by Kate McFarland | May 10, 2017 | News
On Tuesday, May 9, an article published in The Independent alleged that Finland’s Basic Income Experiment has already produced evidence that unconditional payments lower stress and improve mental health for unemployed Finns.
This widely shared article generated rumors that the Finnish government has released the first results of this two-year pilot study, which commenced on January 1, including the above findings. These rumors are inaccurate, and the present post aims to address this misconstrual.
Background on Finland’s Basic Income Experiment
Directed by Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, Finland’s nationwide pilot study of basic income generated widespread international interest from its announcement in 2015 to its launch at the start of 2017. In its current design, the experiment is restricted to those between ages 25 and 58 who were receiving unemployment assistance at the end of 2016. Nonetheless, it differs from several other contemporary so-called “basic income experiments” in that the experimental group–consisting of 2,000 randomly selected individuals from the above target group–receives cash payments (€560 per month) that are indeed unconditional, individual, and not means tested (compare, for example, to the experiments planned or underway in Ontario, the Netherlands, Barcelona, and Livorno, Italy).
Many basic income supporters and followers are, no doubt, eagerly anticipating the results of this experiment, which will continue through December 31, 2018. Here, though, it is important to keep in mind several caveats–especially as rumors of initial results begin to surface.
1. Kela will publish no results prior to the end of the experiment (i.e. December 31, 2018).
In a blog post published in January, in response to the widespread media attention directed at the experiment, research team leader Olli Kangas and three colleagues explain that publishing any results during the course of the experiment runs the risk of influencing participants’ behavior:
A final evaluation of the effects of the basic income can only be made after a sufficiently long period of time has elapsed for the effects to become apparent. The two-year run of the experiment is not very long for changes in behaviour to materialise. The potential of the experiment, short as it is, to provide reliable results should not be undermined by reporting its effects while it is underway.
2. Kela will conduct no questionnaires or interviews of participants while the experiment is in progress.
As the same blog states, the researchers will minimize their reliance on questionnaires and interviews to gain information about study participants–again to minimize the effect of observation on behavior–relying instead on data available from administrative registries. If any individual questionnaires or interviews are used, they “will not be conducted without careful consideration, and not before the experiment has ended.”
3. Analysis of the experiment will focus on labor market effects.
A major reason for the Finnish government’s interest in basic income has been the policy’s potential to improve employment incentives (in contrast to Finland’s current unemployment benefits, which are reduced by 50% of earned income if a recipient takes a part-time job and which demand much bureaucratic oversight of individuals). Correspondingly, a main objective of the experiment, as stated by Kela, is to determine “whether there are differences in employment rates between those receiving and those not receiving a basic income.”
Some basic income proponents have criticized the Finnish pilot for its lack of attention to other potential beneficial effects of basic income, such as its effects on individual health and well-being; however, Kela has no current plans to examine such effects.
“Reduced Stress” Claim
It is in this context that we must read The Independent’s recent article “Finland’s universal basic income trial for unemployed reduces stress levels, says official.”
As its data, the article quotes Kela official Marjukka Turunen (Head of Legal Affairs Unit) as saying, “There was this one woman who said: ‘I was afraid every time the phone would ring, that unemployment services are calling to offer me a job’,” and, “This experiment really has an indirect impact, also, on the stress levels [of people] and the mental health and so on.”
These quotes originate in a recent interview on WNYC’s podcast The Takeaway, in an episode on automation and the future of work, in which host John Hockenberry interviewed Turunen about Finland’s basic income experiment, having presented basic income as a possible policy response to technological unemployment. After stressing the potential of basic income to promote employment (by avoiding the welfare trap and reducing bureaucracy and paperwork), Turunen related the anecdote above in reply to a question in which Hockenberry turned about the effects of basic income on feelings of confidence and self-respect.
In comments to Basic Income News, Turunen explained that this situation involved a participant who agreed to participate in a media interview and volunteered this information to the reporter. While some participants themselves offer feedback to Kela, Kela itself is not allowed to divulge this information to the media, nor to provide any personal information about the study participants. However, this does not prevent participants themselves from volunteering to talk about the experiment to media, as in the present situation.
Thus, it is important not to mistake this unsolicited feedback from experiment participants for official and formal results–which are still more than a year and half away. As Turunen comments,
We do not have any results yet, not until the end of next year; these insights are coming from the customers themselves willing to talk about this in the media. And these are only insights, the results must be very carefully analyzed according to the information we only get at the end of next year.
More Information:
Kela, Basic Income Experiment 2017–2018. (Official website on the experiment.)
Olli Kangas, et al, “Public attention directed at the individuals participating in the basic income experiment may undermine the reliability of results,” Kela blog, January 16, 2017.
