The International Labour Organisation’s analysis of social transfers worldwide augurs well for a Citizen’s Income in the context of middle and low-income countries

by | Jun 9, 2011 | News

To support its campaign on the global extension of social security, in 2008 the International Labour Organisation (ILO) undertook a study of 126 research reports on tax-financed social transfer programmes (STs) operating worldwide. 62 programmes from 30 developing countries were analysed. These STs reach between 300 and 350 million beneficiaries – children, working adults, and elderly people – and represent a considerable proportion of the world’s poor. The results are available through the ILO’s online Matrix on the effects of social transfers (2009). 3 STs have emerged as a core component of poverty reduction strategies supported by international organisations such as the World Bank and a number of UN institutions. Thus their impact merits considerable interest.

This article outlines the current knowledge on the effects of STs in a way relevant to those interested in Citizen’s Income (CI). STs are not unlike CIs. They are non-contributory and tax-financed, and a considerable number of STs are unconditional and universal (across certain groups). The ILO study shows positive impacts of STs on a range of areas of human existence. The study therefore enables us to predict the kinds of effects that a CI could deliver in low and middle income countries.

The findings of the ILO matrix on social transfers

The ILO’s matrix was developed to support decision-making within ministries of planning and finance, mainly in developing countries. By ordering the unintended and intended effects of tax-financed STs in developing countries in relation to human development goals and the anti-poverty agenda, the matrix helps to inform national policy makers about the outcomes that could be realistically expected from STs and to guide investment in social security systems. Likewise, all those interested in CI might utilise the findings of the matrix to guide their arguments on the CI proposal.

Results

The table below gives an overview of the impacts of the STs. In the columns, the impact of STs in the specific sub-dimensions are documented. Programmes had a generally positive effect, 4 evidenced by the significantly higher scores in the ‘clear positive effect’ column for all but five of the sub-dimensions. Those sub-dimensions where the overall positive impact cannot be discerned are in grey text.

The conclusion of this article is that a majority of the social transfers studied clearly generate a range of positive effects in terms of enhancing human development, supporting the full utilisation of productive capacity, enhancing and stabilising consumption, and facilitating social cohesion and inclusion.

TABLE: Summary of the ILO matrix: Effect of social transfers

Impact dimension and sub-dimensions Number of programmes Total
with a clear positive effect with a clear negative effect with no evidence of effect where effect is unclear
1. Enhancing human development
Adult preventative health
Child labour
Child preventative health
Drop out rates
Educational attainment
Maternal preventative health
Reduction in the worst forms of child labour
School attendance
School enrolment		 1
6
7
4
9
3
1
12
13		 –
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–		 –
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–		 1
2
–
1
1
–
–
–
–		 2
10
7
5
10
3
1
12
13
2. Supporting the full utilisation of productive capacity
Employability
Employment creation
Reduction of informality
Participation in the labour market
Productive activities		 1
4
–
5
15		 –
–
1
2
–		 1
1
–
–
–		 2
2
–
2
–		 4
7
1
9
15
3. Enhancing and stabilising consumption
Food expenditure
Income inequality
Income level and stimulation of consumption
Income stability and consumption smoothing
Long-term effects on income and consumption
Nutritional level
Satiation		 4
4
20
5
5
10
3		 –
–
–
–
–
–
–		 –
2
1
–
1
2
–		 –
–
3
–
–
–
–		 4
6
24
5
6
12
3
4. Facilitating social cohesion and inclusion
Empowerment
Intra-household relations
Social capital and solidarity		 14
4
4		 –
–
3		 1
–
–		 2
1
–		 17
5
7

This study shows that STs exhibit positive impacts on poverty, health and nutrition, the social status of recipients (notably women), economic activity and entrepreneurial small scale investments (notably in agriculture), and have avoided significant adverse effects on labour market participation of the poor populations which they serve. The studies also show that many families used part of the cash transfer to invest in small-scale agricultural activities, including the purchase of livestock. However, in the areas of adult preventative health, reduction in the worst forms of child labour, employability, reduction of labour market informality, and social capital and solidarity, the effect of STs is less obvious, either because there is no actual effect or because of limited research on the subject.

In light of these results, we can deduce that a CI could deliver similar effects in some instances. Consequently, the results can be used to support some aspects of the CI proposal. However, before the repercussions for a CI are discussed in detail, we need to explore a number of important caveats and knowledge gaps.

