by Guest Contributor | Dec 5, 2018 | Opinion
By Amy King, in collaboration with Basic Income Waterloo Region
Basic income is currently a hot topic in Canada. From debates across the political spectrum of a basic income and reminders of the success of Manitoba’s Mincome experiment in the 1970s, to the cancellation by the Progressive Conservative (PC) government of Ontario of the previous Liberal government’s basic income pilot, “basic income” is the subject of lively discussion among Canadians.
While this widespread attention is welcome, it has also raised the concern that the discussion of a “basic income” often conflates two distinct concepts: a basic income (BI) and a negative income tax (NIT). The result of this conflation is that the concept of BI has been marginalized in current social and political discourse, as the term “basic income” is co-opted to refer to an NIT and not a basic income as advocated for by the basic income movement. This co-optation creates confusion around which concept one is referring to when they use the term, “basic income” and, perhaps more damagingly, leaves the basic income movement without a term to capture the concept they so passionately believe in and advocate for.
NIT is referred to by Parijs & Vanderborght (2017) as a “cousin” of BI. Briefly, a basic income is distributed upfront to all individuals in the same amount, without an obligation to work or otherwise contribute something in return and without income or means testing (Parijs & Vanderborght, 2017). A negative income tax, in contrast, is distributed within an income tax scheme and is determined based on the level of income of the individual or household (Parijs & Vanderborght, 2017). A negative income tax, therefore, differs from a basic income in important ways: It is not necessarily universally distributed; it is not necessarily distributed to individuals; it is not distributed in the same amount to all individuals; and finally, the amount may be determined through income testing.
Distinguishing between the BI and NIT is, therefore, crucial, as each has a clear, and often disparate, vision of the implementation and ends of a “basic income.” Advocates of a basic income push for the implementation of a basic income program that is universally and exclusively individually distributed. Universal distribution ensures that recipients will not be stigmatized or privileged based on income or employment and does not require individual administrative oversight by public employees. Individual distribution allows recipients to manage their own financial affairs. While an NIT has poverty alleviation as its goal and it may well succeed in achieving this, BI has a robust vision of socio-economic justice that aims toward liberty and equality for all.
Ontario’s so-called basic income pilot followed a negative income tax model. Participants were between the ages of 18 and 64, with an income below $34,000/a for an individual, and $48,000/a for a couple (Ontario Basic Income Pilot, 2017). The pilot followed a tax credit model, so that single participants were guaranteed $16,989, less 50 percent of any earned income and couples were guaranteed $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50 percent of any earned income (Ontario Basic Income Pilot, 2017). The scheme implemented during the pilot therefore differed from a basic income in that it was not universal, distribution was not exclusively individual, and it was income tested.
Another example of this co-optation occurs in Mark Gollom’s article for the CBC, “Basic income finds support on right as ‘most transparent’ form of redistribution” (2017, April 25). As indicated by the title, Gollom (2017, April 25) reports support from the right for the Ontario Liberal government’s NIT trial and discusses the championing of the concept of an NIT by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
In this article, Gollom (2017, April 25) offers a useful outline of arguments from the right for an NIT, which may be considered by some a “welfare” program more amenable to supporters of left-leaning economic policy. However, it also offers a helpful example of the conceptual blurring that occurs around the term “basic income”. The terms “basic income” and “negative-income tax” are employed often, but the article’s focus is a negative-income tax—there is no mention of support for a basic income. If someone unfamiliar with the distinction between the concepts of a BI and an NIT were to read the article, they would conclude that an NIT scheme is a basic income scheme. This is conceptually misleading—an NIT is not a BI—and it results in the marginalization of the concept of a basic income in the current debate.
It is evident then that there are important philosophical and political differences between BI and an NIT that are obscured when the term “basic income” is employed indiscriminately. Indiscriminate use of the term “basic income” is also problematic because it has resulted in co-optation of the term to refer to an NIT. This marginalization and co-optation of the term “basic income” is problematic for many reasons.
