by Kate McFarland | Aug 9, 2017 | News
Erik Christensen, former associate professor at Aalborg University, has written a new book on basic income, På vej til Borgerløn – Aktuel idedebat (“On the way to Basic Income: A debate on contemporary ideas”), which is to be published in August 2017 by the independent publishing house Hovedland. See the announcement at the website of BIEN-Denmark.
Christensen’s latest book is a compilation of revised and expanded blog posts from the past four years, which he previously published on Modkraft, a now-defunct Danish progressive Internet portal.
Contents:
- What is basic income?
- Why has basic income again become topical?
- Basic income in historical perspective
- Basic income as a liberation project
- From welfare state to competitive state
- From working society to civil society
- Basic income and global capitalism
- The trade union movement and basic income
- Basic income and economic democracy
- Basic income and monetary and land reforms
- Basic income nationally and internationally
- On the way to a major breakthrough
Christensen is the author of The Heretical Political Discourse: a Discourse Analysis of the Danish Debate on Basic Income (2008, Aalborg University Press; full text here).
by Kate McFarland | Aug 8, 2017 | News
The 2017 North America Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress was held June 16-18 in New York. Some papers are now available online.
Event Recap
The annual NABIG Congress is jointly organized by BIEN’s North American affiliates, the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) and Basic Income Canada Network (BICN).
In 2017, the 16th NABIG Congress was held at Hunter College’s Silberman School of Social Work in New York, New York, from June 16 through 18.
The event was the largest NABIG Congress in its history, drawing over 100 attendees and featuring over 50 speakers. Keynote speakers including Frances Fox Piven (Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center), Andy Stern (former President of SEIU), Juliana Bidadanure (Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University), Joe Huston (Give Directly), and Chris Hughes (Facebook co-founder). Plenary sessions were also held on Welfare Rights and the basic income movement in Canada, including the guaranteed minimum income pilot soon to be launched in Ontario.
Parallel sessions covered a diverse range of context. As USBIG Chair Michael Howard describes in his summary of the congress (see the July 2017 USBIG NewsFlash), “Quite a few sessions focused on movement building, from local to global levels, including two sessions on grassroots organizing, and sessions on cultural and conversational contexts, communication, and messaging. Other topics discussed included child benefits, women, inequality and economic rents, basic income experiments from New Jersey to Africa, costs and financial aspects of basic income schemes (including blockchains), growth and degrowth, and philosophical and religious arguments for basic income.”
The 2017 NABIG Congress also featured two musical performances. Singer-songwriter Brandy Moore revisited her song “Just Because I’m Alive,” which she originally performed at the 2016 NABIG Congress in Winnipeg. Additionally, John Mize closed the conference by performing his new song “B.I.G.” with his son.
A full schedule of the event can be viewed here.
For additional perspectives on the congress from participants, see “(IDEA/Child Find)+ Basic Income = Equity” by Chioma Oruh (June 20, 2017) and “Recap: North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG)” by Ryan M Harrison (June 20, 2017).
Content Available Online
Several papers and presentations from the conference are now available in the USBIG discussion paper archives, including (as of July 2017) the following:
– Barbara Boraks: “Consensus or Discord- It’s Our Choice: A Values Based Framework For a Basic Income Model”
– Karen Glass: “Ontario Basic Income Pilot”
– Rachel Presser: “Why UBI Should Make the Earned Income Tax Credit Obsolete”
– Steven Pressman: “A LITTLE BIG: The Case for Child Allowances”
– Steven Pressman: “Ecology vs. the Economy: Lessons from Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century”
– Sheila Regehr: “Dignity or Degradation: What should be the value base for building a benefit system?”
– Cameron Weber: “The Actually-Existing Welfare State in the USA and One Possible Transformation to a Basic Income”
– Karl Widerquist: “The Cost of Basic Income: Back of the Envelope Calculations”
Additional papers may be uploaded later.
Photo: Mingling after Plenary (credit: Basic Income Guarantee Minnesota)
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
by Ashley | Aug 7, 2017 | News
Pictured: Gareth Morgan, leader of New Zealand’s The Opportunities Party; Credit to: Henry Cooke, Stuff
New Zealand’s The Opportunities Party (TOP), founded last year by businessman and economist Gareth Morgan, has launched a three-stage policy proposal to implement UBI for families with young children, the elderly and youth ages 18 to 23. This policy proposes youth receive $10,000 per year for the first 5 years in their transition to adulthood.
