by Kate McFarland | Oct 7, 2016 | News
As previously reported in Basic Income News, Finland’s first international basic income seminar (BIST2016) was held in Turku on August 25. BIST2016 was organized by Varsinais-Suomen Piraatit (Southwest Finnish Pirates) in collaboration with BIEN Finland, the Pirate Party of Finland, and Pirate Youth of Finland.
Videos of the some of the lectures are available on YouTube, and copied below.
Ville-Veikko Pulkka: “Notes on the Finnish basic income experiment”
Summary:
In autumn 2015, the Prime Minister’s Office invited bids for a preliminary study (published on 30 March 2016) as part of preparations for a basic income experiment. After evaluation, a consortium led by the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, Kela, was appointed to study the suitability of different basic income models for the experiment.
The assignment outlined four different options to explore and develop:
1) full basic income (the level of BI high enough to replace almost all other benefits, perhaps excluding earnings-related benefits)
2) partial basic income (would replace most of the basic security benefits, but leave some)
3) negative income tax (“basic income” via taxation)
4) other possibilities to test basic income (the research group analysed participation income and the British Universal Credit, but these systems would not enable one to test the effects of basic income due to their conditionality).
Even though a budget-neutral partial basic income cannot automatically diminish income and unemployment traps, the model appears to be both economically and politically the most feasible one to test. According to power calculations made by the economists in our group, the sample for the experiment should be approximately 10,000 people in order to observe statistically significant results if the employment rate changes by two percentage points. In an ideal setting, the randomisation of people is compulsory and two-pronged. In addition to the treatment group, there must naturally be a control group.
The crucial factor is to have at least nationwide randomization since local experiments do not produce generalizable results. A representative, nationwide randomisation can be combined with more intensive local experiments to capture externalities. Also, weighted samples of interesting special groups are possible if the budget constraints can be tackled. Our research group recommends focusing on low-income households since the elasticity of labour supply is supposed to be greatest among this group and the budget is limited.
Ville-Veikko Pulkka is a researcher at Kela, the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, where he is a member of the research group that is preparing the country’s basic income experiment. Additionally, Pulkka is a PhD candidate at the University of Helsinki, writing a dissertation on “digital working life”.
Photo by Toru Yamamori
Christian Engström: “Basic income: a concrete and calculated proposal”
Summary:
This talk introduces a concrete proposal for a basic income system for Sweden, including a cost estimate and financing. The basic income would be 8.333 SEK (900 EUR) per month for anybody between 19 and 65 who lives in Sweden and has no other income. When you start earning money the basic income would be reduced, but never by 100%, so there is always an incentive to work if you can. The cost of this system would be covered in full by letting the basic income replace the current systems for social welfare, student aid and unemployment benefits, and removing the VAT discounts that certain industries enjoy. To make the proposal politically realistic, there would be no increase of income taxes, and no reduction of current sickness benefits.
Christian Engström is a member of the Swedish Pirate Party and, from 2009 to 2014, was a Member of the European Parliament.
Photo by Toru Yamamori
Albert Svan: “Basic income possibilities – based on informal studies from Iceland”
Summary:
In Iceland the Pirate Party is preparing a policy for implementing a basic income scheme. The debate started a couple of years ago when congressman Halldóra Mogensen proposed a legislation on basic income at the Icelandic Parliament. Some preliminary calculations show that 1/3 of the Icelandic government budget already goes to direct money transfers to Icelandic individuals and that a modest basic income amount for all persons 18+ years old will cost 2/3 of the budget, while a negative income tax may cost a similar amount as the current social financial aid. Of many prerequisites one initial observation is that basic income criteria should be calculated regularly and that a legislation of lowest allowed salaries must be somewhat higher than the basic income criteria.
Albert S. Sigurdsson currently works for Statistics Iceland. He holds a master’s degree in geography from the University of Helsinki, and has previously worked at the Finnish Environment Institute, Iceland’s Environment Agency, Lionbridge Technologies, and Futuvision Media.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Turku photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Mikael Korhonen
by Kate McFarland | Sep 28, 2016 | News
A Constituent Assembly of Mexico City is currently developing the city’s first constitution. A proposal for the constitution, currently under deliberation, includes an article specifying a right to a basic income to secure a dignified life.
