by Toru Yamamori | May 8, 2017 | News
In this video, Owen Jones, a British journalist, interviews Rutger Bregman, the author of Utopia for Realists: And How We Can Get There.
Bregman’s book makes the technological unemployment case for a basic income. Jones asks whether this case can stand, referring to John Maynard Keynes’ likely failed prophecy of a 15 hour work week by 2030 in his Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren. Bregman says that many current jobs are unneeded.
For more on ‘bullshit jobs’, see David Graeber’s 2013 article on ‘On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs.’ For social construction of both socially necessary jobs and socially unnecessary jobs, see Toru Yamamori’s keynote speech at 2016 BIEN congress on ‘What Can We Learn From a Grassroots Feminist UBI Movement? – Revisiting Keynes’s Prophecy.’
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
by Kate McFarland | May 4, 2017 | News
Malcolm Torry (Director of the UK BIEN affiliate Citizen’s Income Trust, Co-Secretary of BIEN, and Visiting Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics) has published a recent defense of basic income in the online periodical Social Europe.
Focusing on the example of the UK, Torry argues that a basic income can be afforded by adjusting current systems of taxation and benefits. On the scheme that Torry recommends, means-tested benefits would remain in place, but the amount received by each household or individual would be recalculated to account for the amount of basic income. Citing work by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, Torry maintains that a 3% increase in income tax is sufficient to fund a basic income for the UK that would reduce poverty and inequality at zero net cost, while also allowing many households to move off means-tested programs.
In the past few months, Social Europe has seen a volley of publications on the topic of basic income, including a defense by BIEN Co-Chair Louise Haagh, and varied critical perspectives from Kemal Dervis, Anke Hassel, Francine Mestrum, and Social Europe Editor-in-Chief Henning Meyer.
Full Article:
Malcolm Torry, “Citizen’s Income: Both Feasible And Useful“, Social Europe, April 10, 2017.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY-SA 2.0 Ken Teegardin
by Kate McFarland | May 1, 2017 | Opinion
I have some ambivalence about the attempt to rebrand May Day as “Basic Income Day”. I have some ambivalence also, however, about the “modernization” of May Day as a time to demand higher wages for workers but give no attention to another historically important demand: the demand for reduced working hours. It was the latter, after all, that was at issue in the fateful demonstrations at Haymarket Square in May 1886.
That specific demand, of course, was the eight-hour workday. Over 130 years ago, it was widely accepted that society would not cease to function if workers clocked only eight hours per day. In light of such astronomical increases in productivity over the past 130 years, why, pray tell, is the eight-hour workday still considered standard? Why have demands for reduced work hours been all but absent from the US labor movement for over 80 years? Why has technological advancement not translated to increased leisure? Where is the 15-hour week prophesied by John Maynard Keynes? Where is this “fight for 15” campaign? It seems that a 40-hour work week has become all we can envision; we have lost our imagination.
I used to support a renewal of the demand for reduced work hours–and I still do. But I now recognize that it is insufficient, and insufficiently radical. Given the increasing prevalence of alternative job structures–short-term contract work, freelancing, self-employment–a mandatory reduction in work hours would have little or no effect on a large portion of the economy. And precarious employment, I believe, is something that we should not merely accept as inevitable but indeed welcome and embrace. Although not everyone’s cup of tea, perhaps, the freedom, flexibility, and variety is ideal for many of us–and might well be ideal for many more, if only they had a safety net sufficient to eliminate the constant financial anxiety that too often accompanies the lifestyle.
Rather than merely spending less time in traditional jobs (if they happen to be traditionally employed), individuals could–and should–have the option and opportunity to piece together a livelihood out of part-time and short-term work. Doing so with equanimity, however, requires the reliable financial floor that a basic income could provide. Moreover, a basic income could be considered a subsidy that effectively allows individuals to reduce work hours on their own terms.
