proposers of the referendum question. The wording having carefully left the decision as to the level of the Citizen’s Income to the Swiss government, the campaigners then suggested a level of 2,500 Swiss francs per month – about £400 per week. It was largely this that led to so many members of the Swiss parliament asking people to vote against the proposal; it was the proposed figure that dominated the campaign; and it was the fear of the massive tax increase that would have been needed to fund such a large Citizen’s Income that led to so many people voting against the proposal. All of this could have been avoided quite easily. If the campaigners had wanted to inform the debate about potential levels of Citizen’s Income and possible funding methods then they could have undertaken the kind of careful costing work that we and others have undertaken in the UK. If that had happened, then the government could have made clear the level of Citizen’s Income that they would be likely to agree on if the referendum were to pass, and the debate and the decision might have been rather more rational.
Having said that, the referendum was in many ways a success. The referendum was held; it contributed significantly to media and public interest in Citizen’s Income, both in Switzerland and around the world; and 23% of the Swiss population approved of the idea. The referendum will be seen as an important stage in the Swiss and global Citizen’s Income debates.
In the British case there was always going to be a problem. Public understanding of the European Union is almost non-existent, so the only information that most people had available to them were the halftruths that campaigners on both sides and the press chose to feed to them. Members of the public were told that we could avoid EU workers having the right to live and work in the UK and trade within the single market, even though the European Commission had made it clear that remaining within the single market was conditional upon allowing EU workers to live and work in the UK. Throughout the campaign, leaving the EU was touted as a way of preventing immigration, whereas most immigration is from outside the EU and was therefore nothing to do with the question on the ballot paper.
There are two lessons to draw from these two referenda. One is that referenda are a bad idea in the context of an ill-informed public and a biassed media. The question on the ballot paper might be a simple one, but if it is about a complex reality then even generally well-informed members of the public might have little understanding of the possible consequences of a referendum result – whatever that result might be. In relation to complex issues about which members of the public understand little, representative democracy is the least bad system of government, and it is safer than referenda. It enables proposals informed by a civil service to be debated in a parliament and in committee, to be amended, to be tested in another parliament, and then amended again. Such a method has to be preferable to a one-shot referendum ill-informed by emotive campaigns. This is not to suggest that referenda are never appropriate. If the public is well informed about the issue on the ballot paper, if campaigns are based on evidence, if experts are heard, and if the print and other media see it as their role to educate rather than to persuade, then a referendum has some chance of assessing an informed population’s view on the question on the ballot paper. The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence came closer to this ideal referendum than either the Swiss Basic Income referendum or the recent British referendum on EU membership; and the Swiss Basic Income referendum came closer to it than the British referendum on EU membership. It would take a massive educational effort to enable the UK’s population to gain a sufficient understanding of the desirability and feasibility of a Citizen’s Income to enable it to compare a benefits system based on a Citizen’s Income with the current system. Whether such an educational effort is possible, or such an outcome feasible, must be in doubt: in which case the safer method will be for the institutions of representative democracy – Parliament and the Government – to evaluate the arguments for a Citizen’s Income and to decide in accordance with their findings.
The second lesson to draw is that careful research is essential if any future debate about Citizen’s Income is to be sufficiently well informed. It has been a pleasure to see recent well researched reports from the Royal Society of Arts, the Adam Smith Institute, and Compass, and up to date costings and other statistics relating to a particular illustrative Citizen’s Income scheme have recently been published by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex. We hope soon to be able to publish costings and other information relating to a couple more illustrative schemes, and we also hope to have available soon some information on how a range of typical households’ net incomes would be affected by some illustrative schemes. We would like to see even more research organisations involved in the rigorous testing of the financial feasibilities and consequences of illustrative schemes.
There is a connection between the Swiss and British referenda: EUROMOD, the microsimulation programme that we use to evaluate illustrative Citizen’s Income schemes. The programme’s development is funded by the European Union. We are very much hoping that the UK will continue to be involved in the European collaboration that makes such a useful piece of research infrastructure possible.
Another connection is the one between Citizen’s Income and important factors in the British European Union referendum. Widening inequality and deep social divisions appear to have been important motivations for voting to leave the EU, even though leaving the EU is unlikely to remedy the situation and might even make it worse. A Citizen’s Income would help to reduce inequality and to heal social division. It is therefore essential that widespread informed debate on Citizen’s Income should take place, and that the institutions of representative democracy should decide to implement a Citizen’s Income: perhaps informed by an advisory referendum.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 13, 2016 | News
Enno Schmidt, one of the founders of the people’s initiative for an unconditional basic income in Switzerland, was interviewed as a part of TEDxBasel 2016.
Questions addressed in the 11-minute interview range from “Would people stop working with a basic income?” to “How does the money feel about this?”
Video: TEDx Talks, “Discussing the merits of Unconditional Basic Income”; published on YouTube on Aug 30, 2016.
Cover Photo: CC BY-NC 2.0 Generation Grundeinkommen
by Kate McFarland | Oct 11, 2016 | News
The official launch event of Guy Standing’s new book, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay (Biteback Publishing), will be held on October 26. It will be held at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London, where Standing is a Professorial Research Associate.
From the event description:
There is a lie at the heart of global capitalism. While claiming to promote free markets, governments and international agencies have constructed the most unfree market system ever, fostering a plutocracy alongside a growing precariat mired in insecurity. This book shows how rentier capitalism, which Keynes predicted would die, is causing growing inequality. The income distribution system has broken down. A new one is needed, anchored on basic income (social dividends) and democratic wealth funds.
Guy’s talk will be followed by a “drinks reception”.
After the launch event, Guy will continue traveling to promote The Corruption of Capitalism. On November 1, he will head to New York City to speak about the theme of his book at a public lecture at the New School for Social Research. On November 8, back in England, he’ll present the book to an audience at the University of Huddersfield. And he’ll deliver a seminar on the book at Strathclyde University in Scotland on November 24. In addition, Guy will be speaking at the NOW Conference in Moscow (Nov 6), the Trade Union Leaders’ Summit in Nyon, Switzerland (Nov 15), and the Swedish Human Rights Conference in Malmo (Nov 16) — in addition to other talks and conferences. (Details on many of these events are forthcoming in Basic Income News.)
Guy Standing is a co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network, and was responsible for naming the organization (originally the Basic Income European Network). His previous books include The Precariat and The Precariat Charter.
For more information about the London launch event, and to register for free, see EventBrite. The event is sponsored by Biteback Publishing and the Movements & Development Cluster of SOAS Labour.
For a teaser, read Guy’s article in openDemocracyUK based on The Corruption of Capitalism:
Guy Standing (Sep 5, 2016) “The left must combat rentier capitalism” openDemocracyUK.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Guy Standing photo CC BY 2.0 BICN/RCRG Basic Income Canada
