This opinion piece argues that a BIG could almost erase poverty in Canada. It presents evidence from the Negative Income Tax experiments and from the history of the guaranteed income movement.
It’s online at:
https://thetyee.ca/News/2012/05/15/Guaranteed-Basic-Income/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=150512
The idea of a regular income that allows people to plan and fulfil a life project is a certainly linked to the topic of job markets reform. However, these two issues do not overlap. The reform of job contracts, new economic incentives, liberalization and tax exemptions can make the job market more efficient, but all these tools can not resolve the issue of effective risk of insecurity and irregularity in personal incomes.
Guaranteeing incomes is not the same than guaranteeing jobs: if the issue of income security involves the workers, the precariat, the unemployed, all the young men and women looking for their first job, it does not concern them as workers but as citizens. Or, to put it more precisely, as people with fundamental rights.
All humans, as biological beings, bear unavoidable material needs like housing, food, clothing, universal needs that are one with the human condition. These needs remain with the same urgency despite the ups and downs of the market, the changes in production and the greater or lesser demand of employees. The right to have an income and the right to work, therefore, are not the same because even in the absence of a stable employment, the continuity of income is essential to meet unavoidable basic needs.
People do not need to prove that they deserve fundamental rights. Basic rights are inherent to the dignity that democratic systems recognize to the human person. The rights to basic education and public health care have already been codified in our (Italian) legal system as rights for all, because they create the essential conditions to exercise and enjoy all the other rights that the Italian Constitution and Law recognizes and protects.
The forced slimming cure of our welfare states in this critical economical moment must be accompanied by a revolution in the way of thinking the protection of social rights. We need a more universal welfare state, with less managing costs, less dependent from an inefficient (and often arbitrary) bureaucratic selectivity that has been the main source of corruption and waste of public money over the years.
The universal ex lege recognition of the right to receive a guaranteed basic income would be a first and effective protection against the hazards of market and would build a safety net to prevent people from falling into a state of misery.
The history of liberal-democratic States, and their legal systems, is the history of the recognition of rights to an always more extended group until the moment in which some rights, considered as essential, were recognized as universal. One of the greatest achievements of the legal culture of the 19th Century was the abolition of slavery in the United States, with the following recognition of civil rights for all, whites and blacks. In the 20th Century, the universal suffrage represents the extension to all citizens of a basic political right. I see no reasons to stop the process only at civil and political rights. Why is it not possible to admit that at least some socio-economic rights have a similar essential value? Why don’t we make them independent from personal conditions, skills and attitudes as we do with the majority of civil and political rights?
The question of a universal and unconditional income, an income that allows at least to cope with the most basic necessities of life is unavoidable. Philippe Van Parijs is probably right in saying that it represents the biggest reform that will define the democratic states of the 21st Century, as the end of slavery and the universal suffrage marked the democratic life of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
Essay presented to UN Regional Commissions’ High Level Meeting on Transition to Democracy, Beirut, Lebanon, January 15 and 16, 2012
It is an honor for me to be invited to participate in this “United Nations Regional Commissions’ High Level Meeting on Transition to Democracy”, in this panel on “Balancing Growth and Social Justice”, concerning mainly the Arab Countries, held in Beirut, Lebanon, on January 15 and 16, 2012. This is a highly relevant opportunity to exchange ideas about the experiences of so many countries in the five continents about how we can raise the level of justice in our societies so as to live with a sense of solidarity and peace.
As a Brazilian Senator, member of the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores), author of Law 10.835/2004 that institutes a Citizen’s Basic Income to all residents of Brazil, including those foreigners who are living in Brazil for five years or more, no matter the origin, race, sex, age or socioeconomic condition, and also Co-President of Honor of the Basic Income Earth Network – BIEN – I am happy to bring you information about what is going on in my country, and about the development of this proposal in other parts of the world.
According to the law, approved by consensus of all parties, in December 2002 in the Federal Senate, and in December 2003, in the Chamber of Deputies, and then sanctioned by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in January 8, 2004, the Citizen’s Basic Income will be an annual monetary benefit, equal to all, sufficient to attend the basic needs of each person. It may be paid monthly, in equal parcels. Its level will consider the level of development of the nation and the financial possibilities. It will be instituted gradually, under the Executive criteria, taking into account those most in need in the first place, such as the Bolsa Família Program does today.
In his “The Idea of Justice” (Penguin Books, 2009), the Nobel Prize economist Amartya Sen tells us about the importance of searching for justice, of building democracy, of the government built by debate, as well as of the nature, the viability and the extent of the demands of human rights. He mentions the sense of perception of clear injustices that could be overcome that characterized the actions of the Parisians in the French Revolution of 1789, Mahatma Ghandi in India and Martin Luther King Jr in America.
Amartya Sen mentions several examples of how democracy, freedom of expression and of the press have contributed for societies to solve their problems including that of severe famines.
Sen asserts that the history of the Middle East and of the Muslin people includes a large number of episodes of public discussions and participatory politics through dialogue. In the Muslin kingdoms centralized in Cairo, in Baghdad and Istanbul, in Iran, in India or even in Spain, there were many defenders of public discussions. He argues that the degree of tolerance with respect to different points of view was frequently exceptional in comparison to Europe in the XVI and XVII centuries. I am sure that Amartya Sen is regarding very well the development of this Meeting in Beirut.