First, in Canada, as we’ve seen, NIT currently serves as the default against which basic income programs are measured. The argument is made that the differences between an NIT and a BI are negligible, or that they do not make a substantive difference. The argument is also made that an NIT is more politically feasible than a BI. These factors, along with NIT’s support from vocal advocates, has positioned NIT at the forefront of the discourse around a basic income. However, the discourse does not often refer to an NIT as an NIT. Instead, an NIT is referred to as a “basic income”, and even sometimes, a “universal basic income” (for example here). Because the concept of a BI has been absorbed in the discourse into the concept of an NIT, BI advocates struggle to describe and argue their case.
Second, when we envision a just society, where people are not prevented by socio-economic barriers from realizing their potential, where people do not face insurmountable obstacles to breaking the cycle of poverty and where people are not discriminated against, oppressed or stigmatized because of socio-economic factors, it is clear that only a BI holds this transformative socio-political promise. Why not measure proposals against a vision of a society worth striving for, rather than ignoring the differences between an NIT and a BI and limiting our vision to considerations of political feasibility? BI’s transformative potential is obfuscated when NIT-based proposals are referred to as BI proposals and the discourse centres around these NIT-based proposals. The potential of BI is dismissed and marginalized from the discourse.
Third, because the language to describe a BI has been assimilated to an NIT, BI advocates must resort to using clunky and obscure terms such as “demogrant” to describe the concept, or else engage in lengthy explanations to describe what could otherwise be summed up in the term “basic income.”
Fourth, internationally, the term “basic income” is still used to refer to a universal, unconditional and exclusively individually delivered basic income. Because of the co-optation of the term “basic income” in Canada to refer to an NIT, there is a discrepancy between the understanding of the concept in Canada and in the rest of the world. This not only creates confusion, it can create a sense of deception in supporters of a basic income when they learn about a “basic income” pilot in Ontario, where the basic income is not universal, unconditional or exclusively individual. These supporters may question their involvement in the movement when the basic income they advocate for is so different from what is implemented in a “basic income” pilot.
This is not to underestimate the importance of the NIT concept to the basic income movement, nor to set it up in opposition to BI. Because of their appeal across the political spectrum and amenability to current income tax schemes, advocacy for, and implementation of NIT schemes, may be a crucial step toward realizing the aims of the basic income movement. NIT schemes are considered by Parijs & Vanderborght (2017) to be the most appealing of basic income’s cousins because they do not exclude people who do not perform paid work from being recipients, offering a step forward in terms of liberty and equality, while also reducing the stigma against people who do not have paid employment.
Distinguishing between BI and NIT is critical at this time as support for and dialogue around the idea of a “basic income” has reached critical mass. The hope is that clarifying the distinction between the two concepts will unite supporters of both negative income tax and basic income to form an inclusive movement based on their mutual recognition of overlapping aims. The strength in unity is especially critical now as a bulwark against current and future government policies that target and punish the least well-off in society.
References
Gollom, M. (2017, April 25). Basic income finds support on right as ‘most transparent’ form of redistribution. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/basic-income-ontario-right-political-economic-1.4083630.
Lowrey, A. (2018, July 13). Smart money: Why the world should embrace universal basic income. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-smart-money-why-the-world-should-embrace-universal-basic-income/
Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (2017). Ontario Basic Income Pilot. Retrieved from www.ontario.ca/basicincome.
Parijs, P and Vanderborght, Y. (2017). Basic income: a radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP.
by Andre Coelho | Nov 25, 2018 | News
India Network for Basic Income (INBI) will host the 19th BIEN Congress in Hyderabad, India, from 22nd to 25th of August 2019. At a time when the welfare state is undergoing major crisis, all around the world, and the discussion around basic income is gaining traction, it is ever more important to give voice to speakers and participants to present and debate this crucial new approach to social security. Being an international Congress, participants and speakers will be coming from different parts of the world, which only adds to the diversity of views and opinions a real global debate like the one referred above needs. Last year’s 18th BIEN Congress was held in Tampere, Finland, organized by the local BIEN affiliate.
The Congress organization results from a partnership between INBI and the NALSAR University of Law, which will house the Congress in its state-of-the-art campus on the outskirts of Hyderabad. INBI is also partnering with SEWA Madhya Pradesh, one of the largest membership-based women’s organization in the world and which played a key role in the Madhya Pradesh basic income pilot study. With SEWA, INBI will be producing short films and planning several campaign events in Madhya Pradesh and other parts of the country in the run up for the Congress. The days running up to the Congress will also host a major Hackathon in Hyderabad, organized by another INBI’s partner organization, the WisoCoLab. This event will also feature discussions around basic income and will feed in the Congress with a sum of its activities. Finally, the Mustardseed Trust is also partnering with INBI, as a financial supporter to the Congress, and in presenting a session at the Congress under “Basic Income and Caring Economy”.
