I recently read Kate McFarland’s very informative overview of several basic income “experiments.” The quotes are around that last word in my previous sentence because, as McFarland notes, not all these projects are truly experiments, at least not if the word “experiment” is being used the way it is in the social and biomedical sciences. As we use this term in the social sciences, an experiment is a study with the following features:
Study participants or a cluster of them are randomly assigned to at least two groups
At least one of the groups is a treatment group, while at least one is a control group
The treatment group receives the intervention of interest, while the control group does not receive intervention.
Feature one above is key.
What random assignment does is make it very likely that the treatment and control groups will be balanced. “Balanced” roughly means that the distribution of variables related to both the intervention and outcome of interest are the same across treatment and control groups. So if after the data are analyzed we find a difference in the outcomes between treatment and control groups, we can attribute such a difference to the intervention of interest.
The random assignment feature is why Eight’s study in Uganda, as McFarland points out, has limited “usefulness as an experiment.” I think it is fair to say in fact, that social scientists would not consider what Eight is doing an experiment at all. I am not saying that Eight’s study has no usefulness whatsoever. It may be useful when it comes to keeping BI “in the spotlight” and, thereby, help to maintain attention on this movement. For those of us who, at least in principle, like the idea of a basic income, this is a good thing. But we should be careful when it comes to considering what we can learn from the Uganda “experiment.”
The study in Uganda is usually called a pre-test/post-test study. In such studies, measures are taken before an intervention of interest (the pre-test part), after the intervention is implemented (the post-test part), and then these “before and after” measures are compared to one another. If certain changes are observed, these may be attributed to the intervention in question. The problem with such studies is that we do not know what would have happened to the group which received the intervention had it not received it. Maybe the observed changes in the relevant measures would have occurred even if there had been no intervention. The reason we want control groups in experiments is to allow researchers to estimate what would have happened to the group that received the intervention had it not received it. Without a control group, the Uganda study simply may not tell us much about the effects of the cash grants they are testing.
The third feature above has to do with the intervention of interest. This is very pertinent to the experiments McFarland wrote about, as well as BI experiments in general. Following BIEN, McFarland defines BI as “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.” As I read her piece, I thought she was interpreting this definition to mean that if a policy provides a cash payment, exactly as spelled out in the definition, but also decreases the payment if a recipient obtains an income from selling their labor, then such a policy wouldn’t be a basic income. Alaska has no income tax, but it does have the Permanent Fund Dividend. Since it gives folks the dividend but does not tax any of it back in the form of an income/earnings tax, its grant would be an example of a basic income. But if the U.S. or any other nation, granted people money unconditionally, periodically, on an individual basis, and without a means test but also taxed all sources of income, including earnings, then that country would not have a basic income. This may seem like a mere semantic point, having nothing to do with BI experiments. But I think it is incredibly relevant.
McFarland makes it clear that some places are assessing the effects of a BI as defined by BIEN. Others are testing the effects of programs similar to BI, as defined by BIEN, but with the added feature of a decrease in the BI grant if someone works. I think she refers to this as a guaranteed minimum income.
I suspect that if the U.S. ever did anything like a BI, it would be this guaranteed minimum income version. I think this is because of the vulnerability of a BI, as McFarland defines it, to what I call the “Bill Gates objection”—why give really rich people more money? If one can respond that rich people will not be net recipients because they would pay more in income taxes than they would receive in the BI, this might be a viable response to the objection.
If I am right about this, then studies like the one in Finland, which focuses on a BI, might not tell those of us in the U.S., or in other nations following a similar course, as much as we would hope. That is because the effects of a BI might differ from the effects of a guaranteed minimum income. As an example, if one could get a BI and keep all their earnings without any loss in the amount of their BI grant, such a policy could have a different effect on labor supply than one which would curtail the grant when income from earnings increased. All this means that BI supporters who get enthusiastic about findings from BI experiments ought to take a moment to see if what was studied is what they actually have in mind.
About the author:
Michael A. Lewis is a social worker and sociologist by training whose areas of interest are public policy and quantitative methods. He’s also a co-founder of USBIG and has written a number of articles, book chapters, and other pieces on the basic income, including the co-edited work The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. Lewis is on the faculties of the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College and the Graduate and University Center of the City University of New York.