Sen’s starting point is the Theory of Justice as Equity elaborated by John Rawls. In his “A Theory of Justice” (Harvard University Press, 1971), Rawls establishes the principles of Justice that should be put into practice in a society:
In 2005, I had the opportunity to attend the first lecture given together by Professors Amartya Sen and Philippe Van Parijs, in their discipline, “Justice and Cultural Diversity”, for the graduate students of Harvard University. Van Parijs asked the students who had a mother language other than English among them. About one third raised their hands. He observed that even having different backgrounds – in terms of origin, race, language, religion and so on – we could have common views on our criteria about how to build a just society.
Then, Amartya Sen explained that in that discipline they would examine what are the institutions that would help us in raising the level of justice. For example, when slavery was abolished, it raised the level of justice in society. If we provide a good level of education for all boys and girls in the society, we are raising the level of justice. “In this course we will examine”, Sen mentioned, “to what extent an Unconditional Basic Income, as argued in favor of by Professor Philippe Van Parijs and Senator Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy, who is visiting us today, will or not raise the level of justice in society.” I felt quite happy.
We could think of other instruments that would help in this direction, such as the stimulus to cooperatives, the expansion of microcredit, the agrarian reform, a good public health system, the participatory budget and so on. John Rawls mentions in “A Theory of Justice” that a negative income tax that would guarantee a minimum income to all would help the application of the principles of justice.
According to Professor Philippe Van Parijs, in “Real Freedom for All. What (if anything) may justify capitalism?” (1995, Oxford), much better than the Negative Income Tax to Guarantee a Minimum Income is the Unconditional Basic Income to all, no matter origin, sex, race, age or socioeconomic condition, for the purpose of applying the three principles of justice.
What follows is the development of the paper that I have prepared for the Book of essays for Philippe Van Parijs, “Arguing about justice”, edited by Axel Grosseries and Yannick Vanderborght (2011, UCL, Universitaires de Louvain), because of his 20th year as the responsible for the Hoover Chair in economic and social ethics at the Catholic University of Louvain as well of his 60th birthday.
How Basic Income inspired Brazil’s social policy
In 1966-68, and again in 1970-73, as I was studying for my Master’s and my PhD in Economics at Michigan State University, in the USA, I came across the concept of income guarantee through a negative income tax (NIT). Back in Brazil, I interacted with Professor Antônio Maria da Silveira, who had proposed the institution of such a NIT in our country (Silveira 1975). When I was elected Senator by PT-SP for the first time in 1990, we then worked together on a proposal called the Guaranteed Minimum Income Scheme, PGRM. Every adult person 25 years or older who did not earn at least 45 thousand Cruzeiros per month (at that time, about US$150) should have the right to a complement of 30% to 50% of the difference between that level and his/her disposable income. The project was approved by the Federal Senate, by consensus of all parties, on December 16th, 1991. It went to the Chamber of Deputies where, at the Committee of Finance and Taxation, received an enthusiastic written opinion from Representative Germano Rigotto (PMDB-RS). The proposal, however, was not voted in that form because of several developments that followed.
The debate on the subject then started to flourish in Brazil. In 1991, during a discussion with approximately 50 economists who were close to the Workers’ Party (PT), Antônio Maria da Silveira and I presented the PGRM proposal. Professor José Márcio Camargo observed that the guarantee of a minimum income was a good step, but that it should be granted to needy families only, with children attending school on a regular basis. These children would then not be induced to work in order to help the survival of their families.
In 1995, taking these thoughts into consideration, Mayor José Roberto Magalhães Teixeira (PSDB), in the municipality of Campinas, and Governor Cristóvam Buarque (PT), in the Federal District, started minimum income schemes linked to educational opportunities. The programs were called Bolsa-Escola. All families with income per capita below half the minimum wage would have the right to receive: a) in Campinas: whatever would be necessary to complete half the minimum wage per capita for the family; b) in the Federal District: a full minimum wage, no matter the size of the family, or how many people in the family were working or not. Those experiments inspired several other municipalities. In the National Congress, bills were presented defining the support level that the Federal Government would provide to municipalities introducing minimum income programs related to educational opportunities.
In 1996, I took Philippe Van Parijs for an audience with President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and the Minister of Education, Paulo Renato Souza. Van Parijs argued that an unconditional basic income was a first-best, but also recognized that starting with a minimum income guarantee associated with education opportunities was a good step, because it was related to investment in human capital. President Fernando Henrique Cardoso then gave permission to the National Congress to approve a law which authorized the federal government to grant a financial support of 50% on the amount spent by the municipalities that provide a minimum income linked to social and educational opportunities.
In March 2001, again under Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s impulse, the National Congress approved another law authorizing the federal government to conclude agreements with all Brazilian municipalities in order to implement the Bolsa Escola. Later on, the government also instituted the Bolsa-Alimentação and the Auxílio-Gás programs. In 2003, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government instituted the Vale-Alimentação program.
In October 2003, President Lula’s government decided to unify and rationalize these different programs into a single Bolsa Família Program, which had 3.5 million families registered in December 2003. The number increased to 6.5 million families in December 2004, 11 million families in December 2006, and 13.352 million families, or almost 50 million Brazilians, in December 2011.
