by Kate McFarland | May 8, 2016 | News
In light of impending Swiss vote on a basic income, the United Nations Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) has organized a seminar entitled “Informality and Income Insecurity: Is Basic Income a Universal Solution?”
The seminar, which features a diverse panel of experts, will be held at the Palace of Nations in Geneva on May 13, 2016.
From the event description:
The panellists will discuss where and under what circumstances a UBI can be an effective way for states to meet their human rights obligations and achieve some of the major aims set out in the Sustainable Development Goals, namely reducing inequality, eradicating poverty and achieving gender equality. Panellists will also consider the challenges of creating such schemes, such as the availability of resources, issues of long-term sustainability and their adaptability in developing and developed country contexts.
Speakers include UN Ambassadors Päivi Kairamo (Finland) and Regina Maria Cordeiro Dunlop (Brazil), Patricia Schulz of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Swiss federal official Thomas Vollmer, and Guy Standing and Ralph Kundig of the Basic Income Earth Network.
UNRISD director Paul Ladd will be moderating the discussion.
The event is open to the public.
Those who wish to follow live Tweets from the seminar should look for the hashtag #UNRISDseminar.
See the event description here.
Photo of Palais des Nations, Armillary Sphere CC U.S. Mission Geneva
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (Click the link to see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News.)
by Toru Yamamori | Dec 25, 2015 | Opinion
Basic income activist Enno Schmidt give us his views on the recent recommendation by the Council of States, the upper house of the Swiss parliament, calling for people to vote against an unconditional basic income (UBI) in the national referendum next year.
The National Council, the lower house, issued a similar recommendation in September. The referendum is expected to be held next year – there are indications that it might take place as early as June. Swiss people will vote “yes” or “no” to a constitutional amendment that would introduce, if successful, the UBI as a right enshrined in the Swiss Federal Constitution.
Enno Schmidt is one of the promoters of the Popular Initiative that collected enough signatures to gain the right for a national referendum on the UBI. He is a painter, author and film-maker, and has been actively promoting basic income since 2006. He was born in Germany and lives and works in Basel, Switzerland.
In this interview, he tells Basic Income News what he thinks about the recent recommendations by the Swiss parliament, and the prospects for the referendum.
Toru Yamamori: Did you foresee the Council of States’ recommendation?
Enno Schmidt: We did not expect a majority in favour of the basic income initiative in either the upper or lower house of parliament. Still, it was good to see that there were positive contributions emerging from the two debates. There are MPs in both houses who understand some of the ideas behind the initiative. However, there was nobody voting in favour in the Council of States.
TY: How do the parliamentary recommendations affect the national referendum?
ES: The parliamentary motions are only recommendations. They are not binding decisions. Parliament fulfilled its obligations and debated the issue. The decision is entirely up to the Swiss citizens. The citizens are the highest decision-making body in a democracy. The parties, the Parliament and the government are organs of the sovereign. The ultimate sovereign is the voting population.
UBI activists dropped 8 million five cent coins outside Swiss National Council, Bern, October 2013.
TY: What is your next step?
ES: There are 8 Millions inhabitants and 5 million voters in Switzerland. We will do our best to promote debate on the idea of a basic income and talk to everyone about it.
TY: As you and others already did with the collection of the signatures for the referendum, with your films about basic income, and in public debates, tv shows, newspapers and collective actions.
What is your take on the final result of the referendum?
ES: It is not our victory if a majority says yes, nor our defeat if a majority says no. It is our business to give a chance to everybody to think about the possibility of an unconditional income, the difference between income and work, their future and the future of our society, and to encounter a positive vision for the 21st century.
We are not focused on the opponents. We want to make the idea attractive. The UBI vision is not against something, but asks for more. We want to show that a more exciting life is possible. We want to convince the majority. But even if only a quarter of the votes will be in favour of a UBI, then that would already be a great success. The referendum result is not the end. The discussion continues, and there can be another vote. Perhaps the Japanese are faster than the Swiss?
For more information, check out the English-speaking website of BIEN-Switzerland here, and our past news and commentary on the Swiss referendum:
Toru Yamamori, “SWITZERLAND: Council of States rejects basic income initiative,” Basic Income News, December 21, 2015.
Matthias Lindemer, “Swiss politicians reject basic income because they are scared of humans,” Basic Income News, December 7, 2015.
