by Citizens' Income Trust | Sep 17, 2015 | Opinion
Hartley Dean, Social Rights and Human Welfare, Routledge, 2015, xiv + 194 pp, 1 138 01310 0, hbk, £95, 1 138 01312 4, pbk, £32.99
Hartley Dean will soon be starting the process of retiring as Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics, and this book is a worthy summary of his lifelong involvement in social rights and human welfare, first as a welfare rights adviser in Brixton, and then as an academic.
The first chapter discusses the evolution and characteristics of social rights. The second summarizes much of the material in Dean’s 2010 Understanding Human Need, and, in the context of a discussion of inequality and poverty, understands social rights as the articulation of human need. The broad range of Dean’s treatment is particularly visible in chapter 3 on ethics and social rights, where he discusses a variety of ethical theories, categorizes rights-based perspectives, and asks that ‘welfare’ should again mean wellbeing. The fourth chapter deals with a variety of challenges to the idea of social rights, and particularly the neoliberal challenge, that social rights compromise property, civil, and political rights, and the post-structuralist challenge, that social rights imply state control.
The book turns from a more theoretical to a more practical treatment of social rights at chapter 5, on the meaning of, and prospect for, global social rights. Here the broad canvas reveals even more clearly the tension between rights founded on universal principles (‘doctrinal’ rights) and rights based on experienced and expressed needs (‘claimed’ rights). Chapter 6 examines rights to work and to subsistence, and some possible relationships between them: and in this context Dean discusses arguments both for and against universal benefits. Earlier in the book he had constructed a typology of competing perspectives – liberal, moral authoritarian, communitarian, and social democratic/democratic socialist – and probably rightly sees universal benefits as fitting most easily into the liberal and social democratic/democratic socialist understandings of social rights.
Chapter 7 tackles rights to shelter, education, health, and social care. Throughout the chapter we discover conflicting rights – for instance, between the rights of parents and/or children in relation to education), and also throughout this chapter we encounter the complex relationship between the right to satisfy needs (for health, knowledge, shelter, etc.) and the right to government services designed to satisfy those needs (healthcare, education, social housing, etc.). Chapter 8 discusses rights of redress – a civil right that assumes such social rights as legal aid.
The final part of the book is titled ‘rethinking social rights’. In the cause of alleviating global poverty, chapter 9 explores the complex relationship between social rights and social development; and chapter 10 returns to the understanding of social rights as the articulation of human need and as the social means for satisfying it. Dean challenges T. H. Marshall’s construction of history, in which civil and political rights preceded social rights, by suggesting that we were social beings before we were political or civic beings, so in practical terms there were social rights before there were ever civil or political rights; and he goes on to show how, in the future, social rights will be as much a global phenomenon as a national and local one, and that the international human rights framework will be a significant factor.
Writing an index is not an easy task, and no index is perfect: but perhaps one word that ought to have been in this index is ‘contested’. It is a major theme of the book that ideas are contested: that is, that different interest groups in society will create their own definitions, ideas and processes, in order to satisfy their own needs, and that these definitions, ideas and processes might severely compromise other groups’ abilities to meet their needs.
The concept of contestation is just one example of the breadth and the depth of the discussion. The depth of the treatment as a whole suggests that the book would serve well as the textbook for a module on social rights and human welfare, and its breadth suggests that it would be a useful resource for an entire master’s degree on the subject. A complex agenda is well handled, and it is impressive how both depth and breadth are achieved without loss to either.
While Hartley Dean will soon be retiring from his full-time post at the LSE, we hope that he will not be retiring from the kind of thoughtful engagement with the theory and practice of social rights and human welfare of which this book is persuasive evidence.
[This review was first published in the Citizen’s Income Newsletter, 2015, issue 3.]
by Citizens' Income Trust | Sep 4, 2015 | Opinion
This book is a study of the language that OECD countries use to describe social policies: language such as ‘welfare state’, ‘social security’, and ‘safety net’. Some of the chapters are about particular countries, and some tackle transnational governance levels (such as the EU and the OECD): some are more focused on language, and some more on the
policy characteristics expressed by the language. All are informative.
As the introduction suggests, language is political and context-specific, and so similar terms sometimes describe different policies, and similar policies sometimes have different names. Such terms as ‘welfare state’ are used in such a wide variety of ways that clarity is difficult to achieve. The authors employ a broad range of disciplines in order to study language within its national contexts, and also to study how it travels – as ‘workfare’ has done from the US to the UK. All of the chapters are interested in how social policy language has changed, and in the reasons for that change.
To take two examples:
Barbier’s chapter on the EU shows how the very notion of ‘social policy’ is problematic at the equally complex ‘EU level’; how the dominance of European English in social policy research has affected social policy debate in the EU; how ‘flexicurity’, ‘activation’, ‘workfare’ and ‘social investment’ have come to flourish as somewhat vague notions; and how social policy as formulated in English by an élite Brussels group cannot hope to capture the complexity of social policy across Europe.
