by Kate McFarland | Dec 18, 2016 | News
Sylvia Pantel, CC BY-SA 4.0 Foto-AG Gymnasium Melle
Sylvia Pantel, Member of the German Parliament from the Christian Democratic Union (the party of Angela Merkel), has introduced a proposal for a fixed monthly payment for parents with children younger than school age. The amount (not yet fixed) would be tied to child care costs, and all parents would receive the same benefit regardless of means.
Pantel’s “family pact” has some similarities with basic income: it is paid in cash, at a fixed rate, without means-testing or other conditions. Moreover, it is universal for parents.
However, Pantel herself does not want the proposal to be confused with basic income–nor does she see it as a step towards one (as some US policy researchers have suggested regarding a universal child benefit)–since she sees the beneficiaries as receiving the subsidies in exchange for work, albeit a form of work traditionally unpaid.
In an interview with DW, Ronald Blaschke of BIEN-Germany explains the difference between UBI and Pantel’s proposal. As he says, “Basic income is not a payment for a service, and that includes raising or caring for children.”
Reference
Ben Knight, “German MP proposes ‘free basic income’ for parents,” DW, November 28, 2016.
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Photo: Mannheim children, CC BY 2.0 Picturepest
by Kate McFarland | Dec 17, 2016 | News
Photo: Results of “ball poll” at UNISON West Midlands Regional Games in Birmingham (credit: Becca Kirkpatrick).
The trade union UNISON has called on West Midlands mayoral candidates to commit to running a basic income pilot in the region.
UNISON, a major public service employee union, has released a 20-point manifesto, calling on candidates in the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) mayoral election to declare which of the 20 “asks” they would implement if elected.
The election, which is to take place on May 4, 2017, will decide the first mayor of England’s West Midlands region. The WMCA was established to the govern the seven-authority area in June 2016.
One of the points of UNISON’s manifesto, which has been published in full on the West Midlands political blog The Chamberlain Files, is a demand for a “micro-pilot” of universal basic income (no further details of the pilot have been specified):
WMCA to run a micro-pilot on the use of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). A UBI could have many benefits including helping the long-term unemployed get back into work via part-time work and providing a basic income that would allow people to undertake entrepreneurial activities.
Unemployment is a pressing concern in the West Midlands. A new report from the Resolution Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, reveals that WMCA has an employment rate of 64.5%, as compared to an overall employment rate of 71.6% within UK city regions other than WMCA.
The UNISON manifesto also calls for a range of improvements in education, transportation, housing and development, and government accountability in the WMCA.
UNISON has approximately 1.3 million members across the UK. It has over 120,000 members in the West Midlands, making it the largest union in the region. Members in the region comprise employees in eight main types of work: local government, health care, education services, water, energy, community, police and justice, and private contractors.
Sources
Kevin Johnson, “Nationalisation, seats for unions and free public transport – Unison unveils mayoral manifesto,” The Chamberlain Files, December 15, 2016.
Neil Elkes, “Call for universal basic income trail [sic] in the West Midlands,” Birmingham Mail, December 15, 2016.
Becca Kirkpatrick, personal communication.
by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 14, 2016 | Opinion
In his new Kindle book Mending the Net, author Chis Oestereich describes how a basic income can address some of the “wicked problems” facing humanity.
For Oestereich, the basic income can help society rethink its consumption patterns and possibly upend the “treadmill of subsistence.”
In the book, Oestereich predicts that the economy could be headed toward a recession. In the interview he said that basic income can be a “shock absorber” of economic downturns. Without a basic income, Oestereich said he worries that the next recession will be much worse than the last for many people.
One of the most unique effects of the basic income is its potential to change how we view careers and allow “self-determination,” Oestereich said.
“By standing individuals up on an income floor, we could open the door for many to create unique, fulfilling lives that might not otherwise be possible,” he said.
The full interview can be found below.
You said in the book: “A universal program removes the opportunity for politicians to erode benefits in a death by a thousand cuts scenario”. Can you explain why you think universal basic income evades austerity?
