You searched for growth | Page 33 of 64 | BIEN

Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy

by Jason Burke Murphy | Feb 3, 2017 | Opinion

Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy: Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People

Written by: Katja Kipping

[A long translator’s note: Katja Kipping is chair of the Left Party (Linkspartei) in Germany and a member of the national parliament. She has served as spokesperson for Germany’s Basic Income Network (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen). Within the Left Party, she organized the “Emancipatory Left” faction and writes for the libertarian socialist magazine “Prague Spring” (Prager Frühling).

Kipping presented this lecture “Grundeinkommen als Demokratiepauschale” at the Basic Income Earth Network Congress in Seoul, Korea, July 19th. She has frequently argued for basic income throughout Germany and has helped organize a “Basic Income faction” that includes most political parties in parliament.

I have translated this with the hope that left organizations worldwide will pay attention to her vision of basic income as a core component for the democratic left. Basic income would provide a clear sign that the left has learned from problems wrought in the past by bureaucracy, technocracy, and authoritarianism. Kipping draws from a constitutional republican tradition of investigating institutions that promote robust citizenship and deliberation. See Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015. She also links her hopes with that of the degrowth movement. I see basic income, as Kipping presents it here, as an antidote to alienation and right-populism. Social analysis shows basic income to be part of the design of truly public institutions.

Any lapses in quality or argumentation should be attributed to me.

Please note that Kipping also presented in Dublin at the 12th Basic Income Earth Network Congress in 2008. “Moving to Basic Income (BI) – A left-wing political perspective” can be found at BIEN’s website.

You can a video of Kipping presenting the original German speech at https://bien2016.org/en/video-basic-income-and-politics-of-democracy/.

The text of her speech can be found at: https://www.katja-kipping.de/de/article/1112.grundeinkommen-als-demokratiepauschale.html. ]

Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy

Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People

Contents

Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.

Economic Might for All – basic Income and democratic institutions

Closing Remarks on social transformation

1. Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.

Radical democratic approaches to basic income pay close attention to the connections between people and to their mutual dependencies within a community. The community is here understood as something public and political. It is oriented towards the well-being of all and should be shaped by all. From this it follows that freedom should not be understood as a mere absence of intervention or interference. On the contrary, freedom should be understand as independence over against any arbitrary authority [Fremdherrschaft]. Freedom, in this sense, implies no arbitrary interventions or interference on the part of state institutions and also no possibility of such interventions and interference. Intervention is arbitrary if an intervention comes whenever the intervener wills it.

Freedom, on the other hand, is fulfilled primarily through self-governance. Self-governance is formed by social and individual organization and also by monitoring these potential interventions and the institutions capable of them. Individual freedom, viewed in such an intersubjective political context, is also social freedom. The highest value is active participation of all in the res publica – a collective deliberative democratic self-determination. This naturally implies social equality and the securing of social freedom, which implies preventing any economically grounded dominance and dependency. Laws and institutions also need to reflect, promote, and enable the common good and self-governance. (See Socialist Party South Korea 2009, Patry 2010, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2012, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2015).

The following six theses on the establishment of a basic income as an all-inclusive democratic subsidy can be derived from these basic principles of radical democracy and social freedom.

Basic Income must secure what a political community requires from each citizen in terms of money. This includes securing existence, social participation, and participation in political life. This unconditional guarantee of existence and participation has a monetary component. Non-monetary components also exist, such as free access to public goods, and to public infrastructure and services. These monetary and non-monetary components do not exclude each other but rather they complete one another. Both these monetary and non-monetary forms should, first, provide people socio-economic independence and, second, preserve their status as citizens with economic negotiating power whereby they can participate in the formation of society. Without the adequate safeguarding of free and equal conditions of social participation, no democratic participation is possible – formal possibilities for participation are not enough.

Whoever does not have enough material resources is first of all excluded from political participation and, secondly, doesn’t have enough negotiating power within political processes. This means that basic income, like all vital services, needs to be provided long-term. As I see it, this is not a problem in a time of high productivity and surplus. At most, it is a problem for those who do not want to give up economic privileges and political power. There is enough for all—worldwide!

