by BIEN | Feb 5, 2017 | News
(Credit to: The American Prospect)
Delphine d’Amora from Mother Jones has offered a brief history of the idea of basic income, tracking its development from the 18th century to its current resurgence with prominent modern advocates, such as Belgian philosophy professor Philippe van Parijs, and various basic income experiments ongoing in a number of countries.
“After decades of obscurity, the idea is suddenly in fashion,” d’Amora notes, “Politicians around the world are interested and a handful of governments, such as Finland and the Canadian province of Ontario, are planning or considering basic-income pilot projects.”
The article is an in-depth, chronological history of basic income, starting with the 18th century, and including various manifestations of the idea, including negative income tax as described by American economist Milton Friedman in an embedded video.
Read the full article here:
Delphine d’Amora, “A Brief History of the Idea That Everyone Should Get Free Cash for Life“, Mother Jones, December 26th 2016
by Jason Burke Murphy | Feb 3, 2017 | Opinion
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy: Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Written by: Katja Kipping
[A long translator’s note: Katja Kipping is chair of the Left Party (Linkspartei) in Germany and a member of the national parliament. She has served as spokesperson for Germany’s Basic Income Network (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen). Within the Left Party, she organized the “Emancipatory Left” faction and writes for the libertarian socialist magazine “Prague Spring” (Prager Frühling).
Kipping presented this lecture “Grundeinkommen als Demokratiepauschale” at the Basic Income Earth Network Congress in Seoul, Korea, July 19th. She has frequently argued for basic income throughout Germany and has helped organize a “Basic Income faction” that includes most political parties in parliament.
I have translated this with the hope that left organizations worldwide will pay attention to her vision of basic income as a core component for the democratic left. Basic income would provide a clear sign that the left has learned from problems wrought in the past by bureaucracy, technocracy, and authoritarianism. Kipping draws from a constitutional republican tradition of investigating institutions that promote robust citizenship and deliberation. See Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015. She also links her hopes with that of the degrowth movement. I see basic income, as Kipping presents it here, as an antidote to alienation and right-populism. Social analysis shows basic income to be part of the design of truly public institutions.
Any lapses in quality or argumentation should be attributed to me.
Please note that Kipping also presented in Dublin at the 12th Basic Income Earth Network Congress in 2008. “Moving to Basic Income (BI) – A left-wing political perspective” can be found at BIEN’s website.
You can a video of Kipping presenting the original German speech at https://bien2016.org/en/video-basic-income-and-politics-of-democracy/.
The text of her speech can be found at: https://www.katja-kipping.de/de/article/1112.grundeinkommen-als-demokratiepauschale.html. ]
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy
Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Contents
- Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
- Economic Might for All – basic Income and democratic institutions
- Closing Remarks on social transformation
1. Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
Radical democratic approaches to basic income pay close attention to the connections between people and to their mutual dependencies within a community. The community is here understood as something public and political. It is oriented towards the well-being of all and should be shaped by all. From this it follows that freedom should not be understood as a mere absence of intervention or interference. On the contrary, freedom should be understand as independence over against any arbitrary authority [Fremdherrschaft]. Freedom, in this sense, implies no arbitrary interventions or interference on the part of state institutions and also no possibility of such interventions and interference. Intervention is arbitrary if an intervention comes whenever the intervener wills it.
Freedom, on the other hand, is fulfilled primarily through self-governance. Self-governance is formed by social and individual organization and also by monitoring these potential interventions and the institutions capable of them. Individual freedom, viewed in such an intersubjective political context, is also social freedom. The highest value is active participation of all in the res publica – a collective deliberative democratic self-determination. This naturally implies social equality and the securing of social freedom, which implies preventing any economically grounded dominance and dependency. Laws and institutions also need to reflect, promote, and enable the common good and self-governance. (See Socialist Party South Korea 2009, Patry 2010, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2012, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2015).
The following six theses on the establishment of a basic income as an all-inclusive democratic subsidy can be derived from these basic principles of radical democracy and social freedom.
- Basic Income must secure what a political community requires from each citizen in terms of money. This includes securing existence, social participation, and participation in political life. This unconditional guarantee of existence and participation has a monetary component. Non-monetary components also exist, such as free access to public goods, and to public infrastructure and services. These monetary and non-monetary components do not exclude each other but rather they complete one another. Both these monetary and non-monetary forms should, first, provide people socio-economic independence and, second, preserve their status as citizens with economic negotiating power whereby they can participate in the formation of society. Without the adequate safeguarding of free and equal conditions of social participation, no democratic participation is possible – formal possibilities for participation are not enough.
