by Florie Barnhoorn | Nov 2, 2016 | News
A citizens’ initiative for the introduction of a basic income in the Netherlands in 2018 recently handed over a petition containing 58,800 signatures calling for a debate in the Parliament. The signatories are advocates of a guaranteed income of approximately 1000 EUR per month for all adults, plus basic health insurance and an extra payment for children under the age of 18 years. The supporters say that a basic income will allow everyone more freedom to decide whether to work, study, start a company or, for example, take care of elderly family members, instead of being stuck in a hated job to provide for their families. The citizens’ initiative has collected 58,800 signatures, significantly more than the 40,000 needed to place a controversial issue on the agenda of the Parliament.
The paper invitation to sign the petition was spread as a ‘Civil Relief Assessment Notice’, similar to an assessment notice directed to all Dutch taxpayers. According to Johan Luijendijk, one of the initiators of the citizens’ initiative and co-organizer of Basicincome2018, an informal digital platform for sharing information on basic income and the exchange of experiences, the threshold of 40,000 signatures was already met in April: “This happened so fast that we adjusted our ambitions to 100,000. But the growth slowed down, so if we continue at this rate, we will not achieve our goal soon.” He believes that the general public is still unfamiliar with the subject and that the relatively small circle of proponents has been reached: “I suppose that many people still have ’cold feet’ to endorse the rather radical idea of a unconditional basic income”, he says. Hence, it was decided to submit the initiative this week.
-
-
Civil Relief Assessment Notice
-
After the presentation of the petition to Members of Parliament, the signatures will be counted and validated. The whole process can be completed in about a month, according to RTL. It is also checked whether this is a topic parliament hasn’t dealt with recently. Last September, members of the Second Chamber of Parliament (House of Representatives) discussed with the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment, Lodewijk Asscher (Partij van de Arbeid / PvdA / Labour Party) a memorandum initiated by Norbert Klein, leader of the Vrijzinnige Partij (Cultural Liberal Party) wherein he advocates the introduction of a basic income. However, the MPs have postponed the voting procedure, so there is a chance that Parliament is obliged to consider the current initiative. If a majority is in favor of the proposal, the responsible minister will be asked to change his or her policy towards a basic income.
At present, the basic income movement has to transfer its focus to the upcoming elections for new members of the House of Representatives in March 2017. Political parties are now making their programmes. So far, only a few of them (Party for the Animals with 2 seats in Parliament; Cultural Liberal Party with 1 seat; Pirate Party no seats) have explicitly included a guaranteed income in their programmes for the next four year. Intensive debates will take place with GroenLinks (GreenLeft), PvdA (Labour Party), D66 (Democrats 66), SP (Socialist Party) and the minority of proponents in VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) and CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal) in order to persuade these political parties to adopt an unconditional basic income as an indispensable part of their political ambitions (according to an email communication with Alexander de Roo, the chairman of the Dutch branch of BIEN). “We are also planning to intensify our lobby towards entrepreneurs. We want them to speak openly about the benefits and necessity of the introduction of a universal basic income.”
Thanks to Ali Özgür Abalı for reviewing a draft of this article.
Credit Picture ‘Public debate on basic income‘ CC Zeptonn
Credit Pictures’ Civil Relief Assessment Notice‘ Verlichtingsdienst
by Kate McFarland | Oct 28, 2016 | News
The 2016 Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) National Conference, convening in Sydney on November 17-18, will include a discussion of universal basic income.
The opening session of the second day of the conference is titled “Should Australia Implement a Basic Income?” The following description is provided in the official conference program:
With Finland and Netherlands to introduce a universal basic income, attention has been turned to whether Australia should consider adopting such an approach. The changing nature of employment due to technological change has led some commentators to suggest a universal basic income would provide a buffer for those employed in industries with uncertain futures. Others argue that a universal basic income would dismantle overblown welfare bureaucracies and give people the freedom to purchase their own services. What is the role of a basic income? Is it to provide a safety net or is it to provide assistance to all? And is such an approach even feasible in Australia with its highly targeted social security system?
Founded in 1956, ACOSS is an advocacy group dedicated to combating poverty and inequality in Australia. Its annual conference focuses on practical strategies to realize this aim.
In recent years, the ACOSS National Conference has drawn over 500 attendees from non-profit organizations, government offices, businesses, unions, universities, and other backgrounds.
Instead of centering on lectures, the conference aims to encourage conversation between panelists and attendees. Panels will also be streamed live, and remote viewers will also be encouraged to join the discussion.
See acossevents.org.au for more information.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Alex Proimos
by Kate McFarland | Oct 28, 2016 | News
The Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean has recently produced a report in which it recommends a universal and unconditional basic income as one measure to promote the equality and autonomy of women.
