by Stanislas Jourdan | Feb 25, 2016 | News
Paris was the ‘place to be’ for basic income last Thursday, February 4th, at a high-profile conference featuring key basic income personalities from France and beyond.
The event, which was organised by the liberal think tank Génération Libre, was held at the famous Salle Gaveau, and was attended by about 600 people.
This conference united diverse individuals, with myriad different backgrounds and values, around one common interest: basic income. Attendees included prominent foreign basic income supporters, such as Belgian philosopher and political economist Philippe van Parijs and Brazilian politician and economist Eduardo Suplicy, as well as French politicians from left to right — including former ministers Delphine Batho and Alain Madelin and European parliament members Karima Delli and Sylvie Goulard — in addition to members of the civil society, entrepreneurs, and basic income sympathizers who were simply curious to know how the idea is progressing in France.
Economist Marc de Basquiat launched the show with a presentation of how basic income could fix the complexity and inefficiency of the French tax-benefit system, and introduced key steps to move forward the implementation of a basic income. He also presented the results of a microsimulation of the redistributive effects of a basic income scheme in France. It showed a modest increase in social contribution from wealthy households, while the poorest, and especially families would benefit most.
Next, Jean-Eric Hyafil, an economist and member of the French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB), delivered a presentation in which he emphasized the rapid growth of the movement in the past few months: “basic income had never known a surge of interest such as the one we are living know,” he said.
After these opening talks, the floor was given to Philippe van Parijs and Eduardo Suplicy, both prominent figures of the basic income movement, historian Laurence Fontaine, and Lionel Stoléru, known as a historical proponent of the negative income tax in France in the 70s.
These four panelists laid out the philosophical and economic justifications for the basic income. Philippe van Parijs stressed the three core principles of basic income – a basic income must be universal, unconditional and individual – and stressed that basic income is, first and foremost, a matter of freedom. Lionel Storélu called for a better integration of fiscal and social systems, something basic income would eventually make possible.
The liberal thinker and former minister of Economy was the only dissent voice among the speakers. He gave a very critical speech, in which he claimed that basic income would encourage idleness. As he stated, “In wanting to do too much, you risk losing effectiveness in the fight against poverty.”
Other speakers — including Diana Filippova (Ouishare), Benoit Thieulin (National Digital Council), and entrepreneur Yann Hascoet (Chauffeur Privé) — were able to relay their firsthand experience in the new digital economy.
Thieulin, co-author of an important report on the Transformations of Work in the Digital Era ordered by the Ministry of Labor, justified basic income on the ground that we were “facing an unprecedented and much deeper upheaval than the industrial revolution. It is thus not realistic to try adapting the new digital assets to fit in the old socio-economic frameworks”. According to Thieulin, basic income allows a smooth transition toward the new economy.
“We keep saying we tried everything to fight unemployment. Well no, we haven’t tried basic income!” – Benoit Thieulin
Following Thieulin, Diana Filippova delivered a talk in which she argued that “basic income would enable a better redistribution of the wealth originating from the digital labor, and in particular the profits made from personal data collected through social networks.”
Politicians beyond borders on basic income
After the talks from the representatives of the new digital economy, politicians took the stage at the conference. These political discussions showed that, in spite of the ideological differences, it is still possible to have a common goal – which, in this case, is introducing basic income into public debate. As Frédéric Lefebvre, from the right-wing party Les Républicains, claimed, “The government has no right to miss out on this debate.”
The Socialist Party’s Delphine Batho, former Minister of Ecology, also highlighted that “basic income is not just about giving a handout, but it is about entering into a new ecological, digital and social model.”
Sylvie Goulard, member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the Liberal party, expressed her interest in the idea. As president of the parliamentary intergroup on poverty, she argued that poverty implies a significant deprivation of freedom. According to Goulard, a European basic income would make sense: “I have never believed in a complete harmonisation of social systems in Europe … However, the idea of guaranteeing a decent income for all across Europe could be shared.”
Member of the European Parliament Karima Delli insisted that basic income is part of an emancipatory project. It should allow a transformation of the economy by allowing new forms of work. “It will allow people to ask each other: what do you want to do with your life?”
Too soon to decide on an appropriate level
Both Goulard and Lefebvre agreed that, importantly, it is not yet time to decide upon the level of basic income. “There is still a lot of work to do and we need a democratic debate between possible options after we have appraised works on this,” Goulard said.