The Bolsa Familia: A Success Story
Along with other economic policy instruments, the Bolsa Família Program greatly contributed for the reduction of absolute poverty and the level of inequality in Brazil. The Gini coefficient had reached 0.599 in 1995, but gradually decreased every single year, reaching 0.581 in 2003, 0.544 in 2008, 0.530 in 2009, and 0.526 in 2010 [1]. The proportion of families under the extreme poverty line, with income per capita below R$ 93.75 which was 17.5% in 2003, decreased to 8.8% in 2008. The proportion of poor families, with income per capita below R$ 187.50, decreased from 39.4% in 2003 to 25.3%, in 2008. These favorable results can also be shown in the following way. The 20% poorest families had an income per capita increase 47% faster than the income of the richest 20%. While in 2001, the average income of the 20% richest families was 27 times more than that of the 20% poorest families, in 2008 it was 19 times higher, a reduction of 30% in inequality in seven years.
Since June, 2011, when the newly elected President Dilma Rousseff announced the Brazil Without Misery Plan and an adjustment of the program, the Bolsa Familia stated to function as follows: If the family per capita income is below R$ 70 per month, it has the right to receive a basic benefit of R$ 70 per month [2]. All families with monthly per capita income below R$ 140 are entitled to R$ 32, R$ 64, R$ 96, R$ 128 or R$ 160 if they have one, two, three, four, five or more children under 16 years of age respectively, plus R$ 38 for each adolescent between 16 to 18 years of age (up to a maximum of two). Therefore, the average benefit per family has increased to R$ 120 per month, with a minimum of R$ 32 and a maximum of R$ 306 per month.
The average size of the Brazilian family is 3.3 persons. The average is somehow higher, for families that benefit from the program. These families need to meet important requirements. If the mother is pregnant, she has to go to the public health network for prenatal examinations and monitoring. Parents have to take their children up to six years of age to be vaccinated according to the calendar of the Ministry of Health. Children from seven to 16 years of age have to go to school, with an attendance average of at least 85%. Children from 16 to 18 years of age must attend school with at least 75% attendance.
Despite the achieved progress, Brazil is still one of the most unequal countries in the world. While the poorest 40% live with 10% of the national income, the richest 10% live with more than 40%. The income appropriated by the 1% richest is the same as of the 45% poorest. Undoubtedly, the creation and expansion of the Bolsa Família Program had positive effects. However, in order to move towards a more efficient and direct eradication of the absolute poverty, as well as to achieve greater equality and guarantee greater real freedom for all, Brazil should implement a true Citizen´s Basic Income (CBI).
Towards A CBI
During the 1990s, I increasingly interacted with the founders of the Basic Income European Network (BIEN) [3], and took part in its bi-annual congresses. I was then convinced that an unconditional Basic Income for all was much better than conditional schemes or even a NIT. For this reason, in December 2001, I presented a new bill of law to the Brazilian Senate, which called for the institution of the Citizen´s Basic Income (CBI). After having studied the proposition, Senator Francelino Pereira (PFL-MG) argued that it had to be made compatible with the Fiscal Responsibility Law under which it is necessary to secure correspondent revenue for expenditures. He suggested the inclusion of a paragraph saying that the CBI had to be instituted step by step, starting with those most in need, until one day it will be unconditional for everyone regardless of income. It reminded me of James Edward Meade’s recommendation, in the last chapter of Agathotopia. What is important is to have our objectives crystal clear in mind, and to move firmly, gradually, in that direction.
Due to this aspect, the bill of law was approved by consensus of all parties in the Senate (December 2002) and the Chamber of Deputies (December 2003). When it came to the President for his examination, Minister of Finance Antonio Palocci told him: “since it is to be introduced step by step, it is feasible and you may sanction it”. On January 8th, 2004, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva sanctioned the Law 10.835/2004 that institutes a CBI, step by step, under the Executive criteria, starting with those most in need, such as in the Bolsa Família program. Later, then, we will have an equal CBI for everyone as an individual right to participate in the wealth of the nation. On this day, the President received the following message from economist Celso Furtado:
At this moment when Your Excellency sanctioned the Citizen’s Basic Income Law I want to express my conviction that, with this measure, our country puts itself in the vanguard of those that fight for the building of a more harmonious society. Brazil was frequently referred as one of the last countries to abolish slave labor. Now with this act which is a result of the principles of good citizenship and the wide social vision of Senator Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy, Brazil will be referred as the first that institutes an extensive system of solidarity and furthermore, it was approved by the representatives of its people.
As I see it, a true CBI should be as high as possible in order to meet each person’s vital needs, and should be paid to all inhabitants of a community, municipality, state, country, or even, someday, to the whole population of a continent or the world. Regardless of his/her origin, race, sex, age, civil, social or economic condition, everyone will have the right to receive the CBI as a right to participate in the wealth of that community, municipality, state, country, continent or the planet. Such a scheme has many advantages. Let me mention a few of them.
First, all the bureaucracy involved in knowing each person’s income in formal or informal market would be eliminated. This would also allow for the elimination of any stigma or shame, since individuals would not need to tell civil servants: “I earn only this much, so I need a supplement of income for my survival”.
Second, perhaps the most important advantage of the Citizen’s Basic Income is that it raises everyone’s level of dignity and freedom. From the point of view of what Amartya Sen says in “Development as Freedom” (1999, New York: Knopf): “Development, to be meaningful, must mean a greater degree of freedom for everyone in society.” Take the case, for example, of a girl who does not have another alternative for her survival than selling her body. Or a young man who, to support himself and his family is forced to work for the drug traffic gangs. If there is a Citizen’s Basic Income, they can refuse those alternatives, and wait for opportunities that match their propensity or vocation.