Whoever does not have enough material resources is first of all excluded from political participation and, secondly, doesn’t have enough negotiating power within political processes. This means that basic income, like all vital services, needs to be provided long-term. As I see it, this is not a problem in a time of high productivity and surplus. At most, it is a problem for those who do not want to give up economic privileges and political power. There is enough for all—worldwide!
- From a radical-democratic perspective, the basic income on a regular basis is preferable to single disbursements, like with a stakeholder grant or starting capital. Only regular payments can guarantee a lifelong income and its corresponding participation.
- The right to an unconditional basic income must be combined with a modern understanding of citizenship. A distinction between a majority of citizens and a minority of immigrants with regard to elementary socioeconomic rights and opportunities would lead to a problematic division of the community and a majority’s dominance over a minority.
- From a radical democratic viewpoint, people receive the unconditional basic income as equal members of the political community, not as part of a needy group that depends on the state. Any particular stigmatization of population groups splits the community and is a source for domination. That would still be true with a partial basic income (or transfers that do not secure survival or make social participation possible) that is supplemented by need-tested, income-tested, or asset-tested social benefits in order to reach a sufficient level.
It is clear that a person, who must make him or herself a stigmatized petitioner at the social office has a significantly harder time taking an upright path towards the political formation of the community. As Zygmunt Bauman formulated it: “The decisive argument in favor of the basic income is that it is the conditio sine qua non of a republic, as it can only exist in the union of people with self-confidence, of people without existential anxiety. A basic income which actually secures existence and allows social participation would establish a principle of citizens’ rights, rights that are not subject to a divisive and disqualifying ‘access test’ by need tests.” (Bauman 1999). [Note: this is a translation of the Bauman quote as found in Kipping’s speech. –JBM]
Therefore 5 holds: All citizens only have their rights fully recognized reciprocally through a sufficient basic income. This also means that more affluent citizens are comparatively more likely to contribute to the financing of the basic income than the less well-off citizens. This poses the question of the redistribution of economic resources and economic power.
- Basic income is not tied to any condition. An obligation towards any social or political participation would be sources of new domination. These would enable arbitrary interventions. The question of what makes something socially recognizable, and what does not, opens up a considerable amount of bureaucratic discretion. A citizen’s right to a basic income that included a direct citizen obligation would also transform voluntary engagement into regulated compulsory participation.
I would like to end this section with a quote from a German supporter of basic income who is also a politician. “It is farcical that MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] claim to maintain their substantial independence through relatively high salaries in order to make themselves non-extortionable but most of these deputies do not consider it necessary to ensure such independence and non-blackmail for the sovereign, the people” (Spehr 2003, 105). Basic income’s individual guarantee of a secure existence and participation is, alongside other forms of universal security for people (such as free access to public goods, social infrastructure, and social services), an indispensable prerequisite for social freedom, democratic and political engagement and the negotiating power for all people. It is an all-inclusive democratic subsidy!
2. Economic power for all – basic income and democratic institutions
Whoever says A must also say B. Who calls for basic income so that people can enter the public sphere with negotiating power must also call for the public shaping of our political foundations, economy, and everyday life (see Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015). We need this to secure a basic income and other sorts of public services. Arbitrary interferences in human affairs through economic power, by endangering survival, health, and natural resources is not acceptable. An economy that is deprived of public organization, an economy that is privatized, is unacceptable. That also means that an economy and a financial sector that is immune to democratic control and influence is likewise unacceptable.
An imbalance in power through the deprivation of the public (privatization) in one form or another reaches deeply into real political and social power relations and removes the political and therefore citizens from the formation and control of public affairs. On the one hand, this includes power that arises from economic distribution—income, assets, and investment opportunities. This certainly also includes power in the realm of shaping and administering the economy and the financial sector. Who actually determines the use of natural resources, production resources, investment and the way in which economic activities are taxed? Who is exercising an alienated domination over the people today with real, unequally distributed, forms of design and control, and who subjects society and the economy to the will of a minority?