As this conference showed, basic income is no longer the utopian dream that it was considered not so long ago. In the past few months, all eyes have been turned towards the Finnish initiative to experiment with basic income; more recently, however, attention has focused more and more on how basic income might evolve in the French society, and politicians from both sides of the spectrum have started to officially support the idea.
Indeed, Ministers are discussing the idea even at the level of the national government. After the declaration of Minister of Economy Emmanuel Macron, stating that basic income was an interesting idea we should study further, the Minister for Labour Myriam El Khomri agreed that it was “a beautiful idea that we should consider.” Her statement followed the report handed out by the National Digital Council to the Ministry of Labour at the beginning of January, supporting basic income as one out of 20 possibilities that might help to cope with labour evolution due to the digitalization of the economy.
In the space of a couple of months, 3 amendments on basic income have been presented to the National Assembly, from representatives of parties on the left as well as the right.
The next important event will take place at the Finnish embassy in Paris on the 3rd of March, organized by the French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB). Then, on March 9th, a motion tabled by Green Senator Jean Desessard will be debated at the French Senate.
Nicole Teke and Stan Jourdan
by Andre Coelho | Feb 24, 2016 | News
Last week, an important conference was held in Lisbon focused on basic income (BI) and its implications. Although similar initiatives have occurred in Portugal in the past, this was the first conference of its scale; it brought together national and international speakers, received a large amount of media attention and was organized by multiple partnering organizations: Grupo de Estudos Políticos, the political party PAN (Pessoas, Animais e Natureza), Movimento Rendimento Básico Incondicional – Portugal, Grupo de Teoria Política – CEHUM, and IHC (Instituto de História Contemporânea). This initiative accompanies PAN’s intention to propose, in parliament, a countrywide BI feasibility study.
The conference spanned two days, the 15th and 16th of February, and drew an audience of around 100 people.
The first day’s session, held in a conference room at the parliament building, was chaired by PAN’s Jorge Silva and presented keynote speakers such as Amílcar Moreira, Jurgen De Wispelaere, Roberto Merrill, Sjir Hoeijmakers, Pedro Teixeira and Miguel Horta. It also included the presence of political party representatives Ivan Gonçalves (PS), Ricardo Moreira (Bloco de Esquerda) and Miguel Santos (PAN).
Jorge Silva. Credit to: Luís Gaspar
Roberto Merrill opened up the session, presenting a theoretical framework for basic income: pre-distribution (instead of redistribution). According to his research, social problems do not derive from the lack of jobs but from restrictions in access to resources. He also listed a range of authors and most prominent publications on the subject.
Jurgen De Wispelaere’s presentation focused on the Finnish BI experiment, which is planned to begin next year. This two-year experiment is aimed at assessing the ability of BI to eliminate the poverty trap and reduce complexity, bureaucracy and costs in social security. According to Jurgen, the fundamental reasons to experiment with BI are to demonstrate its potential, raise awareness and build a political coalition. Finland’s experiment will necessarily have shortcomings, such as its limited duration, sample size and resources, but it nevertheless can be used to study a wide array of effects, such as popular opinion and preferences and the impact of a BI on labor markets, social security and poverty.
The next speaker, Sjir Hoeijmakers, presented the municipal experiments in the Netherlands, which are expected to start by late 2016 or early 2017 and involve at least 90 municipalities. Although there are around 300 municipalities in the Netherlands, the 90 that have already agreed to participate in the study represent more than 50% of the country’s population; thus, there seems to be a strong public support for these initiatives. In his talk, Sjir described the main worries that prompted the experiments: technology replacing jobs, and the complexity, conditionality and lack of freedom under the traditional social security system.
Jurgen De Wispelaere. Credit to: Luís Gaspar.
Amílcar Moreira and Pedro Teixeira presented more cautious views regarding basic income, although both were generally supportive. Amílcar warned that Portuguese social politics have historically been very conservative and favorable to the establishment of conditions on social security. Pedro presented a model for financing a basic income of 200 €/month, which he considers politically easier to implement than higher-valued BI proposals. He warned, however, that there would be a need to finance a BI through taxes other than labor (e.g., taxes on property, natural resources and pollution), since labor taxes are already imposing too much stress on the middle class.