Third, a basic income allows for the elimination of the dependency phenomena. Conditional programs function as follows: if a person’s income is below a given amount, she is entitled to an income supplement. When she gets a job, she loses (part of) the benefit. Hence, she might decide not to take that job and gets into the unemployment or the poverty trap. With a universal basic income she will have more employment options.
One of the most often-heard objections to Basic Income consists in saying that it would stimulate idleness. The Brazilian Constitution and laws, as well as the laws of so many countries, assure the right to private property. That means that the owners of factories, farms, hotels, restaurants, banks, real estate and financial bonds have the right to receive capital revenues, that is, profit, rent and interest.
Do the Brazilian laws, or of most other countries, mention that to receive those revenues, the capital owners must demonstrate that they are working? No, and they usually work, and many of them also dedicate a good part of their time to voluntary work. Do they need to demonstrate that their children are attending school? No. Nevertheless, their children usually attend the best schools.
So, if we assure those who have more resources the right to receive their revenues without conditions, why not extend to everyone, rich and poor, the right to participate in the nation’s wealth as our right for being Brazilians? If we want to eliminate absolute poverty, becoming a more equal and fair society and assuring dignity and real freedom to everyone in the society, instituting the Citizen’s Basic Income is a solution as simple as leaving home through the door.
Turning Basic Income into reality in Brazil
In Brazil, we could consider the institution of the Citizen’s Basic Income (CBI) as consistent with the values defended by the indigenous, by the fighting “quilombolas” and those for the slavery abolition, and by all those researchers and scientists who fight for the creation of a fair nation.
In the same way as the first minimum income linked to educational opportunities started locally, in Campinas and in the Federal District, it is possible to start the CBI in communities or municipalities.
Take the example of Recivitas – Instituto pela Revitalização da Cidadania, an organization which has created a free library and a free toy center in Vila de Paranapiacaba (Serra do Mar, 1,200 inhabitants). It has recently proposed the creation of a CBI. Recivitas President Bruna Augusto Pereira and coordinator Marcus Brancaglione dos Santos are waiting for the steps of Santo André’s Mayor to carry out the project. While waiting, they started a pioneering experience in another village, Quatinga Velha where, since the beginning of 2009, they pay R$ 30, or US$ 18, per month to 83 persons. This is possible thanks to the voluntary contributions of several citizens.
Another promising experiment is taking place in Santo Antonio do Pinhal, in Serra da Mantiqueira, 177 km from São Paulo, 6.500 inhabitants. There, on October 29th, 2009, the Municipal Chamber, by consensus of its nine councilmen, approved the Municipal Bill of Law for a Basic Income, proposed by Mayor José Augusto de Guarnieri Pereira (PT). Among the 5.565 Brazilian municipalities, it is the first that approved a law instituting the CBI. Its first article declares:
“With the purpose to turn Santo Antonio do Pinhal into a Municipality that harmonizes sustainable social and economic development with the application of justice principles, meaning the solidarity practice among all its inhabitants, and, above all, to grant a higher level of dignity to all its inhabitants, the Citizen´s Basic Income of Santo Antonio do Pinhal – CBI is instituted, consisting in the rights of all registered residents or residents in the Municipality for at least 05 (five) years, regardless of their social and economic status, to receive a monetary benefit.”
Exactly as in the federal law, it also states that the CBI will be achieved gradually, giving priority to the most needed segments of the population. To finance the payment of the CBI, a Municipal Fund will be created.
To turn the CBI feasible for the whole country however, it would be necessary to collect a great amount of resources. If it wants to provide an even modest improvement in relation to the Bolsa Família, Brazil should begin with at least an amount higher than the average paid by this scheme, i.e. R$ 120 per family, which means something like R$ 40 per person for a family of three members. So, if we think about a CBI of R$ 40, it would be R$ 240 per month for a family of six members. In 12 months, the yearly amount would be R$ 480 per person. With Brazil’s population reaching 191 million in 2011, we would need R$ 91,680 billion, something around 2.71% % of the Gross National Product of R$ 3,388 trillion or US$ 2,287 trillion in 2010, about 6.7 times the Bolsa Familia budget of R$ 13.6 billion for 2010, a considerable leap.
R$ 40, or US$ 22, per month is a modest amount, but in time, with the progress of the country and the growing approval from the population, the CBI could turn into R$ 100, then R$ 1.000, and so on. A way to make it feasible is the creation of the Citizen’s Brazil Fund, according to the Bill of Law 82/1999, which I presented to the Senate. It has already been approved by consensus by the Senate, and is in legal procedures in the Chamber of Representatives, where it has been approved by the Committee of Family and Social Security. This Fund is constituted by 50% of the resources generated by authorization or concession of natural resources exploitation; 50% of the revenues from rentals of federal government real estate, which belong to all the population; 50% of the revenues generated by concession and services and public works and other resources. The output generated by the investments of the Fund resources, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, will be used to pay CBI to all the Brazilian residents.
Citizen’s Brazil Fund legislation is now awaiting approval by the Chamber of Representatives Committee of Finance and Taxation. A new reporter has been nominated, Federal Representative Cláudio Puty (PT-PA) (from the Workers’ Party, State of Pará). He will be able to present a favorable report as long as there is a green light from the Executive. This is not so easy, although I always say that I am ready to accept any suggestion to make the proposal feasible, such as to diminish the proportions that are listed in the proposal. It is important to consider that Congress approved in 2010 President Lula’s initiative regulating the proceeds of the oil found in the Pre-Salt area deep in the Atlantic Ocean. The legislation has the eradication of poverty, the expansion of educational opportunities, scientific and technological progress, and better environmental and cultural activities as its main objectives. There is a strong dispute, however, between the representatives of the Federal Units, 26 States and one Federal District, on how to distribute the resources from the exploitation of the pre-salt oil.