In addition to basic income and other forms of life and of participation for all people, social freedom requires the self-government of the citizens: by means of joint and individual control and appropriate intervention possibilities, which are secured by appropriately democratic institutions. These institutions must give all people the opportunity to shape social and economic life individually and collectively (see Cassasas / De Wispelaere 2015).
Economic power for all means basic income, including other unconditional support for existence. It also means the safeguarding of the economy and society for all and the institutionally secured public and political shaping of the economy and the society by all. This makes a democratic social transformation all the more necessary and urgent. Tomorrow, I am speaking at another conference about the challenge that this entails for the European left.
3. Concluding Remarks on Socio-Ecological Transformation
Poverty and exclusion, power over the many by the few, and destruction of the natural foundations of human life – that is the situation.
The international degrowth movement, which is committed to a world with significantly less natural resource consumption and to a rollback of ecological destruction and damage to our planet, therefore argues for the cohesion of ecology, democracy and social security of all people, and thus for the convergence of the various social movements and political actors (see Blaschke 2016).
It seems to me that only with this complex point of view and a committed relationship between social movements can the challenges of the 21st century be countered. Basic income, which in fact assures material existence and enables social participation, is an important component of a social-ecological transformation, which seeks to also be a democratic transformation!
Literature:
Bauman, Zygmunt (1999), In Search of Politics. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Blaschke, Ronald (2016), Grundeinkommen und Degrowth – Wie passt das zusammen? https://www.degrowth.de/de/2016/02/grundeinkommen-und-degrowth-wie-passt-das-zusammen/
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2012), The Alaska Model: A Republican Perspective. In: Karl Widerquist / Michael W. Howard (Ed.): Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Examining his Suitability as a Model, New York, 169-188.
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2015), Republicanism and the political economy of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, September, 1-18.
Kipping, Katja (2009), Ausverkauf der Politik. Für einen demokratischen Aufbruch, Berlin.
Patry, Eric (2010), Das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen in der Schweiz. Eine republikanische Perspektive, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.
Socialist Party South Korea, Unconditional Basic Income and General Social Care, Party Program, Supplement No. 1, 2009 (Translation of Socialist Party of South Korea, “Basic Income for All und Universal Welfare”, translation by Min Geum, https://www.grundeinkommen.de/ Content / uploads / 2010/08 / 10-05-22-bge-program-socialist-party-korea-endrb.pdf
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Translated by Jason Burke Murphy, Elms College
by Guest Contributor | Jan 30, 2017 | Opinion
“The UBI Bait and Switch” by Bruenig, Jauhiainen, and Mäkinen: A Critical Response
By Otto Lehto, political economist, King’s College London; former chairman of BIEN Finland (2015-2016).
A recent article in Jacobin Magazine on the Finnish UBI experiment is mostly an accurate and well-researched piece of journalism. I was especially impressed by its fastidious attention to detail in its account of the timeline of events leading up to the experiment. However, as someone well-acquainted with Finnish UBI experiment, allow me to bring another perspective on the matter. Jacobin Magazine has all the right to be as firebrand leftist as it wants to be. No question, the rhetoric of the commentary is in line with its socialist ethos. But I would just like to point out a few things that are inaccurate or misleading.
I, too, have written about the government’s proposal in harsh and unforgiving tones in the past, so I really can’t fault them for that. The experiment, let us not mince words, is badly mangled, expert advice is ignored or distorted, and the government coalition’s commitment to any form of basic income is half-hearted, with the gracious exception of a few MP’s. The narrow focus on reducing unemployment and increasing workforce incentives is unfortunate. It becomes tragic when one realises that this ideological agenda drowns out the human rights perspective.
But this is where it gets tricky to fully agree with the Jacobin article’s apocalyptic spin. It describes the current experiment as a “UBI-as-workhouse nightmare”. Now hold on a minute. A workhouse is a place where you must work in exchange for basic amenities. This is a preposterous description of the UBI proposals and experiments underway today. Even under the most critical lens, the (partial) UBI model under experimentation in Finland, while obviously targeted too narrowly and with too many exclusions, significantly reduces the “workhouse nightmare” nature of the benefit system.