From a radical-democratic perspective, the basic income on a regular basis is preferable to single disbursements, like with a stakeholder grant or starting capital. Only regular payments can guarantee a lifelong income and its corresponding participation.

The right to an unconditional basic income must be combined with a modern understanding of citizenship. A distinction between a majority of citizens and a minority of immigrants with regard to elementary socioeconomic rights and opportunities would lead to a problematic division of the community and a majority’s dominance over a minority.

From a radical democratic viewpoint, people receive the unconditional basic income as equal members of the political community, not as part of a needy group that depends on the state. Any particular stigmatization of population groups splits the community and is a source for domination. That would still be true with a partial basic income (or transfers that do not secure survival or make social participation possible) that is supplemented by need-tested, income-tested, or asset-tested social benefits in order to reach a sufficient level.

It is clear that a person, who must make him or herself a stigmatized petitioner at the social office has a significantly harder time taking an upright path towards the political formation of the community. As Zygmunt Bauman formulated it: “The decisive argument in favor of the basic income is that it is the conditio sine qua non of a republic, as it can only exist in the union of people with self-confidence, of people without existential anxiety. A basic income which actually secures existence and allows social participation would establish a principle of citizens’ rights, rights that are not subject to a divisive and disqualifying ‘access test’ by need tests.” (Bauman 1999). [Note: this is a translation of the Bauman quote as found in Kipping’s speech. –JBM]

Therefore 5 holds: All citizens only have their rights fully recognized reciprocally through a sufficient basic income. This also means that more affluent citizens are comparatively more likely to contribute to the financing of the basic income than the less well-off citizens. This poses the question of the redistribution of economic resources and economic power.

Basic income is not tied to any condition. An obligation towards any social or political participation would be sources of new domination. These would enable arbitrary interventions. The question of what makes something socially recognizable, and what does not, opens up a considerable amount of bureaucratic discretion. A citizen’s right to a basic income that included a direct citizen obligation would also transform voluntary engagement into regulated compulsory participation.

I would like to end this section with a quote from a German supporter of basic income who is also a politician. “It is farcical that MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] claim to maintain their substantial independence through relatively high salaries in order to make themselves non-extortionable but most of these deputies do not consider it necessary to ensure such independence and non-blackmail for the sovereign, the people” (Spehr 2003, 105). Basic income’s individual guarantee of a secure existence and participation is, alongside other forms of universal security for people (such as free access to public goods, social infrastructure, and social services), an indispensable prerequisite for social freedom, democratic and political engagement and the negotiating power for all people. It is an all-inclusive democratic subsidy!

2. Economic power for all – basic income and democratic institutions

Whoever says A must also say B. Who calls for basic income so that people can enter the public sphere with negotiating power must also call for the public shaping of our political foundations, economy, and everyday life (see Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015). We need this to secure a basic income and other sorts of public services. Arbitrary interferences in human affairs through economic power, by endangering survival, health, and natural resources is not acceptable. An economy that is deprived of public organization, an economy that is privatized, is unacceptable. That also means that an economy and a financial sector that is immune to democratic control and influence is likewise unacceptable.

An imbalance in power through the deprivation of the public (privatization) in one form or another reaches deeply into real political and social power relations and removes the political and therefore citizens from the formation and control of public affairs. On the one hand, this includes power that arises from economic distribution—income, assets, and investment opportunities. This certainly also includes power in the realm of shaping and administering the economy and the financial sector. Who actually determines the use of natural resources, production resources, investment and the way in which economic activities are taxed? Who is exercising an alienated domination over the people today with real, unequally distributed, forms of design and control, and who subjects society and the economy to the will of a minority?

In addition to basic income and other forms of life and of participation for all people, social freedom requires the self-government of the citizens: by means of joint and individual control and appropriate intervention possibilities, which are secured by appropriately democratic institutions. These institutions must give all people the opportunity to shape social and economic life individually and collectively (see Cassasas / De Wispelaere 2015).