The Congress itself will have plenary sessions, dynamic plenaries (panel of experts, with a moderator) and parallel sessions, in a structure similar to other BIEN Congresses. As in the latest Congress in Finland, there will also be a basic income short film festival integrated into to program schedule. New features planned are the BIEN Civic Forum, and the Basic Income Ideas Bazaar. The former, happening in the 22nd of August, intends to bring together different stakeholders in a given national or regional context to share views and debate basic income. The idea is to bring together policy-makers, corporate leaders and academics at the highest levels in the Indian context so as to strengthen the basic income debate in India. The latter is a space where organizations, artists and groups working on basic income who wish to showcase their work can do so at a nominal cost.
A formal Call for Papers to the Congress will soon be released.
More information at:
André Coelho, “Finland / International: BIEN Congress 2018 (part 2)”, Basic Income News, September 5th 2018
by Daniele Fabbri | Nov 23, 2018 | Research
Photo Credit: CC(Cindy Woods)
The last world development report from the World Bank is out. It investigates the changing nature of work and suggests what governments could and should do to address the phenomenon. Among the proposals there is the enhancement of social protection, to a degree disjoining it from formal wage employment, considering Universal Basic Income (UBI) as one of the options.
Digital transformation allows firm to grow rapidly, escaping the traditional patterns of production, and the rise of digital platforms make people more susceptible to the effects of technological change. The landscape of work is evolving and the skills required by employers around the world are changing: skills such as complex problem solving, adaptability and teamwork as central requisites. This in turn modifies how and at which terms people work, and short-term work is on the rise, bringing challenges to the existing welfare state, the report says. The World Development Report goes on suggesting three solutions governments should put into practice: investing in human capital, through the guidance provided by the Human Capital Project; enhancing social protection; and increasing revenue mobilization as a mean of financing the two aforementioned solutions.
The changing nature of work
Fears of technological based unemployment have their roots in history, spanning from the introduction of knitting machines in England in the XVI° century, to the Luddites distruction of textile machinery in the 19th century, but the overall effect of industrialization was to stimulate economic growth and to raise the living standards. This fear is also contemporary, supported by the trend of declining industrial employment in high-income economies in the last two decades. The Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, and the UK are among the countries in which it dropped by more than 10 percentage points but, on the other hand, millions of industrial jobs have been created in developing countries since the late 1980s.
Technology is disrupting, unevenly, the demand for skills, and its potential for the amelioration of living standards manifests heterogeneously: workers in elected sectors gains from technological progress, whilst others see themselves left facing displacement. The wealth created by the platform economy is huge, but its placed in the hands of a few, and A.I. raises concerns about the advent of a jobless economy following the rapid growth in the number of robots operating worldwide: if they are 1.2 millions in 2018, they will be 2.6 millions in 2019, an increase of 1.4 milion units in just one year. It should be noticed how, in the countries with higher robot density – Germany, Korea, Singapore – employment rates remain high, but in Germany the effect was a reduction in the hiring of new, young entrants; young workers, and economies anticipating larger numbers of entrants, may be more affected than others.
The extent to which robots replace workers remains unclear, with automation of routine work estimated to have also created 23 million jobs across Europe starting in 1999, and evidence suggesting that its overall effect is that of raising demand for labor, specifically in the technology sector, by providing the tools necessary for online work, or for taking part in the gig economy. It’s sure that jobs based upon repetition, which are “codifiable”, are those more endangered by automation, but estimates of the number of jobs at risk varies widely, for the US from 7% to 47%, the latter figure the result of automation probabilities developed by machine learning experts at the University of Oxford, a speculation which cannot account properly for the rates of technology absorption, which have been observed to vary greatly depending on the kind of technology, both internationally and intranationally.