In his chapter, Daniel Wincott charts the history of the ‘welfare state’ concept in the UK from its origins in 1928 in a publication by William Temple to its later use during the 1950s and 60s as a description of a developed set of social policies – but, as Wincott points out, the term was not employed as a description of those policies when they were developed and rolled out during and after the Second World War. His interesting conclusion is that ‘welfare state’ has functioned as a description of a golden age that never existed in order to express dissatisfaction with the ways in which social policy has been changing during the past fifty years.
The editors’ concluding chapter shows how influential the concepts of ‘welfare state’ and ‘social security’ have been; how transnational bodies have diffused such language, along with such modern terms as ‘flexicurity’; how earlier traditions (such as ‘deservingness’) continue to influence language; and how more straitened economic conditions since the 1970s have caused convergence of social policy language around such concepts as social investment and activation.
An interesting pair of words to follow through the book are ‘universal’ and ‘universalism’. In some places they mean an ideal state of affairs to which politicians aspire; in others (e.g., p.222) they represent a plan for genuinely universal provision; and in others (e.g. p.263) they express a service’s universal availability for anyone who possesses the need that the service is designed to satisfy. In this last sense the terms might have appeared in the context of the British National Health Service. Wincott does not discuss the current UK welfare state, but if he had then he might have said that Universal Credit is nothing like universal, and that only a Citizen’s Income would be universal in the way in which that word is normally understood.
This most interesting book has opened up some important social policy questions, and we hope to see them pursued further. Maybe a future edition might ask why so many different terms – Basic Income, Citizen’s Income, Universal Grant, etc. – have been used to describe an unconditional and nonwithdrawable benefit for every individual.
[This review was first published in the Citizen’s Income Newsletter, 2015, issue 3.]
by Karl Widerquist | Aug 31, 2015 | News, The Indepentarian
Alaska Dispatch News has released its estimate of Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PDF) for this year. The Alaska Dividend is the closest policy to a basic income in the world today. It has paid dividends to all Alaska residents since 1982. According to reporter Sean Doogan, the dividend is likely to be about $2,100. If so, the dividend would be technically the largest in the state’s history. The next largest amount ever paid as “the Permanent Fund Dividend” was slightly smaller, $2,069, in 2008. In that year, however, the state added $1,200 to each check as a rebate from the state’s budget surplus, making the total amount each resident received $3,269, considerably higher than any likely amount this year.
The Alaska Dividend amounts 1982-2014
The amount is large this year because the investment fund on which it is based is doing well. The amount paid each year depends on how many Alaskans apply and on a five-year average of returns to the fund. The fund has been making strong returns in recent years. It has recently reached a total value of $52.8 billion. Although the fund was created out of out revenues and is supplemented by them each year, the value of the fund and dividend is not dependent on current oil revenues, which have been declining sharply from both lower prices and fewer exports.
Sean Doogan, “Our estimate of this year’s PFD check: $2,100.” Alaska Dispatch News, August 22, 2015
Catie Quinn, “Permanent Fund Adds 4.9%.” KSRM Radio Group, August 20, 2015.
APFC, “The Permanent Fund Dividend.” The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation website.
Credit pciture: CC Teddy Llovet
by Toru Yamamori | Aug 15, 2015 | News
Paul Mason, the award-winning economics editor of Channel 4 News, argues in favour of a basic income in his new book entitled PostCapitalism: A guide to our future, published in 30th July 2015 by Allen Lane, London.
Neoliberalism is broken, Mason argues, and we have the chance to create a new global economy which he calls ‘Postcapitalism’. He gives three reasons why this is possible: information technology is reducing the need for work; the abundance of information goods is undermining the market-based pricing mechanism which relies on scarcity; collaborative production is rising.
A basic income play a key role in Mason’s argument for the transition from capitalism to post-capitalism. Implementing it could ‘socialize the costs of automation’ by formalizing ‘the separation of work and wages’, while subsidizing ‘the transition to a shorter working week, or day, or life’.
What makes Mason’s argument unique among the many other existing arguments for a basic income, is that a basic income will be possible only during the process of transition and will disappear when the transition to post-capitalism is completed.
‘The ultimate aim is to reduce to a minimum the hours it takes to produce what humanity needs. Once this happens, the tax base in the market sector of the economy would be too small to pay for the basic income. Wages themselves would increasingly be either social – in the form of collectively provided – or disappear. So as a postcapitalist measure, the basic income is the first benefit in history whose success measure is that it shrinks to zero.’
Although Mason referred to a basic income in his contribution to the Guardian several months ago, this book locates a basic income in his wider perspective on history and the current state of capitalism as well as his design for future.
by Guest Contributor | Aug 10, 2015 | Opinion
Busiso Moyo
[The Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states are characterized by high levels of poverty and some of the highest levels of inequality globally, albeit endowed with high levels of mineral resources. – ed.]
