by Andre Coelho | Nov 16, 2017 | News
Íñigo Errejón, at the 7th Basic Income Simposium.
On the 2nd of November 2017, the city of Zaragoza (Spain) welcomed the 17th Basic Income Simposium, organized by Red Renta Básica (the Basic Income Network affiliate in Spain), which lasted for three days.
In the first day, during the afternoon, the documentary “In the same boat” (trailer here) was screened, followed by interventions by David Casassas (Social Theory professor at the University of Barcelona and member of Red Renta Básica), who explained the normative and technical aspects of basic income, Txema Sánchez (member of Red Renta Básica and the Nulla Política Sina Éthica collective) and Rudy Gnutti (“In the same boat” film director), who claims there is no Left nor Right basic income.
On the second day, the meeting started with a roundtable on how to finance a basic income. This was moderated by Fernando Rivares (from the Zaragosa municipality) and debated by Jordi Arcarons (PhD in Applied Economics at the University of Barcelona), Lluís Torrens (Director of Social Rights Planning and Innovation of the Barcelona municipality), alongside Raúl Burrillo and Jorge Bielsa Callau (Economy professor at the University of Zaragosa). Although it has been shown that a basic income can be financed for the Spanish reality, the financing problem has been a widely debated issue. In the afternoon, Pablo Yanes (CEPAL research coordinator in Mexico) presented his take on what has been developing as the basic income inclusion in the Mexico City Constitution.
On a second roundtable, moderated by Violeta Barba (Aragón Congress president), Daniel Raventós (PhD in Economic Sciences and president of Red Renta Básica), Íñigo Errejón (PhD in Political Science and Congressman for Unidos Podemos political party), Amparo Bella (historian, feminist and Congresswoman at Aragón by the Podemos political party) and Pedro Santisteve (from the Zaragosa municipality) debated around the bold theme “unconditional basic income”. At this moment, Santisteve approaches basic income from a constitutional right perspective. According to him, these rights shall be “locked” inside the constitution, so they cannot be tramped with by any one government. Amparo Bella then introduced basic income under a feminist perspective. This way, basic income shall value all kinds of labour, stressing that work is much more than a job. In his turn, Íñigo defended the upgrade of the welfare state, where basic income shall be the backbone of the needed constitutional reform. Finally, Raventós has pointed out that knowing about the basic income proposal is a crucial step towards supporting it, and that no one can really be free unless he or she has their material needs met.
On the last day, in the morning, the last roundtable took place. This was named “30 years of minimum income: the alternative, basic income”. The discussion then circulated around the failure to eradicate poverty through these (conditional) minimum income schemes, and around the possible alternatives. The debate was moderated by Luisa Broto (from the Zaragosa municipality Social Services) and had the presentations of Mari Carmen Mesa (Spokeswoman to Aragón Social Workers union), Sonia García (CCOO Social Action Secretary) and Julen Bollain (Euskadi Congressman and Red Renta Básica member). Mar Carmen started by showing reservations about the implementation of the basic income scheme in the short term. In the same vein, Sonia García rejected basic income in favour of a (conditional) minimum income scheme (of 430 €/month) which has been presented to the Spanish Congress by CCOO and UGT. However, Bollain argued that in fact conditional minimum income schemes have failed all around the world in the last few decades. He claimed that none of such schemes ever eradicated poverty, but still introduced unnecessary stigma, bureaucracy and administrative costs. He thinks that society must overcome these targeted, conditional policies and fight for the universal, unconditional rights that basic income represents.
More information at:
Jullen Bollain, “El XVII simposio de la Red Renta Básica: ¿punto de inflexión? [The 17th Red Renta Básica Simposium: an inflection point?]”, Red Renta Básica, November 12th 2017
by Karl Widerquist | Nov 15, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in December 2001.