Contributors contain a mix of supporters and critics of each of the two policies.
Mariusz Baranowski and Bartosz Mika compare basic income and job guarantee programs with respect to a variety of metrics, including funding and cost, impact on existing social security systems, impact on income inequality, and emancipatory effects, ultimately favoring a job guarantee. Pavlina Tcherneva investigates the relative macroeconomic impacts expected from the two types of policies, arguing that a job guarantee possesses an economic stabilizing effect not possessed by basic income. Further, Tcherneva argues that a job guarantee has a greater potential to contribute to sustainable development and ecological goals.
Angelina Kussy and Félix Talego Vázquez, on the other hand, argue for a basic income as a component in a new understanding of work. The authors use ethnographic research of the communitarian Spanish village of Marinaleda to critique contemporary notions of “work”. Zofia Łapniewska also questions the assumptions that form the foundations of current economic institutions–developing a proposal for an alternative economy based on the ethics of care. She uses this as a basis for further consideration of policies including basic income and employment guarantees.
In addition to original articles, the issue also includes a review of BIEN cofounder Guy Standing’s 2017 book Basic Income: And How Can We Make It Happen, as well as a review of the work of economist Mariana Mazzucato.
The edition was edited by Maciej Szlinder, who is Praktyka Teoretyczna’s political philosophy editor as well as an active participant in Poland’s basic income movement.
Praktyka Teoretyczna is an open-access peer-reviewed journal, with new issues published quarterly. Its content focuses on “continuously question[ing] the relation between theory and practice”, and is especially aimed at fostering the development of young researchers.
The People’s Republic of China has created the largest unconditional cash transfer program in the world. It is called dibao, meaning Minimum Livelihood Guarantee. A recently published book is taking a fresh look at how effective dibao is at improving the livelihoods of impoverished Chinese people.
Dr. Qin Gao is on the faculty of the Columbia University School of Social Work, where she researches poverty, income inequality, and social welfare programs in China.
Gao has done extensive work researching dibao, and has released the book “Welfare, Work, and Poverty: Social Assistance in China,” which evaluates how well dibao has achieved its goals of lowering the amount and intensity of poverty in China.
The UBI Podcast recently interviewed Gao on her new book about the dibao program and asked her to give her thoughts on universalizing dibao.
Dibao is important to understand for basic income researchers because it demonstrates on a large-scale how basic income operates when it is not universal (since it includes a means test).
The dibao program allows each locality to set its own dibao standard (essentially the poverty line). Anyone below that standard is technically eligible for dibao assistance. The assistance in theory gives an individual enough money to reach the dibao standard. Eligibility for dibao is based on individual income, so one individual in a household could qualify, while another may not, Gao said.
For example, a dibao standard in Beijing, China is 900 RMB per person per month. If an individual made 700 RMB per month, dibao would provide 200 RMB in assistance to reach the dibao line of 900.
While some may worry that officials will cut off dibao assistance once an individual goes over the line, Gao said the reality is more complicated.
“In reality, many local officials are very considerate of the fluctuation in people’s incomes and other family situations. For example, education needs, health care needs. So many localities actually have initiatives to not discontinue people’s dibao benefits right away if they have income that’s higher than the local dibao line,” she said.
Some localities may allow a family to stay on dibao for three months after extra income is earned to make sure they have job security and they “do not fall back into poverty right away.”
Once a family receives the cash, it is unconditional, meaning there are no (direct) behavioral conditions to continue receiving the money.
Gao said the evidence that dibao creates a poverty trap, where families remain under the poverty line intentionally to receive assistance, is not strong.
Some localities have families update their income and wealth information every three to six months. Certain villages will even publish the names of recipients to allow for public feedback on whether a family should qualify for dibao. Based on the feedback, localities will randomly select people to verify their income information.
“So it’s a very systematic and stringent process,” Gao said.
For some villages, allowing others to comment on a family’s poverty situation may further stigmatize the dibao and other forms of welfare.
“Because the dibao is an unconditional cash transfer, so by design the policy requires applicants to tell the truth and other community members and neighbors to share the responsibility of monitoring. That is part of the design of this program,” Gao said.