Stanislas Jourdan, “SWITZERLAND: Parliament rejects basic income initiative, but poll shows popular support,” Basic Income News, October 3, 2015.
Toru Yamamori, “Interview with Enno Schmidt, co-initiator of the Swiss Citizens’ Initiative,” Basic Income News, September 19, 2015.
Jenna van Draanen, “SWITZERLAND: Swiss parliamentary committee on social affairs opposes a federal initiative for basic income,” Basic Income News, July 14, 2015.
Karl Widerquist, “SWITZERLAND: National referendum will be held on basic income,” Basic Income News, October 5, 2013.
by Adrian Planken | Nov 1, 2015 | News
The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs wants cities who are interested in experimenting with basic income to come up with a common plan.
The municipalities of Utrecht, Tilburg, Groningen and Wageningen will jointly submit a ‘ uniformly ‘ plan ‘ before they can get permission for their experiments, including ‘ free money ‘. That has a spokesman of the Ministry of Social Affairs Wednesday evening told. This summer it became known that Utrecht, Tilburg, Groningen and Wageningen did want to set up experiments around social security payments.
According to the municipalities the current rules for the social security are too rigid and they work sometimes counter-productively. There would be too many re-integration and interview obligations with high penalties, such as suspension of the benefit. Customization is not possible and the municipality would have lost a lot of time with the controls.
For this reason, the four municipalities do want to give some of their social assistance receivers an unconditional social security payment – what they call a ‘ basic income ‘-, i.e. a monthly income of the Government without an obligation to take paid employment, to be involved in community service. Persons entitled to this assistance may also reserve their extra earnings. Tilburg, Utrecht, Groningen and Wageningen want to examine whether this group will become more active than others with the current, strict regime.
The four municipalities spoke with to PvdA-Jetta Klijnsma State Secretary of Social Affairs during a ‘ first ‘ conversation to get approval for the experiments. Admittedly the current “Participatiewet” (=participation law, to which the social assistance belongs) allow some ‘room for experiment’, but that seems not spacious enough for what Tilburg, Utrecht, Wageningen and Groningen are heading for. Klijnsma now wants that the four municipalities come up with a common, unambiguous proposal, because their ideas are still far apart. Tilburg for example is planning a four years experiment in cooperation with the University, while Utrecht goes out of a year. Utrecht also wants, in addition to providing a basic income to some social assistance receivers and to compare the results of it with the results in other groups in which they use positive incentives. One of this groups will for example be rewarded with a bonus if they (volunteer) work.
A follow-up appointment with Klijnsma is planned in the first half of November this year. Then they will try on the basis of a new proposal to come to an agreement about the possibly stretching of the experiment space in the Participatiewet. In the meantime there is much discussion about the basic income in the Netherlands. Proponents commend on the aim to give social assistance receivers an unconditional social security payment as a means to free the recipients of the restrictions and humiliations they have to suffer and think that this freedom will lead to creativity. Opponents, such as the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB), warn that it will be prohibitive to give everyone a ‘basic income’ and thinks it will discourage the people who get it to be active.
Ria Cats, “Four municipalities have to make a uniform plan for ‘ free money ‘ “. Financieel Dagblad, September 23, 2015.
De Gelderlander, “State Secretary of Social Affairs ask for additional research welfare experiment Wageningen” De Gelderlander, September 27, 2015.
by Josh Martin | Aug 7, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
Huemer provides the first response to Zwolinski’s lead essay in the Cato Unbound debate on the basic income. Coming from an anarchist-libertarian perspective, Huemer’s main arguments against a basic income are against governments in general. His line of thought is the following:
1) A basic income guarantee is permissible only if the state has political authority.
2) No one has political authority.
3) Therefore, a basic income guarantee is impermissible.
Huemer then entrenches himself deeper within this anarchist philosophy by arguing that the government cannot assume a continuity of obligations from their new taxpayers to, in fact, pay taxes. Thus, a government cannot impose a basic income upon its citizens since they have not consented to be governed. Lastly, Huemer discusses the argument that a basic income would promote individual freedom. Huemer claims that imposing a basic income would instead infringe on some freedoms to give freedom to others, which he believes is against the one true libertarian philosophy where every freedom must be protected, even if infringing on one freedom might provide much more freedom as a consequence. All in all, Huemer’s response comes from an uncompromising libertarian view of the welfare state, where the only possible form of the welfare state is a nonexistent one.