As I was putting this newsletter together, the National Bureau of Economic Research officially announced that the U.S. economy has been in recession since last March. The delay in the diagnosis is nothing unusual because a downturn is not considered a recession unless it lasts for a significant period of time. But the point at which a recession is recognized is a good moment for reflection on the performance of the economy. Even though the United States is in a recession right now, the long-term performance of the economy as a whole over the last 20 years has been quite good. The expansion that ended in March lasted for exactly 10-years—the longest in U.S. history—and it came after a short and mild recession in the early 1990s, which followed a long, stable expansion during the 1980s. The last 20 years have had the most stable growth in U.S. economic history. The growth was not particularly rapid, but there is a lot to be said for stability. The economy may decline by a few percentage points over the course of the recession, but an economy that grows by 2 or 3 per year during economic expansions can weather the occasional downturn. Thus, although there are worrying signs on the horizon (such as a persistent trade deficit and a high and growing level of indebtedness), the verdict on the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole over the last 20 years has to be largely positive.
Good performance of the economy as a whole does not necessarily mean that it has performed well for all individuals. If one judges the success of an economy by the well being of its less advantaged individuals the performance of the U.S. economy has been terrible over the last 20 years. Real wages at the low-end of the wage spectrum have stagnated or even declined slightly. Usually, poverty declines slowly during expansions and increases quickly in recessions, but there has been no lasting progress in reducing poverty since the early 1970s. The official poverty rate has been stuck in a range between 11% and 15% since the early 1970s. There was an extremely rapid decline in poverty in the 1940s and again in the 1960s, but it has not been repeated since. The ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s were marred by frequent recessions, but individuals across the economic spectrum were able to count on gains during the expansions that would more than make up for losses during recessions. The ’70s were a period of instability in which the less advantaged lost ground, and since then there has been no return to the progress experienced earlier.
Why were the experiences of the less advantaged so different during the good economic times of the ’80s and ’90s than they were in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s? The difference is largely one of government policy. The earlier period saw the GI Bill, the fruition of Social Security, the expansion of AFDC and Medicare, increases in the minimum wage and the creation of Food Stamps and Medicaid. Since the early 1970s, many of these programs have been canceled or allowed to lapse or have been effectively cut by not being adjusted for inflation. These programs were not the best possible programs for fighting poverty, but they were all we had, and rather than being reformed, they’ve largely been cut with little or nothing to replace them aside from TANF, which seems to make welfare so unpleasant that jobs without living wages are preferable. TANF has been declared a success simply because it has reduced the number of families on welfare. The success of TANF should be measured instead by whether it reduces poverty and whether it makes children healthier and happier and whether it helps them grow into better-adjusted adults. Should it be any surprise cutting nearly every program designed to aid the poor should slow or stop the progress we had been making toward the reduction of poverty? Something else is needed if poverty reduction is our goal.
During recessions, people often voice opposition to direct anti-poverty policies, arguing that the best way to help people is to get the economy moving again. During expansions, the argument is usually to keep it moving or to get it moving faster. They say, “a rising tide lifts all boats,” and everyone benefits from economic growth. But the lesson to learn from the last twenty years of economic expansion is that these arguments are simply false. The incomes of low-wage workers stagnated during the good economic times of the ’80s and ’90s because policy turned against the redistribution of income, but they increased during the good economic times of ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s because policy favored increased redistribution of income. There is no inherent mechanism in a capitalist economy to ensure that everyone will share in the fruits of economic growth. I believe that a basic income guarantee is essential to ensure that everyone shares in our economic success. This and other strategies for better distributional equity will be discussed at the First Congress of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network. I invite you to join us.
Karl Widerquist, New York, NY, December 2001.
by Jason Burke Murphy | Nov 14, 2017 | News
By Jason Burke Murphy
On October 3rd, the Social Work Department at the University of Manitoba held a Symposium on the Mincome Experiment conducted in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 1970’s. This included presentations by the Director of the Mincome Experiment in the 1970’s, Ron Hikel.
The resources from the Mincome Symposium held at the University of Manitoba (including the two papers presented and an audio clip of Ron Hikel’s interview with UMFM) have been posted on the Faculty of Social Work website.
