OPINION: Report from Brussels, 26-27 April 2012

More than fifty delegates, of all ages and from sixteen countries, gathered at the European Parliament in Brussels on the 26th and 27th April 2012 to discuss an exciting new venture: a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) entitled ‘Unconditional Basic Income’ (UBI). This was the inspiration of Klaus Sambor from Austria. Together with a group of people who met in Vienna in October 2011, he put together a text in English which was circulated to interested parties for comment prior to the Brussels meeting. This initiative has been possible because on April 1, 2012 a new participatory tool was born: the European Citizens’ Initiative.  From now on, we – the citizens of the European Union – have the same right as a majority in the European Parliament and the Member States: to contribute to setting the political agenda for the whole continent.  (The European Citizens’ Initiative Pocket Guide, by Bruno Kaufmann, published by the Green European Foundation, March 2012, www.gef.eu.)

The purpose of the meeting in Brussels was to agree the text of the ‘Unconditional Basic Income’ paper for the introduction of an ECI into the Parliament, asking the EU to speed up the introduction of a UBI. The paper comprised a short section that introduced the topic of a UBI, setting out the objectives and defining what was meant by a UBI. The major part was taken up by referring to Articles in various pieces of legislation, including the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, March 2010. The introduction of a UBI would help the Parliament to fulfil its obligations under each of the specified Articles.

The meeting was hosted in the European Parliament by Gerald Häfner, MEP for the Green Party in Germany, who welcomed the delegates on the Thursday afternoon. Then Werner Rätz, also from Germany, led an interesting debate on the social context for the introduction of both an ECI and the UBI: changing employment patterns and inadequate income maintenance systems, which had led to widespread poverty, and to increasing inequality between rich and poor. Participants deplored the punitive and controlling nature of the various social security systems within the EU.

Klaus Sambor then went over the first definitive part of the document, giving the purposes for, and definition of, the UBI, indicating why certain wordings had been chosen. ‘The emancipatory “Unconditional Basic Income” is defined by the following four criteria: universal, individual, unconditional, and high enough to ensure an existence in dignity and participation in society.’ He said that the UBI does not replace the welfare state, but completes it and transforms it from a compensatory into an emancipatory one. He explained that only the four criteria for the UBI would be specified, and not any particular means of funding it at this stage. He felt that it was important to get the idea of the UBI accepted first, and to fight the sources-of-funding battle later. It was recognised that it would be up to each member state to work out its particular means of implementing its own scheme, but that the EU would probably have to be involved directly to some extent.

The initial explanation was followed by the first of the two purposes of the conference, which was to discuss the subject matter and objectives of the document.  Part of the discussion revolved around the question as to whether one should change the definition of the UBI in order to increase the chance of its being adopted. However, it was agreed that some things were inviolable, such as the unconditional nature of the UBI. Even then, because its presence would alienate the Trade Unions, some recommended the removal of the clause which referred to there being no obligation to work (inserted to illustrate the unconditional nature of the UBI). The discussion went on past its allotted time of six o’clock, after which the delegates were invited to a drinks reception beside an exhibition comprising photographs and other documents from Ojivero-Omitara in Namibia, showing the tremendously beneficial lasting effects of the Basic Income experiment conducted during 2008 and 2009.

During the evening some modest changes were made to the document. The following morning, the company reassembled in order to approve the final draft of the ECI. Some further discussion took place about the wording of the ‘universality’ criterion, with respect to who should be eligible, whether the ‘European citizen’ (with its legal connotations), or a ‘member’, ‘inhabitant’, ‘legal resident’ or just ‘resident’ of the European Union. In the end, those present voted to refer to the UBI as a human right, without specifying the population, again leaving that battle for a later date.

In the end, the clause about there being ‘no obligation to work’ as an example of the ‘unconditionality’ criterion remained, even though members of the Italian basic income network, Bin Italia, were very pessimistic, feeling that it would make it almost impossible to achieve any success in Italy, because of the antipathy from the Trade Unions.

During these sometimes fierce debates, I was reminded of the Basic Income Research Group / Citizen’s Income Trust early discussions. After the relief of meeting some other basic income enthusiasts in 1983, I was surprised to discover how hotly we debated the finer details of our favourite schemes. Back then, as in Brussels, it took us some time to work out what our objectives were, and what was the instrument. Did we want a BI for its own sake, or because it fulfilled certain objectives?  We noted that some good unintended consequences would follow, so should these also be listed with the objectives? We had to learn how to prioritise objectives.

