by Sandro Gobetti | Jul 3, 2016 | Research
Article by Luca Santini and Sandro Gobetti (BIN Italia), published on Cadmus journal Vol. 2 Issue 6 may 2016.
Abstract
A feeling of uncertainty about the future as well as the perception that the past classical securities are gone are widely spread among people. Criticism or disaffection affects the majority of the traditional political forces of the European continent. It is not possible to talk about the European crisis without referring to the crisis of wage-based society. All political options of the past century have de facto put labour at the centre of society.
The post-classical era got its start in the ’80s when, for the first time since World War II, the phenomenon of mass unemployment affected Europe. The crisis of wage labour cannot be regarded as a temporary economic conjuncture of an otherwise unlimited growth; all consequences of the phase must be contemplated in order to design at once a society based on new principles.
For years, after the end of the Fordist system, nothing has been done to cope with the conditions of precarious workers. The issue of a guaranteed income is, therefore, crucial and inescapable in order to exit this long-term European crisis. The European Union should take a stand on the protection of human dignity and on the “right to exist”. Could basic income at the continental level be the basis for a social Europe? We are looking forward to it.
Click here to read the article in pdf.
Click here to download Cadmus Journal Vol. 2 issue 6 May 2016.
by Kate McFarland | Jun 30, 2016 | Opinion
Oxford Fellow Max Harris presents an argument that a universal basic income (UBI) could contribute to loneliness. The argument as given, however, seems to rest on misconceptions about what a UBI would and would not do, and even in its strongest form does not give us reason to reject a UBI.
Would a universal basic income exacerbate loneliness?
This is the question posed by Max Harris, an Examination Fellow at Oxford’s All Souls College, in a recent article for openDemocracy.
In Harris’s assessment, there are two ways in which a universal basic income might contribute to loneliness:
- A UBI “removes the social interaction that some people gain from employment.” Harris worries that recipients of the UBI would “curl up in individualist cocoons” rather than initiating social contact, since they have already been conditioned by the norms of a society in which interpersonal contact has become limited (“we email people who sit in the same office as us, for example, and often text people over talking to them in person”).
- A UBI by itself does not provide any “accompanying public infrastructure to underscore the value of community.” It is, of course, an investment directly in individuals — not in, say, community programs or public parks, libraries, or recreation centers.
Harris himself does not endorse the conclusion that, as a matter of fact, a UBI would make us lonely. Indeed, he does not take a firm stance on whether it would or not. His objective is merely to raise the concern.
As Harris points out, citing basic income proponents such as Scott Santens and the UK think tank Royal Society of Arts (RSA), one can also make a case that a UBI should be expected to foster social relationships. After all, if people are liberated from dependency on full-time paid employment, they would be able to spend less time in jobs that are themselves socially isolating — as some jobs surely are — and more time “pursuing communal projects” outside of work.
According to Harris, the question is in part empirical: we won’t know whether a UBI increases loneliness in society, or whether it reduces it, until it is actually tested.
A Non-Empirical Assessment
I want to offer a counterpoint to Harris’s loneliness worry that differs slightly from the brief pro-UBI response entertained in his essay.
It’s no doubt correct that some office work does inhibit individuals from engaging in community projects (a point that Harris attributes to Santens) — or, for that matter, prevent individuals from spending time with friends and family — but it’s a bit beside the point to argue about whether jobs facilitate valuable social interaction or whether, more often, they just get in the way. Presumably, there are jobs of each type. The key point here is that a UBI would provide options: with a UBI, a worker can choose to say at a job, or a worker can choose to quit (perhaps for the sake of engaging in some communal project).
Contra Harris, I believe that we don’t need an empirical study to demonstrate the flaws in the argument that “a universal basic income would make us lonely.” The argument, as he presents it, is a non-starter.
Look again at his two major concerns: (1) a UBI removes the social interaction gained at a job, and (2) a UBI offers no infrastructure to replace this lost interaction.
Credit: The Open University via flickr
The first of these premises is plainly false, and it doesn’t take a pilot study to see why: receiving a basic income does not prevent an individual from also continuing in paid employment. Thus, there is no sense in which a UBI “removes” the social interaction gained at a job; it does not even remove the job!
