by BIEN | Oct 2, 2016 | News, Testimonies
How’d you get an interest in Basic Income (BI)?
My interest in BI started back around 2013 after reading a Reason article. It described how a BI would provide a much more efficient social safety net. It intrigued me at the time and over the next couple of years I periodically would seek out the latest research on BI. I was hooked by a documentary on the basic income featuring Guy Standing.
Standing’s discussion of the “precariat” and the need to counter the challenges of automization convinced me of the BI’s approach. The day after watching the documentary, I reached out to Standing to see how I could get involved with BIEN. He put me in touch with Karl Widerquist and André Coelho. André was my trainer and his patience and encouragement is what kept me on with the team initially.
What makes the BI plan of action unique?
That is a difficult question because there are many ways to implement the BI. I think what unites the BI movement, though, is that we want to fundamentally alter people’s relationship with the market and the government. We do not have to have a job in the traditional sense to contribute to ourselves and society. The basic income liberates us to take on the projects or activities that we are truly passionate about, instead of being forced into a certain line of employment.
There are a host of reasons I think this is good for sustainable economic development. But more importantly, this would be a positive development for human happiness. A basic income would also reorient our relationship with the government. Instead of ceding individual choice to government bureaucrats, a basic income provides freedom of choice to everyone. Centralization of power and resources swallows our humanity, and basic income is an enormous step in bringing that power back to the people.
What are the most common success stories of BI or similar programs?
What has been overlooked in the mainstream press (and what I first tell people skeptical of BI) is the recent release of a meta-analysis of 15 years of cash transfer research across 165 studies. It looks at the best research available and determines there is a consistent reduction in poverty from these cash transfers. It also determined there is no real evidence of lowered work hours while showing some evidence that cash transfers may increase work hours and intensity. For BI advocates, I think it is important to get familiar with this meta-analysis.
In the United States, the most famous example of an actual BI-like program is the Alaskan Permanent Fund. This program is funded by Alaska’s oil reserves and is provided to nearly every Alaskan resident. The experience in Alaska, and most BI programs, is that the policy rarely creates negative unintended consequences and has a much greater potential to create a positive ripple effect throughout society.
What is your work on BI?
I am the features editor for BI News. I will personally write opinion, interview and news-based articles. I have the privilege of working with and seeking out some amazing writers and thinkers, helping to edit and post their features articles. When the need arises, I help to train newcomers to BI News, including contributors and editors. I am currently in Taiwan completing a Master’s degree where I am working with the Taiwanese Basic Income organization. For the future, I have some ideas to promote basic income in Taiwan that will be forthcoming.
What are the main lessons for about BI that should be out in the public domain more?
Everyday around the world there are billions of interactions, transactions and events that would be made simpler by the establishment of the basic income. It helps to take these billions of events and simplify it to one individual to better understand the depth of change this policy would have on everyday life. Among those close to me, I can think of a clear instance where a basic income would dramatically improve a family’s circumstances, much more so than traditional welfare.
Think of how a basic income would help the person with a sick mother, the person whose car gets totaled, the person who wants to take more time to raise their child, the person who wants to find a better suited job…All of these situations would be more easily managed with a basic income, especially for those who are of modest means. Perhaps more significant are the new and unpredictable opportunities created by basic income that would otherwise never occur.
Who are the people to watch – the major BI players?
Here are a couple that come to mind:
Matt Zwolinski is my favorite libertarian scholar, primarily because of his work on the basic income. He has done a lot to bring on the libertarian side of the political spectrum to consider the basic income. The next generation will have significantly more libertarians than the current generation, so I think the philosophical marriage on this issue with libertarians will be increasingly important as we pursue the basic income’s implementation.
Kate McFarland is one of my favorite writers at BI News and a great person to work with. I think she will be a big figure in the BI movement in the coming years because of her non-stop dedication to the cause.
Any advice for would-be policy makers or activists about strategies for the implementation of BI?
