by Guest Contributor | Apr 23, 2018 | Opinion
Sarath Davala is an independent sociologist who, along with Guy Standing, was the architect of a series of UNICEF-backed basic income pilots in Madhya Pradesh, central India. Inspired by the findings of that study, he became the co-founder and coordinator of the India Network for Basic Income.
The Basic Income Asia Pacific 2018 conference held in Taipei this March featured a host of speakers from around the world, including Davala. I got to sit down with Davala at National Taiwan University to talk about his research and the applicability of basic income to Asia. The following transcribed interview has been lightly edited.
Please talk about your research in India, and how it has led to your support for UBI as policy.
Between 2011 and 2013, a women’s trade union called the Self Employed Women’s Association conducted an experiment in Madhya Pradesh. I was heading that research project and Guy Standing was supporting as the main principal researcher. Now that study where we gave unconditional basic income to 6,000 people living in nine villages came out with findings which were startling and surprising. Because at the time people believed – the government said, the bureaucrats always said, and everyone in the middle-class believed – that if you give money to people without any conditions, they will not use it for good purposes but bad purposes, like drinking alcohol and other things. But we found that many positive things have happened in all these villages. Particularly, the most vulnerable in society benefited the most.
That gave us the conviction that UBI is a very good policy. It need not replace everything (to say that only UBI should be there), but when you are designing or redesigning your welfare basket for your nation, you must have this as the foundation, where everybody gets a certain basic amount of money, and on that they build a life. UBI can be a foundation on which the market or the government, can actually build your life. So that is how research comes into policy.
Could you talk about the process in which you made the Madhya Pradesh basic income pilots a reality? How did you gain the support of local government?
We didn’t ask the local government for money, that’s the important thing. We asked a variety of people, but finally UNICEF agreed to give us the money. It was not a small amount of money, almost a million US dollars. That was required because we were giving cash to people.
Everyone is in process of searching for alternatives, even the government, because the existing system is not delivering the welfare properly, effectively. So we said [to the government], “here’s an alternative, please join us, listen to us, once every three months we will come talk to you.” So that, when we finally come out with the findings, the government said “Oh yeah, we know these guys, they’ve been doing this work.”
So that was one reason, we followed up with policymakers. But at the same time, the other reason was we needed local support. Because if you go to a village and say you want to distribute cash, the local politicians and media will be a problem. So we had the friendship of the government, the trade union which was working in the area, and international experts like Guy Standing. With this kind of combination, we have been able to roll out a study.
Did you encounter any challenges in implementing the basic income experiment on the ground?
A variety of challenges. Even in 2010, when somebody told me they have a project like this, asking “would you like to head this project?” I said “What? Giving money to people? Without any conditions? I always suspected you were mad but now it’s confirmed.” I thought it was crazy.
Similarly when you go to the villages, and say “we want to give cash to everybody for one year.” They say, “what kind of crazy fellow you are!” There’s a lot of disbelief, but also lots of suspicion, that “you guys have something else in your mind and you are going to cheat us, you are taking our consent signatures, maybe you will use our signatures to grab our lands.” People were suspicious about our motives. But then it took us a long time to bring everybody inside. There were 10 percent of the people who rejected the process. But then, women from those rich households said, “no, no. We want to be part of it. You are conducting training programmes and opening bank accounts. We don’t have bank accounts.” So they were interested.
In your presentation earlier, you talked about how it’s important to consider Asia’s local context. You have also worked with Guy Standing, who coined the term, an emerging socioeconomic class, the “precariat.” Do you think the concept of “precariat” is applicable to the situation in developing countries, or is the “precariat” more particular to developed societies?
No, no no. The precariat is everywhere. The percentage will change [depending on the economy], but the percentage is increasing. In fact, earlier the precariat was at the bottom, but even if you go to the high end jobs, you realise that the contracts are very fragile. Today you are there, tomorrow you can be given a pink slip: “okay, you are no longer needed.” Of course, the precariat is there in developing countries, but also every other country.
You want to deny that there’s a precariat, it’s up to you. But if you want to see, there is precariat. Who is the precariat? Precariat is that class of people whose basis of livelihood is very precarious. Today it is there, tomorrow it is not. And they can turn anywhere. That’s why Guy Standing says it is the most dangerous class. They can turn into anything, into crime, into drugs.
