by Sandro Gobetti | May 22, 2018 | News
On the the 28th of May, at 17h, Fondazione Basso hosts in via della Dogana Vecchia 5, in Rome, a book presentation and discussion titled “The strength of the basic income. Technological innovation, new welfare and experiments all around the world“.
The event will be an opportunity to compare and discuss different analysis and approaches on issues regarding the basic income proposal, as described in three different recently published books.
The authors of these three books will be present:
Roberto Ciccarelli, author of “Forza lavoro. Il lato oscuro della rivoluzione digitale [Workforce. The dark side of digital revolution]” (Derive Approdi, 2018)
Giuseppe Bronzini, author of “Il diritto ad un reddito di base. Il welfare nell’era dell’innovazione [The right to a basic income. Welfare in the age of innovation]” (Gruppo Abele, 2017)
Sandro Gobetti and Luca Santini, authors of “Reddito di base tutto il mondo ne parla. Esperienze, proposte e sperimentazioni [Basic income, all the world talks about it. Experiences, proposals and experiments]” (GoWare, 2018)
Giuseppe Allegri (University of La Sapienza) and Giacomo Marramao (University Roma Tre) will also talk at the event. The meeting is organized by the Basic Income Network Italia.
(Thanks to Anna Maria Catenacci)
by Guest Contributor | Aug 21, 2017 | Opinion
Why do so many leading economists pronounce themselves in favor of a Basic Income? Because of its positive economic effects on the distribution side, for example. Basic Income stabilizes the overall domestic consumption and provides a kind of regulation for the ratio between expenditures and savings. Furthermore, the Basic Income helps up to a certain degree to equalize the “unnecessary” distortions arising from the free play of market forces within the context of automation, digitalization, delocalization and further developments in society. And finally, Basic Income constitutes a lean and just system to provide every single individual with the minimal share of the wealth of nations that he/she is entitled to.
The economist and former head of the Hamburg World Economic Institute Thomas Straubhaar does not put the emphasis on the macroeconomic aspects. In 2006, he was one of the originators of the liberal Basic Income proposal “Solidary Citizens’ income” promoted by Dieter Althaus, member of the center-right party CDU and Thuringia’s prime minister at the time. Straubhaar’s new publication “Radikal gerecht” (radically just) shows some interesting development, while maintaining the core of the arguments in favor of a Basic Income from a liberal perspective.
The principles remain the same: Basic Income is paid unconditionally, to each individual, in addition to existing income and an amount that allows for a dignified living of each person. According to Straubhaar, Basic Income is a liberal concept because it promotes free choice of the individual (including the poor) and abolishes social bureaucracy. And it is a just cause because people with a high income pay more net taxes than those with a low income. While the citizen’s income of 2006 was calculated at €600 per adult per month (Bürgergeld), Straubhaar now speaks of €1,000 per person. He does not insist on this sum, saying that a) the basic needs of the individuals have to be re-evaluated periodically by the responsible office, for instance the federal statistical office, and b) in addition the amount is and will be a function of the political debate. A higher Basic Income requires higher taxes, which is the expression of the political will respectively of the political majorities. “It is obvious that the amount of the Basic Income and the tax rate are the levers of the policy makers and of the population to steer this new social system”, he writes on page 17.
Straubhaar presents the Basic Income as a kind of radical reform of the tax system. He calls it a negative income tax, however. A core element of this tax reform would be a flat rate tax on all kinds of income, not only wages, but also capital revenues and revenues from automats and robots. Here, Straubhaar reacts in a raw form to the fact that in the future, products from fully automated factories are going to have a price as well. Hence these have to be taxed like any other income. This is a major difference to most other models (and specifically the solidary citizen’s income of 2006) which deal mostly or exclusively with revenue taxes, and it is very welcome to see such an adaptation from the liberal side and in a systemic (even if at this moment still rather crude) form.
Concerning the financing, Straubhaar argues that the €960 billion cost of a Basic Income of €1,000 per person per month (80 million x €12’000) is somewhat higher than the actual expenses for the social state in Germany of €880 billion. The actual gross value-added amounts to €2.73 trillion (2015), which means that a flat rate of tax of 40% on this (at the moment it is transformed into income) would provide €1.1 trillion. The rest of the state’s expense would be covered by indirect taxes. At the same time, the contributions for the classical social insurance that actually are deducted from the gross salaries would largely be abolished.
Straubhaar admits this calculation to be very rough and not able to reflect all the possible and dynamic effects of the introduction of a Basic Income scheme, and insists on the flexible elements such an introduction will imply (estimation of cost of living, political process etc.). As with other authors, financing is not the core of this motivation. He sees the Basic Income as the best and most viable solution to adapt the classical system of social insurance of the 19th century to the 21th century. It creates a sort of a “blind” social policy, contrary to the targeted schemes whose advantage all too often is only to maintain a class of social bureaucrats who decide on sums and subjects. Furthermore, it is a core contribution to big issues of our times, namely an ageing population, digitalization/automation, individualization, and so on. Economically, it is not only viable, but it makes sense within the context of globalization and full automation. And he insists on paid labor continuing to be the main source of income but in new, more flexible and open forms, as activities and careers keep changing, as we witness already today. In this context, the existing organizations like trade unions or entrepreneurs’ federations will maintain their significance. The work motivation, which some economists see threatened by a Basic Income, will not decrease, but on the contrary increase thanks to the increased degree of freedom.