In mid-July, TOP proposed a UBI policy for youth aged 18 to 23 to support their transition into adulthood. Under the proposal, each youth would receive $10,000 per year, divided into weekly payments of $200, to support themselves during a critical period of self-development. TOP has endorsed a basic income for families with children under the age of 3 and seniors ages 65 and older. This income would be provided with no strings attached; for example, citizens would not be asked to take drug tests, submit salary information, or undergo any bureaucratic application process. TOP’s commitment to eliminate barriers to accessing UBI by youth is inspired by observations of the current system, as party leader Gareth Morgan argued, stating that “targeted welfare payments were needlessly complex, resulting in greater costs and many not claiming the benefits they were entitled to.”
The impetus for TOP’s proposed UBI policy for youth in particular is related to the fact that New Zealand has the highest rate of suicides among young people in the developing world. Additionally, youth ages 18 to 23 experience high unemployment rates. The party hopes a UBI will help alleviate financial stress and provide more comprehensive support to help youth achieve their dreams as they transition to adulthood. The UBI is meant to encourage youth to use this money in anyway they see fit, from entrepreneurship to pursuing higher education and nontraditional careers. As the economy is increasingly uncertain, the expectation is for the UBI to supplement benefits this age group already receives and provide financial support to those who may not qualify for these government benefits. For example, there are currently 20,000 youth in New Zealand who are not in employment, education or training and therefore are not receiving government benefits.
The cost to implement this policy is estimated to be $2.4 billion. The UBI would replace the first $10,000 of $245 million in benefits already received by each youth aged 18 to 23. Rather than cut existing programs for youth, TOP proposes funding the UBI from the National Party’s $2 billion Family Incomes Package, which focuses on helping low-income families with children and steep housing costs get ahead through four main benefits:
- “Increasing the $14,000 income tax threshold to $22,000, and the $48,000 tax threshold to $52,000
- Removing the Independent Earner Tax Credit of up to $10 a week.
- Lifting the Family Tax Credit rates for young children to those of children aged 16 to 18
- Increases Accomodation Supplement rates for a two person household to be $25 and $75 a week, while the maximum rates for larger households will increase between $40 and $80 a week”
The remaining $0.4 billion will come from the nation’s projected budget surplus of $1.6 billion in 2017-2018.
This UBI is anticipated to fill in the gaps in the existing support structure for youth, while also supplementing existing initiatives to support this population. For example, New Zealand’s Labour Party “plans to give everyone 3 years free tertiary education and NZ First wants to write off student loans.” Implementing TOP’s three-stage UBI for youth, seniors and young families in tandem with these additional initiatives has the potential to provide unprecedented support to these populations.
More information at:
Henry Cooke, “Gareth Morgan wants to pay every young person $200 a week with youth UBI,” Stuff, 18 July 2017
Isaac Davison, “The Opportunities Party extends $200 a week basic income to young adults so they can ‘pursue their dreams,’” New Zealand Herald, 18 July 2017
Andreas Illmer, “What’s behind New Zealand’s shocking youth suicide rate?,” BBC News, 15 June 2017
Labour Party, “A fresh approach to education,” August 2017
National Party,”Family Incomes Package- Budget 2017” August 2017
New Zealand First, “Policies: Education,” August 2017
The Opportunities Party, “Youth to Adult UBI,” 17 July 2017
by Florie Barnhoorn | Aug 5, 2017 | News
Summer 2017,
On Thursday, July 21, the city council of Amsterdam decided that it will in no way adopt stricter local rules for its social assistance recipients, not even on paper. A large majority of the members supported a motion submitted by the chairman of the GreenLeft (GroenLinks), Rutger Groot Wassink.
The motion called for Amsterdam’s alderman for Work, Income and Participation, Arjan Vliegenthart (Socialist Party), not to lay down regulations for forced compensation in a local statute (as described below) and to launch its own social assistance experiment in September. Only the VVD and the CDA voted against it. A conflict was born.
The Participation Act, which was introduced in 2015, requires municipalities to force each social benefit recipient to make a useful contribution to society, in exchange for his or her social benefit payments. This is the very controversial so-called ‘compensation’ (Dutch: Tegenprestatie). The ‘compensation’ can be voluntary work, taking up a language training or giving informal care.
