by Dave Clegg | Nov 16, 2016 | Opinion
The London-based Apolitical website’s article on basic income (BI) opens with “Money for nothing – it sounds like a utopia” and then looks at some examples of BI concepts that have already been applied around the world.
This phrase, “money for nothing” represents a commonly held bias that, when there is no commodity returned for the money, whether that commodity is a thing or someone’s labour, then there is no tangible value returned for the monies. This bias is widely held and promoted by many adherents of modern-day economic theories – a bias which too often dismisses, or simply ignores, the numerous personal and societal benefits that others have evaluated and documented as attributable to BI models.
The article does a fairly good job of maintaining its organizational claim of being “apolitical” in that it does not overtly favour any particular side in the issue. Yet that does not mean it has escaped the narrow-minded focus that so many politicians, their handlers, and media commentators alike have grudgingly adopted regarding the BI. In fact, the Apolitical article offers a wonderful example of the very limited ways in which the BI idea is being appraised, namely as simply a response to job automation and/or carrot-and-stick welfare programmes.
Apolitical does, occasionally make mention of the fundamental roots of a BI, roots that run far deeper than simply jobs and poverty. Yet to emphasize that a BI is simply about addressing poverty or unemployment is to overlook the very foundation of a BI – namely that such a policy is meant to be an expansion upon, and commitment to, something that should never be commodified, namely personal freedom. All other aspects of a BI flow from this fundamental premise. That is, if a nation and its people are sincerely committed to the idea of freedom itself.
The five points made by Apolitical in the above article are all legitimate and commonly discussed around the world. Yet the shallowness of these points is intricately tied to the same old penny-pinching issues that surround welfare, as well as the easy access to cheap human labour that employers have enjoyed for far too long.
Yes, a BI can help eliminate the stigma and overbearing bureaucracy associated with welfare programmes. It would also force employers to be truly competitive regarding employee wages and hours. However, the most valuable asset each and every person possesses is our time in this life. We should be the stewards of that time – not employers and not bureaucrats. It is the personal freedom provided by a BI that is truly important to everyone, not just the workforce and welfare recipients.
A BI would allow individuals to tend to family and personal concerns without the anxiety of how to survive without a “job” income during these times of personal need. For example, if a family member severely injured as the result of a car accident. The family of this person may be too young for jobs, or on very low income as they had been relying upon the injured family member for income and cannot afford a carer to help in these times. In this case, a BI would help tremendously. Some might say that they can seek a uber accident attorney Glendale or a personal injury lawyer in order to seek compensation and financial security. Indeed these cases can bring great compensation, but court cases can take time, what will the family do in the meantime? Again, a BI would allow individuals to tend to family and personal concerns should anything happen. There may be no greater freedom than to have the time and economic stability necessary to order our lives as we, ourselves, see fit, rather than as employers demand, as is becoming far too common these days.
Politicians are slowly coming to accept that individuals are the best stewards of their monies, not bean-counting governments who tend to value the beans over the people the beans are intended for.
Let us examine each of Apolitical’s five points to see how personal freedom is addressed here.
1. Governments are not thinking the same as tech optimists
Apolitical is right about this and politicians are notoriously slow to respond to social changes of any kind, never mind one of this magnitude. Yes, the tech optimists foresee an evolutionary step in human time management when robotics and automation take over the monotony and the drudgery of the repetitive and injury-prone tasks found in so many labour-intensive “jobs”. Of course, these robotic inventions will not come soon enough to stop so many of our hardworking population from getting injured. In the meantime, if you’ve been injured at work, you will likely be entitled to personal injury compensation. Hopefully, the workforce of tomorrow will mean fewer people will have to take legal action in the future. If at all an employee needs to take some legal action but do not know where to head out for the same, check for firms similar to Douglas Beam, P.A. We should create a new workforce that is far more reliable (never taking time off), disposable (without regrets or complaints), and economically more efficient than human beings.
