by Kate McFarland | Jul 11, 2017 | News
The municipalities of Groningen, Wageningen, Tilburg, Deventer, and Ten Boer have received permission from the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment to proceed with proposed social assistance experiments.
Jetta Klijnsma, CC BY 2.0 Partij van de Arbeid
Jetta Klijnsma, State Secretary of Social Affairs and Employment, signed the authorization of the five municipal experiments on July 3, 2017.
Groningen and Ten Boer will be carrying out their experiments in cooperation with one another.
In each of the experiments, which will run for two years, participants will be randomly selected from a pool of current social assistance beneficiaries (with participation voluntary for those selected), and assigned either to a control group or to one of several treatment groups.
Each experiment has at least three treatment groups, testing the following types of interventions: (1) removing reintegration requirements (e.g. job applications and training programs) on welfare benefits; (2) providing a more intensive form of reintegration service; (3) permitting participants to earn additional income on top of their welfare benefits. Subjects assigned to the third treatment groups will be permitted to retain 50% of additional earned income, up to a maximum of €199 per month, for the duration of the two-year experiment. In contrast, under current policy, welfare recipients are permitted to keep only 25% of additional income, and only for up to six months.
The Groningen / Ten Boer experiment includes a fourth treatment group, in which participants are permitted to choose to join any one of the three preceding groups.
Although international media have referred to these experiments as “basic income experiments”, the description is a bit of a misnomer. In all treatment groups, benefits remain means-tested and household-based, and participation is limited to current welfare recipients. Moreover, legal constraints create an effective demand on participants to seek work (on pain of removal from the experiment); this effective conditionality, unique to the Dutch experiments, is discussed below.
Sjir Hoeijmakers, an econometrician who consulted municipalities in their design of the experiments, prefers to speak of “experiments in the context of the Participation Act” (cf. this Basic Income News article), while others refer to “social assistance experiments”.
The experiments are expected to begin around October 1 of this year.
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment is currently reviewing applications from three additional municipalities who also wish to conduct experiments on social benefits: Amsterdam, Nijmegen, and Utrecht. Decisions on these proposals are expected later in the summer.
Update: Shortly after the publication of this article, Nijmegen was granted permission to carry out its experiment, which will commence on December 1. A full report on Nijmegen’s experiment will follow.
Background
The municipalities of Groningen, Tilburg, Wageningen, and Utrecht have been planning social assistance experiments since 2015, following the enactment of the Dutch Participation Act. Originally, these experiments were conceived as trials of unconditional basic income (or at least policy moving in this direction), although political pressures encouraged their proponents not to use the term “basic income” (which is popularly associated in the Netherlands with utopian thinking and celebration of laziness). Under the Participation Act, municipal officials are required to implement obligations and sanctions to encourage recipients of social assistance benefits to seek employment. For example, beneficiaries are generally expected to complete a set number of job applications per week, participate in training programs, and attend group meetings as conditions on receiving their benefits. Skepticism regarding the effectiveness of these conditions was a main motivation of the experiments.
In September 2016, Klijnsma authorized municipalities to perform experiments, up to two years in duration, testing the effects of altering the conditions of the nation’s social assistance benefits. This authorization was granted, however, only under strict terms of compliance with the nation’s Participation Act, which effectively prevent the municipalities from testing an unconditional basic income (despite interest in the idea from researchers and promoters of the experiments). For example, in the case in which an experiment treatment involves the removal of work reintegration requirements, the Ministry mandates that officials assess test subjects after six and twelve months to verify that they have made adequate effort to find employment; those who have not done so are subject to dismissal from the experiment.
The Ministry also capped the amount of earned income that participants are permitted to retain on top of their benefits, and required that any experiment including a treatment group with relaxed conditions on social assistance also include a treatment group with stricter conditions.
In the face of these constraints, researchers were forced to design experiments farther from “basic income experiments” than originally desired.
After announcement of a start date of May 1, 2017, Utrecht saw its proposed experiment put on-hold due to a failure to comply with the terms of the Participation Act. The city has since submitted a revised proposal to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, which is pending evaluation.
Another municipality, Terneuzen, proposed a small-scale study of basic income–providing unconditional cash payments of €933 to 20 test subjects–which was axed by Klijnsma earlier in the year. Terneuzen has not submitted a new proposal to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment.
In a recent presentation to the Dutch branch of BIEN, Sjir Hoeijmakers stated that 45 municipalities are considering social assistance experiments.
More Information
“Eerste vijf gemeenten krijgen toestemming voor bijstandsexperimenten” (July 3, 2017). Official press release of the Dutch government.
Charlotte Huisman, “Vier steden mogen experimenteren met soepelere bijstand,” Trouw, July 3, 2017.
“Should the Netherlands test the basic income,” EuroTopics, July 4, 2017.
Previous Basic Income News Coverage
Florie Barnhoorn, “The Netherlands: All that’s left is the action. Where do we stand with the experiments?” (June 2, 2017).
Kate McFarland, “THE NETHERLANDS: Social Assistance Experiments Under Review” (May 9, 2017).