Miguel Ángel Mancera CC-BY-SA 4.0 ProtoplasmaKid (Wikimedia Commons)
On September 15, Mexico City Chief of Government Miguel Angel Mancera delivered a proposal for the city’s constitution, and a constituent assembly was formed to analyze, debate, modify, and ultimately vote on and approve a constitution.
Mancera’s proposal draws much inspiration from the Mexico City Charter for the Right to the City, developed in 2007 by a coalition of organizations associated with Mexico City’s urban popular movement. The “Right to the City” charter includes a demand for the “right to sufficient income to guarantee a dignified life” (3.4.1). Additionally, another article in the charter’s section on ensuring a “productive city” states, “To democratize productive employment opportunities in the city, it is necessary to … promote the establishment of a universal citizen income” (3.4.3).
A more recent precedent was a seminar on basic income and wealth redistribution organized in April 2016 by the Senate of the Republic of Mexico and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) of the United Nations. In its position document released in the following month, ECLAC further encouraged its member states to investigate a basic income guarantee.
Meanwhile, there has been growing political interest in basic income in Mexico. For one example (amongst others), the young left-wing political party Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (Morena) has expressed interest in advancing the policy.
These precedents lay in the background of the September 15 meeting to move forward the development of Mexico City’s constitution.
A major purpose of the constitution is to formally specify rights of all residents of the city. The stated objectives of the document include the following (emphasis added):
To include new rights such as those of families, non-salaried workers, the right to the city, to public space, to democracy, to proper administration, to a progressive basic income, to memory, to care, to the protection of animals and cultural rights, among others …
The specific article where basic income is proposed reads as follows:
Right to a dignified life
Every person is entitled to a standard of living that is adequate for him or herself and their family, as well as to the continuous improvement of their living conditions. The right to a basic income will be guaranteed giving priority to the persons in situations of poverty, and those that can’t fulfill their material needs by their own means, as well as priority assistance groups. The rules for accessing basic income will be established in this article’s common dispositions.
Note that, despite the potentially confusing wording of second sentence, the proposal here is not for a targeted or mean-tested benefit; instead, the constitution is recognizing a need to establish some priorities for accessing the basic income grants.
One model of the basic income under consideration is Mexico City’s pension program for individuals aged 68 and older. The pension is universal (among seniors), unconditional, distributed to individuals, and mandated by law. Among its proponents, the basic income is seen as an extension of the pension from the elderly to all.
Describing the proposed constitution, Pablo Yanes of BIEN Mexico states, “Without a doubt, we are at the outset of an intense debate around basic income, and unprecedented moment in the history of Mexico City.”
Yanes says that while “the specific wording [in the constitution] can be improved and made more precise”, the recognition of a basic income as a right is “an immense step forward”:
In addition to the federal constitution reform initiatives presented before Congress by Congresswomen Araceli Damián and Xóchitl Hernández and the one introduced before the Senate by the Senator Luis Sánchez, the inclusion to the right to basic income in the Mexico City Constitution project constitutes, without a doubt, a turning point for basic income’s recognition in Mexico.
A new starting point has been set. This is Mexico City’s contribution to the growing international movement for basic income.
The Mexico City Constitution ultimately approved by the constituent assembly will go into force in February 2017.
Debates will take place ensuing months, including on the topic of basic income.
Information from Pablo Yanes (personal communication).
Reviewed by Pablo Yanes and Cameron McLeod.
Featured image: Mexico City CC BY 2.0 Blok 70.
Special thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 26, 2016 | News
The Trades Union Congress, a federation of trade unions that represents nearly six million workers in the UK, has passed a motion endorsing basic income.
As previously announced in Basic Income News, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) voted on a motion to endorse universal basic income at its 148th annual congress held from September 11 through 14.
The TUC is a federation of trade unions in the UK, currently representing 51 unions and a total of more than 5.8 million workers [1].
The full text of the successful motion on UBI is as follows:
Universal Basic Income
Congress notes the growing popularity of the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ with a variety of models being discussed here and around the world. Congress recognises the need for a rebuilding of a modern social security system for men and women as part of tackling poverty and inequality.