Another promising alternative is being pointed out Professor Philippe Van Parijs while quoting Edward Glaeser’s excellent book “The Triumph of the City”, Penguin, 2011, p.221:
“Smart environmentalism needs to embrace incentives (…) Throughout the world, we can adopt a global emission tax that charges people for the damage done by their carbon emissions (…) Opponents of big government understandably worry that this type of policy will just turn into an added source of revenue for the government, but this worry can be reduced with a public commitment to rebating tax to citizens as an energy dividend, much as the state of Alaska pays each of its citizens an annual dividend from all revenues.”
Especially when more people understand how CBI could contribute for the construction of a fair and more civilized Brazil, more voices will be saying to the President of the Republic, to the Governors and Mayors: “It is a good proposal. Let’s put it into practice right away”.
Conclusion: what are the immediate prospects?
During the IV National Congress of the PT in Brasilia, February 19th to 21st, 2010, by the unanimous vote of the 1.350 delegates, the following point was added to the National Program of Dilma Rousseff, who was acclaimed Presidential candidate by consensus:
“The Great Transformation
The accelerated growth and the fight against racial, social, regional inequalities and the promotion of sustainable development will be the axis of the economic development structure.
19) The expansion and the strengthening of the popular consumption goods, that produces strong positive impact over the productive sector system, will be attained by:
a)…
f) permanent improvement of the income transfer programs such as the Bolsa Família, to eradicate hunger and poverty, to facilitate access of the population to employment, education, health and higher income;
g) transition from the Bolsa Família Program towards the Citizen´s Basic Income, CBI, unconditional, as a right of every person to participate in the wealth of the nation, such as set by the Law 10.835/2004, a PT initiative, approved by all parties in the National Congress and sanctioned by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in January 8, 2004.”
It would be rational that the Bolsa Família and the state social programs become unified since they are quite similar. Both could be increased in value, for more people, in the direction of the CBI.
President Dilma Rousseff was elected in October 31st, 2010 in the second ballot, with almost 55.7 million votes, 56% of the total. On her inauguration day, on 2011, January 1st, she announced that the eradication of misery or extreme poverty in Brazil would be her first and most important priority.
On June 11st, President Dilma Rousseff announced the Brazil Without Misery Plan. The main purpose is to include in the program those 16.27 million people who are not yet being benefitted by the Bolsa Família program, although they are people who, according to the 2010 Census, are living with less than 70 reais per capita. She announced that the government will start making an active search for these people wherever they are. Since many of these people are children up to 14 years of age, the Bolsa Família Program increased the benefit from three to five children up to 15 years of age that may receive the 32 reais per child. This measure is expected to reach 800 thousand families more, up to 2014, and 1.3 million more children.
It will be a tremendous challenge for a 150-year old financial institution like the Caixa Econômica Federal, a Caisse des Dépôts, to administer the unconditional right to all 191 million Brazilians, even more in the future. But for an institution that was able to increase the number of families being benefitted by the Bolsa Família Program from 3.5 million families in December, 2003, to 13 million in December 2011, that corresponds to around 50 million inhabitants, and so efficiently, to manage the Citizen’s Basic Income to all Brazilians is a feasible objective. It is my purpose to help President Dilma Rousseff and her Ministers to take the necessary steps to institute the Citizen’s Basic Income by 2014.
[1] Sources: Study number 30 of IPEA – Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada, First Analysis about the results of the 2008 PNAD – Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios, published in September 24th, 2009, plus the 2009 PNAD and 2010 Census results officially published by the IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística in 2010 and 2011
[2] As of June 1st, 2011, R$ 1,00 was US$0.63, and €0.44.
[3] In 2004, BIEN became the Basic Income Earth Network.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASTRO, Josué (1951). Geopolítica da fome: ensaio sobre os problemas de alimentação e de população do mundo. Rio de Janeiro, Editora da Casa do Estudante do Brasil.
FRIEDMAN, Milton (1962). Capitalismo e liberdade. Rio de Janeiro, Editora Arte Nova, 1975.
INSTITUTO CIDADANIA (2001). Projeto Fome Zero: uma proposta de política de segurança alimentar para o Brasil. São Paulo. Instituto Cidadania/Fundação Djalma Gui marães.
LAVINAS, Lena (2001). The appeal of minimum income programmes in Latin America. ILO Brasil Regional Office – World Bank Agreement. SES (Seeking Distributive Justice – Basic Security for All) n. 7.
MEADE, James Edward (1989). Agathotopia: the economics of partnership. Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Press.
RAWLS, John (1971). A theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
SEN, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Knofp.
SEN, Amartya (2009). The idea of justice. Great Britain, Penguin Books.
SILVEIRA, Antônio Maria (1975). “Moeda e redistribuição da renda”. Revista Brasileira de Economia, abr/jun. [Reproduzido em Silveira (1981). Moeda e redistribuição de renda. Rio de Janeiro. Edições Multiplic.]
VAN PARIJS, Philippe (2001). What’s Wrong with a Free Lunch? Foreword by Robert M. Solow. New Democracy Forum Series. Boston, Beacon Press.
VAN PARIJS, Philippe (1995). Real freedom for all: what (if anything) can justify capitalism? Oxford, Oxford University Press.