What are we to make of the conundrum? It would be useful to separate the general political ambitions of the Sipilä government and the UBI experiment itself. The Sipilä government has an admittedly “schizophrenic” attitude towards basic income. While, on the one hand, it is committed to seeing through the UBI experiment, it is simultaneously, via other channels, pushing for stringent workfare conditionality. These draconian practices – nonsense baked in the tears of unemployed people – are truly deplorable, even from the point of view of austerity itself, i.e. even if one believes the anti-Keynesian line that one must balance the budget when national output is down. The proposed and enacted cuts are disproportionately hurting poor people, relative to the cuts affecting the mid income and high income sectors. The richest people have even been given delicious tax cuts, while students, pensioners, sick people, disabled people and others have suffered.
All that is worth criticising. Some other enactments of the government, like drastically deregulating the opening hours of stores, or shaking the stiff and moribund government monopoly on alcohol sales, I personally find most welcome developments. But all things considered, the general direction of the austerity program, and the government’s attitude towards poor people, leaves a lot to be desired. But I would argue that one shouldn’t judge the UBI experiment on this basis.
I will concede that the general ethos of the Sipilä government certainly permeates the parameters of the experiment. The limits of the experiment were decided after the 2015 elections. The result is a predictable beast built upon the sorrowful soil of a Protestant work ethic that fetishises work incentives and bemoans the metaphysical sinfulness of laziness. It involves the misguided and conscious exclusion of people who are either too old or too young, or who are not currently recipients of the mainline unemployment benefit. This distorts the experiment from the start.
But here’s something to consider. The only people for whom the current UBI experiment is a significant welfare-reduction are people who fulfill all of the following criteria: 1) they happen to be long-term unemployed, 2) they happen to be taking part in the UBI lottery and 3) they happen to have received a slightly higher level of benefit from the state in the past. The diversity of benefits in Finland translates to a diversity of levels of income security, with some people relatively well-off while others receiving pennies (if anything at all). The universal UBI level of approximately €560 can be a reduction to people who have received approximately €650 in the past. The UBI is topped off with housing benefits and other types of discretionary benefits. But a few will obviously be net losers in any equalizing scheme. This is understandable. But this hardly qualifies as a “workhouse nightmare.” In fact, the reduction in quantity comes with many obvious upsides that may or may not compensate for the marginal reduction in the absolute level of welfare income for some people.
Even with net-losers mixed in with net-gainers (in a yet-to-be-determined proportion), the proposed UBI model is an improvement over the current system in almost every respect: 1) it is given automatically and without hassle (for the duration of the experiment), 2) it provides a long-term safety net (a steady shower rather than a drizzle of sporadic benefits) and 3) it is not withheld from people who take up part-time or full-time work (thus improving work incentives). I will surely not need to enumerate for my audience the other well-known benefits of a non-utopian UBI system.
In fact, since the tax system hasn’t (yet) been reformed to account for the UBI system, those lucky participants in the experiment who find employment, full-time or part-time, will also gain significantly in terms of post-tax income. To this extent the experiment is arguably too generous. The tax system obviously needs to be reformed as well, since money doesn’t just grow on trees.
But there’s another thing. Some of the aims of the utopian left, as evinced by this piece, are just contradictory or confused. One cannot simultaneously call for more legal power to the unions, in the style of the old corporatist model of the Nordic welfare state, and to call for a truly universal basic income guarantee. This, however, is the paradoxical cry of the Jacobin piece, whose logic I simply cannot comprehend. The power of the unions has been traditionally very strong in Finland. This has meant, e.g., the legally protected collective bargaining of wages and benefits. For all the good this has brought to industry-insiders, this has meant very little for people outside the framework. It has created a natural opposition between “inside” and “outside” groups: the “insiders” being the members of the protection racket of the unions and the employer’s associations, who receive good and generous benefits, while the “outsiders” being all the other people that fall outside the “standard” model of employment. The insiders have received semi-automatic and hassle-free benefits for a long time, while outsiders have suffered from the “workhouse nightmare” of the discretionary welfare bureaucracy. The guarantee of a non-union-based unemployment and sick leave benefit scheme in the form of a UBI naturally chips away at the monopolistic power of unions to determine who deserves what, when and under what conditions. This is a good thing.
Out of the four demons conjured by the authors of the Jacobin article in the concluding paragraph – “forcing unemployed workers into bad jobs while undermining organized labor, earnings equality, and the welfare state” – the first one, about forcing people into bad jobs, is simply false (nobody is forced under the UBI system to accept any bad jobs, either de jure or de facto); the second one, about undermining organized labor, is actually a mixed blessing (since it actually helps “outsiders” gain benefits at a cost to “insiders”); the third one, about earnings equality, is something that the authors give no reason to think is threatened by the experiment (and indeed, it seems like a complete throwaway line); and the fourth point, about undermining the welfare state, is a tad question-begging.