While on paper, the dibao is technically an “unconditional cash transfer,” the way dibao measures wealth creates its own form of conditions.
Depending on the locality, dibao recipients may face a myriad of asset tests that prevent them from owning pets, a larger than average home, a car, or luxury items. Expensive private schools and schools abroad are off-limits. In the past, even a cellphone was a disqualifier.
“I think now, many localities are more lenient on that, especially on the cell phone. But there are certain luxury goods (so-called), that you’re not supposed to have. That also features into the feedback from the neighbors and community members. They would get critical and jealous if you have certain luxury goods that they don’t have but you are getting dibao,” Gao said.
In Gao’s book, she also analyzes the subjective well-being and social participation of dibao recipients. She found dibao recipients “tend to be more isolated, and less active in their social participation” than similar peers.
Dibao recipients may feel stigmatized from participating in these activities, such as going to the movies, since it is not a “culturally acceptable use of the dibao income,” she said.
After China’s transition from a planned economy to a market-based economy, society’s expectations about how families earn their own living changed. Now it is expected that people “earn a living through their own work.” Although, Gao said China is currently going through a debate about who “deserves” welfare.
“Previously people had guaranteed jobs, but many people during the economic transformation were laid off so able-bodied adults couldn’t support themselves through jobs anymore. And that group is making up about half of the dibao population,” Gao said.
One area of concern for policymakers is ensuring the dibao is reaching the “proper recipients;” that is people in poverty. There are reports of targeting errors in administering dibao “because of misreporting or difficulty to capture the real income or assets situation in rural areas.”
“The targeting error is real and local officials are very aware of it, but that will stay with the program because of the variations of family conditions and income,” Gao said.
The dibao standard is often used as a criteria for other welfare as well. This means that qualifying for dibao also gives a family access to a host of other assistance (including education, housing, and medical assistance). However, this could create a “welfare cliff” issue, where if a family exceeds the standard they may lose a lot more assistance than they gain as income.
“I think this is one of the policy design features of dibao that needs to be revised right now,” Gao said of dibao acting as a “gatekeeper” for other social assistance.
Overall, dibao has only reduced the rate of poverty to a “modest degree.” It is more effective at reducing the depth and severity of poverty, Gao said.
When asked about the potential to universalize dibao and remove the means-test, effectively creating a Universal Basic Income for China, Gao said this idea has been “very much on my mind recently.”
“I think the best possibility probably would be for certain more developed localities to experiment with such a program and see how it works,” she said.
As for creating a UBI program in China in the near-term, Gao said this would be challenging for many reasons.
“To make the dibao or a similar cash transfer universal all around China, I don’t think it’s very likely in the short-term, both in terms of fiscal challenges and also political and cultural challenges,” Gao said.
Hillary Clinton just released a new memoir, What Happened, about her 2016 campaign for US President. In the memoir, she claims to regret not embracing a type of Basic Income proposal, which she dubbed “Alaska for America”, as part of her platform.
Hillary endorses Peter Barnes’ idea of a national dividend and, like Barnes, she suggests that it should be financed in part from the revenue of shared national resources such as “oil and gas extracted from public lands and the public airwaves used by broadcasters and mobile phone companies” and the “same with the air we breathe and carbon pricing.” Clinton goes even further, however, saying that she would additionally view “the nation’s financial system as a shared resource” and implement a “financial transactions tax”. She suggests there could be a capitalized fund financed by these resources which would not only provide a “modest Basic Income” every year – which appealed to Clinton as a way to increase incomes – but also “make every American feel more connected to our country and to one another-part of something bigger than ourselves.”
Hillary says that she and her husband were fascinated by this idea and spent weeks working with her policy team to see if the idea was viable and could be included in the campaign. The proposal would be called “Alaska for America.” The campaign did not pursue this proposal because, according to Clinton, “we couldn’t make the numbers work.” In the book, Clinton also quotes Republican former U.S. Treasury Secretaries James Baker and Hank Paulson who proposed a nationwide carbon dividend that would “tax fossil fuel use and refund all the money directly to every American” as an alternative to government regulation. Again, however, Clinton claims she looked at the proposal but couldn’t make the “math work without imposing new costs on upper-middle-class families.”