The effect of automation on skills demand and on the production process is somehow more discernable. On the skills side, the demand for cognitive abilities which allow workers to be more adaptable, as critical thinking and socio-behavioural skills, is increasing; on the side of the production process there is the rise of global value chains, the changing nature of the boundaries of firms, and the fluid geography of jobs. The process has favored the more educated, and human capital seems the more effective protection against automation driven unemployment: “A big question is whether workers displaced by automation will have the required skills for new jobs created by innovation”. Innovation has the greatest impact on low and middle-skilled workers, either because they are more suceptible to automation, or because no complementarities with technology (human-machine cooperation) manifest.
The paper identifies how technology has disrupted the demand for skills: firstly, the demand for non-routine skills (i.e. cognitive and socio-behavioural) is increasing both in advanced and emerging economies; secondly, the demand for job specific-skills is declining; thirdly, payoffs to combination of different type of skills, allowing for greater adaptability and easier transfer among different jobs, appear to be increasing. The risk is growing inequality, as the report states:
“In advanced economies, employment has been growing fastest in high-skill cognitive occupations and low-skill occupations that require dexterity. By contrast, employment has shifted away from middle-skill occupations such as machine operators. This is one of the factors that may translate into rising inequality in advanced economies. Both middle- and low-skill workers could see falling wages ⎯ the former because of automation; the latter because of increased competition.”
Technology changes the way in which people works and the term under which they work. The gig-economy and jobs based on on-demand services, arising in an environment created by the advance of technology, don’t rely on long-term contracts but rather on extreme flexibility. There is a minimum productivity level at which firm find it optimal to employ workers formally before resorting to globalization, this means that informality is prefereable for everyone exept for the most productive workers.
If globalization and automation were to act simultaneusly, increasing the productivity of workers, the number of informal workers may decline, but if more requirements –minimum wage, required benefits – are imposed on firms, the positive “formal employment effect” may be reversed, and informality actually rise. The management of risk through employers doesn’t fit well with the new nature of jobs, and the use of payroll taxes to finance pensions and social insurance may no longer be sustainable, even for advanced economies, as the percentage of the workforce taking part into the formal economy decreases. Indeed, the changing nature of work stimulates informality, as taxation, ragulation, and social protection schemes don’t provide businesses with incentives to grow, particularly in developing economies. The issue is present in both emerging and advanced economies, and convergence is occurring among them, with increased informality in the advanced ones, leaving workers without access to benefits or protections and making the case for direct intervention of the government through benefit provision. “If automation pushes up the cost of distorting labor markets, and development improves the efficacy of the public sector, government should move away from regulation-based redistribution to direct social welfare support.”
Lifelong Learning
“Skill acquisition is a continuum, not a finite, unchangeable path”.
The advance of automation increases the demand for high-order cognitive skills, while simultaneously decreasing the demand for repetitive, job-specific skills. At the same time, the retooling of existing jobs make adaptability a fundamental requisite: the idea of a career for life seems no longer plausible, and shifts between jobs will be the norm. Thus, the profile of the ideal employee changes, as a single job may require the combination of skills from multiple disciplines: jacks of all trades will surclass the masters of one. How well countries respond to the changing demand for skills depends on how fast the supply of skills can shift, but the education system is traditionally adverse to change, and adjustment occurs predominantly out of compulsory education. Tertiary education, given its flexibility, allows for enrollment whilst participating in the workforce, and so will be the main provider of the cognitive skill-set required. Government should take action in enhancing instruction during youth, the period in which the learning capabilities are higher, and simultaneously helping to shape a better framework for adult learning as a complement to schooling, in order to “inoculate against job uncertainty.”
A new social contract
Old and new pressures calls for a renovation of the social contract, which the report defines as “a policy package that aims to contribute to a fairer society.” The changing nature of work is costly for workers and adjustments are needed: a global new deal is necessary. This new deal should be different from the one adopted in the US after the Great Depression, as the Depression was a transitory shock, whilst the advance and automation and informality are here to stay. Any social contract should be tailored to the specific country context, but some core elements remain: following the indications of Amartya Sen in “Development as Freedom”, the instruments for equality of opportunity are political freedoms, freedom of opportunity, and economic protection from abject poverty.
“The labor market is increasingly valuing advanced cognitive and socio-behavioral skills that complement technology and make workers more adaptable. This means that inequality will increase unless everyone has a fair shot at acquiring these skills.”
