by Toru Yamamori | Oct 29, 2016 | News
As we have reported, at the General Assembly (GA) of BIEN held in Seoul on 9th July, BIEN clarified the definition of basic income that had been used on its formal documents unchanged for past 30 years. The GA also voted on the type of basic income BIEN supports. This is the detailed report on how decision was made.
Clarification
What BIEN had in its statues was:
[Basic Income is] ‘an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement’
What BIEN has now in its amended statues is:
[Basic Income is] “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement”
The following clarification of that definition has been put on BIEN’s website:
That is, Basic Income has the five following characteristics:
1. Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant
2. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
3. Individual: it is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households
4. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test
5. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.
Also, the following resolution was passed at the GA:
A majority of members attending BIEN’s General Assembly meeting in Seoul on July 9, 2016, agreed to support a Basic Income that is stable in size and frequency and high enough to be, in combination with other social services, part of a policy strategy to eliminate material poverty and enable the social and cultural participation of every individual. We oppose the replacement of social services or entitlements, if that replacement worsens the situation of relatively disadvantaged, vulnerable, or lower-income people.
In keeping with BIEN’s charter (as an organization to “serve as a link between individuals and groups committed to, or interested in, basic income”), this motion is not binding on BIEN’s members or affiliates.
Behind the scene
A proposal to change the description of basic income in the statutes was submitted to the 2012-14 Executive Committee (EC) of BIEN, but because of time constraint the proposal was tabled in GA in Montreal 2014. Then the proposal was discussed among wider affiliates and life-members, and the modified proposal was submitted to the 2014-16 EC, by 17 life members (Lieselotte Wohlgenannt, Margit Appel, Manfred Füllsack, Adriaan Planken, Katja Kipping, Michael Opielka, Choi Gwang Eun, No-Wan Kwack, Kang Nam Hoon, Ahn Hyo Sang, Gunmin Yi, Cho Sung Hee, Popho E.S. Bark-Yi, Andrea Fumagali, Robin Ketelaars, Matthias Dilthey, Toru Yamamori) and 6 affiliates (UBI Europe, Network Grundeinkommen [Germany], Network Grundeinkommen und sozialer Zusammenhalt [Austria], Vereniging Basisinkomen [Netherlands], Basic Income Korean Network, BIN Italia). The detail of this proposal can be read at here.
Another proposal to change the description of basic income was also submitted to the 2014-16 EC, by Louise Haagh and seconded by 3 life members (Pablo Yanez, Toru Yamamori, Malcolm Torry). The detail of this proposal can be read at here.
A workshop to discuss this definition issue was chaired by Toru Yamamori who was involved in both proposals, on 8th July with the support by EC and the congress organiser. The workshop was attended by about 30 people including Philippe Van Parijs who was one of founding members, and dedicated for every voice to be heard. Some participants of the workshop (especially Karl Widerquist, David Casassas, Télémaque Masson, Adriaan Planken, Gabriele Schmidt, Olaf Michael Ostertag, Gunmin Yi, Louise Haagh, and Toru Yamamori) voluntarily worked together after the workshop, and finally agreed on a compromise proposal which was then proposed for the GA by Toru Yamamori and seconded by Gabriele Schmidt. GA unanimously approved this third proposal as minor changes to the other proposals and to replace the other two proposals. The proposal was approved by a majority after a slight modification of wording.
Reasons, Concerns, and Discussions
The regular participants of BIEN congresses have known what conception of a basic income is shared by a majority of participants, if vaguely. The readers of academic writings by some of the founders of BIEN will easily recognize some general conception of basic income which is commonly shared by them, even though they tend to disagree at some particular aspects, the ways of justification, and the way of implementation, etc.
However, BIEN’s formal documents (either online or not) have sometimes been helpless to correct misunderstandings or misuses of the term by some media, politicians, activists, opponents, etc. Especially for recent several years, as mainstream media and politics started to pay more attention to a basic income, the misunderstanding and confusion has become greater. For example, one version assumes that a basic income means total abolishment of any other social spending. Some endorsements and oppositions have been voiced based on this version as if it is the only model of basic income. Although people and groups who favor this model of basic income are welcome to join or affiliate with BIEN, the majority of BIEN members and groups prefer a more generous basic income—usually without entirely replacing other social welfare spending. Indeed individual membership in BIEN requires only interest in basic income.