“The Shift: Exploring America’s Rapidly Changing Workforce,” The Takeaway (podcast), May 4, 2017. (Marjukka Turunen’s remarks in context.)
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo (Helsinki) CC BY-NC 2.0 Mariano Mantel
by Guest Contributor | Mar 10, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Rahul Basu
It is often argued that the existing system of benefits is riddled with flaws, and a universal basic income would be preferable. Arguments made include the high cost of administration, the errors of exclusion (target group not receiving the benefit), the errors of inclusion (people wrongly receiving the benefit), corruption, and the cost of access for the beneficiary, which includes time, effort, and suffering degradation at the hand of bureaucracy. What this explanation doesn’t specify is under what conditions is targeting preferable, and when is universalization better?
Let’s take a simple model to examine some scenarios. Assume that a country has 1,000 residents and a per capita income of $50,000. It pays a benefit to 200 people, 20% of its population. The benefit (say free food) for each person is $5,000, 10% of the average income of the country. This would cost 2% of the GDP:
| Population x Average income |
= Total income of country (GDP) |
| 1,000 x $50,000 |
= $50,000,000 or $50 million |
| 20% of Population x 10% of Average income |
= (20% x 10%) of Total income of country = 2% |
| 200 x $5,000 |
= $1,000,000 = $1 million = 2% of $50 million |
For the moment, let’s assume no administration costs or costs of access. Let’s also assume that 80 people (40% of the target group) do not receive the benefits, and instead the same number of people outside the target group wrongly receive the benefit. And everyone receives the full amount or nothing at all. Therefore, the scheme is correctly benefiting only 120 people (12% of the population (40% x 20% or 120/1,000)), and only $600,000 or 60% of the money is well spent (1.2% of GDP (60% x 2% or $0.6 million / $1.0 million)).
Suppose we withdraw this benefit and universalize it. Then each person in the country will receive a benefit of $1,000 or 2% of average income ($1 million / 1,000 or $1 million / $50 million). If we examine individual scenarios, we can draw up the following table:
| |
Benefit |
UBI |
Difference |
Pop |
Total |
| Beneficiaries |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
120 |
-$480,000 |
| Excluded group |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
80 |
$80,000 |
| Wrongly inclusion |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
80 |
-$320,000 |
| Remaining |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
720 |
$720,000 |
| Total |
|
|
|
1,000 |
$0 |
A few things jump out. More beneficiaries have lost (120) compared to those who have gained (80). The total amount going to the beneficiary group is now $200,000, a reduction of $400,000. Further, no beneficiary is receiving the full $5,000. And while 80 individuals correctly suffer a reduction in undeserved benefits, another 720 outside the beneficiary group are receiving $1,000.
The other aspect to consider is political. While everyone is receiving the same amount, 720 of the 800 net beneficiaries of the UBI are probably not strongly concerned by a 2% increase in income. However, the losers, while only 200, are more highly motivated to defend the benefit, as it is proportionately a greater loss. Further, the 120 rightful beneficiaries are likely to have below average income. This is the central political challenge in universalizing existing benefits.
Under what scenario would the errors be large enough for universalization to make sense? One basic threshold could be set at where the total money going to the target beneficiary group does not diminish. Under what circumstances does this occur?
Let the target group be T% of the population and the proportion correctly included under the benefit is C% of the target group. In this situation, when T% = C%, the total amount received by beneficiaries will be the same under the benefit and universalization. In other words, the proportion of the target group to the population is the same as the proportion of those receiving benefits to the target group.
Let’s examine our earlier example of a benefit of 10% of average income to 20% of the population. If only 20% of the target group is receiving the benefit (20% of 200 = 40), then universalization will keep the total amount received by the target group constant.
| |
Benefit |
UBI |
Difference |
Pop |
Total |
| Beneficiaries |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
40 |
-$160,000 |
| Excluded group |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
160 |
$160,000 |
| Wrongly inclusion |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
160 |
-$640,000 |
| Remaining |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
640 |
$640,000 |
| Total |
|
|
|
1,000 |
$0 |
This is a fairly strong condition. If 30% of the population benefits, universalization makes sense if less than 30% of the benefit amount is actually received by the beneficiaries. In other words, 70% is stolen, or the cost of access is high. Such poor implementation is unlikely to be found in any developed economy for a significant benefit. It may be possible to find such benefits in developing countries where the corruption may be high, and cost of access may be significant for some groups.
The essential result doesn’t change even if we assume that beneficiaries receive a part of the benefit (due to corruption or cost of access issues). In order to achieve the same total amount received by beneficiaries under universalization, the ratio of net amount received by beneficiaries to the total entitlement / spend should be equal or less than the ratio of beneficiaries to the population.