The real question is, which structures should be reformed and which not. The existing welfare state has obviously failed in many ways to provide effective welfare for all people, and it is impossible to reform the system (for the better) without breaking a few eggs.
If the accusation is levelled at the other stuff the Sipilä government is doing, or the broken moral compass of the austerity crowd, the accusation sticks much better. But I have tried to show these should be kept separate. The UBI experiment is, indeed, severely compromised as a result of a confluence of factors. It survives, barely, within narrow ideological bounds. But the important thing is that the experiment tests the waters for a paradigm shift – slowly, ineluctably.
Even a compromised UBI marks a steady improvement over the status quo in almost all conceivable dimensions. And those are just the conceivable dimensions.
Reviewed by Kate McFarland
Photo: Finland’s “frozen waves”, CC BY-ND 2.0 Marjaana Pato
by Guest Contributor | Jan 27, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Pierre Madden
Basic Income, it is argued, provides an effective and efficient means of conquering poverty. What, exactly, is the problem that we are trying to solve? Mention poverty to someone and they are likely to immediately think of the Third World. Bringing the focus back to poverty in developed countries is fraught with preconceptions. People have predispositions to think about issues in certain ways. They share these predispositions with all other members of society regardless of specific opinions on social questions. Various models are utilized rather than others based upon how we frame the issue.[1] And so we feel that we have an intuitive grasp of the subject.
Courts will accept eyewitness testimony that someone was drunk. If a person were to get in an accident while driving and damage another’s car, then during the time of car accident settlements, the defense lawyer can bring in an eyewitness who can testify to the fact that the driver was intoxicated. The witness is not an expert. No Breathalyzer test was done; no blood sample was taken. They can just tell from a person’s demeanor and the nature of the accident whether or not it could have been a DUI case. It is considered common knowledge. The same can be argued for poverty. Broad definitions of poverty exist, such as: “the condition of a human being who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain economic self-sufficiency or to facilitate integration and participation in society.”[2] “In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith argued, ‘People are poverty-stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of their community.'”[3]
The problem is translating this qualitative information into numbers so that policies can be implemented and progress tracked.
Some people accept that poverty is undefinable because it is a personal experience. This complexity is highlighted in the expression ‘poverty and social exclusion.’ A concept that you can’t define is difficult to measure. We may be evaluating actions taken to reduce poverty by a method which measures something completely different. Just counting the poor turns out to be a daunting task.
Many approaches are taken to arrive at a threshold value that defines poverty. I will present examples from Canada, Europe in general, the United States and the United Kingdom. Debates surrounding the various metrics are discussed as they come up. Some work incomes and welfare benefit numbers provide context.
In Canada, no official definition of poverty exists. Statistics Canada has been making this point for almost 45 years[4]. What is measured is low-income. Some countries like the United States have an official definition of poverty even if ‘there is still no internationally accepted definition of poverty-unlike measures such as employment, unemployment, gross domestic product, consumer prices, international trade and so on.’[5]
Statistics Canada tracks three low income statistics.
- The Low Income Measure (LIM) is 50% of the adjusted mean income of Canadians[6]
- The Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) starts with the spending of the average Canadian family on shelter, food and clothing (43% of after tax income).[7] The threshold is set at 20% more.[8] Any family earning less is below this Low Income Line.[9]
- The Market Basket Measure (MBM) ‘is a measure of low income based on the cost of a specific basket of goods and services representing a modest, basic standard of living.’[10] It takes into account the ability to reasonably participate in community activities as well as physical health. It varies by geographical location.