Speaking of the Asian context, would you say Asia is particularly vulnerable to the coming wave of automation?
Which economies are more vulnerable to automation and which are not? Within India, automation will affect maybe small section of the industrial manufacturing sector and the software industry. But because of the surplus cheap labour available in India, most of the entrepreneurs will bank on cheap labour.
So for India, I do not see the threat of automation, but it is possible in Taiwan. You are going to have your first automated 7-11? If that is profitable, more and more Family Marts, KFCs, McDonalds may switch their outlets. At the end of the day, an entrepreneur is looking at costs. And human beings are so difficult to manage, every entrepreneur will say. I taught human resources courses in a business management school for seven years. Every businessman is trying to get rid of them.
In your presentation, you talked about how the Indian government has been reducing the welfare state and pushing responsibility to the family and the market. In this context, do you think UBI is a way for governments to reject its responsibility as the welfare state to provide more social services?
Absolutely. Every government in the world is under pressure now. They are under pressure in order to pursue economic growth. They think if economic growth is there, everything will be alright. Under those pressures, they want foreign investment to come in, they want multinationals to establish units in their countries. So they want economic activity in their country, so they’re doing a variety of things with other nations, particularly the richer ones. They’re under tremendous pressure.
When those pressures are there, governments are trying to reduce their responsibility to the people. It’s our job as civil society that we have to keep reminding government that “this is your minimum responsibility. If not in that way, then you should do it this way.” We are saying that, in the welfare basket, UBI is a foundation, the primary thing. On top of it, we can put additional various other things. So that should be the new design. We are making a new design of the welfare basket, trying to propose to the government “in all circumstances you must do this. Don’t throw us into the market, and don’t throw us into the family,” because everyone in the family is in a precarious position. We have to force the government to implement basic income, because that gives basic security to everyone.
Any other comments?
I think there is great promise in the group steering the UBI Taiwan movement. I wish everyone in UBI Taiwan great success. To all the readers, please join and strengthen the movement, because we are definitely making history.
Interviewer: Shuhei Omi, Writer for UBI Taiwan
by Sandro Gobetti | Apr 17, 2018 | News
A new research carried out for the European project
PIE* News Commonfare, which involved three European countries (Croatia, Italy and Holland), has just been released.
In this research, several questions have been asked. How has the precarious workers lives have changed? Between unhappiness and potentiality, between fragility and autonomy, between self-exploitation and freedom? How did it turn out to be, under the blows of the crisis and also through the influence of technology? How have they perceived, and imagined to subvert, social and political difficulties?
The research offers an analysis of the transformations in the production system, of the transition between Fordism and post-Fordism era, the main changes in the labor market, the advent of mass precariousness, the transformation of welfare models and the new emerging (social) needs. Here lies a field research that also addresses the issue of how people, starting from their condition of necessity, build good practices, social cooperation and new forms of liberation. This research work represents the attempt to recount, compare and connect processes of community empowerment and autonomous planning paths, thereby re-establishing a “sense of the future”. It does so by reconstructing an existential perspective in a deeply changed environmental, material and subjective context.
The desire for freedom and autonomy among precarious generations clearly emerges, and with it the need for a new era with new rights based on guaranteed income.
