by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Research
The Green Institute, an Australian non-profit organization devoted to education and action concerning green politics, has published a collection of essays on the ideas of universal basic income (UBI) and a shorter working week (Can Less Work Be More Fair?, December 2016).
In the collection’s introduction, Executive Director Tim Hollo states that the Green Institute “remains agnostic” on whether a UBI is an “appropriate mechanism” to achieve a reduction in working hours with no reduction in pay or working conditions–a goal which the organization does unequivocally support. Hollo adds that, despite its agnosticism, the Green Institute “believe[s] a conversation on the idea [of UBI], in the context of the need to grapple with the inevitability of less and less paid work in an ever more unstable world, is vital to [Australia’s] politics.”
Following are overviews of the 10 essays in the report and their authors.
1. “Why work less?” by Tim Hollo and Chris Twomey, Policy Director of the Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) and Chair of the Green Institute.
Hollo and Twomey discuss four reasons for which societies should pursue policies aimed at the reduction of working hours: inequality and insecurity of work (e.g. the rise the of the gig economy and zero-hour contracts), the threat of the automation of many jobs, widespread overwork and the need for improved work/life balance, and environmental destruction caused by the “work-to-consume / work-to-produce-to-consume” cycle.
Additionally, the authors critique two pervasive social norms, which they believe should be challenged by the debate around debate surrounding UBI and shorter working hours: the ideas that “only paid work is a noble pursuit” and that “a punitive approach to welfare is necessary to force people into this noble pursuit” (p. 15).
Finally, they propose three alternative ideals to frame the policy debate: “the ideal of universalism; the realisation that, while work is good, less work can be better; and the approach of encouraging and enabling meaningful work in resilient communities, rather than the punitive attitude to welfare that is failing both workers and employers” (p. 19).
Hollo and Twomey stop short of endorsing UBI as the preferred means to achieve these ideals, and they are clear that UBI would not be a one-stop solution (if it is part of the solution at all). However, they maintain that–as long as it is framed in the terms they describe–UBI in an crucial policy to consider and debate.
2. “Towards an historical account of Universal Basic Income” by Elise Klein, Professor of Development Studies at the University of Melbourne.
In her contribution to the collection, Klein traces the history of discourse about UBI from its roots in the ideas of Thomas More, Marquis de Condorcet, and Thomas Paine. She also provides an overview of the contemporary state of basic income debate, both globally and in the Australian context.
Klein has previously defended universal basic income in essays such as “Securing Economic Rights: The Time Has Come” (2015).
3. “On shorter working hours” by Godfrey Moase, assistant general branch secretary at the National Union of Workers in Melbourne.
In his contribution, Moase traces the history of labor’s demand for shorter working hours and argues that we must “take up the struggle once again for a shorter working week” for the sake of economic security, quality of life, and ecological sustainability.
Moase has previously defended a basic income guarantee of $30,000 per year for all Australians; see, for example, his 2013 article published in The Guardian (“Why Australians deserve a universal minimum income“).
4. “Not Just a Basic Income” by Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology at Macquarie University.
The main objective of Spies-Butcher’s essay is to argue against a UBI as conceived as a replacement for the welfare state, concluding “UBI is part of the answer, but only if it builds on a broader project for social change” (p. 46).
Spies-Butcher has previously defended an Australian UBI (as a partial solution) in articles such as “Could a new ‘basic income’ protect Australia’s most vulnerable?” (October 2015, The Conversation) and, earlier in 2016, in a panel discussion on UBI hosted by the New South Wales Fabian Society (see his presentation).
5. “A Universal Basic Income: Economic considerations” by the political economist Frank Stilwell (Emeritus Professor at the University of Sydney).
After outlining several reasons for which UBI seems to a policy “whose time has come”, Stilwell raises the question of how a UBI could be funded in Australia, and describes some sources of uncertainty with respect to the policy’s economic effects. However, he concludes his essay by emphasizing that “these uncertainties are not a reason to eschew further investigation” and that the discussion surrounding UBI is important because it “directs our attention to the all-important questions of ends and means: ‘what sort of society do we want?’ and ‘how should we restructure our economy so that the desired social outcomes can be achieved?'” (p. 51).
Stilwell also defends basic income in a short radio interview with Hamish Macdonald (“Less work, more money: the argument for a universal basic income“), which was aired in response to the publication of the Green Institute report.