Indeed, one oft-touted benefit of basic income is that, because a UBI is not means-tested, it is not a disincentive to work (in contrast to most existing systems of welfare, in which benefits vanish if a receipt receives a job or earns income above a certain amount). Despite loose talk in the media about “paying people to do nothing” and “giving people money not to work,” receipt of a basic income is not conditional on quitting work (obviously); quite the contrary.
We might assume that people are able to recognize whether their jobs provide a valuable source of social interaction and connections — and that, if this is so, they will retain their jobs even if UBI came to be. (I will, though, revisit this assumption shortly.)
To be sure, UBI is often discussed in parallel to forecasts of mass unemployment (e.g., especially, due to automation). In the scenarios envisioned, many workers will lose their jobs — but, of course, this job-loss is not due to UBI. A UBI, insofar as it’s in the picture, is there to offset one of the worst effects of joblessness: loss of income. By itself, it is not meant — and should not be expected — to replace all aspects of the lost jobs. A UBI “merely” ensures that displaced workers won’t have to worry about paying for food or rent, thereby providing a foundation that allows us to focus on concerns at higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy — such as how and where to find social interaction.
This leads to the second concern raised by Harris: a UBI does not provide alternative infrastructure for social interaction. Here, I think that we should accept Harris’s claim, but we should question its relevance.
It’s true that a UBI does not by itself provide schools, parks, or community programs; it also does not cure for cancer or end warfare. It would be patently absurd, however, to oppose UBI on the ground that it does not achieve the latter goals. A UBI might accomplish a lot, but it is not a panacea; no advocates take it for one.
Credit: Valerie Shane via flickr
We can even grant that the development and enrichment of the commons is a goal that we ought to pursue in conjunction with a basic income.
Guy Standing, for example, incorporates a call to protect and revive the “physical, social, and information commons” as part of his Precariat Charter (immediately after his proposals for basic income and sovereign wealth funds, as it happens).
And Harris himself describes the RSA’s idea for a “public contribution contract” to be introduced alongside of a basic income, by which individuals express commitment to contribute to their communities.
As an argument against basic income, Harris’s loneliness worry holds no water. At most, it is an exhortation to UBI proponents not to forget about parallel programs, such as the construction and enhancement of public spaces, that could foster social interaction and community well-being.
A Concession and Response
Credit: NoirKitsuné via flickr
I do, though, want to offer an important caveat. Above, I suggested that individuals can recognize when the social interaction fostered by a job is beneficial to them, and that they will act accordingly. But, in fact, I think it’s quite probable that there are some individuals who — were they to receive a basic income — would leave their jobs and cocoon themselves in their homes, even if doing so would not be in their overall best interest. A guaranteed income could indeed be the catalyst that drives some individuals into a voluntary, but potentially harmful, life of isolation.
What sorts of individuals? There might be some who would intentionally avoid social interaction as a consequence of mental illness, such as social anxiety or depression. Meanwhile, others might quit their jobs to pursue passions that just happen to be solitary (whether writing, painting, computer-programming, or what have you). After all, one major talking-point in favor of basic income — and one with which I wholeheartedly agree — is that the policy would allow individuals to quit their jobs to pursue their passions. The loneliness worry might well arise, however, when a naturally introverted person engages herself in an inherently solitary pursuit; even if avoiding social interaction is not her goal, it might be her natural inclination — an inclination that would be unthwarted if paid employment is not necessary to make a living.
Against Harris, perhaps, I believe that the loneliness worry would be greatest for those people who don’t avidly desire social interaction — for they are the least inclined to be proactive in ensuring that they receive a healthy dose. (Harris states, “While some individuals might enjoy this time on their own, others might feel isolated by this lack of social contact,” which suggests that he forecasts that those who crave social contact will be the hardest hit.)
Would this problem arise under a UBI? If so, how big of a problem would it be? These, I think, are indeed empirical matters.
But a better question for our purposes is this: if there is a risk of the type of self-induced loneliness that I’ve described above, would this be a reason not to favor a UBI?
And here I think that the we can, with some confidence, answer no.