If we look back, Basic Income was seldom mentioned during Clinton’s Presidential campaign, and, when it was, she was dismissive. Asked about the idea by LinkedIn’s Daniel Roth, during a discussion of education and job training, the Democratic nominee replied, “I’m not ready to go there,” and proceeded to discuss the need to create new jobs. At the time of this interview, she viewed Basic Income as an undesirable alternative to full employment, concluding, “[W]e’ve got to help create better opportunities … without just giving up and saying, ‘Okay, fine, you know, the rest of us who are producing income, we’ve got to, you know, distribute it and you don’t really have to do anything anymore.’ I don’t think that works for a democracy and I don’t think it works for most people.”
In the LinkedIn interview, Hillary suggested that job loss due to automation could (and should) be addressed by skills training and the creation of new jobs. Her memoir, however, seems to treat technological unemployment as a more dire threat, saying that she takes Silicon Valley seriously when they claim “this could be the first great technological revolution that ends up displacing more jobs than it creates” – and one which requires us to think “outside the box.” She mentions she was so impressed by this that her staff lived in fear that she’d start “talking about ‘the rise of the robots’ in some Iowa town hall”. She adds: “Maybe I should have.”
Hillary concludes this portion of her memoir by urging us that “we have to think big and think different”, suggesting policies like “taxing net worth instead of annual income” in order to reduce inequality. She says we need to “rethink how Americans receive benefits such as retirement and health care so that they’re universal, automatic, and portable”.
In 1970, conservative Republican US President Richard Nixon introduced a health bill into the American Congress. It passed but was defeated in the Senate. He did not realize it was a health bill, nor did many of his fellow politicians. It was called the Family Assistance Plan, a guaranteed income for families with children, not adequate to bring the income up to the poverty line, but substantially more than was previously on offer.
It required the breadwinner to accept work if available. Thus it was targeted, conditional, and inadequate by itself to eliminate poverty, but it was a huge change in thinking from a conservative leader in the United States. It came with this impressive rhetoric
“Initially this new system will cost more than welfare, but unlike welfare this is designed to correct the condition it deals with and thus lessen the long range burden and cost.”
The health-income gradient and the failure of ‘welfare’
We know that health and poverty are inextricably linked, that health outcomes follow the income gradient, and that the basis for this association in wealthy countries with good health systems is not simply access to care, but poverty and its own associations. Thus the Nixon proposal was a health bill.
The famous Whitehall study of British public servants who all had similar access to the National Health Service demonstrated a clear association of income with health outcomes. Those most in control of their own lives lived longer and suffered less.
Because of concern about wasting taxes on welfare and about the so called ‘welfare trap’, we have developed a highly targeted welfare system in Australia, with a strong emphasis on mutual responsibility. Our efforts to identify any welfare ‘fraud’, accidental or intentional, have become increasingly intense.
We continue to force people to chase jobs which do not exist or which they could not do. We hound them with letters generated by computers and then make it difficult for them to question any charges against them. We demean them. We dis-empower them even further than their poverty, unemployment, mental illness, or physical illness already does.
A BIG idea
An alternative is needed. The concept of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is not new. Thomas More wrote about it 400 years ago in his book Utopia. Variations of it have been advocated for centuries. Bismark’s social insurance in Germany has some elements of the concept. Nobel Laureate economist and free marketeer Milton Friedman advocated it in the form of a negative income tax (NIT).
Dr. Tim Woodruff
Four trials in the 1960-70s in the United States used Friedman’s model (p 107-109). If an individual’s tax return indicated a low or no income, a tax rebate was paid as a monthly deposit to a bank. The size of the rebate declined slowly as income was earned, ensuring earned income led to an increase in total income. The largest of these four trials involved 4,800 families, and the amount given varied from 50 to 100 percent of the poverty level. There were no work requirements.
The alternative model to NIT is a cash payment. This was trialed in Canada in 1974, where 60 percent of the Low Income Cutoff (poverty level) was paid. For every dollar earned the payment was reduced by fifty cents. Analysis of results showed that even though only one third of the population ever qualified over the 4 years of the trial, high school completion results increased and hospital admissions decreased during the trial compared to the control group.
