Basic Income is a radically different and yet elegantly simple notion that has been around for decades: all citizens should have an income and be allowed to maintain their dignity, simply because they are citizens in a society that is prospering. In social policy terms, this idea can be put into action by giving unconditional cash payments to citizens. In the 60s and 70s, there were several long-term Basic Income policy experiments in the USA and Canada. The goal of these experiments at the time was to see if giving people money would be a disincentive to workforce participation. In the end, there was only a very small reduction of work participation among the subjects. In the USA women worked fewer hours per week, an understandable consequence is given that there were on average 4 children per family in the study group. Young men in Canada reduced their work participation, but high school completion rate increased, with stipends enabling the pursuit of higher levels of education. Furthermore, there was an increase in divorce rates, which was the main motivator to take BasicIncome off the table at the time, but looking back seems like it was not such a bad result, Basic Income was shown to empowered women in difficult situations to be able to exit those situations.
BasicIncome has recently returned to vogue, and Canada was, until recently, conducting an experiment in the province of Ontario, led by the of the Liberal government. It was a pilot program guaranteeing an income to 4000recipients in the region an and was supposed to last three years, but it was abruptly canceled in July 31st 2018, by the newly elected Ford administration. There have been many reactions to the cancellationof this pilot program, including a class action suit filed by fourLindsey residents, represented by lawyer Mike Perry. The Basic Incomerecipients in this class action are arguing that they “made plans to improvetheir lives when they signed up for the pilot in April last year, providing thegovernment with detailed personal information to be approved and expecting thepilot to run its three-year term.” It also seems like a breach of basic socialresearch ethics and complaints have been filed to Veritas, the company the previous government hired to ensure ethical standards are metin the conduct of research involving human beings.
On the aftermath of the cancelation, and as a reaction to it, photographer JessieGolem, also a recipient in the experiment, started a portrait series named Humans of Basic Income, depicting photos of Basic Income recipients displaying placards with their stories handwritten on them. We spoke to Jessie about her experience as a recipient of the Ontario Basic Income trial and about her own experience as a recipient and her perspective on the Basic Income pilot that gave rise to her portrait series.
Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
I
grew up in the small town of Hanover, Ontario. I’m quite lucky and privileged
that I’m actually quite close with my family and had a stable childhood. My
parents are still together, and I grew up in the same house and attended the
same elementary school and high school. We were not rich, but we were always
provided for, and my childhood was happy, stable and peaceful. I went to school
at University of Waterloo, majoring in Religious Studies. I was also quite
religious at the time and lived at a bible college in Kitchener, but I don’t consider
myself religious anymore, and actually have an article published on the
Huffington Post on the reasons behind that decision. Later, I moved to
Hamilton, and while in Hamilton I went to school at George Brown College in the
Assaulted Women’s and Children’s Counselling and Advocacy program. I explored a
number of careers, including youth pastor, piano teacher (I’m a classical
pianist) and social worker, but I currently work as the Operations Manager at
Photographers Without Borders, and hoping to expand my career as a
photographer, storyteller, and writer.
What was your work life like before Basic Income?
I’ve had numerous jobs in my life. I have worked as a cleaning lady, I’ve worked in retail, I’ve ran kids programs and day camps and worked as a dog walker. I’ve always worked/volunteered for not-for-profits in different capacities my entire adult life. Prior to receiving Basic Income I was working as a dog walker in the mornings/afternoons, teaching piano in the evenings, and in the time in between, working at Photographers Without Borders, and working to book photography projects and grow my own freelance photography business. I had no free time. I often wouldn’t be able to get home to cook myself dinner, and I’d often find myself up until late in the night working on projects and applications.
What is Photographers Without Borders?
Photographers Without Borders (PWB) is an international non-profit that amplifies the stories of grassroots organizations all over the world by sending volunteer photographers and videographers to document the work they are doing. The organization is able to receive this footage to build their own capacity, while PWB also brings awareness to these issues through a robust social media, a print magazine and online magazine, and a video series. I have volunteered at PWB for two years, and we are on the brink of realizing some tremendous growth which would expand our capacity as an organization, and potentially offer paid positions to staff. BI gave me the time to devote to PWB full-time in order to realize that vision. Losing BI means I will have to reduce my capacity at PWB.
How did your plans get foiled by the cancelation?