Straubhaar’s book is an important step for the liberal promotors of the Basic Income scheme in Germany. He aligns in practice with the other wings (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen, Goetz Werner) by speaking now of a sum of €1,000 per person per month (without being categoric about it). He urges it as a core element for the rebuilding of the social state, an adaptation to the 21th century and a blind social policy with arguments that are widely acknowledged by intelligent people. However, it is not certain that his fellow liberal economist colleagues in Germany are willing to follow his arguments. Many of them are still anchored in the concept of a 19th century social state. On the promotor’s side, some might be tempted to criticize Straubhaar’s concept of a negative income tax. Furthermore, several questions about the additional tasks of the social state remain.
There is one point that cannot be conceived in the way Straubhaar does. On page 98, he writes that every German citizen is part of the Basic Income scheme from birth until death, and those living abroad would have a right to their full claim, independent of their new country of residence. This is a flashback to the 19th century concepts of citizenship and nationality. Today, we speak of resident population and debate the introduction of a Basic Income in the whole world. Thus, if a German citizen would live in France, he would get the French Basic Income without the German Basic Income. But this is a tiny remark and does not impair the substantial progress of “Radikal gerecht”.
Finally, although Straubhaar labels Basic Income as radically just, he does not close the loop from a moral perspective to a legal standpoint, by omitting the step from basic income to basic right. As Thomas Paine wrote in 1796, the whole earth was originally in the possession of the whole human race. Now, on the base of an immensely increased wealth of nations and individuals, Basic Income represents the entitlement of every individual to a minimal (or basic) share of this wealth.
More information at:
(in German)
Thomas Straubhaar, Radikal gerecht [Radically just], Edition Körber-Stiftung, 2017
Written by: Albert Jörimann
Albert Jörimann, was president of BIEN-Switzerland from 2008 until 2013. His main research subject is financing questions of basic income.
Works cited:
Das Solidarische Bürgergeld. Analyse einer Reformidee.» Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Edited by Michael Burchard, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2007.
by Hilde Latour | Jul 7, 2017 | News
In May this year, Bryan Caplan debated with Karl Widerquist about Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Welfare at PublicSquare.net.
Widerquist is associate professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service at Qatar and vice-chair of Basic Income Earth Network (co-chair at the time of the debate). He sees UBI as a means to completely eliminate poverty and as a compensation for the government’s actions to turn resources into property, which creates groups of people that don’t have access to resources they need to survive. Widerquist predicts UBI will also have an increasing effect on lower level wages, as the payment for work will need to be high enough for a non-starving person to accept the job. In the current system, employers don’t have the incentive to provide good wages, according to Widerquist.
Caplan is professor of economics at George Mason University. He thinks the idea that everyone should be supported by the government is ridiculous. Whatever charity is given should only be for to the people who need it, and UBI is therefore not a good idea, according to Caplan. Furthermore, it will discourage people from working and is not fair to people that are paying their taxes, he states.
Info and links
Photos: Karl Widerquist by BICN/RCRG Basic Income Canada Network, 2014 and Bryan Caplan speaking empathically by Eric Hanneken, 2015, CC-BY-SA 2.0
Special thanks to Dawn Howard for reviewing this article
by BIEN | Feb 14, 2017 | News
(Image credit: CommonSpace)
Robin Clunie, an architect, outlined in a recent article the way Scotland can take control of its land to provide for all of its citizens. With an amendment to land ownership laws, this could be done, according to Clunie.
Clunie said, “All land except that immediately attached to a residence is taken into the people’s ownership in perpetuity.” It would be a “community buy out.” Everyone in the community would have a ‘vote’ in the ways that the land is used.
Rents would be at a basic social wage for those age 16 and up, along with allowances for children up to the age of 15. Clunie argues for it as non-nationalisation and “democratisation of the ownership” of the non-domestic land.
More information at:
Robin Clunie, “Robin Clunie: How to use Scotland’s land to create a brand new people’s welfare“. CommonSpace, December 2nd, 2016
by Kate McFarland | Jan 15, 2017 | Research
The quarterly Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare (based at Western Michigan University) published a symposium on the basic income guarantee (BIG) in its September 2016 issue.
The symposium includes five articles on the topic, plus an introduction written by two members of BIEN: Richard K. Caputo (Wurzweiler School of Social Work at Yeshiva University) and Michael Lewis (School of Social Work at Hunter College, CUNY). The first three articles present arguments for the adoption of a BIG in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, respectively. The fourth argues that a BIG is more politically feasible in the United States than alternative approaches to economic security, such as a Swedish-type welfare state. The fifth proposes a feminist argument for a BIG, although cautioning that more empirical work is needed.
Titles and abstracts, with brief descriptions of the authors, are given below. Links to manuscripts are provided where available.