During this stage, I think it is important that we maintain healthy disagreement in the movement. There are a lot of different motivations behind the BI which manifests in an array of different implementation methods. Despite this, I hope that we can retain this amazing civility that has united people from such diverse philosophical and personal backgrounds thus far.
On the long-term policymaking level, my hope is that in those areas we think must be earmarked (particularly healthcare and education). We will still utilize the basic income framework. For example, universal education savings accounts and health savings accounts (which there is evidence that these two programs are already effective where they are used). The basic income has the potential to really revolutionize the way we think about government services. The government is really efficient at issuing checks to everyone, but it is not great with creating innovative programs. That is why a basic income framework creates an ideal social safety net, as it brings the security of government distribution and the innovation of the market.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 7, 2016 | News
In August, UK Prime Minister Theresa May declared that the revenues produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) should be invested in the communities in which the industry is based, possibly as cash payments to households. Many environmental groups oppose this shale gas dividend, which they see as a bribe to allow fracking. Basic Income UK has also released a critical statement, below.
The British government has announced plans to create a Shale Wealth Fund, which would be funded a portion of tax revenues (up to 10%) from shale gas. The funds would then be used for the benefit of communities that host sites where shale gas is obtained by fracking.
According to the consultation report (dated August 8), the Shale Wealth Fund could generate up to £1 billion in funds during its lifetime, which would be paid out to communities during the course of 25 years (which, according to the report, is the approximate lifetime of a fracking site; p. 7).
The report specifies that the communities which are local to shale developments “should be the first to benefit from the Shale Wealth Fund, and they should get to decide how a proportion of the funding is used” (p. 7). The national government suggests multiple possibilities, including infrastructure, local skills-training programs, “investment in the local natural environment”, and “funding for community groups and the development of community assets, such as libraries, or sports facilities” (p. 11).
Notably, the report also raises the suggestion of direct cash payments to residents:
We are also interested to hear whether an appropriate use of the Shale Wealth Fund would be to allow residents of communities to benefit by directly allocating funding to households. There will clearly be a trade-off for communities in either choosing to benefit from SWF funds directly, which may result in a relatively small per-household payment, depending on the revenues and the size of a particular community, or in investing in an asset which benefits the community at large (p. 12).
The latter proposal was added by Prime Minister May in August. She was quoted as explaining, “It’s about making sure people personally benefit from economic decisions that are taken – not just councils – and putting them back in control over their lives.”
Since the announcement, some have accused May of “bribing” individuals to allow fracking.
For example, The Guardian quotes MP Barry Gardiner, the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, as saying, “Appealing to people’s higher nature, Theresa May gives a £10,000-plus bribe if you live near a frack site. If you live near a wind farm, nothing … The asymmetry is amazing.” And Greenpeace scientist Doug Parr:
You can’t put a price on the quality of the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the beauty of our countryside. If Theresa May wants to show the UK is open for business, she should reverse the policies that have harmed our vibrant clean-energy sector and back the technologies that can supply cheap, homegrown energy for decades to come.
Basic Income UK has released the following statement on the proposal:
This proposal to pay local people a small share of the money from fracking operations in their area shows how desperate the UK government is to divide and silence the strong opposition shown by almost all UK communities where fracking has been proposed.
Given that the fall in oil and gas prices has made fracking unprofitable in many areas of the US, it is uncertain whether in the UK, local people will see any money from a tax on fracking profits. The payments (if they materialise at all) will vary from area to area depending on how many households live there, and how much tax is raised on each individual fracking operation. This idea comes as part of a package of local investment proposals about which the government has opened a consultation.
This is not really about ‘sharing the wealth’ from fracking. In Alaska it was recognised that a share of the oil wealth should go to everyone in the state as a common resource whether people live near the wells or not. Here the proposals are area-specific, and could bring complications around the question of who qualifies. Another way this is different is that the proposal here is to pay households, and not individuals. It is unclear from the consultation papers whether there would be regular, ongoing payments or one lump sum, and how transparent the government will be about taxes raised in any given area.