I had plans to work full-time at pursuing photography and building my business to a point where it’s self-sustaining, as well as develop my capacity at PWB and help to grow the organization. I will now have to return to having multiple jobs.
Even though it was canceled, do you think that there were positive consequences for you personally from having participated in the program?
Yes. I have now experienced what living and pursuing photography full-time feels like, and I’m very excited about this life, and don’t want to return. I have used the cancellation to pursue a portrait series, and I believe this experience has made me bolder, and less afraid of taking risks in order to succeed. I threw myself into the portrait project without a lot of thought, andI’m lucky for all the miracles along the way that has kept this project alive. I’m less afraid of the consequences, and more passionate about amplifying the stories of the people I have met on this journey, who have become friends.
What do you say to critics who accuse you and others in the project of being “parasites”?
I believe this kind of dehumanizing language is extremely dangerous and opens up the opportunity for violence. With language such as “parasite” it strips a person of their humanity, saying they are only human if they contribute to the economy financially. If they are unable to do so, they aren’t human, they are parasites. In history, when dehumanizing language is used against a group of people, it allows for the justification of violence, because this person is seen as “the other” or “less than human” and therefore less of a person than the one holding the prejudice, and this allows for violence. It’s this dehumanizing language that has, historically, caused genocide and holocausts. Furthermore, this was a pilot project, and even those opposed to BI would benefit from the results of the project, so they can use the facts and data obtained to justify their opposition. And 70%of the people on the pilot project had/have jobs, myself included. Anyone who wasn’t working wasn’t doing so because they were lazy but do to physical and mental disabilities that prevented them from working.
Do you think a pilot that included more income levels and a more gradual take back rate could avoid this accusation?
I’m not sure. I think the stigma against people in poverty is only really growing, especially in this area where political views between the left and right are becoming so far divided. You still see name-calling and dehumanizing language used to describe people of opposing political views, and you see this from both liberal and conservative-minded people. It would be interesting to see what a pilot focused on a wider range of income could do and how it would affect people. I did like that Ontario focused on low-income people, because it was a study attempting to address and come up with a solution to a social service system in Ontario that I now know is deeply broken, and keeps people in poverty. It would be interesting to see a pilot focused on a wider range of incomes, however. A multi-faceted, nuanced approach would be really great to see, where different income levels in different areas, and different types ofpilots are examined. We do see this right now – there are Basic Income studiescurrently taking place in small communities and pockets all over the world.
What do you think is the main purpose of the pilots?
There are so many purposes for the pilots, but one of the bigger ones I see is that we need to examine the future of economics in our society, as the rise of AIand technology changes the future of work, and in many cases, increasingly replaces the need for human work. This is an economic change as big as the Industrial Revolution that will be realized in our lifetimes. Humans don’t need to work in a factory if a robot is doing the work, online banking has replaced the need for bank tellers, self-serve check-outs in grocery stores and kiosks in fast food restaurants have replaced cashiers, thus many industries which were so heavily reliant on human work are increasingly no longer needing humans. The question of how one works, and how one derives an income and contributes to the economy is a tremendous question to ask – it is imagining a new world. Increasingly, the issue of climate change and globalization will also affect the future of economics. A Universal Basic Income is just one idea, but it’s worth examining. Right now we are only in the stages of speculation, but research and pilot projects would be able to drive the conversation forward, answering important questions while unearthing new ones. The pilots can absolutely measure the cost benefits – how much money is saved in healthcare costs if people have access to good healthy food and don’t develop long-term health problems? What is the cost benefit if a person is avoiding committing crimes and the ensuing consequences because they have all of their basic needs taken care of? And I think it’s important to analyze different models of Basic Income because the economic needs of communities all over the world are vastly different from one another. I think what a Basic IncomeProgram in Ontario looks like can’t and shouldn’t look like what a Basic Income Program would look like in another country, or even in another part of Canada. Different areas have different economic needs, which is why I’m glad to see so many projects taking place all over the world that are trying out different models of Universal Basic Income.
In your opinion, was the pilot working in getting people to improve their situations, including your own experience?