Bin Italia had provided an alternative version of the ECI document, the purpose of which was to ensure that the group followed the procedures set out for the introduction of an ECI closely.  They were in favour of having less precise definitions of a UBI, so that the EU would have less reason to reject the idea out of hand as inadmissible, and also to appeal to a wider set of interest groups, thus widening participation.   Some of their ideas were adopted and were put into the final draft, but Bin Italia felt strongly that there should have been a proposal to vote for either their version or the previous one, but this did not happen.

In the end, compromise has to be reached because one cannot please everyone. I myself would have preferred a slightly different definition of the UBI, which would have emphasised that it was not means-tested, and that it was not just assessed on an individual basis, but also delivered to each adult recipient on an individual basis too. I would also have liked non-selectivity to be introduced as a concept, where the amounts that are received are not based on different characteristics, such as gender, age, marital status or household composition, to distinguish it from the unconditionality concept, where the right to the UBI would not depend on preconditions being met.

The second main purpose of the conference was to draw up the outline of a Campaign for the ECI. This requires obtaining the signatures of one million (1,000,000) EU citizens, out of its five hundred million inhabitants, either through a website, or by the usual signed petition, within a period of one year.   A Citizens Committee was set up, comprising an organiser (together with at least two substitutes in case the need should arise) from each country present, to help to organise the campaign.   The task is to specify some succinct wording on the petition, and to obtain legal advice to make sure that the wording and process of the ECI conforms to EU legislation: otherwise the Parliament could reject the ECI out of hand.  Gerald Häfner was very helpful in giving some overall guidance about how to present an ECI to the Parliament, and he suggested strategies. Klaus Sambor and Ronald Blaschke (who had also been closely involved in the development of the ECI document) were voted as Chair and Vice Chair of the committee respectively. It was agreed that the first meeting of the committee will be held on the 7th and 8th July in Paris. It is hoped that the preparatory arrangements will be made in time for the Campaign to be launched on the afternoon of Sunday the 16th September, the last day of the 14th BIEN Congress, to be held near Munich, Germany.

I am left feeling excited about this new enterprise, but also feeling rather humble as, so often on the continent, all those around could communicate in many languages, while I could merely offer my one and only. I am also left with a warm glow of having been with a group of friendly people, who all believe that ‘human beings are more important than the economy’.

A new think tank, Green House, has published a report

A new think tank, Green House, has published a report entitled Mutual Security in a Sustainable Economy, by Molly Scott Cato and Brian Heatley. The authors argue that the benefits system needs to be taken out of the context of a neo-liberal market economy and re-considered afresh against the reality of the coming sustainable economy. They call for a new definition of poverty, a system based on individuals, the abolition of a retirement age, greater thrift, an emphasis on traditional skills for self-reliance, and a Citizen’s Income.

To read the report, go to:
www.greenhousethinktank.org/page.php?pageid=recentpublications

Germany: New website with English materials and texts

The German Basic Income Network (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen) has extended its website to include some English material. It hopes to offer more material in English step-by-step.  So far, the English text includes a definition of Basic Income; the structure, work and aims of the German network; an overview about models and approaches to Basic Security and Basic Income in Germany and France; and materials of the symposium, held in October 2011 in Vienna.

– Joerg Drescher

Link:
https://www.grundeinkommen.de/services/english-page

BAERT, Anthony (2011), ‘Experiências de transferência de renda universal…'

BAERT, Anthony (2011), ‘Experiências de transferência de renda universal e recomendações para o projeto de Renda Básica de Cidadania em Santo Antônio do Pinhal’…

This timely paper is aimed at contributing to the understanding of the concrete implementation of the Citizen’s Basic Income. Firstly, the author (A. Baert from Louvain University, Belgium) describes the concrete functioning of the three experiences of universal income transfer that have been conducted in the world until today: the Alaska Permanent Fund, the pilot project of the BIG Coalition in Otjivero-Omitara (Namibia) and the pilot project of the NGO ReCivitas in Quatinga Velho (Brazil). For each, Baert distinguishes four aspects of their functioning (institutional structure, funding, eligibility and payment) and analyzes their sustainability. Secondly, on the basis of this comparative research, the author makes recommendations for the implementation of a Citizen’s Basic Income in Santo Antonio do Pinhal (Brazil). Baert concludes that it is not viable on the short and medium term, and he suggests to launch a five-year pilot project instead.

