by Malcolm Torry | Dec 28, 2017 | Research
Satelite picture over Europe. Credit to: TechCrunch.
A new working paper from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex reports on research using the EUROMOD microsimulation programme to simulate the labour market effects of several different tax and benefits reforms in countries in different parts of Europe.
The reform options tested are as follows:
- An unconditional Basic Income – correctly defined
- A general Negative Income Tax – that makes a payment if earnings fall below a threshold (the payment being proportional to the amount that wages fall below the threshold), and deducts tax above the threshold
- What the researchers call a ‘conditional basic income’ – which is a means-tested benefit that is withdrawn at a rate of 100% as earnings rise, thus constituting a guaranteed minimum income
- In-work benefits – means-tested in-work benefits without a relationship with the income tax threshold.
All of the reforms assume a flat income tax.
The research finds that the General Negative Income Tax usually promises the most efficient employment market: although in the context of the UK there is almost nothing to choose between a General Negative Income Tax and an Unconditional Basic Income. The research did not take into account the administrative complexities of a Negative Income Tax. If it had been possible to simulate the effects of administrative complexities on labour market decisions then they might have found that in the UK an Unconditional Basic Income would have turned out to be the most efficient option.
The working paper is entitled The case for NIT+FT in Europe: An empirical optimal taxation exercise, and is by Nizamul Islama and Ugo Colombinob.
Click here to read the working paper; or here to download the paper as a pdf.
Abstract
We present an exercise in empirical optimal taxation for European countries from three areas: Southern, Central and Northern Europe. For each country, we estimate a microeconometric model of labour supply for both couples and singles. A procedure that simulates the households’ choices under given tax-transfer rules is then embedded in a constrained optimization program in order to identify optimal rules under the public budget constraint. The optimality criterion is the class of Kolm’s social welfare function. The tax-transfer rules considered as candidates are members of a class that includes as special cases various versions of the Negative Income Tax: Conditional Basic Income, Unconditional Basic Income, In-Work Benefits and General Negative Income Tax, combined with a Flat Tax above the exemption level. The analysis shows that the General Negative Income Tax strictly dominates the other rules, including the current ones. In most cases the Unconditional Basic Income policy is better than the Conditional Basic Income policy. Conditional Basic Income policy may lead to a significant reduction in labour supply and poverty-trap effects. In-Work-Benefit policy in most cases is strictly dominated by the General Negative Income Tax and Unconditional Basic Income.
by Guest Contributor | Dec 27, 2017 | Opinion
We know that basic income has risen dramatically in the public consciousness and also up the political agenda in the last two to three years. How has this been achieved? The academic literature offers theoretical explanations but no empirical evidence from any of the existing pilot projects. Therefore, I carried out research in four of the locations undertaking pilot studies, Finland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Ontario, to understand how basic income was legitimised as a policy, what problems they hope to address, and how the interpretation and implementation of basic income varies between them.
Through interviews with policymakers, experts and advocates involved in these pilots and in the promotion of basic income in these countries, I discovered a great deal of similarity in the factors which have allowed basic income onto policy agendas. Some have occurred by accident, some through long-term advocacy and political lobbying, and some through economic change. Importantly, these factors occurred at similar points in time, enabling them to interact and strengthen each other.
In all four of the pilot locations interviewees described how long-term support and advocacy for basic income has allowed public and political opinion about the idea to develop over time. Alongside this, long-standing problems such as unemployment and poverty have proved extremely difficult to address, and dissatisfaction with existing policies has grown. Interviewees explained how anxieties about the changing nature of work and the inability of social security systems to properly adapt to this new world have led increasing numbers of people to look to basic income as a radical alternative. Existing systems are seen as delivering poor outcomes, stigmatising those in poverty and being overly complex and bureaucratic. The assessment of basic income as a holistic and intersectional policy, capable of delivering multiple outcomes, was cited by several interviewees as reinforcing the desire to implement a pilot. Each pilot study aims for a range of positive impacts, both economic and social, pragmatic and ethical.