Having a Basic Income improved my life. Everyone I’ve talked to were improving their lives, and these improvements were small, but noteworthy steps to living better lives out of poverty – lives with dignity. Small things like the ability to afford to buy new clothes, or buy healthier food at a nicer grocery store, or be able to pay bills on time. The amount was small – if someone wanted to use Basic Income as a disincentive to work, they could, however, they would not be living a nice life. It was enough to get a leg up out of poverty – move into safer housing, get a better job, and live better lives, contributing to the economy. The cost of poverty on a person’s mental wellbeing is staggering – the amount of mental energy it takes to survive will actually reduce a person’s IQ. If all their mental energy is concerned with how they will pay the next bills, where they will find food, how they will pay for health care, etc. there is no time for one to dream of bigger pursuits. I saw Basic Income buying people that precious time. To give that to someone, and then take it away with no warning, and little information, and no reason based in fact, is simply reprehensible.
*
The Basic Income movement is still going strong, despite the Ontario Pilot’s cancelation. In Canada, activists are fighting to take the pilot to a Federal level, and to finish the research that was started. At the time of the cancelation, there was no data analysed by the pilot, all we have are the stories of the recipients as told in Jessie’s portrait series and on a website called Basic Income Voices. These stories are powerful and provide a window into how Basic Income can bear positive, life-changing benefits for its beneficiaries. The future is here and the time to explore policy solutions is now.
The last world development report from the World Bank is out. It investigates the changing nature of work and suggests what governments could and should do to address the phenomenon. Among the proposals there is the enhancement of social protection, to a degree disjoining it from formal wage employment, considering Universal Basic Income (UBI) as one of the options.
Digital transformation allows firm to grow rapidly, escaping the traditional patterns of production, and the rise of digital platforms make people more susceptible to the effects of technological change. The landscape of work is evolving and the skills required by employers around the world are changing: skills such as complex problem solving, adaptability and teamwork as central requisites. This in turn modifies how and at which terms people work, and short-term work is on the rise, bringing challenges to the existing welfare state, the report says. The World Development Report goes on suggesting three solutions governments should put into practice: investing in human capital, through the guidance provided by the Human Capital Project; enhancing social protection; and increasing revenue mobilization as a mean of financing the two aforementioned solutions.
The changing nature of work
Fears of technological based unemployment have their roots in history, spanning from the introduction of knitting machines in England in the XVI° century, to the Luddites distruction of textile machinery in the 19th century, but the overall effect of industrialization was to stimulate economic growth and to raise the living standards. This fear is also contemporary, supported by the trend of declining industrial employment in high-income economies in the last two decades. The Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, and the UK are among the countries in which it dropped by more than 10 percentage points but, on the other hand, millions of industrial jobs have been created in developing countries since the late 1980s.
Technology is disrupting, unevenly, the demand for skills, and its potential for the amelioration of living standards manifests heterogeneously: workers in elected sectors gains from technological progress, whilst others see themselves left facing displacement. The wealth created by the platform economy is huge, but its placed in the hands of a few, and A.I. raises concerns about the advent of a jobless economy following the rapid growth in the number of robots operating worldwide: if they are 1.2 millions in 2018, they will be 2.6 millions in 2019, an increase of 1.4 milion units in just one year. It should be noticed how, in the countries with higher robot density – Germany, Korea, Singapore – employment rates remain high, but in Germany the effect was a reduction in the hiring of new, young entrants; young workers, and economies anticipating larger numbers of entrants, may be more affected than others.
The extent to which robots replace workers remains unclear, with automation of routine work estimated to have also created 23 million jobs across Europe starting in 1999, and evidence suggesting that its overall effect is that of raising demand for labor, specifically in the technology sector, by providing the tools necessary for online work, or for taking part in the gig economy. It’s sure that jobs based upon repetition, which are “codifiable”, are those more endangered by automation, but estimates of the number of jobs at risk varies widely, for the US from 7% to 47%, the latter figure the result of automation probabilities developed by machine learning experts at the University of Oxford, a speculation which cannot account properly for the rates of technology absorption, which have been observed to vary greatly depending on the kind of technology, both internationally and intranationally.
The effect of automation on skills demand and on the production process is somehow more discernable. On the skills side, the demand for cognitive abilities which allow workers to be more adaptable, as critical thinking and socio-behavioural skills, is increasing; on the side of the production process there is the rise of global value chains, the changing nature of the boundaries of firms, and the fluid geography of jobs. The process has favored the more educated, and human capital seems the more effective protection against automation driven unemployment: “A big question is whether workers displaced by automation will have the required skills for new jobs created by innovation”. Innovation has the greatest impact on low and middle-skilled workers, either because they are more suceptible to automation, or because no complementarities with technology (human-machine cooperation) manifest.