The Participation Act also requires every municipality to lay down the regulations regarding the ‘compensation’ in a local statute. This document may contain for instance punitive measures that can be imposed on a reluctant recipient. Since the introduction of the law in 2015, Amsterdam has refused to fulfill these requirements. The city does not demand a compensation from every social benefit claimant and has not recorded the necessary regulations in its local statutes. However, Jetta Klijnsma (PvdA / Labour Party), the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment, will only give her permission for social assistance experiments in municipalities that have fully implemented the Participation Act.[1] (See also NETHERLANDS: Design of BI Experiments Proposed.)
Consequently, Amsterdam is heading to a confrontation with Klijnsma, who insists that the municipal authorities record their local rules on paper first in accordance with the law. Only then would Amsterdam be allowed to start with its social assistance experiment.
Earlier in the week, on July 14, Klijnsma called on Amsterdam to be pragmatic by incorporating the desired ‘technical adjustment’ (i.e. regulations with regard to the compensation as stated in the Participation Act and the local legislation in case of default, mentioned above) into its local statutes: “It would be very sad, if the Amsterdam City Council misses the opportunity, because of this ‘technical point’, to execute an experiment with the social assistance program. If Amsterdam participates, wide public support will be generated and the experiments will gain more significance.”
Additionally, in an attempt to pacify the situation, she stressed that “Municipalities do not need to impose that obligation in practice, because they have much ‘freedom of policy’ in the execution of the Participation Act.”
Municipal councillor and leader of GroenLinks, Groot Wassink, refers to Klijnsma’s demands as ‘ridiculous’. He does not want to ‘give in’ due to the ‘blackmail’ of an outgoing secretary of state: “It seems that the state secretary has launched a kind of punitive expedition to Amsterdam.”
Vliegenthart, who is not happy with the politicized debate with the PvdA state secretary, is nevertheless planning to implement the motion. He wants to present the design of his own experiment in September. According to the councillor, such an experiment exclusively for Amsterdam is legally possible: “I will make it legal as waterproof as possible.” The plan will be very similar to a research proposal that the city submitted earlier to Klijnsma and which was already approved.
“According to scientific research, compulsion and coercion do not help,” says Vliegenthart, “We want to make it easier for our social benefit recipients to find a job, not to impose on them restrictive measures.” He wants to start a social assistance experiment whereby recipients, who have difficulties in getting paid work, are allowed to earn some money on top of their benefits. In this way, on Vliegenthart’s view, work would be not only a compensation for society’s ‘gift’ (i.e. the welfare payments), as Klijnsma views it, but a project that really yields something.
The Council of State has already decided that the municipalities are free to include the compensation in the experiments or not. Vliegenthart also thinks so, after obtaining legal advice. “I suppose the state secretary is wrong,” he has said. However, she can still block Amsterdam’s experiment by legal means.
Groningen (including the neighboring village of Ten Boer), Wageningen, Tilburg, Deventer and Nijmegen are the first municipalities which have been given permission to begin social assistance experiments. Since early July, another municipality, Apeldoorn, has also started a social assistance experiment directed at developing self-management skills and tailor-made solutions. The municipalities of Epe, Oss and Geldrop-Mierlo, relatively rural municipalities situated in the eastern and southern part of the Netherlands, have joined the project that is led by Apeldoorn. This experiment fits within the framework of the Participation Act. The research involves about 90 participants from Epe and 450 from Apeldoorn and receives scientific guidance from Tilburg University. The trial will run until July 2019.
Under the Participation Act, up to 25 municipalities in the Netherlands may execute experiments, with each experiment lasting two years. Nationwide there is room for over 18.000 beneficiaries between the various projects.
See also Kate McFarland in The Netherlands: Government authorizes social assistance experiments in first five municipalities.
Credit Photo: Pixabay (Amsterdam, City Hall), tpsdave.
Thanks to Kate McFarland for reviewing the article and for her enthusiasm.