The environmental costs seen where fracking has already happened: earthquakes, degradation of land around fracking operations and most especially contamination of groundwater, will be much higher and longer-lasting than the benefit of any amount of money people might get. This proposal shows the strength of the opposition to fracking, and is not an endorsement of the principle of basic income.
Basic Income should be paid to each individual as a share of the general wealth of the society we all contribute to, whether in a job or not. A basic income for everyone would really ‘put people back in control of their lives’. Here people are asked to chose between a short-term financial windfall and long term environmental security. Many of the areas affected are desperate for income and investment, but fracking could badly affect their environment and wellbeing long after operations have ceased, and any payments have stopped. It would be far better if the government helped people set up renewable energy coops around wind farms and solar energy installations.
References
Shale Wealth Fund: Consultation
Daniel Boffey, “Local People to Get Cash Payments from Fracking”, The Guardian; August 6, 2016.
Chris Mason, “Households could get fracking payments under government plans”, BBC; August 7, 2016.
Rowena Mason, “Trying to bribe public to accept fracking won’t work, say campaigners”, The Guardian; August 7, 2016.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Victoria Buchan-Dyer
Article reviewed by Barb Jacobson
Thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Tyler Prochazka | Aug 24, 2016 | Opinion
One of the most visible libertarian advocates of the basic income is Dr. Matt Zwolinski. Zwolinski is a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego and has written extensively on the libertarian case for the basic income.
In my interview with Zwolinski, he said a basic income “can help protect the freedom of certain vulnerable people,” although he recognizes there is a trade-off due to the coercive nature of taxes.
Zwolinski also dismissed some of the common libertarian objections to the basic income, saying it is a hard moral sell to claim taxation to help the poor is indistinguishable from a mugger stealing for himself.
“I think there’s a moral case, based on freedom and a correct theory of property rights, that justifies some form of economic redistribution,” he said.
For those libertarians that think basic income disqualifies them from the libertarian label, Zwolisnki said this does not make much sense since many libertarian thinkers throughout history have advocated for the basic income approach.
“Libertarianism is and should remain a pretty big tent,” Zwolinski said.
As a libertarian, what is the best reason to support UBI?
I don’t think that there’s a single best reason. I’m a pluralist in my moral philosophy, and so I think that a lot of different kinds of reasons are usually appropriate in assessing the case for or against a particular piece of public policy.
But, basically, I think there are two strong libertarian arguments in support of a basic income, one broadly deontological in nature and the other broadly consequentialist. The deontological argument has to do with the limits to the libertarian case for private property. For reasons that I think were very well laid out by Herbert Spencer in 1851, I don’t think the standard Lockean story about self-ownership and labor mixing gets us very far in justifying private property in land and other natural resources. For starters, that account simply doesn’t match the historical reality in which most private property originated in force and theft rather than peaceful homesteading. But, more fundamentally, I just don’t see how mixing your labor in a natural object gets you a property right in the whole economic value of that object, as opposed to a right to that portion of the value created by your labor. Basically, I think Henry George was right. And so I think that there’s a strong case to be made for a basic income funded by a “Single Tax” on “land rent” – the economic value of unimproved natural resources such as land.
The more consequentialist case has to do with protecting individual freedom. I call it a consequentialist case rather than a utilitarian one deliberately. The idea is that a basic income can help protect the freedom of certain vulnerable people. But I recognize that a basic income that’s large and broad enough to do that might have to be funded by taxes that violate the freedom of others. So we’re trading off freedom for freedom. That might sound scary to some libertarians, but I think that unless you’re an anarchist you’re already willing to accept something like this. Tax-funded police services, after all, protect individual freedom but are funded by coercive taxation.