Harry Nilsson
6. “Goin’ where the weather suits my clothes” by Louise Tarrant, former National Secretary of United Voice.
Inspired by the 1969 Harry Nilsson hit “Everybody’s Talkin’“, Tarrant recounts several pivotal moments in the last 70 years of history of Western democracies, ultimately arguing that now is the time to recreate an effective democracy and new social compact. Tarrant discusses the threat of automation and the “over-valorization” of paid work as factors giving rising to this need. She finally describes how a new social compact might be formed around the ideas of less work and a UBI.
To hear more of Tarrant’s ideas about UBI, listen to her discussion of the policy’s pros and cons at the Fabian Society panel (in which she participated alongside Spies-Butcher).
7. “The emancipatory potential of a Universal Basic Income” by Clare Ozich, Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Employment Rights (AIER).
Drawing from the work of Guy Standing, Kathi Weeks, Paul Mason, and others, Ozich argues that the debate about UBI should be seen as a way to open discussion about “how we conceive of work and what value we place on what forms of work” (p. 71). She stresses that the emancipatory potential of UBI depends on the exact form of the UBI implemented; for example, a basic income set too low could merely act as a subsidy to low wages.
8. “Why a Universal Basic Income can address historic, gender and material inequities” by feminist advocate Eva Cox, currently Adjunct Professor at Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Cox supports a basic income as a way to recognize the value the unpaid labor: “By liberating people from the need to earn their basic expenses through paid work, we can open up many possibilities of creating better functioning societies. By recognising the value of unpaid contributions already made and encouraging their expansion, there can be more gender equity, social wellbeing and validation of diversity of lifestyle choices” (p. 82).
After making a case for the need to recognize unpaid work, Cox briefly outlines a possible incremental approach to welfare reform in Australia.
Indigenous Australian Dancer, CC BY-SA 2.0 Naparazzi
9. “Basic income makes basic sense for remote Indigenous Australia” by Jon Altman, research professor at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University in Melbourne and emeritus professor of the Australian National University in Canberra.
In his contribution, Altman reviews decades of findings concerning the effects of welfare programs on indigenous communities, especially the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme and the “work for the dole” Community Development Programme (CDP) that eventually replaced it. Although originally intended to provide wages for part-time employment, the CDEP came to administered a basic income in some regions, where it was popular and successful. Altman argues that the CDP is less effective (calling it “neo-paternalism … masquerading as a work-creation program that is destructive and deeply impoverishing already impoverished people”, p. 93), and that a (re-)introduction of basic income scheme would greatly improve the status of indigenous Australians.
Altman has argued for the same thesis–that a basic income would improve the position of indigenous Australians–in previous works, such as the book chapter “Basic Income for Remote Indigenous Australians: Prospects for a Livelihoods Approach in Neoliberal Times” (published in the 2016 edited collection Basic income in Australia and New Zealand).
10. “The environmental impacts of a UBI and a shorter working week” by Greg Marston, Professor at School of Social Science at The University of Queensland and a leader of BIEN’s Australian affiliate, Basic Income Guarantee Australia.
Marston, one of Australia’s most prominent basic income advocates, presents an ecological argument for basic income in his contribution to the Green Institute report. As Marston argues, “Transitioning to a low-carbon slow growth economy is not simply a matter of social policy prescription or new economic incentives, but of transforming whole patterns of social life in terms of employment, family, mobility, housing and leisure” (p. 97), and such transformations require that work be organized differently. Some companies might opt to create a virtual working environment (often through registered address use at Companies House offices), potentially allowing employees to work from home and promote flexible working. These days, working from home is becoming more and more of an option, and technology is advancing at a rate that makes it entirely possible. Many companies already have some form of av system in place in order to facilitate things like virtual meetings and conferences with both employees and clients alike, so there are communications solutions already out there for remote working. Naturally, without modern communication technology, none of this would be possible. Implementing a cloud contact centre may encourage more businesses to retain a positive outlook on remote working.
Marston’s argument is one that he has also presented in earlier articles, including “Unconditional Basic Income and transitioning to a low-carbon society” and “Greening the Australian Welfare State: Can Basic Income Play a Role?” (the latter is a chapter in the book Basic income in Australia and New Zealand, which he co-edited).