The Thirteenth Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean, organized by the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), was held in Montevideo, Uruguay from October 25-28. It brought together politicians and policy researchers with expertise in the rights and welfare of women in the region.
In the 150-page report titled “Equality and women’s autonomy in the sustainable development agenda”, conference participants discuss their policy recommendations to ensure the equality, autonomy, and empowerment of women.
While the report covered a wide range of policy areas, its section on women’s economic equality and independence is particularly noteworthy for Basic Income News–since, in addition to other reforms, it clearly recommends a universal and unconditional basic income (cf. pp. 50-51).
The report notes that women often “face the most vulnerable and precarious [economic] situations” and thus stand to benefit considerably from a basic income (p. 50).
Summarizing the impact of basic income, the authors write:
While the basic income would not resolve all the problems caused by inequality and the sexual division of labour (as this would require broader structural reform covering different variables), it would have some positive effects, including: (i) increasing women’s freedom by giving them economic independence; (ii) reducing the feminization of poor households; (iii) distributing domestic and care work better, as a basic income would increase women’s bargaining power. In addition, women would gain not only in economic terms but also in terms of rights and autonomy (Raventós and Wark, 2016). The introduction of a universal basic income for women would have at least three further outcomes: (i) a more balanced distribution of resources; (ii) recognition of gender equality by guaranteeing a basic income for both sexes; (iii) enhancing women’s individuality and hence the possibility of furthering women’s representation.
A minimum wage policy, coupled with a basic income policy, would create synergy, helping to increase women’s economic autonomy and to improve distributive equality in countries of the region; in turn, this would contribute to sustainable development (p. 51).
In addition to basic income and a minimum wage, the report calls for a reduction in work hours, which would permit more women to balance employment with domestic work, while also allowing men to devote greater time to childrearing, housework, and so forth.
Elsewhere in the report, while summarizing a range of programs to combat poverty, the authors mention (in passing) “the possibility of recognizing the right to a guaranteed basic income as a new human right” (p. 41).
This is not the first time in recent months that ECLAC has recommended a basic income. In its position document released in May, ECLAC encouraged its member states to investigate the possibility of adopting a basic income guarantee (here presented chiefly as a response to technologically-driven unemployment and instability). The commission’s recommendations have been instrumental in the movement in Mexico City to secure a basic income as a constitutionally-recognized right.
In past years, ECLAC has also been a participant at BIEN’s biennial Congress (2014) and released a report specifically on basic income (2010).
Reviewed by Robert Gordon.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 World Bank Photo Collection.
by Andre Coelho | Oct 28, 2016 | News
Romanian Orthodox Cathedral in Timisoara
The last thematic meeting of the CO-ACTE project was held in Timisoara, Romania, on the 16th and 17th of September. This international meeting, titled “Democratic governance of common goods for the well-being of all today and in the future”, was attended by Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Executive Committee member André Coelho, as well as individuals from several other organizations, such as the Community Land Trust, Giuseppe Mastruzzo, Mairie de Saillans Municipality and the School of Peace. Members of local Romanian organizations were also present.
Like previous CO-ACTE meetings, the event was organized by the Together association, in collaboration with a local partner based in Timisoara, a beautiful historical city at the southeast edge of the Banat plain.
This meeting was an important step towards the final presentation of the project, which has been reported on before, to be held in Braine-l’Alleud (Belgium), November 2-4. At this event, project participants will present CO-ACTE’s 10-year development results to political actors, including top officials at the European Commission. The CO-ACTE project focuses on societal developments and public policies for the well-being of all, using the results from a large popular consultation effort (an application of a technique called the SPIRAL method).
Basic income is one of the policies defended within the CO-ACTE project, where it is considered central to achieving a balanced state of economic activity which aligns with the well-being of all, both now and for future generations. This relates perfectly with the aforementioned meeting on democratic governance, since it has long been realized that there is no real freedom, hence the shared management of common goods and direct forms of democracy, without economic security.
More information at:
CO-ACTE website
by Florie Barnhoorn | Oct 26, 2016 | News
The Dutch State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment has sent a document to Members of Parliament proposing a basic income experiment. However, the proposed design has met criticism from many scientists, activists, and others instrumental in the original development of the experiment.
Jetta Klijnsma CC Roel Wijnants
On the last Friday of September 2016, the Dutch government decided to allow basic income experiments on a limited scale and under strict conditions. Mrs. Jetta Klijnsma, State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment, has sent a document Ontwerpbesluit Experimenten Participatiewet (Design for Experiments in the context of the Participation Act) to the Members of Parliament in which she outlines the rules, conditions and goals of the forthcoming basic income experiments. Mrs. Klijnsma, (PvdA, Partij van de Arbeid / Labour Party) is optimistic. As soon as both Chambers of Parliament accept the proposed framework, she can give permission to start with the experiments–hopefully, January 1st 2017.