I think the seeds for a freedom-based defense of a basic income are present in the writings of Friedrich Hayek, especially in his Constitution of Liberty. Hayek himself defended a kind of basic income, but was never entirely clear about what he saw the justification for it to be. I’ve tried to work out what a plausible Hayekian justification might be, at least in terms of broad outlines. Basically, I see Hayek as embracing a kind of republican account of liberty, where freedom means not just not being subject to the initiation of force but, more generally, not being subject to the arbitrary will of any other person. Once you take that account of freedom on board, I think you can justify a basic income as a way of protecting the economically vulnerable. The idea is that people who might otherwise have to accept any offer an employer makes or else starve aren’t really free. A basic income gives them the ability to say “no,” and thus protects them from being bossed around by the economically powerful.
One interesting thing to note about these two arguments is that they’re not just different in terms of where they start – the moral premises on which they’re based. I think they’re also different in terms of where they end up – in the kind of basic income they justify. If the Georgist argument works, I think that justifies a truly universal basic income. The earth belongs to all of us, and so all of us have an equal claim to the economic value of unimproved natural resources. Now, depending on how much of present wealth you think is due to labor, rather than raw natural resources, the value of this kind of basic income might not be very large. So, on this argument, what you might end up with is a very broad but relatively small basic income. Everybody gets something, but nobody gets much.
The freedom-based argument, on the other hand, doesn’t give us any reason to write a check to Bill Gates. His freedom is already protected by his economic power, so there’s no real point in giving him any more money. And the same will be true of a lot of other people, not just the rich but probably most of the middle class as well. So if the case for a basic income is based on the protection of individual freedom, I think what that gets you is something less than a universal basic income. Not everybody gets something, but what those who need it get will be large enough to effectively protect them against economic domination by others.
What would your ideal UBI look like?
Designing a policy like a universal basic income is obviously a complicated task. And I think it’s a task that should be highly sensitive not only to the kinds of moral considerations with which I spend most of my time as a philosopher, but to empirical considerations of the kinds studied by economists, sociologists, and the like. So I don’t want to claim that I’ve got anything close to the final word on this. I have some ideas, but this is definitely not a one-person project.
That said, I think that given the two distinct moral considerations that justify a basic income, there’s a case to be made for having two distinct basic income type policies that respond to those considerations. One would be a small, truly universal cash grant based on the economic value of unimproved natural resources. Think of this as something like the Alaskan Permanent Fund writ large. The other would be a less universal but more generous grant directed toward those individuals who fall below a certain specified threshold of economic sufficiency. I think the best way of implementing this second program is probably something like Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax, though I also like the proposal set forth by Charles Murray in his book, In Our Hands. In both cases, people earning less than a certain amount of money get a cash grant from the government, with which they can do whatever they wish; while people earning more than that amount get nothing. That conditionality makes the program less than truly universal. But I think you’ve got to do something like that in order to make a basic income economically feasible. Many basic income enthusiasts want a grant that is (1) universal, (2) large enough to provide people with an adequate level of income, and (3) economically affordable. But you can’t satisfy all three of those conditions at once. A Negative Income Tax satisfies conditions (2) and (3), which to my mind are the most important conditions, morally speaking. Condition (1) might be politically important in terms of generating and sustaining support for the program. I’m not sure. But it seems to me that something has to give, and I think there’s a strong case to be made for keeping (2) and (3) and relegating (1) to the land-tax component of the joint program.
Many libertarians say removing all welfare would be superior to replacing welfare with the UBI. Do you agree with this sentiment?
No, I don’t think so. But before I explain why, let’s be clear about two different conversations we could have about this question. One is a conversation about ideals – what is the best kind of society we could imagine as libertarians, regardless of how different that society might look from our own? The other conversation is about pragmatics – what should libertarians advocate here and now, given all the injustices, imperfections and disagreements with which any practical political proposal has to deal?