Congress believes that the TUC should argue for a progressive system that incorporates the basis of a Universal Basic Income system paid individually and that is complementary to comprehensive public services and childcare provision.
Congress believes that such a system would be easier to administer and easier for people to navigate than the current system which has been made increasingly punitive and has effectively been used to stigmatise benefit claimants. The operation of sanctions pushes people into destitution for trivial reasons.
Congress recognises that until the housing crisis is resolved there would also be a need for supplementary benefits to support people on low incomes with high housing costs and that there will always be a need for supplementary benefits for disabled people.
The transition from our current system to any new system that incorporates these principles should always leave people with lower incomes better off.
Congress believes that our social security system must work in tandem with our agenda for strong trade unions and employment rights and secure, decently and properly paid work.
The motion was introduced to the TUC by Unite, the UK’s largest individual union, which passed a motion endorsing basic income on July 11.
Becca Kirkpatrick — a UNISON and Unite member whose Regional Sector Committee was responsible for moving the successful motion at Unite’s policy conference — had this to say about the TUC decision:
This important decision is only the beginning of a big conversation to be had across the unions, about our preferred level of UBI, how it should be funded, and what additional policies must go alongside it to ensure that it is progressive. But most importantly, no great social change has ever been won by working people passing a motion in a conference room. We must organise and build a powerful movement in order to see the kind of Basic Income — and the kind of future — that we want [2].
To stay up-to-date with future news and announcements, follow Basic Income UK Trade Unionists on Twitter and join their discussions on Facebook.
[1] According to the TUC’s website (accessed September 15, 2016).
[2] Personal communication.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 xpgomes12.
Special thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 9, 2016 | News
Basic Income was the theme of the Summer 2016 edition of the quarterly Winnipeg-based magazine Canadian Dimension (CD).
Andrea Levy describes the contents of this special edition in an introductory article:
In this CD Focus we have invited several Left scholars and activists to share their perspectives on Basic Income. To lay bare some of the bones of contention, we present a comradely debate between Michal Rozworski, who is emerging as one of English Canada’s leading Left economists, and scholar Nick Srnicek, co-author of a couple of recent books associated with the “left-accelerationist” current that have sparked intense interest in the U.K. and beyond. Kathi Weeks, author of the acclaimed book The Problem with Work (Duke University Press, 2011), offers a socialist-feminist perspective on Basic Income in an interview conducted for CD by Katie Cruz. Journalist and writer Richard Swift (also a CD Editor) has penned a short essay intended to inspire a return to the Left’s too-often neglected critique of the nature of waged work. Community animator Josh Brandon reports on the North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress held this past spring in Winnipeg. Cult Montreal columnist and CD Editor Peter Wheeland contributes a report on the Basic Income policies under consideration by the neo-Liberal “austerian” governments of Kathleen Wynne and Philippe Couillard. Finally, I introduce a French degrowth model of basic income, the Unconditional Autonomy Allowance, conceived as a tool to support a transition beyond the market economy.
Founded in 1963, Canadian Dimension is Canada’s longest-running periodical specializing in left-wing political discussion. It describes itself as “a magazine for people who want to change the world”.
Levy’s introduction to the edition is available on-line, as is the interview with Kathi Weeks:
Andrea Levy, “Introduction: Basic Questions“, Canadian Dimension; August 11, 2016.
Katie Cruz, “A feminist case for Basic Income: An interview with Kathi Weeks“, Canadian Dimension; August 11, 2016.
For the full contents of Canadian Dimension‘s basic income edition, see:
Basic Income; Canadian Dimension Volume 50, Issue 3: Summer 2016.
This Basic Income News made possible in part by Kate’s patrons on Patreon.
by Tyler Prochazka | Aug 29, 2016 | Opinion
Gary Johnson recently told me he is “open” to the Universal Basic Income (UBI). Based on some of the comments on the story (calling me slanderous and Johnson a statist), you might think he just endorsed a socialist takeover of the government.
Understandably, there is hostility among many libertarians toward the idea of the Universal Basic Income. The UBI is not just a pragmatic step to eliminate government bureaucracy. In fact, it is a desirable policy outcome because it will likely help usher in a new era of free markets and civil society.