To take a simplified real life example, the Economic Survey of the Government of India discusses the desirability and feasibility of a UBI in depth. Appendix 2 of Chapter 9 estimates for the flagship Public Distribution Scheme (PDS), 36% was lost to corruption, 36% to the non-beneficiary group and 28% to the target group. It further estimates that 60% of the target group are receiving benefits, and that the target group is 40% of the population. Only 28% of the budget is being received by the target group of 40% of the population. Clearly, a UBI (which eliminates corruption as well), would ensure that 40% of the budget is received by 40% of the population that needs it most, which would be an improvement on the status quo. This assumes the budget is kept proportionate and numerous other considerations have been set aside (the entire food supply chain for example).
While these are examples, they bring out clearly the extreme inefficiency and corruption required to make substituting a benefit for a UBI a net positive for the target beneficiaries. There are other considerations of course.
Iran replaced its enormous fuel subsidy, which was largely benefiting the rich and industry, with a UBI of a lower aggregate amount. Similar subsidies that have been captured by the rich can be a fertile ground for such structures. The carbon tax + dividend proposal is one on similar lines. By not pricing carbon emissions, the rich are being provided a benefit by the state. A carbon tax eliminates the benefit, while the dividend universalizes it.
Advocates for replacing targeted benefits with a UBI have a high standard to meet, and must demonstrate that there is a net benefit from universalization of existing benefits.
About the author: Rahul Basu is a member of the Goenchi Mati Movement, which asks for minerals to be treated as a shared inheritance. Mining is the sale of the family gold. For fair mining, there must be zero loss mining, saving all mineral money in a permanent fund, and distribute the real income only as Citizens’ Dividend.
by Cordelia Holst | Mar 8, 2017 | News
The Stanford University Philosophy Department organized the first in a series of events focusing on aspects of unconditional basic income. Facilitated by Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure, Assistant Professor in the Philosophy Department of Stanford University, with an affiliation to the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society, the panel consisted of researchers in pilots and experiments of basic income: Guy Standing (Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, University of London; BIEN co-founder), Elizabeth Rhodes (Research Director of Y Combinator’s basic income experiment), and Joe Huston (Regional Director at GiveDirectly). The topic for the panel discussion was “What do people do when they are given cash with no strings attached?”
Juliana Bidadanure
Bidadanure opened by setting a definition for unconditional basic income: cash, given individually, unconditionally, and universally, so people can enter an existence free from economic insecurity. She flagged some of the most common concerns around a universal income policy –too many people will withdraw from the work force, or it can be wasteful, taking away from government investments in poverty, education, roads, etc.
The Speakers
Guy Standing
First up was Guy Standing to discuss his research results from a pilot of universal basic income in India. Standing provided some background, saying he is pleased there is an explosion of pilots around the world; however, he warned that while pilots teach us how to form policy and legitimize our agenda, we don’t need pilots to pursue universal basic income on the basis of social justice, freedom, and basic security for all. This is something we can pursue now.
The pilot in India took a year to plan, working with the local governments, and registering background data on over 11,000 people in 20 villages. Standing stressed that conceiving of the survey required envisioning the possible stories that might come out of the data so that the metrics were in place both before and after the test. Eight villages were selected to participate, 12 other villages were used as the control group, data was collected from everyone at 6 month intervals through the trial, and the cash was paid out for 18 months. Data was also collected 2 ½ years after the pilot. Results were gathered by independent data collectors.
Standing outlined the changes that took place in the villages that received the basic income:
- Residents invested in improvements in sanitation and housing
- Weight relative to age, for especially girls, improved dramatically
- Spending on alcohol, tobacco went down
- Health care spending increased, incidents of ill health decreased, and the health status of the disabled improved (because they were able to pay for continual medicine with no breaks in treatment)
- Spending on schooling went up, with the greatest improvements for girls
- Registration and attendance in schools improved for teenage girls
- Men worked more, and earned income increased for those getting the basic income
- The only group where there was a reduction of labour was children
The best result, in his opinion, was that the emancipatory value of the basic income. When people needed cash due to an illness or an accident, they were able to use the liquidity and pool together to cover the costs, rather than borrow at 50 percent from the money lender (as they had done previously). The basic income kept people out of debt bondage.
In January 2017, the government of India included a special chapter on basic income in its Economic Survey, which referred to these pilots.
More reading on the India pilot.
Elizabeth Rhodes
Next up was Elizabeth Rhodes from Y Combinator. A Silicon Valley based venture capital firm, Y Combinator provides seed money and advice to tech start-ups. In 2015 they started Y Combinator Research, a non-profit research lab. Their motivation behind sponsoring and executing a basic income pilot came from their president, Sam Altman. He, as well as many others in Silicon Valley, are concerned about current struggles in the US with growing inequality, unpredictable employment, deep poverty, the gig economy and the fact that the existing safety net is based on work. With millions looking for borrowing options like high risk payday loans, falling into deeper debt which they probably spend a lifetime to pay back, and the decrease in job security over time, it became important to come up with a solution. They are especially concerned about the potential worsening of these struggles as workers are increasingly displaced from their jobs through robotics and AI.