The paper identifies how technology has disrupted the demand for skills: firstly, the demand for non-routine skills (i.e. cognitive and socio-behavioural) is increasing both in advanced and emerging economies; secondly, the demand for job specific-skills is declining; thirdly, payoffs to combination of different type of skills, allowing for greater adaptability and easier transfer among different jobs, appear to be increasing. The risk is growing inequality, as the report states:
“In advanced economies, employment has been growing fastest in high-skill cognitive occupations and low-skill occupations that require dexterity. By contrast, employment has shifted away from middle-skill occupations such as machine operators. This is one of the factors that may translate into rising inequality in advanced economies. Both middle- and low-skill workers could see falling wages ⎯ the former because of automation; the latter because of increased competition.”
Technology changes the way in which people works and the term under which they work. The gig-economy and jobs based on on-demand services, arising in an environment created by the advance of technology, don’t rely on long-term contracts but rather on extreme flexibility. There is a minimum productivity level at which firm find it optimal to employ workers formally before resorting to globalization, this means that informality is prefereable for everyone exept for the most productive workers.
If globalization and automation were to act simultaneusly, increasing the productivity of workers, the number of informal workers may decline, but if more requirements –minimum wage, required benefits – are imposed on firms, the positive “formal employment effect” may be reversed, and informality actually rise. The management of risk through employers doesn’t fit well with the new nature of jobs, and the use of payroll taxes to finance pensions and social insurance may no longer be sustainable, even for advanced economies, as the percentage of the workforce taking part into the formal economy decreases. Indeed, the changing nature of work stimulates informality, as taxation, ragulation, and social protection schemes don’t provide businesses with incentives to grow, particularly in developing economies. The issue is present in both emerging and advanced economies, and convergence is occurring among them, with increased informality in the advanced ones, leaving workers without access to benefits or protections and making the case for direct intervention of the government through benefit provision. “If automation pushes up the cost of distorting labor markets, and development improves the efficacy of the public sector, government should move away from regulation-based redistribution to direct social welfare support.”
Lifelong Learning
“Skill acquisition is a continuum, not a finite, unchangeable path”.
The advance of automation increases the demand for high-order cognitive skills, while simultaneously decreasing the demand for repetitive, job-specific skills. At the same time, the retooling of existing jobs make adaptability a fundamental requisite: the idea of a career for life seems no longer plausible, and shifts between jobs will be the norm. Thus, the profile of the ideal employee changes, as a single job may require the combination of skills from multiple disciplines: jacks of all trades will surclass the masters of one. How well countries respond to the changing demand for skills depends on how fast the supply of skills can shift, but the education system is traditionally adverse to change, and adjustment occurs predominantly out of compulsory education. Tertiary education, given its flexibility, allows for enrollment whilst participating in the workforce, and so will be the main provider of the cognitive skill-set required. Government should take action in enhancing instruction during youth, the period in which the learning capabilities are higher, and simultaneously helping to shape a better framework for adult learning as a complement to schooling, in order to “inoculate against job uncertainty.”
A new social contract
Old and new pressures calls for a renovation of the social contract, which the report defines as “a policy package that aims to contribute to a fairer society.” The changing nature of work is costly for workers and adjustments are needed: a global new deal is necessary. This new deal should be different from the one adopted in the US after the Great Depression, as the Depression was a transitory shock, whilst the advance and automation and informality are here to stay. Any social contract should be tailored to the specific country context, but some core elements remain: following the indications of Amartya Sen in “Development as Freedom”, the instruments for equality of opportunity are political freedoms, freedom of opportunity, and economic protection from abject poverty.
“The labor market is increasingly valuing advanced cognitive and socio-behavioral skills that complement technology and make workers more adaptable. This means that inequality will increase unless everyone has a fair shot at acquiring these skills.”
Strengthening social protection
Social protection should be enhanced through the improvement of its three main components: a guaranteed social minimum, social insurance and market regulation.
A guaranteed social minimum, with social assistance at its core, should be based on the concept of progressive universalism, with programs providing financial support to the largest possible share of the population, in order to account for the risks in the labour market. Social assistance needs to be reformed, as the Bismarckian model is no longer satisfying, and should be coupled with subsidized social sinsurance, not strictly based on participation in formal wage employment, financed through mandatory earning based contributions limited, at least initially, to the formal market. In order to provide equal opportunities, a social contract should also include means to provide education and upskilling, necessary for navigating the job market, starting from early childhood development, as knowledge is cumulative and pays more the earlier it starts.