Of course, a reduction in work hours is still desirable–and perhaps necessary–for traditional full-time jobs which, after all, still predominate in our society (and this might be joined to other reforms, such as legislation mandating that employers allow job-sharing or permit employees to trade income for time). However, with the rise of the “gig” or “1099” economy, an increasing number of individuals find their time not evenly and consistently distributed between work hours and non-work hours but, instead, erratically and inconsistently divided between times of employment (sometimes at multiple “gigs” at once) and times of underemployment or unemployment. For those of us in precariat, the most suitable analogue to work-hour reduction is the provision of an economic safety net that is not contingent on employment, such as a stakeholder grant or basic income, allowing us to seek fewer part-time jobs or short-term contracts.
In the end, then, insofar as May Day recognizes and commemorates not only the demonstrators at Haymarket Square but also the validity of their demand, it might just be that advocating a basic income is the best way to honor the spirit of the day.
Reviewed by Tyler Prochazka
by Sandro Gobetti | Apr 24, 2017 | Opinion
By: Sandro Gobetti
Basic income began to be debated in Italy from a diverse range of viewpoints about 4-5 years ago, when two law proposals were submitted to the Italian Parliament: one a part of the 5S Movement and the other the outcome of a popular initiative which had more than 50,000 signatures (the necessary threshold according to the Italian Constitution) collected by a pool of political and civil society associations. The role of Bin-Italy, which took part in the judicial extension of the latter text and played a consulting role for the 5S Movement, was particularly important. The two proposals have much in common (for example, that the financing burden falls on collective taxation, that the provision should be individual and not family-based, that the beneficiaries should have, at least at the beginning, an income below the threshold of relative poverty) but also have some differences, especially as to the degree conditionality is concerned.
For the 5S movement the possibility of refusing a job offer is a constrained to a maximum of three times and there is an obligation to work a number of weekly hours in community service. For the law of petition (BIN-Italy law), it introduced the concept of “fairness”, that it is possible to reject any job offer, which is considered “unfair”, since it is in line with the following three parameters: 1. the salary level is lower than previous jobs held or not in line with contractually stipulated pay rates (in the case of the young searching for their first job, without success); 2. the job is not in line with the qualifications and skills of the job-seeker; 3. the workplace is more than 70 km from the job-seekers residence.
Currently, these laws were discussed in the appropriate Labour Committees of the House and Senate but have not yet been put up for voting because the government chose other paths: in March, the new government approved the introduction of Reis (Social Inclusion Income) which presents very different characteristics from basic income and cannot also be considered a minimum income according to the parameters of the EU (PE Resolutions 2009, 2010, Charter of rights, the 1992 Commission Recommendation). Reis is only paid to families that have a total taxable income of less than € 3,000 a year (a ridiculously low amount), have a dependent or a disabled or at least two children and the breadwinner is over 55 years of age. Moreover, Reis includes an obligation to follow a path of integration to work, under penalty of revocation. The available financial resources amount to € 1.1 billion for 2017 and it is expected to increase to € 1,6 billion in 2018. The result is that only ¼ of households in absolute poverty can be helped. It is an expense of 0.1% of the national GDP in a country that already in social spending (net of pension) spends less than half of the average for European countries. The expense to cope with the two proposals for a real minimum income is between € 14 and 16 billion, according to different official statistical sources.
The current debate has given way to some experiments at the local level. Among these, the City of Livorno is testing (for a period of only 6 months), the introduction of a form of income support. To this purpose it has been allocated € 300 thousand. The municipality received 997 applications. Among the requirements was residency in the municipality for at least five years, unemployment status, registration at the employment center and a family income not exceeding € 6530 gross per year. In exchange for € 500 monthly, the municipality invited successful applicants to perform socially useful work.
Some Italian regions such as Puglia, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lombardy have anticipated the governmental model of income support for those in absolute poverty and dependent children or only for the long-term unemployed and often with the obligation to carry out community service: in any case these are not even remotely sufficient to restore decent living conditions. The governor of Apulia Mr. Emiliano even spoke about the cleanliness of the palm leaves on the Bari seafront!