VAN PARIJS, Philippe & VANDERBORGHT, Yannick (2006), Renda Básica de Cidadania, argumentos éticos e econômicos, Rio de Janeiro: Record.
Thomas Paine and many other libertarians concerned with fundamental human rights, dreamt of the day when no one would suffer from want and basic income security should be garanteed to all. The Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) promotes the idea among all countries. In Brazil, Senator Eduardo M. Suplicy has been the champion for the basic income, here called “Renda Básica de Cidadania – RBC” or citizen’s basic income.
Brazil developed gradually, since 1994, programs do help the poor. The Lula government united social programs that were dispersed and created the “Bolsa Família Program”, a system of conditional transfer of money linked to school attendance and vaccination. The family income has to be below a defined amount to qualify for the benefits. The program has been a great success. Nevertheless conditionalities require a large bureaucracy to monitor beneficiaries. Senator Suplicy introduced a bill to create an unconditional basic income for all and President Lula sanctioned the law in 2004.
Suplicy’s efforts triggered initiatives by ReCivitas (1). This small organization tried to start a pilot experiment in Paranapiacaba, based on withdrawals from a fund belonging to all, without success. Then ReCivitas started a mini-pilot experiment, using money from donors, to pay a RBC to almost 90 people in a rural “bairro” in São Paulo state. That experiment is doing well and has been described in BIEN’s Newsflash 65, november 2011.
The encounter of Suplicy and the mayor of Santo Antonio do Pinhal, a small city (~7,000 people) at the Mantiqueira mountains in São Paulo, started another effort to bring the idea to a real test. Volunteers explained the idea in meetings at schools, churches, and community spaces. In 2009 the town deputies sanctioned a law, presented by the mayor, that created a town’s fund to be fed by 6% of the city’s earnings. The rest was supposed to be provided by donors. The experiment was analysed by NEPP (2) a organization that is part of UNICAMP (3) and funded by CAF (4). A group of volunteers provided data about the town and stats were recorded, without any clear recommendation. Simultaneously Anthony Baert, from the Economics School of Louvain, Belgium, joined NEPP, had access to the same data, and published his own study (see BIEN’s Newsflash 65) of the known basic income experiments around the world, with an analysis of the existing proposal for Santo Antonio do Pinhal (5). His conclusion stated:
“based on this research, we make recommendations for the implantation of the Citizen’s Basic Income in Santo Antônio do Pinhal (Brazil). We conclude that it is not viable on the short and medium term and we suggest instead to first launch a five-year pilot project.”
We have been aware of the enormous difficulties to implement a fund-based solution to RBC for Santo Antonio do Pinhal. A Basic Income Grant (BIG) Bank is providing the resources at Quatinga Velho representing around 90 persons (see BIEN’s Newsflash 65). Anyone can imagine the difficulties to implement a funding through regular withdrawals from financial investments even for a small city. Above all, we believe that RBC is a basic right and should not depend on donations of any type, although welcome. This right must be provided by the federal government.
As a large proportion of the poor receive already from Bolsa Família, the transition to RBC is a thorny problem considering all that has been invested so far. Also the costs to switch to the universal and unconditional system of RBC right away, would seen dounting.
We believe that the solution to gradually implement the RBC, as President Lula’s 2004 sanctioned law demands, is to define a future date, say January 1, 2013. All children born in Brazil since that day will be registered as recipients of a monthly value (say R$ 50.00 or R$ 100,00) delivered to his mother or legal guardian.
Less than 2-4 billion reais would be used at the first year in Brazil. For Santo Antonio do Pinhal, 60,000 reais would pay the first year, below the 90,000 reais that the law already sanctioned, and reserved annualy for the RBC fund. Bureaucracy involved would be minimal, there will be no conflict with the Bolsa Família program, the implementation will be progressive, viable, manageable and definitive. The RBC gradually will substitute for the Bolsa Família program.
Sustainability at its core is to manage resources wisely. We side with the great Julian L. Simon (6): the most important natural resource is human creativity. Educated and creative human beings are the scarce and precious “material” we need. They will turn natural materials (ores, oil, land, sea, waters, space, etc) and existing knowledge and technologies (history, humanities, biology, physics, chemistry, etc) into valuable and life enhancing assets. Possibly the most important task is to garantee that the coming generations will receive full support in terms of education and health. This is not possible without a measure of income security that the RBC could provide. We must start right away – the pressures of an increasingly old population will tax the young of the future in unprecedented ways. Caring for them is caring for the future of people and environment.
1 ReCivitas – Instituto pela Revitalização da Cidadania – www.recivitas.org.br
2 NEPP – Núcleo de Estudos de Políticas Públicas
3 UNICAMP – Universidade Estadual de Campinas
4 CAF – Confederação Andina de Fomento
5 Anthony Baert – https://www.proac.uff.br/cede/sites/default/files/TD54.pdf
6 Julian L. Simon – The ultimate resource 2 – 1996 – Princeton University Press
Marina Pasetto Nobrega and Francisco G. Nobrega
maripnobrega@gmail.com or francisco.nobrega@gmail.com
Santo Antonio do Pinhal, Novembro de 2011
Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend is closer to a Basic Income than almost any other policy in the world today. The lessons of how it was created and how it became so popular and successful are extremely important to the Basic Income movement. Two autobiographies available now tell different parts of the story of the Alaska Dividend. One is by Jay Hammond, the governor who, more than anyone else, is responsible for creating the fund and dividend. The other is by Dave Rose, the first executive director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.