Florie Barnhoorn, “NETHERLANDS: Design of BI Experiments Proposed” (October 26, 2016).
Information provided by Florie Barnhoorn, Hilde Latour, and Ruud Muffels.
Photo (Tilburg) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Stephan Ohlsen
by Kate McFarland | Jul 2, 2017 | News
Louise Haagh (formerly co-chair of BIEN) has become Chair of BIEN following Karl Widerquist’s resignation as co-chair.
This marks the first time in BIEN’s 31 year history that the organization has been under the leadership of a single chair rather than two co-chairs. As previously announced, Widerquist will temporarily assume the newly created position of Vice Chair until BIEN’s 2018 Congress.
Haagh is a Reader in Politics at the University of York and co-editor of the journal Basic Income Studies. Prior to her appointment as Chair, she had served as co-chair of BIEN since 2014. Haagh has recently been nominated as a fellow of the UK’s Royal Society of Arts (RSA) for her contribution to the public debate about basic income. Her recent publications on the topic include an article in the journal Nature (“Basic income as a pivoting reform”), and she is currently working on a book titled Basic Income, Welfare Systems and Human Development Freedom for Palgrave MacMillan. Among other activities, Haagh spoke on basic income at the annual convention of the Danish political party Alternativet held at the end of May. Earlier in the year, she served as a witness at an oral evidence session on basic income convened by the Work and Pensions Committee of the UK’s House of Commons.
Malcolm Torry
Coincident with Haagh’s appointment as Chair, Malcolm Torry (formerly co-secretary of BIEN) has assumed the new position of General Manager.
In this capacity, Torry will undertake tasks delegated to him by the Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary. Torry has simultaneously withdrawn from his role in BIEN’s Executive Committee, making Julio Aguirre the organization’s only current Secretary.
Torry is the Director of the Citizen’s Income Trust, a UK-based affiliate of BIEN, which he cofounded in 1984. His recent publications on basic income include Citizen’s Basic Income: A Christian Social Policy and The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income.
The appointments of Haagh as Chair and Torry as General Manager were approved at a meeting of BIEN’s Executive Committee on May 23, 2017.
Post reviewed by Dave Clegg.
Top photo: Louise Haagh at the 2016 UBI-Nordic Conference.
by Kate McFarland | Jul 2, 2017 | News
Photo: Political Laboratory on Basic Income at The Alternative’s convention (credit: Louise Haagh).
“The Alternative Facts”
Denmark’s green political party The Alternative (Danish: Alternativet) has adopted basic income as an aspirational goal and established a working group to investigate a precise model and implementational strategy for the policy.
These decisions were formalized at the party’s 2017 convention, which took place May 27-28 in Odense, where basic income was a prevailing theme. Since its founding in November 2013, The Alternative has developed its policy positions through what it describes as a “political open-source process,” centered on political laboratories [link: Danish] at which party members and other interested individuals discuss and debate proposed policies. Its initial party program, for example, was influenced by the contributions of over 700 people who participated in political laboratories and workshops in early 2014. The recent convention in Odense featured such a political laboratory on the topic of basic income, which was attended by over 300 delegates.
Haagh at the Alternative’s political laboratory on basic income
The political laboratory began with presentations of opposing views on basic income.
First, BIEN Chair Louise Haagh laid out reasons to support the policy, including, fundamentally, the idea that basic income is a democratic right. Haagh emphasized that basic income can be seen as a natural extension of the Nordic welfare model, an enhancement of the existing welfare state rather than its replacement. She also argued that, among other advantages, a basic income could provide an improvement for unemployed job seekers, as Denmark’s existing job centers are inefficient, producing a low employment rate and forcing customers to spend a large amount of time in administrative processes.
Following Haagh’s presentation, Kristian Wiese, Director of the think tank Cevea, offered reasons to be skeptical of basic income. Wiese worried that basic income is merely a palliative that fails to address the underlying problems of unemployment and precarious employment, and expressed concern regarding the policy’s support from neoliberals and Silicon Valley technocrats.
After the presentations, participants broke into small groups to discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of basic income. The discussion was framed around several questions–whether a basic income is a good idea if it can be introduced without extra cost, whether a basic income is likely to lead to more socially productive activity or less, and what new policies and procedures could be introduced alongside basic income to promote community and entrepreneurship–and responses from each group were collected. While no formal vote was taken, the general consensus of delegates was favorable to basic income, and the party decided to proceed with the development of a precise model to adopt as party policy.
To the latter end, the assembly established a working group tasked with the project of drafting a policy proposal on basic income for the party within one year. In addition to the proposal of the working group, The Alternative will await precise calculations from the Ministry of Taxation before endorsing any model of basic income as party policy. (Basic Income News will publish a follow-up report on the activities of the working group later in the year when more details are known.)
The Alternative’s current political program endorses the provision of benefits without work requirements or other conditions to uninsured social security recipients as well as to those covered by insurance through union membership. Basic income will be the third and final step in the party’s social policy reform. Even prior to the recent convention and political laboratory, party leaders such as MP Torsten Gejl have described The Alternative’s advocacy of the former policies as steps toward its eventual promotion of a universal basic income for Denmark (cf., e.g., Gejl’s talk at the book launch of Philippe van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght’s Basic Income).