Methodological caveats and knowledge gaps

  1. The programme evaluations covered by this study do not represent an exhaustive list. Rather, the study covers those programmes that were easily accessible online and were Anglophone and to a lesser extent in Portuguese.
  2. There are problems in finding original sources online. In light of this, the study cannot be considered to be comprehensive, though the studies used are probably representative and give a good overview.
  3. The findings in the table are the result of a subjective chain of interpretation open to human error.
  4. The matrix suffers from knowledge gaps. For example, little is known about the effects of STs on non-beneficiaries, and little is known about the macroeconomic impact of STs on economic growth and about how this affects general redistributive mechanisms (formal and informal).
  5. The evaluations privilege quantitative measures over qualitative ones. This is a concern because the qualitative effects of STs (i.e. social bonds, capabilities, and human empowerment) may have a lot more to say about people’s well-being than quantitative measures.

The analysis presented here can therefore only be considered as indicative of the effects of STs.

To what extent does the ILO study support the Citizen’s Income proposal?

Thus far this article has cautiously suggested that the findings in the ILO matrix study augur well for CI, by indicating that it too can be expected to deliver a number of similarly positive effects. However, the message perhaps ought to be a little more mixed and nuanced, because the table better supports unconditional and universal transfers for children and the elderly (a CI for the young and the old) than for working age adults. A significant number of the STs that focus on active population groups are conditional and targeted (based on behaviour and income/wealth) and therefore one might suppose that their effects will be related to their conditional and targeted mechanisms.

Conclusion 1: Effects of social transfers for children and elderly support the case for a Citizen’s Income:

The findings on the effects of STs on children and pensions suggest that a CI could have similarly positive effects. It is possible to make this conclusion because a significant number of the STs for these two vulnerable groups were unconditional or universal across these groups and are therefore similar to a CI. The social pensions evaluated were not based on previous activity or earnings and are therefore essentially a Citizen’s Pension. Similarly, the South African Child Support Grant, which is unconditional, has encouraged human capital formation of the young and their future earnings (Agüero et al, 2007, p. 19). We could expect a CI to do the same for children. The results of social pensions and a number of other unconditional transfers support the expectation that a CI could generate similarly positive social and micro-economic effects.

Conclusion 2: Effects of social transfers for the active population deliver a mixed message for a Citizen’s Income

Apart from the pilot CI in Namibia, there are no studies on the impact of a CI on active population groups, simply because, with the exception of the Alaskan Permanent Fund, there is no fully-fledged CI that actually covers active population groups. 5 Secondly, the STs analysed in the ILO study differ from a CI because they are conditional. 6 It is therefore difficult to maintain with any certainty that the effect of a CI would be the same as for conditional and targeted STs.

Having said that, the findings of the Namibian pilot scheme do permit us an insight into how the active population group might react. For instance, according to the evaluation of this pilot, productive capacity of the active population group rose and economic activity rose, especially among women. In addition, own account work saw the largest increase, and particularly the tending of vegetable plots and the building of latrines, both of which increased the community’s health. The pilot scheme also seemed to stimulate more micro-economic activity, with new shops opening. These findings are important as they provide evidence that a CI does not act as a disincentive in the labour market (see Basic Income Grant Coalition, 2009; Torry, 2009). This is of great significance, as the argument that a CI would act as a disincentive to productive activity tends to be one of the biggest concerns of policy makers and governments with regard to STs for the active population. Having said this, one must also be cautious about using the Namibian pilot scheme as absolutely conclusive evidence on the potential effect of a CI on the active population because of obvious limitations in terms of replicating an actual fully-fledged society-wide CI.

The key impediment to using the table to support CI revolves around whether it is the conditional nature of many of the STs that is pivotal in producing the positive results they have delivered. Does conditionality make the difference? If conditionality is not the overriding factor, then perhaps we can conclude that the unconditional and universal nature of a CI could deliver results similar to those documented in the ILO matrix. There is not space here to discuss this debate in full, but suffice to say that the precise role played by conditionality in delivering positive outcomes is not clear. As the author of this article and the ILO have argued elsewhere, it is problematic to argue that conditionality is pivotal in producing the outcomes generated by STs (see ILO, 2010a).

A similarly ambivalent conclusion on the role of conditionality is made by Gabel and Kamerman, who state that researchers have not been able to attribute with absolute certainty the causality between effect and the conditional mechanism, because of the difficulty in disentangling the effects of the policy from other elements (e.g., the state of the labour market) (2008, p.18). One suspects that the motivation for conditionality is to satisfy the ‘paternalist twitch’ of governments and policy makers (Standing, 2002: 208) and public thirst for satisfying the social ethic of reciprocity. There is therefore plenty of scope for arguing that a CI could deliver similar outcomes in the absence of conditionalities.