Consider an analogy. Presumably, there are people in industrialized nations who currently receive very little physical activity, and who would receive more physical exercise were it not for the mechanization of labor. (Perhaps, say, they’d work in the field instead of sitting at a desk.) Such individuals could hit the gym after work, or ride a bike to the office instead of driving a car, or jog in the morning, or so on; however, because exercise is not required to make an income, many opt out, despite acknowledging that they’d be healthier if they moved around a bit more.
Nonetheless, it would be inappropriate to attempt to impede progress (e.g., by banning mechanized agriculture) simply because some percentage of the population is disinclined to exercise unless their life and livelihood depends on it. Such a reactionary policy would be not only unfair to society as a whole but also condescending and paternalistic to those it endeavors to help. A better approach might be to make other options for physical activity more accessible (e.g., say, installing bike lanes, funding parks and community recreation centers, or sponsoring free fitness classes).
Likewise, the possibility that a UBI would lead some to reduce their amount of social contact — even if this possibility is likely — is not a good reason to deprive society of the myriad benefits that would be bought about by a UBI. That said, there is likely little harm in preparing for this contingency by thinking of ways of encourage social contact in a world with less work (or, perhaps more accurately, less mandatory paid employment), such as by expanding and protecting commons areas.
Max Harris, “Will the Universal Basic Income make us lonely?” openDemocracy, May 25, 2016.
Feature Image via Chris de Nice (flickr)
Thanks to Dave Clegg for reviewing a draft of this article.
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon.
by Jessica "Trinley" Rafka | Jun 9, 2016 | News
Original article published in SPREEZEITUNG, January 11th, 2016, written by Ursula Pidun. Translation by Jessica Rafka.
Discussions about an unconditional basic income have been around for a while. But this topic is not picking up steam. What are the reasons for this, and why are unions and political parties still very much against a basic income? We will be discussing these questions, and the many different social, economic, and political advantages of having a UBI (Unconditional Basic Income) with Reimund Acker, who has worked as a council member of the non-party affiliated, 2004 founded, Netzwerk Grundeinkommen (Basic Income Network) in Germany.
The network contributes to the introduction of basic income to Germany and other countries. This organization counts more then 4,000 individual members, and over a hundred member organizations—including the BDKJ (Federation of Catholic Youth), the KAB (Catholic Worker Movement), and the AWO-Jugend (The Workers’ Welfare-Youth), each with more than 100,000 members—it is the largest basic income organization in the world. The Network is the German affiliate of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and a member of the Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBIE) network. Together with the Austrian and Swiss Basic Income Networks, they’ve held three conventions, and organized the biannual BIEN-Congress 2012 in Munich, which was attended by 450 scientists, activists, and politicians from all over the world.
Mr. Acker, you are an elected councilor of Netzwerk Grundeinkommen. When did you get involved with this topic and to what extent?
Reimund Acker, Netzwerk Grundeinkommen
Since 2008, I’ve been active as an honorary volunteer of the network council, that acts as an executive committee of the network. Back then only a few experts knew what to make of the concept of “basic income”. Meanwhile, it is so well-known that the media uses it without explanation. The high profile that basic income has gained in Germany is thanks to important players like Götz Werner, Susanne Wiest and Michael Bohmeyer, but particularly the work of the Network that will be 12 years old this fall.
Political parties still hesitate to embrace a basic income, despite the growing approval among renowned experts. What are the causes and what is the current status within the parties?
Basic income had a bad start in leftist circles, because it was initially suspected to be a neoliberal concept. Meanwhile, however, word got around that this assumption would only be true for a partial basic income – a UBI, that’s too low to live on.
In the 80s the Green Party still had the basic income issue in their repertoire. I, for one, learned about it there. It got lost temporarily on their way to power. The Social Democrats are afraid that their golden calf “work”, would be damaged by basic income. As if the value of work would increase by being forced on people! Veteran Greens and Social Democrats often show a certain loyalty to their Hartz Laws: “But we meant well!”
For the Conservatives, the basic income seems to have fallen victim to a skiing accident. It happened earlier to Dieter Althaus, former Prime Minister of Thuringia, who designed his own basic income model which he had examined by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation to tender it to his party for inclusion in the program. Althaus disappeared from the political stage back then and with him his project.