From the technologist’s viewpoint, a BI becomes an essential aspect of employment and personal advancement because of the accelerating pace of technological advancement. Every new innovation requires that the humans who will be utilizing those innovations undergo time-consuming training and up-skilling. These advances can even lead to whole new careers for which a BI would be the springboard to pursue those educational and up-skilling goals. To tech experts, this is not “money for nothing” but instead an investment in the future of the nation, its economic infrastructure, its people and its economy.
But there is also a very real need to understand how a BI frees workers – especially those who only have labour, rather than any marketable skills or training, to sell – from the spectre of destitution and homelessness if they are unable to find work, or simply to feed and/or shelter themselves on the meager, subsistence wages offered today to unskilled labourers.
Of course, time management in this case refers only to the workplace. What is overlooked here is the personal freedom that a BI introduces into the optimist’s time management scheme. A BI would provide an individual with the economic freedom to then choose to acquire more skills or education, or to spend more time with family, or to take a much-needed break. This freedom is of great value to the individual, as well as their future prospects, but has little or no meaning to many economists.
Apolitical, however, does make a very good point about welfare reform. It is true that eradicating the expensive and needlessly patronizing welfare bureaucracies would entail huge cash savings for governments at national, provincial/state and municipal levels everywhere – savings that could be utilized far more efficiently and effectively when incorporated into a BI.
2. People already get money for nothing
Actually people get money from their government because they are deemed, by their government, to be in need and it is a government’s principal responsibility to succor to its citizens in times of need. While Apolitical talks about how “money for nothing already exists in the state pension” system, it ignores a number of other social safety net programmes such as health care, welfare, student loans, disability, make-work projects, employee subsidies, food banks, and shelters, to name a just a few of the most common.
Social safety net programmes always incur infrastructure and staffing costs associated with the policing and distribution of these monies. A BI removes the stigma associated with so many of these programmes via its universality but it cannot ignore the special needs associated with people such as the disabled, seniors, and the unemployed. Their special circumstances can easily entail more than simply a “free money” infusion involving things such as in home support, accessibility of public buildings, mobility aids, wheelchair-friendly streets and curbs, and emotional and mental supports to deal with chronic and acute complications, to name just a few.
Apolitical also mentions the Alaska Fund, a decades old statewide “free money” programme that, today, is surrounded by much controversy, with some demanding the money be used, instead, to fund state social programmes while others are happy for the money to be put directly into the hands of the people themselves.
This is a very good example of how the assets of a community – its resources, both natural and human – are the heart and soul of its economy. However, the Alaska Fund’s greatest feature is that it offers good, sound support for the premise that some of the wealth flowing from a community’s resources should be returned to the people that comprise the community.
The debate here is not whether “free money” should be distributed to the citizenry, but rather how much and in what manner.
3. The schemes in the developing world aren’t really analogous
Apolitical is absolutely right to point out that the drastically modified BI programmes implemented in Namibia, India, and Brazil cannot be directly applied in more developed areas. These programmes are largely a response to severe destitution and poverty in those countries, while here in North America the BI is framed as a response to automation and welfare inequities.
However, Apolitical does recognize that there is a self-empowerment and entrepreneurial spirit that blossoms within the poorest individuals in the above-mentioned countries once they have been freed to make their own choices of how best to utilize their time and abilities to address their own needs and interests.
These observations correlate well with Canada’s own Dauphin Manitoba Mincome BI programme, which ran for five years. Mincome was well monitored and documented at a variety of levels and interests. Documentation that highlighted the many personal advantages derived from a BI. These advantages included the reduction of both individual and family stress levels, greater ability to cope with family issues and, most importantly, noticeable improvements in children’s health and growth due to better nutrition which lead to higher learning evaluations. While some people did indeed leave the workforce, they did so to upgrade their education and skills, to attend to personal and family issues, or simply to take a much needed break.
All of these findings amount to huge social and personal savings that invariably strengthen and improve communities, yet, once again, they are not benefits that economists are able to quantify or put a monetary value on and are too often deemed to be without value.
4. It actually all comes down to incentives
Here Apolitical addresses the commonly held fear that a BI would act as a disincentive to “working,” as if “paid employment” should be every person’s preoccupation rather than the management of their lives. However, Apolitical cites Hugh Segal, a Canadian senator who has been a long-time advocate for BI programmes and who laments the very real disincentives to improving one’s life that have been built into Canada’s social programmes. This is why Senator Segal has long applauded the personal empowerment that a BI could provide to all Canadians.