This unfortunate situation made some of us in BIEN recognized a need for developing our commonly shared perception from a tacit spirit to a clear statement.
Adriaan Planken, who has been involved in raising motions at both 2014 and 2016 as a spokesperson for UBIE reflected:
When we propose a Basic Income that will make it possible for all not to be “trapped” by poverty and to develop ourselves in following our hearts then it is inevitable from my point of view to strive for a Basic Income that is high enough to provide for a decent standard of living, which meets society’s social and cultural standards in the country concerned. It should prevent material poverty and provide the opportunity to participate in society. This means that the net income should, at a minimum, be at the poverty-risk level according to EU standards, which corresponds to 60% of the so-called national median net equivalent income. So we stated it in our European Citizens Initiative in 2013 and is it in accordance with the resolutions of the European Parliament.
At the same time, BIEN’s having had a quite thin description of a basic income in its statutes and official documents without any change for 30 years is not a consequence of laziness or something similar. Rather it is a result of deliberative consideration on how it could offer a venue where people who are interested in the concept can gather the maximum possible number of people who are interested in discussing any form of basic income or related policies. There had been concerns that a thicker description could end up excluding or discouraging some basic income supporters, especially people who work on partial basic income either as an experimental proposition or as a policy recommendation. Guy Standing, one of founding members, did his effort to convey this concerns during the 2016 congress. Haagh’s mortion was in line with this spirit. She reflected:
While more clarity was preferred, we would like to remain a very broad church of plural debate—something of quite unique status and importance in today’s world. I really hope we shall not try to reduce the whole of BIEN to the definition of BI preferred in one perspective or setting.
A particular concern for Louise Haagh was to clarify that in common understanding a basic income is a permanent grant, meaning it is a right for life and thus in principle cannot be taken away, except as provisions related to any residence requirements might in effect terminate the payment if someone moved away from a relevant jurisdiction. She was concerned that the original formulation on the website did not fully set this common understanding out. However, at the workshop in Seoul the concern was expressed that stating in some jurisdictions, e.g. the French, citizens retain rights even when non-resident, and so stating life-time entitlement, even in principle, might cause confusion. The matter could not be fully clarified at the Seoul workshop or GA, and thus this dimension of the definition and description was not included in the end. Louise Haagh notes the precedent set by the UK Citizens’ Income Trust web-site, which specifies that a Citizens’ Income ‘would never be taken away’, suggesting this indicates the common understanding that a citizen’s income or BI is permanent. This aspect of the definitional debate however continues, as the Seoul workshop and subsequent compromise proposals for a definition and a motion came to concentrate on other things, including in particular the question of a BI’s level.
The workshop was originally set for aiming to reach some compromised proposal, which could converge two initial proposals on the one hand, and which could reflect some concerns against having narrower definition. However, the chair immediately recognized that it wasn’t possible to reach this initial aim truly democratically by about 30 diverse people in a limited time. So instead the workshop was dedicated for consolidating mutual trust by sharing everyone’s reasons and concerns. The point we anticipated for the strong difference of opinions, which then turned out the anticipation was real, was whether BIEN should mention the size of the BI in its definition. Some argued BIEN should stick to a ‘broad church’ approach where diverse views should be welcome, and some replied that the size does matter because reliability of amount is essential even in a ‘broad church’ thin description. Some suggested that the size should be ‘highest sustainable’ which might be higher or lower than the poverty line. Others suggested that the size of basic income should be coupled with the existence of other social services. As far as the concerns that a thicker definition involving size could discourage people who are working on a partial basic income is concerned. Some raised the question whether there is really a contradiction because a partial basic income is step on the way to a full basic income that is defined in a thicker description. Other than the size issue, the following points were raised (according to the minutes taken by James P. Mulvale):
- The definition should state that basic income is non-foreclosable – cannot be seized for non-payment of debts (inalienable) / it is paid in regular interval / its size should be regular / it is ‘inflation proof’
- Does ‘cash payment’ include electronic currency (such as bank deposits) and crypto-currency (e.g. bitcoin)?
