Forty years ago today—February 7, 1980—was a small milestone for the Universal Basic Income (UBI) movement: Milton and Rose Friedman dedicated an episode of their television show to a form of basic income guarantee called the Negative Income Tax. This episode might have been the last gasp of the UBI movement’s second wave, which came very close to the centers of power in the United States and Canada in the 1960s and early 70s but had been declining for nearly a decade.
I’m a little embarrassed that this TV show and its accompanying book was my entry into the UBI movement because I disagree with the Friedmans on so many other issues now, but I have to give them credit.
Although Friedman brought his fame and Nobel-Laureate credibility to UBI and related policies, that broadcast did little to stop the decline in UBI’s popularity. It gradually vanished from mainstream politics in the United States and in most countries. It remained an idea for academics, minor parties, fringe activists for decades, only to emerge—seemingly out of nowhere—as a growing worldwide movement over the last 10 years.
So, that day wasn’t a huge milestone for the UBI movement. But it was a big day for me. It was my 15th birthday. I watched the show. I was enthralled with the idea. So, today is my 55th birthday and 40th anniversary as a UBI supporter. That’s probably a good time to write a personal account of what it’s been like following the UBI movement as it fell and rose again.
Movements don’t come from nowhere even if they seem to. I realize now that the groundwork for UBI’s takeoff had been building since the mid-1980s even as it receded from the mainstream political dialogue, and even as the people involved had no way to know at the time. I can’t take any credit for UBI’s rise, but I followed it very closely, so maybe my personal account will be useful.
Although I was a firm supporter from 1980, I couldn’t do much for the UBI movement, because there wasn’t much of one, and I had to go through high school and college. Then I bounced around between crappy, low-paid jobs for three years, before starting graduate school.
The two things I could do for UBI in that period were think and talk about it. The more I thought about it, and the more I learned about politics and economics, the stronger my support became. I began to see UBI as the centerpiece of a just society.
1980 was a depressing time to become a UBI supporter—especially in the United States. There were small waves of support for it in various places around the world during this period and an intellectual movement for UBI began growing in parts of Europe by the mid-80s, but none of that news reached me in the USA. There was no internet. I had the mainstream media, the library, and word of mouth, which was nearly useless.
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan
I found myself arguing for an increasingly unpopular idea. As the memory of its popularity in the 60s and 70s faded, fewer and fewer people even knew what it was. Politicians like Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the UK were slowly but successfully dismantling the welfare systems in their countries and vilifying just about everyone who qualified for benefits. People to the left-of-center were so much on the defensive that they were afraid to admit that the current welfare model needed improvement, because they were afraid any admission like that would make it more vulnerable to attack. Left-of-center people often argued that unconditionality was good in the abstract but political support for “the work ethic” was so strong that the only way to make sure benefits were adequate and safe from attack was to direct them exclusively to “the truly needy.”
The obvious weakness of this indirect argument amazes me. Almost all benefits in the USA, the UK, and many other countries, have been based on the model of separating the “truly needy” from the “undeserving poor” since their inception, but they have seldom if ever been adequate, and never free from attack.
Even some nominally left-of-center parties joined in, such as in 1996 when Bill Clinton led a bipartisan effort to “end welfare as we know it,” which basically meant reducing or eliminating benefits for the poorest children in the country because supposedly their mothers were bad people for taking care of children instead of “working.” Never mind that minimum wages weren’t enough to get single mothers or their children out of poverty, much less pay for child care. Never mind that this popular belief coincided with an equally popular belief that mothers whose husbands had money were bad people because they “worked” instead of taking care of children.
Watching things get worse for the least advantaged galvanized my opposition to conditions. Money is power. Propertylessness is powerlessness. Our society uses a judgmental, punitive system to force the least advantage to work for poverty wages. So, my support for UBI as a 31-year-old recent PhD in 1996 was as strong or stronger than it had been as a 15-year-old high school freshmen in 1980, and by now I had some of the skills I needed to work on it in the way I most wanted to—as an academic researcher. There are an infinite number of ways to contribute to a movement. So, I did what I thought I could do well.
Michael A. Lewis
My entry into the UBI movement began in the summer of 1996 while having breakfast the 7A Diner with Michael A. Lewis and Pam Donovan—two other recent PhDs and from the City University of New York. We’d been talking about politics a lot throughout our grad-school years. We had very different perspectives, but that day we all agreed that UBI or something like it was the most important social policy our country could introduce it right now.
Pam said, “then we have to write a paper on it.”
Pam was too busy to collaborate a paper together, but Michael and I had the time. We wrote the paper, and we have been collaborators on-and-off ever since. The feeling that I wasn’t the only one left in the world willing to work for this policy was great. It got my started writing on this issue, and I’ve been doing it ever since.
When Michael and I had a draft of a paper (that would take ten years to publish), we looked through academic journals in our fields (economics and sociology) to find people who’d written recently on the issue, and asked them for feedback. We had to search under at least a half dozen different names (guaranteed income, social dividend, etc.) because UBI had not yet emerged as the standard term. But we found about 20 people’s names and email address. We began getting to know people working on this topic.
In 1997, while I was working at the Levy Institute of Bard College in upstate New York, Malcolm Sawyer asked if I new about the Basic Income European Network (BIEN), as it was then called. I soon learned BIEN had been holding conferences on this idea since 1986. I got online and made plans to attended the next BIEN Congress, which was in Amsterdam in 1998. I can’t describe the feeling of being in a room with of several hundred UBI supporters after 18 years feeling like I was the only one. I’ve attended every BIEN Congress since.
At the conference, I was a new PhD, just getting started, with zero publications. So, I was a little nervous when I introduced myself to the organizer, Robert van der Veen, one of the key UBI researchers whose work had helped bring this issue back into the academic dialogue a dozen years earlier.
But when I thanked him for the work he’d done organizing the conference, he looked at my name tag and said, “And thank you. It was when I got your proposal, that I knew there would be at least one good paper at this conference.”
That comment gave me confidence that I had something to contribute. I hope that helps me remember to compliment others.
I also spoke to another key researcher, the secretary of BIEN, Philippe Van Parijs. I asked him how I could get involved with the network. Because BIEN was a European organization at the time, he said they really needed Americans to organize something like BIEN in the United States. Michael and I had a mailing list of about 20 interested people. That’s a start.
Because I was the only one who had time, they let me be coordinator and write the newsletter, eventually named the NewsFlash. That job gave me the opportunity to scour the internet for any UBI-related news I could find every two months. Sometimes it was hard to find, but I was surprised that there was always something to put in the NewsFlash. And that always put me in a good mood.