Closing remarks

It is not clear that conditionality is crucial in achieving certain human development goals or for producing the positive effects that have been identified in the ILO matrix, so the study can be used to support a CI, provided caveats and limitations accompany any such argument.

What the findings of the matrix definitely support are those conditional programmes which many see as precursors to a society-wide CI. For example: in Brazil, Senator Eduardo Suplicy, a key proponent of CI, has argued that the Bolsa Familia ST is a first step towards a CI (2006). This is because the behavioural demands synonymous with the receipt of cash from conditional STs are easier to sell to the public and political class than is a CI. The greater political acceptability synonymous with conditional 7 STs could help to cultivate a political and public culture more receptive to STs and, therefore, to a CI at a later stage.

Just as significant as the results of the matrix study are those of the pilot CI in Namibia which has demonstrated positive results similar to those documented in the ILO matrix table across an entire community, including the active population. Particularly significant are the positive effects on labour market participation and productive capacity. The linking of the matrix and the findings of the Namibian case study can bridge the ‘unknown’ empirical dimension in the ILO study; given that hitherto no society-wide CI has really existed. Combining the results of the table and the Namibian case study justifies the expectation that a CI could produce similar effects to STs for the active population.

However, the current preference amongst governments and major international institutions (e.g. the World Bank) seems to be shifting toward conditionality, and this poses some concerns for those proposing universal and unconditional cash transfers. The political prospects of a CI would be better if the trend were against conditionality.

In conclusion: The ILO matrix confirms what many have suspected, that STs have a number of positive micro-economic and social effects. The matrix also offers proponents of CI reasons to feel optimistic that it too could produce similarly positive results.

Disclaimer: The author conducted the original research for this project as a consultant for the International Labour Organization. However, the responsibility for opinions expressed in this paper rests solely with the author and dissemination does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Organization of the opinions expressed in it.

Notes

1. This paper was originally submitted at the 13th International Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network in Sao Paulo, Brazil, June 2010. I would like to thank Armando Barrientos, Florence Bonnet, Philippe Marcadent, Nadine Ndeberi and Luis Soares for their assistance, and the ILO’s Social Security Department for financing the original research that features in this paper.

2. The author currently works as the Financial Crisis Monitor for the International Social Security Association.

3. The author of this paper was a member of a team that carried out the research that constituted the content of the ILO matrix. The ILO matrix project was supervised by Philippe Marcadent. The data contained in the matrix is discussed more analytically in the new ILO book: Extending social security for all: a guide through challenges and options (2010a) and in an ILO working paper entitled: Effects of non-contributory social transfers in developing countries: A compendium (2010b).

4. For a more detailed description of the methodology employed to calculate the scoring system that features in the table please see: Orton, I. 2010. Reason to be cheerful: How ILO analysis of social transfers worldwide augurs well for a basic income. www.bien2010brasil.com

5. And this differs from the standard proposed version of a CI in that it is an annual dividend, therefore one wonders how far it can replicate the income smoothing nature of those STs that are paid monthly.

6. A similar discussion for the way many STs are targeted could also be made, but there is not space here.

7. The reason for this acceptability is that conditionality conforms to the social norm of ‘reciprocity’ whereby in social contract type relationship the recipient adjusts his or her behaviour in a way acceptable to the rest of society.

Bibliography

Agüero, J.; Carter, M.; Woolard, I. 2007. The impact of unconditional cash transfers on nutrition: The South African Child Support Grant. International Poverty Centre, Working Paper No 39.

www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0002780/Unconditional_CT_SA_IPC_39_Sept2007.pdf

Basic Income Grant Coalition. 2009. Basic income grant pilot project assessment report, April 2009. www.bignam.org/Publications/BIG_Assessment_report_08b.pdf

Gabel, S. & Kamerman, B. 2008. Do conditional cash transfers work? The experience of the U.S. and developing countries. Presented at RC19 Stockholm 2008, The Future of Social Citizenship: Politics, Institutions and Outcomes. www2.sofi.su.se/RC19/pdfpapers/Gatenio-Gabel_Kamerman_RC19_2008.pdf

ILO. 2009. Matrix on the effects of social transfers. www.socialsecurityextension.org/gimi/gess/ShowWiki.do?wid=59

ILO. 2010a. Extending social security to all: A guide through challenges and options. Geneva: ILO.