The symposium featured Ron Hikel, who was Director of the Manitoba Basic Annual Income (Mincome) Experiment. His paper is linked here: Piloting Basic Income in Canada: Lessons from the Past, Possibilities in the Present.
Shortly after the symposium, Hikel also conducted an interview you can find here. Wayne Simpson, Greg Mason, and Ryan Godwin, of the Department of Economics at the University of Manitoba also wrote this paper: The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment: Lessons Learned 40 Years Later.
The conference was moderated by Jim Mulvale and Sid Frankel of the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba.
More information at:
David Calnitsky, “‘More Normal than Welfare’: The Mincome Experiment, Stigma, and Community Experience”
Evelyn Forget on The Legacy of Mincome & other Basic Income Experiment
Jenna van Draanen interview
Claire Bott, “Evelyn Forget/Northern Institute publish new report on BIG”, Basic Income News, August 1st 2017
Kate McFarland, “Overview of Current Basic Income Related Experiments (October 2017)“, October 19th 2017
by Andre Coelho | Nov 12, 2017 | News
Louise Haagh and Francisco Louçã at Lisbon’s Web Summit.
A debate about basic income was set up in this year’s Web Summit, in Lisbon, which occurred during an event named “Talk Robot”, on the 7th of November. Featuring Louise Haagh and Francisco Louçã, both presented at the Conference website, the debate was focused on the pros and cons of basic income, in general terms.
Louise started out by describing a possible future world with a basic income, in which people are allowed to concentrate in what is more important to them, shaking off control and dependence from an often-intrusive welfare state. Although this description is a very positive one, she didn’t leave out references to its limits and opportunities for improvement. Francisco replied, apparently not taking notice of what Louise had just said, and delivered a passionate speech about how he thinks basic income will replace education and health public systems. He also underlined that his concern was money only, not psychology or social security, and that we should be avoiding imitating president Trump’s ideas of cutting through health programs. The relation of this statement to the debate on basic income was unclear.
At the end of the debate, the 600-700 large audience was asked to vote Yes or No to basic income, and the outcome was a timid but clear prevail of the Yes position.
In social media, this debate also gave rise to considerable activity. One of the comments that got heavily shared was: “Basic income isn’t about the money, it’s about security. So, we no longer implement behavioral controls on some and not others”.
More information at:
[In Portuguese]
Benjamin Tirone Torres, “Oceanos e Rendas Básicas Universais: Outros Palcos no Web Summit [Oceans and Universal Basic Income: Other Stages in Web Summit]”, November 7th 2017
by Claire Bott | Nov 10, 2017 | News
The Ministry for Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare in Namibia has floated the possibility of introducing basic income grants for those between 19 and 59, according to Namibian national daily paper New Era.
The Ministry was set up in early 2015, following the landslide election of President Hage Geingob. It is headed by former Bishop Zephania Kameeta, who has a history of universal basic income (UBI) advocacy. A paper entitled Blue Print on Wealth Distribution and Poverty Eradication, put out by the Ministry in May 2016, stated that “measures should provide people with tools that build resilience and self sufficiency to break the cycle of poverty. Social safety nets are one of such measures that can help graduate people out of poverty to sustainable livelihoods.”
Reporting on an initiative by the Ministry to discuss implementation of the poverty eradication plan, New Era titled their article “Basic Income Grant Under Consideration”, and ended it with the sentence, “The ministry will also look into introducing a basic income grant for people between the ages of 19 and 59, who do not qualify for the existing grants yet do not have means to sustain themselves.” At the time of going to press, no external confirmation could be found of New Era’s statement on basic income grants; however, although the paper is technically owned by the New Era Publication Corporation, it is in fact openly run by the Namibian state and as such may have more detail on government policies than other national newspapers.
Namibia has a population of approximately two million people, and for some time was part of South Africa, only gaining independence in 1990. Geingob is the third President of an independent Namibia.