Summary
1. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND THE PIE CONDITIONS
1.1. DIMENSIONS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGE OVER THE LAST DECADES
1.1.1 THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL AND PRODUCTIVE TRANSFORMATIONS
1.1.1.a The Italian context
1.1.1.b The Croatian context
1.1.1.c The Dutch context
1.1.2 LABOUR MARKET AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION
1.1.2.a The Italian Context
1.1.2.b The Croatian context
1.1.2.c The Dutch Context
1.1.3 DIMENSIONS OF THE CRISIS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF WELLFARE POLICIES
1.1.3.a The Italian Context
1.1.3.b The Croatian context
1.1.3.c The Dutch Context
1.2 THE PIE CONDITIONS: RISK OF EXCLUSION, THE EXPERIENCE OF PRECARIOUSNESS AND UNCERTAINTY OF SOCIAL SUBJECTS
1.2.1 THE EFFECT OF PRECARIOUSNESS ON THE NEW POOR
1.2.1.a The Italian context
1.2.1.b The Croatian context
1.2.1.c The Dutch context
1.2.2 THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY, THE TRANSVERSAL NATURE OF POVERTY, AND THE PERCEPTION OF RISK
1.2.2.a The Italian context
1.2.2.b The Croatian context
1.2.2.c The Dutch context
2. THE CHALLENGE OF NEWLY EMERGING NEEDS AND WELFARE STATE SYSTEM
2.1.a The social protection system, measures available in Italy
2.1.b The social protection system, measures available in Croatia
2.1.c The social protection system, measures available in Netherlands
2.2 PEOPLE EMERGING NEEDS
2.2.a Emerging needs in Italy
2.2.b Emerging needs in Croatia
2.2.c Emerging needs in Netherlands
3. OVERTURNING THE PIE CONDITIONS: STORIES AND EXPERIENCES OF COMMUNITIES
3.1 BOTTOM-UP WELFARE: NATURE AND IMPACT OF GRASSROOTS PRACTICES
3.1.a Bottom-up Welfare in Italy
3.1.b Bottom-up Welfare in Croatia
3.1.c Bottom-up Welfare in the Netherlands
3.2 GOOD PRACTICES: STORIES OF REPRODUCIBLE AND EFFECTIVE EXPERIENCES
3.2.a Experiences in Italy
3.2b Experiences in Croatia
3.2c Experiences in the Netherlands
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM, MEASURES AVAILABLE IN ITALY
ANNEX 2: THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM, MEASURES AVAILABLE IN CROATIA.
ANNEX 3: THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM, MEASURES AVAILABLE IN THE NETHERLANDS
*PIE (Poverty, Income, Employment) – Commonfare is a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 687922
by Florie Barnhoorn | Apr 12, 2018 | News
Credit Picture CC Flickr.com / Foam: Futures of the Universal Basic Income
Reyer Brons, editor-in-chief of Vereniging Basisinkomen (Association for Basic Income), the Dutch branch of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and also member of the Network for Political Innovation (NPI, a Dutch think tank), has, in recent months, collected about seventy objections that people might bring up in discussions about (the introduction of) an unconditional basic income (UBI). All objections are subdivided into twelve themes and provided with a short explanation and a refutation or relativisation.
The intention of the work is to give people some background information which can help them in debates about the UBI with supporters and opponents of the policy. As the complete work is rather comprehensive and written in Dutch, only the themes and objections will be presented in this article. An overview of all objections is given (unfortunately only in Dutch) on the website of the NPI with links to the full descriptions. The arguments are also published on the website of the Vereniging Basisinkomen, in a special category of objections (‘Bezwaren’).
In this article, a first example is presented, a short description of an argument with its concomitant explanation and relativisation. Then, some other themes and objections are listed.
For instance, one of the arguments under the theme ‘Implementation’, states “We cannot oversee the long-term effects”.
The objection is followed by a short explanation, that notes:
“It is probably true, that disadvantages of the introduction of a basic income will become obvious in time. However, it will be regarded as an acquired right by that time and therefore it is to be expected that negative developments will evoke opposition among the general public. For example, lowering the level of the basic income would lead to major problems, because many people will not be prepared to face the reduction.”
Subsequently a refutation is given:
“This type of argument is fatal for every policy change. Of course, there will be unforeseen effects, but what policy has none? There are many examples of unexpected consequences, but it did not stop progress. Who could have thought that the exploitation of gas fields in Groningen [a province in the north of the Netherlands] could cause serious earthquakes after decades of drilling? Or that fatal traffic accidents could increase again as a result of the introduction of the smartphone?
In the course of time, society will change in a variety of ways due to the introduction of the policy. Proponents look forward to experience with an unconditional basic income. In their eyes, the effects will have a strong positive influence on society. Furthermore, it is also possible to model the long-term effects (e.g. via micro simulation studies).
If undesirable long-term effects arise, further measures must be developed to counteract the unfavorable consequences. This also applies to the current welfare system. It must be understood that the adverse effects of the current system can hardly be tackled, until that system is thoroughly addressed. When economic conditions deteriorate in a given society, it cannot be ruled out that the basic income payment must be lowered, but the same applies to current benefits. On the other hand, it also cannot be ruled out that the payment will increase over time.”
