AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article is a draft of the first chapter of the book I’m working on: Universal Basic Income: Essential Knowledge. It can also be thought of as a reply to Bitch Bastardly’s guest article from last week. Comments welcome: Karl@widerquist.com.
Every minute of every day, you use something you don’t own to meet your needs without asking anyone’s permission and without paying anyone for the privilege. You do this every time you take a breath. You can’t do that without an atmosphere. You don’t own the atmosphere, but you’ve never had to get a job to earn the money to buy the right to use the atmosphere to keep yourself alive. You simply used it as if the free use of a common resource was the most natural thing in the world.
Karl Widerquist
I bet you’d be pretty angry if the government made a new rule dividing atmosphere into private property without giving you a share large enough to meet your needs. I don’ think it would make you feel better if they gave you the opportunity to get a job to earn the money to buy the right to breathe in your area, and thereby keep yourself alive. I think you’d recognize that if you had that much need for a job, you’d be willing to accept very low wages. I don’t think it would make you feel much better if lifetime subscriptions to breathe were affordable, and if, after working for years, saving your money, investing it wisely, you have the chance to become one of the small portion of people who own piece of the atmosphere before retirement age or the even smaller portion of people who own enough of the atmosphere that other people will pay them to breathe.
If the government tried to privatize the atmosphere, I think you’d say something like this. My ancestors and I have used the atmosphere freely for millions of years. We’re evolved to depend on it. If you take away our independent access to it, you make us dependent on whatever group of people owns it. If there’s some benefit in dividing the atmosphere into private property, either everyone should get a share, or those who don’t get shares should be compensated unconditionally for their loss with an income, and that compensation should be at least large enough to buy a lifetime subscription to the right to breathe.
If you’d be that angry about needing some else’s permission to use the atmosphere to meet your need to breathe, why aren’t you angry that you need some else’s permission to use all the other resources you need to meet all your other needs?
I think you should be. Our ancestors used the land and other resources of the Earth freely for millions of years, just as you and I use the atmosphere now. Every one of us is evolved to depend on it. No group of people “naturally” owns it. A few generations ago, governments took away the independent access our ancestors enjoyed. They created a system in which the resources we all need are owned by a few without giving the rest of us any compensation. By doing that, they made us dependent on the people who own the Earth’s resources.
The vast majority of us who don’t own a large enough share of natural resources or of the stuff we make out of natural resources to keep ourselves alive and thriving. The vast majority of us aren’t allowed to use any resources but air without the permission of an owner. We can’t build a shelter, hunt, gather, fish, farm, start a cooperative, or start our own business. Except for the wealthy few, we get a job to earn the money to buy the right to do use the resources that were here before anyone and that we’re all evolved to depend on. Wages are such that, only the lucky few get to the point where we’re free to do something other than paid labor before we’re too told to work anyway.
The division of the Earth’s resource into private and public property has many benefits, but if some people get a share and others don’t, the private property system has many cruel side effects, among them poverty, homelessness, alienation, fear, and hopelessness. Because most of us have no alternative to paid labor, we are all willing to accept lower wages, longer work hours, and less appealing working conditions than we otherwise would. In some situations, people are forced to accept dangerous jobs, sexual harassment, and other forms of abuse from employers or spouses, because they need the job or a spouse with money to keep them alive. That need is artificial, created by the way our governments chose to divide the Earth’s resources.
Let’s consider a way to divide resources that isn’t so cruel.
Back in 1918, Bertrand Russell’s suggested “that a certain small income, sufficient for necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income … should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful. On this basis we may build further.”
Russell’s proposal is very much what we know today as Universal Basic Income (UBI). Later chapters define it in more detail, but his description gives you a very good idea what it is. UBI is not all there is to social justice, but it removes an exceedingly cruel feature built into our economic system. If we’re going to divide the resource of the Earth unequally, those who own more of the wealth we make out of resources have the responsibility to pay those who have to do with less access to resources.
