by Guest Contributor | Mar 13, 2019 | Opinion
Written by: Felix FitzRoy & Jim Jin
School of Economics and Finance
University of St. Andrews
As interest in UBI has exploded in recent years for many positive reasons, including the United Kingdom’s disastrous new “universal credit” policy, three major issues remain that are almost universally neglected. First, a modest ‘affordable’ UBI could not raise non-working individuals or households above poverty, even in addition to existing, means-tested benefits. Second, UBI alone would effectively subsidise low-wage and low-quality jobs, reducing pressure for improvement. Third, meaningful work is essential to well-being for most people, but unattainable for two million discouraged workers who want to work but have given up looking for work, as well as the officially unemployed (and those with inadequate jobs) – a major cause of unhappiness.
As we argue in Prospect, a public sector job offer (JO) at minimum wage, combined with a UBI of £3,000 to £4,000 per year could raise all households above poverty when combined with improved disability and housing benefits. Urgent and growing needs for care of an aging population and improvement of deteriorating infrastructure would ensure meaningful employment for all who took up JOs, with appropriate training when needed.
Such a modest UBI as proposed by Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed for Compass, and many others in the UK, could be partially funded by abolishing the regressive personal tax allowance. It would replace some means-tested welfare measures, though disability and housing benefits should remain and need augmenting. The additional cost of JOs is modest, only about £28 billion, which is around 11 percent of total welfare spending for 2 million full-time JO workers, less than total cuts in welfare spending under austerity measures since 2012. As a result of these cuts, child poverty has risen to 30 percent, and the UK holds the worst record in Western Europe. Child poverty has severe negative consequences for the entire life course of those affected.
By providing good working conditions and career advancement, our JO would set standards for minimum wage employment which could not be undermined by common current practices such as demanding unpaid overtime, since those affected could always credibly threaten to quit. Such a general improvement of working conditions would not greatly disrupt existing labour markets, in contrast to the high–wage job guarantee discussed in the US by prominent Democrats, promising to double the minimum wage. This would likely generate excessive uptake in public employment, causing substantial inflation, followed by restrictive government policies. Such a policy would not compensate for the unpaid work done mainly by women in the home as caretakers for children and the elderly.
JOs for all who want to work would be part of the framework of a Green New Deal (GND), now proposed by figures in America’s Democratic party, such as Alexandra Octavio-Cortez. This would involve greatly increased investment in the urgently needed transition to a carbon-free economy by 2050, which is essential to avoid catastrophic climate change. Such a GND could generate full employment similar to the mobilization in World War II but would require higher taxes on the rich for long-run funding. Though such tax increases would face strong political opposition, this would in turn help to reduce extreme inequality and all its negative effects.
About the authors:
FF – Emeritus Professor of Economics, and Research Fellow, IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn;
JJ – Reader in Economics, both in the School of Economics and Finance, University of St. Andrews
by Daniele Fabbri | Mar 11, 2019 | Research
Credit Picture: CC(Billy Wilson)
The International Labour Organization published a paper investigating Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposals in light of ILO standards.
With the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation (No. 202) providing relevant guidelines for the discussion on the adoption on UBI, namely:
“(i) adequacy and predictability of Universal Basic Income (UBI) benefits to ensure income security, set at least at the national poverty line; (ii) social inclusion, including of persons in the informal economy; (iii) social dialogue and consultation with stakeholders; (iv) enactment of national laws regulating UBI entitlements, including indexation of benefits; (v) coherence with other social, economic and employment policies, and (vi) sustainable and equitable financing”,
the paper shows how some models of UBI can be in accordance with ILO standards, while others cannot.
The paper consists of five parts:
1) Universal Basic Income: A tool for social justice or a strategy to dismantle social security?
In the complex and variegated scenario of UBI proposals, the paper identifies two main currents, one which sees UBI as a tool for social justice which would grant social security to all, and the other, neo-liberal or right libertarian in its concoction, which seeks to substitute the welfare state with a minimalistic safety net.
The first is designed to reduce poverty and inequality, promoting individual rights and freedom, giving people the opportunity to engage in forms of work not recognized by the market (domestic work, volunteering). It would also reduce the administrative costs of existing social protection systems, and increase workers’ bargaining power providing an exit option. The second is a way to reduce the complexity of the modern welfare state and the degree of involvement it requires from governments. For UBI to be an instrument of social justice, the first current is the one to follow.
UBI impact on poverty and inequality, on growth, on work and employment, and on gender inequality varies depending on how the policy is designed, what its source of financing is, and on which level it set at. It is thus complex to generalize its effects, and even for specific contexts in which experiments have been done it would be an error to imply that local effects would be the same once replicated on a larger scale.