All objections are listed below, arranged by theme:
1. Common misconceptions
- Basic income is a utopian dream or a fantasy
- Basic income is a hype or a cult
- Basic income means free money and that is not possible
- Basic income is a new and still immature idea
- Basic income is a new label for the same old social security system
- Basic income is unaffordable or antisocial
2. Values and philosophy of life
- Reciprocity is necessary for the legitimacy of the social state and its moral support, that means that an unconditional basic income cannot be solidary
- Having a paid job gives dignity, status and a sense of social integration, basic income will make people lazy
- With basic income, young people no longer take the trouble to study
- Only a small group of people is capable of handling freedom well
- Basic income leads to an increase in the use of alcohol and drugs
- Basic income is bad for the emancipation of women
- The basic income lowers the participation of women at the labor market (they might stay at home to look after the children or take up other unpaid care work)
- Talents remain unused
- Basic income promotes overpopulation
- People always want something more than they see with someone else, therefore they will begrudge someone a basic income
- The group consisting of free-riders, maladjusted or anti-social people will grow, if there is basic income for everyone
- Many are annoyed by the behavior of free-riders, profiteers and anti-socials. Those people are not worth to get a basic income. If they should receive the payment, it would be disastrous for its acceptance
3. Social vision and ideology
- The idea of a basic income goes in the direction of communism, and that is bad
- Basic income is a socialist idea, that cannot work
- It is a reprehensible neoliberal idea
- Basic income creates an undesirable class distribution in society or a strengthening of it
- Basic income increases the chance of ghetto formation
- Basic income increases the power of the state and makes citizens passive and dependent
- Basic income requires unjust redistribution and is actually just theft
- Basic income is a Trojan horse, as soon as it is introduced, massive savings on government spending will be realized
4. Economy
- Basic income is unaffordable
- Basic income does not use sophisticated information and is therefore cumbersome and limited in its goals
- A basic income causes a huge inflation
- Introduction of the UBI will lead to higher taxes and that is bad for innovation and industry
- Basic income worsens the position of the Netherlands on the international market
- Basic income will boost the informal economy, illegal transactions and fraud
- Basic income promotes consumption and is therefore a catastrophe for the environment
- Basic income means that fewer people will accept work, hence the economy will stagnate or shrink
5. Job market
- Nobody wants to accept unpleasant work after the introduction of an UBI
- Many people will be satisfied with the basic income payment
- The loss of income due to unemployment will have a much greater effect with a basic income than in the current situation without a basic income
- If you give people a basic income, that means that you let them down
- Paid work is no longer necessary, so the meaning of work will ebb away. Which fulfilling, decent activity will replace it?
6. Government and bureaucracy
- Basic income makes us all too dependent from government
- The provision of cash to people is not a task for the government
- A basic income turns us all in benefit claimants
- Basic income will never be high enough in order to eliminate all bureaucracy
- Basic income promotes corruption of the government
7. Borders and migration
- The Netherlands on its own is too small for a basic income
- Basic income promotes immigration, especially of economic refugees
- Basic income is discriminatory for foreigners, who want to settle here, if the payment is only for residents
- Basic income promotes unwanted emigration
- Basic income promotes the closing of borders
8. An unconditional basic income will not solve the really important problems
- People with a lot of debt are no better off with a small basic income
- The growing inequality will not be resolved
- Introduction of an UBI is not good for the environment
- It is a solution from the system world, problems in the real world will not be solved
9. Interests
- Trade unions lose their position of power and are therefore against the policy
- Employment at social security agencies is at stake
- Basic income means a radical change in our common live as a society, which is of no interest for the ruling elite
- Most people don’t like the idea of an unconditional basic income
10. Procedures and institutions
- It is not in our hands, it is up to other people to decide on basic income
- The policy is too big for us to handle, we only have four years as a government
- Firstly, we have to do this and then that …, there are so many urgent problems that need to be addressed. The basic income case removes more important reforms from the political agenda
- The design of existing experiments is too small, they can’t tell anything about the real effects of a basic income
- When an UBI is implemented, and it fails to succeed, we can’t get rid of it anymore
- Anyway, introduction of the policy in our country is impossible
11. Amendment and modification
- Political decision making always leads to watery compromises that make our lives worse, not better
- Under the flag of a universal basic income, we introduce a very different policy
- People who really need a basic income will not benefit, others will benefit from it, rather than those for whom it is intended
12. Implementation
- We should not start with the policy, the introduction of a basic income is far too complex
- A basic income can’t be properly phased in, because if we do, we will have two concurrent welfare systems, which might lead to a lot of nasty implications
- We start enthusiastically with the introduction of the policy, but ignore all warnings pertaining to possible implementation problems
- We cannot oversee the long-term effects of a UBI
The reader will notice that some objections are in conflict with each other. For instance, some people may view an unconditional basic income as a ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’ idea, while at the other end of the political spectrum, it is considered as ‘neoliberal’ policy. The idea is rejected for all of these reasons. After all, opposition to the basic income comes from different angles. The same is true for immigration. One person might say that a basic income promotes immigration, whereas another thinks that it inhibits the influx of immigrants.