- Does ‘universal (not means tested)’ include or rule out an income-tested negative income tax delivery mechanism?
- Who is entitled to it within the country? Only citizens? Permanent residents?
- How do we understand “basic”?
- Should the definition explicitly state that the basic income is life-long?
At the end of the workshop, the chair called participants to join a voluntary working group for making an agreeable proposal. The discussion continued in breaks, at night, and in the morning during the rest of the congress. Participants finally agreed that
- The definition in the statutes should be as concise as possible
- BIEN’s website should have further clarification of the above definition
- The size issue should not be included to the above definition, but it should be expressed in the separated resolution on what the majority of the GA endorses and opposes
- Haagh’s proposal should be used as a base document to draft the above because the structured feature of her proposal is suitable for sorting the above 1, 2, 3.
From these efforts, over a long weekend, the final proposal was crafted.
Drafted by Toru Yamamori
Caucused with Louise Haagh, Télémaque Masson, Philippe van Parijs, Adriaan Planken, Guy Standing, Karl Widerquist
Author’s note: Those finally put forward the proposal appreciate the effort of many people during the process. We do hope this clarification will be helpful for facilitating worldwide discussion and for eliminating unnecessary misunderstanding and confusion.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 28, 2016 | News, Research
The Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, has produced a new report on the potential of universal child benefit: “Toward a Universal Child Benefit” by Samuel Hammond and Robert Orr. The report proposes an unconditional benefit of $2000 annually for every child under the age of 18, which would be phased out for higher-income families.
Although clearly not universal, Hammond and Orr’s proposed policy might be considered a “basic income guarantee for children”. Significantly, the benefit is paid in cash rather than in kind (as discussed at length in the report), and it is distributed to all families in need–irrespective of whether a child’s parents or legal guardians in the workforce, seeking work, or able to work. As the authors note, the latter is a significant difference from the Child Tax Credit supported by front-running US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, which is only available to households with earned income (leaving households without income to rely solely on in-kind benefits).
Hammond and Orr’s proposal is modeled after Canada’s Child Benefit program, previously covered in Basic Income News.
Hammond has previously written for the Niskanen Center in support of a basic income guarantee in the form of a negative income tax. He believes that a universal child allowance could provide a bridge to a guaranteed annual income for adults as well.
We might note that Hammond is not alone in envisioning this path toward a basic income in the US. Progressive commentators such as the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal and New York journalist Joel Dodge have advocated a universal child allowance as a policy that is both desirable in itself and a possible route to a universal basic income.
Shortly after the publication of the Niskanen Center report, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute (another DC-based libertarian think tank), published a response in which he expressed sympathy for the proposal but called for caution in pursuing such a policy. (Tanner is the prior author of a similarly cautious policy report on basic income guarantees for the Cato Institute.)
Founded in 2014, the Niskanen Center says that it “works to change public policy through direct engagement in the policymaking process” — targeting Washington insiders such as legislators, presidential appointees, congressional committee staff, interest group analysts, and civil servants in planning, evaluation, and budget offices. It branched into welfare policy earlier this year. For information about the think tank’s specific libertarian approach to social welfare, see Will Wilkinson (March 29, 2016) “Libertarian Principles and Welfare Policy“.
More Information and Background:
Samuel Hammond (October 25, 2016) “Toward a Universal Child Benefit” Niskanen Center blog.
Samuel Hammond (June 9, 2016) “‘Universal Basic Income’ is just a Negative Income Tax with a leaky bucket” Niskanen Center blog.
Michael Tanner (October 27, 2016) “Not So Fast on Universal Child Benefit“ Cato at Liberty blog.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY 2.0 Pedro Ribeiro Simões
by Kate McFarland | Oct 28, 2016 | News
The Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean has recently produced a report in which it recommends a universal and unconditional basic income as one measure to promote the equality and autonomy of women.