The positive effect attributed to UBI is that of tackling the issues of increased social and economic insecurity, growing inequalities and the existing gaps in social protection coverage. The growing debate surrounding it “reaffirms the necessity and importance to provide every member of the society with at least a minimum level of income security which is essential to the realisation of human dignity”, principles that are at the hearth of the ILO Constitution and the Recommendation No. 202. UBI would thus represent the income component of the recommended social protection floor.
Social protection floors should guarantee “effective access to essential health care and basic income security throughout the life course, to allow life in dignity.” This means that UBI can’t represent the entirety of social protection floor, as a nonmonetary component would nonetheless be required, and that UBI would need to be integrated in the institutional settings of the state.
2) Benefit levels, adequacy and coverage
For UBI to be a solution to inequality and poverty it needs to be set at a level sufficient to meet at least people basic needs, and needs to be financed in a sustainable and equitable way. With Recommendation No. 202 requiring social protection floors to be set at “a sufficiently high level to enable individuals to live in dignity and to ensure effective access to essential goods and services” a possible benchmark is represented by national poverty lines.
UBI proposals vary greatly in the suggested benefit levels, but given that in most of them it would supplant social assistance benefits, following the guidelines set by the aforementioned recommendation, the level should be enough to allow access to a set of necessary goods and services. Proposals built taking this into account are promising, whilst those with benefits level set below the poverty line are not able to fulfill the promises of poverty and inequality reduction.
The amount provided via UBI cannot be uniform through the populations, as it wouldn’t be able to account for those in special need, and if the amount was to be uniform UBI would be required to coexist with other forms of social security benefits safeguarding those with specific needs. UBI would thus need to be integrated in the existing systems, in order not to leave individuals worse off, the paper states.
The paper also recommends that, in order to ensure adequacy over time, attention should be given to adjustments to changes in purchasing power and overall standards of living, as to ensure the adequacy of benefits over time. For UBI to maintain its effects over time, it would need to be indexed to inflation and wages.
UBI, a cash benefit, would nonetheless need to be complemented by effective access to services (e.g.: health, education). If UBI was to be financed via the reallocation of the budget dedicated to such services, it would have detrimental effects.
Even with universalism being often presented as one of the key features of UBI, some proposals restrict its coverage in two ways: 1) depending on the age of the recipient (children wouldn’t receive benefits in some instances, whilst older persons would be subject to different rules); 2) depending on the requisite of nationality, or that of residency after a minimum duration, in order to prevent migration.
With ILO standards requiring states to provide “all members of society with adequate social protection” and with the principle of universality of protection being “at the core of the social protection floor concept, stipulating that everyone should enjoy at least a basic level of social security throughout their life course”, a UBI restricted to only nationals, or not granting sufficient benefits to meet children’s needs, would be insufficient to provide the required protection.
3) Costs, Affordability and Financing
The paper presents two scenarios for the cost estimates of UBI:
- A basic income transfer at 100 per cent of the national poverty line for all adults and children;
- A basic income transfer at 100 per cent of the national poverty line for adults and 50 per cent to children up to 15 years old.
Under scenario I. the global average cost as a percentage of GDP would be around 39.4%, with a cost of 79.1% of GDP for low income countries, 28% for lower middle-income countries, 22.8% for upper middle-income countries and 29.9% for high income countries.
Under Scenario II. the global average cost as a percentage of GDP would be 32.7%, with a cost of 62.3%of GDP for low income countries, 23.1% for lower middle-income countries, 19.8% for upper middle-income countries and 27.4% for high income countries.
One possible benchmark for adequacy of the benefit level supported by Recommendation No.202 is that of national poverty lines, but many UBI proposal are far below them. Even so, an UBI set at 25% of equivalent disposable income is nonetheless deemed unfeasible under the existing fiscal context. In order to provide benefit levels capable of reducing poverty and inequality, new financing sources need to be explored, among them the paper briefly explores:
- The reallocation of public expenditures
- Increasing tax revenues
- Lobbying for aid and transfers
- Eliminating illicit financial flows
- Using fiscal and central bank foreign exchange reserves
- Restructuring existing debt
A mix of the aforementioned would be needed, with an increase in tax revenues being central in order to assure progressivity to the policy. For low income countries, lobbying for aid and transfers may be a feasible method, as the estimate cost for the introduction of an UBI is just 0.68% of the global GDP, 3% of what has been spent by the G20 to rescue the financial sector in 2009.