by Andre Coelho | Apr 5, 2018 | Research
David Calnitsky has recently published a paper analyzing the impact of basic income on the labor market, on the Socio-Economic Review Journal. The Abstract reads as follows:
“How do firms react when the whole labor force has access to a guaranteed income? One view argues that the guaranteed income is an employer subsidy, facilitating low wages and a ‘low-road’ industrial strategy. The second view suggests that in providing an alternative to work, the guaranteed income tightens labor markets and pulls wages up. This article examines the impact of an understudied social experiment from the late 1970s called the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment, or Mincome. This research focuses on Mincome’s ‘saturation’ site, the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, where all residents were eligible for unconditional payments. Using an archived survey of local firms that inquires into wage rates, applications, hiring, and work hours, I find support for the second view. I close by examining the mechanisms behind the employer subsidy argument and considering the conditions under which a variety of income-support policies might increase or decrease wages, and more broadly, foster compromise or conflict in the labor market.”
Calnitsky concludes in this article that it is unlikely that business organizations will come to support basic income, if it can be shown to increase the bargaining power of workers. However, dependent on certain implementation details, basic income can be made to facilitate exploitation by employers, rather than obstruct it. For instance, if it replaces some welfare state functions, leaving people less economically safe as a result, and hence more vulnerable to (economical) abuse. At the very end, he also reminds readers that support for basic income may be more efficient if made upon “the policy features themselves, rather than a generic proposal suffering from overly malleable and mutable definitions.”
More information at:
David Calnitsky, “The employer response to the guaranteed annual income”, Socio-Economic Review Journal, February 16th 2018
by Tyler Prochazka | Apr 4, 2018 | Opinion
The Basic Income Asia Pacific 2018 conference signaled a feeling of growing momentum of the basic income movement in Asia Pacific, particularly in Taiwan.
Over 100 attendees filled the two day conference in Taipei, along with thousands of viewers of the online livestream and simultaneous translations. The speaker roster this year featured an extensive list of international and Taiwanese scholars and personalities.
Enno Schmidt, the 2016 Swiss referendum leader, and Sarath Davala, the leader researcher for UNICEF’s Indian basic income trial, led the keynote speeches for day one and day two respectively.
Davala said he felt “electricity” during the conference.
“The UBI Asia Pacific Conference is an important milestone in the basic income movement. It is a high voltage moment that we in Asia will talk to our children about. The energy in the conference was amazing, and I was inspired to see young women and men from different universities in Taiwan all fired up about the idea of basic income,” Davala said.
Schmidt said it was clear the Taiwanese group had put in a lot of effort since last year’s conference.
“At this year’s UBI Asia Pacific Conference, it was noticeable that the UBI team had already been working for a full year. Sarath Davala from India gave a rousing speech, and Patrick Havermann from the United Nations Development Program in Asia would like to make the entire UN network available to spread the idea of the Basic Income,” Schmidt said.
Taiwanese media emphasized the conference’s focus on Taiwan’s recent changes to the referendum law, which has opened up the possibility for a basic income referendum in Taiwan.
Taiwan’s Digital Minister Audrey Tang opened the first day of the conference, noting that while she believes more research should be done on basic income in Taiwan, she supported the spirit of discussion at the conference.
“Indeed, to build a sound re-distribution mechanism to improve human welfare and equality — this is a timeless subject that needs continuous review and revisit,” Tang said.
