by Guest Contributor | Jan 16, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: John Boik
For many good reasons, the concept of a basic national income is enjoying a surge of interest within academia, civil society, and political sectors. I am proposing a program that, in theory, is a mutually supportive cousin of basic income. Unlike typical basic income programs, this system is implemented at the local (e.g., community or city) level by non-governmental entities. Moreover, it can be implemented in parallel with more traditional basic income programs to help achieve expanded goals.
John Boik
Before describing it, I pose a question: What is the purpose of an economic system? As analogy, the purpose of a tractor is to pull or push farm equipment. Tractors are designed to meet user requirements, and the optimality of a particular design can be assessed by how well it does so relative to alternative designs. What are the user-requirements of an economic system? It is an uncommon question, but if we can answer it with clarity we would be in a better position both to assess alternative designs and monitor progress.
In a recent paper I argue that relative optimality of an economic or governance system is a measure of its capacity to help communities solve problems and organize activities to elevate collective wellbeing. Collective wellbeing refers to social and environmental flourishing, both local and global. Problem solving is the proximal aspect of relative optimality, and elevated wellbeing of the distal aspect, or result, of good problem solving.
Viewed this way, existing economic and governance systems are suboptimal relative to need. Indeed, they might be incapable of addressing today’s complex problems (climate change, pollution, and inequality, for example). In the paper, I call on the science and technology sectors, and the academic community, to play a pivotal role in developing and testing new, more effective systems. Further, I suggest that the prudent approach to do so is at the local level. Once simulations and other preliminary work are completed, new designs can undergo scientific field testing via community-based volunteer clubs. This approach will allow testing by relatively small groups, at relatively low cost and risk, in co-existence with existing systems, and without legislative action.
A prototype for this approach — and a cousin to basic income — is the Local Economic Direct Democracy Association (LEDDA) framework, now in early stage development. This bi-currency system uses money (both a local digital currency and national currency) as a bone fide voting tool in a type of direct economic democracy. An interactive model of currency flows in an idealized system is available at the Principled Societies Project website.
A published agent-based model reveals similarities and differences to basic income proposals. Once a LEDDA has matured, participants receive a very high and equal income (the equivalent to about $110,000 per family, the 90th percentile of US family income). Employees receive income in the form of wages, but any member who is not employed or not in the workforce unconditionally receives this income as well, from the novel crowd-based financial system. Members also use the LEDDA financial system to fund the types of jobs that they desire and deem useful.
John Boik, PhD
Founder, Principled Societies Project
@JohnBoik
About the author:
John Boik received a BS in civil engineering from the University of Colorado, Boulder; a master’s degree in acupuncture and Oriental medicine from Oregon College of Oriental Medicine, Portland, Oregon; and a PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of Texas, Health Sciences Center, Houston. He completed postdoctoral work at Stanford University, in the Department of Statistics. He is the author of Economic Direct Democracy and other books and papers, and founder of the Principled Societies Project.
by Stanislas Jourdan | Jan 16, 2017 | News
The European Parliament will vote on a report calling on the European Commission and all EU member states to “seriously consider” basic income in order to address the economic consequences of automation and artificial intelligence.
On Thursday 12 January, European Parliament’s committee on Legal affairs (JURI) adopted a report on “Civil law rules on robotics” which considers the legal and economic consequences of the rise of robots and artificial intelligence devices.
According to the report, since “robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence (“AI”) seem poised to unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched, it is vitally important for the legislature to consider all its implications. There are many tools claiming to be the best tool for machine learning and if these keep developing can artificial intelligence become a real threat to human job roles?
It reads further: “the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence”
To cope with those consequences, the report makes a strong call for basic income. “A general basic income should be seriously considered, and (the European Parliament) invites all Member States to do so.”
The resolution is based on a report prepared by the Working Group on Legal Questions Related to the Development of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, established in January 2015.
This legislative initiative is however not legally binding. If adopted in February by the European Parliament’s full house, the EU Commission would be invited to present a legislative proposal but it can also refuse to do so.
The Commission is not entirely unaware about basic income. Last year, Social Affairs Commissioner Marianne Thyssen said she would follow with great interest the outcomes of the basic income experiments currently underway in Finland.
The rapporteur of the report, Socialist MEP Mady Delvaux, said she was satisfied that basic income was included by the JURI Committee at this stage.
However she expressed doubt that the idea would survive the plenary vote. In a statement published on the website of the Socialist and Democrats group at the European Parliament, the MEP explained:
“As social democrats, it is urgent that we look at new models to manage society in a world where robots do more and more of the work. One idea adopted in this report is to look at a universal basic income – where everyone would receive a wage from the government whether they are in work or not.”
Mady Delvaux MEP
Barb Jacobson, Chair of Unconditional Basic Income Europe said, “We are very pleased Mme Delvaux mentioned basic income in this report, and we hope that Parliament and the Commission will give it serious consideration along with rules about the use of robots. The benefits of automation should be enjoyed by all members of society, not just those companies which directly benefit from it.”