Interviewees in all four of the pilot locations reported high levels of public debate and engagement with the idea of basic income, and this appears to have been crucial in legitimising it as an idea . Public interest reached a critical mass, which, coupled with other factors, prompted political action. These pilot studies have not been developed solely by civil servants in a bureaucratic bubble but have been strongly influenced by campaigners, basic income advocates and experts from think tanks and academia. Evidence from the interviews shows that formal and informal coalitions and collaborations between these different groups has helped to shore up support and consolidate basic income as a legitimate policy.
Interviews in all of the pilot areas noted a context of growing interest in evidence-based social policy, and each pilot is framed as an experiment, not necessarily the precursor to a full roll-out of basic income. In Finland for example, both advocates and opponents of basic income supported setting up the pilot in order to evaluate if basic income can live up to its promises. The emphasis on experimentation was an important factor in enabling the Finnish pilot to take place but also meant that it does not necessarily signal deep political or social change.
It should be noted at this point that none of the pilot studies that are running (Finland, Netherlands, Ontario) are experimenting with a ‘full’ basic income: a universal, non means-tested payment with no obligations or conditions attached, paid regardless of other income.
Each study retains some element of conditionality, targeting or an earnings cap, above which the basic income payment is reduced. A clean break with existing policies and paradigms of social security has not been achieved or indeed attempted for the most part. Interviewees discussed political, bureaucratic, and experimental pressures that led to compromises in the scope and ambition of their pilots. These compromises appear to have been critical in allowing the pilots to take place, as they resulted in proposals that were deemed to be politically and experimentally acceptable. At a detailed level, each of the pilots look very different in how they were designed, whom they target, and how they operate; local influences proved powerful in translating the core concepts of basic income into operational models.
These compromises could be considered as a de-radicalisation of basic income, and have resulted in a curious situation in which pilots are not testing a ‘full’ basic income but have retained the basic income ‘brand’. This appears to be a presentational issue; many interviewees described a desire amongst politicians to demonstrate innovation, leadership and radical thinking, and basic income was seen as a way to do this. Retaining the basic income ‘brand’ even though the experiments deviate in important ways from the core ethical and economic values of basic income confers a positive light on those involved and attracts international attention.
When look at their specifics, each pilot in the study is different, influenced by myriad local factors. However, each pilot demonstrates striking similarities in the clustering of a number of factors that have allowed basic income onto the political agenda. Broad agreement on the importance of tackling poverty and unemployment, and the steady rise in public interest in basic income coupled with a desire for evidence-based policy and the hope that basic income could tackle multiple problems. As a small-scale, qualitative study, these findings cannot be considered a ‘how-to’ guide for other places hoping to develop their own pilot project but may prove useful in understanding how a radical idea such as basic income can find a place in mainstream policy.
Anna Dent is a consultant working in employment and skills policy and implementation for the public and non-profit sectors. She has particular interests in low-income workers, the changing nature of work, and welfare benefits. She holds an (Master of Science) in Public Policy from the University of Bristol, and is a fellow of the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce).
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 24, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This audio is of talk I gave on why we need a Universal Basic Income. I gave the talk for the “Sydney Ideas” series in August of 2017, and I’m particularly happy with it. It summarizes the reasons I think are most important, and I think I did a relatively good job of delivering it. It discusses how Basic Income removes the judgment and paternalism that pervade the world’s existing social welfare systems, and why doing so is so important not only for people at the bottom but also for the average worker. It also briefly addresses how to craft a realistic Basic Income proposal, how much it costs, options for paying for it, and evidence about what it can do.
Following the lecture the audio file includes a question and answer session where I’m joined by Dr Elizabeth Hill, Chair of Department of Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney, and Professor Gabrielle Meagher, Department of Sociology, Macquarie University.
by Micah Kaats | Dec 24, 2017 | News, Research
In the three years since its initial publication, Rutger Bregman’s Utopia for Realists has helped spur a global conversation on universal basic income (UBI). The book has become an international bestseller, garnering praise from intellectual heavyweights and propelling its author to the TED stage this past April. However, Stephen Davies, education director at the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), remains skeptical of many of the young Dutch journalist’s ideas. He makes his case in the most recent edition of the Journal of Economic Affairs.