Acceptance with the condition of performing “community work” has been extended to unemployed and workers temporary outside production because of restructuring. Most minimum income experiments at local level are thus more like workfare programs, if not just poverty benefits still tied to a purely assistance-concept, selective, and on a strictly family-oriented basis; this has little to do with a ‘idea’ of a basic minimum income which is also an instrument of freedom and personal self-determination. Further, they are not in line with the instruments already in place in more European countries of fighting social exclusion.
In conclusion, not only is there no actual testing of basic income in Italy, nor are there even forms of guaranteed minimum income consistent with EU parameters. Finally, there is a generalizing culture of coercive control on beneficiaries and induction to accept any kind of work. This is paradoxical in a country known to be free from the implementation of efficient active policies in the labor market and efficient employment services and training.
Last, but not least, in Italy we suffer from a cultural delay regarding the idea that basic income is mainly a primary income. It is a means of remuneration, and not only passive assistance, of all the lifetime that today is put to labor and to value but not yet certified as productive labor and, hence, paid. It is not even related to the fact that unpaid labor is sharply increasing.
Executive Committee Basic Income Network – Italy
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
by Furui Cheng | Apr 18, 2017 | Opinion
Furui Cheng
In the discourse of global basic income debates, China provides the most recent example of a social dividend-style basic income, similar to the Alaskan model. In discussions surrounding Nixon’s welfare reform in the 1970s, which was a quasi-basic income proposal, four different anti-poverty paradigms competed for influence. None of them can well explain today’s social dividend examples. We need a new paradigm in the current round of worldwide basic income debates.
China’s new facts
In November of last year I introduced the Huaidi case from China, in which villagers cooperated in urbanization and received high levels of welfare from their collectively owned land. This is not the only such case in China, however. The Chinese Famous Villages Influence Ranking was published in 2016, and 300 villages were selected from thousands in a joint effort by the Working Committee of Chinese Village Development Association, the Modern Village and Town Development Research Center of Tongji University, the Chinese Council of APCRD (the Chinese Association for Rural Community Development) and the Chinese Reputation Center (CPPC). The evaluation of the influence of Chinese villages in 2016 was mainly based on the comprehensive evaluation of the following factors: the village development index, people’s livelihood index, management index, charm index, green index and reputation index. In this way, the evaluation depends not only on per capita GDP or income, but also on living conditions, security conditions and interpersonal relationships, as well as the temperament of the villagers, including their mental state, sense of ownership and so on. This evaluation incorporates the well-being of the people and promotes the comprehensive development of further villages. The Zhejiang province has 37 villages in the ranking list, the most of all the provinces. Huaidi is one of the Hebei province’s 15 ranking villages, which ranks 77th of the total 300.
In addition to the regional welfare from land, China’s fiscal contribution by national state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has increased in recent years. In the past, Chinese SOEs only paid tax to the budget, but kept all their after tax profits. Since 2007, SOEs have increasingly paid part of their net profits to the national budget. This proportion will rise to 30% of total profits in 2020. There are four different categories of SOEs. The first type includes tobacco, petroleum and petrochemical, electricity production, telecommunications, coal and other resource monopoly industries and enterprises, which pay 20% of their net profits to the state. The second type includes steel, transportation, electronics, trade, construction and others in the competitive industries, paying a proportion of 15%. The third category includes the military and scientific research institutes, contributing 10%. The fourth category encompasses policy companies, including the Chinese Grain Reserves Corporation and the Chinese Cotton Reserves Corporation, which are exempt from turning over their net profits. Of interest, the proportion of the China National Tobacco Corporation’s net profits to be paid to the state has increased to 25%, singling the corporation out as a fifth category of its own. Part of the revenue from SOEs’ profits has been injected into the national social security system to benefit the majority.