Although there are many reasons to introduce UBI, I started with this one, not only because I think it’s one of the most important, but also because I think it brings up the central decision that people have to make if we’re going to introduce UBI. Should everyone get an income—even the people who could take jobs but chose not to? I think that question already divides most readers into two groups with pretty firm positions: Yes, because no one should live in poverty or homelessness. No, because every nonwealthy person who can work must work.
UBI, on its own, is a mild reform with far-reaching effects. Later chapters show that it isn’t terribly expensive. On its own, UBI creates a market economy where income doesn’t start at zero. People who don’t take jobs, get less than those who take jobs, but no one has to go without the money they need for food, shelter, or clothing in the same way that no one today has to go without the money they need to breathe.
By offering good salaries and good working conditions, we have enormous ability to give people an incentive to engage in work that the community recognizes as useful. And if we’re not willing to pay enough to get people to freely choose do some particular job, maybe that job doesn’t need to be done all. If we do it this way, we end poverty and homelessness. We end the cruel treatment people at the bottom and relieve the fear of the people in the middle. We invite everyone—rather than frighten everyone—into participating in our economic system. That mild and humane reform finds resistance from the belief that everyone—or more realistically, everyone who isn’t wealthy—must work, and so the issue of whether everyone including those who refuse to take jobs should get the income comes up again and again throughout this book.
The idea of UBI has inspired a growing worldwide movement. Although the concept of a UBI goes back at least as far as the 1790s, the movement for it is stronger as I write these words than it has ever been. The movement grows out of frustration with the ineffectiveness and political vulnerability of conventional approaches to poverty and inequality. The market system also needs many other reforms, but millions of people are coming to believe that one of the most important and fundamental reforms we need right now is UBI.
The central goal of this book is to explain the essentials of UBI: what it is, how it works, the most popular arguments for and against it, how much it costs, how it can be financed, its likely effects, its history, and its possible future. But as I’m sure you’ve already guessed, I am a strong supporter of UBI. And so, this book’s secondary goal is to convince readers that UBI is a good, workable idea that should be enacted all around the world, but I will make this argument in a way that explains and addresses both sides of the debate over whether to introduce UBI. Whether you agree with my position on UBI or not, I think you can learn more from a passionate attempt to argue points for it and refute points against it than from a dispassionate list of points on either side.
With this in mind, the book begins with a more thorough explanation of what UBI is.
-Karl Widerquist, begun sometime ago, but completed in Aspen, Colorado, July 29, 2021
The Alaska Permanent Fund was started in 1982 to make sure Alaskans directly benefit from its resources in the wake of its oil boom in the 1970s. Part of the proceeds from investments of the principle, which is held in trust for the state and invested by an independent board, is shared yearly with all Alaskan citizens as the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). This is as close to a basic income by BIEN’s definition as has been achieved world-wide. It is paid equally to each individual regardless of age or financial status, without means tests or other conditions and regularly every year, although the amount differs depending on how the APF’s investments do over a five year period. It has inspired campaigns in many other countries, including Mongolia, South Africa and Goa, to share the profits from resource use as a basic income or dividend to all citizens. The PDF is under particular threat at the moment as a result of recent deficits in the State’s budget, which some legislators want to plug by taking the dividend payments away entirely.
BIEN News interviewed a board member from the Permanent Fund Defenders about the situation. Joe Geldhoff, a lawyer in Juneau, the capital of Alaska, said that “while it is in our constitution that Alaskan citizens should benefit from the state’s resources, the dividend itself is only in legislation.” The PFD allocation for Alaskan citizens needs to be approved by the state legislature every year. For the first thirty years it was paid equally from a fixed 25% share of the fund’s average profits over five years. In the past six years state politicians have whittled down the amount of dividend paid, “despite big promises at election time, which are often unrealistic.” There are worries that there might be no dividend paid out this year, despite the Fund making a profit of some $18.6 million, and large Federal subsidies to the state, especially since the Covid crisis. The PFD competes with state services and projects for priority, since the state government levies neither income nor sales taxes to cover its own spending, which also comes from Permanent Fund proceeds. “This should be a lesson for people advocating basic income schemes all over the world,” Mr Geldhoff said.