Y Combinator’s pilot is in the design phase, and Rhodes explained its context as one step in a larger agenda, cautioning that the current specs may change. Rhodes took care to note it is not an ideologically driven study, but rather a study of a promising potential solution in the name of social science. It will not be a test of the effects of universal basic income, but the effects of individual cash transfer, missing the community level effects, but focusing on the individual level effects, due to the practicality of the expense of making the study community level. The study currently planned in Oakland, California, will include 2000 to 3000 participants, who will have a variety of demographic backgrounds, range in age from 21 to 35, and whose household incomes will not exceed the area median. Of these, 1000 will receive $1000 a month for 3 years (5 years for a smaller test group). The rest will be the control group. Quantitative data will be collected and a large subset will be followed up with a qualitative component as well.
The Y Combinator study will look closely at the central question “What do people do when they are given cash with no strings attached?” in the context of the US. The research plans on collecting before-and-after data on the follow metrics:
- How does it affect time use?
- Work hours
- Entrepreneurial/ gig employment/ self employment
- Education/ training
- Do parents spend more time with their children?
- Do people volunteer more? Get involved in their community?
- How do cash transfers affect physical and psychological well being?
- Health and mental health
- Subjective well being
- Healthy behaviors like cutting back on smoking and drinking, improving fitness and diet
- Decrease in stress
- What is the effect on financial health?
- Payday lending, title lending, savings, credit cards
- Do political and social attitudes change?
- Inner-group prejudice
- Economic conservatism
- Are there network and spill-over effects?
- Are people helping friends and family?
- Outcomes for children
- Possibly grades, test scores
- Any effect on crime?
Rhodes concluded by noting they would be looking at sample size to see which metrics would end up being statistically significant, but the goal would be to address these questions.
Joe Huston
Last to present was Joe Huston, from GiveDirectly, a non-profit that gives unconditional cash transfers directly to the extremely poor people living in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Over the last 5 plus years of operations GiveDirectly has transferred over 135 million dollars through their program. GiveDirectly’s most common model is giving 3 lump sums (total roughly $1000), transferred through mobile phones over a 5 month period, to the poorest people in each village. They have been building a body of evidence of the effects of cash transfers, over the last 5 years, over 65,000 households, and are able to speak to the question “What do people do when they are given cash with no strings attached?”
The GiveDirectly pilots focused on the poorest people and gave lump sums. Huston started with an explanation of the purpose of the pilots: they have seen in other tests around the world that cash is very functional; it removes the bulk of the costs of delivering the aid, and people can spend it in ways that improve their lives. For example, in some cases they have seen that when young women are given money, they get married later, become pregnant later, and have lower rates of HIV. In others, they have seen people investing in assets or increasing earnings. In GiveDirectly’s research, they consistently do not see people stopping working or an increase in gambling, alcohol or other “temptation goods.” They have seen the effects of the cash transfers having a longer term effect as well: even after the cash transfers have stopped, income is up, investment in assets are up, and decreases in malnutrition and improvements in mental health remain.
Huston explained that GiveDirectly is interested in the current debate around basic income. As their tests have show with lump sum cash transfers, there is evidence to expect positive outcome from an ongoing cash transfer, yet there is much debate and many hypotheses, especially among economists, about how human nature will respond to a basic income over a long period of time (for example, will it lead to alienation and idleness?). GiveDirectly wants to participate in gathering evidence on these questions in order to prove or disprove some of the theories.
GiveDirectly has added a basic income pilot, a change from previous work, in that instead of giving only to the poor, this test will be universal; all adults within the village will be treated the same. Forty or so villages will receive cash, a basic minimum level of subsistence (based on local poverty levels), for a period of 12 years. GiveDirectly wants to look at this long-term program versus the effects in a short 2-year program. How does this change the way families make decisions? They also want to see the effects of monthly income structure as opposed to lump sum transfers. Does it motivate people to make different choices? And they want to compare giving universally versus giving to the poorest. What are the community outcomes? Do they see a reduction in crime or conflict? Do communities take on projects together? Huston notes that the pilot will use randomization and control villages to have reference points. GiveDirectly would like to frame this debate around the evidence that comes out of this pilot. They are hoping this data can help inform different policy goals in societies.
In closing, Huston showed a chart from Brookings depicting the decreasing total cost of closing the poverty gap, and the increase in foreign aid over the years on a global scale. The chart gives a clear picture that the aid needed to close the poverty gap is available; we just need to deliver it effectively to the poor. GiveDirectly has evidence that cash transfers are very effective, and they look forward to testing universal basic income as the method of payment. Huston explains the proof of the former claim this way: before we go into a village there will be a larger portion of their society living in extreme poverty; when we leave, no one will, and that shows a direct mechanical way that basic income mitigates poverty.