By Busiso Moyo
Despite being endowed with many natural resources, Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), wherein 13 of the 14 SADC countries are located, ranks amongst the worst regions globally in terms of poverty and socio-economic inequalities. Evidently, for the region, the capitalist ‘trickle down’ effect of wealth to all citizens in the context of a neoliberal global political economy has proven to be a fallacy. As such, now more than ever, it has become imperative for African governments to prioritize social protection namely through the provision of a Basic Income Grant (BIG) for all residents furnished through universal Social Cash Transfers (SCTs).
A cursory look at SADC countries’ socio-economic circumstances clearly reveals the need for upping efforts towards social protection to ensure that the most vulnerable are safe from destitution. South Africa, the economic mecca of Africa, despite being a middle-income country, is the one of the most unequal countries in the world. People with access to wealth experience the country as a developed modern economy, while the poorest still struggle to access even the most basic services. On the other hand, since the late 90s, Zimbabwe’s economy slowed down and grounded to a halt by 2008 due to socio-political challenges that still bedevil the country to this day. Unemployment is estimated at 80% to date thus leaving the majority of people in abject poverty. Furthermore, 5.3 million people or 50% of the Zambian population falls under the poverty line coupled with the fact that 70% of Mozambicans are classified as ‘poor’. Consequently, poverty and socio-economic inequalities have left the majority of people within the SADC-region food-insecure and with many of the region’s children’s educational aspirations frazzled.
Amidst the above, South Africa has borne the brunt of regional poverty and inequalities as the net receiver of socio-political economic refugees from around Africa especially the SADC region, resulting in refugee management headaches for authorities and ills like recurrent xenophobic attacks on non-South Africans. Therefore, a SADC-wide BIG would not only serve as a buffer against poverty but would be utilized as a stabilizing force to stimulate local and regional growth in-turn curbing one-directional mass movement of people to countries like South Africa.
A universal SADC-wide unconditional social cash transfer to all citizens of no less than US$15 per month, would go a long way in curbing destitution. SCTs, as opposed to in-kind gifts, give beneficiaries the freedom to acquire what they need exactly. This freedom to choose in itself constitutes human security.
The fact that poverty is dire in SSA should not simply be left to the sphere of development practitioners with an interest in poverty-alleviation, but as an obstacle to the enjoyment of many human rights ought to be a concern of all change agents within society. For States and capital-interests within the region in particular, the role of SCTs as the best intervention strategy in the fight against poverty cannot be ignored any longer. Granted, some scholars have alluded to the fact that the notion of social cash transfers brings about dependency amongst beneficiaries and removes the impetus for seeking meaningful employment. So what? People deserve to benefit from the region’s natural resources in a non-prejudicial manner, especially in the pervasive absence of formal jobs. Nonetheless, for the half-convinced, its high-time we acknowledge that the poor are in fact good managers who already know how to do best for their families with the little they have. Many sustain the survivalist economy at the bottom of the pyramid with such wise daily financial decisions. For scholars such as Joseph Hanlon, the questioning of the frugality of the poor is tantamount to blaming the poor for their circumstances. Moreover, such feeble arguments show a lack of appreciation for the political history of SSA and its structural make up. Worse still this mindset portrays a blind endorsement of the neoliberal agenda. Remarkably, a study of European history shows that social protection came first, then economic growth. Indeed saving and/or the entrepreneurship-spirit cannot happen when the majority of people have to endure hunger-pains.
Empirical evidence of successes of SCT schemes globally abound. Brazil’s 2003 initiated Bolsa Familia SCT scheme, supporting about 12 million families, has to date decreased inequality by 17% and the poverty rate has fallen from 42.7% to 28.8%. For the South African experience, social safety nets such as the child grant have already shown that SCT schemes are capable of producing positive outcomes. Gharagozloo-Pakkala observes the following, ‘In South Africa, the child grant reduced the poverty gap by 47%; in Kenya unconditional cash transfers saw a 19% increase in primary school enrolment among ‘hard-to-reach’ children; in rural Ghana, for every one Cedi transferred, 1.50 Cedi of income can be generated in the economy”. Malawi’s Mchinji district’s SCT scheme also testifies to a positive turn of SCTs. SCTs are recorded to have “…influence[d] household productive capacity [and]…ownership of agricultural assets increased 16 per cent…”
Having shown the need for a BIG and it’s transformative power, it is necessary to conclude this piece by observing that in a region blessed with natural resources the issue of a BIG roll out to all – SADC residents, refugees, economic migrants, asylum seekers funded by proceeds from extractive industries and other actors, is not ‘alms’ giving or a charitable gesture, but is an act of economic and social justice, and most importantly an investment in the poor’s human capital!
SADC wide BIG
“Make the Change Happen!” – Support the call for a SADC BIG. Visit www.spii.org.za
Busiso Moyo is an Advocacy and Campaigns Officer with the Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute (SPII).