It is here that Apolitical acknowledges Sam Altman of Y Combinator – a US private investment firm – who sees a BI as the seed money necessary to provide the personal freedom allowing individuals to be economically empowered to address the rapidly changing education and training demands of a technologically driven economy. Of course, Altman seems far more interested in employing a BI to address the demands of technology and its impact upon production and the workforce than in actually addressing personal freedom per se.
Apolitical is absolutely right to acknowledge that BI differs from existing, welfare-style social programmes and highlights the divide as between those who insist upon “incentives” used coercively to promote job seeking and those who support the “freedom to choose” as incentive enough for anyone.
5. It’s not utopia or bust
Apolitical wisely concludes that, if supporters of a BI succeed, “…they will establish the principle that you can simply give people money and trust them to use it in a way beneficial to themselves and, indirectly, to society.” This is a sentiment long-shared by those who advocate for BI and wonderfully demonstrates that this sentiment is central to personal freedom and the creation of an empowered population. For Apolitical and the rest of us only time will tell.
by Guest Contributor | Nov 14, 2016 | Opinion
Written by: Dr. Louise Haagh
On September 22nd to 23rd, BIEN Danmark, the Danish affiliate of BIEN, hosted the Nordic Conference on Basic Income Pilots at the Danish parliament buildings of Christiansborg.
The event aimed to stimulate discussion and forge closer ties between local groups and fielded speeches by activists from Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland, as well as talks by politicians and researchers from inside and outside the region.
The first of its kind, there is talk the event may be the beginning of many more to come. I certainly hope so. It was one of the best organised and most fun of the BIEN events that I have attended. With Karsten Lieberkind from BIEN Danmark quietly leading proceedings and a large contingent of BIEN Danmark and other local actors present, it was both very well-organised and a site for constructive critique and self-reflection.
From my perspective, one of the most positive aspects of the conference was the way it engaged the union movement in debate. I was especially encouraged in the exchange I had with Bjarke Friborg and Finn Sørensen, who had both at the outset – Sørensen in particular – staked out their opposition to a BI reform.
Louise Haagh
Credit: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark
I tried to stress the different ways the historical objectives of workers’ movements and a BI reform had affinities, as well as ways the BI can be complementary to and upscale the policies and institutions the union movement supports and administers. I think that is generally true in any context. But, in addition, being Danish, and having worked with both the union movement and other social movements in the past, it seems important and feasible to me to bridge the divide that is perceived to exist.
In general, I argued that it is important to think about BI in terms of its general effects on human security and relational freedom, and in that sense its transformative potential in relation to changing and improving social relations and institutions’ quality. An upshot of that is that in thinking about finance proposals and transitions into a BI, the affinity with existing mechanisms of economic security needs to be thought about positively, and steps taken gradually.
Specifically, I tried to argue that the BI proposal does not have to be viewed as in conflict with the unemployment insurance funds and the unions’ administration of them. In fact, there is a strong potential affinity between the claim BI supporters make for a right to basic income without conditions, and the concern of trade unionists – expressed by Friborg – about the state using its subsidy of the unemployment insurance funds as a means to exercise greater leverage of the unemployed individual’s job search behaviour. This direction in the state’s role is precisely one that both BI supporters and trades unions want to reverse, so here is the basis for a natural alliance.
Finn Sørensen
Credit: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark
I made a similar point in response to Sorensen. I was encouraged to note that both Friborg and Sorensen in turn noted that – with this new perspective in mind – they might be able to engage more positively in an investigation into BI and what it might mean positively for unions, their members, other workers and citizens.
I have always argued (Haagh 2011, a.o.) that it is a mistake to necessarily pit the finance of BI directly against the state’s subsidy of the unemployment insurance in the Nordic states. It is possible to see each as elements in a multivariate structure of economic security that is more freedom-promoting by virtue of its composite form. There might have to be accommodations and details can be worked out in different ways, but I see no conflict in principle between a BI and state subsidy of a voluntary insurance. One can think about ideal institutions of work and mechanisms of developmental security. But it is also important to work with the existing institutions that act as life-style stabilisers within the capitalist economy such as it is. Considering that institutions transform gradually over time, what matters is that the steps taken at a given time have in general positive systemic effects.