Additional Press
Gareth Hutchens, “Take basic income and short working week seriously, Greens think-tank urges“, The Guardian, December 8, 2016.
Cover Photo: Surfer at Australia’s Byron Bay, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Richard Rydge
by Toru Yamamori | Jan 5, 2017 | Opinion
As we’ve reported here, the Finnish government is starting a two-year experiment on a basic income. When the government announced it in last August, a Basic Income News editor conducted a series of interviews in Finland. Summaries of those with the government and a long-term advocate, the Greens, and the Pirates were published here.
This is a longer version of the interview with Tapani Karvinen, who is a politician from the Pirate Party of Finland. He served as the chair of the party between 2014 and 2016. His response to the government’s press release on the experiment is here.
How did you come to know about UBI?
The idea of UBI was first introduced to me sometime 2012 through our political party. It gained instant support within our core members and was promptly adopted as a party statute.
What was your first thought on UBI?
I was intrigued by the simplicity and saw how it could correct most of inequality between students, small time entrepreneurs and various types of unemployment.
Has something changed after you first learned about UBI?
As my view on the matter has broadened, I see that we need wider transformation in our economic policies.
Why do you support UBI?
As they say, the simplest answer is probably the correct one. The simplicity of UBI would make the need for large institutes obsolete, and the tax-income would be shared to boost the economy, while giving equal opportunities to work for extra income for everyone, student, pensioner, unemployed or as entrepreneur.
What would you do if you had a UBI?
I’m an entrepreneur in a co-operative audiovisual company and do daytime work in a small business. UBI would enable me to do more income-taxed work.
Have you talked about UBI with your family and old friends? What do they say?
My parents have both owned small business and they do understand how UBI would make their lives less stressful, especially in those silent months, when income is not guaranteed.
How have you been involved with the Pirates?
I joined the Pirate Party of Finland in 2010, was elected as chairman of the party in 2014 and as vice-chairman in 2016.
What is your biggest priority in politics?
I see the Pirate agenda of sharing information as the key for everyone who wishes to improve themselves or seek knowledge for other reasons. There is a saying which illuminates it perfectly, “give man a fish, and he will eat a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will eat every day.”
How is UBI related to your important political agenda?
UBI enables people to act on what they see meaningful, without stress that those choices would cause economical catastrophe for them or their household. It gives opportunities for innovations, knowledge, arts, politics and just for caring thy neighbour.
What is your thought on the governmental initiative for UBI experiment?
I’m cautiously welcoming for the Finnish governments plan for UBI experiment. The greatest flaw I see in this experiment is that the saturation of UBI receivers is not strong enough to create work amongst group of friends, for example college classmates, who have idea that could be pursued, if it wouldn’t hinder their studies and student benefits. I would have preferred to see local study with high to full saturation of UBI receivers.
Let readers know more about yourself: where and when you were born, etc.
I’m 35 years old, born in eastern Finland (Heinävesi), from a small-business home. During last fifteen years I have worked several professions and for about dozen employers. Roughly put, I have worked five years as doorman for restaurants, five years in several IT-jobs and five doing pretty much everything from warehouse-worker to teaching. I have degree in computer sciences, and I have studied journalism and media-studies for few years.
The photo was taken by Hannu Makarainen.
by Philippe van Parijs | Jan 4, 2017 | News
Photo: Atkinson receiving honorary degree from Hoover Chair at Université catholique de Louvain
Sir Anthony (“Tony”) Atkinson, a distinguished economist best known for his work on inequality, passed away on January 1, 2017. Atkinson was Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics and Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford.
In the January 3 issue of Le Monde, Thomas Piketty wrote:
With his distinctive approach, at once historical, empirical, and theoretical; with his extreme rigor and his unquestioned probity; with his ethical reconciliation of his roles as researcher in the social sciences and citizen of, respectively, the United Kingdom, Europe, and the world, Atkinson has himself for decades been a model for generations of students and young researchers.
I could not agree more. This is exactly why Louvain’s Hoover Chair chose to offer him an honorary degree in 1996, on the occasion of its 5th anniversary. This is also why he was invited repeatedly to BIEN-related events.
Unlike his mentor James Meade, Atkinson did not advocate a fully unconditional basic income. In 1993, he wrote:
One has to ask why, despite finding supporters in all political parties, citizen’s income has not yet come close to being introduced. Consideration of this question has led me to the view that, in order to secure political support, it may be necessary for the proponents of citizen’s income to compromise.