UBI-Europe urges European basic income supporters to get in touch with their MEPs to make sure this aspect of the report reaches the Commission.”
“Whether automation ends up destroying a larger proportion of jobs or not, however, incomes are already increasingly insecure, and in most parts of Europe wages have stagnated or fallen. While many member states are starting to take basic income seriously, the need is urgent. The EU could help lead the way with its own Eurodividend,” added Nicole Teke, Secretary of UBI-Europe.
The European Parliament is expected to vote on the final report on the week of February 13.
Pictures CC European Parliament
by Kate McFarland | Jan 15, 2017 | Research
The quarterly Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare (based at Western Michigan University) published a symposium on the basic income guarantee (BIG) in its September 2016 issue.
The symposium includes five articles on the topic, plus an introduction written by two members of BIEN: Richard K. Caputo (Wurzweiler School of Social Work at Yeshiva University) and Michael Lewis (School of Social Work at Hunter College, CUNY). The first three articles present arguments for the adoption of a BIG in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, respectively. The fourth argues that a BIG is more politically feasible in the United States than alternative approaches to economic security, such as a Swedish-type welfare state. The fifth proposes a feminist argument for a BIG, although cautioning that more empirical work is needed.
Titles and abstracts, with brief descriptions of the authors, are given below. Links to manuscripts are provided where available.
Jennifer Mays and Greg Marston – “Reimagining Equity and Egalitarianism: The Basic Income Debate in Australia”
“Reimagining equity and egalitarianism calls for rethinking traditional welfare responses to poverty and economic security in Australia. Similar to other advanced Western democracies, Australia has pursued policies underpinned by neoliberal economics in an effort to curtail perceived excesses in public expenditure over the past three decades. In response to these policy settings, commentators and policy activists have increased their attention to the potential of a universal and unconditional basic income scheme to address economic insecurity. This paper positions basic income within the context of Australia’s welfare state arrangements and explores the potential of the scheme to respond to economic insecurity, particularly precarious employment and poverty traps created by a highly targeted social security system.”
May is a Course Coordinator in the School of Public Health and Social Work at the Queensland University of Technology, and Marston is Head of School at the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland.
Mays and Marston are both active members of Basic Income Guarantee Australia (BIGA), BIEN’s Australian affiliate, and were co-editors (with John Tomlinson) of Basic Income in Australia and New Zealand: Perspectives from the Neo-Liberal Frontier (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
James P. Mulvale and Sid Frankel – “Next Steps on the Road to Basic Income in Canada”
“Canada has had recurring debates about guaranteed or basic income over several decades. This article outlines reasons for implementing basic income in the Canadian context–reducing poverty and inequality, addressing precarious employment, and building an ecologically sustainable economy. Recently there has been a strong renewal of interest in basic income in Canada. Expressions of interest have come from the Liberal federal government elected in 2015, from provincial governments, from political parties not in power, and from municipal governments. Support for basic income also is found in a growing range of prominent individuals and organizations. While basic income advocates are encouraged by recent developments, several large and complex questions remain on how this approach can be implemented in Canada. These questions encompass the specifics of design, delivery, funding, and political support. How can basic income build on existing income security programs and leave Canadians better off in the end? How can we ensure that basic income is not used as an excuse to cut vital services such health care, social housing, early childhood care and development, and social services for those with disabilities and other challenges? How can basic income be set in place in Canada,given its complicated federal-provincial nexus of responsibility for, delivery of, and funding for social programs? The article concludes with principles that might help guide the implementation of authentically universal, adequate, and feasible basic income architecture in Canada.”
Mulvale is Dean and Frankel an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba — the site of the 2016 North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress, which they helped to organize.
Keith Rankin – “Prospects for a Universal Basic Income in New Zealand”
“New Zealand is a small liberal capitalist country with a history of egalitarian values and political reform–including the early introduction of universal welfare benefits–and with an uncomplicated relatively flat income tax structure. As such, it has sometimes been seen as a “social laboratory,” a theme of writing about New Zealand and of New Zealand social historians. It therefore has all of the elements in place that could make New Zealand a candidate to become a world leader in integrating income tax and social welfare regimes into a form of universal basic income. Nevertheless, through a combination of intellectual inertia, media cynicism, and the requisite elements not all coming together at the same time, the outlook for an open and healthy discussion around public property rights and unconditional benefits remains constrained. Despite this unpromising intellectual environment, New Zealand may yet stumble upon such reform as a political compromise, as it might have done in 1988.”
Rankin is a Lecturer of Business Practice at the Unitec Institute of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand.
Almaz Zelleke – “Lessons from Sweden: Solidarity, the Welfare State, and Basic Income”
“Progressive critics of a universal basic income argue that most nations face a budgetary choice between a full basic income and investment in public goods, including universal health care, free and well-funded education, and universal pensions, and have prioritized a robust welfare state, or the “Swedish Model,” over basic income. But examination of Swedish economic policy reveals that the welfare state is only one of the ingredients of the Swedish Model, and that another is an interventionist labor market policy unlikely to be expandable to larger states without Sweden’s cultural and demographic characteristics. Indeed, evidence suggests that Sweden’s own recent diversification–not only of race and ethnicity but of occupational strata–will make the Swedish Model less stable in its own home. What lessons can be applied to the case for a basic income in the U.S. and other large and diverse nations or regions?”