Regressive proposals are not in line with ILO standards as they would further inequalities. Budget neutral proposals, which rely on cutting existing social benefits in order to provide a modest UBI coupled with social insurance, result in a social net loss which would exacerbate income and gender inequalities.
4) Who would benefit from UBI? Different implementation scenarios
The paper investigates three different scenarios for the implementation of an UBI, in order to find out which one could be beneficial to society to investigate winners and losers.
Only under scenario 1, which assumes the introduction of a UBI set at the level of the poverty line, the majority of the population is found to be net winner, thus reducing inequality.
Under scenario 2 a UBI is introduced in exchange for cuts in employers’ contributions to social security systems. This setting would reduce the capacity for social insurance to redistribute wealth across society. With net losers being among the lower and middle classes, and the net winners being corporations, this scenario is not in line with ILO standards.
Under scenario 3 UBI is introduced in exchange for the complete abolition of public social insurance:
“In this scenario virtually everybody is a net loser; the poorest will not receive anymore social assistance at the poverty line level; the low and middle classes, before covered by a better social protection system, now they will lose their accumulated social protection benefits. Eliminating public social insurance systems by a modest UBI, and promoting individual savings and private provision for those who can afford it, would reduce the potential for both vertical and horizontal redistribution, thereby exacerbating income inequality.”
5) Conclusion: Universal Basic Income in light of ILO standards
While UBI cannot be considered as a solution to all the problems of society, it can potentially act as a useful tool for closing coverage gaps and provide basic income security.
The benefit level should be set at a level sufficient to provide income security to everybody, particularly to those without other sources of income. The benefit should avoid discrimination towards those in special needs.
UBI by itself wouldn’t be enough to provide access to basic services, and it should be coupled with policies granting universal education, health care and social services. At the same time, contributory mechanism will have to remain in place, with public social insurance continuing to provide a level of social protection.
Progressive means of financing are essential in guaranteeing equity, sustainability and that UBI satisfies ILO standards. UBI implementation will need to follow a progressive realization, by setting standards and time frames: this calls for the creation of an ad hoc legal framework and effective governance and administration.
Moreover, “systematically assessing implications for the broader policy context is essential for a UBI to positively contribute to social justice and inclusive development”. UBI cannot be a stand-alone policy, but needs to work in concert with labour market institutions, and the potential interactions that could arise call for further studies.
“The momentum gathering behind the idea of a UBI can help to spur a discussion on how to respond to existing economic and social changes in a more effective and empowering way based on social solidarity and while ensuring social justice outcomes for all.”
Final remarks
The paper is clear in defining Basic Income and in discussing its potential advantages, clarifying that different UBI designs would bring very different end results.
The paper also provides a comprehensive list of experiments, proposals, and pilots, and does a service by calculating the proportions of national poverty lines that their Basic Incomes represent. This is done calculating the gross cost of UBI, which however says little about its net costs.
Much attention is devoted to proposals that eliminate current benefits, a practice that, as the authors of the paper themselves suggest, is not in line with ILO standards.
Rather than investigating a particular mean of financing and its potential effects, the paper follows a more general approach, and highlights that further studies are needed in order the understand the practical implications of UBI, nonetheless being clear about its potential to be a powerful instrument for the enhancement of social security and the reduction of poverty and inequality.
More information at:
Isabel Ortiz, Christina Behrendt, Andrés Acuña-Ulate, and Quynh Anh Nguyen, “Universal Basic Income proposals in light of ILO standards: Key issues and global costing“, Social Protection Department, International Labour Organization, Geneva, 2018
Citizens Basic Income Trust, “ILO paper on Citizen’s Basic Income and ILO social protection floors” 7th December 2018
by Andre Coelho | Mar 3, 2019 | News
Anna, 29 – Participant in the HartzPlus experiment in Berlin, Germany
The HartzPlus experiment is starting in Germany this month. Previously summarized, the experiment will involve 250 welfare beneficiaries, subject to the Hartz IV welfare scheme. For three years, the randomly selected participants will receive 416 €/month, whether they comply with the Hartz IV conditions or not. For comparison purposes, the minimum wage in Germany is around 1500 €/month, and the poverty line stands at approximately 1100 €/month. So, just like the recent experiment in Finland, this is an test which on objective terms cannot be said to be reproducing a “basic” income, in the sense of providing the basic for achieving a minimum dignified standard of living (in this case, in Germany). Like in Finland, it is mainly testing the effects of introducing an unconditional element on the income of a group of people, for a limited period of time.