ILO. 2010b. Effects of non-contributory social transfers in developing countries: A compendium. Geneva: ILO.

Orton, I. 2010. Reasons to be cheerful: How ILO analysis of social transfers worldwide augurs well for a basic income. www.bien2010brasil.com

Standing, G. 2002. Beyond the new paternalism: Basic security as equality. London and New York, Verso.

Torry, M., 2009. ‘Can unconditional cash transfers work? They can’, Citizen’s Income Newsletter, 2009/1, pp.1-3
www.citizensincome.org/resources/newsletter%20issue%202%202009.shtml#Namibia

ITO, Makoto (2011), 'Verifying the Basic Income Concept: Its Potency and Extent'

by | May 18, 2011 | Research

ITO, Makoto (2011), ‘Verifying the Basic Income Concept: Its Potency and Extent’ (‘Basic Income-ron wo kensho-suru: sono kanosei to genkai’), in Sekai [The World], Vol. 814, March 2011, published by Iwanami Shoten.

Due to growing financial deterioration of the government and weakened family ties and company welfarism, “new poverty” (such as an increasing number of “working poor”, single mothers and the elderly with low or no pension, etc., unable to respond to with existing social security schemes) is spreading in Japan. Against this situation, the Basic Income (BI) vision is drawing increasing attention. The interest in it, as for now, stays mainly in the academic circles specializing in social security studies. Though, tomes and answer books on BI have been published one after another. Basic Income Japan Network (BIJN) was launched in April 2010.

The definition of BI by Van Parijs is commonly referred to in Japan, and BI variants including proposals of ones at the supranational level have been brought to the knowledge. The background of the rise of the BI vision in the West consists of the blank wall of social welfare schemes developed during the high economic growth after the World-War 2 and employment policies based on the Keynesianism as well as the disappointment and antipathy to socialism of the Soviet-type. Meanwhile, neo-liberalism aspiring revitalization of individual liberty in free market has swept through the society. Under the circumstance, BI with individual payment, no means test and no work condition aspiring liberation of individuals from bureaucratic control attracts even libertarians. On the other hand, thinkers aiming at revitalization of socialism, feminists, ecologists, and so on support BI combining their own ideal with BI. In Japan, however, being introduced to BI about two decades later from the West, it is conceived as only an alternative to existing social security schemes, and few people discuss it in the aspect of social reformation thinking. Marxists have little contribution to the BI discussions.

As for the feasibility of BI in Japan, Shuji Ozawa first estimated in 2002. He conceived of a BI scheme at the level of 80, 000 JPY per person a month taking the levels of existing money grant schemes into account relying on a new revenue from raised income tax rate at the level of 50 % (maximum rate at that time was 37 %). When it is applied to a standard household with two parents and two children, their net income will decrease by 940 thousand JPY per year. But if the household has one more child, the loss will be almost cancelled. He later redesigned his BI scheme (at the level of 50,000 JPY per person a month) maintaining ongoing tax rate and integrating pension schemes with the BI. In the days ahead, design and discussions of BI schemes are expected. In any case, they may be gradual introduction of partial BI schemes. The newly born administration of the Democratic Party of Japan introduced a child benefit scheme without income test alternating the similar scheme at a far lower level with income test in 2010. The monthly amount per child is 13,000 JPY, a half of the amount the party promised in their manifesto for the lower-house election the party won. In the continuing budgetary distress, however, the administration is now giving up doubling the amount for over four-year-old children and is even bringing back income test. Thus, the partial BI scheme at entry level is still halfway in Japan.

BI can be conveniently used by neo-liberalists to further increase irregular employment, restrain wage and alternate company welfarrism with government expenditures. Therefore, one should not be in an autotelic approach toward BI but in unity with worker/citizen campaigns demanding upraise of wage level, employment security and improvement of public care services, and one should emphasize that BI is to complement public functions of a social-democratic welfare state and promote BI pursuance as part of social movement to realize such state.

Ito Makoto is Emeritus Professor at the University of Tokyo, and a Member of the Japan Academy. The above summary  was written by Takeshi Suzuki.