Now, as it happens, I don’t think either of those conversations gets you to the conclusion that all state-based welfare ought to be eliminated. That’s certainly not something that has any practical chance of being implemented in a world where, after all, most people aren’t libertarians. But I don’t think it’s very attractive as an ideal, either. I think there’s a moral case, based on freedom and a correct theory of property rights, that justifies some form of economic redistribution. Obviously, we’ve had a lot of bad redistribution in our society. We’ve have redistribution to the poor that’s made their lives worse, rather than better. And we’ve had a lot of straightforwardly regressive redistribution that actually takes money and opportunities away from the poor and channels it toward the better off. And libertarians have rightly criticized those programs. But the idea that anytime the state takes money from the well-off and gives it to the poor, that’s morally indistinguishable from a mugger on the street taking your wallet at gunpoint, well, that’s a hard sell. And not, I think, simply because non-libertarians are being thick-headed.
In my experience, many libertarians have called me a statist and denied me the label of libertarian for supporting the UBI. Have you had similar experiences and what is your reaction?
Sure, I get that all the time. Some people seem to think a desire to eliminate the welfare state is just part of what it means to be a libertarian. But what’s their basis for that? That Murray Rothbard thought so? Or Ayn Rand? But why should we take them as the final say on what libertarianism is or isn’t?
As I’ve written about before, there are a number of people who fall pretty squarely in the libertarian intellectual tradition – Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Friedrich Hayek, and Herbert Spencer, to name a few – who don’t hold that view. Why should their views count any less toward defining what libertarianism is than Murray Rothbard’s?
I’m finishing up a book on the history of libertarian thought with John Tomasi. And one of the themes of that book is that the libertarian intellectual tradition is incredibly pluralistic. Some libertarians are consequentialists, some are deontologists, and some are ethical egoists. Some are anarchists, some are minimal-statists, and some are classical liberals. Of course, not all of those views can be right, and libertarians should (and do!) argue amongst themselves about which view is the best libertarian view. But I think it’s silly – and more than a little ironic! – for libertarians to try to write people with whom they disagree out of libertarianism altogether on the basis of some putative ideological authority. Libertarianism is and should remain a pretty big tent.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 2, 2016 | News
The Movement for Black Lives, the network of organizations behind the United States’ Black Lives Matter movement, released its first official platform on Monday, August 1. The platform calls for a universal basic income for all Americans, with an additional amount distributed to Black Americans as reparations.
The Movement for Black Lives (MBL), a collective of over 50 groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, released its official platform on Monday, August 1.
The platform is constructed around six core demands: Ending the war against Black people; Reparations for past and continuing harm; Investment in education, health and safety, and divestment from exploitative forces; Economic Justice for all; Community Control of laws and institutions; and independent Black Political Power.
The platform is explicitly radical and visionary, aspiring to a “complete transformation of the current systems”, but its authors have also written policy briefs that outline intermediary steps to reach these visions.
The Movement for Black Lives’ demands include universal basic income, as described in its policy statement on Reparations. The document makes clear that MBL endorses a basic income for all Americans, with an additional amount (a UBI “PLUS”) given to Black Americans as reparations for harms ranging from colonialism and slavery to mass incarceration.
Political scientist Dorian T. Warren, a Fellow of Roosevelt Institute and Board Chair of the Center for Community Change, authored the policy brief. Its section on universal basic income is reproduced below:
What does this solution do?
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) provides an unconditional and guaranteed livable income that would meet basic human needs while providing a floor of economic security. UBI would eliminate absolute poverty, ensuring economic security for all by mandating an income floor covering basic needs. Unlike most social welfare and social insurance programs, it is not means tested nor does it have any work requirements. All individual adults are eligible.
No other social or economic policy solution today would be of sufficient scale to eradicate the profound and systemic economic inequities afflicting Black communities.
As patterns and norms of “work” change rapidly and significantly in the decades to come – no matter how profound those changes are – it is likely that Black America and other populations that are already disadvantaged will bear the brunt of whatever economic insecurity and volatility results.
A pro-rated additional amount included in a UBI for Black Americans over a specified period of time.
The revenue saved from divesting in criminal justice institutions could be pooled into a fund for UBI; this revenue could be earmarked for the “PLUS” aspect of the policy that would be targeted toward Black Americans. If combined with other funds, it would effectively function as reparations, in a grand bargain with white America: All would benefit, but those who suffered through slavery and continuing racism would benefit slightly more.