This compromise became his participation income: individual, universal but conditional on socio-economic participation in a sense that extends far beyond employment and involuntary unemployment. By defending this compromise with his characteristic honesty and rigour all the way to his last book (Inequality, Harvard University Press, 2015), largely written while fighting against cancer, Tony Atkinson remained up to the end an invaluable fellow traveller for the basic income movement and a powerful intellectual voice in the service of greater social justice.
Philippe van Parijs
See also
this obituary in
Basic Income News for more words of remembrance about Sir Tony Atkinson and his influence on the basic income movement.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 3, 2017 | News
Sir Anthony (“Tony”) Atkinson, a distinguished economist best known for his work on inequality, passed away on January 1, 2017, aged 72.
In the words of BIEN co-founder Philippe van Parijs (Professor Emeritus at Université de Louvain), Atkinson was a “great scholar and a wonderful man, to whom the basic income movement is greatly indebted.”
Tony Atkinson (May 2015), CC BY-SA 4.0 Niccolò Caranti
At the time of his death, Atkinson was Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics and Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford (previously Warden of Nuffield College). He was a Fellow of the British Academy, and a former President of the Royal Economic Society, the Econometric Society, the European Economic Association, and the International Economic Association.
Atkinson began writing on economics in the 1960s, when he published a first book on poverty in Britain and a second on unequal distribution of wealth. Throughout his career, Atkinson’s research focused on issues of social justice and public policy, especially related to income inequality. His recent projects included the World Top Incomes Database and a report on monitoring global poverty for the Commission on Global Poverty of the World Bank.
BIEN co-chair Louise Haagh (Reader at University of York) reflects:
Atkinson was a remarkable figure in the field of economics and in public debate. He is behind the concern with inequality as a threat to capitalism that is now common knowledge. Most important of all, with the likes of Amartya Sen, he made the field of public and welfare economics respectable, showing how the economy cannot function without a strong, well-funded public sector and a combined concern with pre- and redistribution to make equality of outcome attainable.
Malcolm Torry, BIEN co-secretary and Director of the Citizen’s Income Trust, describes Atkinson’s books, reports, and papers as having always been “packed full of detail, and always with a purpose: to tell anyone willing to listen that poverty and inequality matter, and that changes to tax and benefits systems can reduce them.”
In his last major work, Inequality: What Can Be Done? (2015), Atkinson presented 15 proposals to curb income and wealth inequality in developed nations. These include a national participation income and an unconditional basic income for children. Similar to a basic income, a participation income grants all members of society a right to a secure livable income. However, as its name suggests, a participation income is subject to a participation requirement. On Atkinson’s view, this requirement might be satisfied by not only paid employment but also caregiving, volunteer work in one’s community, full-time education, or other socially valuable activities.
Although he advocated for a participation requirement, Atkinson was an important contributor to the basic income discussion, even participating in BIEN’s congresses. Haagh recounts that, for over two decades, Atkinson was “open about his support for universal grants” at the same time as he also voiced “skepticism about how the proposal would sit with current welfare systems and norms” — a skepticism which, in Haagh’s view, lay behind his suggestion of a participation condition.
“I interpret Atkinson’s concern as not wanting to give up on ideas and practices of cooperation and community in the areas of welfare and economic development. That is why he thought participation was important as a form of legitimacy and for itself,” Haagh says. “Being the mark of honest and curious scholarship, Tony changed his mind on both the form and funding of basic income and participation income over time, explaining his reasons. Tony was critical in making basic income analysis less messianic and part of the wider welfare debate.”
Torry offers a slightly different interpretation of Atkinson’s endorsement of participation income, while agreeing that his work has been instrumental in driving forward critical, evidence-based debate about basic income and welfare policy:
Early in his career he recognised the desirability of Basic Income, but worried that it might be publicly and therefore politically unacceptable to give to everyone an income unconditionally: hence his proposal for a Participation Income. When he first made the proposal in 1992 he privately admitted that it might not be possible to administer a Participation Income: but he never gave up on the idea, and included it in his last book Inequality.