Bjarke Friborg
Credit: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark
It is important to acknowledge the historical importance of the gains of organised workers in Nordic states – together with mechanisms and services of the public sector – in democratising education, work and welfare. Today, labour market institutions and welfare services are under different forms of strain, including from the influence of global competitive forces and ways state initiatives extend those pressures within the education and employment systems. BI supporters, the union movement and other defenders of public services and more stable and unconditional forms of distribution and services, have interests in fighting pressures to hollow out the taxation system. In this context of a race to the bottom in pubic spending, it is the more important not to stake claims for different elements of economic security as in conflict in principle. In reality, their stability rests on broad coalitions across social groups.
In terms of the Danish context, the contribution of the political party The Alternative, hosting the conference in Christiansborg, and the information from municipalities experimenting with lifting conditionalities, gave the event a sense of a political momentum. Finally, hearing about the political initiatives in other Nordic states, the Pirate Party’s proposals in Sweden, the upcoming pilot in Finland, and thoughts about an experiment in an Icelandic city, suggest the basis exists for building a regional coalition for transformation of the Nordic welfare state.
Finally, Uffe Elbæk, leader of the Alternative, in his welcome speech, cautioned BI supporters about being too complacent and inwardly focused, and argued the BI movement should not be afraid of engaging critical voices. In my speech I echoed this view in the sense that I argued we should be more open and responsive to the views of our critics and be self-critical when we are unable to persuade others of the force of our ideas.
Overall, in my view the Nordic conference went some way to create a new platform for a more positive debate about BI in the wider society.
by Guest Contributor | Nov 14, 2016 | Opinion
Still More People Want to Discuss Basic Income
Written by David Lindh; translated and edited by Karsten Lieberkind
All over the world we are witnessing a growing interest in basic income – an unconditional basic allowance for all citizens. A number of experiments have been scheduled for next year, and on September 22-23, representatives for the Nordic basic income movements as well as researchers and politicians met at a conference in Copenhagen to discuss the upcoming pilot projects.
The conference took place in Christiansborg Palace, which is the seat of the Danish Parliament, situated in central Copenhagen. Organizers of the conference were the Danish branch of BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network) in collaboration with the political party the Alternative.
Guy Standing
Among the speakers were Guy Standing, Professor at SOAS, University of London and author of a number of books on the precariat, Thomas P. Boje, Professor of Social Sciences at Roskilde University and Annika Lillemets, MP for the Green Party of Sweden.
The conference was met with much anticipation and was fully booked. Journalists and other members of the press were present, and not only the invited speakers but even quite a few members of the audience were active, one way or the other, within the basic income movements in the Nordic countries, Europe and USA.
The first day of the conference focused on the pilot projects with basic income that are planned for Finland, the Netherlands and France. Nicole Teke, representing the French basic income movement, talked about the experiments that are to be carried out in the Aquitaine region. Sjir Hoeijmakers explained why, in recent years, ideas about basic income are spreading in the Netherlands, and Olli Kangs, Professor at Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, outlined the Finnish basic income pilots that are scheduled to begin in early 2017.
Thomas Boje
On the second day of the conference, there was an in-depth discussion on how the various basic income models could be implemented in the so-called Nordic Model, the social welfare and economic systems adopted by Nordic countries. Dorte Kolding, spokesperson for BIEN Denmark, in her opening speech of this day of the conference, explained how basic income might contribute to a development in society in which fear and control will be replaced by a sense of security, freedom and happiness.
A key element in the discussion during the second day was about the future relation between the basic income movement, which seems to be growing stronger each day, and the labour unions with their often quite critical or even negative view on basic income. Finn Sørensen, MP for the Red-Green Alliance and spokesperson for labour market affairs, took part in this discussion and was to be counted among the critics of a basic income society as, in his view, it would weaken the position of the labour unions relative to the employers.