Each book tells the story of its author’s life. These stories are interesting in their own right, reflecting the experience of many latter-day pioneers who came to Alaska from the lower forty-eight states before or in the early years of statehood. Hammond moved to Alaska after being a World War II pilot, and he lived the Alaskan experience as a ‘bush’ pilot, a wilderness guide, a homesteader, a legislator, a small-town Borough President, and governor. Followers of current U.S. politics will be interested to know that Sarah Palin took the name of her television show from ‘Jay Hammond’s Alaska,’ which ran for seven years in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
But followers of the Basic Income movement will be most interested in the inside accounts of how the Alaska Dividend was created and became the sound and solidly supported programme that exists today. Although the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) is the source of revenue for the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), many non-Alaskans are unaware that the two are different programmemes created at different times by different kinds of legislation.
The events leading up to the creation of the fund began in 1955 when Alaska called a constitutional convention in advance of statehood. The constitution that was finally adopted proclaims that all of the natural resources of Alaska belong to the state for the benefit of the people.
One of the most important events which led to the development of the fund and dividend happened quietly in an office in Juneau in 1963. At that time, negotiations with the federal government over which lands would be transferred to full state ownership and which would remain federally owned had dragged on for several years. A geologist named Tom Marshall (according to Hammond) and/or the commissioner of natural resources, Phil Holdsworth (according to Rose), persuaded then-governor Bill Egan that there might be oil in far-northern Alaska. Egan then finished the land negotiations with the federal government by agreeing to take a ‘large, barren and unpopulated wasteland on Alaska’s Arctic Slope, near remote Prudhoe Bay.’ In 1967, oil was discovered under that barren, unpopulated wasteland.
Jay Hammond was elected governor in 1974, when, he says, ‘the scent of anticipated oil revenues wafted like musk in the halls of the state legislature’. Hammond was possessed with the idea of putting as much of that money as possible into a permanent fund that would pay dividends to Alaskans. The concept had been with him for a long time. Years earlier, as mayor of the small municipality of Bristol Bay Borough, he had tried unsuccessfully to create a similar programme at the local level using fisheries revenue.
Hammond had many reasons for favouring the fund and dividend. He thought that the temporary windfall should be saved rather than spent as it came in. He was afraid that the government would waste the windfall on poorly designed programmes or projects that would benefit only special interests or favored constituents. He wanted to make sure that every Alaskan would benefit from their jointly owned oil resources. And he hoped the dividend would help the poor.
After reading his book and speaking to him at the 2005 USBIG Congress, I still cannot say for sure how this idea came to Hammond and how he came to be so obsessed by it. He appears to have been influenced by the guaranteed income movement of the 1960s, but this does not fully explain where he got the idea for a state-owned fund paying dividends to all citizens.
Although Hammond was not the only person responsible for the creation of the fund and dividend, it is clear that it would not have happened without his single-minded pursuit of it for his entire eight years as governor. He made it his top priority. It was the object seemingly of every budget compromise he made from 1974 to 1982. The Alaska Dividend therefore owes its existence to the right person being in the right office at the right time.
The time was right not only because money was beginning to flow, but also because of public perception. Five years before he took office, in 1969, the state government had received an initial windfall of $900 million (six times the size of the state budget at that time) from the sale of leases for the right to drill. Some people at the time, including then-governor Keith Miller, argued that the state should invest the money and spend only the interest. But by 1974 all of that money was gone, and there was a widespread (if exaggerated) belief that most of it had been wasted. There was thus strong support for saving at least part of the expected oil windfall when Hammond began discussing the idea of a fund and a dividend with the legislature.
In 1976, after a series of compromises, Alaskans passed an amendment to the state constitution dedicating at least 25 percent of each year’s oil royalties to the new APF. It was a fraction of what Hammond wanted. Although he discussed many different figures, he at one time had hopes of dedicating 50 percent of all oil revenue to the fund. Royalties make up only about half of the state’s oil revenues. Therefore, the APF is only one-fourth as large has Hammond had wanted.
The biggest missing piece, from Hammond’s perspective, was the dividend. There is no mention of it in the amendment, which simply states that at least a minimum amount of certain kinds of mineral revenue would go into a fund of ‘income producing investments.’ It did not specify what these investments should be or how the returns would be used. Although these omissions were a disappointment to Hammond, according to Rose, the vagueness of the APF amendment was instrumental to its passage. It drew support from diverse groups, not all of whom would have supported a more clearly defined plan dedicating the returns to a dividend or anything else.
By both Rose’s and Hammond’s accounts, the dividend proposal was not popular with the public or with members of the legislature when Hammond started pushing for it in the late 1970s. The dividend got through thanks both to the strength of the governor’s office and to a long series of compromises made by a few dedicated legislators.
After a court challenge about how dividends were to be distributed, the final version of the dividend bill was passed and went into effect in 1982. It dedicated roughly half of the APF’s returns to the PFD. Unlike the fund itself, the dividend is not protected by a constitutional amendment. It is created by a simple majority vote of the state legislature. It is protected today, mostly, by its enormous popularity. According to Rose, a legislator proposed to do away with the PFD only six months after the first dividends went out. Rose writes, ‘His proposal had ample support in the Legislature, but when the public heard about it, everyone ran for cover.’ After just one dividend cheque, the PFD had a strong political constituency. After three or four cheques, it became politically inviolable.