This last metric developed in the late 1990s by Human Resource and Skill Development Canada is different from the other two, introduced by Statistics Canada. The first two statistics are unambiguously relative. Strictly speaking they measure income inequality. While the Conference Board of Canada does not hesitate to refer to the MBM as absolute[11], the specialist I spoke to at Statistics Canada was not so sure.[12] However, he felt that the basic-needs poverty line (BNPL) proposed by Professor Chris Sarlo of the Fraser Institute might qualify as absolute. Sarlo himself nuances this view:
This basic-needs approach to poverty is often referred to as an ‘absolute’ measure. This label is misleading insofar as it suggests that the list can never change and is therefore completely out of place in our rapidly changing society. While the basic needs line does propose a broad list of necessities that remains in place over time, the nature, standard of quality, and the quantity of each of the components will vary across societies and will vary over time in a given society. In other words, the basic-needs approach is partly absolute (the list is limited to items required for long-term physical well-being) and partly relative, reflecting the standards that apply in the individual’s own society at the present time.[13]
Stepping back a bit, you can often use absolute poverty as a synonym for extreme poverty, a term applicable to deprivation in very poor countries. Even so, relative elements remain: you can’t compare the situation of someone with no heating in the Arctic to that of someone with no heating in the Tropics. Moreover, Sarlo’s BNPL is approximately 30% lower than the MBM using a similar approach. Clearly, relative and absolute measures overlap and both involve a degree of judgment and arbitrariness.
There are many other variations on these themes. I will cover just a few.
In Europe, they use a measure called the at-risk-of-poverty threshold to define poverty. It represents a ‘percentage of the median or mean value of the Equivalised disposable Income after social transfers.’[14] ‘A threshold of 60% is the most commonly used.’[15] EU countries simply referred to the 60% level as ‘generally accepted.’ [16] Tables sometimes show statistics calculated at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70%, without comment.
The official United States poverty threshold has a fascinating history.[17] Based on the work the Social Security Administration economist Mollie Orshansky, it is often referred to as absolute. However its creator labelled it ‘arbitrary but not unreasonable.’[18] As early as 1959, Orshansky was aware of the pitfalls and limitations of the standard budget (usually called market basket today) approach to defining poverty. At the time, and even today, only with food, because of its nutritional value, can we reach some consensus about what minimal requirements are. Orshansky used the two lowest budgets devised by the Department of Agriculture: the low-cost food plan and the even less expensive economy plan. For the non-food portion, she used Engel’s Law (named for the statistician Ernst Engel not Marx’s collaborator Friedrich Engels), a normative principle establishing that a family spends one third of its total income on food. Using a multiplier of three for food costs under both plans, with adjustments for childless couples and single people, 124 thresholds were developed for farm and non-farm families of various compositions. With a few minor modifications and yearly inflation updates, this measure, based on the economy plan, is still in use today to count the poor in the United States.
A novel variant of the market basket approach, the Minimum Income Standard for the United Kingdom (MIS) is maintained by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, UK. [19]
MIS is based on detailed research with groups of members of the public specifying what items need to be included in a minimum household budget. The groups are informed by expert knowledge where needed, for example on nutritional standards. The results show how much households need in a weekly budget and how much they need to earn in order to achieve this disposable income.’ [20]
MIS is not an absolute measure like the US poverty line nor is it entirely relative.[21] ‘MIS also seeks to ensure that minimum income is looked at in the context of contemporary society, but does so in an evidenced way.’[22] Rather than make assumptions about societal standards, public input is used. Also, the UK’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which created the MIS, does not consider it to be a measure of poverty[23] and uses the 60% of mean measure in reports it publishes such as Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2016.
To understand how different the figures are and to visualize the impact they have on the number of poor that are counted, I have converted all the metrics discussed into dollar amounts, in the table below. I make no claim that these numbers are comparable, only that they are reasonably accurate and up-to-date. The last three numbers are actual welfare payments rather than poverty statistics. They are strikingly lower than the rest and this fact does not speak for itself. It does, however, tell a story, if I may digress. The usual reaction when seeing these numbers is: how can someone live on such little income? I would ask: how does one get out of poverty under such straitened conditions? 5 In Quebec, a welfare recipient is allowed to earn $200 per month without penalty. Over that amount, for every extra dollar made their benefits are cut by a dollar (a 100% marginal tax rate). In France, every Euro earned is deducted. This is what is known as the poverty trap. The system is structured so as to remove any incentive to get out of poverty.[24] When governments set payment schedules so far below poverty lines and also discourage the poor from improving their situation, what message does that send?[25] And in case you were thinking that the answer is ‘Get back to work’, item 11 shows what those who cannot work receive about 50% more, still nowhere near any threshold, except Sarlo’s BNPL (item 4), which has been ‘criticized as being too stringent and even “mean-spirited”.’13 More on that later.