Federal Action:
UBI would have to pass both houses of Congress and then be signed by the president. The revenue could be generated by multiple sources which would require structural reforms to the tax code including higher taxes on the wealthy, taxes on public goods like air (carbon tax) or on certain industries (financial transactions tax), or a dividend based on distributing resources from a common-owned asset (like oil).
State Action:
Similar to national policy, UBI would have to pass through state legislatures and be signed by governors. Other instances might require amendments to State Constitutions. The precedent here is the Alaska Permanent Fund, set up in the late 1970s/early 1980s. All residents of Alaska receive an annual dividend based on the invested revenue from the publicly-owned oil reserves.
How does this solution address the specific needs of some of the most marginalized Black people?
UBI would then provide an individual-sustaining basic floor for people who are formerly incarcerated upon re-entry that does not currently exist.
UBI would be an improvement on portions of today’s current safety net and would benefit cash poor Black people the most. Some benefits, such as food stamps, are replete with paternalistic restrictions that rest on racist tropes about recipients and their consumption habits. Others, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), are significantly tied to work, which is problematic when structural racism continues to create so many barriers to Black employment. UBI lacks these flaws.
The document also links to Warren’s essay “Universal Basic Income and Black Communities in the United States“. In this short paper, Warren describes the problem of racialized economic inequalities in the American economy, and proposes UBI as a solution. He emphasizes that most forms of UBI would benefit the black community, and that “even an equal income could disproportionately benefit black Americans” since white Americans presently earn more on average.
Warren goes on to argue, however, that a “Universal PLUS Basic Income” model, with an additional pro-rated cash transfer specifically for African Americans, would be preferable as a way to “take into account the historical and cumulative disadvantages of income, wealth and inheritance afflicting black communities”.
The Black Lives Matter movement originated in July 2013, after a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of all charges surrounding the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. The movement spread on social media via the use of the hashtag “#BlackLivesMatter”.
Tuesday, August 9 marks the two-year anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, another unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. The fatal shooting launched a series of street protests that brought widespread national publicity to BLM to a point where the topic of raising the Black Lives Matter flag was discussed in various circles of the government to show solidarity against racism. The BLM flag may not be flying atop a monster flagpole anytime soon, but the discussions in several mediums have definitely carried forward the cumulative fears and concerns of the African American populace.
Monday’s release marks the first time in its history that BLM has issued a single, comprehensive set of policy demands.
MORE INFORMATION
The Platform is available at The Movement for Black Lives’ website: policy.m4bl.org.
Dorian T. Warren, “Universal Basic Income and Black Communities in the United States“.
General news about the release of the BLM platform:
Yamiche Alcindor, “Black Lives Matter Coalition Makes Demands as Campaign Heats Up“, The New York Times; August 1, 2016.
Eric M. Johnson, “Slavery reparations sought in first Black Lives Matter agenda“, Reuters; August 2, 2016.
Amée Latour, “How To Read The Black Lives Matter Agenda & See Its Comprehensive Plan For The Future“, Bustle; August 1, 2016.
Trymaine Lee, “Black Lives Matter Releases Policy Agenda“, NBC News; August 1, 2016.
Jamilah King, “The Movement for Black Lives’ New Policy Platform Looks Beyond the 2016 Election“, Mic; August 1, 2016.
Tess Owen, “Black Lives Matter reveals a policy platform that includes reparations and breaking up banks“, Vice; August 2, 2016.
Featured Image CC Gerry Lauzon
Thanks, as always, to my supporters on Patreon
by Tyler Prochazka | Jul 8, 2016 | News
This past month, United Kingdom’s Compass advocacy and publication website published an analysis of the basic income. The report discussed how the basic income could be introduced in the UK, and how it would interact with other social service programs.