To date, the most tragic blow to basic income happened within the party that carries “Freedom” in its name. Since freedom is still the primary focus of basic income and not free money from the government, which we already have. The former liberals, who today are mere neo-liberals, wanted to jump on the UBI band-wagon with their “citizen’s income”, but it was just a “Hartz-V”. Even the great liberal Ralf Dahrendorf, couldn’t change anything when he wrote in their register on the occasion of an anniversary celebration of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, convening all the party members including the complete FDP (Free Democratic Party) leadership that a basic income—and not their silly citizens income—belongs on every liberal’s agenda. All applauded well-behaved.
With so much discussion in virtually all relevant parties you would think there would slowly be more of a movement?
Meanwhile, there are at least strong minorities for the basic income in the Leftist Party and the Green Party. The Pirates, as the only not so small party, have it on their program. All three parties respectively promised in their last election programs the establishment of a committee of enquiry for a basic income. Sadly, the Green Party has meanwhile backed out. The public reluctance of politicians when it comes to basic income does not necessarily reflect the true majorities among them, as long as the endorsement of a basic income could harm their career.
The nature of UBI is to separate income from work. In other words, basic income could significantly strengthen the position of workers. Isn’t it long overdue in the 21st Century?
Yes, whereby the separation of work and income is limited at the poverty line. Thus, there remains an incentive for gainful employment, even more so than under Hartz IV. The prospect to turn down a job offer because of a basic income, should lead to more power for workers, reinforced by unionization. A very important effect that I see, that basic income could have, is the weakening potential to ransom job security. Today, someone just needs to yell “jobs” and all our good intentions are forgotten. To the extent that existential fears would decrease with the basic income, workers, politicians and ultimately the whole of society would be less vulnerable to extortion.
Parts of the economy fear a striking competitive disadvantage. Is this concern justified in your view?
No, on the contrary I believe that the introduction of basic income would increase competition between countries. However, the effect also depends on the method of financing the UBI. If people were better able to follow their career interests and abilities with a basic income, not every third worker would be dissatisfied as is the case today. An employee occupying a job that he hates keeps the other person, who would love that job from having it. What a waste of talent and life!
Wouldn’t it be much more efficient, if people worked a job they liked, instead of working precariously to survive economically in the first place?
Of course, it would be more efficient if people would work because they want to instead of having to: Better quality, less waste, more commitment to improve working conditions and operational processes, fewer sick-days. A motivated workforce is priceless. It’s conceivable that many workers would be happy with less pay, as long as at the end of the day it’s supplemented with a basic income. On the other hand, some UBI models want to prevent further wage cuts in Germany by maintaining at a legal minimum wage in spite of a basic income.
What other economic benefits might result from a reasonably well-invested UBI?
At any rate, a basic income would lead to savings in pension and unemployment insurance, since only the difference between the present level and the basic income must be insured. So, whoever would want a retirement income of 500 Euros above the basic income would only have to pay premiums for an income of 500 Euros, since he receives the basic income without making contributions. But there are other economic benefits of having a UBI that would also produce competitive advantages. It would allow for more innovations and business start-ups, since basic income constitutes non-refundable venture-capital. Many business ideas, research and development projects or art projects fail already in the planning phase because they don’t pay the rent upfront. By contrast, whoever gets a basic income, knows his rent and cost of living are safe, and he can develop, test and implement his ideas in peace.
We keep rationalizing, but remain stuck on the same to old structures, like the 8-hour workday, just like it was 100 years ago. How important is a UBI in regards to an earned income in our modern times?
Entrepreneurs may see the advantages of basic income, in that they’d no longer have the unbeloved role as employers who are expected to create and preserve jobs, but could focus on their main objective: To produce goods and services as efficiently as possible, i.e., with a minimum of resources. And human life is a precious resource. Götz Werner doesn’t tire of saying that no one starts a business to create jobs. The basic income could, therefore, also lead to social policy again, made by those who we elect for it, and entrepreneurs won’t have to apologize, if they cut jobs.
Basic income diminishes the importance of gainful employment. I hope we successfully distance ourselves from the perverted notion of work as end in itself and source of income and return to the original meaning of work: The investment of effort to produce something essential or meaningful. Then we’ll be able again to see it as progress, when it succeeds, to produce the same things with less work: Machines are taking our jobs? Finally!