Jurgen De Wispelaere
I was the editor and main writer (sometimes the only writer) of the USBIG NewsFlash for it’s first 15 years, and it became a lot of work, but it also was a great education. It was a hard and sometimes thankless job, but I learned so much about the movement, it led to writing a lot of things that weren’t thankless, like writing this article, and collaborating on various projects with Michael Howard and Jurgen De Wispelaere.
From the early 2000s, I was all in with the UBI movement. I’ve attended every USBIG and BIEN and BIEN Congress since then. I’ve written as much as I could in UBI, and I volunteered for whatever I was able to do.When BIEN expanded from a “European” to an “Earth Network” in 2004, USBIG became an affiliate and several USBIG members, like Eri Noguchi, Almaz Zelleke, and me) joned the executive committe at various times. Eventually I was elected cochair along with Ingrid Van Niekerk, and later Louise Haagh.
Gradually, I became a recognizable part of the group of people working on UBI.
BIEN chair, Louise Haagh
But the group didn’t even feel like a movement. It felt like a discussion forum. Most of the membership were academics, and even the activists didn’t have critical mass to organize many actions. Instead, they tended either to focus on policies that were steps in the direction of UBI or to write about UBI like the academics but in more accessible way.
The movement was not only small; it was greying. In the mid-2000s, Guy Standing, referred to me as one of “the young people.”
I said, “Guy, I’m like, 40 years old.”
But that was young enough to be one of the younger people at the BIEN Congress.
Guy Standing–probably the most prolific author of UBI research–occupying Washing in 2011
Now that people in their teens and twenties working harder for UBI than anyone else, it’s hard to believe that as recently as 10 or 15 years ago, we were worried about getting young people involved. The movement was still made up mostly of die-hards from the second wave of UBI support, which had subsided more than 20 years earlier. I couldn’t even count myself as an exception because I learned about at the tail end of that wave of mainstream support. Maybe the UBI movement was the a ghost of Guaranteed Income movement of the 1960s.
Michael Howard unconditionally supporting the umbrella
In retrospect, the perception that the movement would slowly die off is obviously wrong. Even though UBI was continuing to recede from the mainstream political dialogue in most countries, subtle signs that the movement was regaining strength were visible. The first national Basic Income network began in the UK in 1985. The first international conference was held in 1986 and it led to the foundation of the first international network, BIEN. Since then local, national, and international groups had been gradually appearing around Europe and around the world. Minor parties in Parliaments in various European countries and elsewhere had been gradually endorsing UBI.
Localized waves of mainstream interest in UBI came and went throughout this period in places like Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada, and South Africa. Even after these waves subsided, they left behind diehards who contributed to the growing international discussion and activism for UBI.
As USBIG’s Newsletter editor in the 2000s, I watched the subtle growth of the movement continue without really noticing that significance of its gradual acceleration. Not many other people did either. I never heard anyone saying this discussion and these actions are growing in a way that’s going to lead to a worldwide wave of UBI support that would make it a visible part of the mainstream political discussion across dozens of countries by in the 2010s.
Allan Sheahen
In 2006, US two activists, Al Sheahen and Steven Shafarman got a member of U.S. Congress to submit a bill to introduce small UBI. This bill was supposed to part of a strategy to rally support and press attention to UBI. Despite a lot of lobbying efforts by Al, Steve, and a few others, only two Members of Congress signed on to support the bill; there was basically zero press attention to it and zero activism for it. No one bothered to reintroduce the bill in the 2007 Congress. And the two Members of Congress (Bob Filner and Jesse Jackson Jr.) both ended up convicted of unrelated crimes a few years later.
Enno, Schmidt
But things were changing. Also 2006, Enno Schmidt and about a half dozen other people put paper crowns on the heads of passerbys in a public space in Switzerland and explaining the meaning of a too-often-forgotten UBI slogan “everyone a king.” Despite my doubts that it would lead anywhere, I was delightfully shocked that someone, somewhere was doing activism for UBI.
About that time, networks in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria created the first International Basic Income Week, which has grown every year since, and now takes place on all six inhabited contents. But it took me several years even to hear about it because it had no web-presence in English.
Zephania Kameeta, Namibian Minister of Poverty Eradication and former Bishop of the Lutheran Church of Namibia
At 2006 BIEN Congress, Zephania Kameeta, slammed his fist on the podiumand said, “Words, words, words. It’s time for action.” I was thinking, “Here we go again. Someone else is going to curse the people lighting candles in the darkness and tell them that they need to stop what they’re doing and start working on his idea.” But he instantly surprised. He announced he raised enough money to start a UBI pilot project in Namibia–the first such experience since 1980, and the forerunner of dozens that are happening now.
These days I look back at 2006 as the year that the UBI reached an inflection point and started to take off, but even following the news as closely as I was, I didn’t notice until 2012.
Before then, the news and research about UBI was small enough that I had time enough to read or listen to a lot of it, seemingly most of it, or at least most of the English-language stuff that seemed important to me. It was getting easier to fill the newsletter, but I felt like I had a good handle on it.
It went smoothly for about a year, but in 2012 Yannick, Joerg, and I all noticed something was happening. Suddenly, there was so much UBI-related news, that the three of us together couldn’t keep up with it.
The three of us knew that UBI was taking off. It’s been rising ever since.
I’d finally noticed that the third wave of UBI movement was happening. And the period in which I had to wonder whether the third wave was going to be as big as the second wave was extremely brief. In about 2010, I was asked to write a chapter called “Is Basic Income Still Worth Talking About?” (not my idea for a title and my answer was yes). But by the time book came out the question already sounded dated. More UBI activity was going around the world than at any time before.
The third wave dwarfs the second wave, and it’s the first genuinely worldwide wave of UBI support. I stepped down as editor of Basic Income News, five years ago (Andre Coelho took over), but I still follow the news as much as I can.
I discussed a dozen or so sources of this rise in another article. I won’t reiterate them here.
Barb Jacobson, one of the many people who work on the European Citizens Initiative for UBI and helped turn it into UBI-Europe
Today, the wave continues to grow from multiple sources even as its most visible driver keeps shifting every couple of years. First, it was two activist-led experiments in Namibia and India. Next, it was two petition drives to get UBI on the ballot in Switzerland and the European Union. Then two campaigns together raised over a half million signatures, and the EU campaign organized in every single EU member state. Somebody took the time to ask people in Malta to gather signatures for UBI. Somebody in Malta said yes. And some people in Malta—along with 350,000 people across 18 other countries—signed.
Look how small and out of the way that place is
After that, the media generated by those two initiatives inspired different kinds of activism around the world. Local, regional, national, and international groups seemed to appear everywhere.