One of the authors, Stewart Lansley, a Compass associate and visiting fellow in the School of Policy Studies at the University of Bristol, discussed how “income support is being weakened while secure work is becoming less available,” and how the basic income would address the impending “robotic revolution.”
The Compass report mentions the sanctions that have been introduced in UK’s entitlement system and how that was leading some to fall through the cracks. What do you think the biggest challenge of the UK’s current entitlement system is and how does the UBI address it?
Britain’s system of social security – complex and unpopular – needs a fundamental rethink. With much greater reliance on means-testing, and the erosion of the role of universal benefits, it has moved sharply away from the original Beveridge blueprint. Further, the level of conditionality has been raised, with governments exercising greater and greater control over the lives of claimants, making the system much more punitive and intrusive. Since 2013, more than one million claimants have been sanctioned, leading to a loss of benefits for between one month and three years for some of the most vulnerable of claimants.
Mass sanctioning has led to an increase in destitution and has been one of the principal drivers of the great surge in dependency on food banks. By guaranteeing a weekly income, even at a modest rate, a universal basic income (UBI) would boost the universal element of income support, reduce dependency on means-testing and bring an end to sanctioning.
What are the economic and societal risks that the UBI schemes outlined in the Compass report address?
A UBI would help tackle two key economic and social risks. First, the widespread insecurity and growing risk of poverty associated with work. Today, more than 60 percent of those in relative poverty in the UK are in work, a significant rise compared with the immediate post-war decades. By providing a guaranteed, if modest income, a UBI offers a more robust safety net in a much more insecure, low paid and fragile working environment and will help reduce the risk of poverty amongst those in work.
Secondly, whatever its ultimate impact, the impending technological and robotic revolution is set to bring further disruption and upheaval to jobs and pay. Crucially, a UBI offers an effective way of providing income protection from the wider repercussions of accelerated automation. Further, the robotic revolution may eventually bring significant productivity gains, though to what extent and when remains uncertain. Although these are yet to be realized, these could offer potentially new and significant social and economic opportunities. There is a very real risk, however, that the gains – if they are realized – will be colonized by a small powerful elite, leading to a further jump in inequality and a surge in joblessness. A UBI would play a key role in ensuring that such gains are more evenly shared.
Do you think the alignment between the left and the right over the UBI is sustainable once the specific policy details for implementation are worked out? For example, the report makes clear the UBI would not be revenue neutral nor would it eliminate all means-tested benefits, which might alienate some supporters on the right.
The right and left see a UBI from very different standpoints. The right favours a basic income as a way of achieving a smaller state, and would see its introduction as an opportunity to sweep away a range of other forms of social protection. This is undoubtedly the motive behind the support coming from some Silicon Valley enthusiasts.
The left, on the other hand, views such a scheme as part of a strong state, as a way of securing a robust income floor, of tackling poverty and as a means of promoting equal citizenship. For the left, it is a profoundly democratic and egalitarian concept that promotes both security and greater personal freedom, and a recognition that all citizens have the right to some minimal claim on national income.
These views are clearly incompatible and it is inconceivable that a scheme could be devised that satisfied both sides. Left supporters are clear that a UBI scheme must be seen as a supplement to the wider public provision of services and not as a substitute. A continuing and strengthened role for the public provision of key public services and other forms of state intervention including a generous living wage remain essential as a way of creating further platforms for a more equal and just society.
What other benefits might a UBI offer?
Integral to the concept of a UBI is the promotion of greater freedom and choice, progressive changes with transformative potential. By providing basic security, it would give people more time and more bargaining power in the labour market. With a growing debate about how to balance work-life commitments in an era of much more insecure work, a UBI would offer people greater flexibility between work, leisure and education, and over the type and length of employment while providing greater opportunity for caring and wider community responsibilities. Some might choose to work less or take longer breaks between jobs. Others would be incentivized to start businesses. Some might drop out of work entirely to care or retrain while others might devote more time to leisure, personal care or community support and less to paid work. But implicit to a UBI is that all lifestyle choices would be equally valued.