“As social contracts are reimagined, subsidizing a basic level of social insurance — especially for the poor — could be considered. Such a reform could also equalize the costs borne by different factors of production, such as capital and labor, as the financing of the system is at least partly shifted away from labor taxes toward general taxation.”
Universal Basic Income
Universal Basic Income is being hotly debated as a mean to expand the guaranteed social minimum, the report says. It wouldn’t be a substitute for health, education, or other social services, but a supplement to existing social programs, and could end up replacing some programs with income support functions, increasing efficiency by reducing programs fragmentation. It’s monetary nature is an advantage: analysis of cash transfer programs showed advances in school enrollment rates, test scores, and cognitive development, food security and use of health care facilities, especially when combined with forms of intervention. The available evidence seems to disprove one of the main concerns related to UBI, that of work disincentives, as the Alaska dividend program shows no impact on employment (if not for the increase in part-time employment), and a study on the Iranian basic income program found that it did no harm to employment. The regular provision of welfare benefits granted by UBI would contrast with the arbitrarity of means-tested anti-poverty measures, which facing the dynamism of poverty ends up generating winners and losers.
The costs of UBI would depend on the level at which it is set, and its effects would depend on how it is financed. Simulations setting UBI at the level of existing cash transfer programs show that it would have significant fiscal impact, costing an additional 13.8 percent of GDP in Finland, 10.1 percent in France, 8.9 percent in the United Kingdom, and 3.3 percent in Italy. The taxation of UBI alongside regular income and the elimination of tax allowances were then used as sources of revenues for covering the additional costs: “in Finland and Italy, these measures were more than adequate to cover the additional costs of a UBI. In France, those revenues almost offset the cost of such a program. In the United Kingdom, taxing cash benefits and eliminating tax allowances were not enough to cover the UBI.” Simulations for developing countries found significant distributional effects: in Nepal most people would gain, in Indonesia 40% of the poor would be worse off and in South Africa most of the elderly and the poor would be worse off. This is due the structure and performance of the existing schemes, UBI being set at their level. A debate remains around whether some of the “cousins” of UBI, as a Job Guarantee or a Participation Income, conditional to the fulfillment of public jobs, or to volunteering, could be more beneficial, the report states.
Financing social inclusion
A basic social minimum package which uses UBI, set at the average poverty level, and aimed at adults would cost 9.6% GDP in low-income countries, 5.1% in medium-income countries and 3.5% in upper middle income countries. If the UBI was to be for everyone, the figures would be in the double digits in the poorest countries, 9% of GDP for middle income countries and 5.2% in upper-middle income countries. And the invesment for UBI should be coupled with investments in the creation of human capital, the report mantains. A significant mobilization of capital becomes necessary. Taxation patterns diverge from low income countries to high income ones; if the former rely mostly on indirect taxation –consumption and trade taxes – the latter rely on direct taxation. The paper analyzes sources of potential revenues to finance the global new deal, as excises taxes on tobacco and alcool, that even if considered regressive, have usually a long term positive impact on health. Value added tax could have a significant role in developing economies, whilst they are already diffused among advanced ones. A carbon tax may have strong impact, with a study finding that for the top 20 carbon emitting countries, optimal taxation could rise almost 2% of GDP, and be paired with the elimination of energy subsidies, which globally amouts to $333 billion. Personal and corporate income taxation may be aided by technology in avoiding tax avoidance.
“The virtual nature of digital businesses makes it even easier to locate activities in low-tax jurisdictions. The provision of goods and services from abroad without a physical presence in countries where consumers are located escapes the traditional corporate tax.”
Digitizing property registration systems will improve the collection of property taxes, and withholding taxes on payments of services will become more important in economies with strong digital presence and a prevalence of intangibles. Social protection should be enhanced keeping in mind financial costraints, and expanded as more resources are mobilized through improved taxation.
This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the World Bank
The CESifo Group of Munich is a European research group that seeks to employ both high-quality economic theory and the methods of an empirical institute. Operating since 1999, CESifo is a collaboration between the Center for Economic Studies (CES), the ifo Institute (“Information and Forschung” or research), and the CESifo GmbH (Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research).