Elaborating upon Atkinson’s scientific approach to these topics, Torry contends that the distinguished economist’s most important legacy might be his development of microsimulation tools for the modeling of tax and benefit reforms:
It is thanks to Tony and his one-time colleague Holly Sutherland that the UK has been a leader in using microsimulation programmes and large survey databases to evaluate a wide range of individual and household effects of tax and benefits reforms. The Basic Income debate in the UK has been as intelligent as it has been because we can use the tools that Tony was the first to develop.
Tony combined a deep desire to reduce poverty and inequality with a social scientist’s pursuit of evidence as to how that might best be achieved. He will continue to be an example to us all.
BIEN co-founder Guy Standing (Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, University of London), a long-time acquaintance of Atkinson, was among the many saddened to hear of his passing. Standing reflects:
I knew him for many years, and was delighted when he accepted my invitation to give an opening keynote to the BIEN Geneva Congress in 2002, where he gave a characteristically optimistic speech about basic income coming in through the back door. Above all, he should have received the Nobel Prize in Economics. His lifelong work on income inequality will be his primary intellectual legacy. It was the real foundation for Thomas Piketty’s influential book. In his final magisterial book, Tony returned to basic income, and his participation income variant of the idea. He was a gentleman scholar.
Note (January 3, 7:30 ET): Since the original posting of this article, van Parijs has contributed an additional short post commemorating Atkinson.
Additional Reading: Sir Anthony Atkinson on Basic Income
A. B. Atkinson, “The Case for a Participation Income,” The Political Quarterly, 1996.
A. B. Atkinson, “Basic Income: Ethics, Statistics and Economics,” revised version of a paper presented at the Basic Income and Income Redistribution workshop at the University of Luxembourg, April 2011.
Citizen’s Income Trust, “Inequality: What Can Be Done? by Anthony B. Atkinson, a review,” Basic Income News, August 26, 2015.
Top photo: Sir Tony Atkinson at Fourth Angus Maddison Lecture on Data, Distribution and Development (Oct 2015), CC BY-NC-ND OECD Development Centre
by BIEN | Jan 1, 2017 | Bios & background Info, Opinion, Testimonies
Louise Haagh (BIEN Co-Chair)
I first came across basic income in summer of 2001 when instructed about it by Workers’ Party Senator Eduardo Suplicy, at his home in São Paulo. I was doing research on workers’ rights, at the same time undertaking a survey of economic security among residents in poor and middle-income districts (published in World Development, 2011a). Eduardo famously played a key role in the drive to legalise a basic income as a policy goal in Brazil, and in presenting the extension of targeted cash grants as a step towards it (Suplicy, 2002). Eduardo was insistent that I do not go home that evening till I mastered all there was to know about reasons for basic income and how the path towards it was being paved in Brazil. Night fell. I remember enjoying more than a few helpings of food and tea, before Eduardo was satisfied I understood, after which – the gentleman that he is – he accompanied me to somewhere I could hail a cab, making sure to have a long friendly chat with the driver before we were sent off into the night.
The basic income appealed to me then primarily as a necessary foundation for consolidating workers’ rights – and in many ways that is still how I see it, but in a broader context of rights to human development. I had been working on workers’ rights and issues of economic citizenship since the early 1990s, during my PhD on Chile and later work on South Korea, both places I spent a lot of time and in which I did surveys of workers’ condition of precarity and their institutional sources of power. Against this background I was struck by the sanity – the immediately obvious justification for basic income. It seemed to me evident that the most important justification was a basic humanist and democratic one – and I still think that today.
Coming to the BI proposal from the perspective of workers’ movements, and in general the problem of the democratisation of everyday institutions, gives a different perspective on the political character of a BI reform. Above all, it makes it evident that BI intersects with other institutional and political challenges. This is something I am very conscious of when thinking about the question of how a BI might extend the social bases of freedom.
The sense in which I first found BI intuitively important was in relation to occupational freedom. I had been studying the economic liberalisation and institutional restructuring of the Chilean economy during the years of Pinochet and found that the precariousness among workers it generated, both economically and institutionally, had become embedded in a way that the new democratic regime of 1990 could not overturn (Haagh 2002a, 1999). The result, I argued (Haagh, 2002b), was that Chile deepened political rights without this leading to the expected deepening of social rights, given the absence of economic rights. This marked an evident contrast to the formation of welfare states in Europe in the 20th century, as discussed in T.H. Marshall (1949). Before I knew about basic income – during the mid-1990s – I had been working on a concept of ‘occupational citizenship’ – first in my PhD and then during a later British Academy post-doctoral fellowship at Oxford University. Essentially, what sparked my enquiry was the contradiction within liberal economic theory – so manifest in the labour market outcomes I studied in Chile – between the expectation of worker mobility– and the lack of underlying forms of economic security – in the forms both of money and services – that would make this sustainable.