Panel Discussion
The facilitator, Bidadanure, then changed gears to the panel discussion focused around the question of what people might do with cash in several counterfactual scenarios: basic income vs nothing, basic income vs microfinance, and basic income vs investment in children and education?
Standing answered that he think the counterfactuals involve paternalism of various sorts.
For example, in India the welfare system has provided subsidized food, kerosin, wheat, sugar, etc., and repeatedly the government has admitted that something like 93% of every rupee spent on the programs never manages to reach the recipient of the aid. The government subsidized fuel, which amounted to 3 or 4% of GDP. If they were to spend 3 to 4% of GDP on basic income, that would be half the poverty line.
In addition a very common issue or concern in both developed and developing countries has been the labour requirement, where recipients only get income when they do paid labour. There has been a tradition in developing countries of not giving cash transfers. In 1999 the World Bank had no records of cash transfer programs; now there are hundreds of pilots. These pilots have tested, and are testing, targeting (only to the poor) or conditionality (on sending one’s children to school or paid work) against universal programs.
Standing believes that targeted or conditional programs are very paternalistic; they don’t allow the recipient to decide what is best for themselves and their families. This kind of targeting can also create poverty traps, where people lose their benefits as soon as they get some kind of income. This is seen in developed countries and impoverished countries. Universal programs are more progressive at affecting the income distribution and lead to better outcomes.
Rhodes added that many people in this discussion are worried that if people aren’t working, where are they going to find meaning? So one alternate idea is subsidizing work for people who are able to work. Y Combinator is not able to test it in its study, but that can be a counterfactual.
Huston, agreeing with the other panelists, noted that we are used to complicated programs to help the poor, and we should instead ask what would happen if we took the money that we are spending trying to help the poor and just gave it to them.
Bidadanure’s next question was, “Do targeted benefits created resentment or a stigma in a community that we don ´t see with universal programs?”
Huston noted that GiveDirectly discusses this a lot internally. They have mainly done programs with targeted benefits where between 40% and 80% of each village has received benefits, but will start a universal program, where everyone in the village will receive benefits. GiveDirectly has not seen resentment or stigma outweigh the happiness factor in the targeted programs, likely because the criteria for who gets benefits are clear and understandable to the community.
Standing is a strong advocate for running universal pilots instead of giving benefits to randomly selected individuals. He explained that if one member of a household of five gets the income, and the rest don’t, it will be worth a lot less to that individual than a household of one. Additionally, once it becomes know that an individual is getting this money, family and friends in need may come looking for assistance. Referring to his pilot in India, he said that the importance of examining community and network results cannot be overstated. Standing did note, on the issue of migrants, that the India pilot did block migrants from joining the universal basic income program; only residents of the village at the time the pilot started (except for new babies) were included. Children got half the amount of parents, given to the mother.
Next, Bidadanure focused on the panelists’ experience with politicians and local governments.
GiveDirectly works with the Kenyan government to gain permission to be there, and to work together to extract policy questions or possible lessons that could drive their cash transfer programs. The Kenyan government currently runs 4 cash transfer programs that are focused on the most vulnerable portion of the populations: the disabled and the elderly. They have see means testing as easier to pass, so they are interested in the results of the universal pilot to see how different demographics respond when given cash. In general, do people who can work, stop working? Also of interest to the Kenyan government is the difference between individuals receiving cash versus their current program where cash is delivered on a household level.
Rhodes explained that they Y Combinator has found it difficult to get permission to give people money. The organization is working with the California state government, and even the federal government, to look at the implication of this cash transfer in terms of taxes and other benefits. They are securing waivers to allow people to keep Medicaid, and the process has been challenging.
Standing noted that it took him 3 or 4 years to get through the Indian and Namibian bureaucracy. This negotiation is very difficult. Standing explained that he was involved with negotiating the program in Finland, which did not end up according to his vision. He is currently involved in discussion around the possibility of a big pilot in Fife, Scotland, where his best ally to date is the Police Chief of Fife, who sees the possibility of crime reduction in that part of Scotland as a result of the pilot. Similarly, in the Netherlands 25 municipalities are working through negotiations with bureaucracy, but have put the work on ice until the country’s elections in April. Difficulties in negotiating with local governments will teach you a lot of humility, says Standing.
Q&A from the Audience
Adding a few minutes to the session for question and answer, Bidadanure turned the floor over to a line of interested audience members:
- What are you excited to see in the upcoming studies?
Huston stated he is excited about the number of questions they will start to see answers for — not just will people work less, for example, but will we see more risk taking and entrepreneurialism? He is interesting in seeing the studies talk to each other, where are they consistent, where we see differences. Rhodes added that the studies are being developed to enable data sharing and analysis.
