by Karl Widerquist | Jun 1, 2016 | News
Members of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) have made two proposals to Change BIEN’s description of Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) on BIEN’s website and in its statutes.
BIEN’s current statutes describe UBI as, “an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work.”
A motion by Lieselotte Wohlgenannt and others proposes to add a fourth characteristic:
“which secures a livelihood (material existence) and enables participation in the political community (country) for everyone, to the existing three characteristic,
-which is granted to all on an individual basis by law,
-without means test and
-without obligation to work or for services in return.”
A motion by Louise Haagh proposes several options. The first adds another characteristics to the description: “an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, paid regularly and for life, without means test or work requirement.”
An second option keeps the definition the same, but adds a line explaining that BIEN supports a level “at least sufficient to meet living standards compatible with sustainable nutrition and health and a life of dignity.”
Another option defines a full UBI as one that large and a partial UBI as one below that level.
The full texts of both proposals are online at these links:
Basic Income
by Guest Contributor | May 4, 2016 | News
Article originally written in French by Basile Durand (MFRB), translated by Henri Geist (MFRB).
Answering the meteoric surge of interest provoked by the Finnish proposition to experiment with the basic income, the MFRB organized a conference on March third regarding UBI pilot programs and the Finnish Embassy in Paris. This conference was aimed at promoting understanding of the Finnish proposals and its motivations as well as opening the debate about the possibility of starting UBI experiments in France as well.
The conference was organized around four speakers and centered around the basic income and its experiments. The speakers included Olli Kangas, director of the research department of KELA (Finnish Institute of Social Welfare); Martine Alcorta, Aquitaine Limousin Poitou-Charentes regional councilor delegated to social and societal innovation, who aims to test a basic income in her region; Arnauld de l’Épine from Ars Industrialis, an international association for an industrial policy of the spirit technologies (founded by Bernard Stiegler) who said he is in favor of a contributory income; and Jean-Eric Hyafil, co-founder of the MFRB (French Movement for a Basic Income).
This article summarizes the discussions and includes some tweets exchanged during the conference with the hashtag #rdbfinlande.
Finnish experiments will start in 2017
Finland is currently in the process of establishing definitions and studying the feasibility of a basic income experiment. To cope with the complexity of social protection and the risk of poverty traps, a debate on the establishment of a universal income has taken shape in recent years. An intermediate report showing four types of experiments is due to be published in the coming days. Then Finland will choose one of the four experimentation options, which will be presented in the final report this November. The goal is to start the pilots at the beginning of 2017, which will run for a period of two years.
The first proposal offers a basic income distributed to everyone without conditions. The second proposal is a form of unconditional RSA, replacing the current social minima benefit. The third option is creating a basic income through a negative income tax. And the fourth option is left open for now. The questions of the amount of the basic income, the number of participants in the study and the unconditional nature of the benefit are also still under debate. On top of that, there are some additional concerns that must be sorted out, including fear of constitutional litigation or residency requirements. The introduction of the basic income requires a total overhaul of the welfare system, and this generates tension with some groups in society, particularly labor unions, which are major actors in the current system.
In France, a change of paradigm is necessary
Quoting Amartya Sen, who wished that everyone improved their own abilities without being constrained to find a job, Arnauld de l’Epine insisted on the importance of the freedom of choice, referring to the Declaration of Philadelphia or the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers which states that “Every individual shall be free to choose and engage in an occupation according to the regulations governing each occupation.” Building on the report of the French National Council of Digital, introduced in January, which proposed to experiment and study the project of basic income in France, Arnauld de l’Epine then supported the idea of establishing a guaranteed income to deal with automation and the rise of unemployment. The association Ars Industrialis is collaborating with Plaine Commune (agglomerations community of Seine-Saint-Denis) to test a supplemental income targeting young people.
Jean-Éric Hyafil recalled the cross-party nature of the MFRB. In its charter, the MFRB promotes an unconditional basic income without impairing the situation of the helpless or jeopardizing unemployment allowances, retirees or health insurance. Thus, one of the MFRB’s proposals would be to implement a national basic income gradually. The first step could be to implement an allowance like the RSA (French Solidarity Labor Income) for children, then by automation, individualization and finally the universalization of the RSA.
All speakers agreed on the need to experiment with a basic income prior to fully implementing such a policy, mirroring the process in Finland and Netherlands. In France, the experimentation project in Aquitaine is still in its embryonic state. But the agreement signed between EELV (French Ecologists) and the PS (French Socialists) during the last regional elections included the basic income experimentation project. Martine Alcorta stated she needed to study the subject in order to propose an experimentation model. The settings are thus not yet set. Quoting Amartya Sen. “Wealth is the ability to choose your life”, Martine Alcorta showed us her willingness to complete this experimental project.
France could therefore use the Finnish proposal to build its own experimentation, adapting it to the French context. By raising the subject, submitting ideas and reporting the various proposals, this conference gave us the opportunity to highlight the growing debate about the basic income. The MFRB stays at the disposal of all communities that desire to think about this important Twenty First Century idea.
Watch the video of the conference online (with English subtitles): https://youtu.be/mp5h9klZ0gI
by Karl Widerquist | May 3, 2016 | News
Discussion of Basic Income the U.S. media continues to increase. Just in the past two weeks several publications have addressed the issue, many of the major media outlets, and most of them have addressed it in a positive way. Bloomberg View includes the headline, “A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing.” Gawker calls Universal Basic Income “the Utopia We Deserve.” Ben Thomas of Crossing Genres writes, “If You Think Free Money Kills Work Ethic, Your Definition of ‘Work’ Is Horrible.” Triple pundit summarizes, “The Case for Universal Basic Income.” The only negative recent article, in Forbes, gets the definition of basic income wrong. The author is under the misconception the basic income requires that the government “let people starve” and deny them “medical care.” So, even this article does not oppose basic income as it actually is defined by supporters.