During lunch, I asked Guy Standing whether the basic income movement and the labour organizations are likely to approach each other sometime in the future.
I am in favour of strong labour unions, but the labour movement must realize that we have witnessed dramatic changes in society, and we are now facing other conditions and challenges than in the 1970s and 80s. The labour unions are deeply concerned about the fact that they are losing members, but they are themselves partly responsible for the situation.
I also talked to Göran Hansson, active in the Malmö Basic Income Group, about the doubts that the labour unions have about basic income as a future model.
Many labour unions are critical towards basic income because they are afraid that they will have less power and influence. While this is true, it is also a fact that basic income would enjoy greater support from the population if the labour unions were to change their views on this issue.
Annika Lillemets
Annika Lillemets, is a Member of Parliament for the Green Party, but also a member of BIEN. She talked about how political parties in the Swedish Parliament, no matter their political orientation, in recent years have been almost obsessed with wage labour because they want to position themselves in relation to the increasing unemployment.
She thinks it is an indication of fear and to break this fixation we should question the very nature of work, what counts as work and what not. Annika Lillemets also criticized the Swedish culture of consensus.
Thomas P. Boje, Professor of Social Sciences at Roskilde University, pointed out that basic income reforms might have a positive effect on the democratic participation in society and contribute to the strengthening of democracy in the Nordic countries.
Safety and security encourage participation in society and a sense of wanting to contribute. Today, insecurity in jobs and economic inequality breed suspicion towards the democratic institutions and society as a whole.
Karl Widerquist
Karl Widerquist, Associate Professor at Georgetown University, has been attached to BIEN for a long time and is the author or editor of several books and articles on the subject of basic income.
He talked about how the basic income movement is growing fast in the USA, and I asked him why this is happening just now.
One reason is that both civil rights movements, political parties and businesses are beginning to realize the advantages of a basic income reform. Also, the fact that the subject is not linked to any particular political party or system helps spread the idea.
Photo: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark (more…)
by Furui Cheng | Nov 10, 2016 | News
Written by Cheng Furui
In the process of Chinese industrialization and urbanization, more and more rural villagers have been transformed into urban citizens. Decades of industrialization have left China with a typical dual economic structure: people who make wages live in the cities, and peasants make a living on the land in villages around them. With the rapid expansion of city suburbs, there are always some villagers in the transition zones. As they change from crop growers to wage earners, villagers will lose their land and be accustomed to a totally new way of life. An important question is how to make these large-scale unnatural transitions as smooth and successful as possible.
China provides many examples. One of the most common and successful strategies has been the establishment of cooperatives. Huaidi, one of the many successful cooperatives in China, demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach to the challenges of urbanization.
Huaidi [1] is one of the urban villages in Shijiazhuang, the capital of Hebei province in China. It has a population of around 6000. Unlike most villages around the city, Huaidi villagers initiated a deep “one-villager-one-share” cooperative from the beginning of the urbanization process. In China’s countryside, land is collective owned and privately used by villagers, in an equal fashion, as long as their households are registered in that village. In the process of urbanization, local government compensates villagers for the land which has been taken from them, paying them a single value and a specific transition fee for several years. The value partly depends on the market, and partly on the bargaining power of villagers. Under the leadership of Chen Yuxin [2], Huaidi villagers received very good compensations for their lost land in 1996, 1998 and 1999.
The success of the cooperative has come from these big compensations. In a weak organization, as is common in surrounding villages, villagers will get their money individually and make their living in the city on their own, abandoning the collective at that point. But Chen Yuxin persuaded the villagers to give up the first cash compensation, and bought back the land development rights in the future. In 1996, the Huaidi villagers collected a total of 10 million yuan [US $1,475,797] [3] compensation to build a new shopping mall. In 1998 and 1999, according to the urban plan, Huaidi land was taken by the government to build a road and a big park, respectively. In 1998, they got future development rights on both sides of the road. In 1999, they gave up a land compensation of 200,000 yuan [US $29,516] per mu (equivalent to US $44.3/m2, which is much lower than current land price) and bargained for a 33,350 m2 land patch, for their own future development. Most local governments are happy to accept this kind of exchange because of fiscal implications.