At about the same time, the automation discussion exploded with tech industry people including some deep-pocketed and/or famous entrepreneurs, some of them used their position and resources to promote the idea. Then governments and large institutions around the world started running Basic Income experiments, sometimes in partnership with wealthy individuals or firms. So many experiments are now underway, it is hard to keep track.
Today, the most visible driver of the movement is Andrew Yang‘s campaign for U.S. Present. He’s the first major candidate to make UBI his central campaign issue. In
Andrew Yang upholds UBI as the Freedom Dividend
the 1972 US election, both major-party nominees endorsed forms of UBI, but neither of them made much of an issue of it.
Writing for the USBIG Newsflash during the 2000-2008 elections, I was unable to find any U.S. major parties’ Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Congressional candidates (aside from the two jailbirds mentioned above) even being asked about the issue. The issue was endorsed by Green Party candidates (thanks in part to Steve), and it was in alive in top-level politics in some other countries. But mainstream U.S. politicians almost always either ignored it completely or distanced themselves from that radical idea.
Steven Shafarman
In the 2012 and 2016 election cycles, mainstream politicians including Bernie Sanders, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton started being asked about it. Instead of feeling like they had to distance themselves from the idea, they tended to say favorable things about it while trying to convince UBI supporters that the most effective way to move in that direction right now was to join them in supporting some very non-UBI policies. That kind of response indicates that they recognized that UBI movement as worth courting, and that doing so was a net benefit over any negative they might get from association with an idea that had been too radical to touch since 1972—when even George McGovern quietly deemphasized it after receiving a difficult attack from Hubert Humphry in a primary debate.
Scott Santens with Conrad Shaw (“the UBI guy”/filmmaker) in a good mood after the Basic Income March, October 26, 2019
Yang’s version of UBI is ambitious, but not as much as most UBI supporters want to see. However, he’s been inspired by and considers himself a part of the UBI movement. His plan is a start. He’s received dedicated support from one of the most prominent UBI activist-writers in the United States, Scott Santens. Should UBI supporters endorse a candidate? I, for one, suggest we endorse the candidate who has endorsed us.
Yang’s campaign has raised UBI to greater prominence that it’s ever before received in the United States. It has forced all the Democratic candidates to state a position on the issue. He’s made it more difficult for other politicians to dismissively say nice things about the movement while trying to sell supporters on a non-UBI policy. If they’re not ready to endorse UBI right now, they have to explain why not, and often those arguments against UBI-now don’t look that great for people who see themselves as left-of-center. They sound reactionary and judgmental. If you’re serious about inequality, poverty, making sure everyone (no just the 1%) benefit from our prosperity: stop judging, start helping.
A small part of the Yang Gang in Los Angeles
Yang has built a network of “Yang Gangs” around America, and these groups are rallying around UBI more than any of Yang’s other policy proposals. Many dedicated members of the Yang Gang did not know what UBI was a year ago. Whether these gangs will grow into a long-term movement for UBI remains to be seen, but they’re giving a big boost to the UBI movement right now, and it’s spreading around the world.
Yang’s campaign has certainly reached more people than Milton Friedman’s TV show. Whatever happens it will leave behind many dedicated UBI supporters who will bring their ideas and enthusiasm to UBI research activism for a very long time. Maybe some of them will write articles in 2060, looking back on 40 years of activism–hopefully with a lot of successes to look back on.
Although Yang’s campaign is the most visible driver of the movement, right now, much more is going on–too much to chronicle. Experimental results will begin trickling out soon, and that will keep UBI in the news for years. Several documentaries about UBI are in production. UBI has become a major issue in India–especially in the state of Sikkim.
James Felton Keith & Diane Pagen
James Felton Keith, a candidate for Congress in Harlem, recently teamed up with long-term UBI activists, such as Diane Pagen, to organized a Basic Income march in October 26, 2019 in New York. The idea quickly spread around the world: 30 cities heald UBI marches that weekend.
Two other candidates for Congress, Chivona Newsome in the Bronx, and Agatha Bacelar in San Fransisco participated in the march and have given UBI a prominent place in their platform. I’ve gotten to know J. F. Keith. He’s not just someone who’s willing to say something nice about UBI. He’s a part of the movement. His voice in Congress could greatly raise the prominence of the idea.
From 1980 to 1996, I was an isolated UBI supporter. Then I was part of what felt like an all-but-hopelessly marginalized group of UBI supporters for another 15 years or so. For nearly a decade, I’ve been a part of growing movement that seems to reach new milestones every few months. In the process, I’ve gone from being one of the kids of the movement to a member of the old guard. I’ve had the chance to speak about UBI on all five continents. I even got to speak at the 2019 UBI March in New York.
Congressional candidate, Chivona Newsome, who is making UBI in issue
Being a respected part of this movement is the most satisfying part of my professional career. There is no group whose repect I value more. I hope everyone knows the respect is mutual. The chance to meet and correspond with so many people working for UBI in so many different ways has a been an adventure. The diversity of this group–so many people working in their own way on their own version of UBI or something like it–is what keeps this idea growing.
I’ve watched this movement grow with my mouth hanging open. Each success surprises me. People have given me and other visible members of the old guard way more credit for this wave of support than we deserve. Nobody saw this coming. Nobody said, this is what’s going to happen, and this is how we’ll do it. I can say that because I’ve attended most of the major UBI conferences since 1998.
Congressional candidate, Agatha Bacelar, who is making UBI an issue
Asking who should get the credit from the UBI movement is like asking which brick holds up the wall. The wall is the bricks. The movement is the people involved. The third wave of the UBI movement is being driven by extremely diverse support coming from all over the world for different reasons. The third wave is happening because a bunch of different people tried a bunch of different things–and some of it worked.
If you’ve said anything nice about UBI any time in the last 40 years, you helped build a movement. There’s no way to sort out who to credit and no point in trying.
We don’t know what happens next. This wave might be the one that makes UBI happen, but support might go into a period of decline for an unpredictable amount of time before picking up steam again. All I can say is whether the movement stalls or grows, don’t give up. Support has gone up and down several times, but it’s trended up for over 100 years. The diehards who kept working on UBI when it fell out of favor in their country made it into a bigger movement than it ever was before. It was that tiny group of people putting paper crowns on the heads of perplexed passerbys that started the snowball of activism that made it easy for the UBI march to spread all over the world. Or maybe 100 other little actions started the snowball.
If you want to get involved, there are an infinite number of valuable things you could do. Find something other people aren’t doing or that we need more people doing. If you need ideas about what needs doing, I have lots of them.