Standing is excited to see momentum grow around the search for a new income distribution, and warns that dangerous waters lie ahead due to the growing income inequality. He is excited about the release of his new book, The Corruption of Capitalism, which calls for a new income distribution system, where Universal Basic Income can be an anchor in that new system.
- What is the reason for not requiring a contribution? Shouldn’t everyone getting income be cooperative, or contributing in society? And why give to millionaires?
Standing tackles this question on principle: if you say a person has to do some form of labour, or something like 35 hours of care work, you immediately become paternalistic, you immediately lead to inclusion errors and exclusion errors, and then you have to have bureaucrats monitoring it. Additionally it distorts the labour market, which can lower wages for low-skilled labour. He warns against creating a system of bureaucracy that has to be monitored; that introduces social engineering. Standing sees no danger in giving to millionaires, since you can just tax it back.
- Will any of these tests look at “in-kind benefits” up against UBI?
Huston noted that this is an exciting field of research, thinking about giving one group of people $1,000 cash versus giving another group of people $100 worth of tuition, food stamps, etc. GiveDirectly is planning a test in Rwanda where they would look at giving cash up against giving medicine, peanut butter, etc. There is a lot of evidence around giving cash and not a lot about the effects of other types of transfers. Rhodes added that in the US it would likely need to be a government run study to be practical.
- Are micro loans as or more empowering than direct aid? Is there research on this?
Huston answered that there has been a lot of research on this, and the results were disappointing. People will start more businesses, but you don’t see that flow through into the aspects that we care about like higher incomes, or higher overall welfare. Additionally, the cost of collecting the loans back from the recipient has proven to be counterproductive.
- How do you choose the threshold of $1000? What constitutes a basic income? Why cap at some high income level?
Rhodes answered this question for the Y Combinator pilot: $1000 is the current level set by Y Combinator in the planning phase, obviously the cost of living is different in Oakland versus rural Louisiana. The income cap is to see results, giving $1000 a month to someone earning $200,000 a year isn’t going to make a big difference for them.
- Have you seen inflation in your pilots?
Standing has not seen that, quite the opposite. In low income communities, the income that comes into people’s pockets increases demand for products and services, and therefore the supply is increased. What he saw in the Indian villages, for example, is that unit prices went down, and farmers’ income went up, because more people entered the market.
- If necessity breeds innovation, what happens to society?
Huston answered briefly that capital is also useful for breeding innovation.
Next in the Series
See the event here. The room was full, and we ran out of time to answer questions from the audience, which indicates the interest in this topic and may indicate an interest for the rest of the series that will focus on basic income and feminism, basic income and unions, basic income and racial justice.
Do you need money quickly? A loan could be the solution to your financial worries. Head to www.forbrukslån.com to compare lenders and find a loan that works for you.
The next event is on April 12th: Philippe Van Parijs will discuss his forthcoming book Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy.
Read more about Stanford’s graduate seminar here.
by Jason Burke Murphy | Feb 3, 2017 | Opinion
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy: Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Written by: Katja Kipping
[A long translator’s note: Katja Kipping is chair of the Left Party (Linkspartei) in Germany and a member of the national parliament. She has served as spokesperson for Germany’s Basic Income Network (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen). Within the Left Party, she organized the “Emancipatory Left” faction and writes for the libertarian socialist magazine “Prague Spring” (Prager Frühling).
Kipping presented this lecture “Grundeinkommen als Demokratiepauschale” at the Basic Income Earth Network Congress in Seoul, Korea, July 19th. She has frequently argued for basic income throughout Germany and has helped organize a “Basic Income faction” that includes most political parties in parliament.
I have translated this with the hope that left organizations worldwide will pay attention to her vision of basic income as a core component for the democratic left. Basic income would provide a clear sign that the left has learned from problems wrought in the past by bureaucracy, technocracy, and authoritarianism. Kipping draws from a constitutional republican tradition of investigating institutions that promote robust citizenship and deliberation. See Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015. She also links her hopes with that of the degrowth movement. I see basic income, as Kipping presents it here, as an antidote to alienation and right-populism. Social analysis shows basic income to be part of the design of truly public institutions.
Any lapses in quality or argumentation should be attributed to me.
Please note that Kipping also presented in Dublin at the 12th Basic Income Earth Network Congress in 2008. “Moving to Basic Income (BI) – A left-wing political perspective” can be found at BIEN’s website.
You can a video of Kipping presenting the original German speech at https://bien2016.org/en/video-basic-income-and-politics-of-democracy/.