In this way, Huaidi villagers pursue their own urbanization pattern: self-demolition, self-transformation, and self-development. Under this process, villagers get more autonomy and create their own future city life, not becoming the sorrowful victims of social policy. Their core ideal is serving the city, influencing its development, and assuring a smooth transition between city and countryside. With these development rights, Huaidi villagers have amassed billions in assets, including famous and prosperous shopping centers, a decorative empire, food street, private schools, a cultural center, and other attractions. The current annual profit is about 100 million yuan [US $14.76 million]. As shareholders, Huaidi citizens now benefit from a very good welfare system.
First, every family gets identical, well decorated houses. In rural China, besides the arable land each person tends, every family has a house on a separate patch of land. In remote areas, there is also forest land per person. After the land is taken away, families get the transition fee [4] for several years, which is mainly used to rent the house they just lost, before moving into the new one. But many people have no ability to buy their own houses in the city in their lifetime. So after the transition period, every Huaidi family is placed into three or four houses, with a total area of 330 m2. They are given two choices. Under the first choice, they have three houses of 140 m2, 110 m2, and 80 m2 respectively. Under the second, they have four houses of 82.5 m2 each. All the 6000 citizens are very happy to own new houses in the city. These houses are more than enough for the whole family to live, and most can rent one apartment for several thousand yuan [more than US $400] per month. [5]
Second, every child is free to enjoy education. Huaidi villagers have built a famous private school [6], which has facilities from kindergarten to high school. The high quality of this school attracts students from outside of Huaidi, who are accepted in exchange for high fees. Every year, the school organizes various kinds of activities and interaction with other famous schools throughout the world. Teachers are proud of working there. Across the country, China has nine years of compulsory education, from primary to middle school, but Huaidi offers 15 years of free, high-quality education. This private school is one part of the villagers’ collective assets, and all their own children are exempt from tuition fees.
Third, every person benefits from healthcare. Huaidi has had a universal healthcare system since 1996. China, on the other hand, has employee healthcare only since 1998, and universal healthcare just since 2008. Nowadays, Huaidi citizens have double protection. All people are expected to participate in the national healthcare system, and the community pays the medical insurance premium for all collectively. Additionally, everybody can benefit from community healthcare if they choose. It only costs 10 yuan [US $1.48] per year, and supports the beneficiary with another 60% compensation for the money paid by oneself above 1000 yuan [US $148], up to 60,000 yuan [US $8,855], after national medical insurance reimbursement.
Huaidi citizens discussing their new apartments
Fourth, every person of age has a pension. Since 1996, every woman in Huaidi older than 50, and every man older than 60 years, have benefitted from pensions of at least 2000 yuan [US $296] per month—with larger pensions for older people. Currently, the Chinese pension system requires a minimum 15 years of contribution, whether a person is employed or not. Huaidi integrated its own pension system with the national one in 2010. People who are employed participate in the pension system via their employers. For those who are not employed, the community pays three quarters of the total annual contribution, and citizens only pay one quarter. The minimum contribution is 20% of the local per capita income in the previous year.
Fifth, every person gets a whole set of benefits in kind. Everything from rice, flour, edible oil, beans, salt, eggs, beef, pork, vinegar, soy sauce, chicken powder, milk, mineral water, to all kinds of vegetables, tooth paste, toothbrush, tea, sugar, washing powder, soap, toilet paper, cleanser, towel, etc. are distributed regularly in specific quantities, enough for everybody’s consumption, all with good quality.
Finally, all Huaidi citizens have had a basic income of 1500 yuan [US $221] per year since 1995, which is directly transferred to their bank accounts in shares of 125 yuan [US $18.5] per month. For children under 18, this money is kept in parents’ accounts. This amount money was significant in 1995 (Chinese cities’ nominal per capita annual income was about 5000 yuan [US $738] in 1995), but not as much now, due to the rapid rise of GDP in the last 20 years (in 2015, the nominal per capita annual income in Chinese cities was about 50,000 yuan [US $7,379]).