Economic power for all means basic income, including other unconditional support for existence. It also means the safeguarding of the economy and society for all and the institutionally secured public and political shaping of the economy and the society by all. This makes a democratic social transformation all the more necessary and urgent. Tomorrow, I am speaking at another conference about the challenge that this entails for the European left.

3. Concluding Remarks on Socio-Ecological Transformation

Poverty and exclusion, power over the many by the few, and destruction of the natural foundations of human life – that is the situation.

The international degrowth movement, which is committed to a world with significantly less natural resource consumption and to a rollback of ecological destruction and damage to our planet, therefore argues for the cohesion of ecology, democracy and social security of all people, and thus for the convergence of the various social movements and political actors (see Blaschke 2016).

It seems to me that only with this complex point of view and a committed relationship between social movements can the challenges of the 21st century be countered. Basic income, which in fact assures material existence and enables social participation, is an important component of a social-ecological transformation, which seeks to also be a democratic transformation!

Literature:

Bauman, Zygmunt (1999), In Search of Politics. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Blaschke, Ronald (2016), Grundeinkommen und Degrowth – Wie passt das zusammen? https://www.degrowth.de/de/2016/02/grundeinkommen-und-degrowth-wie-passt-das-zusammen/

Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2012), The Alaska Model: A Republican Perspective. In: Karl Widerquist / Michael W. Howard (Ed.): Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Examining his Suitability as a Model, New York, 169-188.

Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2015), Republicanism and the political economy of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, September, 1-18.

Kipping, Katja (2009), Ausverkauf der Politik. Für einen demokratischen Aufbruch, Berlin.

Patry, Eric (2010), Das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen in der Schweiz. Eine republikanische Perspektive, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.

Socialist Party South Korea, Unconditional Basic Income and General Social Care, Party Program, Supplement No. 1, 2009 (Translation of Socialist Party of South Korea, “Basic Income for All und Universal Welfare”, translation by Min Geum, https://www.grundeinkommen.de/ Content / uploads / 2010/08 / 10-05-22-bge-program-socialist-party-korea-endrb.pdf

Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.

Translated by Jason Burke Murphy, Elms College

AUDIO: Basic Income – An idea whose time has come?

by Andre Coelho | Feb 3, 2017 | News

Photo: Nick Pearce. Credit to: Bristol Festival of Ideas.

In this audio recording of a conversation, in front of a live audience at the Bristol Festival of Ideas on the 17^th of November, 2016, Louise Haagh, Anthony Painter, Nick Pearce and Torsten Bell discuss the pros and cons of the basic income idea, chaired by Jonathan Derbyshire.

In this talk, Anthony Painter, the Director of the Action Research Center at the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), starts by describing what he calls the “gig economy” (one economy driven by tasks, not by jobs). He also refers to the great changes in the distribution of work which are occurring right now, and in the relationships with intelligent machines. According to him, people are feeling increasingly uncertain and powerless, which generates stress. That is his first argument for basic income: it is an agent for freedom. He says politics for basic income must be based in solidarity, empathy and compassion, and that basic income should not be pursued as an end in itself, but as a test and a measure for the betterment of society.

Nick Pierce, professor of Public Policy at the University of Bath (and former Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research), goes on to say that he considers himself to be a “friendly skeptic” of basic income. He recognizes qualities in the basic income movement, led by many activists, who defend tackling problems with current welfare states and pursue a vision/trend for the betterment of society; not simply reacting to problems. On the other hand, he does not agree that basic income can liberate individuals (from entanglement with the State and with the market), nor that it can liberate individuals from work. According to Pierce, work is a way to gain personal fulfillment and, as such, looks at basic income proponents as “anti-work” in a sense. He also fears basic income might lead people to disengage from one another, hence he considers it a dangerous form of dependency, particularly towards the State (seen as a provider). Pierce also points out that basic income, as a policy, will be a result of the social forces that have forged the different welfare states, hence may differ considerably from region to region. He advises basic income advocates to consider all of these regional differences, in order to propose meaningful basic income strategies.