Other propositions have been vocalized in Germany, mainly in response or even as an expression of protest against the Hartz IV, enforced in the country since 2003. One of such voices has been Berlin Mayor Michael Müller, a long time Social Democratic Party (SPD) official. However, what Müller is defending, in essence, is a job guarantee, over a basic income. Beneath the “basic income based on solidarity” concept lies a fundamental distrust in Berlin’s citizens: that the latter must be coerced into municipal or social service jobs, in exchange for their “basic income” (a gross amount or around 1500 €/month). However, the proposition has been popular in Germany for a long time, with the Social Democratic Party and the Left Party having subsidized public employment in Berlin between 2002 and 2011.
While politicians and voter’s stomach for Hartz IV is running dry, after more than 15 years of enforcement, clear justification for a UBI kind of policy still seems to be lacking on the public arena. For instance, funding a basic income is still publicly presented as value of basic income times number of recipients which, of course, leads to prohibitive costs. This comes at a time when ever more studies demonstrate that providing a basic income to citizens can cost much less than that to the State on a net basis, or it can even be calibrated in such a way as to be cost neutral (by applying changes to social security schemes and taxation).
Hilmar Schneider, an economist for the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, actually thinks that creating a financial floor for poor people means spending money on all the population. Internally, he is also thinking in a “value of basic income times number of recipients” mentality, not understanding the income transfer mechanism inherent in basic income implementation. According to him, present day low paid jobs will become less attractive, which sounds reasonable to assume, since most people only accept those jobs because they are permanently threatened with destitution. What might not be so reasonable to assume, however, is to think that it may lead to price increases, and a general downward trend in income for many people. If people can accumulate a basic income with whatever income they can get from paid work, within a properly setup tax structure which incorporates basic income at its core, a rise in poverty is surely questionable.
More information at:
David Martin, “Berlin mayor calls for basic income in Germany – or does he?“, DW, March 20th 2018
Arthur Sullivan, “Germany’s “money for nothing” experiment raises basic income questions“, DW, 28th February 2019
André Coelho, “Germany: The first basic income experiment in Germany will start in 2019“, Basic Income News, 16th December 2018
by Andre Coelho | Feb 20, 2019 | News
What we are going through now is not a disaster, it’s a process. Last time, it took over a century of mass misery and, occasionally mass bloodshed to get through it (…) We should try to do it a lot better and quicker this time.
By Lynette Geddes
International affairs commentator Gwynne Dyer latest book, “Growing Pains: The future of democracy (and work)”, is a balanced and compelling look at the current rise of populism and how a Universal Basic Income (UBI) could be “a tool that might cool the anger (…)”.
The first chapter, titled “A giant orange canary”, claims the election of Donald Trump might actually be good for history as he is the canary in the coal mine of the growing unrest in the developed world. Dyer argues that, contrary to political rhetoric, it is not the immigration of cheap labour, or the out-migration of factories to other countries or free trade that are at the root of the problem. It is automation and the concomitant stagnation of middle-class incomes. The author states that “out of 7 million manufacturing jobs lost in the United States in the past forty years, at least 5 million were lost to automation.”
Dyer briefly outlines the calamities of the twentieth century – economic depression and wars – and draws parallels to our current geo-political conditions. However, he believes it to be widely accepted that the social safety nets that were implemented during that time in all western countries – though to varying degrees – have almost certainly mitigated the conditions that might now lead to similar extremes. But more must be done if we don’t want to slip back into the destruction of the past century.
Dyer argues that humans, unlike our simian ancestors/cousins, are fundamentally egalitarian and that solutions lie in understanding this. Though acknowledging that “non-violent revolution” sounds like a contradiction in terms, history shows us that “people can and will act together spontaneously to resist domination”. He quotes Harold Schneider, economic anthropologist, “All men seek to rule, but if they cannot rule, they prefer to remain equal.”
Throughout the book, two premises arise repeatedly: that income inequality brought about by automation is the problem and that some form of a UBI is a solution. He concedes that the concept of UBI is not new but it is an idea which is compelling, plausible, and gaining traction. It is also one that appears to span the political spectrum. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a well-known International Institution for Public-Private Cooperation that brings business and political leaders together annually. In January 2017, several of the invited speakers addressed the concept of UBI.
Arguments against UBI, Dyer writes, include the notion that people’s self-respect comes from their job, or that countries can’t afford it, or that giving people “free money” will lead to laziness. He neatly disputes those ideas with facts but also a little facetiously. “As Harvard economist, John Kenneth Galbraith once put it, ‘Leisure is very good for the rich, quite good for Harvard professors – and very bad for the poor. The wealthier you are, the more you are thought to be entitled to leisure. For anyone on welfare, leisure is a bad thing.’”