The Defenders want the eariler formula from Permanent Fund investments restored to the dividend, and enshrined in the State constitution to protect it from other budget demands and political maneuvering. Mr Geldhoff said that the current special session will be deciding this year’s dividend allocation, and may not pay it at all. The legislature may also consider a constitutional amendment to protect it and restore the original formula which, if approved, would then go out to be voted on by all state citizens. He expressed the worry, however, that there “aren’t enough adults” amongst state politicians, and that they could be too divided to see the latter option through.
“Young people have become very cynical about the political process,” Mr Geldhoff said, so the Defenders are working to educate all Alaskans about the role the dividend has played in “lifting people out of poverty, supporting private enterprise and combatting income inequality” and how they can get involved with saving it. He said that while those with higher salaries in the state’s large public sector have tended to save their dividend to send their children to university, the dividend has enabled people in rural areas with little cash to maintain and buy equipment for subsistence farming, hunting and fishing. Women in particular have used their dividend to get away from relationships which have gone bad, and to train for better jobs. “It’s really about whether you trust citizens to spend the money well or the politicians who tend to give contracts to their cronies,” he said. “This is our common wealth from which we all should have a direct share.”
A recording of our interview with Joe Geldhoff will be available soon. In the meantime people can support the all-volunteer Permanent Fund Defenders in getting their message out to Alaskans on their GoFundMe page. More information about their campaign and the history of the PFD can be found on their website, and the latest news can be followed on their Facebook page.
A South West African state with a troublesome colonial history, Namibia has a population of around 2,5 million people and is one of the least populated countries in Africa due to its extremely dry climate. The country is rich in natural resources like – diamonds (annual value of mined diamonds around 1 billion US dollars)1 , uranium (4th largest producer in the world), gold, zinc, copper 2. Other important industries are fishing, agriculture and tourism.
Unfortunately for the majority of the Namibian people the benefits from an abundant national wealth are not equally distributed. Namibia ranks as one of the most unequal places on the planet where 50% of the population live on less than 5.50 USD per day 3 and in 2017 27% 4were living below the poverty line. A place where people have not enough food to sustain their nutritional needs.
On top of poverty, hunger and the impact of climate change contributing to suffering, there are some additional challenges:
Unemployment rate 2018 – 33.4% where female joblessness is prevalent 5
Children are trafficked within Namibia for forced labor in agriculture, cattle herding, domestic work, and commercial sexual exploitation. San children are particularly vulnerable to forced labor on farms or in homes. 7
The list goes on.
2. The Universal Basic Income Pilot Project in Namibia9
In the context of the socio-economic situation described above The Basic Income Grant Coalition comprised of citizens’ organisations (the Council of Churches, the National Union of Namibian Workers, the National NGO Forum, the Namibian Network of AIDS Service Organisations, the Legal Assistance Centre, and The Labour, Resource and Research Institute) funded and ran a pilot project the purpose of which was to trial and study the application of Universal Basic Income in Namibia.
From January 2008 to December 2009 every resident of Otjivero – Omitara (about 1,000 people) received a monthly allowance of (N$80 = USD 4.5 ) which was paid regularly until March 2012.