I argued the atomised labour market regime not only predictably led to weak investment in skills, and thus a low-wage, low–skill equilibrium economy (Haagh 1999). In addition, it undermined workers’ freedom in a way that denied them effective citizenship within the polity at large (Haagh 2002a,b).
Having theorised a ‘gap’ in terms of absence of occupational citizenship (Haagh 1999, 2002a), it seemed obvious to me that basic income (BI) would be a necessary but not sufficient element in improving persons’ control of their lives.
There are important lessons from Latin America about the political conditions for a BI reform that are important to consider as the debate on BI is gaining force in Europe today. These are of both a practical and analytical kind. Like the case of Chile’s in part stunted democratization, the story of BI in Latin America is not a straightforward one of cash grants turning into rights (Lo Vuolo 2013). Similarly, one cannot be sure prospective transitions into partial forms of basic income through experimentation in Europe will turn into secure bastions of freedom, given the overall context of austerity and preceding roll-back of public sector protections (Haagh 2015).
It is ironic to think that Friedman – who advocated a form of constant basic security in the shape of the Negative Income Tax essentially on freedom grounds as rooted in an idea of independence – also indirectly was architect of Chile’s economic experiment.[1] The irony lies in the fact that that experiment was not complemented with a set of basic rights outside the market. On the contrary, deregulation of unions’ functions – detailed in Haagh (2002a,b) – along with other mechanisms of economic security, was paralleled with the implementation a state organised system of individual insurance, too weakly subsidized to afford real protection (Haagh 2002a, 2006). Given the underlying precarity of workers’ income streams, the individual insurance model was unable to offer effective cover.
The case of Chile shows why basic income has moral appeal, yet the basis of that appeal that lie in destabilisation, precarity, inequality, and loss of workers’ democratic rights may not be a likely political basis for a sustainable BI reform. Moreover, time has shown that in conditions of high inequality and weaker public finances, such as in Latin America, political preferences are likely to continue to be for targeted and conditional benefits (Lo Vuolo 2013, Haagh 2007, 2011a, 2013, Haagh and Helgø 2002).
The practical contradiction – as demonstrated in Chile – between the two seemingly symbiotic elements of Friedman’s advocacy, for economic liberalisation, and for basic security, is then not that surprising from a political and institutional perspective.
This is because the destabilisation of institutions that the first project entails destroys the basis for everyday cooperation within society that gives legitimacy to the second project to extend universal rights. Although Friedman did not see the Negative Income Tax as a welfare right, but as a kind of money mechanism to promote agency and ensure against basic risk, even something ostensibly simple like the NIT, depends on quite complex institutional development and political agreements. The fact that Friedman did not like the welfare state does not mean it did and does not exist in the United States. It is its more hierarchical – interclass-distributive- form that makes it more incoherent and punitive (Haagh 2012, 2015).
In short, the conditions of precarity in Latin America – now more common in the developed world – showed me why basic income is morally necessary for the market economy (as Friedman knew), but not itself sufficient for freedom in a democratic polity.
The Chilean case also showed me that the moral appeal of basic income is not the same as a political foundation for basic income reform. The two may even be contradictory if moral appeal is linked with conditions of crisis and compensation, as distinct from equality as equal standing in a more complex sense, which gives to BI a key but partial role in democratising institutions’ form.
For me it is very important to stress the compatibility of basic income and the interests of workers’ movements. The demands made by workers’ organisations historically can be argued to have played a transitional role in a process of democratisation to consolidate more universal rights. At the same time, the interests they channel in terms of institutions’ stability and democratic form represents something constant and deeper. This is important to remember today when – in a context of growing precarity in the developed world – there is a risk that the defence of basic income comes to be thought about as compensation for loss of – or an exchange for – other rights.