The last keynote speaker of the day, Miguel Horta, presented his BI study, according to which higher redistributions occur with higher income inequality. In his model, which is self-balanced and budget neutral, a 50% tax on labor income can finance a 435 €/month BI in Portugal, with 25% of it given to children up to 18 years old. The current labor tax would be replaced, and a few social security programs would be rendered irrelevant, which would leave the fund for a BI only 2200 M € short. Miguel reasoned that this relatively small amount could be obtained from savings in health, security, very high pensions (caps), tightened fiscal collection on high incomes and reduced costs associated with bureaucracy.
After the last keynote address, the audience had time to interact with the speakers, and the political party representatives presented their views on BI. Among the political party representative, Ricardo Moreira of the left-wing party Bloco de Esquerda was the only to clearly oppose BI. Ricardo views BI as a right-wing tool to wipe out the welfare state.
Miguel Horta. Credit to: Luís Gaspar.
On the second day of the conference discussion continued at the FCSH university campus, with authors André Barata and Renato Carmo presenting their arguments for BI. Renato suggested that an exclusively national attempt to implement BI is too difficult, however, and instead recommended an approach like that proposed by Van Parijs, who calls for an European dividend. José Neves also defended BI, while cautioning activists to avoid purely cost/benefit logic, as if BI were a simple matter of arithmetic. He also called for a wider trust network in society, which comes when one considers every member of society as potentially creative and productive. Mariana Duarte Silva, an arts and co-work manager in Lisboa, also presented her arguments for BI, focusing on its universal nature, although admitted that she learned of the concept only when she was invited to this conference. Another newcomer to the BI discussion was workers’ and women’s activist Lina Lopes, from the union UGT, who found the concept interesting and promising. Lina suggested that BI could start out as a distribution to caretakers (the majority of which are women).
José Augusto Oliveira, representing the workers union CGTP, presented an opposing view of BI. Like Ricardo Moreira, José Augusto adheres to a full-employment ideal and believes that BI would effectively subsidize sloth. António Dores used his speaking opportunity to challenge the way in which social NGOs are managed at present: hostage to conditional financing schemes, which end up wrapped in dubious financial practices if not blatant corruption. Dores also denounced the precarious work conditions within these NGOs, concluding that BI would revitalize NGOs and provide dignity to a host of volunteers who participate in these organizations.
João José Fernandes, CEO of the Portuguese NGO Oikos, delivered an interesting and timely presentation on food (in)security, the main reason the national health service in Portugal is presently under tremendous stress. It turns out, according to Fernandes, that food intake problems are correlated with unemployment, most notably with insufficient income. This trend is aggravated by low levels of education. Fernandes pointed out that, for an average Portuguese adult, the minimum income for maintaining a healthy diet is around 200 €/month. He argued that any BI proposal must take this into account, and that the amount of the basic income must be adequate to cover a healthy diet, in addition to other basic necessities.
Three final presentations were given by Glória Fonseca, from Movimento de Trabalhadores Cristãos (Christian Workers Movement), robotics specialist and BI activist Dario Figueira, and Jurgen De Wispelaere. Glória focused on the natural link between Christian values and BI. Dario reviewed BI pilot studies worldwide, presenting their main results. Finally, Jurgen spoke on political feasibility and challenges; he surveyed the political obstacles to BI implementation, and recommending caution and clear-sightedness at every step of the way.
Throughout the entire conference, the audience was very active in questioning the authors and speakers, generating a healthy and useful debate about many facets of BI. The event was closely covered by the media, who interviewed for SIC Notícias TV André Silva from PAN and some of the main speakers for publication in newspapers and magazines. (See the list of publications below.)
Conference room at Portuguese Parliament. Credit to: Luís Gaspar.