But the fund was still not fully secure from diversion. The principal only had to be held in ‘income producing investments.’ There are many risky, politically motivated projects that can count as income producing investments. Many politicians wanted to use it for subsidized loans or infrastructure projects. Some wanted to restrict the APF to invest only in Alaskan assets. The legislature still has the power to intervene on any of these issues, but for the most part they have not. These issues have been resolved largely by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC), a body that was created in 1980 to manage the fund and dividend.
David Rose became the first executive director of the APFC in 1982. He made it his goal to follow the ‘prudent investor rule,’ a legal doctrine in which those who invest on behalf of others must seek the highest returns consistent with the safety of the investment. Investments with almost any other political goal are ruled out by the prudent investor rule, because they tend not to be the safest and most profitable. This rule was nominally established in APF legislation in 1980, but the law has few teeth. It takes the self-discipline of the managers and the oversight of public opinion to keep it in place. The state set up other programmes for subsidized loans and development projects. By the time Rose left office in 1992, the prudent investor rule was well established in precedent. The Alaskan public, wary that some bureaucrat might be blowing the source of their future dividends, paid close attention to the fund’s performance.
Even Rose felt the temptation to use the fund for political objectives. He tells one story from the late 1980s when the manager of Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund came to him privately and suggested that the Kuwait fund, the APF, and two pension funds from the lower forty-eight states, should pool their assets and buy a controlling interest in British Petroleum (BP). Rose turned it down, of course, but not without some hesitation and daydreaming. It would have been a political move – not the move of a prudent investor.
These two books together lay out the long series of events between 1955 to 1992 that led to the APF being established in the Alaskan state constitution; the PFD being established by law; the prudent investor rule being established by law and precedent; and all being protected by public opinion. At the time of writing (January 2011), the APF is at more than $38.4 billion. The most recent annual PFD (October 2010) was $1,281 for every man, woman, and child in Alaska.
The dividend is safe for now because it continues to be one of the most popular programmes in Alaska, but that might not be true forever. The legislature has recently made several attempts to redirect the principal of the fund toward political projects, such as infrastructure investments, which show reduced commitment to the prudent investor rule. Alaskans were surprisingly resigned to the $12 billion the fund lost in the financial crisis of 2008-2009.
Furthermore, Alaska faces difficult budgetary times ahead thanks to decisions made when the oil started flowing. Back then, when Hammond was trying to create the dividend, he reluctantly and regretfully signed a bill to eliminate the state income tax. Looking at short-term effects only, the elimination of the income tax seemed like a great idea. The state simply didn’t need the tax, and it was making far more money in oil revenue than it needed to run the state budget. Hammond thought it would be much better to dedicate more oil revenues to the permanent fund and continue to finance most government spending through regular taxes. Eliminating the income tax would benefit Alaskans unevenly and temporarily. Dedicating an equal amount of additional money to the APF (and an accompanying dividend) would benefit all Alaskans permanently. Instead the state decided to live off temporary oil revenue.
Today nearly 85% of the Alaskan state budget is funded by oil. When those revenues run out there will be enormous pressure to redirect the PFD, and perhaps even APF principal, toward supporting the state budget. Furthermore, the state will be in the position of needing to find new tax sources just when the industry that dominates the state economy will be contracting. Perhaps natural gas will create a new resource boom just as the oil money begins to run out. Perhaps some other part of the Alaskan economy will take over. But it is clear that Alaska is in a more precarious position than it would have been if the state had saved more of its oil revenues.
It’s tempting to think what might have been if Alaska had saved all of its oil revenue in a best-case scenario. Suppose the state had kept the income tax, put all its oil revenues into the APF, and spent only the interest. The APF would now be something in the neighborhood of eight-to-ten times its actual current size of $38.4 billion. For a best-case scenario, say $400 billion. Most financial analysts agree that one can withdraw up to 4% or 5% per year from an investment fund and still expect it to grow over time in real terms. Suppose the state was able to withdraw 5% each year, using half of it for dividends and half for the state’s operating budget. That would produce a dividend of $15,000 per person per year and $10 billion for the state budget. Current total state spending is only $10.5 billion per year. Thus, the state would only need to raise $0.5 billion from other sources this year, and it would be able to envisage the day when returns to the fund financed the entire state budget.
Enticing, but it is a best-case scenario, relying on the most optimistic assumptions on every issue. It ignores all of the financial risks and political, economic, and demographic barriers to maintaining such a system. It also ignores the fact that the state needed to spend some of the oil money as soon as it came in. It was a poor state with weak infrastructure and poor schools: it no longer is – thanks to the oil boom. Although some of the oil money was wasted, some of it was well spent. As Rose argues, ‘Until basic needs are met, such as education and public safety, the government has no business saving for the future.’ Alaska had to spend a lot to meet its needs at the time, but it could have saved much more than it has. If Hammond had got his way, the fund and dividend would be four times the size they are now.
The APF and PFD give us a model on which we can improve. The memoirs of Hammond and Rose help us to understand how we can do it.
Literature:
Dave Rose and Charles Wohlforth, Saving For the Future: My Life and the Alaska Permanent Fund, Epicenter Press, Kenmore, WA, 2008, 256pp, hbk, 978 0 9790470 4 6, $24.95, pbk, 978 0 9790470 5 3, $17.95.
Jay S. Hammond, Tales of Alaska’s Bush Rat Governor, Epicenter Press, Kenmore, WA, 1994, pbk, 340 pp, 978 0 945397 43 4, $17.95