“Rutger Bregman’s book is both interesting and irritating,” declares Davies in the opening line of his review. To clarify, he quickly notes that it is interesting “not so much because of its particular content…but because it gives us an insight into what may turn out to be a development of both intellectual and political importance” (p. 442). Such an off hand rejection of a book advocating basic income from the education director of a think tank advocating free market capitalism may be unsurprising to some, but Davies’ response is actually not as inevitable as it may seem. Historically, UBI has found supporters on both sides of the political divide.
Davies distinguishes between two types of arguments Bregman makes for basic income. The first considers UBI to be a pragmatic solution to the shortcomings of the current social welfare system. The second considers it to be a necessary means of radically transforming the existing social order. While Davies may be more sympathetic to the second line of reasoning, he spends most of his time critiquing the first.
Steven Davies. Credit to: The London School of Economics and Political Science
In Utopia, Bregman draws on a wealth of research to highlight deficiencies in the means-tested benefit programs that constitute the welfare states of most developed societies. He notes that many of these programs create negative incentives, keeping beneficiaries locked in a poverty trap. Even worse, financial instability can result in a scarcity mindset, making it even harder for poor people to make responsible financial decisions. According to Bregman, unconditional cash transfer programs (UCTs) have proven to be the most successful remedy to this vicious cycle of poverty and dependence. In support of this view, Bregman offers additional in-depth analyses of related programs, including Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan, negative income taxes, and the Speenhamland system.
Davies acknowledges the implications of this body of research. He writes, “Much of the evidence presented by Bregman is indeed very striking and should encourage us simply to trust people more and have greater confidence in their judgment and their knowledge” (p. 447). However, he is far more hesitant to interpret these results as evidence for universal basic income.
Davies notes that many of the policies Bregman touches on are in fact means-tested in one way or another, and may therefore be more analogous to standard welfare programs than basic income. Additionally, Davies argues that many of the UCT programs discussed in Utopia for Realists have not been around long enough to show lasting impacts, and he calls for more research to determine the specific amounts at which UCTs can begin to induce behavioral change. Yet, even more worrisome for Davies is the “bold assumption that there is no meaningful distinction between single lump-sum payments and continuing income stream” (p. 448). He notes that while individual cash transfers may bring sudden and liberating benefits, similar effects of ongoing basic income payments may become muted over time.
According to Davies, all of this “reveals confusion over what a UBI is thought of as being – is it a way of establishing a floor or minimum that is guaranteed to all or is it a redistributive mechanism designed to narrow income differentials?” (p. 449). This confusion motivates Davies’ second critique of Bregman’s argument for universal basic income as a response to the widening global wealth gap. While basic income programs may go a long way in ensuring no one lives in a state of absolute poverty, Davies writes that “it is not clear how a UBI by itself will do anything to reduce relative poverty or inequality” (p. 449). In fact, he notes it may even make the problem of inequality worse if UBI programs seek to replace other means-tested benefits.
However, while Davies takes issue with many of Bregman’s pragmatic arguments, he seems much more sympathetic to the idealistic aspects of his account. As automation increases and “bullshit jobs” proliferate, Davies grants Bregman his assumption that UBI could become a useful tool to decouple meaningful activity from paid work. He writes, “This is clearly the vision that truly inspires Bregman, the utopia of his book’s title, and he would have done better to stick to this rather than muddy the waters by conflating it with more limited and pragmatic discussions of a guaranteed income in a society where wage labor is still widespread and predominant” (p. 456).
While he may be unmoved by Utopia for Realists, Davies clearly recognizes the significance of the political and intellectual movements it represents. The book’s international success seems to reflect a growing anxiety about stagnation of big ideas in the face of an increasingly unsatisfying status quo. Davies concludes, “What we are starting to see is an attempt to work out what a non-capitalist or, more accurately, a post-capitalist political economy would look like” (p. 457).