The Thirteenth Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean, organized by the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), was held in Montevideo, Uruguay from October 25-28. It brought together politicians and policy researchers with expertise in the rights and welfare of women in the region.
In the 150-page report titled “Equality and women’s autonomy in the sustainable development agenda”, conference participants discuss their policy recommendations to ensure the equality, autonomy, and empowerment of women.
While the report covered a wide range of policy areas, its section on women’s economic equality and independence is particularly noteworthy for Basic Income News–since, in addition to other reforms, it clearly recommends a universal and unconditional basic income (cf. pp. 50-51).
The report notes that women often “face the most vulnerable and precarious [economic] situations” and thus stand to benefit considerably from a basic income (p. 50).
Summarizing the impact of basic income, the authors write:
While the basic income would not resolve all the problems caused by inequality and the sexual division of labour (as this would require broader structural reform covering different variables), it would have some positive effects, including: (i) increasing women’s freedom by giving them economic independence; (ii) reducing the feminization of poor households; (iii) distributing domestic and care work better, as a basic income would increase women’s bargaining power. In addition, women would gain not only in economic terms but also in terms of rights and autonomy (Raventós and Wark, 2016). The introduction of a universal basic income for women would have at least three further outcomes: (i) a more balanced distribution of resources; (ii) recognition of gender equality by guaranteeing a basic income for both sexes; (iii) enhancing women’s individuality and hence the possibility of furthering women’s representation.
A minimum wage policy, coupled with a basic income policy, would create synergy, helping to increase women’s economic autonomy and to improve distributive equality in countries of the region; in turn, this would contribute to sustainable development (p. 51).
In addition to basic income and a minimum wage, the report calls for a reduction in work hours, which would permit more women to balance employment with domestic work, while also allowing men to devote greater time to childrearing, housework, and so forth.
Elsewhere in the report, while summarizing a range of programs to combat poverty, the authors mention (in passing) “the possibility of recognizing the right to a guaranteed basic income as a new human right” (p. 41).
This is not the first time in recent months that ECLAC has recommended a basic income. In its position document released in May, ECLAC encouraged its member states to investigate the possibility of adopting a basic income guarantee (here presented chiefly as a response to technologically-driven unemployment and instability). The commission’s recommendations have been instrumental in the movement in Mexico City to secure a basic income as a constitutionally-recognized right.
In past years, ECLAC has also been a participant at BIEN’s biennial Congress (2014) and released a report specifically on basic income (2010).
Reviewed by Robert Gordon.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 World Bank Photo Collection.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 27, 2016 | News
Basic Income Manitoba has launched a new website: basicincomemanitoba.ca
The group can also be followed on Facebook: www.facebook.com/basicincomemanitoba
Basic Income Manitoba, a volunteer-run organization based in Winnipeg, describes its goals and activities as follows: “educates Manitobans about basic income, its benefits and effects; promotes and develops public support for basic income in Manitoba and across Canada; seeks to influence public policy with regard to basic income; and encourages and shares research on basic income.”
Manitoba has a distinguished history in the basic income movement: from 1974 to 1978, the “Mincome” experiment–one of the most discussed trials of a basic income guarantee–was held in Dauphin.
The province was also the site of the most recent North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress, held in May 2016 in Winnipeg.
Basic Income Manitoba is currently led by its two co-chairs: Donald Benham, who has experience in municipal politics and is currently the Hunger and Poverty Awareness Manager at Winnipeg Harvest, and Ursule Critoph, who has decades of work in the Canadian union movement.
The organization receives support from local organizations including Bounce Design, Winnipeg Harvest, and the University of Manitoba.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Manitoba photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Valerie
by Toru Yamamori | Oct 11, 2016 | News
As previously reported, the 2016 BIEN Congress was held in Seoul, South Korea from July 7-9. The General Assembly (GA) was held on the last day of the congress, at which several important decisions were made, including the following:
1) BIEN now a legally chartered institution
At the 2014 congress, the GA mandated the Executive Committee (EC) of BIEN to make BIEN a legal entity. To this end, the EC established a task force headed by Louise Haagh. After considering various options, the EC decided to apply in Belgium for recognition as an international non-profit association (AISBL), and the application was approved.
