by Andre Coelho | Mar 20, 2016 | News
Jenna van Draanen. Credit to: The Big Picture.
The Big Picture, the American political news show hosted by Thom Hatmann, has taken an interest in basic income. That interest was spurred by the situation in Canada, where new tests of basic income are being planned, and materialized in inviting Jenna Van Draanen, secretary from the board of directors of Basic Income Canada Network, to the program. The conversation starts with a general description of the Ontario’s recent proposal of a basic income trial, passing through a rough comparison with the Alaska Permanent Fund. Jenna underscores basic income’s potential advantages, such as simplicity, debureaucratization, freedom of choice, empowerment (especially for the poor) and savings in social programs.
More information at:
The Big Picture, “Universal Basic Income has begun” – interview with Jenna Van Draanen
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 Stanislas Jourdan | Jan 26, 2016 | News
Basic income continues to make headway in France after the Minister of Economy and the Minister for Digital Affairs sent positive messages about it.
Interviewed in the popular radio and TV show Bourdin Direct, Emmanuel Macron, the French Minister for Economy, said he believed in the principles behind basic income and thought the topic deserved to be investigated further:
“Basic income is an interesting idea. The debate shouldn’t only be about being pro or against, but I think it’s an idea we should investigate further. Why? Because it means giving the possibility to everyone to have a starting point in life. This is the idea of basic income. There is also the idea of having a basic capital [a one-off payment given to everyone] for all persons of a certain age.”
He went on:
“Ultimately, it refers to what philosophy we have of our society. Personally I believe in freedom, I believe in openness (…) I think the role of the state is to recreate conditions of equality at every moment in one’s life: at school, when starting one’s professional life, and when life accidents occur, through social standards and social benefits and education policy for unemployed persons (…). But I don’t believe in egalitarianism, rather I believe in equal opportunities; and the idea of basic income or basic capital for all goes in this direction and I’m interested in this.”
The interview was broadcasted live on January 20, you can listen to the extract about basic income below:
“Basic income is following the natural course of history”
The night before however, the French National Assembly had rejected several amendments calling on the government to carry out a comprehensive study on basic income to assess its feasibility and explore different ways to implement it.
The amendments were championed by Socialist MP Delphine Batho and her Republican colleague Frédéric Lefebvre in the context of a current bill on so-called ‘Digital Republic’, and were meant as a follow-up of the release of an important report on the transformations of work in the digital era.
The night just before the French National Assembly rejected the amendments by only one vote. However Luc Belot, rapporteur of the bill, and Axelle Lemaire, Minister for Digital Affairs, said they were open to the idea.
“The idea is very seductive and could find consensus across all political parties – as long as we don’t go into the details” said the Minister. “In reality this sort of unique safety floor could lead to removing many benefits such as student grants, family and housing benefits and others. On the other hand, one may also consider the possibility that basic income could complement other social benefit schemes. The debate is infinite. You are right to raise this question, and to do that today. In fact, this subject is definitely following the natural course of history.”
However, both the Minister and rapporteur called on the MPs to reject the amendments on the ground that the topic fell outside of the focus of the bill being discussed. They invited MPs to include basic income into the work of another parliamentary working commission led by Christophe Sirugue, which has been tasked to produce a comprehensive review of the welfare system.
The French Movement for Basic income (MFRB) has been asked to contribute to the commission’s work. “We are currently working on providing concrete proposals to pave the way towards basic income” said researcher and MFRB member Jean-Éric Hyafil.
Credit picture CC École Polytechnique
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jan 25, 2016 | Opinion
Anthony Painter and Chris Thoung, Creative Citizen, Creative State – The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income. Report published by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), December 2015.
This report from the RSA is a most welcome addition to the recent flurry of publications and media interest in Citizen’s Income. It outlines a context – technological change – resulting in
underemployment, unemployment or the need to transition careers with some frequency for many. A Basic Income could provide a foundation to smooth working-life transition; (p. 5)
and an ageing population, requiring more people to spend time on caring for others.
The report notes the growing Citizen’s Income movement; studies a variety of other reform proposals (and particularly a Participation Income and an enhanced contributory system); and argues that polling data that shows that the British public regards ‘making work pay’ as far more important than tackling poverty and inequality provides a powerful argument for Citizen’s Income:
It is Basic Income and Basic Income alone that sends out absolutely clear yet non-coercive signals about the incentive to work. … Basic Income is a foundation for contribution. It incentivizes work but supports other forms of contribution too. In this regard, it is the system of income support that best rewards contribution – albeit contribution defined beyond narrow cash terms. (p. 14-15)
The report describes the UK’s current benefits system, notes that the sanctions regime will increasingly attack the self-employed and the employed once Universal Credit is rolled out, shows how Citizen’s Income would offer the ‘power to create’, and then sets four tests for the idea to pass:
- Does the system accord with a widespread set of moral precepts?
- Is it broadly fiscally achievable within the parameters of existing taxation and expenditure?