I don’t think it evades austerity in general as there are other programs to cut that could still greatly impact lives, but rather that it evades austerity because since it is universal, any cut must be done to everyone. Means testing programs are a game of continually shifting goal posts wherein a small adjustment to a qualifying measure can mean the difference between families having enough to sustain themselves, and coming up short. By shifting to a universal program the goalpost moves could no longer trim away at those on the margins.
Chris Oestereich
I’ve heard some say providing a greater array of people more money through basic income would exacerbate environmental degradation with their new consumption? Considering lower income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income. What do you think the overall effect on the environment would be from basic income?
I think environmental impacts are one of several valid concerns around basic incomes. That’s why I advocate for significant testing to see what we can learn. Some people may be enabled to purchase and consume more goods and services as the direct result of a UBI, but I think that’s an argument for finding an appropriate level of UBI that’s not so large that it allows people to go from living lives of unfulfilled needs, to being enabled to live destructive lifestyles. But I think some of us might cut back on some work and consumption that are part of today’s treadmill of subsistence. Take away the need for a full-time job to get by and some of us might only work three or four days a week and consume less resources through commuting and other related efforts. We need to gain a better understanding of the effects of a widely-implemented UBI, and then we might need to update social norms to align with systemic needs. And it’s possible that we could gain unexpected positive effects like those experienced in Utah where giving homeless people places to live resulted in reduced use of medical care.
You mentioned that we are probably counting down to a recession. How would a basic income address the issues of economic recession?
I called UBI an economic shock absorber because it would be there to blunt the negative impacts anytime the economy went south. (If we had a UBI in 2007, how many of the millions of people who lost their homes to foreclosure might have squeaked by without falling into those dire circumstances?) With a little something coming in each month comes a modicum of hope, rather than the steady drumbeat of a straight-line declining balance in your checking account. But if we don’t have a UBI in time for the next recession, I think we can expect that the outcome of the next one will be worse than the last one—at least for some segments of the population—as losses from the Great Recession “were disproportionally concentrated among lower income, less educated, and minority households.”
Why do you think the profit motive is destructive? And how does basic income help address the profit motive force?
I don’t think the profit motive is inherently destructive. But when it’s the sole focus of an organization, the profit motive allows businesses to hold extractive relationships over their employees. When a person has no other means of subsistence, the terms of employment are often highly-unfavorable. Give an unemployed person a decent monthly payment via a UBI and the choice is no longer one of zero income or an extractive employment relationship, so the calculus around the decision changes tremendously. Instead of being in a take-it-or-leave-it scenario with only savings (if that) to fall back on, you have a choice of tightening your belt and squeezing by on any savings you have along with your monthly UBI check. It would give workers a little bit of leverage in scenarios where they often have none.
You mentioned “If you hear someone talking about Milton Friedman and basic incomes in the same breath, it’s probably safe to assume that they’re looking for overall cost savings to reduce their personal tax burden.” Do you think libertarians that support basic income are primarily concerned with bringing down costs? And along those lines, do you think a coalition including fiscal conservatives and libertarians on basic income is possible?
My sense is that libertarians are primarily concerned with optimizing their personal tax effects. If a UBI could reduce administrative costs, and they would end up with a net financial benefit, you’d probably have their ears. But if they ended up paying more into the system, I think you’d quickly stop hearing about how great it was. So, I think they could be willing partners up to a point, but that they’d likely drop off from the cause at some point, and that they would eventually oppose efforts to increase the amount of UBI payments. My thought is that we could probably work together to get the proof of concept testing done, but that in working to make an initial UBI happen libertarians might become a drag on the effort as they would likely be aiming for systemic savings, rather than an outcome that would be measured in improved lives.
What inspired you to write this book?