The economy would be forced to make precarious jobs more attractive. A demand that leads to more income equality and thereby more value for society?
Yes, if job seekers no longer have to accept just any job, employers will have to consider how to convince them to work for them; especially, if the proposed activity is unpopular, for example, so-called “dirty work”. So that such work is even done, there are exactly four possibilities: Force, automation, better pay, or do it yourself. When UBI eliminates force, the other three remain. No doubt, I’ll experience my remuneration as equitable, if I’m able to negotiate it freely, without the threats in my ear from an employment agency of who will cut my benefits. This does not mean that the resulting income will be considered fair by society as a whole. What remains will be the scandalous inequality of income and wealth. Even a basic income cannot change that much at first.
Could UBI bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, at least a little?
Basic income isn’t about redistribution in the first place, even though it could end up that way with the right financing. The redistributive effect increases, not only on the revenue (taxes) side, but also on the expenditure (UBI) side. Indirectly, a less intimidated society could enforce more equitable distribution. For this, something would also have to be done in education, though. After all, basic income is not a panacea: It doesn’t solve all problems, but often expedites solutions.
Key is less red tape: Payment of a general UBI could do away with numerous welfare benefits including complex application processes and means-testing. Does the public sector fear job losses?
Sure there are employees in the social sector with concerns, that basic income could make their jobs obsolete. On the other hand, many of our members are engaged in this area, and know of the problems of the current system and therefore understand the necessity of changing the system. Insofar as these jobs have to do with the calculation and payment of benefits, they will not disappear because of a UBI, but rather steamrolled under the gigantic wave of automation coming at us. On the other hand, we will still want to afford debt counselling, youth services, and job placement agencies even after the introduction of basic income. And who ever earns their living conducting research on people who conceal their income to abuse public assistance benefits today, in the future, could be more profitably employed in the chronically understaffed tax fraud evasion department. In any case there will be plenty of time for re-trainings, as no one wants to roll out basic income over night in all its glory, but rather we can count on a lengthy transitional period.
Let’s talk about the unions, that are in the least ruffled by a universal basic income, or as the case may be, speak out vehemently against it. What reasons could they have?
In the unions, it appears that support for a basic income is less at the top—just like in political parties—than at the base. Again, the reason I suspect is fear that basic income could damage the value of work (what ever that means exactly). On the other hand, with regard to basic income there seems to be a shift in thinking in the unions. Meanwhile, Verdi and IG Metall have decided to talk about basic income. UBI-friendly unionists maintain a website for basic income. Overall, however, I can not quite understand unions’ resistance to basic income. Hasn’t anyone there ever considered, what UBI would mean solely for their strike fund?
How great is the probability that, in the near future—say within a few years— Germany will introduce a basic income?
In the last general election, basic income was brought up as a subject matter for the first time, which is illustrated, for example, by the fact of being adopted for the first time as a question of the Wahl-O-Mat of the Federal Agency for Civic Education. At the next election the basic income will be an important issue. Netzwerk Grundeinkommen will see to it, and I hope for considerable tailwind for our work from the referendum on the basic income in June in Switzerland and the debates triggered by it. At the latest, for the federal election, basic income will be a decisive issue, and from then on we can expect a majority in the Bundestag for the basic income at any time.
What criteria must be met to make significant strides in this area?
Above all, I think that we need a serious, nonpartisan, nationwide organization with good media presence that spreads the word about basic income, persistently and with increasing intensity. And I hope we are able to expand the network into such an organization. Today it’s already the world’s largest basic income organization with over 4,000 members.
Furthermore, we must prevent basic income from becoming publicly identified with a particular political party. Because then, it would become a pawn of politicians and that would mean the end of the majority support for this idea. That’s what happened to climate change in the USA, for example, that meanwhile, conservative voters think is a trick construed by Democrats to foist their political goals. Therefore, it’s more favorable if support for a basic income is simultaneously broadcast in as many parties as possible.