An even more simple model is one in which the cash payment goes to every individual adult and is not means tested. This eliminates any negative perception of being needy, because everyone receives it. For those who do not need it, the money can easily be recouped by changes in taxation.
Counting costs, reaping benefits
The Basic Income Earth Network established in 1986, defines a basic income guarantee (BIG) as “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement”. This does not specify the level of the cash payment but the simplest and likely the most effective method would be to make the level at or slightly above the poverty line.
Concerns about the basic income guarantee relate both to the benefits and the costs. The Canadian trial mentioned above, demonstrated both health and education benefits. Analysis of the effect of increased household income in the Cherokee Indian community as a result of distribution of profits of a Cherokee owned casino showed less criminality and improved education down the track. None of this is surprising.
But does this mean people will not work as hard? The US trials referred to previously showed a decrease in hours worked particularly among women and young adults. Is that bad? It is not clear from the data what they did instead of working so much. Were women spending more time looking after their families? Were young adults looking more carefully at work options and training?
Men reduced their work hours by about six percent but it did not appear that they were permanently unemployed. Rather, it appears they were spending more time between jobs. The sky did not fall in. Most people who can earn a little more than a poverty level income will do just that.
Is it affordable?
A basic tax free income guarantee of $22,000 (the poverty line at 50% of the median income for a single person) for every adult Australian (18 million people) would cost $400 billion a year. But the idea is not to increase the net income of millionaires by $22,000. It keeps administration simple to give the basic income to everyone and recoup in taxes from the wealthy. So the real cost is much less.
Only about six million Australians currently receive income support. Another one million or so have some funding from the Federal Government. Being generous, for eight million to receive the BIG would cost $176 billion, almost completely offset by replacing the welfare budget of $150 billion. That could be abolished.
Removing the tax free threshold of $18,200 for the 12 million earning more than that would generate $41 billion. But anyone on a low income would still have a total income of more than $22,000.
Tweaking the tax rates on higher incomes would effectively remove the BIG from higher income earners. Provision for children would add to the cost. Reducing BIG for dual income households to a level which would reflect economies of scale, in the same way as pensions do currently, would reduce the cost.
Most Australians would not lose a cent. All Australians would be guaranteed a basic income, whether sacked, disabled, unable to find work, or simply unemployable. The NDIS and Medicare would continue unchanged. This is all possible. Even the Productivity Commission thinks it’s worth investigating (p69):
“While Australia’s tax and transfer system will continue to play a role in redistributing income, in the longer term, governments may need to evaluate the merits of more radical policies, including policies such as a universal basic income.”
A bold move for health
If Australia introduced BIG we would have a system that almost eliminates poverty, thus appealing to those deeply concerned about the plight of the disadvantaged. We would also have a system which gives such people the genuine capacity to make their own decisions about what they do with their lives, which should appeal to those committed to individual responsibility.
Implementing this idea would do away with the current cruel, dis-empowering, wasteful welfare system. It would improve health outcomes. It could improve productivity. It would improve the life prospects of the 13% of Australians who currently live in poverty, the 17.4 percent of kids who are being raised in poverty, and the 40 percent of children in single parent families who live in poverty.
This is a health issue. Medical groups of all types should think about how we might use our knowledge and concern about health to bring this issue to the minds and actions of our politicians.
About the author:
Dr. Tim Woodruff is president of the Doctors Reform Society, an organisation of doctors and medical students promoting measures to improve health for all, in a socially just and equitable way. On twitter @drsreform
Hillary endorses Peter Barnes’ idea of a national dividend and, like Barnes, she suggests that it should be financed in part from the revenue of shared national resources such as “oil and gas extracted from public lands and the public airwaves used by broadcasters and mobile phone companies” and the “same with the air we breathe and carbon pricing.” Clinton goes even further, however, saying that she would additionally view “the nation’s financial system as a shared resource” and implement a “financial transactions tax”. She suggests there could be a capitalized fund financed by these resources which would not only provide a “modest Basic Income” every year – which appealed to Clinton as a way to increase incomes – but also “make every American feel more connected to our country and to one another-part of something bigger than ourselves.”