I don’t know how long it will take, but I think UBI will win eventually. The conditional welfare state, extreme capitalism, and extreme socialism have consistently failed to solve the underlying problems of inequality, poverty, and privilege. The have failed because even if they know that property is power, they have failed to realize that propertylessness is powerlessness and that making powerlessness the default position of everyone but the 1% is the ultimate class privilege.
UBI March, New York, 2019. Photo by Franklin Chávez
As long as inequality, poverty, and privilege exist, so does the opportunity to build the movement for UBI. The struggle doesn’t end until justice wins. Justice doesn’t win until the privileged stop telling the poor what to do so we can end the powerlessness that makes so many people in world weak, vulnerable, and marginalized.
-Karl Widerquist, Hey Cafe, New Orleans Louisiana, February 7, 2020 (with parts writted earlier and in other places). Updated February 9, 2020
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article makes no attempt to comprehensively cover the UBI movement. It’s the view from my perspective. It’s about the small slice of the enormous UBI movement that I’ve interacted with most closely. My apologies to the hundreds of dedicated people whose names just didn’t happen to come up.
That’s me giving my talk at the UBI March in the New York.
This book available because most publishers allow authors and editors to post early version for free on their personal websites. That means it has lots of typos and other problems. But it’s a reasonable approximation of the final version. Please see the published version if you can. It’s available at university libraries.
Summary from 2005
This book is divided into four Parts. They cover the history of BIG, philosophical debates over the vision of society it represents, sociological and economic debates concerning its effects, and finally some practical proposals for a BIG in several countries.
The four chapters in Part One trace the history of the BIG proposal from its beginnings in the late eighteenth century to the present with special emphasis on the guaranteed income movement of the 1960s and 1970s in the United States.
Steven Pressman
In chapter 2, Fred Block and Margaret Somers examine the relationship between the welfare reform passed by the United States Congress in 1996 and Speenhamland, a British town that (in May 1795) decreed the poor were entitled to certain public assistance. As the program spread among English parishes, it generated a great deal of controversy. Critics argued that it provided relief to the able bodied, and thus reduced work effort and increased the local tax rates (to support the poor). Block and Somers revisit the Speenhamland episode. Drawing on four decades of recent scholarship, the authors show that Speenhamland policies could not have had the consequences attributed to them. They then seek to explain how the Speenhamland story became part of the accepted wisdom regarding public assistance to the poor and how it contributed to the 1996 welfare reform legislation in the United States. This argument has important consequences of BIG proposals, since it points out that income guarantees have not had negative consequences in the past and so they should not be rejected for this reason.
In chapter 3, economists John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers focus on the historical antecedents of contemporary basic income proposals. Specifically, they focus on proposals put forth by the nineteenth century American writers Cornelius Blatchly, Thomas Skidmore, and Orestes Brownson. They argue that these writers may have been influenced by the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, American revolutionaries whose ideas about economic policy and distribution bear striking similarities to current basic income proposals.
Robert Harris gives an inside account, in chapter 4, of the politics behind the guaranteed income movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the conditional welfare system that had been in place since the New Deal, which was failing to eliminate poverty either for workers or for people unable to work, and which was causing significant poverty traps. Many people on the left and right began to see the guaranteed income as a simpler and more effective system for both the working poor and those on social assistance. Nixon’s modified guaranteed income was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives, but failed narrowly in the Senate thanks to opposition from both left and right and to lukewarm support from Nixon himself.
One offshoot of the guaranteed income movement was that five NIT experiments were conducted in the United States and Canada during the 1970s. These experiments divided a group of subjects into two groups. One group was part of a negative income tax plan; the other group was a control group that was subject to the regular United States income tax. The experiments were designed to measure the impact of NIT on labor force participation and marital dissolution in a rigorous scientific manner. These experiments were not only important for the basic income guarantee, but they were also the first large scale social experiments and had farreaching influence on policy research in a number of different areas. Some of the original scholars from the negative tax experiments reunite in chapter 5 to discuss their importance after 30 years. The panel members discuss the political reasons for setting up the experiments and their results. Although the results were largely positive, showing small workdisincentive effects and important effects on health, educational attainment, and well being, some politicians and pundits used the experimental findings to help quash the NIT.
Part Two examines the philosophical debate over BIG. The papers in this section of the book discuss various justifications for a BIG and compare the case for a BIG to the case for other types of income support plans.
In chapter 6, political theorist Almaz Zelleke examines political rights and BIG. Her concern is that social thinkers on both the right and left tend to agree that income policies should have work or social contribution requirements attached to them. After discussing and criticizing the arguments of thinkers such as Laurence Mead, Mickey Kaus, Anthony Atkinson and others who hold this view, she puts forth an alternative—the market should be regarded as a sphere of citizenship no less important than the polity. That is, the liberty that we grant to United States citizens is tied to the right to partake in the market as much as it is tied to the right to partake in politics. Thus, we should view income that lets people participate in the market as analogous to voting rights that let people take part in the political process. We grant people the right to vote and, likewise, the basic income should be viewed as a right to “vote” in the marketplace.
Philosopher Michael Howard’s article (chapter 7) is largely a discussion of the liberal neutrality principle associated with the philosopher John Rawls, and its relevance to the basic income debate. The neutrality principle roughly stipulates that an acceptable theory of justice cannot be biased toward any particular substantive conception of the good life. Howard’s thesis, presented with the argumentative and analytic skills philosophers are known for, is that any income policy that requires some contribution to society is biased toward those whose conception of the good life involves such contribution; a basic income isn’t biased in this way, rendering it the more just policy.
Michael A. Lewis
In chapter 8, Karl Widerquist defends basic income against the “exploitation objection,” which asserts that a basic income allows individuals to benefit from social cooperation without contributing to society, thereby exploiting those who do work. He specifically addresses Gijs van Donselaar’s version of this objection, and argues this objection has three critical flaws. First, the conclusion that a basic income is exploitive relies on holding the poor responsible for the level of scarcity in the world. Second, van Donselaar treats work rents differently than other rents. Third, van Donselaar’s definition of exploitation is unworkable in practice, and the connection between it and a case against basic income is weak.
In chapter 9, Michael A. Lewis enters the debate between basic income and the basic stake proposal put forth by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstot. This proposal stipulates that a lump some of $80,000 be provided to each high school graduate at age 18 if the recipient plans to attend college or age 21 if she does not plan to do so. Lewis addresses the question of whether basic income or the stake is better at promoting freedom. He suggests that if one makes assumptions associated with rational choice theory it would seem that the stake is more freedom promoting. However, he goes on to argue that there appear to be pervasive patterns in decision making that might result in people allocating their stakes in ways they might later regret, and that a basic income might be more freedom promoting because it would constrain people’s ability to make such decisions.