WERNER, Götz W., GOEHLER, Adrienne (2010), 1.000 Euro für jeden: Freiheit. Gleichheit. Grundeinkommen.

by | May 18, 2011 | Research

WERNER, Götz W., GOEHLER, Adrienne (2010), 1.000 Euro für jeden: Freiheit. Gleichheit. Grundeinkommen, Berlin: Econ, 2010

In his new book Götz W. Werner, founder of the drugstore chain dm, together with Adrienne Goehler, former president of the Hamburg Art Academy and former culture senator of Berlin, describe radical social changes. Referring to American sociologist Jeremy Rifkin’s 1995 book The End of Work, the authors argue that the advance of globalisation, automation and rationalisation has led to a post-industrial society in which production can no longer serve as the basis of societal wealth. Economic growth, they assert, ‘is a dead duck’. Instead, Goehler and Werner urge to focus on creativity as the only remaining, sustainably exploitable resource of the twenty-first century. This is why they argue for a basic income: to tap into this resource of creativity, while avoiding the social unrest that will come with the shortage of constant, paid work, requires everyone to be accorded a level of material security. The authors describe the insecure working conditions of the ‘creative class’, surviving on short-term contracts and project work, as the future for a society that has given up on the goal of well-paid and meaningful work for everyone. According to Goehler and Werner, only a minority of people will earn their money in secure, long-term work, the rest will be left to the fate currently endured by the creative class, the “vanguard of precarious conditions”. Basic Income as a new model of state welfare distribution would replace the bureaucratic behavior-management regime of Hartz IV, based on the simple premise the state would pay everyone a basic income: €1000 for everyone, representing more than just a living wage and enabling people to participate in the cultural life of the society.

For further information:
https://www.ullsteinbuchverlage.de/econ/buch.php?id=16976&page=suche&auswahl=a&pagenum=1&page=buchaz&PHPSESSID=d87e75afe0fab634c220901665bc7520

BERLIN (DE), May 2011: Strategies towards an alternative society

by | May 1, 2011 | News

Academics, activists and practitioners will meet in Berlin in may to work on strategies towards an alternative, ecologically sustainable and socially equitable degrowth society. Not only will a lot of Basic Income supporters take part in the congress, but Netzwerk Grundeinkommen will present workshops as well. Already Barcelona’s 2010 declaration of degrowth dealt with Basic Income.

https://www.jenseits-des-wachstums.de/willkommen/?L=2, https://www.degrowth.eu/v1/index.php?id=119

Pro-BI book becomes best-seller in Germany

by | Apr 30, 2011 | News

1000 Euro for everyone. Freedom. Equality. Basic Income is the title of a new book (€1.000 für Jeden: Freiheit. Gleichheit. Grundeinkommen in the original) by Götz W. Werner and Adrienne Goehler, published in August 2010. According to the Amazon.de website it is currently in place No. 1,563 of all books being sold, but in the category ‘Social Justice’ it is No. 1. It is clearly of considerable significance to find so much interest in a Citizen’s Income in a European country.

An interesting review of this book appears in the January Review of Books in Sp!ked. The first half of the review is factual and informative and is reproduced below (with permission from Sp!ked. You can read the original dated Friday 28 January 2011 at www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/10136/ )

The idea that the state should give everyone a basic income has seized the imagination of Germany’s middle class and politicians.

by Johannes Richardt (head of PR and communications at Novo Argumente publishing house)

At the moment, more than €1 trillion flows into the more or less state-controlled German welfare complex every year. Representing one third of German GDP, this vast amount of money covers every social benefit, from child allowance to health insurance. If the economic stats were not striking enough, of the 80 million people living in Germany only 40 per cent earn a wage. So a large proportion of the population is dependent either partially or wholly upon the state.

But the German welfare state does not just provide a financial safety net. It also seeks to regulate the behaviour of benefits claimants through various forms of lifestyle intervention, such as dictating how much claimants should be allowed to spend on cigarettes. In this regard, the so-called Hartz IV legislation, passed in 2005 by the then ruling Green-Social Democrat coalition, is important. Named after its originator, Peter Hartz – then a social democratic trade unionist and manager of part state-owned Volkswagen before being imprisoned for embezzlement in 2007 – Hartz IV effectively revised the status of the unemployed. They were no longer citizens in need of assistance while out of work: they were deemed welfare dependent. They were no longer people fallen on hard times, but fully capable of getting back into work: they were psychologically dependent upon welfare and incapable of getting back into work.