Dyer closes the book with his opinion that, with climate change physically threatening existence as we know it, there isn’t time to waste on these political issues. “What we need now is a quick fix that reduces inequality to a tolerable level and re-stabilises our democracies, (…) ensuring that everybody has a decent income despite the unstoppable advance of automation, and doing it in a way that does not humiliate those who no longer have jobs.”
Edited by André Coelho
by Andre Coelho | Feb 2, 2019 | News
Minho, Portugal. Picture credit to: Notícias ao Minuto
Last Wednesday there was a Conference on Basic Income at Universidade do Minho, called “Rendimento Básico: uma Ferramenta para uma Europa Social? [Basic Income: a Tool for a Social Europe?]”. It was organized by Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade [Center for Ethics, Politics and Society] (CEPS), together with several institutional partners, for instance Universidade do Porto (Porto University) and Ministério do Trabalho, Solidariedade e Segurança Social (Social Security, Solidarity and Work Ministry).
This Conference featured presentations and contributions from several specialists, politicians and students, such as Philippe van Parijs, Jurgen de Wispelaere, Jamie Cooke, Evelyn Forget, Roberto Merrill, Gonçalo Marcelo, José António Vieira da Silva (Social Security, Solidarity and Work minister) and Ana Carla Pereira (European Commission Social Protection Systems Head of Unit), among others.
On the aftermath of this event, several interviews and articles were published, confirming the rising interest in basic income within the Portuguese reality. Interviewed by Público newspaper, van Parijs clarified that, although automation is largely seen as the prime mover of basic income, at least in “developed” countries, it is “not at the bottom of the basic income proposal”. According to him, basic income is, rather, a way to include everyone in work. Answering a series of questions focused on the perceived problems with basic income – work disincentive, contrary to work ethic, social cleavages, menace to the welfare state – van Parijs defended the proposal as non-conflicting with the work ethic, since people can choose better what to work for with a basic income, and also as collaborating with the welfare state and its function to provide material security.
Minister Vieira da Silva, also interviewed by Público, believes that basic income, if ever to become a reality, can only be implemented at an European scale. His greatest fear is that, with basic income, society will become polarized between the employed, who would (in his view) be financing basic income, and the unemployed, who would only be surviving on that unconditional stipend. He also claims that basic income experiments “have not been very successful”, and that basic income in Portugal “seems an option still far away from implementation”. The minister has not justified any of these assertions, which may unveil doubts on his knowledge about the successful experiments already undertaken (e.g.: India, Namibia, Canada), and the most recent events in India related to unconditional cash transfers. Nevertheless, Vieira da Silva acknowledges that in an era of robotization, basic income can be seen as an investment, “guaranteeing access to consumption for everyone”.
Ex-Work and Solidarity minister, Paulo Pedroso was also interviewed in this sequence of opinion on basic income. To Pedroso, people should simply not be exempted from their duty to contribute to society. However, he also acknowledges that creating a financial floor which eliminates the possibility of not having enough resources to live with dignity, is a good idea. Hence, he supports universality, but not unconditionality. More, according to Pedroso, basic income “aims to replace the welfare state”, which is an opinion shared by many on the Left on the Portuguese political spectrum, namely Francisco Louçã. The ex-minister assumes that the implementation of a basic income in Portugal will demand so much financial resources that the government would be forced to cut on essential services, like education and health, although that has aldready been proven unnecessary. Pedroso’s views on basic income do not come as a surprise, though, as he already had delivered his opinions before, having then stated that basic income “amounts to suicide”.
Discussions in Portugal about welfare, taxation and, ultimately, basic income, do not seem to share a rational basis. From several interviews it becomes clear that opinions get formed on emotional grounds – particularly fear and hesitation – and not over evidence. However, the conversation continues, in the midst of international experimentation (with basic income-related policies) and tentative implementation moves (India).
More information at:
[in Portuguese]
São José Almeida e Sónia Sapage, “O rendimento básico incondicional é um remédio para a armadilha do desemprego [Basic Income is a medicine for the unemployment trap]”, Público (online), January 27th 2019
Tiago Mendes Dias, “Para Vieira da Silva, o rendimento básico deve ter uma escala europeia [To Vieira da Silva, basic income shall have na european scale]”, Público (online), January 24th 2019
Sónia Sapage, “O Rendimento Básico Incondicional ainda não passou da fase da utopia [Basic Income has not yet passed the utopian phase]”, Público (online), January 29th 2019
André Coelho, “Portugal: Basic income event attracts politicians and social science experts”, Basic Income News, Mat 28th 2017