Coming back to that evening in 2001, it was not at all a surprise to me then that it was a Senator of a Workers’ Party advocating for basic income who was trying to convince me of the. To me, it was intuitive that workers’ movements should and would embrace the idea – at least in the context of a family of rights-based institutional changes. Having come to BI via work on unions, I was therefore quite surprised when – after going to the BIEN Congress in Geneva in 2002 – I became aware of the polemical nature of the BI debate concerning the relationship of that proposal and the established welfare state – hereunder social democracy and the union movement. Although it is painful to acknowledge, I think an important basis for that real life tension lies in the academic basis of the BI proposal as couched in fairly abstract and idealistic terms (Haagh 2011b).
In short, coming from the comparative institutional tradition of historical enquiry it seems evident to me that basic income is an element in a wider process of democratisation of institutions in society. The success, substance, form, and stability of that proposal is likely to stand or fall with the level of democratisation of society as a whole.
That is why we should not be surprised that BI experiments and debates are happening today in some of the most institutionally developed welfare states in Europe. It is far from given however how they will turn out.
[1] Explaining the purpose of the Negative Income Tax that closely resembles a basic income, Friedman (1979, 120) argued that the ‘basic amount’ (or ’personal allowance’) would “..provide an assured minimum to all persons in need regardless of the reasons for their need, while doing as little harm as possible to their character, their independence, or their incentive to better their own condition” (italics added) 120 He further (ibid. 121) noted, “[t]he negative income tax would allow for fluctuating income… but that is not its main purpose. Its main purpose is rather to provide a straightforward means of assuring every family a minimum amount…”
Friedman, M., 1990[1979/1980], Free to Choose, San Diego: Harvest.
Haagh, L. (2015) Alternative Social States and the Basic Income Debate: Institutions, Inequality and Human Development,’ in Basic Income Studies, Special Issue on Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, August, ISSN (Online) 1932-0183, ISSN (Print) 2194-6094, DOI: 10.1515/bis-2015-0002, August 2015, https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bis.ahead-of-print/bis-2015-0002/bis-2015-0002.xml
Haagh, L. (2013) ‘The Citizens’ Income and Democratization in Latin America – A Multi-Institutional Perspective‘ in Rubén Lo Vuolo (Ed.) Citizen’s Income and Welfare Regimes in Latin America. From Cash Transfers to Rights, Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee Series, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haagh, L. (2012) ‘Democracy, Public Finance, and Property Rights in Economic Stability: How More Horizontal Capitalism Upscales Freedom for All’ in Polity, October, Volume 44, No. 4. pp.542-587.
Haagh, L. (2011a) ‘Working Life, Well-Being and Welfare Reform: Motivation and Institutions Revisited’, World Development, March, Vol. 39, No.3. pp.450-573. Also available Basic Income, Social Democracy and Control over Time at: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeewdevel/v_3a39_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a450-473.htm
Haagh, L. (2011b) , Policy and Politics, January, Vol. 39, No.1, pp. 41-64.
Haagh, L. (2007) ‘Basic Income, Occupational Freedom and Anti-Poverty Policy’ in Basic Income Studies, Vol. 2, Issue, 1, June.
Haagh, L. (2006) ‘Equality and Income Security in Market Economies: What’s Wrong with Insurance?’’ in Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 40:4, 385-424.
Haagh, L. (2002a) Citizenship, Labour Markets and Democratization – Chile and the Modern Sequence, Basingstoke: Palgrave, St. Antony’s Series.
Haagh, L. and Camilla Helgø (2002) (Eds), Social Policy Reform and Market Governance in Latin America, Basingstoke: Palgrave. St. Antony’s Series.
Haagh, L. (2002b) ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes: Labor Reform and Social Democratization in Chile’, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 37, No.1, Spring, pp. 86-115.
Haagh L (1999) ‘Training Policy and the Property Rights of Labour in Chile (1990-1997): Social Citizenship in the Atomised Market Regime, Journal of Latin American Studies, Cambridge University Press, 31, 429-472.
Lo Vuolo, R. (Ed.)Citizen’s Income and Welfare Regimes in Latin America. From Cash Transfers to Rights, Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee Series, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marshall, Thomas, H., 1949, Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suplicy, E. (2002), Renda de Cidadania – A Saída é Pela Porta, Cortez Editora
Photo credit: Enno Schmidt
At the end of 2016, the year in which BIEN celebrated the 30th anniversary of its birth, all Life Members were invited to reflect on their own personal journeys with the organization. See other contributions to the feature edition here.