While Part Two is philosophical in its orientation, Part Three is empirical. The papers in this section address questions concerning the real world impact of a BIG and its alternatives.
Steven Pressman, in chapter 10, addresses one of the key tradeoffs faced in a BIG plan—the lack of incentives to work hard and make more money that are likely to occur as a result of giving people a sum of money with no strings attached. Generating greater equity with a BIG will therefore also reduce economic efficiency. If these efficiency losses are large enough, reduced efficiency would constitute a good case against BIG. Using an international dataset that stretches back over 20 years (the Luxembourg Income Study), Pressman examines the tradeoff between equity and efficiency empirically. He finds negligible efficiency losses due to government redistribution efforts, and concludes that any efficiency-equity tradeoff is likely to be small (as long as redistribution efforts remain in their current range).
In chapter 11, economist James Bryan focuses on poverty reduction as a central goal of any income policy, but also attends to the effect such policies have on work incentives. Bryan looks at the extent to which the mid-1990s welfare reforms reduced poverty by focusing on trends in poverty before the reforms, from
1993–1995, and trends afterwards, from 1995–1996. He arrives at three conclusions: (1) poverty among families with children declined in the post-reform period but the rate of decrease was slower than during the pre-reform period, (2) among poor single-mother families there were reductions in disposable income, and (3) these reductions in disposable income were only partially offset by cash and in-kind programs such as the earned income tax credit (EITC) and food stamps. Bryan argues that a basic income guarantee could decrease poverty to a larger extent while creating smaller work disincentives than the current package of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), workfare, food stamps, and EITC programs. He attributes this to the high benefit reduction rate in current programs compared to the lower reduction rates that would obtain in basic income plans. From an economic point of view Bryan sees two arguments against the basic income. First, the volume of transfers needed to achieve an acceptable minimum income guarantee may be very high compared to more highly targeted programs. Second, to maintain work incentives for beneficiaries, the benefit reduction rate must be low. This would, in turn, create a small net donor population, thus requiring a high marginal tax rate and generating a larger work disincentive for this group.
In chapter 12, Thierry Laurent and Yannick L’Horty examine the work incentive problems of a basic income guarantee. They argue that most previous studies of the work incentive problem take a static approach. People are thought to balance just the income from working now against the income received now from a guaranteed income plan. However, Laurent and L’Horty note that there are also dynamic considerations. People with jobs today are likely to get promotions and higher pay in the future. So the real choice is a dynamic one, where individuals must balance both the short- and long-term benefits of work against the BIG. The authors then model labor force participation in an intertemporal framework, and use data from French labor market surveys to test their model. Their results show that there are differences between short-run back to work incentives and long-term problems. They also show that there is no obvious link between short- and long-run incentive problems. Finally, their results explain why some workers may have an incentive to accept jobs that do not pay, while others do not.
In chapter 13, Stephen Bouquin presents research results on the effects of tax-credit systems in Europe that use “in-work benefits,” which are meant to be combined with the wages of the working poor. He examines the labor market policies of three European countries that have been increasingly relying on inwork benefits, including the United Kingdom (Working Tax Credit, Income Support), France (Tax Credit), and Belgium (several policies). He finds evidence of what he calls the “Speenhamland effect” on wages. That is, in-work benefits can reduce real wages, as employers capture some or all of the benefits (intended for workers) by reducing the wages they pay. Through these effects, expenditures intended to benefit poor workers end up benefiting their employers. The existence of Speenhamland effects raises serious doubt for any policy based on forcing individuals into the paid labor market.
BIG also raises practical questions. How much would a BIG cost? How can it be financed? What is the optimal level of BIG, given tradeoffs between poverty reduction on the one hand, and costs and work disincentives on the other hand? Part Four, the final section of the book, contains chapters that examine the political prospects of BIG and chapters with nuts and bolts proposals for making basic income work in various countries around the world.
In chapter 14, Nicoli Nattrass and Jeremy Seeking discuss the possibility of implementing a BIG in South Africa. South Africa is the only country in the world with a major grassroots movement pushing for BIG, and it has a unique political and economic situation that make BIG politically feasible. The authors argue that BIG has been on the agenda because of the coincidence of four main factors. First, the country already has a system of public welfare that is unusually extensive in its coverage, unusually generous in its benefits and unusually redistributive in its effects. Second, poverty persists due to unemployment and the absence of subsistence agriculture, and there is little prospect of reducing poverty through job creation or land reform in the short- or medium-term. Third, the existence of an extensive system of private welfare, through remittances sent by employed workers to rural kin, means that it is in the interests of the powerful trade union movement to support a BIG. Fourth, the extent of inequality, paradoxically, makes it easier to finance a BIG based on redistribution from the rich to the poor.
Karl Widerquist, credit: Enno Schmidt
In chapter 15, Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy discusses the movement for a BIG in Brazil. Suplicy and others have been pressing for BIG at the federal, state, and municipal level since the late 1980s. The measure was twice approved by the Brazilian Senate but languished until the Workers’ Party (of which both Suplicy and President Lula are members) took control of the presidency. Success was finally achieved in January 2004 when President Lula signed a basic income bill into law. The new law gives the executive wide authority to determine the timing of the phase-in, but it authorizes the gradual introduction of a small basic income guarantee within the next eight years.
In chapter 16, political scientist Yannick Vanderborght discusses recent debates over BIG in Belgium and the Netherlands. Reviewing the various arguments both for and against the basic income, he concludes that the supporters of a basic income have an uphill battle. Vanderborght views the main obstacle to the basic income in these two countries as the widely held belief that able-bodied recipients of income assistance should make some social contribution in return for assistance. He concludes with a discussion of the so-called “participation grant,” a policy that would provide a universal grant to all citizens or residents as long as they engaged in some socially beneficial pursuit. Such a pursuit does not necessarily mean one has to sell her or his labor. Thus, providing uncompensated (by the market) care for children, or for other friends or relatives, and a host of other “outside the market” activities would qualify. Vanderborght argues that such a policy might have a more promising future than the “pure” basic income.
In chapter 17, Derek Hum and Wayne Simpson provide some cost estimates for several possible Canadian BIG programs. Employing two different definitions of poverty, Hum and Simpson estimate that a BIG to eliminate poverty in Canada would cost between $141 billion and $176 billion (or around 15 percent of Canadian GDP). This, they believe, is too costly and would not be politically acceptable in Canada. They also provide estimates of alternative BIG plans that provide income guarantees below the Canadian poverty line. These programs would cost little more than current income transfer programs because they include a negative tax or claw back of the income guarantee. Hum and Simpson find that these programs would do much less to reduce poverty and the income shortfall facing the poor. They conclude by noting that there are many possibilities between these two extremes; these plans would not be very expensive, yet would be relatively effective in reducing poverty in Canada.