The text of her speech can be found at: https://www.katja-kipping.de/de/article/1112.grundeinkommen-als-demokratiepauschale.html. ]
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy
Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Contents
- Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
- Economic Might for All – basic Income and democratic institutions
- Closing Remarks on social transformation
1. Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
Radical democratic approaches to basic income pay close attention to the connections between people and to their mutual dependencies within a community. The community is here understood as something public and political. It is oriented towards the well-being of all and should be shaped by all. From this it follows that freedom should not be understood as a mere absence of intervention or interference. On the contrary, freedom should be understand as independence over against any arbitrary authority [Fremdherrschaft]. Freedom, in this sense, implies no arbitrary interventions or interference on the part of state institutions and also no possibility of such interventions and interference. Intervention is arbitrary if an intervention comes whenever the intervener wills it.
Freedom, on the other hand, is fulfilled primarily through self-governance. Self-governance is formed by social and individual organization and also by monitoring these potential interventions and the institutions capable of them. Individual freedom, viewed in such an intersubjective political context, is also social freedom. The highest value is active participation of all in the res publica – a collective deliberative democratic self-determination. This naturally implies social equality and the securing of social freedom, which implies preventing any economically grounded dominance and dependency. Laws and institutions also need to reflect, promote, and enable the common good and self-governance. (See Socialist Party South Korea 2009, Patry 2010, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2012, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2015).
The following six theses on the establishment of a basic income as an all-inclusive democratic subsidy can be derived from these basic principles of radical democracy and social freedom.
- Basic Income must secure what a political community requires from each citizen in terms of money. This includes securing existence, social participation, and participation in political life. This unconditional guarantee of existence and participation has a monetary component. Non-monetary components also exist, such as free access to public goods, and to public infrastructure and services. These monetary and non-monetary components do not exclude each other but rather they complete one another. Both these monetary and non-monetary forms should, first, provide people socio-economic independence and, second, preserve their status as citizens with economic negotiating power whereby they can participate in the formation of society. Without the adequate safeguarding of free and equal conditions of social participation, no democratic participation is possible – formal possibilities for participation are not enough.
Whoever does not have enough material resources is first of all excluded from political participation and, secondly, doesn’t have enough negotiating power within political processes. This means that basic income, like all vital services, needs to be provided long-term. As I see it, this is not a problem in a time of high productivity and surplus. At most, it is a problem for those who do not want to give up economic privileges and political power. There is enough for all—worldwide!
- From a radical-democratic perspective, the basic income on a regular basis is preferable to single disbursements, like with a stakeholder grant or starting capital. Only regular payments can guarantee a lifelong income and its corresponding participation.
- The right to an unconditional basic income must be combined with a modern understanding of citizenship. A distinction between a majority of citizens and a minority of immigrants with regard to elementary socioeconomic rights and opportunities would lead to a problematic division of the community and a majority’s dominance over a minority.
- From a radical democratic viewpoint, people receive the unconditional basic income as equal members of the political community, not as part of a needy group that depends on the state. Any particular stigmatization of population groups splits the community and is a source for domination. That would still be true with a partial basic income (or transfers that do not secure survival or make social participation possible) that is supplemented by need-tested, income-tested, or asset-tested social benefits in order to reach a sufficient level.
It is clear that a person, who must make him or herself a stigmatized petitioner at the social office has a significantly harder time taking an upright path towards the political formation of the community. As Zygmunt Bauman formulated it: “The decisive argument in favor of the basic income is that it is the conditio sine qua non of a republic, as it can only exist in the union of people with self-confidence, of people without existential anxiety. A basic income which actually secures existence and allows social participation would establish a principle of citizens’ rights, rights that are not subject to a divisive and disqualifying ‘access test’ by need tests.” (Bauman 1999). [Note: this is a translation of the Bauman quote as found in Kipping’s speech. –JBM]
Therefore 5 holds: All citizens only have their rights fully recognized reciprocally through a sufficient basic income. This also means that more affluent citizens are comparatively more likely to contribute to the financing of the basic income than the less well-off citizens. This poses the question of the redistribution of economic resources and economic power.
- Basic income is not tied to any condition. An obligation towards any social or political participation would be sources of new domination. These would enable arbitrary interventions. The question of what makes something socially recognizable, and what does not, opens up a considerable amount of bureaucratic discretion. A citizen’s right to a basic income that included a direct citizen obligation would also transform voluntary engagement into regulated compulsory participation.
I would like to end this section with a quote from a German supporter of basic income who is also a politician. “It is farcical that MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] claim to maintain their substantial independence through relatively high salaries in order to make themselves non-extortionable but most of these deputies do not consider it necessary to ensure such independence and non-blackmail for the sovereign, the people” (Spehr 2003, 105). Basic income’s individual guarantee of a secure existence and participation is, alongside other forms of universal security for people (such as free access to public goods, social infrastructure, and social services), an indispensable prerequisite for social freedom, democratic and political engagement and the negotiating power for all people. It is an all-inclusive democratic subsidy!