Zelleke is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at New York University’s campus in Shanghai. She has written multiple journal articles and book chapters on basic income, and has been an active member of BIEN.
Sara Cantillon and Caitlin McLean – “Basic Income Guarantee: The Gender Impact within Households”
“The potential of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) to contribute to gender equality is a contested issue amongst feminist scholars. This article focuses on the nature of BIG as an individually-based payment to explore its potential for reducing gender equality, specifically intra-household inequalities in material or financial welfare; economic autonomy; psychological well-being; and time allocation, especially leisure time and time spent in household and care work. We employ a gender analysis of existing BIG pilots/schemes as well as close substitutes (e.g., universal child benefits) to assess some of the key claims about the effects of a basic income (BI) on gendered inequality. We also present findings from empirical work on intra-household allocation and decision-making which underscore the role of independent income. The article finds some support for BIG as a feminist proposal with respect to mitigating intra-household inequality, but concludes that further empirical research is needed to argue persuasively for BIG as an instrument for furthering gender equality.”
Cantillon is Professor of Gender and Economics at Glasgow Caledonian University. McLean is a lead researcher at the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at the University of California at Berkeley.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Cover photo by Christopher Andrews, CC BY-NC 2.0
by Genevieve Shanahan | Jan 14, 2017 | News
World Basic Income (WBI) will hold its first annual conference in Manchester on Saturday, February 4. This event will launch what it calls “a new movement for global justice and poverty eradication”, with speakers from The Guardian, Share The World’s Resources, CapGlobalCarbon, the Labour Party, the Green Party and the Universities of Manchester and Oxford, among others.
The event will explore three main aspects of a proposed worldwide basic income scheme, through both panels and discussions:
- “The context – inequality, poverty, cash transfers, and basic income.”
- “Practicalities of distributing cash – funding, distribution, and ownership.”
- “Building a movement – grassroots mobilising, influence in high places, pilots, experience and evidence.”
Founded in Manchester in the summer of 2016, WBI advocates for a global basic income scheme and researches means by which to make this idea a reality. On its website, WBI notes that “the idea of national basic incomes is becoming well-established, but the proposal for a world-level scheme is quite new. We have lots of work to do to research the practicalities, run pilot experiments, build support, and eventually get a scheme started.”
For more information, see: worldbasicincome.org.uk. Tickets are available on the conference’s Eventbrite page.
World Basic Income – First Annual Conference, Sacred Trinity Church, Chapel Street, Manchester, M3 5DW, United Kingdom, February 4, 2017.
Basic Income News previously reported the founding of WBI here.
Reviewed by Kate McFarland
Photo: Sacred Trinity Church, Manchester, CC BY 2.0 grassrootsgroundswell
by Kate McFarland | Jan 13, 2017 | News
In a recent interview and article, economist James K. Boyce defends a universal basic income of $200 per month, funded in part by taxes or fees on carbon emissions and financial transactions.
Boyce, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and program director at the Political Economy Research Institute, recently co-wrote a article on the topic with entrepreneur Peter Barnes, who authored the 2014 book With Liberty and Dividends for All. The article was originally published as “$200 Dollars a Month for Everyone? Universal Income from Universal Assets” on Triple Crisis, a blog devoted to finance, development, and the environment. It has also been republished on Medium as “How To Pay For Universal Income”.
Boyce and Barnes argue that a modest basic income could be funded from “universal basic assets” — wealth that is rightfully owned by all members of society, such as that which is derived from appropriation of the commons (e.g. extracting minerals or timber from the land or releasing pollutants into the atmosphere). They argue that universal basic assets also include a portion of wealth generated from society’s financial and legal infrastructure.
On their view, a portfolio of such commonly held assets could (and should) be used to fund a citizen’s dividend of $200 per month to all Americans, distributed automatically via wire transfers to individuals’ bank accounts.
Boyce provides further explanation of the proposal in an interview with Kim Brown of the Real News Network (see video below).
In the interview, while elaborating upon the idea of universal basic assets, Boyce compares and contrasts his proposal with Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which provides all Alaskan residents with an annual basic income ($1022 in 2016) from the revenues on a permanent fund created from royalties on the sale of the state’s oil. Boyce notes that whereas Alaska’s PFD incentivizes drilling for more oil, a carbon tax and dividend would dis-incentivize carbon emissions, thereby promoting more sustainable energy production.
Boyce further articulates his ethical justification for a citizen’s dividend in response to a question concerning whether it is fair to give money to those who don’t work for it: “All we’re talking about is returning to people the money that comes from uses of assets we all own or should own in common. So, it’s not about handing out free money. It’s about not letting people use those assets for free. That’s the real handout.”
A transcript of the interview is available on the site of the Real News Network (“Universal Basic Income: A Solution to Inequality, Economic Instability, and Climate Change,” November 21, 2016.)
Cover Photo: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Pembina Institute