Hartz IV not only produced a new form of state dependency; it also sought to prepare these damaged citizens for work. To this end, a new sector of senseless and unproductive labour for about 1.5 million of the unemployed benefits claimants was created (thus removing them from unemployment statistics). Under the pretext of empowering the unemployed by psychologically preparing them for the labour market, these benefits claimants are forced into absurd and degrading activities run by highly subsidised companies with Orwellian-sounding names like Neue Arbeit [New Work]. One example of this absurd work-for-work’s-sake philosophy is the Toys Company. In more than 60 factories around Germany, the formerly unemployed people work for an extra €1 per hour on top of their out-of-work benefits, recycling second-hand toys for poor children. One task is to check the completeness of second-hand puzzles. ‘The record for completing the 5000-piece puzzle is just 10 days’, explained Toys Company’s manager, ‘although unfortunately we found out that three pieces were missing’. Götz Werner and Adrienne Goehler refer to this example in their new book 1000 € für Jeden. Freiheit. Gleichheit. Grundeinkommen. (€1000 Each. Liberty. Equality. Basic Income.) They argue for a new model of state welfare distribution which would replace the bureaucratic, behaviour-management regime of Hartz IV with one based on a simple premise: the state would pay everyone a basic income.

At first sight their central idea of a basic income for everybody seems quite charming: Every citizen gets €1,000 from the state every month from cradle to grave. As Werner, the billionaire founder of a drugstore chain, and Goehler, president of the Hamburg Art Academy, note, €1000 represents more than just a living wage. They argue that it also enables people to participate in the cultural life of society.

Because this would be an amount that every person would be legally entitled to, there would be no more degrading means tests and interventions in the lives of benefits claimants. The welfare bureaucracy as Germans know it would be redundant: the unemployed would be freed from doing compulsory labour promoted by the state, and the rest of society would be freed from the imperative of wage labour provided by the market. Income would be separated from work. As one would not need to sell one’s labour in order to guarantee an income, the authors argue, people could choose their line of work, for whom they want to work and for how long. This would lead to a new society in which self-realisation, creativity and compassion replace the existential fears created by the current rat race.

The German political class is partially sympathetic to the idea of a basic income. Hence, with the exception of the Social Democratic Party (plus trade unions), all parties represented in parliament have been discussing various models of basic income at some point in the past few years. For instance, in its party programme, the liberal Free Democratic Party calls for a Bürgergeld (Citizen’s Income), an amount paid out whenever necessary but low enough to maintain the incentive to work. Elsewhere, the Greens call for a Bedarfsorientiere Grundsicherung (needs-based basic provision), and even within the conservative Christian Democrat Party there is support for a Solidiarisches Bürgergeld (solidarity citizen’s income).

… Support for the idea [also] comes from the German middle class. Campaign groups with names like ‘Freedom Instead of Full Employment’ and ‘Federal Agency of Income’ have emerged, advertising their ideas on various websites, in films and at events and demonstrations. It is important to note that support for a basic income does not come from unemployed and poorly educated low-wage employees. It comes from privileged and educated young professionals with middle-class backgrounds who, working in poorly-paid, insecure positions in the media and cultural sector, hope for an unconditional basic income to make their lives that little bit more secure. This is no struggle for abundance for all. For these metropolitan types, a basic income promises security, opportunities for self-realisation and psychological well-being.

It is to the fears and prejudices of this post-material milieu that the book €1000 Each speaks. In this way, the book exemplifies the rampant social pessimism so prominent in contemporary Western societies. The authors describe the insecure working conditions of the ‘creative class’, surviving on short-term contracts and project work, as the future for a society that has given up on the goal of well-paid and meaningful work for everyone. According to the authors, only a minority of people will earn their money in secure, long-term work. The rest of us will be left to the fate currently endured by the creative class, the ‘vanguard of precarious conditions’.

Referring to American sociologist Jeremy Rifkin’s 1995 book The End of Work, Werner and Goehler argue that the advance of globalisation, automation and rationalisation has led to a post-industrial society in which production can no longer serve as the basis of societal wealth. Economic growth, they assert, ‘is a dead duck’. Instead, Werner and Goehler urge us to focus on creativity as ‘the only remaining, sustainably exploitable resource of the twenty-first century’. This is why they argue for a basic income. Because to tap into this resource of creativity, while avoiding the social unrest that will come with the shortage of constant, paid work, requires everyone to be accorded a level of material security.

This is where the first half of the review ends. The second half of the review is highly critical of the whole idea of a Citizen’s Income: ‘Basic income, low aspiration: The idea that the state should give everyone a basic income has seized the imagination of Germany’s middle class and politicians. Their enthusiasm is testament only to the poverty of their ambition’ is the full title of the review. In the next issue of the Citizen’s Income Newsletter these anti-CI views will be reproduced and critically examined.