The research had the following results:
social cohesion – the community established an 18-member committee to advise members on how to spend their allowance wisely
it attracted migrants who could benefit from the favourable environment. More sharing meant that the value of the monthly allowance dropped from N$89 (USD 5) per month in January 2008 to N$67 (USD 4) in November 2008
poverty dropped by 39% among residents who were sharing with migrants and 60% in cases where the allowance was spent only by the resident
income-generating activities like brick-making, baking of bread and dress-making jumped 15% and a local market was created as people had a bigger purchasing power
by November 2008 child malnutrition decreased 32%
people with HIV could afford better food and medication
school drop-out rate fell to almost 0%
healthcare became more accessible to residents as they could afford it
crime fell by 42%
the basic income grant empowered women and made them more secure as they did not have to engage in transactional sex services
In conclusion, the pilot project had a dramatic overall positive effect on the selected community. The Basic Income Grant Coalition calculated that the cost for nationwide implementation of unconditional universal basic income for all would be N$ 1.2 – 1.6 billion (USD 71 – 95 million) per year, equivalent to 2.2 – 3% of Namibia’s GDP (2019 – 12.37 USD Billion) 10
In short, UBI in Namibia was and is feasible. The missing component then and now remains the lack of political will to apply the project on a national level.
3. Government response regarding the pandemic crisis in Namibia
Following from the brief summary of state of affairs in Namibia and an example of a possible solution to the human suffering caused by institutional inadequacy and economic logic that produces inequality, I will now list the measures that the Namibian government has taken to tackle the health/economic crisis triggered by COVID-19.
1. Emergency Income Grant 11 – one off payment of N$750 (USD 45) for people experiencing financial difficulties caused by COVID. The government allowance should cover 749 000 people in need and will cost the government N$562 million (USD 34 million).
the sum is insufficient to sustain an ongoing lockdown and future economic inactivity
the grant is conditional – employed persons and people who already receive social benefits do not qualify being supported by this policy
to obtain the one off payment citizens must own a mobile phone and an ID number
The EIG is a self-nomination process. Therefore applicants are required to have, or make use of an active cell phone number, and a valid Namibian ID number.
Applicants must SMS their name and ‘EIG’ to 141222 to start the registration process, or dial *141*222#. After the approval of the application by the ministry, applicants will receive a token from the bank they have selected in the application process. 12
there is a considerable distrust among the population about potential problems with the distribution system and application process
the policy is not universal, it does not cover every single Namibian which means it fails to act as an emergency safety net for all
3.1. Subsidy for employers in the construction, tourism and aviation sectors. Workers will receive 17% of their wage for 3 months.
3.2. Employers who are benefiting from measures should not be firing any of their workers or reducing their salaries with more than 50%
3.3. The programme will benefit 7,900 employers employing 65,420 employees. The budget amounts to N$150 million (USD 8 million) which is approximately 25% of the total wage bill.
3.4. Grants for workers affected by COVID-19. These are conditional application based stimulus that has the potential to help 56,000 to 117,000 applicants.
3.5. Government and business owners will be allowed to negotiate a temporary 20% drop in salaries.
How these measures can be interpreted:
insufficient funding of affected workers
conditions and administrative obstacles for receiving help
potential to undermine workers income for a long period of time
the policy does not cover all workers in Namibia
4. The Economic stimulus measures which will be administered by banks consist in:15
4.1. Tax-back loan scheme for businesses and individuals
4.2. Agricultural and non-agricultural and small business loan programmes
Here the government enables the banks to make businesses dependent on loans which creates more instability by increasing debt in society. Hardly an adequate solution for the needs of business owners, workers and their families.
5. Water subsidy equal to N$10 million. This will enable water points to be kept open without people needing to use water cards.
Probably the bare minimum a state can do to prevent riots and social breakdown.
There is a general concern about administration and distribution of emergency funds based on past and present experiences. In a report called COVID-19 Emergency Procurement16 by Frederico Links the author outlines issues with transparency on spending by government institutions which raises doubts about how much of the already unsatisfactory help will reach people at the bottom of the income chain.
Another report Analysis – Namibia’s National Budget 2020/2117 comments on potential problems with the financial stability of Namibia and its economic future which has direct implications on the wellbeing of the Namibian people.
In conclusion, based on the information above:
Emergency spending to alleviate poverty and tackle social and economic inequalities was and is needed regardless of COVID-19.
The ongoing crisis requires working solutions based on unconditional, regular distribution of wealth for all Namibian people in order to sustain their individual sovereignty, dignity and human rights permanently.