Regardless of the origin of the social dividend – whether public land or SOEs – it is similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) model.
A new paradigm?
What are the key elements in the current global discussions about basic income? Is it simply an anti-poverty strategy, just like any other kind of social assistance program in operation? Or is it a comprehensive overhaul of the welfare system, like the New Deal transformation was in the 1930s, which came to form the very basis of the current social security system? The most controversial elements of debates surrounding present public welfare systems and basic income proposals include work ethic, fiscal affordability, a culture of desert and civil rights, among other aspects. The latter has been reviewed in detail in recent history, especially since Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan (FAP) legislation. The main characteristic of FAP is that people can receive the benefit without work requirement, and independently of their family structure. This is very similar to today’s unconditional basic income definition, although FAP is not universal.
At the outset of the Nixon administration, proponents of four fundamentally different anti-poverty paradigms, each of which contained a different causal story, competed for influence. Three of these paradigms supported Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) plans. Proponents of an economic citizenship paradigm identified the economic system, especially structural unemployment and the wage structure, as the source of poverty. For proponents of this view, the objective of GAI policy was to alleviate poverty and provide citizens with basic income security.
The family stability paradigm identified the social system, especially changing family structures within poor, typically black communities, as the source of poverty. Proponents of this view hoped that GAI policies would decrease poverty by providing additional support for maintaining two-parent families, since rates of marital breakup appeared to be correlated with poverty rates.
The laissez-faire paradigm, which GAI supporters with a libertarian orientation invoked, identified the welfare system and its alleged perverse incentives against work as the root of the problem. Laissez-faire proponents felt that GAI plans would rationalize the welfare system by creating stronger incentives for labor market participation while also granting the poor greater freedom.
The main opposition to GAI proposals within the administration came from officials who saw the behavior of the poor themselves as the primary cause of poverty and believed that welfare reform should rehabilitate the poor by exposing them to the discipline of the labor market. This rehabilitation paradigm argued that limiting eligibility for social provisions and requiring recipients of government benefits to work would be the best path to eliminating poverty.
Is Alaska’s PFD or China’s current social policy context embedded in any of the above paradigms? I don’t think so. At least, that is to say, the four paradigms that undergirded this decade-long debate half a century ago are not sufficient to underpin a new round of worldwide debates on basic income. For example, many countries are considering levying a tax on various kinds of resources, including land, minerals, oil and gas, internet infrastructure, etc. (1). But if we want to justify these different kinds of taxes for financing basic income, the world need a new paradigm. As Philippe Van Parijs says: “It needs to recognize fully that the bulk of our real incomes is not the fruit of the efforts of today’s workers (let alone of the abstinence of today’s capitalists), but a gift from nature increasingly combined with capital accumulation, technological innovation and institutional improvements inherited from the past.”
Notes:
(1) Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (edited), “Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012
More information at:
Furui Cheng, “Cooperative Society and Basic Income: A Case from China”, Basic Income News, November 10th 2016
Brian Steensland, “The Failed Welfare Revolution: America’s Struggle over Guaranteed Income Policy”, Princeton University Press, September 2007
Philippe Van Parijs, “Basic Income and Social Democracy”, Social Europe, April 11th 2016
[in Chinese]
The editor, “The Chinese Famous Villages Influence Ranking”, The Orientation News, December 16th 2016
HEB101, “Famous Villages in Hebei Province”, Hebei News, December 14th 2016
About the author: Cheng Furui is undertaking a post-doctoral program in the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. She got her PhD from Tsinghua University and her research interest is public policy. “Social Assistance and Poverty Alleviation Divergence: A Capability Approach” is her first published book based on her doctoral dissertation, which explores the Chinese social safety net in detail. She is now a voluntary news editor of BIEN, and also one of the organizers of China Social Dividend/Basic Income Network: bienchina.com.
Article reviewed by André Coelho and