2. Economic power for all – basic income and democratic institutions
Whoever says A must also say B. Who calls for basic income so that people can enter the public sphere with negotiating power must also call for the public shaping of our political foundations, economy, and everyday life (see Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015). We need this to secure a basic income and other sorts of public services. Arbitrary interferences in human affairs through economic power, by endangering survival, health, and natural resources is not acceptable. An economy that is deprived of public organization, an economy that is privatized, is unacceptable. That also means that an economy and a financial sector that is immune to democratic control and influence is likewise unacceptable.
An imbalance in power through the deprivation of the public (privatization) in one form or another reaches deeply into real political and social power relations and removes the political and therefore citizens from the formation and control of public affairs. On the one hand, this includes power that arises from economic distribution—income, assets, and investment opportunities. This certainly also includes power in the realm of shaping and administering the economy and the financial sector. Who actually determines the use of natural resources, production resources, investment and the way in which economic activities are taxed? Who is exercising an alienated domination over the people today with real, unequally distributed, forms of design and control, and who subjects society and the economy to the will of a minority?
In addition to basic income and other forms of life and of participation for all people, social freedom requires the self-government of the citizens: by means of joint and individual control and appropriate intervention possibilities, which are secured by appropriately democratic institutions. These institutions must give all people the opportunity to shape social and economic life individually and collectively (see Cassasas / De Wispelaere 2015).
Economic power for all means basic income, including other unconditional support for existence. It also means the safeguarding of the economy and society for all and the institutionally secured public and political shaping of the economy and the society by all. This makes a democratic social transformation all the more necessary and urgent. Tomorrow, I am speaking at another conference about the challenge that this entails for the European left.
3. Concluding Remarks on Socio-Ecological Transformation
Poverty and exclusion, power over the many by the few, and destruction of the natural foundations of human life – that is the situation.
The international degrowth movement, which is committed to a world with significantly less natural resource consumption and to a rollback of ecological destruction and damage to our planet, therefore argues for the cohesion of ecology, democracy and social security of all people, and thus for the convergence of the various social movements and political actors (see Blaschke 2016).
It seems to me that only with this complex point of view and a committed relationship between social movements can the challenges of the 21st century be countered. Basic income, which in fact assures material existence and enables social participation, is an important component of a social-ecological transformation, which seeks to also be a democratic transformation!
Literature:
Bauman, Zygmunt (1999), In Search of Politics. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Blaschke, Ronald (2016), Grundeinkommen und Degrowth – Wie passt das zusammen? https://www.degrowth.de/de/2016/02/grundeinkommen-und-degrowth-wie-passt-das-zusammen/
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2012), The Alaska Model: A Republican Perspective. In: Karl Widerquist / Michael W. Howard (Ed.): Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Examining his Suitability as a Model, New York, 169-188.
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2015), Republicanism and the political economy of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, September, 1-18.
Kipping, Katja (2009), Ausverkauf der Politik. Für einen demokratischen Aufbruch, Berlin.
Patry, Eric (2010), Das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen in der Schweiz. Eine republikanische Perspektive, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.
Socialist Party South Korea, Unconditional Basic Income and General Social Care, Party Program, Supplement No. 1, 2009 (Translation of Socialist Party of South Korea, “Basic Income for All und Universal Welfare”, translation by Min Geum, https://www.grundeinkommen.de/ Content / uploads / 2010/08 / 10-05-22-bge-program-socialist-party-korea-endrb.pdf
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Translated by Jason Burke Murphy, Elms College
by Genevieve Shanahan | Jan 31, 2017 | News
Meeting of the Minds, an organization that aims to identify and raise the profile of practical innovations in the field of urban sustainability, has published an article explaining the motivation for the Finnish basic income experiment, initiated earlier this month, co-written by one of its designers.
The “stick” mentioned in the article’s title refers to the sanctions claimants face under existing workfare policies, while the “carrot” refers to the fact that the basic income will continue to be paid to study participants even if they take up work or gain income through entrepreneurial endeavours.
The authors explain that the experiment “is designed to reform the Finnish social security system to better correspond to changes in modern working life, to make social security more participatory and diminish work-disincentives, and to reduce bureaucracy and simplify the overly complex benefit system.”
The article is written by Olli Kangas and Heikki Hiilamo. Kangas is Director of Government and Community Relations for Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, and one of the designers of the basic income trial administered by that organization. Hiilamo is a professor of social policy at the University of Helsinki and Kjell Nordstokke Professor at the VID Specialized University in Oslo.
Read the full article here:
Olli Kangas and Heikki Hiilamo, “Universal Basic Income: Does the Carrot Work Better than the Stick?”, Meeting of the Minds, January 25, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Sibelius Monument, Helsinki. CC BY 2.0 Dennis Jarvis