Finally, what’s most important for the spreading of the basic income idea is that it does not lead to strong resistance from the industry. Unfortunately, yes, the state of our democratic system today is so lousy that the economy can enforce their will readily against the will of the people. That is why it is so important that business leaders like Götz Werner, or more recently the Telekom CEO argue in favor of basic income. Because then there is hope that a massive rejection of UBI in the economy could at least be weakened. But perhaps there will be a shift in thinking among business leaders, similar to the unions.
by Josh Martin | Jun 7, 2016 | News
Huff discusses the future of technological unemployment and references a few studies that highlight the potentially massive job loss the economy could face in the coming decades. As technology improves and automation harnesses deep learning capabilities, Huff believes society needs to have a plan in place to deal with its economic ramifications.
Gerald Huff, “Basic income is the best way to survive the robot takeover“, Tech Insider, 12 April 2016.
by Philippe van Parijs | Jun 6, 2016 | Opinion
Despite being factually defeated in the ballots, the Swiss initiative for basic income should be regarded as a giant step in the now unstoppable march towards basic income, says BIEN Founder Philippe Van Parijs.
Philippe Van Parijs is Professor at UCLouvain, Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics. Chair of BIEN’s International Board
June 5th, 2016 will be remembered as an important landmark in the worldwide march towards the implementation of unconditional basic income schemes. On that day, all Swiss citizens were asked to express their approval of or opposition to the following proposal:
- The Confederation introduces an unconditional basic income.
2. The basic income must enable the whole population to live a dignified life and to participate in public life.
3. The law will determine the funding and level of the basic income.
The proposal was rejected, with 76.9% of the voters against, 23.1% in favor. Why was this rejection predictable? And why is it such an important step forward?[1]
From 0 to 23%
To answer these questions, a brief historical overview is in order. In 2008, the German film maker Enno Schmidt and the Swiss entrepreneur Daniel Häni, both based in Basel, produced Grundeinkommen: ein Kulturimpuls, a “film essay” that gave a simple and attractive picture of basic income. The dissemination of this film through the internet helped prepare the ground for a popular initiative in favor of the proposal quoted above, which was launched in April 2012. Another popular initiative, which proposed an unconditional basic income funded specifically by a tax on non-renewable energy, had been launched in May 2010, but it failed to gather the required number of signatures. The initiators of the 2012 initiative first thought of specifying that the basic income should be funded by the Value Added Tax, as was suggested in the film, but they dropped the idea for fear of reducing support for the proposal. They also chose not to stipulate a precise amount of the basic income in the text itself. But their website did mention a monthly amount of 2500 Swiss Francs per adult and 625 Swiss Francs per child as the best interpretation of what was required, in Switzerland, “to live a dignified life and to participate in public life”. If an initiative gathers over 100.000 validated signatures in 18 months, the Federal Council, Switzerland’s national government, has the obligation to organize a country-wide referendum within three years either on the exact text of the initiative or on a counter-proposal to be negotiated with the initiators.
On the 4th of October 2013, the initiators handed in spectacularly 126.406 valid signatures to the federal chancellery. On the 27th of August 2014, after validation of the signatures and examination of the arguments, the Federal Council rejected the initiative without making a counter-proposal. In its view, “an unconditional basic income would have negative consequences on the economy, the social security system and the cohesion of Swiss society. In particular, the funding of such an income would imply a considerable increase of the fiscal burden”. The proposal was subsequently submitted to both Chambers of the Swiss Parliament. On the 29th of May 2015, the Commission of Social Affairs of the National Council (Switzerland’s federal house of representatives) recommended by 19 votes against 1, with 5 abstentions, that the proposal for an unconditional basic income should be rejected. After a thorough discussion at a plenary session on the 23rd of September 2015, the National Council proceeded to a preliminary vote and endorsed this negative recommendation by 146 votes against 14 and 12 abstentions.
On the 18th of December 2015, the Council of States (the Swiss Senate, made up of representatives of the cantons) considered the initiative in turn and rejected it by 40 votes against, 1 in favor and 3 abstentions. On the same day, the proposal was the object of a second and final vote in the National Council: 157 voted against, 19 in favor and 16 abstained. In all cases, all the representatives from the far right, center right and center parties voted against the proposal. All pro votes and abstentions came from the socialist party and the green party, both of which were sharply divided. At the final vote in the National Council, 15 socialists voted in favor, 13 against and 13 abstained, while 4 greens voted in favor, 5 against and 3 abstained. The degree of support thus oscillated between 0% in the Federal Council, 2% in the Council of States and 4, 8 and 10% in the National Council (commission, preliminary and final vote).