Strengthening social protection
Social protection should be enhanced through the improvement of its three main components: a guaranteed social minimum, social insurance and market regulation.
A guaranteed social minimum, with social assistance at its core, should be based on the concept of progressive universalism, with programs providing financial support to the largest possible share of the population, in order to account for the risks in the labour market. Social assistance needs to be reformed, as the Bismarckian model is no longer satisfying, and should be coupled with subsidized social sinsurance, not strictly based on participation in formal wage employment, financed through mandatory earning based contributions limited, at least initially, to the formal market. In order to provide equal opportunities, a social contract should also include means to provide education and upskilling, necessary for navigating the job market, starting from early childhood development, as knowledge is cumulative and pays more the earlier it starts.
“As social contracts are reimagined, subsidizing a basic level of social insurance — especially for the poor — could be considered. Such a reform could also equalize the costs borne by different factors of production, such as capital and labor, as the financing of the system is at least partly shifted away from labor taxes toward general taxation.”
Universal Basic Income
Universal Basic Income is being hotly debated as a mean to expand the guaranteed social minimum, the report says. It wouldn’t be a substitute for health, education, or other social services, but a supplement to existing social programs, and could end up replacing some programs with income support functions, increasing efficiency by reducing programs fragmentation. It’s monetary nature is an advantage: analysis of cash transfer programs showed advances in school enrollment rates, test scores, and cognitive development, food security and use of health care facilities, especially when combined with forms of intervention. The available evidence seems to disprove one of the main concerns related to UBI, that of work disincentives, as the Alaska dividend program shows no impact on employment (if not for the increase in part-time employment), and a study on the Iranian basic income program found that it did no harm to employment. The regular provision of welfare benefits granted by UBI would contrast with the arbitrarity of means-tested anti-poverty measures, which facing the dynamism of poverty ends up generating winners and losers.
The costs of UBI would depend on the level at which it is set, and its effects would depend on how it is financed. Simulations setting UBI at the level of existing cash transfer programs show that it would have significant fiscal impact, costing an additional 13.8 percent of GDP in Finland, 10.1 percent in France, 8.9 percent in the United Kingdom, and 3.3 percent in Italy. The taxation of UBI alongside regular income and the elimination of tax allowances were then used as sources of revenues for covering the additional costs: “in Finland and Italy, these measures were more than adequate to cover the additional costs of a UBI. In France, those revenues almost offset the cost of such a program. In the United Kingdom, taxing cash benefits and eliminating tax allowances were not enough to cover the UBI.” Simulations for developing countries found significant distributional effects: in Nepal most people would gain, in Indonesia 40% of the poor would be worse off and in South Africa most of the elderly and the poor would be worse off. This is due the structure and performance of the existing schemes, UBI being set at their level. A debate remains around whether some of the “cousins” of UBI, as a Job Guarantee or a Participation Income, conditional to the fulfillment of public jobs, or to volunteering, could be more beneficial, the report states.
Financing social inclusion
A basic social minimum package which uses UBI, set at the average poverty level, and aimed at adults would cost 9.6% GDP in low-income countries, 5.1% in medium-income countries and 3.5% in upper middle income countries. If the UBI was to be for everyone, the figures would be in the double digits in the poorest countries, 9% of GDP for middle income countries and 5.2% in upper-middle income countries. And the invesment for UBI should be coupled with investments in the creation of human capital, the report mantains. A significant mobilization of capital becomes necessary. Taxation patterns diverge from low income countries to high income ones; if the former rely mostly on indirect taxation –consumption and trade taxes – the latter rely on direct taxation. The paper analyzes sources of potential revenues to finance the global new deal, as excises taxes on tobacco and alcool, that even if considered regressive, have usually a long term positive impact on health. Value added tax could have a significant role in developing economies, whilst they are already diffused among advanced ones. A carbon tax may have strong impact, with a study finding that for the top 20 carbon emitting countries, optimal taxation could rise almost 2% of GDP, and be paired with the elimination of energy subsidies, which globally amouts to $333 billion. Personal and corporate income taxation may be aided by technology in avoiding tax avoidance.
“The virtual nature of digital businesses makes it even easier to locate activities in low-tax jurisdictions. The provision of goods and services from abroad without a physical presence in countries where consumers are located escapes the traditional corporate tax.”