Louise Haagh

Louise Haagh, as Reader at the Department of Politics in the University of York and co-Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), replies that basic income is a “natural outgrowth of social democracy”. This comes despite Haagh’s agreement that, in fact, the basic income movement has failed to detail the implementation realities of basic income around the world. However, she feels it has succeeded in getting basic income out of academia and into mainstream discourse. She also points out that other welfare features, such as public education and health, do not contain as many conditions as income support (e.g. behavioral conditions), but agrees that basic income should not be seen as a replacement for organized fulltime employment. Rather, they should be seen as a complementary feature to guarantee full citizenship. She also sees basic income as a small but crucial strategic element that enables societies to think about their development with a more long-term approach.

On the critical side against basic income, Torsten Bell, Director of the Resolution Foundation, says that basic income interest has appeared due to two anxieties: robot anxiety (human jobs are being “eaten” by machines) and Left Existential anxiety (real wages stagnate or dropped, plus support for the traditional Left is fading). However, he perceives this interest as waning progressively. Bell is convinced basic income is not going to happen in the UK, reasoning that robots are systematically underperforming compared to their human counterparts, and that there have never been more jobs in the UK. Moreover, he says, statistics show that part-time jobs are not rising, or have not been, since records have existed. Bell detaches the United States case from the European reality, stating that what is happening in the former is not likely to happen in the latter, and equates basic income to higher taxes and higher poverty. He further reasons that it makes no sense to give a basic income to rich people, and that generally the public does not like the idea that “you should be paid not to work”. Finally, he disagrees with a political organization system where an elite at the top own the robots and make all the money, which is then redistributed to everyone else (assumed idle).

Replying to criticisms, Anthony Painter underlines that the world of work is getting more precarious, less paid and more insecure; hence something – like basic income – must be done about it. Contrary to Torsten’s assertion, he highlights that basic income advocates usually justify basic income as a way to validate work, giving people the opportunity to contribute to society in a meaningful way. He also points out that any basic income implementation cannot possibly surpass the already tremendously bureaucratic welfare state in the UK, so it is only bound to reduce it. On the other hand, Nick Pierce disagrees that basic income is waning, but agrees that politicians are constantly searching for “big ideas” to hold on to. Finally, Louise Haagh agrees that fortunately the basic income idea is not defended on a pure philosophical ground anymore, but instead has progressed to a more hands-on, practical approach. As Nick, she also disagrees that the notion of a basic income is waning, judging from the daily activity at BIEN.

Listen to the full conversation:

Bristol Festival of Ideas, “Basic Income – An idea whose time has come?”, in association with the Institute for Policy Research and the University of Bath, November 17^th 2016

VIDEO: Indian Statistical Institute Panel Discussion on Universal Basic Income

by Kate McFarland | Jan 24, 2017 | News

The Indian Statistical Institute hosted its 12th Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development (ACEGD) on December 19-21, 2016. ACEGD’s plenary sessions included a 90-minute panel on universal basic income and its relevance for India.

Universal basic income (UBI) has become a hotly debated issue in India. At the end of January, the Ministry of Finance will release its Economic Survey, which is expected to include a chapter addressing UBI. Leading economists have defended various forms of UBI for India (see, for example, a recent e-symposium in Ideas for India), and MPs such as Varun Gandhi and Jay Panda have voiced support.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, a panel on UBI was also held as part of the latest Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development, held in December at the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) in Delhi. This conference included a panel on UBI, featuring five economists: Debraj Ray (New York University), Kalle (Karl Ove) Moene (University of Oslo), Rajiv Sethi (Columbia University), Himanshu (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and Amarjeet Sinha (Government of Bihar).

Ray and Moene have jointly developed a proposal for what they call a “universal basic share” (UBS) in India. Like a UBI, a UBS would provide each citizen with regular unconditional cash transfers of an equal amount. However, in contrast to most UBI proposals, a UBS fixes the amount of these transfers to a fraction of the GDP rather than a specific monetary amount. Ray and Moene recommend that India dedicate 12% of its GDP to the provision of a UBS. They calculate that, at present, this would provide each adult citizen with a basic income approximately equal to the country’s poverty line.