The UN Development Program (UNDP) Asia Pacific Advisor Patrick Haverman, who has been leading an effort to work with regional governments to research basic income, opened the second day of the conference.
Haverman held a series of round-table discussions with Chinese scholars and officials on the possibility for a pilot program in China.
“In my work with UNDP, I have helped establish round-table meetings on basic income across the Asia Pacific with other UN agencies, academics, and government officials to start a discussion about UBI and explore the possibility of piloting an basic income project,” Haverman said. “The Basic Income Asia Pacific conference is good way to exchange information and to discuss how potentially UBI can address some of the most pressing challenges of our time, like inequality and automatization potentially taking over some of the current jobs.”
UBI Taiwan also presented the current state of their research on both days. The research group said their main focus is creating a framework for a universal Partial Basic Income (PBI) that would gradually phase into a full basic income over a decade. The English overview of their research can be found here.
The proposal would increase taxes by five percent of Taiwan’s GDP and could provide 3,000 NTD ($102 USD) to every Taiwanese citizen.
Jiaguan Su, UBI Taiwan’s Research Director, said the scholars who had met with the research team to discuss the national proposal were “impressed,” and that their main takeaway is that the proposal must emphasize the values of UBI.
“The most important lesson we took from the conference is we must promote the core values of UBI Taiwan through the national proposal. Namely, UBI is for everyone, not just a specific group of people. Our research should focus on this value in order to demonstrate UBI’s ability to promote democracy and human rights in Taiwan,” Su said.
Jason Hsu, a KMT (Nationalist Party) legislator in Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, spoke at the first day of the conference. Taiwan media reported that Hsu is considering raising the subject of basic income with large Taiwanese companies.
James Davis, a Columbia University student and UBI Taiwan Field Research Director, interviewed Andrew Yang, the 2020 US presidential candidate running on a basic income platform for the conference. Yang is ethnically Taiwanese and said he was excited by the discussion of basic income in Taiwan.
“UBI Taiwan is fighting the good fight. I was honored to contribute to the BIAP conference because job automation has the potential to seriously hurt Taiwanese workers – and American workers – if universal basic income doesn’t become a reality soon,” Yang said.
Davis also interviewed Qin Gao for the conference, the Columbia University professor who has written a book on China’s cash transfer program, dibao. Gao is the director of China Center for Social Policy at Columbia. Gao noted the problems and stigmatization that arise from some of the means-testing conditions on China’s cash program.
Andy Stern, the former President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and former advisor to President Barack Obama, has been a consistent advocate of basic income in the United States and has provided advice and support to UBI Taiwan over the last several months.
“The clarity of UBI Taiwan’s vision and the tremendous work of its fellows is astounding. The time for universal basic income policies is now, not later. And the world is lucky to have UBI Taiwan on the vanguard of the global debate, designing UBI policy in practical, politically feasible ways,” Stern said.
National Chengchi University (NCCU) and National Taiwan University were the locations for the event this year. NCCU’s International Master’s Program in Asia Pacific Studies (IMAS) was the main organizer for the event. UBI Taiwan provided the volunteer team.
The U.S. State Department’s Critical Language Scholarship program provided a grant through its Alumni Development Fund to support the event to Prochazka, Elyse Mark, and Davis.
Tyler Prochazka, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder, was the director for the conference along with Dongyan Wu, UBI Taiwan’s Public Relations Director. Prochazka and Wu will appear on Taiwan television in April and May.
Ping Xu, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder, said she was excited by the results of the conference, particularly the connections made between different opinion leaders from around the region and within Taiwan.
“It was great success to have many influential opinion leaders from political, medical and social fields participate in the conference. This was a brand new milestone to help build the UBI movement in Taiwan,” Xu said.
Davala said the conference was a positive sign for the future of Taiwan’s UBI movement.
“UBI Taiwan, within a short period has been able to inspire and mobilize hundreds of students to stand up for an idea that is often dismissed as Utopian and impractical. Taiwan could very well be the first Asian country to go for a referendum on Unconditional Basic Income,” Davala siad.
The livestreams and simultaneous translation broadcasts can be found on UBI Taiwan’s Facebook. For the conference’s Twitter stream, go here.