It was necessary to change BIEN’s statutes to comply with the requirements of AISBL organizations. The needed changes were made and approved by the GA. The AISBL charter (BIEN’s newly revised statutes) can be viewed at this link [pdf].
2) Clarification of definition of ‘basic income’
The GA passed two motions related to the definition of the term ‘basic income’.
The first was a refinement of the official definition used by BIEN.
Previously, the definition of basic income on BIEN’s website and in its charter had described a “basic income” as “an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement”. At the 2016 congress, the GA approved the following change to the description: “[a basic income is] a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.”
Moreover, the GA approved the following elaboration of the above description:
That is, Basic Income has the five following characteristics:
- Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant.
- Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
- Individual: it is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households.
- Universal: it is paid to all, without means test.
- Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.
This amendment, then, adds two additional characteristics (periodic and in cash) to the three that had been in BIEN’s official definition of basic income since the network’s founding in 1986. Some participants in the GA meeting viewed the amendment as a clarification of the definition rather than a change to it, because it merely makes explicit two characteristics that have long been assumed by most of BIEN’s membership.
3) Resolution on the type of basic income to be supported
In addition to the above clarification, the GA passed the following resolution:
A majority of members attending BIEN’s General Assembly meeting in Seoul on July 9, 2016, agreed to support a Basic Income that is stable in size and frequency and high enough to be, in combination with other social services, part of a policy strategy to eliminate material poverty and enable the social and cultural participation of every individual. We oppose the replacement of social services or entitlements, if that replacement worsens the situation of relatively disadvantaged, vulnerable, or lower-income people.
In keeping with BIEN’s charter (as an organization to “serve as a link between individuals and groups committed to, or interested in, basic income”), this motion is not binding on BIEN’s members or affiliates.
Prior to the decisions about the description of UBI and the type BIEN supports, there was a workshop and dedicated group work during the congress. The overview of discussions, concerns and reasons will be published here at Basic Income News shortly.
4) Portugal 2017 and Finland 2018: BIEN moves from biennial to annual Congresses
Since its founding in 1986, BIEN has held its Congresses once every two years. However, given the current momentum of the UBI movement–in conjunction with recent competing wishes to host the Congress (there were three candidates for the 16th Congress, and two candidates this time)–the EC proposed that BIEN commit to having yearly congresses . The two affiliates applying to host the next Congress, Portugal and Finland, agreed to put forward proposals for one Congress in 2017 and another in 2018, respectively.
Some people at the GA were skeptical about yearly Congresses, and others noted that BIEN does not need to change its statutes to have yearly Congress; it just needs to approve Congress proposals. On that basis, although the motion to commit to yearly Congresses was defeated, the proposal by Portugal and Finland to host Congress next year and the year after were approved.
The 17th BIEN Congress will be held in Lisbon, Portugal September 25-27, 2017, and the 18th BIEN Congress will be held in Finland 2018. The call for participation for 17th congress in Lisbon has already been released. The exact dates and the details of 18th Congress in Finland haven’t been decided yet. The dates will be published in Basic Income News when they are decided.
5) New affiliates: India, NZ, Quebec, Scotland, Taiwan, and China
At the GA, 6 new national or regional affiliates were approved. They are: India Network for Basic Income (India), Basic Income New Zealand Incorporated (New Zealand), Revenue de base Quebec (Quebec), Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland (Scotland), Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association in Taiwan (Taiwan), BIEN China (China).
6) Clarification and a plan for actualization of the vision of BIEN
BIEN’s co-chairs have drafted a clear vision for the organization, which they published prior to the congress. The vision was shared and discussed at a special workshop during the congress. In order to actualize this vision, it was proposed to increase the size of the EC from 9 to 11 members. The GA approved this proposal.
Names, roles, and affiliations of the new EC members can be found on the About BIEN page.
The detailed minutes of the GA can be found here [pdf]. The GA is open to all life members of BIEN, and is held at each congress.
BIEN invites everyone to join the next congress.
[Reviewed by Kate McFarland and Karl Widerquist]