- Is it distributionally just when compared to the current system?
- Will greater individual (and civic) freedom and creativity be realized? (p. 18)
The particular scheme that the RSA evaluates in relation to the second and third criteria is based on the scheme published by the Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT) in 2012 but with a few minor variations – you can download the CIT proposal here.
A non-binding contract to encourage contributions to society will run alongside receipt of Citizen’s Income. The fact that it is non-binding, and the recipient’s failure to adhere to an agreed contract would not compromise their receipt of a Citizen’s Income, retains the scheme’s reciprocity – important for its ability to pass the first test – and retains it as one characterized by an initial act of generosity on the part of the state, rather than as one that expects a claimant to prove a contribution before the state reciprocates. There is, though, a danger with such a contract. It would be easy for a future government to make receipt of a Citizen’s Income dependent on adherence to a contract’s conditions, thus turning the Citizen’s Income into a Participation Income, so that it would no longer be a Citizen’s Income and would be loaded with administrative complexity and bureaucratic intrusion in people’s lives – precisely what is not required.
In relation to the levels of Citizen’s Income, the RSA scheme attempts to reduce the losses that poorer families with children might suffer at the point of implementation (which has been recognized as a problem in relation to the Citizen’s Income Trust 2012/13 scheme) by allocating a higher level of Citizen’s Income to the first child in a family, and possibly lower levels to the third and subsequent children. This compromises the definition of a Citizen’s Income, because that requires that every individual of the same age should receive a Citizen’s Income of the same amount: but this is a compromise in theory, and not a new compromise in practice, and so should not overly concern us. This is because in any Citizen’s Income scheme the children’s Citizen’s Income are paid to the main carer: so although in theory every working age adult (or adult over 25 years old, as in the RSA and CIT 2012/13 schemes) receives the same amount, in practice the main carer of children receives their own adult Citizen’s Income and the Citizen’s Incomes of their children. Because allocating different amounts to different children in a family will adjust a total amount paid to an adult that is already variable in relation to the number of the children in the family, no new compromise has in practice been generated. We might hope that if such a Citizen’s Income scheme were to be implemented, then eventually it might prove possible to reduce the compromise by bringing the Citizen’s Income levels allocated to different children nearer to or identical with equality: but as a transitional measure with some useful effects, the RSA’s approach has much to commend it.
A compromise that has nothing to commend it, though, relates to lone parents:
One group that could lose out in the transition to Basic Income in the RSA model are low income, lone parents with children over the age of five. … there may be scope for a transitionary measure whereby lone parents could continue to claim a Child Benefit top-up … introducing an element of household calculation. (p.31)
A lone parent addition would not satisfy the ‘unconditional’ requirement of a Citizen’s Income, and would result in precisely the kind of bureaucratic intrusion into people’s personal relationships that a Citizen’s Income is trying to get away from. If it is felt that lone parents need an additional payment, then an additional and separately administered payment should be made, so that the Citizen’s Income itself is not compromised. We are used to social policies that we can tinker with without destroying them. A Citizen’s Income is different. If we tinker with it, then we destroy it. This lesson has thankfully been learnt in relation to Child Benefit. In 2010 we were told that it would be means-tested. It has not been. Instead, an additional tax charge is imposed on high earning individuals living in households receiving Child Benefit. This is not sensible, because it has resulted in domestic disharmony and in the withdrawal of Child Benefit claims: but at least it does not destroy Child Benefit as a universal benefit. A similar approach could be employed in relation to lone parents in the context of a Citizen’s Income. The Citizen’s Income must never change; but an additional benefit could be established with its own conditionalities and administration.
When the report discusses some alternative Citizen’s Income schemes – such as scheme B in the recent Institute of Social and Economic Research paper, its use of the word ‘modified’ might be somewhat confusing. Scheme B is not a ‘modified’ Citizen’s Income, or a ‘modified’ Citizen’s Income scheme. The Citizen’s Income is a genuine Citizen’s Income. It is simply that scheme B retains more means-tested benefits than some other schemes – it still takes a lot of households off means-tested benefits, or reduces their claims to such low levels that they are likely to come off them. We ought to avoid the use of the word ‘modified’. Either a proposal is for a Citizen’s Income, or it is not; and if it is, then the whole scheme, including changes to means-tested benefits, tax allowances, etc., is a Citizen’s Income scheme. Some schemes, such as scheme B, would be easier to implement than others, such as the RSA scheme. In many ways, the RSA scheme would be preferable to scheme B. So perhaps we ought to regard scheme B as a useful first step, and the RSA scheme as a useful second step.
The RSA report is a long, detailed, well researched, and most useful document, and no short review can do it justice. The minor caveats that I have listed above are precisely that: minor caveats, and areas for continuing research and debate. The RSA is to be highly congratulated on the research project that has led to the report, and on the report itself. There could be no better place to start the next phase of the Citizen’s Income debate than this report.