Full references:

BAERT, Anthony (2011), ‘Experiências de transferência de renda universal e recomendações para o projeto de Renda Básica de Cidadania em Santo Antônio do Pinhal’, Center for Studies on Inequality and Development (https://www.proac.uff.br/cede/), Discussion Paper No. 54 – September 2011, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil. The paper is available at: https://www.proac.uff.br/cede/sites/default/files/TD54.pdf

ITO, Makoto (2011), 'Verifying the Basic Income Concept: Its Potency and Extent'

ITO, Makoto (2011), ‘Verifying the Basic Income Concept: Its Potency and Extent’ (‘Basic Income-ron wo kensho-suru: sono kanosei to genkai’), in Sekai [The World], Vol. 814, March 2011, published by Iwanami Shoten.

Due to growing financial deterioration of the government and weakened family ties and company welfarism, “new poverty” (such as an increasing number of “working poor”, single mothers and the elderly with low or no pension, etc., unable to respond to with existing social security schemes) is spreading in Japan. Against this situation, the Basic Income (BI) vision is drawing increasing attention. The interest in it, as for now, stays mainly in the academic circles specializing in social security studies. Though, tomes and answer books on BI have been published one after another. Basic Income Japan Network (BIJN) was launched in April 2010.

The definition of BI by Van Parijs is commonly referred to in Japan, and BI variants including proposals of ones at the supranational level have been brought to the knowledge. The background of the rise of the BI vision in the West consists of the blank wall of social welfare schemes developed during the high economic growth after the World-War 2 and employment policies based on the Keynesianism as well as the disappointment and antipathy to socialism of the Soviet-type. Meanwhile, neo-liberalism aspiring revitalization of individual liberty in free market has swept through the society. Under the circumstance, BI with individual payment, no means test and no work condition aspiring liberation of individuals from bureaucratic control attracts even libertarians. On the other hand, thinkers aiming at revitalization of socialism, feminists, ecologists, and so on support BI combining their own ideal with BI. In Japan, however, being introduced to BI about two decades later from the West, it is conceived as only an alternative to existing social security schemes, and few people discuss it in the aspect of social reformation thinking. Marxists have little contribution to the BI discussions.

As for the feasibility of BI in Japan, Shuji Ozawa first estimated in 2002. He conceived of a BI scheme at the level of 80, 000 JPY per person a month taking the levels of existing money grant schemes into account relying on a new revenue from raised income tax rate at the level of 50 % (maximum rate at that time was 37 %). When it is applied to a standard household with two parents and two children, their net income will decrease by 940 thousand JPY per year. But if the household has one more child, the loss will be almost cancelled. He later redesigned his BI scheme (at the level of 50,000 JPY per person a month) maintaining ongoing tax rate and integrating pension schemes with the BI. In the days ahead, design and discussions of BI schemes are expected. In any case, they may be gradual introduction of partial BI schemes. The newly born administration of the Democratic Party of Japan introduced a child benefit scheme without income test alternating the similar scheme at a far lower level with income test in 2010. The monthly amount per child is 13,000 JPY, a half of the amount the party promised in their manifesto for the lower-house election the party won. In the continuing budgetary distress, however, the administration is now giving up doubling the amount for over four-year-old children and is even bringing back income test. Thus, the partial BI scheme at entry level is still halfway in Japan.

BI can be conveniently used by neo-liberalists to further increase irregular employment, restrain wage and alternate company welfarrism with government expenditures. Therefore, one should not be in an autotelic approach toward BI but in unity with worker/citizen campaigns demanding upraise of wage level, employment security and improvement of public care services, and one should emphasize that BI is to complement public functions of a social-democratic welfare state and promote BI pursuance as part of social movement to realize such state.

Ito Makoto is Emeritus Professor at the University of Tokyo, and a Member of the Japan Academy. The above summary  was written by Takeshi Suzuki.