In chapter 18, Randall Bartlett, James Davies and Michael Hoy explore how to set up a negative income tax in the United Kingdom. Their goal was to formulate a set of programs with a guaranteed income and a single flat tax rate that collects the same amount of money as the existing United Kingdom progressive tax system. They then test whether their negative income tax is as progressive as the current United Kingdom tax and transfer system. Their findings are that it would be relatively easy to structure a negative income tax for the United Kingdom that is more equitable than the current system and that does not require high marginal tax rates.
The chapters in this book bring the debate over basic incomes into a contemporary and eclectic context. They provide many different perspectives to the BIG proposal in specific and to antipoverty policy in general. And they show that BIG is a feasible policy alternative.
This page contains a list of links to free versions of pretty much everything I’ve ever written. Free versions are possible because most publishers allow authors to post early versions of their publications on their personal website. Where the published version is free, I’ve tried to include a link to it, but otherwise, the links below are to the early versions on my “Selected Works” webpage.
The early versions are usually the last version I wrote before sending it to the publisher. That means they usually lack copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. They’re going to contain mistakes that aren’t in the final version. Maybe some really dumb mistakes. But otherwise, they should be good approximations of the works I eventually published.
The reason some things are missing is that it’s a hassle to post everything. If you want something that’s missing please contact me at Karl@Widerquist.com.
According to Google Scholar, my academic publications were cited 1,417 times by July 28, 2020.
My “Selected Works” website has free versions of most of my publications. My Biography, from December 3, 2016, is on BasicIncome.org.
Karl Widerquist. Universal Basic Income: Essential Knowledge, Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press
Michael Anthony Lewis and Karl Widerquist, Economics for Social Workers: Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press (the First Edition, 2002, is available from Columbia University Press)
Karl Widerquist, forthcoming, “Three Waves of Basic Income Support,” the Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income. Malcolm Torry (editor). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan
Karl Widerquist, March 2018, “My Own Private Basic Income.” In Amy Downes and Stewart Lansley (eds.) It’s Basic Income: the Global Debate, Bristol, UK: Policy Press, an Imprint of the University of Bristol Press, pp. 48-53. Also published in OpenDemocracy, June 27, 2017 (more than 47,000 downloads)
Karl Widerquist, December 22, 2016. “The People’s Endowment.” In Axel Gosseries and Inigo Gonzalez (eds.) Institutions for Future Generations, Oxford University Press, pp. 312-330
Karl Widerquist, March 31, 2013. “Is Basic Income Still Worth Talking About?” in The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21st CenturyVolume II, Robert S Rycroft (ed.) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, pp. 568-584
Karl Widerquist, 2012. “Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Basic Income in Practice,” Democratic Imperatives: Innovations in Rights, Participation, and Economic Citizenship. Report of the Task Force on Democracy, Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile Word, American Political Science Association (ed.). Washington, DC: The American Political Science Association (April), p. 64
Karl Widerquist, 2011. “Why we Demand an Unconditional Basic Income: the ECSO freedom case,” in Arguing about Justice: Essays for Philippe Van Parijs, Axel Gosseries and Yannick Vanderborght (eds.) Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain, pp. 387-394
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Libertarianism,” in the International Encyclopedia of Public Policy: Governance in a Global Age, Volume 3, Phillip O’Hara (Ed.) Perth: GPERU, pp. 338-350
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Does She Exploit or Doesn’t She?” in The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee, Karl Widerquist, Michael A. Lewis, and Steven Pressman (eds.), Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2005, pp. 138-162
Non-Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Including Book Chapters and Journal Articles
Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Reciprocity and Exploitation,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Jose A. Noguera and Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Basic Income as a Post-Productivist Policy,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Yannick Vanderborght, José A. Noguera, and Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Politics,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, Yannick Vanderborght, and José A. Noguera, 2013. “The Idea of an Unconditional Income for Everyone,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, and Yannick Vanderborght, 2013. “The Implementation of Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Theories of Justice and Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Yannick Vanderborght and Karl Widerquist, 2013. “The Feminist Response to Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, 2013. “Freedom and Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, and Yannick Vanderborght, 2013. “The Economics of Basic Income,” in Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Karl Widerquist, José A. Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Karl Widerquist, 2012. “Exporting the Alaska Model to Alaska: How Big Could the Permanent Fund Be if the State Really Tried? And Can a Larger Fund Insulate an Oil-Exporter from the End of the Boom?” in Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform Around the World, Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 169-180
Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard, 2012. “Critical Reflections on the Future of Alaska’s Permanent Fund and Dividend,” in Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model, Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115-122
Michael Lewis, Steven Pressman & Karl Widerquist, 2005. “The basic income guarantee and social economics,” The Review of Social Economy 63 (4): 587-593. (Revised version published as “An introduction to the Basic Income Guarantee” in The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee, Widerquist, Lewis, Pressman (eds.), Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005)
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Discussion” Time for Land Value Tax? Dominic Maxwell and Anthony Vigor (eds.) London: Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 60-64
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Introduction,” The Journal of Socio-Economics 34 (1): 1–2
Karl Widerquist and Michael Howard, coeditors of “Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its suitability as a model”
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Review of Natural Justice, Ken Binmore,” Utilitas 21 (4): pp. 529-532
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Jeremy Waldron’s Legal Philosophy and the Basic Income Debate, comment on three books by Jeremy Waldron,” Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2009. “Review of Just Distribution: Rawlsian Liberalism and the Politics of Basic Income, Simon Birnbaum,” Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2008. “Review of The Failed Welfare Revolution: America’s Struggle over Guaranteed Income Policy, Brian Steensland,” Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2007. “Review of the Ethics of Stakeholding, Keith Dowding, Jurgen De Wispelaere, and Stuart White,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2005. “Review of Libertarianism Without Inequality, Michael Otsuka,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of Work Behavior of the World’s Poor: Theory Evidence and Policy, Mohammed Sharif,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of The Civic Minimum, Stuart White,” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of Real Libertarianism Assessed, Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams (eds.),” the Citizens Income Newsletter (1)
Karl Widerquist, 2004. “Review of Economics as Religion: from Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond, Robert H. Nelson,” the Eastern Economic Journal 30 (1): 153-155
Karl Widerquist, 2001. “Review of The Political Economy of Inequality, Ackerman, Goodwin, Dougherty, and Gallagher (eds.),” the Journal of Economic Issues 35 (4): 1054-1056
Karl Widerquist, “The Growth of the Australian Basic Income Movement,” in Implementing a Basic Income in Australia: Pathways Forward, Elise Klein, Jennifer Mays, and Tim Dunlop (eds.) New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Karl Widerquist “Predicciones de Keynes: ‘Las posibilidades económicas de nuestros nietros’ Una visión restrospectiva” Ciudadanos: Critica Política y Propuesta Año 6, No. 10 El Futuro (Invierno de 2006). Traducido por José Villadeamigo, pp. 55-60 de “Re-Reading Keynes” Dissent
Written by: Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy and Mônica Dallari
This January, we discovered an extraordinary pioneer effort towards poverty eradication in poor rural villages in Kenya: the transfer of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Through the initiative of GiveDirectly, an institution created by four graduates of Harvard University and MIT, Silicon Valley institutions and other organizations contributed to the formation of a US$30 million fund to benefit about 20,000 Kenyans in the most important and thorough study about UBI in history. In the visits to rural villages in the Kisumu and Siaya areas, reports were unanimous in stating that with UBI contributed to a significant improvement in the quality of life of all the beneficiaries.