Mending the Net wasn’t planned. I was invited to write chapters for a couple of different books, the ItsBasicIncome project that will be published out of the UK soon, and another anthology around environmental issues. I wrote them both independently and then realized that they would fit together nicely in a Kindle single format as the essays offer two different perspectives on “why” we ought to consider trying UBIs. (Readers will have to look elsewhere for the “how” argument as that’s not my bailiwick.)
As for the topics of the essays, I’ve never been a big fan of the rat race, and I’m a huge proponent of self-determination. Basic incomes help along both of those lines. By standing individuals up on an income floor, we could open the door for many to create unique, fulfilling lives that might not otherwise be possible.
What is your involvement in the basic income movement?
I guess I’m sort of a passionate advocate, but I certainly don’t see myself as a movement leader. There are others (like Guy Standing and Scott Santens) whose work I regularly look to for ideas and updates on the topic. For my part, I’m working to systematically address all wicked problems. To that end, I’m currently working on a book on the UK’s Brexit issue, as well as the second anthology from the Wicked Problems Collaborative (my publishing company), that will look at the promise and peril of our rapidly advancing technological environment.
by Kate McFarland | Dec 4, 2016 | News
The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture, a non-governmental organization that promotes “programs and policies that cultivate creativity, empathy, and collaboration”, released a new platform on November 19, 2016 — aimed at protecting Americans’ right to culture under a Trump presidency.
The platform consists of 10 policy demands — from a public service jobs program to criminal justice reform to investment in arts education — including a basic income grant.
About the basic income grant, the USDAC writes (pp. 22-23):
[R]ising costs, falling spending-power, the uncertainty of the economy, macroeconomic policies that have placed corporate success above individual well-being. For artists and cultural organizers as for others, the current system mandates overproduction, often exacerbated by under-compensation. For example, existing subsid[ies] for artists operates almost exclusively on a project basis, forcing artists who apply for support to constantly seek novelty and conform to arbitrary deadlines rather than allowing work to evolve and emerge according to a more organic timetable. Competition for scarce resources is incredibly intense and hugely discouraging for those who don’t fall under currently favored criteria …
In virtually every field, decision-makers fail to prioritize necessary time for reflection, restoration, and conviviality. It’s a challenge to discern, integrate, and act on cultural development needs when competition for survival eats what could otherwise be time for creativity, connection, and pleasure. We long for a future in which overproduction and overconsumption will no longer distort our society, with a universal cultural benefit: the ability to live in balance with each other and the life of this planet.
In its abridged platform, USDAC emphasizes that similar challenges confront workers in many occupations and that the organization is not making a “special pleading for artists”.
USDAC proposes a basic income grant large enough to cover basic needs such as food, housing, and medical care, distributed in the same amount to all regardless of other income.
To fund the BIG and other reforms, the organization proposes taxes on advertising and financial transactions, as well as the sell of “social impact bonds” to private investors.
Read the full platform here: “Standing for Cultural Democracy: The USDAC’s Policy and Action Platform”
Reviewed by Dawn Howard.
Cover photo: CC BY-SA 2.0 Edith Soto
by Tyler Prochazka | Nov 29, 2016 | Opinion
Europe has received a lot of attention for its recent moves toward experimenting with a basic income policy. What has been lost in this focus are the developments that are taking place in the rest of the globe, including the world’s second biggest economy: China.
Cheng Furui is one of the organizers of the China Social Dividend/Basic Income Network, and has done extensive research on China’s social safety net. In the interview below, she said a basic income would resolve many of the problems facing China’s current welfare program.
As the international economy faces increasing automization, Cheng said basic income is a potent answer to this issue in China.
“I believe that basic income and China’s status quo are aligned because it is in accordance with the essence of both socialism and the market economy,” she said.
The full length interview is below:
What is different between Universal Basic Income and China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee (Dibao)？
Dibao is China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee program. Anyone with an income below the minimum can receive a supplementary income up to the standard. In this way, Dibao is unconditional: no one can take away someone’s right to the Dibao income. The Dibao only provides a grant to those that are below the Dibao income standard. Thus, the government must conduct strict evaluations of recipients’ economic situations, which creates a lot of implementation problems and issues of abuse. By contrast, Universal Basic Income provides the grant to every person, regardless of income. Moreover, China’s Dibao benefit has a large discrepancy across different regions, consistent with the regional economic inequality that China already faces. Here is more information for reference: China’s MCA.