CESifo publishes a quarterly journal, the latest issue of which is devoted to Unconditional Basic Income (UBI). Five of seven pieces within this 48-page publication present a variety of perspectives on UBI research and theory, predominantly addressing the European context.
Straubhaar, Thomas, “Universal Basic Income – New Answer to New Questions for the German Welfare State in the 21st Century”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 03–09 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Transforming social support in Germany by replacing Bismarckian welfare state ideals
Straubhaar describes a series of proximate social and economic changes due to globalization, aging societies, income polarization, and dissolution of traditional economic safety nets. He comments that the contemporary version of the welfare state is founded upon 19th century Bismarckian principles that rely on a classic population pyramid (weighted by youth at the bottom), a male-breadwinner model, a fast-growing economy, and a labor-focused Protestant work ethic, none of which will continue to be relevant indefinitely. He proposes UBI as a welfare state model that would completely replace all other publicly financed social support and provide a 21st century solution to the aforementioned changes, particularly in Germany, but as a model for the rest of the world.
Torry, Malcolm, “Some Lessons from the Recent UK Debate about Universal Basic Income”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 10–14 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Enhancing UBI data distribution and ensuring that discussions maintain a clear definition of the difference between UBI and other related economic policies
Torry highlights a number of key events and issues from the UK that have broader relevance for the global community interested in UBI. The first discusses the important use of microsimulation to predict the impact of economic policies on households of varying incomes (for example, to estimate the loss of disposable income to low-income families if means-tested benefits remain or are removed). The second relates a story in which a public organization cherry-picked UBI data, to which Torry simply says that high-quality research ought to be better distributed. The third and fourth call the reader’s attention to the importance of using specific definitions of UBI schemes and not allowing the term to be misused.
De Wispelaere, Jurgen, Antti Halmetoja and Ville-Veikko Pulkka, “The Rise (and Fall) of the Basic Income Experiment in Finland”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 15–19 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Improving the international understanding of Finland’s basic income experiment, its origins, and its limitations
The Finnish basic income experiment began as a one-line commitment in the national Government Programme in 2015. Kela, the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, proposed several experiment design options, and a two-year control trial began in January 2017. Kela will evaluate the results and present them to Parliament in 2019.
Basic income stakeholders have become increasingly critical of the trial parameters, raising concerns about the limits of the sample and the pilot’s restricted scope and goals. The authors argue that proponents of UBI initially overstated the extent of the Finnish government’s commitment and capabilities, heralding the commitment as a “watershed” moment for European basic income, when in fact the Finnish experiment and others have been limited from the outset by policy inertia, existing budgetary and taxation systems, and other institutional limitations. The pilot program is designed to assess basic income as a means of activating the labour market, a politically safe goal, and was never likely to result in policy changes of the kind UBI advocates desire to see.
Colombino, Ugo and Nizamul Islam, “Basic Income and Flat Tax: The Italian Scenario”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 20–29 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Evaluating proposed basic income-related policy packages in Italy and comparing their political origins
Like other European countries, Italy has seen several basic income proposals that have yet to be implemented. Several current potential models are rooted in different political ideologies and thus provide an interesting comparison. The first, “Reddito di Inclusione,” (RdI) is a basic income scheme that targets the most impoverished segment of the population in practice but is intended to be universal. The second, “Reddito di Cittadinanza” (RdC) is means-tested and only covers the population “below the relative poverty threshold” (20). Another model, proposed by Istituo Bruno Leoni (a think tank), involves both basic income and a flat tax.
The authors provide a basic overview of the differences between UBI, means-tested guaranteed income, and negative income tax. They then simulate and evaluate the various government-proposed combinations of policies, concluding that while it is possible to design a fiscally neutral policy package, current government proposals have not yet done so.
Widerquist, Karl, “The Devil’s in the Caveats: A Brief Discussion of the Difficulties of Basic Income Experiments”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 30–35 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Making UBI research accessible and understandable, particularly with regard to its limitations
Widerquist’s basic thesis is that, contrary to popular representations of policy research, all UBI experiments contain a significant list of caveats. He argues that science journalism has not done an adequate job of communicating the limitations of UBI studies, or indeed any social sciences research, to the public. Furthermore, specialist researchers’ lists of caveats are inadequate for communicating a study’s limitations. Widerquist has an upcoming book that will address both best practices in UBI research given its inherent difficulties and best practices in communication the results of said research to the public and policymakers. In this article, he identifies four broad strategies: (1) iteratively designing studies with public feedback, so that research directly addresses the questions relevant to local stakeholders; (2) highlighting UBI’s impact in publications, rather than its side-effects (even though the latter might be more interesting to researchers); (3) attempting to define a “bottom line” or generalizable conclusion from research; and (4) addressing and discussing ethical controversies.