Items 8 and 9 are incomes for a 40-hour workweek. These numbers indicate that poverty is not an issue confined to the unemployed. For example, in 2014, ‘Walmart’s low-wage workers cost US taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing.’[26]
| |
Annual thresholds for a single person in 2016[27] |
CDN$ |
US$ |
| 1 |
Canadian Low Income Measure (LIM) [28] |
$22,652 |
$16,904 |
| 2 |
Canadian Low Income Cut-off (LICO) [29] |
$20,788 |
$15,513 |
| 3 |
Canadian Market Basket Measure (MBM) for Montreal [30] |
$17,944 |
$13,391 |
| 4 |
Sarlo of the Fraser Institute: Basic-Needs Poverty Line (BNPL) (Canada) 13 [31] |
$12,205 |
$9,108 |
| 5 |
European low-income measure (60% of mean income) applied to Canada. |
$26,941 |
$20,105 |
| 6 |
US poverty threshold [32] |
$16,202 |
$12,091 |
| 7 |
Minimum Income Standard MIS (UK)[33] [34] [35] |
$28,533 |
$21,293 |
| 8 |
Pre-tax full-time earnings at minimum wage in Quebec [36] |
$22,360 |
$16,687 |
| 9 |
Pre-tax full-time earnings at US federal minimum wage [37] |
$20,207 |
$15,080 |
| 10 |
Actual welfare payment in Quebec for those deemed fit for work. [38] |
$7,476 |
$5,579 |
| 11 |
Actual welfare payment in Quebec for those deemed unfit for work. [39] |
$11,340 |
$8,462 |
| 12 |
French Revenu de Solidarité Active (RSA) [40] |
$8,752 |
$6,531 |
As mentioned previously, the most striking pattern in the table is how the last three entries are low, compared to the rest. The others cluster together with the notable exception of item 4 (Sarlo’s Basic-Needs Poverty Line) and Item 10 (the US poverty threshold). Both of these statistics tend towards absolute measures, which are meant to focus on deprivation rather than income inequality. Which measure is appropriate in a developed country? If all you have achieved is to avoid destitution, are you no longer living in poverty? Not if integration and participation in society is beyond your reach. This is why relative measures of poverty are deemed more appropriate choices, especially in developed countries: they account for social inclusion.
I have tried to frame the question of poverty in such a way as to provide a better understanding of the numbers that inevitably come to define it at some point. Many judgments and choices are involved in calculating these numbers. Agreeing on a number requires social consensus. Unfortunately, focusing on the numbers is not conducive to building such a consensus and is even counterproductive, in that it immediately evokes highly emotional questions of cost and fairness. The whole debate sidesteps issues of social exclusion and lack of opportunities, to which people can better identify in their own lives.
Getting back to the original question, we need a definition of poverty to implement Basic Income. However, labeling it with a threshold number is both necessary and self-defeating. It is not possible to implement Basic Income without pinning down the benefit and cost numbers, yet focusing on these numbers distracts from the positive principles that would muster support for them. Framing the question of what poverty is in such a way that principles are explored before we formulate a numerical definition is more important than the number itself. This reframing is thus a prerequisite to Basic Income.
Author biography: Pierre Madden is a zealous dilettante based in Montreal. He has been a linguist, a chemist, a purchasing coordinator, a production planner and a lawyer. His interest in Basic Income, he says, is personal. He sure could use it now!
Sources:
[1] Volmert, A., Gerstein Pineau, M., & Kendall-Taylor, N. (2016). Talking about poverty: How experts and the public understand poverty in the United Kingdom. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute.
[2] An Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion, CQLR c L-7 Quebec, Canada, art. 2
[3] Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Quoted in Wikipedia: Poverty threshold
[4] On poverty and low income by Ivan P. Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada September 1997
[5] Ibid.
[6] Statistics Canada Table 206-0091 Low income measures (LIMs) by income source and household size in current dollars and 2014 constant dollars.
[7] Statistics Canada Low-income cut-offs
[8] “Twenty percentage points are used based on the rationale that a family spending 20 percentage points more than the average would be in ‘straitened circumstances.'” Ibid.
[9] LICO for a single person in a metropolitan area in 2012 = $19597
[10] Market Basket Measure (2011 base)
[11] https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx#ftn12
[12] Andrew Heisz, assistant director of the Income Statistics Division of Statistics Canada, personal communication, October 19 2016
[13] Sarlo, C. (2006). Poverty in Canada: 2006 Update. The Fraser Institute.