From crossingenres.com
by Andre Coelho | Apr 27, 2016 | News
Júlia Pinheiro and guests António Fernandes, António Dores and Florbela Oliveira. Credit to: SIC.
In this 30 minutes talk show, Júlia Pinheiro, a well-known TV host in Portugal, interviews António Fernandes, Basic Income activist at RBI Portugal, and António Dores, sociologist. Economist Florbela Oliveira takes on the skeptic’s role in the conversation, which entirely surrounds basic income, including its definition and implications. After António Fernandes presents basic income as a concept, Florbela questions its financial applicability (who pays for it), and António Dores clarifies that, according to a viability study already developed for the Portuguese situation, it is the beneficiaries themselves who pay for it, through a simple solidarity wealth redistribution scheme.
More information at:
Queridas Manhãs (show by Júlia Pineiro), “Rendimento Básico Incondicional”, SIC, 3rd March 2016
by Andre Coelho | Mar 17, 2016 | Opinion
Informal settlement in Soweto. Credit to: The Conversation
The hypothesis: basic income has not been deployed in South Africa in part because the powers that be do not let go of their interest and ability to explore people.
The following article attempts to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis.
Let’s begin with some background. Basic Income (BI) is not a new idea in South Africa. In fact a thorough economic analysis for BI implementation has existed since 2004. The analysis was drawn from the work of recognized economists, specialists in the field, and the findings were summarized in what became known as the Taylor Committee. The Basic Income Coalition (composed of Black Sash, COSATU and SAAC), used these results to prove that BI is feasible, or at least should be tested, in South Africa.
More than 10 years have passed, and yet nothing resembling BI has been implemented or even tested in South Africa. Why not?
It is not due to lack of need: 54%1 of South Africans – over 29 million people – live under the country’s poverty line, and over 40% of the labor force is unemployed2. Moreover, according to the BIG Financing Reference Group report, it is also not due to a lack of funds:
“The Basic Income Grant is an affordable option for South Africa. Although the four economists [Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI), Prof. Pieter le Roux, Prof. Charles Meth and Dr. Ingrid Woolard] posit slightly different net costs for the BIG, representing transfers to the poor of different amounts, there was consensus that the grant is affordable without necessitating increased deficit spending be government.”
In spite of this, the same report also states that government officials believe that BI cannot combat poverty. They have refused to consider a BI, despite knowing that current social assistance plans fail to reach over 50% of those living under the poverty line, or nearly 15 million people. These officials have continued to say that BI would not be effective despite demonstration by the Taylor Committee that basic income is the best way to diminish or even eradicate poverty in the shortest amount of time. They also ignore fiscal collection and social security savings when speaking of BI, which more than doubles its actual net cost of about 24 million ZAR/year (1.35 billion €/year), according to the calculations of the Taylor Committee. In short, most government officials completely ignore these very consistent and thought-out analyses from the Taylor Committee. Why is that?
Well, the answer may lie in the kind of structure of South African economy. The private sector accounts for around 80% of the country’s economy3. The median income is 3036 ZAR/month (171 €/month)4, which is low compared to European standards. Taking the United Kingdom as reference, the following table can be set up (Table 1).
Table 1 – Income relationships, South Africa / UK
The relationship between the median income and the average living income is considerably higher in the UK than it is in South Africa. Moreover, the ratio of median income to statutory minimum income is also much higher in the UK. Indeed, while the median income in the UK is above the minimum income (as it should be), this is not the case in South Africa: more than half of South Africans have wages below the statutory minimum income. Finally, as we can see on the graph below, the spread of incomes in South Africa is clearly skewed to the lower end on the income axis, while incomes in the UK are much more evenly distributed around the center (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1 – Income spread in South Africa4
Figure 2 – Income spread in the UK5
These data show that the South African economy is impoverished compared to a country like the UK, and that most economic activity depends on a low-wage, low-skilled work force6. This situation is best maintained when a large number of poor, dependent people are craving for jobs in the economy. Given their subservient position, these millions of people will naturally accept low wages and substandard working conditions that they might not otherwise accept. They are also kept away from most schooling and higher education, which could provide them with extra skills and allow them to apply to other jobs or start their own businesses. This is convenient for large corporations, and these corporations lobby and finance politicians and governments to protect their interests by providing them with access to cheap labor and lax environmental laws. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deals, for example, are just a formally imposed recognition of the attitudes of domination that large corporations foist upon governments and the people at large.
There is a link between corporate interests and government policy. Furthermore, the implementation of a basic income would basically be contrary to corporate interests: BI would lift millions of people out of poverty, empower them to refuse conditions of exploitation and start their own business, invest in education and bettering their lives – depriving the corporations of their pool of cheap labor. Government policymakers may also respond out of ideology or prejudice, but corporate political sponsoring response must not be ruled out, given the entrenchment and longevity of their denial (relative to progressive policies like basic income).
More information at:
A. BIG Financing Reference Group, 2004. ““Breaking the poverty trap”: Financing a basic income grant in South Africa.” Basic Income Grant (BIG) Financing Reference Group conference, Johannesburg, 24 November 2003. March, 2004.
Notes:
1 – World Development Indicators – Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of population), 2010
2 – A more accurate, expanded definition of unemployment, including the so-called ‘discouraged jobseekers’, according to reference A.
3 – World Development Indicators – General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) = 20.3. Hence Non-government (private) final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) = 79.7
4 – From the spread of households within the income distribution in South Africa, 2008.
5 – From Measuring National Well-being – Personal Finance, 2012 (UK)
6 – Higher skilled professionals are usually paid on or above the median income, so a low income distribution as shown in Figure 1 must be related with a high proportion of low skilled workers.