The measures announced by the government are inadequate, insufficient and cruel as they don’t meet the needs of the population.
Basic Unconditional Income, proven by the BIG pilot project, is feasible and has the potential to create social cohesion, improve the local economy and bring back trust in existing institutions and political leadership.
To achieve the above the citizens of Namibia have the opportunity to unite and stand behind a clear demand for the implementation of Basic Unconditional Income for all.
All people have the right to determine their present and future. An unconditional basic income is what will enable them to fulfil their fundamental human rights.
This Review was originally published in the Review of Political Economy, December 6, 2009. It’s reproduced here as originally published.
In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, by Charles Murray, Washington, DC, AEI Press, 2006, 230 pp., $20.00 hardcover ISBN 0-8447-4223-6
Charles Murray is not known as a friend of the poor. His 1984 book, Losing Ground argued that the government should ‘zero-out’ all programs designed to help the poor. His 1994 book, The Bell Curve (co-authored with Richard Herrnstein) used questionable methodology purporting to show that people are poor because they are less intelligent than average and that blacks are disproportionately poor because they are genetically less intelligent than whites. If racism is the belief that your race is mentally or physically superior to others, The Bell Curve is a racist book. Yet, his new book, In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, Murray puts forth a plan to provide more healthcare, more retirement security and more actual income to the poor with no supervision or conditions attached.
For those familiar with universal basic income, Murray’s proposal sounds very familiar. Murray calls it ‘the Plan,’ saying, ‘I have not been able to contrive a better name,’ but it is essentially a version of the program known as ‘basic income,’ which has been widely discussed by political philosophers in the last twenty years. Basic income is a regular government-ensured grant provided to every citizen on an individual basis without a means test or work requirement. People with middle or higher incomes pay more in taxes than they receive in the grant, but everyone receives the grant in cash every month. A great deal of literature has appeared on basic income in the last twenty-five years. Basic income is similar to, but not quite the same as, the negative income tax, which was widely discussed in the United States in the 1960s and ‘70s. The major difference between the two is that the negative income tax is given only to net recipients and phased out for people who earn above a certain amount, so that no one both receives a grant and pays income taxes. Both programs are ‘guaranteed incomes’ in the sense that they are designed to ensure that everyone has a small but reliable income, and both programs eliminate ‘the poverty trap’ in which some people find that they can attain a higher income by not working than by working.
Murray cites some of the literature on the negative income tax, but he appears completely unaware of the basic income literature, giving the impression that he reinvented the idea independently. When he discusses people who might drop out of the labor market, his example of what they might do is surf. This example is well-known in the basic income literature from an exchange between John Rawls and Philippe Van Parijs, neither of whom is cited by Murray. Is it a coincidence or is he merely neglecting to connect himself with that movement?
The Plan is most similar to a little-known basic income proposal by Leonard Greene, and elaborated by Irwin Garfinkel, although this connection is probably coincidental. Both Murray and Greene propose canceling everything the US government is currently doing to support individual incomes and use all of that money to finance a basic income for every citizen. The Plan is not quite a universal basic income. Only people age 21 and over are eligible, but it is a basic income in the sense that it has no means test and it is given to everyone who reaches the age of eligibility regardless of income.
Murray promoted the book and the Plan with several lectures in 2006. When questioned whether a guaranteed income is an affront to the work ethic, he responded, ‘You’re a conservative. I’m a libertarian.’ But make no mistake, Murray is profoundly conservative. His books have blamed the welfare state for everything that a conservative might find wrong with modern society, from welfare dependency though unwed motherhood to a decline in ‘man’s’ ability to craft a meaningful life. Many of the benefits he expects from the Plan align with conservative goals. He believes it will lead more people to attend church, more people to support private charities, and more of the poor to adopt the superior values of middle- and upper-class people.
Many people were shocked that a man who wrote a book arguing to zero-out the welfare state would put forward a plan for a basic income and universal health care. But it should not be completely surprising. Murray was sympathetic to the negative income tax in his contribution to Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments; and in What it Means to Be a Libertarian, he wrote that some form of income guarantee was the next best thing to the complete elimination of redistribution.