More information at:
Language: Portuguese
Sofia Rodrigues, “PAN vai propor estudo sobre atribuição do Rendimento Básico Incondicional [PAN is proposing a study on Basic Income]“, Público online, 15th February, 2016
Sábado Magazine, Entrevista a Jurgen De Wispelaere [Interview with Jurgen De Wispelaere], 18th February, 2016
Paulo Chitas, “Especialista defende que o rendimento básico não promove a inatividade [Specialist defends that the Basic Income does not promote inactivity]“, Visão Magazine online, 15th February, 2016
Maria João Lopes, “E se tivéssemos direito a um rendimento só por nascermos [What if we were entitled to an income just for being born?]“, Público online, 15th February, 2016 (interview with Jorge Silva)
Maria João Lopes, “Com um RBI, há mais liberdade para ter um trabalho, remunerado ou não [With a Basic Income there is greater freedom to work, getting paid or not]“, Público online, 15th February, 2016 (interview with Roberto Merrill)
Movimento Rendimento Básico – Portugal website.
Political party PAN – political priorities.
by Sandro Gobetti | Feb 11, 2016 | News
Ten thousand signatures in 120 days: this is the goal of the campaign for the guaranteed minimum income that draws on a wide network of social forces intended to reach those in the Italian region Campania. The maximum amount of money being petitioned for is 7,000 euro per year, equivalent to 583 euro per month. Among the requirements the petition calls for are criteria of age, residence in Campania at least one year, registration of unemployment, and a personal income tax statement of less than 7500 euro.
For more details, or to sign the peition, see the campaign website at: www.redditominimocampania.org
Source: Comitato Reddito, Campagna per il reddito minimo garantito in Campania. Il Manifesto. 11 November 2015
by Scott Santens | Feb 5, 2016 | Opinion
If you’re new to my writing, you may not yet know that I have a crowdfunded basic income through Patreon. Beginning my campaign for $1,000 per month in late 2014, I reached that goal at the end of 2015, and so this year, at the beginning of every month, I will start the month with $1,000 per month, guaranteed, through the patronage of around 150 supporters on Patreon who incredibly make it possible.
So, what’s it like to have a basic income? How are things different? What is there to learn? I intend to publish an ongoing series of these observations, made through the eyes of a life being lived with basic income. This is the first entry in my “Basic Income Observations Log,” and it’s about the first thing I learned so far, which was last year, when I was actually only a few months into my campaign: security.
Security is one of those words that we all know, but I think few of us fully understand, because I for one didn’t understand it the way I do now until I actually experienced it in a new way. Here’s the thing. We all have a minimum basic income guarantee right now. It is a guarantee of $0. No one is guaranteed anything more than nothing. So we all know what insecurity feels like. We can get a job and reduce that feeling of insecurity, but even when we get a job, that feeling of insecurity is still there. At any moment, we could get fired. At any moment, our employer could go out of business, or downsize, or outsource. Any number of things could happen that could result in our incomes falling back down to a minimum of $0. That possibility is omnipresent.
Oh sure, we’ve developed some things we like to call “safety nets” here in the US, where if you have a job and something happens, maybe you’ll get disability money if you’re able to fill out the forms and pass the tests, of which many who are disabled don’t, so don’t count on that. Maybe you can get unemployment money, if you fill out the right forms and pass the tests, of which many who are unemployed don’t. And if you do get it, that is temporary, so don’t count on that for too long. Maybe you can get Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare), or Supplementary Nutrition Assistance (food stamps), if you fill out the right forms and pass the tests, of which many who are in need don’t. And if you do get it, these both too are temporary and also insufficient, so don’t count on them for too long either, or at all for that matter given how small they are, and who’s making the decisions.
So yeah, basically, don’t count on our safety nets for a feeling of security, because that’s not what they are there for. There is one program intended for actual security, and it’s called Social Security. The way it’s calculated is a little messed up, where what you get for the rest of your life all depends not only on how much you earned up till qualifying, but on how long you can wait to start receiving it. But once you’re on it, it is a source of income you can count on as an American, until the day you die. And unlike the way other programs work, you are allowed to earn anything you want on top of it, without losing your monthly Social Security checks. Essentially, we already have basic income in the US, it’s just means-tested based on age, and the amount varies based on lifetime earnings. But for a significant number of Americans, seniors, they actually do know what it’s like to be able to count on a monthly minimum income guarantee that is greater than $0. In fact, for many it is close to $1,000 per month.
So what have I learned so far as a non-senior with basic income security?