Davies review appears in the most recent edition of the Journal for Economic Affairs.
by Hilde Latour | Dec 23, 2017 | News
On October 30th 2017, the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) released a position paper recommending a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) of $20,000 for all individuals, regardless of income. CASW’s UBIG fulfils the definition of a Basic Income. CASW argues that a UBIG is superior to a Negative Income Tax, which is being tested in other experiments (1).
CASW argues that a universal demogrant model, or UBIG, is “a cost-effective and socially responsible mechanism through which Canada can ensure dignity for all”.
CASW states there have been many federal promises to end poverty in Canada over the past 30 years, in many different forms, including Canada’s support for the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals which specifies the need to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere”. Yet in 2016, 4 million Canadians (12.9%) were living in poverty and child poverty rates even increased between 1989 and 2013.
According to CASW, conditional and heavily monitored programs are insufficient and expensive. The combined income support-related expenditures of all federal, provincial, and municipal levels of the Canadian government cost just over $185 billion. Furthermore, their implementation causes a great deal of stress given their unreliable nature, with individuals reporting stress brought on by stigma, marginalization and feelings of disempowerment and hopelessness.
CASW claims that “current social assistance systems in Canada are inadequate and contribute to a cycle of poverty”.
Poverty is a well-known social determinant of physical and mental health. CASW illustrates this with several UBI-related examples from Canada:
- a difference of more than 20 years in life-expectancy between the high-income and low-income population in Hamilton, Ontario;
- a reduction of 8.5% on hospitalization during the Mincome basic income pilot project in Dauphin, Manitoba (2);
- people between 55 and 64 years of age are 50% more likely to experience food insecurity compared to seniors 65 years or older who receive the Old Age Security pension.
From CASW’s perspective, the strengthening of Old Age Security (OAS) and the introduction of the Canada Child Benefit were solid steps towards realizing a UBIG in Canada. Programs like the OAS, which are universal in nature and have few eligibility criteria, are quite inexpensive to operate. In 2013, the total cost of operating the OAS program was 0.3% of the total annual program cost. In contrast, the total administrative cost of Employment Insurance, a program with a high degree of gate-keeping and extensive eligibility criteria, was 8.1% of the total annual program cost.
According to CASW, this cost-saving potential is a fundamental strength of the UBIG which would operate under significantly fewer operational and administrative costs than, for example, a negative income tax model.
CASW further argues that the so-called “benefit trap”, that makes the adoption of part-time work unattractive and is often used to argue against a basic income guarantee, in fact only exists within the negative income tax model. Therefore, the true benefits of a basic income guarantee cannot be realized within the negative income tax model which has formed the basis of all of the pilot projects run so far in Canada.
In addition, a universal demogrant model involves significant benefits to the middle classes giving it a wider support base compared to a program that only targets low-income households. It will therefore have more likelihood of success.
CASW recommends a UBIG of $20,000 per year with the possibility of additional fully-remunerated casual, part-time, or full-time employment. Individuals with disabilities would receive an extra $6,000 tax free per year. The UBIG should replace only traditional welfare or social assistance programs – not all existing social programming. One’s net income will then be taxed according to progressive tax brackets. This model encourages participation in the labour market.
Notes
(1) – A Negative Income Tax does not pay an unconditional income to every individual. Instead, it tops up earnings below a threshold, and charges tax on earnings above the threshold. The administration of a Negative Income Tax poses more challenges than the administration of a Basic Income.
(2) – This is a significant amount considering the Canadian Institute for Health Information in 2014 put the total health expenditure in Canada as upwards of $200 billion.
More information at:
Colleen Kennelly, “Universal Basic Income Guarantee: The Next ‘BIG’ Thing in Canadian Social Policy”, Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW), October 2017
Picture: Two sides of the same Loonie … (10/100), Jamie McCaffrey, CC BY-NC 2.0