There is in fact a long history of free-market conservatives who have seen an income guarantee as a streamlined, conservative alternative to the complex, conditional welfare system. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman promoted the negative income tax on those grounds, and it seems to have been part of the motivation behind Richard Nixon’s watered-down negative income tax proposal in 1970. Most recently, Governor Sarah Palin pushed through a bill for a one-time increase in Alaska’s regular basic income (the Alaska Permanent Fund) from $2000 to $3200 per person per year. The free market appeal of an income guarantee is twofold. From the point of view of taxpayers, conditional welfare programs waste a large percentage of their budgets in overhead cost that could be saved under an income guarantee. From the point of view of the recipients, the rules and constant oversight of a conditional welfare system can be humiliating and oppressive.
Murray’s earlier books give the impression he believes that the poor are unproductive, genetically unintelligent people with bad values who have babies just to get welfare checks. One might therefore wonder why he cares about freeing the poor from oppressive government supervision. The answer is that while Murray seems to believe capitalism is a near-perfect meritocracy and that the poor are genetically inferior, he honestly believes that the poor should be free and that humiliating supervision by government bureaucrats cannot make the lives of the poor better. This kind of thinking led Murray to reinvent basic income.
This book—typical of Murray’s research—seems designed to give laypersons the impression of broad knowledge while having little concern with giving that impression to people who know the field. It is a thin volume with lots of numbers and footnotes but without a deep understanding of the research he cites. His discussion of the negative income tax is a case in point. He is aware that Milton Friedman supported the idea and that experiments were conducted on it, but he misstates what a negative income tax is and what the experimental results were. He gives the impression that a negative income tax has a 100% take-back rate, meaning that for each dollar earned privately recipients lose one dollar of their grant. If so, recipients who make money in the private labor market are no better off financially unless they get a job that pays more than the entire grant (pp. 8–9; 74). Almost no one who supports the negative income tax supports this draconian variant. Friedman supported the negative income tax largely because it could be designed to eliminate the work-incentive problems of conditional welfare programs, and none of the experiments tested a 100% take-back rate. Murray also implies that the experiments found evidence that large number of recipients dropped out the labor market. In fact, none of the experiments found evidence that anyone dropped out of the labor market. The relative decline in hours for the experimental group was 2–9% among primary wage earners and up to 20% for mothers of young children, but none of this relative decline represented anyone ‘dropping out’ of the labor market. It was instead attributable to people who happened to become unemployed taking longer to find their next job. Perhaps most importantly, the relative decline of work hours was not always an absolute decline. The largest predictor of whether recipients worked was not whether they were in the experimental or control group but the health of the economy. The people who conducted the experiments concluded that the work disincentive effects were small and did not put the viability of the program at risk.
Murray has not been careful with the facts, but is his plan a good one? Is the Plan a good workable idea that people who actually have sympathy for the poor could support? The answer is mixed. It is small; $10,000 per year minus $3,000 for mandatory private health insurance minus $2,000 for possibly mandatory retirement savings with no additional provision for children’s healthcare. That is, $5,000 per year ($416.67 per month) if retirement savings is mandatory and $7,000 per year ($583.33 per month) if it is not mandatory—for each adult whether she lives alone or with children. A single parent will be able to sue for child support out of the grant to the noncustodial parent, and so might have access to something in the neighborhood of $833.33 per month for herself and her children. But even an adult with no dependents is well below the official poverty line of $9,359 if she tries to live on $5,000 a year. (Following Murray, I’m using 2002 figures.)