Digitizing property registration systems will improve the collection of property taxes, and withholding taxes on payments of services will become more important in economies with strong digital presence and a prevalence of intangibles. Social protection should be enhanced keeping in mind financial costraints, and expanded as more resources are mobilized through improved taxation.
More information at:
World Bank. 2019. World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Human Capital Project: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/human-capital
This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the World Bank
by Faun Rice | Nov 13, 2018 | Research
Photo by Stefan Kühn, CC BY-SA 3.0
The CESifo Group of Munich is a European research group that seeks to employ both high-quality economic theory and the methods of an empirical institute. Operating since 1999, CESifo is a collaboration between the Center for Economic Studies (CES), the ifo Institute (“Information and Forschung” or research), and the CESifo GmbH (Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research).
CESifo publishes a quarterly journal, the latest issue of which is devoted to Unconditional Basic Income (UBI). Five of seven pieces within this 48-page publication present a variety of perspectives on UBI research and theory, predominantly addressing the European context.
- Straubhaar, Thomas, “Universal Basic Income – New Answer to New Questions for the German Welfare State in the 21st Century”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 03–09 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Transforming social support in Germany by replacing Bismarckian welfare state ideals
Straubhaar describes a series of proximate social and economic changes due to globalization, aging societies, income polarization, and dissolution of traditional economic safety nets. He comments that the contemporary version of the welfare state is founded upon 19th century Bismarckian principles that rely on a classic population pyramid (weighted by youth at the bottom), a male-breadwinner model, a fast-growing economy, and a labor-focused Protestant work ethic, none of which will continue to be relevant indefinitely. He proposes UBI as a welfare state model that would completely replace all other publicly financed social support and provide a 21st century solution to the aforementioned changes, particularly in Germany, but as a model for the rest of the world.
- Torry, Malcolm, “Some Lessons from the Recent UK Debate about Universal Basic Income”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 10–14 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Enhancing UBI data distribution and ensuring that discussions maintain a clear definition of the difference between UBI and other related economic policies
Torry highlights a number of key events and issues from the UK that have broader relevance for the global community interested in UBI. The first discusses the important use of microsimulation to predict the impact of economic policies on households of varying incomes (for example, to estimate the loss of disposable income to low-income families if means-tested benefits remain or are removed). The second relates a story in which a public organization cherry-picked UBI data, to which Torry simply says that high-quality research ought to be better distributed. The third and fourth call the reader’s attention to the importance of using specific definitions of UBI schemes and not allowing the term to be misused.
- De Wispelaere, Jurgen, Antti Halmetoja and Ville-Veikko Pulkka, “The Rise (and Fall) of the Basic Income Experiment in Finland”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 15–19 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Improving the international understanding of Finland’s basic income experiment, its origins, and its limitations
The Finnish basic income experiment began as a one-line commitment in the national Government Programme in 2015. Kela, the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, proposed several experiment design options, and a two-year control trial began in January 2017. Kela will evaluate the results and present them to Parliament in 2019.
Basic income stakeholders have become increasingly critical of the trial parameters, raising concerns about the limits of the sample and the pilot’s restricted scope and goals. The authors argue that proponents of UBI initially overstated the extent of the Finnish government’s commitment and capabilities, heralding the commitment as a “watershed” moment for European basic income, when in fact the Finnish experiment and others have been limited from the outset by policy inertia, existing budgetary and taxation systems, and other institutional limitations. The pilot program is designed to assess basic income as a means of activating the labour market, a politically safe goal, and was never likely to result in policy changes of the kind UBI advocates desire to see.
- Colombino, Ugo and Nizamul Islam, “Basic Income and Flat Tax: The Italian Scenario”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 20–29 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Evaluating proposed basic income-related policy packages in Italy and comparing their political origins
Like other European countries, Italy has seen several basic income proposals that have yet to be implemented. Several current potential models are rooted in different political ideologies and thus provide an interesting comparison. The first, “Reddito di Inclusione,” (RdI) is a basic income scheme that targets the most impoverished segment of the population in practice but is intended to be universal. The second, “Reddito di Cittadinanza” (RdC) is means-tested and only covers the population “below the relative poverty threshold” (20). Another model, proposed by Istituo Bruno Leoni (a think tank), involves both basic income and a flat tax.