Torsten Gejl at UBI Nordic Conference (credit: Michael Husen)
The party has shown increasing interest in basic income in recent years, and has established close ties with BIEN-Danmark, BIEN’s Danish affiliate. The party was the official host for the two-day Nordic Conference on Basic Income Pilots, held at Christiansborg Palace, the seat of the Danish Parliament, in September 2016. Leading members of the party have continued to participate in basic income events in 2017. For instance, party leader and cofounder Uffe Elbæk spoke at the world premier of the basic income documentary Free Lunch Society, Josephine Fock participated in a debate at a seminar on basic income and the future of work, and Gejl spoke at BIEN-Danmark’s annual meeting, in addition to the aforementioned book launch.
The Alternative currently holds 10 out of 179 seats in the Danish Parliament, making it the sixth largest party in terms of representation.
Thanks to Louise Haagh and Karsten Lieberkind for information and suggestions for this article.
Post reviewed by Dave Clegg.
by Andre Coelho | Jun 30, 2017 | News
The Green Institute in Australia has just released a report named “Views of a universal basic income – perspectives from across Australia”. Published under the Creative Commons, it is a compilation of articles by several Australian authors, namely Tim Hollo, Tjarana Goreng-Goreng, Millie Rooney, Lyndsey Jackson and Amy Patterson, Michael Croft, Patrick Gibb, Luke van der Muelen, Petra Bueskens and David Pledger.
This report is a compilation of several views on basic income, from very different social corners of the Australian society. Tim Hollo, this report’s editor, Executive Director of the Green Institute and contributor to the report with the article “Views on a UBI”, starts out by asking three fundamental questions:
“What would your life be like if you – and everyone around you – had a Universal Basic Income?
How would it change the choices you make to know that there was a no-questions-asked, non-judgmental, society-wide support in place that we all contribute to and all benefit from?
What would you do differently if our society explicitly valued unpaid contributions, recognizing that paid employment isn’t the only – or even necessarily the best – way to participate?”
The answers, views and thoughts of the above cited authors follow from these fundamental questions about the human condition. Their perspectives stem from their particular angles and walks of life, which vary from indigenous culture, caring, welfare experience, college studying to unionism, gender equality and art.
More information at:
Gareth Hutchens, “Universal basic income could greatly improve workers’ lives, report argues”, The Guardian, 14th June 2017
Tim Hollo (Ed.), “Views of a universal basic income: perspectives from across Australia”, The Green Institute, June 2017
The Green Institute website
by Sandro Gobetti | Jun 29, 2017 | News
Naples. Credit to: Numeri Pari
Many associations, collectives, social movements, students and activists have joined the “Rete dei Numeri Pari” (Even Numbers Network – to which BIN Italia (Italian Basic Income Network) is also a part of), promoting a social campaign for the “income of dignity”. There will be 1000 squares across the country hosting public initiatives, debates and meetings where people will talk about the income of dignity proposal (a sort of guaranteed minimum income).
From the appeal: 1000 squares for the income of dignity
“Poverty, precariousness and inequalities are the reality of social suffering of millions of people in Europe and Italy, who pay the burden of a crisis they did not produce. All these people try to evade blame and responsibility, but we have not forgotten that it is the result of precise political and social choices. […] Over the years, we have witnessed the collapse of social policies: cuts in health, public transport, and social cooperation. We witnessed the rising cost of education and saw the right to study disappear from government agendas. Working conditions have worsened: the generations are divided between those who struggle to find a job and those who work in unacceptable conditions. This is evidenced by statistics on poverty, which now affects one Italian on three, while five million people are in absolute poverty.
We cannot wait anymore. […] Against growing social inequalities, it is necessary to affirm a new idea of society and solidarity.
It is necessary to break the chains of solitude imposed by this economic system. We must guarantee the fundamental right to a life worth living. The introduction of a guaranteed minimum income and the provision of quality and universal public services are the bases for a new system of social welfare and social security to protect people from poverty, mafia and work without rights. […] Despite the mobilization of so many, many of whom have in the last few years created a proposal for “guaranteed minimum income”, the government has instead chosen to promote “Inclusion Income”, a totally unsatisfactory proposal for the number of beneficiaries and resources invested, which does not even respond to the needs of a third of the population in relative poverty. […] Government and parliamentary measures have introduced an unconstitutional form of “selective universalism” […]
From the 16th of June, the “Rete dei Numeri Pari” will be in the squares […] We will act alongside women who want to get rid of a model of patriarchal and masked society. We will act alongside migrants to build together the right to a true and friendly citizenship. We will be in the streets with students for free education. We will mobilize with the impoverished labor force: employees, intermittent, precarious, and all workers who suffer due to the burden of the labor policies of these recent years.
We will be in over one thousand squares to say that an alternative society is emerging from the bottom and that we must mobilize together.”
More information at:
[in Italian]
Numeri Pari, “Appello: 1000 piazze per il reddito di dignità [Call: a thousand squares for a dignity income]”, Numeri Pari website, June 1st 2017