Clauss, Michael and Stefan Remhof, “A Euro Area Finance Ministry – Recipe for Improved Governance?”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 36–43 | Details| PDF Download
The authors discuss the possibility and potential function of a euro-area finance ministry. Such an organization could either martial Europe’s national fiscal policies to align them throughout the region, or it could be one more “layer” of fiscal authority in each European nation. This paper does not explicitly address UBI.
Nam, Chang Woon and Peter Steinhoff, “The ‘Make in India’ Initiative”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 44–45 | Details| PDF Download
The authors discuss a 2014 federal initiative to promote industrial manufacturing in India. This paper does not explicitly address UBI.
Since 2016 that Congresswoman Araceli Damián has supported and “presented an initiative to reform the Mexican Constitution and create the right to [a] universal citizen’s income”. In the latest version of this proposal, it is framed as an intrinsic human right, arguing that no human being’s survival should be dependent on any condition, “not even by the idea that a person should be socially useful”. The purpose has been to deliver basic income as a “central element for social policy, to face this crisis and to check the implications of including it in the Mexican Constitution”.
The problems faced by the Mexican society are generally the same in many other regions afflicted by the capitalist system: unemployment due to automation and globalization, lower economic output (to restore some equality in resource redistribution), rampant labour precarity and failure of present social policies to reduce poverty. Given this grim scenario, which has been aggravating for the last decades, it has already been pointed out by the Mexican Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (National Council for Social Policy Evaluation), or Coneval, that basic income-like policies should be looked into, in a 2014 document titled “Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social en México 2014” (2014 Social Policy Evaluation Report).
Reporting back to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this basic income implementation proposal for the United States of Mexico is intended to be based on the basis that “every person shall have a standard of living compatible with their wellbeing”. This, according to Araceli Damián, would allow Mexico to “engage in the construction of a Social Rights Welfare State”, and would align the Mexican constitution with international legal standards on human rights.
As a first stage of implementation, the proposal suggests an individual monetary transfer covering basic (normalized) food necessities. This first step would be implemented in 20 years, and according to four sub-stages (extending coverage every five years), accounting for residency (urban/rural), age and sex. On a second stage, and for another 20 years period, basic income would be gradually distributed until normalized basic needs are met for all people. The purpose being to meeting all Mexicans basic needs by 2050.
Araceli Damián and her partner Norma Colín have calculated both costs and benefits for this kind of gradual basic income implementation in Mexico. Costs are associated with extra fiscal efforts to finance such a policy, while benefits also include avoided costs with public health, safety and social security.
For the first step of the proposal’s implementation, covering basic food necessities, an individual amount of 1765 Mexican Pesos per month (92 US $/month) would be enough. That would also include a 15% margin for affording conservation, preparation and consumption of food. According to the sub-stages referred above, priority would be given to rural population, elderly and children, which are already covered in part by existing social assistance programs. Coverage of (adult) women would also take priority over (adult) men, due to known structural disadvantage gaps and the need to reduce women’s economic dependence from men.
Araveli Damián. Credit to: El Colegio de México A.C.
The basic food needs coverage on the first stage would reduce poverty substantially, right from the start. Calculations show that total poverty could be approximately cut in half (72.7% in 2014, compared with 39.5% of the total population, with all four sub-stages of the first implementation step completed). This program would not particularly affect the higher income brackets parts of the population, while reducing extreme poverty almost down to zero (from 36.3% down to 0.7%). This step would represent 13.2% of the gross national product (GDP) if implemented today, which is below the OCDE countries average of 21.9% of GDP spending in social protection. Implementation costs would rise gradually, from 1% of GDP if starting this year (2018), up to 9.4% of GDP after 20 years.