Murray’s typically conservative response is that they can double-up with friends and relatives and they can all go out and get jobs at minimum wage. He calculates that when you add $583.33 to the income from a minimum wage job it would get most people—even single mothers with one dependent—out of poverty. He neglects to mention that this strategy involves mortgaging their retirement savings so that they will be more than $4,000 below the poverty line in retirement if they do this every year. He also neglects to mention that he is an opponent of the minimum wage. Since the whole idea of getting rid of the minimum wage is to enable employers to pay their workers less, we can assume that all of his calculations about how well off the recipients will be after they get these jobs are overestimates. He also neglects the very possibility that unemployment might exist, that the market may not be able to absorb the millions of new entrants to the labor market he hopes to see, and that most single mothers cannot work full time or in many cases even part time.
Consider a single mother with three dependent children at ages that make it difficult if not impossible for the parent to work outside the home. Her poverty threshold is $18,307. If she’s on her own and retirement contributions are mandatory, her income ($5000) is less than a third of the poverty threshold. If she can effectively sue the father for his entire grant (an optimistic assumption), she can increase her income to $10,000. If she and the father both mortgage their retirement savings, she can get up to $14,000. That is probably enough to keep her family off the street, but it is still more than $4000 below the meager US poverty line. Murray suggests combining incomes is as a solution. If she cohabitates with another mother in exactly the same situation, their combined income is $28,000—still $1,600 below the poverty threshold for a two parent family with six children of $29,601.
The grant is too small to give a dignified life to the poor without at least the addition of a child grant, but is it better than the current system? I have to admit that on this point, I am inclined to agree with Murray. As horrible as it sounds, in most states, TANF recipients work for less than they would get unconditionally under the Plan. Many people who aren’t eligible for TANF, SSI, or Unemployment Insurance get far less or nothing at all. Even the small grant of $416.67 a month can help many people get by if it is unconditional and tax free. The Plan would save many people from the utter destitution and homelessness that they experience in the United States today. On top of that, a retirement fund of $2000 a year put into a protected savings system would make for a better retirement than many Social Security recipients experience today, and $3,000 per capita could buy basic universal health coverage, solving one of the most important problems in American society today. If the Plan were put in place now, maybe we could eventually get the benefit increased to a decent level. Therefore, despite all of its faults, the Plan would be an improvement for many people living at or near the margins in the United States.
Argentina presented the first confirmed case of Covid19 in the first days of March. On the 20th of that month, the national government ordered the Compulsory Social Isolation (ASO) of the entire population, the suspension of classes at all levels, and the suspension of most economic activities except those considered essential (mainly linked to the production and distribution of food, hygiene elements and health inputs, energy production, security services, health services). Although the activities exempted were gradually expanded, and a process of partial resumption of these activities has begun in some territorial areas, most of the population, and in particular those concentrated in large urban centers, remain in isolation. The last presidential announcement extended the isolation until June 28th, though authorizing to open up almost all activities in those Provinces with good COVID performances
In addition to these health measures, the government has implemented a series of actions to compensate for the loss of income resulting from the total or partial paralysis of economic activities, both at the level of individuals and companies[1].
As for the policies aimed at individuals, it was decided to pay an extraordinary bonus (of $3000, equivalent to approximately U$45)[2] to those beneficiaries of the Universal Allowance per Child, the country’s main conditional cash transfer program, which currently has nearly 4 million beneficiaries. In addition, a bonus of the same amount was granted to beneficiaries of the minimum retirement, within the contributory system.
For the active working population, it is assumed that those with registered wage-earning employment continue to receive their wages even when activities are paralyzed, although evidence shows multiple situations of dismissal, termination of temporary contracts, suspensions and lowering of wages, the latter backed by an agreement between business leaders and trade union representatives. The focus of national public policy was on compensating unemployed people, those in informal employment and the lower income self-employed (single-income earners in the two lowest income categories). For this population, the Emergency Family Income (IFE) was implemented, a fixed amount benefit ($10,000 Argentine pesos, equivalent to approximately U$150)[3].
Potential beneficiaries had to register in an open registry for that purpose, and were assessed to verify their asset situation, that they were not receiving other income, and that they were not receiving more than one income per family unit. Having registered 11 million people, the benefit was initially granted to almost 8 million people. Cases of people whose applications were rejected are currently being reviewed (thus the total number of beneficiaries could be increased). Additionally, although the benefit was announced only once (to be paid during the month of April), the payment has been extended in May and perhaps will also be in June.