Jennifer Mays and Greg Marston – “Reimagining Equity and Egalitarianism: The Basic Income Debate in Australia”
“Reimagining equity and egalitarianism calls for rethinking traditional welfare responses to poverty and economic security in Australia. Similar to other advanced Western democracies, Australia has pursued policies underpinned by neoliberal economics in an effort to curtail perceived excesses in public expenditure over the past three decades. In response to these policy settings, commentators and policy activists have increased their attention to the potential of a universal and unconditional basic income scheme to address economic insecurity. This paper positions basic income within the context of Australia’s welfare state arrangements and explores the potential of the scheme to respond to economic insecurity, particularly precarious employment and poverty traps created by a highly targeted social security system.”
May is a Course Coordinator in the School of Public Health and Social Work at the Queensland University of Technology, and Marston is Head of School at the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland.
Mays and Marston are both active members of Basic Income Guarantee Australia (BIGA), BIEN’s Australian affiliate, and were co-editors (with John Tomlinson) of Basic Income in Australia and New Zealand: Perspectives from the Neo-Liberal Frontier (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
James P. Mulvale and Sid Frankel – “Next Steps on the Road to Basic Income in Canada”
“Canada has had recurring debates about guaranteed or basic income over several decades. This article outlines reasons for implementing basic income in the Canadian context–reducing poverty and inequality, addressing precarious employment, and building an ecologically sustainable economy. Recently there has been a strong renewal of interest in basic income in Canada. Expressions of interest have come from the Liberal federal government elected in 2015, from provincial governments, from political parties not in power, and from municipal governments. Support for basic income also is found in a growing range of prominent individuals and organizations. While basic income advocates are encouraged by recent developments, several large and complex questions remain on how this approach can be implemented in Canada. These questions encompass the specifics of design, delivery, funding, and political support. How can basic income build on existing income security programs and leave Canadians better off in the end? How can we ensure that basic income is not used as an excuse to cut vital services such health care, social housing, early childhood care and development, and social services for those with disabilities and other challenges? How can basic income be set in place in Canada,given its complicated federal-provincial nexus of responsibility for, delivery of, and funding for social programs? The article concludes with principles that might help guide the implementation of authentically universal, adequate, and feasible basic income architecture in Canada.”
Mulvale is Dean and Frankel an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba — the site of the 2016 North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress, which they helped to organize.
Keith Rankin – “Prospects for a Universal Basic Income in New Zealand”
“New Zealand is a small liberal capitalist country with a history of egalitarian values and political reform–including the early introduction of universal welfare benefits–and with an uncomplicated relatively flat income tax structure. As such, it has sometimes been seen as a “social laboratory,” a theme of writing about New Zealand and of New Zealand social historians. It therefore has all of the elements in place that could make New Zealand a candidate to become a world leader in integrating income tax and social welfare regimes into a form of universal basic income. Nevertheless, through a combination of intellectual inertia, media cynicism, and the requisite elements not all coming together at the same time, the outlook for an open and healthy discussion around public property rights and unconditional benefits remains constrained. Despite this unpromising intellectual environment, New Zealand may yet stumble upon such reform as a political compromise, as it might have done in 1988.”
Rankin is a Lecturer of Business Practice at the Unitec Institute of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand.
Almaz Zelleke – “Lessons from Sweden: Solidarity, the Welfare State, and Basic Income”
“Progressive critics of a universal basic income argue that most nations face a budgetary choice between a full basic income and investment in public goods, including universal health care, free and well-funded education, and universal pensions, and have prioritized a robust welfare state, or the “Swedish Model,” over basic income. But examination of Swedish economic policy reveals that the welfare state is only one of the ingredients of the Swedish Model, and that another is an interventionist labor market policy unlikely to be expandable to larger states without Sweden’s cultural and demographic characteristics. Indeed, evidence suggests that Sweden’s own recent diversification–not only of race and ethnicity but of occupational strata–will make the Swedish Model less stable in its own home. What lessons can be applied to the case for a basic income in the U.S. and other large and diverse nations or regions?”
Zelleke is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at New York University’s campus in Shanghai. She has written multiple journal articles and book chapters on basic income, and has been an active member of BIEN.
Sara Cantillon and Caitlin McLean – “Basic Income Guarantee: The Gender Impact within Households”
“The potential of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) to contribute to gender equality is a contested issue amongst feminist scholars. This article focuses on the nature of BIG as an individually-based payment to explore its potential for reducing gender equality, specifically intra-household inequalities in material or financial welfare; economic autonomy; psychological well-being; and time allocation, especially leisure time and time spent in household and care work. We employ a gender analysis of existing BIG pilots/schemes as well as close substitutes (e.g., universal child benefits) to assess some of the key claims about the effects of a basic income (BI) on gendered inequality. We also present findings from empirical work on intra-household allocation and decision-making which underscore the role of independent income. The article finds some support for BIG as a feminist proposal with respect to mitigating intra-household inequality, but concludes that further empirical research is needed to argue persuasively for BIG as an instrument for furthering gender equality.”
Cantillon is Professor of Gender and Economics at Glasgow Caledonian University. McLean is a lead researcher at the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at the University of California at Berkeley.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Cover photo by Christopher Andrews, CC BY-NC 2.0