Lula da Silva on the far left; Eduardo Suplicy on the far right
Upon learning that GiveDirectly was carrying out this experiment in Kenya, we decided to write a letter to them, in which I (Eduardo) introduced myself as the author of the Brazilian Law 10.835 / 2004, which establishes the implementation, in stages, the UBI for all people in Brazil, including foreigners residing here for five years or more. As honorary co-chair of BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network), I said I would like to know about the experiment. This request was accepted by Caroline Teti, GiveDirectly’s external relations director in Nairobi.
Eduardo Suplicy visits Grameen Bank with Muhammad Yunus, in Dhaka Bangladesh. July 2007
How the UBI program works
GiveDirectly´s office in Nairobi. January 2019
As soon as we arrived in Nairobi, we met with her and started a dialogue with the coordinator of a team of 34 people who work in the call center. The call center is responsible for the quarterly contacts with each one of the 21,000 adult beneficiaries of the UBI experiment. In 2016, GiveDirectly started the pilot to provide a UBI payment in Kisumu, Siaya and Bomet counties. More than 630,000 people in these counties live below the poverty line, defined by the Kenyan government as less than US$15 a month per household member, in rural areas, and $28 a month per household member in urban areas.
For the execution of the experiment, 295 villages (14,474 residences) were randomly selected, divided into four groups:
Control Group: 100 villages that do not receive payments;
Long-Term UBI: 44 villages in which adults (over 18 years old) receive sufficient income for basic needs, about US$0.75 per day, or $22 per month for 12 years;
Short Term UBI: 80 villages where adults receive sufficient income for basic needs, about $0.75 per day or $22 per month for 2 years;
Lump Sum UBI (or UBI Cash Payment): In 71 villages, families receive UBI in the fixed amount of US$1,000 divided into two payments of $500.
The transfers are made through M-Pesa, a mobile money service created in 2007 by Safaricom, a Vodafone telephone company in Kenya. The platform enables financial transactions that are safe, fast and cheap through a cell phone, such as deposits, transfers, and savings. The platform does not need a bank account.
View of the National Park at Nairobi. January 2019
Small retailers in rural villages across the country were trained and became agents of M-Pesa services. Beneficiaries can withdraw money or shop at accredited establishments in all villages in Kenya. Those who did not have cell phones were able to purchase a low-cost GiveDirectly device. Today, 80 percent of the country’s adult population has a cell phone.
From the visits to the beneficiaries of the Kenyan experiment of UBI, we can say that the improvement in the well-being of the people is very significant. This was what we were able to witness in all the residences we visited and in the dialogue with beneficiaries of UBI. Mothers and fathers spoke of the concern to prioritize the education of children and adolescents, ensuring attendance and completion of school. This became possible due to UBI, which even helped in the hiring of auxiliary teachers. In general, our respondents stated that they were better fed and had access to a greater variety of foods.
The benefit of the UBI resulted in people being able to work more intensely and productively, especially because they were able to acquire better working equipment, such as tools, motorcycles to transport people or make deliveries, livestock (goat and cattle) to supply meat and milk, fishing equipment to get more fish in the lake to sell them, land purchasing for vegetable and fruit trees planting. These activities directly increased their income. Some families have invested in systems to better capture rainwater or solar energy collectors in order to have electricity. Households purchased better furniture, such as mattresses, sofas, tables, chairs and small electrical appliances, such as a stereo or radio. Straw roofs have been replaced with steel that contains gutters.
Sunset at Lake Victoria. January 2019
It is important to note that we do not perceive any use of alcohol or other drugs. A study by Innovation Poverty Action1, IPA, corroborates our observation since there was no increase in spending on tobacco, alcohol or gambling. The impression we have goes in the opposite direction; behaviors based on solidarity and cooperation between individuals have been reinforced.
Perhaps most remarkable was the redefinition of gender roles. Because women also receive the benefit, we hear from them how they feel freer in deciding where to spend their money, and we record reports of how couples have come to the table on UBI payday to talk about the household budget. Households frequently organize groups to pool money for a larger purchase or to assume a higher value expenditure. In Kenya, polygamy is allowed. We sometimes see that the UBI contributed to greater solidarity between the wives of one husband, and even between his widows and children.
The agility and speed provided by the digital income transfer system were also fundamental. Each beneficiary is notified by SMS when the transfer is made, being able to make purchases in the M-Pesa accredited establishments, or if she prefers, to exchange the credit for money.
City of Kisumu. January 2019
Another important development was numerous reports demonstrating a noticeable decrease in violence against women and other criminal acts, such as theft in the villages. The direct income transfer done in this way has avoided incorrect procedures and corruption.
M-Pesa Agency. January 2019
For those who want to know more about this Universal Basic Income (UBI) experiment in Kenya and other countries, please access the website. The website provides testimonials from beneficiaries of the UBI collected by the people who work in the call center, available to everyone. You will have confirmed the positive impression of this remarkable pioneering experiment on Universal Basic Income. In addition, you will have the opportunity for this remarkable and important experiment. If you would like more information, write to info@givedirectly.org.
Call Center at the GiveDirectly´s Office. January 2019
Visiting Barack Obama’s Grandmother Sarah Obama
Eduardo Suplicy visits Mama Sarah Obama, in Kogelo. January 2019
On our last day in Kenya, we visited Mama Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s grandmother, at her farm in Kogelo, another rural village. At first, we would have only three minutes to be with her because of her age, 98 years, but we talked with Mama Sarah and Obama’s aunt, Marsat Oniango, for almost 30 minutes. Enthusiastic about the conversation, they assured me they would send President Obama a letter that I had with me, the same one I had handed to him on October 5, 2017, during a lecture in Sao Paulo.