Importantly, a UBI would both acknowledge and provide financial support for the mass of unpaid work, disproportionately undertaken by women, in childcare, care for the elderly and voluntary help in the wider community.
It would value but not over-value work. The solution to working age poverty has traditionally been through a mix of decently paid employment and state income support. But income support is being weakened while secure work is becoming less available. One of the great strengths of a basic income is that it separates survival from employment and production. Tackling poverty would become less dependent on the ‘work guarantee`.
In the various schemes outlined in the report, it is noted that some form of disability benefits and others would be preserved with the UBI. How would these benefits likely operate with a UBI and how would they change?
Because a flat rate payment makes no allowance for those with additional needs, some types of means-testing would need to stay, even as we moved over time to a fuller and more generous scheme. A feasible UBI system would, for example, need to be supplemented with, at least, the continuation of disability benefits and additional help to cope with high and variable essential living costs, especially housing and childcare.
To deal with the additional costs of disability, existing benefits for disabled people would remain and run alongside the UBI. In the simulations of different UBI schemes in the report, we have retained the Personal Independence Payment and Employment and Support Allowance.
What would be the benefits of creating a Social Wealth Fund to finance the UBI?
Creating a UBI-linked social wealth fund would be one way of securing an independent source of funding outside of the general tax pool. Social wealth funds are a potentially powerful tool in the progressive policy armoury. They are collectively held financial funds, publicly owned, and used for the wider social benefit of society. Such funds have been widely used across a range of countries and would ensure that a higher proportion of the national wealth is held in common and used for public benefit and not for the interests of the few. They are a way of ensuring that at least part of the benefits of some economic activity are pooled and shared amongst all citizens and across generations.
There is already one example of a fund dedicated to a citizen’s payment, one operating in Alaska since 1982. Here, the returns from a sovereign wealth fund, funded by oil revenue, are used to pay an annual citizen’s dividend. There is an important principle involved in such an arrangement: that citizens are the proper owners of the environment and have the right to share equally in its benefits. The benefits from a common asset should not be hived off to a small number of private owners.
Although the UK has already spent most of its oil revenue, there is no reason why such a social wealth fund could not be established using other sources of income. These could include the dividends from a range of other assets – including other natural resources – and the occasional one-off taxes on windfall profits. As in Alaska, such a fund could be allowed to grow over time, with part of the proceeds from its management paid back into the fund, and part used each year to partially fund a UBI scheme. Over time, such a fund could grow significantly, sufficient to help top up any shortfall necessary to pay for a workable UBI scheme.
An alternative, and more radical way of paying for a dedicated UBI fund would be by the dilution of the heavy concentration of capital ownership, achieved through a small annual charge on the owners of shares. Such a proposal was originally made by the distinguished economist and Nobel Laureate James Meade in the 1960s, as a direct way of tackling the risk of ever-growing inequality. Such an idea was widely debated and discussed in the UK, and in some European nations, in the 1970s and 1980s, while one version of such a scheme – the wage-earner fund – was introduced in Sweden in 1981 and lasted for 10 years, though it was not used to fund a UBI or citizen’s payment.
The report notes the growing support across Europe and the UK for the UBI. What are some steps UBI advocates can take to make it a reality?
The pilot schemes being planned for Canada, Finland, the Netherlands and France are having a profound effect on the wider debate about UBI. These forthcoming experiments are helping to build momentum in support of an idea that, until recently was confined mostly to a few think tanks, commentators and academics. Crucially, they will help provide some evidence of the dynamic effects – including on the incentive to work, employment patterns, changes in participants’ well-being and the reaction of employers.
The pilots have helped build interest in the UK, and it is now time to start building on that to promote a much wider national debate on the issue.
Ultimately, a real test of how such a scheme would work depends on the application of a proper, lengthy and adequately sized pilot with a control group. To take advantage of these developments, the UK campaign should follow the lead taken by others and work to build to case for its own pilot scheme.