The authors provide a basic overview of the differences between UBI, means-tested guaranteed income, and negative income tax. They then simulate and evaluate the various government-proposed combinations of policies, concluding that while it is possible to design a fiscally neutral policy package, current government proposals have not yet done so.
- Widerquist, Karl, “The Devil’s in the Caveats: A Brief Discussion of the Difficulties of Basic Income Experiments”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 30–35 | Details| PDF Download
The focus: Making UBI research accessible and understandable, particularly with regard to its limitations
Widerquist’s basic thesis is that, contrary to popular representations of policy research, all UBI experiments contain a significant list of caveats. He argues that science journalism has not done an adequate job of communicating the limitations of UBI studies, or indeed any social sciences research, to the public. Furthermore, specialist researchers’ lists of caveats are inadequate for communicating a study’s limitations. Widerquist has an upcoming book that will address both best practices in UBI research given its inherent difficulties and best practices in communication the results of said research to the public and policymakers. In this article, he identifies four broad strategies: (1) iteratively designing studies with public feedback, so that research directly addresses the questions relevant to local stakeholders; (2) highlighting UBI’s impact in publications, rather than its side-effects (even though the latter might be more interesting to researchers); (3) attempting to define a “bottom line” or generalizable conclusion from research; and (4) addressing and discussing ethical controversies.
- Clauss, Michael and Stefan Remhof, “A Euro Area Finance Ministry – Recipe for Improved Governance?”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 36–43 | Details| PDF Download
The authors discuss the possibility and potential function of a euro-area finance ministry. Such an organization could either martial Europe’s national fiscal policies to align them throughout the region, or it could be one more “layer” of fiscal authority in each European nation. This paper does not explicitly address UBI.
- Nam, Chang Woon and Peter Steinhoff, “The ‘Make in India’ Initiative”, CESifo Forum 19 (3), 2018, 44–45 | Details| PDF Download
The authors discuss a 2014 federal initiative to promote industrial manufacturing in India. This paper does not explicitly address UBI.
More information at:
“CESifo Forum 03/2018 (Autumn): Unconditional Basic Income”, 01-48, ifo Institute, Munich, 2018
by Andre Coelho | Nov 11, 2018 | News
Picture credit to: The Black Detour.
The Magnolia Mother’s Trust is an initiative generated by the Springboard to Opportunities NGO, having been referred to at a recent article on the production of the documentary “Inherent Good“. This initiative aims at supplying to poor families headed by black American women in Jackson, Mississippi, the extra cash they systematically are in need of. Since black women in the United States earn much less, on average, than white, non-Hispanic men (37% less), an inequality that is even more acute in Mississippi (44% less), the experiment is aiming at helping these very disadvantaged families, while studying the effects of supplying unconditional cash.
This cash transfer project, financed by the Economic Security Project, will deposit 1000$ per month, for 12 months, in 16 low-income single black mothers bank accounts. No questions asked. The women in question will be randomly selected from a set of black female adults with children who are considered to live in poverty, in the Jackson area. Projects such as this cash transfer project are supported by establishments like nonprofit organizations in cleveland ohio, who invest in talent and finance. The complete list of names will be known before the end of this month, with payments starting in December 2018. An important feature of this program is that some of the potential beneficiaries have helped to craft the initiative, bringing crucial input that brought, for instance, leadership training, psychological counseling and community service to the package (hence it will not be only a cash transfer program). However, participants will not be forced to uptake these auxiliary aspects of the experiment.
In this region of the United States, economic, social and racial (all aspects intertwine) inequalities are particularly severe, a problem that has not been solved by previous cash transfer programs. These, being conditional, namely on work uptake and income, “leave little room for single black mothers to create opportunities for themselves”, according to Aisha Nyandoro, the executive director of Springboard to Opportunities. Nyandoro adds that “the project is about changing the narrative and dispelling the myth of the Welfare Queen and allowing African American women to show what is possible when we trust low-income individuals”.
More information at:
André Coelho, “United States: “Inherent Good” documentary starts fund-raising campaign“, Basic Income News, November 6th 2018
J. Gabriel Ware, “The First Guaranteed Basic Income Program Designed for Single Black Moms“, Yes!, November 6th 2018