I spoke of my enthusiasm when I watched on TV the homage Obama paid to South African President Nelson Mandela on his 100th birthday in the packed stadium of Johannesburg. In that speech, the former US president made an important statement, expressing concern about “artificial intelligence that is accelerating. Now we will have automobiles without drivers, more and more automated services, which will mean the need to provide work for all. We will have to be more imaginative because the impact of change will require us to rethink our political and social arrangements to protect the economic security and dignity that comes with work. It’s not just money that a job provides. It provides dignity, structure, a sense of place and purpose. And we will have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, such as universal income, review of working hours, how to train our young people in this new scenario, how to make each person an entrepreneur of some level.”
I concluded by expressing my certainty that this positive experiment in the Universal Basic Income in the country of Obama’s father and grandfather, whose graves we visited on the grounds of Mama Sarah’s house, will resonate very favorably throughout the world.
Steps after the trip
Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy
Steel Roof to capture rainwater
The fact of having experienced a real immersion in the subject of Basic Income in such a short space of time and in two very different dimensions, that is, the theoretical academic approach of the conference in Cambridge and the opportunity to make field observations during our visits to Kenya, provoked a series of reflections, which made me desire to act.
The trip was made throughout the month of January 2019, coinciding with the inauguration and first month of the government of Jair Bolsonaro. The campaign of the victorious candidate in the 2018 election, his statements after confirmation of his election and the movements of the transition process between the Temer government and the new occupants of the Planalto indicate that the new government has an economic agenda that is based on intentions to resume growth and development of the country, generate jobs and guarantee some stability in public accounts. Despite the fact that I belong to the party that opposed the Bolsonaro candidacy, I believe that certain principles of equity, income distribution, and assistance to the most excluded are values of democracy that are not exclusive to this or that political aspect. So I decided that it was time to warn President Jair Bolsonaro, Minister of Economy Paulo Guedes and the Special Secretary of the Federal Revenue of Brazil Marcos Cintra Cavalcante de Albuquerque about the pertinence to take the steps towards the Citizenship Basic Income.
Philippe Van Parijs and Eduardo Suplicy at the University of Cambridge. January 14th, 2019
Soon after coming back to Brazil, I wrote a letter to these three government officials who had just taken their first steps and offered two copies of works that I believe are fundamental to understanding the concept of basic income: My book “Citizen’s Income: The Exit is Through the Door,” and “Basic Income – A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy” by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, which contains a foreword by myself.
In my argument, I stress the fact that Law 10.835 / 2004, which establishes the Citizen Basic Income, Universal and Unconditional, was approved by all the parties in both houses of the National Congress, including by the then deputy Jair Bolsonaro. I reminded the President “in case the President of the Republic wishes to comply with Article 3 of the Constitution on the fundamental objectives of the Republic of Brazil, in a manner compatible with what is expressed in its program of government, to guarantee a minimum income for all Brazilian families, as liberal thinkers like Milton Friedman argue, the most effective way to do so will be through the implementation of the Citizenship Basic Income, a concept that Friedman considered another way to apply the Negative Income Tax.”
Beneficiary receives credit by SMS. January 2019
In the letter, I also summarized some up-to-date information on the subject, such as the fact that today “more than 40 countries are debating, conducting experiments and considering the implementation of Unconditional Basic Income.” I briefly reported on the visit I had just made: “The results so far are highly promising, as I found out in person. Brazil would have all the conditions to carry out local experiments, as indeed has been the desire of several municipalities like Santo Antônio do Pinhal, Apiaí and Maricá. In the City Council of São Paulo, a Law Project of Mayor Fernando Haddad is in process, already approved in the Commissions of Constitution and Justice and Public Administration, to establish, in stages, UBI in cooperation with the state and federal governments.” Finally, I suggested that a Working Group, possibly coordinated by IPEA, to study the steps towards the Citizenship Basic Income. I stated that I had already spoken with both the Perseu Abramo Foundation of the Workers Party and the Fernando Henrique Cardoso Foundation, linked to the PSDB, who have already been willing to discuss basic income with the newly elected government.
The letter, as well as the volumes, were delivered to Marcos Cintra Cavalcante de Albuquerque, current Special Secretary of the Federal Revenue of Brazil, with whom I had a hearing on February 1, 2019. At the same time, I delivered a letter to the then president and future president of IPEA, Ernesto Lozardo, and Carlos Von Doellinger, detailing how this Working Group could be constituted and reporting my dialogue with former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso during the electoral process. “Given that a number of Presidential candidates were in agreement with this objective, we could very possibly meet the various economic teams of the various candidates to work on this subject.” Sérgio Fausto, the working coordinator of the FHC Foundation, suggested that this meeting should be held after the elections in the first half of 2019.
On the other hand, Márcio Pochmann, President of the Perseu Abramo Foundation, accepted the proposal to create a Working Group for this purpose, and two meetings of this group have already been held. I believe it will be common sense for IPEA to coordinate the efforts of these various institutions linked to the parties whose candidates have made proposals to do this.
It is up to the Government to take the suggested steps.
The L’Ecole des Hautes Estudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS, Social Sciences University in France) is organizing and promoting a doctoral series of conferences about basic income. This series of events started on the 10th of October 2018, on a venue at the CEVIPOF (SciencesPo, Paris), featuring Yannick Vanderborght and Télémaque Masson, an EHESS ex-student and founding member of the Movement Francais pour un Revenue de Base (MFRB), and will continue throughout 2019.
On the third Wednesday of each month until June next year, from 6 to 8 pm at EHESS (usually), these conferences are framed as doctoral workshops, and aim to explore questions like “What is a Universal Basic Income?”, “Basic Income, a tool in fighting poverty?” or “Basic income or income for ecological transition?”. These will bring together experts like Jean-Eric Hyafil, Philippe Warin and Sophie Swaton, as well as students and the general public interested in such matters.
On the last event, on the 12th of June 2019, Philippe Van Parijs will conduct a guided study session through his most recent book (co-authored with Yannick Vanderborght), “Basic income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy”.
In 1997, while I was working at the Levy Institute of Bard College in upstate New York, Malcolm Sawyer asked if I new about the Basic Income European Network (BIEN), as it was then called. I soon learned BIEN had been holding conferences on this idea since 1986. I got online and made plans to attended the next BIEN Congress, which was in Amsterdam in 1998. I can’t describe the feeling of being in a room with of several hundred UBI supporters after 18 years feeling like I was the only one. I’ve attended every BIEN Congress since.
In December 1999, several people from that mailing list happened to be in New York at the same time. Six of us (Fred L. Block, Charles MA Clark, Erik Olin Wright, Pam, Michael and I met at the Kiev Diner and founded the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG).