Observation One
As a 38-year-old American who is experiencing a minimum income guarantee of $1,000 per month decades before I’m “supposed to”, I can tell you that income security is a big deal. It’s a bigger deal than I think anyone without it fully realizes. And the thing is, it doesn’t even need to be above the poverty level to feel. It just needs to be greater than $0, and basically enough to afford not to starve. I felt more secure earning only $250 per month, because that amount is enough to afford groceries, or pay half my rent. Believe me, it’s a load off your mind to know there is a smaller gap you need to cover through paid labor to meet your most basic needs. Starting every month with a minimum of $250 is definitely better than starting every month with $0. It is not nothing. It is a small amount, and not what I’d call a basic income, but it provides a feeling of increased security, and that feeling is not small at all.
Since having achieved my $1,000 per month new minimum income floor, I have to say, there is definitely a difference between $1,000 and $500 and $250, but learning that something as seemingly insufficient as $250 still made a difference in my feeling greater security, I consider a notable lesson I’ve learned thus far. And I think it’s something people discount when they worry that $1,000 per month may be too low of an amount, or that anything lower than that amount would be pointless.
Observation Two
There’s another lesson I’ve learned as well in regards to security, that was an entirely unexpected lesson in how what I have is both like and unlike basic income.
What I have is like a basic income, in that I can count on it at the beginning of every month regardless of paid work, and its size is sufficient to lift me above the federal poverty line, but it is unlike a basic income in that it relies on about 150 people as I write this, whereas a basic income would be a legal right backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Say what you want about that, but it doesn’t change that such backing is considered the most secure in the world. So unlike a government-backed basic income, it is possible for me to lose my crowdfunded basic income, if everyone stops being a patron. However, that same reason is why I feel more security than anyone with a normal paycheck, and I consider this a very interesting observation.
For anyone with a normal job, they can be fired by one person. As a result, their income can fall from $1,000/mo to $0/mo. For me, I would have to be “fired” by 150 people to fall from $1,000/mo to $0/mo. If “fired” by one person, I can fall from $1,000/mo to $990/mo. It is this decentralization of income that creates for me a greater sense of security that is far greater than a standard full-time job situation, but still less than the security a US government provided basic income would provide.
It is this observation that prompted me to create a new milestone on Patreon, where my new goal is not to gain a larger income, (anything over $1,000 will still be pledged to others making the same pledge) but to instead create a more widely distributed income floor. If I were to reach the point of being supported by 1,000 patrons, then I think that would provide a sense of security much closer to that of a true basic income. For if I have 1,000 people all pledging $1/mo, then the loss of 1 person is $1, not like now, where the loss of one person could immediately drop me back down to $900/mo. I now think creating a greater sense of security is key to better duplicating the effects of a basic income, so that’s my new goal on Patreon – greater security.
Observation Three
One other observation I’ve made in regards to security is the effect it has on family. When you are part of a household, increased security of one spills over onto other members of the household. Because I have a basic income, my girlfriend even feels greater security. She has a great job, and she loves it, but again, a job can always be lost, so she worries about what can happen if that were to happen. That’s natural. We all worry about what can happen, however unlikely. But now because I have a basic income, even though she doesn’t, the worst case scenario isn’t as scary. It’s a notable reduction of stress. And therefore, the security of a basic income has household-spanning effects. I would argue there’s even evidence for this, thanks to $4,000 per year casino dividends in North Carolina that resulted in incredible outcomes for the kids.
They know, based on the interviews with parents, that the relationship between spouses tended to improve as a result. They also know that the relationship between the parents and their children tended to improve. And they know that parents tended to drink less alcohol. “There is a lot of literature that shows in order to change outcomes among children you are best off treating the parents first,” said Simeonova. “And these are really clear changes in the parents.” There’s also the question of stress, which the extra money helps relieve—even if only a little. While the added income wasn’t enough to allow parents to quit their jobs, it’s a base level that helped with rent and food and other basic expenses. That, Akee said, is powerful enough itself. “We know that the thing poor couples fight about the most is money,” he said. “Off the bat, this means a more harmonious family environment.”
Definitely read the full article in the Washington Post, but the takeaway is that the stress in households, that exists largely due to a lack of income security, has profoundly negative effects, and when that stress is reduced through greater income security, it has profoundly positive effects, especially on young children.
Basically, a feeling of security is hugely important, and most of us are so used to not having any, that we entirely underestimate the transformative effects that basic income will have on any society that adopts it as policy.