For companies, the government announced the implementation of the Emergency Assistance Program for Work and Production, whose components are being modified over time, but which basically includes i) the reduction of social security contributions during the month of April; ii) a compensatory salary allowance, which implies the payment by the State of 50% of the salary of workers in a dependent relationship in the private sector, for a minimum amount equivalent to the minimum living and mobile wage, and a maximum amount equivalent to double that value[4]; iii) the granting of credits at subsidized rates for the payment of salaries[5]; iv) the granting of credits at no rates to single-income earners in higher income categories and self-employed workers[6].
There is no official estimate of the fiscal effort involved in the measures taken, and it is not known how long they will remain in force. Some unofficial estimates place this fiscal effort between 3.5% and 5% of GDP.
There is also no evaluation of the effectiveness of these measures, but there are multiple testimonies of the difficulties in their implementation. In particular, the payment of the IFE was successively postponed, in particular because of the difficulty of carrying out the transfer to a population with a much lower level of banking penetration than that estimated by those who manage the policy. Similarly, the payment of salary compensation to private sector workers, which should have taken place in the first days of May, is hampered by the lack of information from the companies on the banking details of their workers (which presupposes the extension of forms of payment of remuneration outside of the banking circuit).
Finally, to the extent that the ASO situation extends and the economy remains virtually paralysed, the inadequacy of these measures will become more apparent.
In this context, the debate on basic income has increased notably. On the one hand, we can see the organization of forums on the subject, mostly at the university level, by political associations and groups of political activists. On the other hand, some groups are advancing proposals linked to the emergency and of a temporary nature[7]. Also, statements have been launched to collect signatures in favor of the basic income proposal[8]. Most of these initiatives are collected and disseminated by the Red Argentina de Ingreso Ciudadano (www.ingresociudadano.com.ar)
However, so far there are no initiatives or repercussions in the official sphere, neither in the Executive nor at Parliament. On the contrary, and as previously indicated, the government continues to bet on the distribution of conditional and selective benefits, of a temporary nature and linked to the loss of income due to the measures linked to the covid-19 pandemic.
Argentina is an example of a tension that can be seen in other countries. On the one hand, the debate is growing, tied to the emergency and with proposals for temporary income guarantees. On the other hand, the basic income proposal as part of a structural reform of the functioning of the economy and society is confused and blurred. So far, income guarantees are seen as emergency measures until a return to previous “normality” can be achieved.
[2] Taking as reference the official exchange rate reported by the Central Bank of Argentina as of April 30.
[3] Taking as reference the official exchange rate informed by the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic as of April 30
[4] This benefit is paid directly into the bank account where the workers’ salary is deposited, taking the salary of the month of February as a reference, and in principle for one time only as compensation for the salaries of the month of April. In order to access this benefit, it is necessary to demonstrate: i) To carry out critically affected economic activities in the geographical areas where they are carried out or to have a relevant number of employees infected by COVID 19, in obligatory isolation or with a work exemption for being in a risk group or family care obligations related to COVID 19; and ii) To have invoiced between March 12 and April 12 of the current year an amount equal to or less than that of the same period in 2019.
[5] Esta medida fue decidida con anterioridad a la compensación salarial y de hecho tuvo muy poca repercusión y quedó prácticamente sin efecto. La principal dificultad fue la resistencia de los bancos y su preferencia de ofrecer la posibilidad de este acceso crediticio exclusivamente a clientes que tuvieran evaluaciones crediticias anteriores positivas.
[6] Access to these loans has certain credit history requirements (no previous unpaid debts, if any) and is made operational through a credit on the credit cards of those who apply.
[7] An example of such proposals can be found here: https://ipypp.org.ar/descargas/2020/Hacia%20un%20salario%20universal.pdf