However, according to Araceli and Norma calculations, a full basic income for Mexico, at this moment, would represent around 54.4 % of all state revenue. For the food coverage partial basic income, on the other hand, several financing sources are identified (values per year): savings from restructuring present-day social security (at all levels of government, in about 7000 million Pesos (360 million US$)), cuts in governmental overspending (around 697 000 million Pesos (35 800 million US$)), reduction in fiscal evasion (accounting for more 484 000 million Pesos (24 900 million US$) and progressive fiscal reform (there is room for incrementing fiscal collection, from present-day 19.6% GDP, up to at least 25% GDP).
The study argues that this food coverage basic income would help stabilizing gross demand, particularly among the poorest. This stimulates a better use od existing resources, without rising operation costs for companies, while considerably reducing inequality and poverty. It is also foreseen that implementing basic income in Mexico would increase employment in at least 3%.
Finally, Araceli and Norma propose to rewrite the Mexican Constitution in several articles, highlighting the following addition to article 4th:
“Every person, since birth, has the right to a universal basic income. The State will guarantee this right through monetary transfers, which value shall be enough for all people to reach a dignified minimum quality of life. The Law shall state the amount, periodicity and transfer method, as well as a program for its roll out in a gradual fashion.”
The second annual Basic Income Asia Pacific conference will be held in Taipei, Taiwan on March 17 and 18. This year’s theme is “Asia Pacific’s Economic Future.”
Keynote speeches will be delivered by Enno Schmidt, the Swiss referendum leader, and Dr. Sarath Davala, the lead researcher for the UNICEF basic income trials in India.
“The focus on Asia is necessary to understand how we are going to interpret the idea regionally – given Asia’s own specificities and peculiarities. This conference is going to open this much needed conversation. This event is yet another milestone achieved by the UBI Taiwan, one of the most dynamic national groups,” Davala said.
Leading thinkers in academia, government and NGOs from Taiwan, mainland China, India, Bangladesh, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States will join the conference to discuss the challenges facing the Asia Pacific and potential solutions, such as basic income.
Dr. Hermann Aubie is a lecturer at Aston University in the United Kingdom. His research specializes on comparing basic income movements in East Asia and Europe.
“This conference offers a rare and precious opportunity in the Asia Pacific region to build upon the wave of renewed attention that Universal Basic Income gained in recent years to discuss actively how we can create a wider consensus and concrete initiatives that build upon existing basic income designs and pilot implementations across the world,” Aubie said.
The entire conference will be live-streamed on UBI Taiwan’s Facebook account, including both English and Chinese audio simultaneous translations.
Taiwan has recently lowered the threshold for referendums, which has opened the possibility for a UBI referendum in Taiwan. This will be a topic of particular focus for two of the presentations at the conference, including Schmidt who will present on how Taiwan can lead Asia with a UBI referendum.
“With the introduction of Direct Democracy this year in Taiwan, the UBI Taiwan proponents have the same chance and political tool to turn UBI into a nationwide discussion and to push it to a people’s vote like the Swiss have done,” Schmidt said.
The conference coincides with increased discussion of basic income in the Asia Pacific, with the UN Development Program holding roundtable discussions on basic income in Beijing, China last October and December, as well as Korea discussing designs for a a pilot program.
“With the second annual UBI Asia Pacific regional conference approaching, we have expanded into two days, allowing us to share our ideas of how to improve society through implementation of Universal Basic Income,” said Ping Xu, co-founder of UBI Taiwan and UBI Asia Pacific.
The conference will examine the economic and social challenges facing the Asia Pacifc region, and will assess what a basic income policy can do to address these issues, such as inequality, automation, globalization, demographics, and environmental issues.
Last year’s conference attracted 100 participants and thousands of online viewers. The conference helped bring attention to basic income in Taiwan, with the formation of a UBI summer fellowship program and discussions with the Taichung Social Affairs Bureau about a potential pilot program.
The event is organized by National Chengchi University’s (NCCU) College of Social Sciences, and NCCU’s International Master’s Program in Asia Pacific Studies. It will be held at NCCU on March 17 and NTU on March 18. The event’s volunteers and coordinating team are part of UBI Taiwan.
“At this juncture of history where poverty and inequality are rising rapidly, I think we urgently need a “new universalism” of the kind UBI promises. There’s a long road and a lot of work ahead of us to make it a reality, but as more and more people place their hope in UBI’s emancipatory potential to protect their livelihood, human rights and dignity, we just can’t afford to disappoint such expectations,” Aubie said.