However, many of the pioneers involved in the experiments (including scientists, activists, city counsel members, local councilors, and civil servants) are less excited. In order to overcome political arguments–mainly coming from the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy), a right-wing party that hates the idea of a basic income–the original study design has been changed in such a way that these stakeholders worry about the consequences for the pilots.
Proposed Design of the Dutch Basic Income Pilot
Before we return to their concerns, let’s look at the design of the experiment in more detail.
The research questions as they are now formulated are:
• Does the intervention in the research groups lead to acceptance of paid labor?
• Which intervention causes the most complete independence of social assistance benefit?
A maximum of 25 municipalities, or 4% of the total number of Dutch welfare claimants, will be allowed to participate in the experiments. According to Statline (Electronic Databank of Statistics Netherlands), there were 546.090 persons with a social assistance benefit in December 2015; thus, around 21.843 persons will be involved in the experiments. Only municipalities which have implemented the Participation Act in fullness will be selected for one of the pilots. The duration of the experiments is set at two years. Stakeholders criticize this as of ‘too limited duration’.
Each basic income experiment will consist of six groups. Larger municipalities will use all six groups, for smaller municipalities three groups are enough.
Welfare claimants are randomly assigned to one of these five groups:
1. A group who is exempt from formal obligations to find employment. Subjects in this group will not receive formal sanctions in case they fail to actively look for paid work [1]. However, after six and twelve months, the municipality will check whether sufficient efforts have voluntarily been made by the participant to find paid labor. When too few activities have been undertaken, the trial period will be terminated;
2. A group that will be subjected to additional obligations and duties during the experimental period in order to reintegrate them into the labor market, entailing at least a doubling of contacts with civil servants responsible for carrying out the Participation Act;
3. A group who is allowed to keep 50 percent of their earnings in addition to the welfare payments with a maximum of 199 EUR per month for single persons and 142 EUR for married couples (which is less than the legal minimum wage);
4. A combination of the above groups, whereby the first two groups always should be combined in an experiment;
5. A control group.
In addition to these five randomly-assigned groups, the experiments will use a reference group consisting of social assistance recipients living in the same municipality, but not participating in the experiment (e.g. benefit claimants in a neighboring municipality not involved in the trial).
Welfare claimants sign an agreement which states that their participation is strictly voluntary. However, it is forbidden to stop during the course of the experiment. They will receive their normal benefit allowances during the project (Sjir Hoeijmakers, email communication).
Criticism from Stakeholders
Meetings of activists in Groningen CC Zeptonn
Stakeholders are critical about the design of the basic income experiments. In a letter addressed to Members of Parliament, scientists of the four collaborating universities (Tilburg, Utrecht, Groningen and Wageningen) contend that reliable scientific research cannot be tested within the proposed framework.
For example, Professor Dr. Ruud Muffels from Tilburg University criticizes the introduction of a group with more government control. “The effects of sanctions have been extensively studied. I wonder what kind of information you want to find. It will also complicate the interpretation of the results of the pilot. If freedom has consequences – the participant can be banned from the experiment after one year when he or she is not ‘active enough’ in seeking a paid job – this line of inquiry cannot be tested. It might also create an ethically difficult dilemma, because we are looking for volunteers for the research, and we have to clarify the implications of their participation.”
As a consequence of these concerns, researchers like Dr. Muffels fear that the proposed framework will deter benefit claimants from participation in the experiments, due to the use of a group that will experience much more control.
The researchers call upon the MPs to pay attention to their concerns when the framework is discussed with the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment in the Parliamentary Committee for Social Affairs and Employment.
Divosa (Association of Executives in the Social Domain) also has doubts about the value of the experiments. According to Divosa’s vice-president Jellemiek Zock, “It is more difficult to measure the effects of the pilots, because they are more limited than in the original design. Besides, activities like taking a part-time job, starting a business, caring for children or other family members are excluded from the experiments. Nevertheless, given the situation in the present government – a coalition of VVD and PvdA – I think this is the most we can get at this moment. But we will proceed.”
Another stakeholder in the experiment says, “We wanted a simple pilot based on trust rather than repression. We wanted to give benefit claimants more freedom, more choice, more purchasing power. Now we have a complicated set of rules. What remains is a puzzle, which makes it difficult to shape the experiments and understand the results. However, we are glad to start.”
For her own part, the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment is content with the outcome: the proposed framework is still miles away from a really unconditional basic income.
[1] Under Dutch social laws, a benefit claimant is normally sanctioned when he or she is not actively looking for paid work. These sanctions are described in the Participation Act and executed by civil servants employed by a municipality.
Cover Photo CC OuiShare
Thanks to Kate McFarland for reviewing a draft of this article.