Michael Huemer, “Is a Basic Income Permissible?”, Cato Unbound, 6 August 2014.
Cato Unbound is hosting a month-long discussion on "The Basic Income and the Welfare State"
by Ian Orton | Apr 7, 2014 | Opinion
The increasing use of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) has perhaps been one of the most significant additions to the social development agenda of late. CCTs are now key components of many governments’ poverty elimination programmes and feature centrally in the UN’s current Social Protection Floor initiative.1 The mainstream media has also taken note and lent support in favour of their adoption.2
CCTs have delivered some impressive results in terms of reducing poverty and inequality, and are credited with numerous other positive human development outcomes. However, opinions on the status of CCT conditionalities in terms of human rights remain mixed. Some argue that CCTs are contradictory in nature (imposing obligations on rights) and therefore obstructive to the human rights agenda, while others stress the importance of obligations complementing those rights. The paradox is that CCTs may be positive along one dimension (reducing poverty) but not others (compromising human rights).
Moreover, there is no conclusive evidence to show that the conditional mechanism has anything to do with the aforementioned positive effects of CCTs; rather, conditionality is much more to do with politics and improving their acceptability. Perhaps conditionality is just a convenient mechanism by which to placate the paternalist twitch3 (that is to say, they provide sufficient behavioural controls to quench the demands of those social classes that finance social transfers)? In this sense, conditionality ensures continued political support and represents a ‘necessary evil’ to realize human rights through a non-prefigurative approach (that is, one in which the means are not consonant with the ends). One wonders if the conditional question ultimately boils down to a question of faith in human nature (or a lack of it), and whether the poor need to be “nudged” in the “right” direction or given the resourced freedom to develop in ways that they individually deem fit. If true, this poses the question: why not dispense with the conditional dimension rather than risk rights violation? A question I will return to later.
The first position, that CCTs violate human rights is straightforward: human rights are unconditional, universal and indissoluble in character, their fulfilment cannot be based on supposed “deservingness”. In this sense, CCTs are clearly detrimental to securing human rights… End of story! And since income security is the main delivery mechanism employed in advanced societies for realizing the human right to social security it is therefore unacceptable to deny a person (parent or child) that fundamental right; a right that might be violated through the imposition and enforcement of conditionalities. Concerns are further compounded by the fact that the fulfilment of the conditions may not entirely depend on the beneficiaries, but also on the availability and quality of the basic social services. How can individuals fulfil conditions if the requisite services do not exist, are inadequate or their distant location makes the opportunity cost of access prohibitive? Remote, difficult-to-reach or deprived areas where vulnerability is high, are typically characterised by the absence of such services. In such places, the high opportunity costs of meeting conditions of CCTs may penalize the most vulnerable who are least able to meet conditions. Responsibility for protection is therefore shifted from the state on to the individual.
Using conditionalities to promote human rights?
While seemingly counter-intuitive to the preceding argument, conditionalities can also be advocated from a rights-based perspective. They have been invoked as a way to promote a combination of rights and as a means to facilitate their materialization. This represents an important shift, as, although universal in principle, in practice rights have remained unfulfilled for many if not most of the poor (as per the looming post-MDG deficit). In other words, CCTs may represent a concrete way to bridge the gap between the legal basis of rights and their practical fulfilment. It is argued that this can be achieved because it is recognized that the situational knowledge of beneficiaries, and their behaviour, are key factors for the materialization of rights. In addition, CCTs can also positively influence the behaviour of non-beneficiaries who may wish to gain access to participation. More broadly, it is argued that conditionalities bind not only the beneficiaries, but also the public authorities to create the necessary conditions (for example, basic services availability) for their fulfilment. This is why CCTs are now presented as a vehicle for co-responsibility.
Continuing in this vein, rather than impede human rights, CCTs may have an important recursive function that permits further enhancement of service delivery and therefore maximizes opportunities for rights realization: lack of compliance with conditions does not have to trigger a punitive approach leading to the exclusion of the beneficiary. Instead, non-fulfilment can also be understood as having a revealing function, highlighting the vulnerability of individuals. This sheds light on the balance—or the lack of it—between the solutions provided and the needs of the beneficiary. Thus, non-fulfilment could kicks-start a positive feedback loop signalling to the authorities that perhaps the delivery of essential health and education services is lacking, or that there is a need for other services (for example, counselling, job training). Consequently, further inquiry leads to progressively improved solutions.