One might wonder why the people of Huaidi get some cash regularly, and unconditionally, after receiving so many benefits in kind. The answer is that the basic income gives people more freedom, especially for those who are unemployed, even though they get enough distributed food and very good social security system. Additionally, this basic income acts as prevention of social ills, reducing crimes, fights and other hurtful behaviors.
Huaidi’s welfare system is much higher than Chinese average social security level, so nobody in the community applies for social assistance. Moreover, there are a lot of other benefits, such as free newspaper, free cable, public utility subsidy, university subsidy, and so on. These welfare benefits come from their original rural collective assets, especially land. Land reform is the biggest achievement from the Mao era. This kind of basic income–often called a social dividend–comes from assets, not tax. It is more likely to be universal for a highly populous country like China.
Notes:
[1] Baidu map, “Location of Huaidi“, 2016
[2] Chen Yuxin, “Leader of Hebei Huaite Group“, 2016
[3] At October 2016 exchange rates.
[4] The transition fee and the compensation for the land, are both paid by the government to the villagers, but the real land taker (future developer) should pay to the government first. Huaidi only keeps one part of this land development rights, and the other part is sold to the developer, who is the real payer of the compensation and transition fee. It is very difficult for single individuals to make good bargains during the land taking process.
[5] It is not very common for urban families to own multiple houses. So Huaidi citizens are richer than most of their neighbours.
[6] The Private School, “Shijiazhuang Foreign Language Education Group“, 2016
More information at:
(in Chinese)
Ge Jizhong, “People’s trust“, YanZhao Evening News, February 6th, 2015
Jiang Hongjie, “An interview with Chen Yuxin“, Hall of Fame Home Online, August 14th, 2012
Other information in this article comes from the author’s field research.
Article reviewed by André Coelho and Kate McFarland
![SPAIN [Basque Country]: Two MPs of Basque Country have long been supporting Unconditional Basic Income](https://i0.wp.com/basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-26-at-11.17.13-AM.png?resize=1%2C1&ssl=1)
by Nick Yeretsian | Nov 9, 2016 | News
On September 25th, Elkarrekin Podemos, a new leftist party with basic income in its platform, won 15% of seats in Basque Parliament. The Socialist Party received 12%, and the centre-right Nationalist Party won a minority government with 37%. Earlier this year in the Spanish general election, Podemos won over a fifth of the seats in the Congress and over a twelfth of the seats in the Senate.
Out of the 11 Podemos MPs in Basque Parliament, two are especially worth note as long-time advocates of UBI.
Tinixara Guanche is a member of the Basque trade union, ESK, which has been fighting from its inception in 1985 for a unionism committed to both workers and socio-political activity. ESK, which defines itself as very participative and non-bureaucratic, has supported UBI since its first steps as a major political force. It continues to support UBI for three main reasons: (1) the redistribution of wealth, (2) equality between women and men, and (3) individual freedom.
ESK has initiated and assisted several UBI-related activities, such as the Popular Legislative Initiative which gave birth to the Basque social protection system. Initially, this Popular Legislative Initiative was actually for a UBI, however, after some parliamentary activity, it became what it is today. Furthermore, ESK supports a platform against social exclusion, advising people who receive social benefits in Basque Country.
Julen Bollain is a member of both BIEN and its Spanish affiliate Red Renta Básica. He has a degree in Business Management from the University of Basque Country, and studied for a year at Saint-Louis University with professors such as Yannick Vanderborght (co-author of L’allocation universelle, and editor of Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research). Julen is currently working on his PhD in Economic Integration, which hinges around UBI, under the direction of Jesús Ferreiro and Daniel Raventós (president of Red Renta Básica).
Julen Bollain says that he is confident that Basque Parliament has the political will to start a debate which will result in a referendum on UBI. The seating in Basque parliament makes it seem hopeful that something can be worked out, that is, if the MPs live up to their party’s name, “United We Can.”
For those who don’t know, Basque Country is an autonomous community in northern Spain with a population of over 2 million.
Written by Julen Bollain
Edited by Nicholas Yeretsian
Photos by Elkarrekin Podemos and Jago’s France