1. All social assistance experiments must be approved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. For that reason the ministry has developed a general administrative regulation (Dutch: Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur / AMvB). This document sets out the exact standards for the implementation of the social assistance experiments. See also The Netherlands: All that’s left is the action. Where do we stand with the social assistance experiments?↩
by Bryan Tierney | Aug 2, 2017 | News
Comments to European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) consultation on the Future of Europe in Dublin, Ireland, June 7, 2017
Social Justice Ireland, an independent Irish think tank and justice advocacy organization, has endorsed proposals for the introduction of an EU-wide basic income system. Speaking at an EESC event held in Dublin on June 7th, Dr Seán Healy, Director of Social Justice Ireland, identified two key areas eroding confidence in the EU:
“1.1. Failure to address the ongoing vulnerability of many EU citizens.
1.2. Failure of the European Commission to protect small countries against its larger, stronger members.”
Addressing the first point, Dr Healy referred to recommendations made in May 2017 by a UN expert group meeting on “Strategies for Eradicating Poverty to Achieve Sustainable Development for All”:
“The social welfare systems in developed countries are no longer fit for purpose. There should be an adjustment of the paradigm including promotion, and openness to study new ideas around a new social contract that is more appropriate for the 21st century. This may entail moving towards a universal basic income system, supporting a living wage rather than a minimum wage, recognizing all work (not just paid employment) as meaningful, and ensuring that all government decisions are subjected to a poverty-proofing process. While the centrality of employment and decent jobs to eradicate poverty is well recognized, employment growth has not been sufficient to absorb the growing labour force, particularly in those countries and regions with large youth populations. Further, there has been a divergence between productivity and wages growth, as well as growing employment insecurity and casualization in all countries.”
In his speaking notes, Dr Healy agreed with the UN expert group’s analysis and recommendations, adding that the EU has consistently ignored these issues. According to Dr Healy, none of the five options provided in the EU White Paper on the Future of Europe address these points, going on to note that:
“An alternative option is required that will protect the vulnerable and move towards a future that effectively addresses poverty, unemployment, inequality and exclusion. The EU needs to become, and be seen to become, a caring Union.”
In the context of Irish politics, universal basic income (UBI) has been endorsed by some of the main political parties. The Green Party has long been in favour of the establishment of a basic income, while Fianna Fáil—the country’s second largest party—has talked about the idea for many years. Fianna Fáil’s spokesperson on social protection, Willie O’Dea, has called for radical reforms of the welfare system. The veteran politician and basic income advocate has said that, if Fianna Fáil were in office, a government-established commission would report on the idea within six months. Writing about UBI in a news article in January of this year, he said:
“While the broad concept of UBI has been around for a while, the challenges facing us today – particularly the changing and often precarious nature of work, not least the threat to jobs posed by automation and short-term contracts – make it a realistic and workable response.
“UBI would replace virtually every non-pension welfare payment except disability and housing benefits. Scrapping the myriad complex and often contradictory welfare codes would mean the end of welfare administration and expensive means-testing, an end to pointless and unproductive Intreo/job-centre interviews and hated sanctions. The biggest long-term saving, however, would stem from ending the poverty trap disincentives built into the current system, where taking a job can leave you financially worse off.”
The current government, which was formed following the appointment of Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach (prime minister) in June 2017, comprises the largest Irish political party, Fine Gael, and several independents, and is propped up by Fianna Fáil – Fine Gael’s historic rival – in a confidence and supply agreement. Fine Gael have been critical of Fianna Fáil’s basic income proposals and they do not currently have any proposals for the introduction of UBI. The Irish budget for 2018 will likely bring about increases to existing social welfare payments without any of the radical reforms proposed by rival parties.
References and further reading
Dr Seán Healy, Comments to the EESC Consultation on the Future of Europe, Social Justice Ireland, June 2017, <https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/publication/4855/2017-06-07-jointeventforeesc-seanhealyspeakingnotes.pdf>
Expert Group Meeting, “Strategies for Eradicating Poverty to Achieve Sustainable Development for All”, United Nations Headquarters, 8-11 May 2017, <https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2017/04/report-egm-poverty2017.pdf>
Willie O’Dea, “Basic incomes for all would end the welfare poverty trap and give people greater control of their lives”, Independent.ie, 19 January 2017, <https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/basic-incomes-for-all-would-end-the-welfare-poverty-trap-and-give-people-greater-control-of-their-lives-35379503.html>
European Commission, “White Paper on the Future of Europe”, European Commission, March 2017, <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf>
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: Irish flag, CC BY-SA 2.0 by jcdcv