Far from undermining rights fulfilment, the existence of conditionalities might strengthen the bargaining power of some household members thereby facilitating the fulfilment of their rights and promoting their status within the household. This aspect can be particularly important for women and children. However, this point also illuminates the inherent gender bias of CCTs whereby fulfilment of conditions is a responsibility often bestowed on women, and therefore gender inequality is reproduced by anchoring women in existing roles, for example reinforcing the idea that caring is a maternal duty and simultaneously infantilizing men as potential carers.
But is conditionality morally acceptable or even effective?
For others, conditionality represents a form of paternalistic social engineering writ large4 where the design of CCTs is at best guided by a benevolent paternalism (saving us from ourselves), and at worst, by a mean-spirited cynicism, showing little faith in the poor to know what is best for themselves and their families, and reinforcing the belief that recipients are somehow social misfits wholly responsible for their condition. In this cynical sense, conditionality offers social policy makers a means to limit the adverse effects of decision making that may be inconsistent with human development goals or, arguably, with the best interests of household members. For instance, CCTs obligate the ‘poor’ to prove that they are not ‘lazy’. The morality of this approach is dubious and resonates frighteningly with Bentham’s project of creating an ‘architecture of choice’, and with ‘nudge-esque’ social policy.It also fulfils Foucault’s prediction that society will tend increasingly toward the panopticization of human behaviour. As a result, conditionality not only poses a threat to human rights; it chips away at freedom and personal responsibility, depriving humans of agency and the opportunity to consider and select forms of life which are both satisfying and rational.
As intimated early, much of the discussion thus far is underpinned by the presupposition that the conditional mechanism is pivotal in producing positive social outcomes. However, the efficiency of conditions has rarely been studied separately from the programmes that include them; therefore some argue that there is almost no evidence that conditions make any major difference.5 More study is clearly needed to disaggregate the effects of the conditional mechanism and the actual cash payment. Perhaps there is a need to recognize that the presumed effectiveness of conditions has attained something of the doxa status, or a kind of Emperor’s Clothes: an idea we think with and through, but not about. We should be cautious of such seemingly self-evident truths, whose employment really is more a matter of faith than anything based on scientific rigour. CCTs continue to be an increasingly popular means for reducing poverty. However, that CCTs should remain conditional is clearly not universally agreed. If the conditional mechanism is not the pivotal factor, then why not dispense with it and behavioural conditionalities? Perhaps a movement toward unconditionality could offer a way forward. While unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) are not automatic fulfillers of human rights, arguably they reduce the risk of human rights violations when it comes to the right to social security, with the bonus of being freedom enhancing. However, when it comes to other rights (such as education, basic health care), like CCTs, UCTs must be embedded in a wider social policy framework of adequate social services and monitoring, in order to facilitate rights maximization and materialization. Elsewhere it has been argued that cash transfers do not need to be made conditional on school attendance to impact on children’s education.6 Even the (unconditional) old-age pensions in Brazil have helped to increase school attendance, and there is evidence that the cash paid through the Namibian pension scheme has ultimately been spent on children’s education in spite of the absence of conditions. The recent pilot studies on UCTs in India, which have exhibited many similar positive results, also support this view.7
This debate is unlikely to be settled in the foreseeable future, but unconditionality can reduce the risk of human rights violation ex ante receipt of benefit, whilst continuing to reduce poverty.
FOOTNOTES
1 In 2012, Recommendation 202 on social protection floors was adopted as a new international labour standard at the International Labour Conference.
2 See: The Economist. 2013. “Cash to the poor, pennies from heaven: Giving money directly to poor people works surprisingly well. But it cannot deal with the deeper causes of poverty.” The Economist, October 26.
3 Standing, G. 2002. Beyond the New Paternalism: Basic Security as Equality. London: Verso.
4 Standing, G. 2011. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
5 Hanlon, Joseph. Armando Barrientos. David Hulme. 2010. Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution from the Global South. Sterling VA: Kumarian Press.
6 Department for International Development (DFID). 2005. Social transfers and chronic poverty: Emerging evidence and the challenge ahead, A DFID Practice Paper.
7 Standing, G. 2012. Cash transfers: A review of the issues in India. Social Policy Working Paper Series – 1. UNICEF India.