Much has been said on the pragmatic libertarian case for replacing the current social safety net with a UBI. Primarily, it eliminates government paternalism and enhances the efficiency of welfare delivery.
Moreover, a Universal Basic Income removes the poverty trap created by the loss of welfare benefits as individuals move out of poverty. This incentivizes recipients to remain in poverty to retain these benefits. A UBI has no such incentive and allows recipients to choose the course of action that actually provides the greatest real benefit.
Through the basic income, recipients are also fully in control with how to spend the money, eliminating welfare’s distortions on the marketplace.
Most libertarian UBI advocates take Milton Friedman’s view of the basic income, approving of it as a substitute given that government welfare already exists (and is unlikely to go away). Instead, libertarians should consider wholeheartedly endorsing the UBI as a way to expand free markets.
The last century has shown us that free markets and free trade have been the greatest source for prosperity and peace the world has ever seen. However, the free market consensus seems to be eroding at a frightening pace, even in the Western world.
Free market’s savior? The basic income.
If libertarians are being honest, free markets are the best source for lowering poverty, but they alone are not sufficient. For example, Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world, but also a good amount of debilitating poverty. While visiting McDonalds throughout Hong Kong, it was hard not to notice the McRefugees (as they are called in local media) that were sleeping at tables.
There is good evidence that conditions outside of one’s control, such as whether one’s parents are wealthy or married, have a substantial influence on one’s success.
Socialism is not the answer to the poor’s woes, as we saw with devastating consequences in the human trials of socialism in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China and still today in North Korea and Venezuela.
Instead, the answer is to open up the free market to everyone through the basic income.
Pilot programs have shown that the basic income increased entrepreneurial and market activity (among other positive social benefits, such as improved health). Individuals previously locked out of the free market can now be active participants. The understandable worry that people would stop working is not only overblown, but the opposite was actually shown to be true in Namibia, as business activity dramatically picked up.
The largest meta-analysis of cash-transfers ever further illustrated that the risk of reduced work is nil and in fact it has the potential to increase work hours and intensity. Some parents reduced work hours to care for their children, but this likely brings a positive long-term outcome to society.
Work brings dignity and the basic income does not eliminate the basic desire to contribute to society. When polled, most Americans say they would still work even with a financial windfall.
Basic income gives recipients free choice, unlocking the market’s full potential. People do remarkable things when given freedom and opportunity.
Additionally, poverty is one of the biggest factors when determining a child’s likelihood to succeed in education. Just giving parents money substantially improved their child’s educational outcomes and behavior. The same was shown under the basic income.
The basic income is not a pragmatic giveaway to socialists. It is precisely the opposite: it is the essential element for sustaining the durability and expansion of free markets.
Beyond opening up the market to new participants, it is likely that a basic income would allow society to reevaluate the necessity of a whole host of government policies.
Human beings are born with a natural inclination to be empathetic toward others. And there are individuals that are also inclined (perhaps hardwired) toward government solutions for society’s ills. No matter how effectively free markets lower poverty, there will always be calls for a government backstop.
As libertarians know, these calls for government “solutions” often do more harm than good and end up impeding the very forces that allow the free market to lift individuals out of poverty (e.g. the minimum wage).
As jobs are increasingly automated, it is especially crucial that libertarians guide political discourse toward a light-touch approach to resolve the disruption robots will cause in the marketplace. There needs to be a permanent method to alleviate the fears of the market place, rather than relying on the eternal vigilance of Congress to do the right thing.
A robust basic income would mute many of the calls for government intervention because it gives employees greater freedom to choose their employment situation, rather than being forced into employment by the threat of poverty.
The fears felt by those inclined toward government intervention would be lowered and libertarians would have a far more persuasive case to make for allowing individuals to shape the market instead of the government. Indeed, it would allow libertarians to push for removing many of the excesses of government intervention.
The Universal Basic Income is not just a pragmatic compromise to lower welfare bureaucracy. It is the essential prerequisite to usher in a new era of free markets. And libertarians would be well suited to be at the forefront of this movement.