For the popular vote on the 5th of June 2016, the national leaderships of nearly all parties, including the socialist party, recommended a “no” vote. The only exceptions were the green party and the (politically insignificant) pirate party, which recommended the “yes”, joined by a number of cantonal sections of the socialist party from all three linguistic areas. Against this background, it was entirely predictable that the no vote would win. The actual results of nearly one vote out of four for “yes” — with peaks at 35% in the canton of Geneva, 36% in the canton of Basel-Stadt, 40% in the city of Bern and 54% in the central districts of Zürich — is far above what the voting record in the Swiss parliament would have led one to expect. We must, moreover, bear in mind that Switzerland is perhaps the country in Europe in which support for an unconditional income should be considered least likely, not only because of the deeper penetration, in Calvin’s homeland, of a Calvinist work ethic, but above all because of the comparatively low levels of unemployment and poverty it currently experiences.
In Switzerland and beyond: broader and more mature
Everyone now realizes, however, that even if the initiative had not managed to gather the votes of more than the 2.5% of the Swiss citizens who had given their signatures at the initial stage, it would have been, thanks to the initiators’ stamina and their impressive communication skills, a stunning success. There is now no population in the world or in history that has given more thought to the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal than the Swiss have done over the last four years. And the effect was by no means confined to Switzerland. Just in the few days preceding the popular vote, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Guardian, and countless other newspapers around the world felt forced to publish substantive articles in order to explain at length — sometimes quite well, sometimes not so well — what a basic income is and what it is about. There is certainly no week in the history of the world in which the media have allocated so much time and space to a discussion of basic income.
Apart from giving a big boost to the spreading of the idea, the Swiss initiative has also greatly contributed to the maturing of the debate about it. For one lesson to be drawn from the experience is that a proposal that stipulates a high amount for a basic income, but no precise way of funding it, can easily gather the required number of signatures for a vote – while still being a long way from convincing a majority among the voters who bother to turn up on voting day (about 46% of the electorate in this case). A shining star that indicates the direction is enough for the former, but visible signposts on the ground marking a safe path in its direction are essential to achieve the latter. Whenever I was invited to join the Swiss debate, I argued that introducing in one go an individual basic income of CHF 2500 (38% of Switzerland’s GDP per capita) would be politically irresponsible. True, no one can prove that such a level of unconditional basic income is not economically sustainable. But nor can anyone prove that it is. Nor will any local experiment performed or planned in Switzerland or elsewhere prove that it is. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the economic sustainability of an unconditional basic income at that level will require a number of preconditions currently unmet, including the introduction of new forms of taxation — for example the micro-tax on electronic payments that played an interesting role in the Swiss debate — and effective international cooperation against tax evasion — not exactly Switzerland’s strongest point.
In the immediate future, however, it should now be clear that more modest but significant steps forward can and must be worked out and debated. They must involve an individual unconditional basic income at a lower level (say, 15 or 20% of GDP per capita) that would still need to be topped up by means-tested social assistance benefits or housing grants, certainly for urban single-adult households. It is not because in many cases the unconditional basic income would not suffice, on its own, to “enable the whole population to live a dignified life”, that it would not make a big difference to the security, bargaining power ad freedom of choice of many of the most vulnerable among us. Even in the short run, introducing such an unconditional basic income is definitely sustainable economically. It is up to us to make it politically achievable.
The totally unprecedented Swiss initiative has not only made many people, in Switzerland and far beyond, far more aware of the nature and size of the challenges we face in the twenty first century and of how a basic income might help us address them; by triggering countless objections, some naive and some spot on, it has also helped the advocates of basic income to sharpen their arguments and to better see the need for realistic next steps. For both of these reasons, the Swiss citizens who devoted a tremendous amount of time, energy and imagination to the “yes” campaign deserve the warm gratitude not only of the basic income movement worldwide, but of all those fighting for a free society and a sane economy.
[1] Many thanks to Nenad Stojanovic (Zurich and Princeton) for reliable information and insightful comments.