[14] E-mail from Geoffroy Fisher, Eurostat User Support, Eurostat helpdesk December 28, 2016.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insee)
[17] All of the information in this paragraph and much more, as well as a wealth of references to primary sources can be found in Gordon M. Fisher, The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official US Poverty Measure, May 1992-partially revised September 1997
[18] Orshansky, “Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 1965, p.4. Quoted in Fisher (see previous note)
[19] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
[20] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/whatismis/
[21] “…We would not expect the content of a MIS basket to stand still. But we also don’t think that changes in the average AUTOMATICALLY trigger proportionate changes in the minimum, and in this sense it is not a relative measure.” Donald Hirsch, Director of Centre for Research in Social Policy, personal communication, Nov 1 2016
[22] Donald Hirsch, Director of Centre for Research in Social Policy, personal communication, Nov 1 2016
[23] Joseph Rowntree Fondation Press Office, personal communication, January 11, 2017
[24] John Stapleton Why is it so tough to get ahead? How our tangled social programs pathologize the transition to self- reliance. Metcalf Foundation November 2007
[25] There is no question that low welfare payments are a political choice. In 1969, when Quebec introduced its first welfare legislation, benefits for people under 30 were set at 70% of the amount provided to everyone else. Accounting for inflation, this still represents more than what someone unfit for work receives today.
[26] Forbes April 15 2014
[27] Throughout, $US1 = CDN$1.34
[28] Statistics Canada Table 206-0091 Low income measures (LIMs) by income source and household size in current dollars and 2014 constant dollars.
[29] Statistics Canada Table 1 Low-income cut-offs (1992 base) after tax. 2014 figures for large metropolitan areas adjusted for inflation.
[30] Statistics Canada Market Basket Measure thresholds (2011-base) for reference family of two adults and two children, by MBM region Data for Montreal converted to single person (see note 1 in table)
[31] $10314 X 129.1/109.1 = $12,205
[32] US Census bureau Poverty Thresholds for 2015 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 years $12082 adjusted for US inflation (0.1%), 1 US$ = 1.34 CDN$
[33] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
[34] Minimum Income Calculator
[35] £1 = US$1,23
[36] Minimum wage in Quebec = CDN$10.75
[37] US$7.25 per hour as of July 2016
[38] Emploi Quebec How benefits are calculated
[39] Ibid.
[40] Le revenu de solidarité active (RSA)
by Guest Contributor | Jan 26, 2017 | News
San Francisco is not launching a basic income pilot yet
By: Sean Kline, Director of the San Francisco Office of Financial Empowerment
There is a lot of interest in basic income, and whether it could transform income inequality. The Office of Financial Empowerment (OFE)’s interest in basic income is a direct extension of its broader concern for economic security and intergenerational poverty.
Never heard of the OFE? We are the folks behind Kindergarten to College, the first and largest universal child savings program of its kind in the country now serving 27,000 public school children; Smart Money Coaching, which delivers financial coaching to low-income people at 27 sites across San Francisco; Summer Jobs Connect, which equips youth with a bank account, financial education, and strategies to save during summer employment; Bank On, which helps low-income residents access safe accounts at responsible banks and credit unions; and policy efforts to fight predatory financial practices and help families build assets.
Given the powerful evidence for cash transfers, both domestically and internationally, the OFE recently began exploring whether a basic income demonstration in San Francisco could add evidence to policy debates about reducing income inequality and increasing financial security. Here is what action we are taking:
- Actively participating in the Economic Security Project
- Planning a convening of UBI experimenters in Fall 2017
- Seeking funding to conduct a pilot in San Francisco and potentially with other cities across the country.
- Designing basic income demonstrations to pilot test
The OFE has engaged in thoughtful conversations inside and outside of city government to understand what such a demonstration could look like and what type of new research would be most helpful to inform policy. The OFE is not embarking on any proposal at this moment, but continues to explore when and how to launch a demonstration. In 2016, the OFE joined a three-city consortium to submit a proposal to the MacArthur Foundation for $100 million to fund the first large-scale basic income demonstration in the United States. While unsuccessful in this funding effort, the OFE has continued to explore smaller research demonstrations of a basic income at a cost of between $5 million and $30 million.
Reviewed by Kate McFarland
Image: San Francisco, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Florent Lamoureux