Guaranteeing a minimum amount of income security for every member of a society, through a universal basic income sufficient to meet basic needs, will create the conditions for a society to truly flourish. Of that, I have no doubt. And it will be in large part, due to the mass achievement of one word – security.
by Marc de Basquiat | Feb 1, 2016 | Opinion
Multiple surveys across many countries show an increasing support for the idea of providing every citizen with a monthly lump-sum allowance to ensure everyone can meet their basic subsistence needs. In France, the IFOP (a leading French national market research institute) has shown that this support goes beyond political orientation divisions. From the question: “Are you in favour of implementing a guaranteed basic income for all citizens which would replace most existing allowances?” came a positive answer, depending on the degree of support for one party or another, from 72% to 79% for left wing sympathizers and from 50% to 54% for right wing sympathizers.
However, what would an unconditional basic income in France look like in concrete terms?
The Finland experiment
Since the election in April of the Finnish pro-basic income coalition, the topic has given rise to renewed international interest. All started when the Prime Minister of Finland Juha Sipilä announced the launch of a series of pilots, the most important being a “universal basic income” [1], in order to reform the social security system in response to the evolution of the labour market. This will also allow the evaluation of how to reinforce autonomy and incentives to work, as well as reducing bureaucracy and the complexity inherent in accessing social assistance.
The lead role in this project has been given to professor Olli Kangas (KELA) who has outlined the following schedule[2]: preparation phase from December 5th, 2015 to November 15th, 2016; two-year experimentation starting in 2017; evaluation in 2019.
Olli Kangas explained that the work group will evaluate at least four options:
- a “full basic income” (~800 €) replacing almost all basic and insurance-based benefits;
- a “partial basic income” (~550 €) replacing all basic benefits but leaving intact almost all insurance-based benefits;
- a negative income tax in which benefits would phase out as people earn more money;
- miscellaneous other approaches including a universal income and additional components.
Everyone who has recognised the need for major reforms of our social protection mechanisms perceives the announcement of the Finish pilot as an opportunity. However, we need to give time to our Finnish friends for their project to mature.
Which options are possible in France?
The Association for the Introduction of an Existence Income (AIRE) has been working on these questions since 1989, gathering studies and proposals from numerous experts, philosophers, economists, sociologists, politicians, etc. The French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB) created in 2013 involves activists from a wide variety of backgrounds, leading actions through the country and enriching proposals by bringing together citizen experiences from the grass-roots[3].
Despite apparent simplicity, an unconditional basic income would require a series of structural choices. Precise adjustment of the parameters would need to be made in order to ensure it performs optimally in terms of justice and efficiency. Considering the vast number of options, it would be fallacious to believe that there is an ideal solution. Actually several options that must be weighted by parliamentary and experts in order to create a consensus that is adapted to the reality of our country.
Our experience leads us to recommend a universal income that would vary based on the beneficiary’s age. In particular the case for children should be processed separately, which means organizing an in-depth discussion about the French family assistance policy. This means replacing all or part of the actual eight allowances[4] by a lump-sum for each child. A key stake is to eliminate the high variability of the State grants according to the child’s rank within the family, the matrimonial status of the parents or the parent’s income (knowing that a single child of a middle-income level couple currently receives a remarkably low grant). The potential variation of the universal income amount according to child age (3, 14, 18 year old thresholds) must also be further investigated.
Similarly a discussion is needed regarding senior citizens. The question of incentive to work disappears with the elderly, but the dependency issue arises. Do we need to define a higher amount above 65 years old? How should the matrimonial life conditions be integrated? The ASPA[5] level (800 € for a single person, 1242 € for a couple) gives an indication but not a clear answer on the solution to be implemented.
The coordination with housing allowances constitutes a third theme to be carefully analysed. Acknowledging the inflationary effect of housing allowances (APL) on the rental market price, some politicians and economists[6] are investigating the potential effects of merging the APL and the RSA[7]. As the AIRE association is attached to the Tinbergen rule[8], we are highly reluctant to support this proposal, but the underlying issues must nonetheless be addressed. In any case, it is important to revisit conditionality links between several allowances and the housing grant, in particular the existence of a problematic “housing lump-sum” component within the RSA.