At the ACEGD panel, Ray introduces the idea of UBS, after briefly outlining the present worldwide interest in UBI, precursors such as the Alaskan Permanent Fund and Dividend and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, and several sources of the present interest in UBI in India, including the pilot studies in Madhya Pradesh, the Goan permanent fund, and political and popular “exasperation” with the nation’s current subsidies for the poor. Following Ray, Moene elaborates upon the UBS proposal and some of its advantages, such as encouraging risk-taking and allowing individuals to do the work they want. Moene also replies to the common objection that a basic income would discourage work, stressing that this is not what is observed in the most generous welfare states, nor what’s observed when wealthy people receive an inheritance.

Sethi, who has studied UBI primarily in the US context, presents additional arguments in favor of the policy, including its cross-partisan appeal and its ability to mitigate economic shock due to automation. He also raises questions concerning the precise design of a UBI, such as whether the basic income should extend to minors and how it would be linked with macroeconomic policies.

The last two panelists, Himanshu and Sinha, argue that India should prioritize public spending on universal basic services, rather than simply distributing cash to individuals. About UBI, Himanshu states that the question is not whether it should be adopted, but why and when. While allowing that UBI is a good idea in principle, he maintains that it is not yet time to introduce such a policy in India, given that many in the country lack clean water, access to education, and other essential public goods. Sinha, expanding on Himanshu’s thesis, stresses that “we should not lose sight of the need to craft credible public systems” — and worries that a UBI would divert money and attention from necessary improvements of education, health, housing, and public infrastructure.

Video, Part 1: Ray, Moene, Sethi

Video, Part 2: Sethi (cont’d), Himanshu, Sinha

The five presentations were followed by a 30-minute Q&A session, touching on such topics as private versus public provision of services (which Ray eventually describes as a distraction from the real issues), immigration and basic income, UBI versus UBS during economic downturns, and others.

Video: Q&A

Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg

Photo: Delhi, India CC BY 2.0 Ville Miettinen

MANCHESTER, UK: “Universal Basic Income: the centrepiece of a just society”

by Kate McFarland | Jan 23, 2017 | News

On Monday, January 30, BIEN Co-Chair Karl Widerquist will deliver a public lecture on “Basic Income: the centrepiece of a just society” at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU).

The event is hosted by Steady State Manchester — a community group dedicated to exploring the limitations of economic growth with a view towards an alternative “viable economics” — as well as the Research Center for Social Change and Community Wellbeing at MMU.

Details about Widerquist’s lecture, including registration information, are available on EventBrite. The event is free and open on the public.

The Social Change and Community Wellbeing research group is currently preparing a report on the psychological impact of a universal basic income. This report will be launched on February 18, 2017, at the Fair Living Festival at MMU. Information about this latter event will also be available on EventBrite.

Reviewed by Dave Clegg.

Manchester Ship Canal photo CC BY-SA 2.0 David Dixon.

Seoul National University Economy professor Lee Keun says South Korea needs BI

by BIEN | Jan 21, 2017 | News

(Image Credit: The Hankyoreh Media Company)

According to business writer Kwack Jung-soo, South Korea will need to make fundamental changes to its operations due to the nation’s prolonged low growth and lack of new growth engines.

In a new book entitled 2017 Grand Forecast for the South Korean Economy, 43 economics experts provide analyses and possible solutions to the economic crisis in South Korea.

One contributor, Professor Lee Keun of Seoul National University, believes that the present situation is a “crisis of South Korean capitalism” rooted in income inequality. He maintains that part of the solution is a “basic income system” in which “sufficient livelihood benefits would be paid to all citizens to keep them out of poverty, regardless of assets, income, or working status” (in the words of reporter Jung-soo).

Read the full article here:

Kwack Jung-soo, “Economists saynin 2017 will enter “long-term low growth conditions“, The Hankyoreh, November 23, 2016.

Reviewed by Kate McFarland