How do the Chinese view basic income? Do the Chinese generally understand about this policy?
Most Chinese don’t know about the basic income concept. Nonetheless, there are some places that are currently carrying out this policy, although they do not call it basic income. The areas that are implementing basic income all have different situations. The differences are not just regional, even neighboring areas have large differences depending on the community members’ organizational depth and shape.
Why should China implement basic income? What type of impact would it have?
The foundation for China’s implementation of basic income comes from China’s public ownership system itself. State owned enterprises, urban land, and mineral resources already exist, much like Alaska in the United States. Every person should have a share of public resources. This relies on the profit from the public resources being utilized as a basic income revenue, not only does everyone receive equal payment. This means the government does not have to collect more taxes from the rich only to give back to every person.
Chinese history applies the profit from publicly owned resources to supplement the country’s public finances, therefore lowering the private sector’s tax rate. In turn, conducting large scale investment in service sector and infrastructure development, including constructing railroads, and the systems that support the economy such as education and healthcare. These systems provide benefits to the vast majority of people. During China’s period of urbanization and gradual improvement of infrastructure and even completion of these projects, the profit of public resources perhaps can be used as a benefit to each person. Certainly, this will lower society’s overall wage rate or working hours. Simultaneously, some places have collective ownership of resources, and most of Chinese social dividends come from these resources.
What is the status of China’s basic income movement?
The basic income concept is currently only being discussed among Chinese academics and there are currently few researchers of the policy. However, the general public is already exploring implementation of basic income, also it is genuinely that every person in those areas can enjoy the local basic income. For example, much of the revenue for basic income programs is contributed by the collective organizations’ dividend bonus.
Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, rural China has implemented collectivization of land, the household farm quota system allows the individual to use the land for production, but they cannot sell the land to others. During the movement toward urbanization, one part of the land was acquired by the government. Some of these collective resources that were taken were compensated with urban-based resources, in turn producing new benefits. From there, it produced social dividends within these communities. Looking at the entire country, this was not a rare case.
In BIEN News, I recently introduced these types of cases. China is putting into effect the policy of ‘separation of three land rights’ (ownership, contracting right, and operating right), which will promote the land right equity investment Recently, our main work has focused on excavating the essence of these cases, evaluating the likelihood of wide-spread promotion of this policy. Under the recent pessimistic economic environment, we want to offer a feasible path forward.
Does basic income suit China currently? Does it fit with Chinese culture?
I believe that basic income and China’s status quo are aligned because it is in accordance with the essence of both socialism and the market economy. However, Chinese culture encourages labor and looks down upon laziness. With the development of automatization, machines will continue to replace human labor. As a result, Chinese people will start to rethink this issue. If a basic income is put in place, after it is implemented it is feasible that the entire country will uniformly cut down on the weekly work schedule. Previously China had a six-day work week, and now it has been cut down to five days. In the future, it is possible it can be reduced to a four-day work week.
Additionally, China’s various regions have had drastically different levels of development, and the cost of living differences are also quite large. The social security system has not yet achieved nationally uniform administration. Public resources and financial data also need to be gradually made more transparent. This lack of transparency has impeded the ability to evaluate the potential impact of basic income.
About the interviewee:
Cheng Furui is doing her Post-doctoral program in Chinese Academy of Social
Science. She got her PhD in Tsinghua University. Her research interest is social
policy. “Social Assistance and Poverty Alleviation Divergence: A Capability
Approach” is her $rst published book based on her doctoral dissertation,
which explores Chinese social safety net in details. She is a voluntary news
editor of BIEN now. She is also one of organizers of China Social
Dividend/Basic Income Network: bienchina.com