The last framing issue is to define the scope of beneficiaries for a “universal income”. Despite this designation, it is necessary to limit eligibility to a national community. This needs to be defined in terms of residence and/or nationality, probably through continuity of the rules applying today for the RSA beneficiaries. However, this still creates a variety of fundamental questions, for example the potential right to the universal income for prisoners or asylum seekers (currently receiving the ATA[9]).
Three scenarios for a universal basic income for “active age” adults
Similarly to the Finnish approach, we identify three quite different scenarios to defining a universal basic income that would be paid to any adult in France.
- Baseline: extend the distribution of the “RSA single person allowance” to the whole country population (excluding the housing lump-sum component), being 470 € by month in 2016, financed by a flat tax system replacing several current basic social and family allowances as well as tax mechanisms.
- Maximised: distribute equally to the whole population the entirety of the social protection budget, including pensions and unemployment benefit. This would mean about 800 € per month.
- Dynamic: delete all employment incentives to companies and allowing a massive flexibility improvement in terms of minimum salary, in order to finance a basic income ranging between 500 € and 550 € by month. This would also replace a major part of the social and tax mechanisms but leave intact all insurance-based benefits.
The financial feasibility of scenario A is proven and it does not lead to a large upheaval of the redistribution operating in France. It allows a massive simplification of the social and tax systems, facilitating the daily life of the population and reducing operational costs. This scenario, like the following ones, eliminates many inconsistencies, iniquities, and numerous more-or-less known perverse effects. In terms of microeconomic analysis, it implies a massive evolution neither by an income effect nor by a substitution effect, unlike the other scenarios. However, when it comes to tax in france for non residents, one may have to pay tax on income that comes from French sources. In other words, if you work for a French company, even if you do not reside permanently in France, the income you earn will be taxed.
Scenario B designates the losers: those who contributed all along with their life for pensions and unemployment benefits and who would be left without those related benefits. Neither the AIRE nor the MFRB association support this scenario. Such an approach – if it proves to be meaningful – could be considered only through a very long migration phase from one system to another. This would need to be built cautiously, with the implication of the labor unions. Besides, the high level of the benefit leads to a high income effect, many people being possibly satisfied by this amount without seeking a complementary paid activity. The substitution effect contributes on the same way, due to the high level of contribution necessary to finance it.
Scenario C is probably the most audacious challenge, by lightening massively legal constrains framing the labour market, leaving it up to individual and collective negotiations. Citizens with better secured economic status are then on a better position to decide whether to accept or not professional opportunity offers, or to create their own activity by minimising their personal and family risks. The micro-economic analysis is more ambiguous, the income effect being stronger than in scenario A and on the contrary the substitution effect encouraging the activity thanks to a higher flexibility of the labour market.
Of course, the consensus that will emerge from a parliamentary work gathering representatives of all parties and the support of experts from diverse fields could finally be a combination of those three scenarios with potential integration of others approaches. In any case, no option presented in this note should be excluded without in-depth investigation.
Special thanks to Xuan-Mai Kempf for translating the text from French.
ENDNOTES
[1] https://www.kela.fi/web/en/press-releases/-/asset_publisher/LgL2IQBbkg98/content/universal-basic-income-options-to-be-weighed?_101_INSTANCE_LgL2IQBbkg98_redirect=%2Fweb%2Fen%2Fpress-releases
[2] https://www.vox.com/2015/12/8/9872554/finland-basic-income-experiment
[3] Some discussion papers from the field can be tough however well documented. For instance, in order to rebel against the home control by the family assistance administration: https://www.lesenrages.antifa-net.fr/la-caf-contre-les-femmes/
[4] Family allowances, premium for age, family complement for 3 children, basic allowance for child under three, school yearly allowance, RSA increase for each child, income tax reduction according to the number of children, tax reduction for child schooling.
[5] Solidarity allowance for elderly persons.
[6] Cf. the « Unique social allowance » of François Fillon or the IPP report: https://www.ipp.eu/publication/juin-2015-reformer-les-aides-personnelles-au-logement/
[7] RSA: Revenu de Solidarité Active, is the main French allowance providing a minimum guaranteed revenue.
[8] Based on the name of the first Nobel Prize for Economics winner, Jan Tinbergen, a supporter of an unconditional basic income, who stipulated that for each policy objective, one policy instrument is needed, and one only.
[9] Allocation Temporaire d’Attente.
