by Kate McFarland | Jan 24, 2017 | News
The Indian Statistical Institute hosted its 12th Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development (ACEGD) on December 19-21, 2016. ACEGD’s plenary sessions included a 90-minute panel on universal basic income and its relevance for India.
Universal basic income (UBI) has become a hotly debated issue in India. At the end of January, the Ministry of Finance will release its Economic Survey, which is expected to include a chapter addressing UBI. Leading economists have defended various forms of UBI for India (see, for example, a recent e-symposium in Ideas for India), and MPs such as Varun Gandhi and Jay Panda have voiced support.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, a panel on UBI was also held as part of the latest Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development, held in December at the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) in Delhi. This conference included a panel on UBI, featuring five economists: Debraj Ray (New York University), Kalle (Karl Ove) Moene (University of Oslo), Rajiv Sethi (Columbia University), Himanshu (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and Amarjeet Sinha (Government of Bihar).
Ray and Moene have jointly developed a proposal for what they call a “universal basic share” (UBS) in India. Like a UBI, a UBS would provide each citizen with regular unconditional cash transfers of an equal amount. However, in contrast to most UBI proposals, a UBS fixes the amount of these transfers to a fraction of the GDP rather than a specific monetary amount. Ray and Moene recommend that India dedicate 12% of its GDP to the provision of a UBS. They calculate that, at present, this would provide each adult citizen with a basic income approximately equal to the country’s poverty line.
At the ACEGD panel, Ray introduces the idea of UBS, after briefly outlining the present worldwide interest in UBI, precursors such as the Alaskan Permanent Fund and Dividend and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, and several sources of the present interest in UBI in India, including the pilot studies in Madhya Pradesh, the Goan permanent fund, and political and popular “exasperation” with the nation’s current subsidies for the poor. Following Ray, Moene elaborates upon the UBS proposal and some of its advantages, such as encouraging risk-taking and allowing individuals to do the work they want. Moene also replies to the common objection that a basic income would discourage work, stressing that this is not what is observed in the most generous welfare states, nor what’s observed when wealthy people receive an inheritance.
Sethi, who has studied UBI primarily in the US context, presents additional arguments in favor of the policy, including its cross-partisan appeal and its ability to mitigate economic shock due to automation. He also raises questions concerning the precise design of a UBI, such as whether the basic income should extend to minors and how it would be linked with macroeconomic policies.
The last two panelists, Himanshu and Sinha, argue that India should prioritize public spending on universal basic services, rather than simply distributing cash to individuals. About UBI, Himanshu states that the question is not whether it should be adopted, but why and when. While allowing that UBI is a good idea in principle, he maintains that it is not yet time to introduce such a policy in India, given that many in the country lack clean water, access to education, and other essential public goods. Sinha, expanding on Himanshu’s thesis, stresses that “we should not lose sight of the need to craft credible public systems” — and worries that a UBI would divert money and attention from necessary improvements of education, health, housing, and public infrastructure.
Video, Part 1: Ray, Moene, Sethi
Video, Part 2: Sethi (cont’d), Himanshu, Sinha
The five presentations were followed by a 30-minute Q&A session, touching on such topics as private versus public provision of services (which Ray eventually describes as a distraction from the real issues), immigration and basic income, UBI versus UBS during economic downturns, and others.
Video: Q&A
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Photo: Delhi, India CC BY 2.0 Ville Miettinen
by Kate McFarland | Jan 12, 2017 | News
The Finance Minister of the northern Indian state Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has endorsed what he calls a “universal basic income” — which would entail the replacement of existing subsidies with direct cash transfers — for all residents currently in poverty.
Finance Minister Haseeb Drabu presented the J&K state budget in a speech on Wednesday, January 11. The budget proposals included what was called “universal basic income”, though Drabu also stated that this universal basic income would be distributed only to those living below the poverty line.
As the economist Himanshu (Jawaharlal Nehru University) noted in remarks to Mint, Drabu’s proposal is more properly designated a “targeted cash transfer” rather than “universal basic income” (which he called a “European concept”).
Although Drabu’s proposed reform is not universal, the use of direct and unconditional cash transfers in poverty relief would be a significant step in the direction of what is more traditionally called “basic income”. Further, like many economists and politicians who are attracted to the idea of a basic income for India, Drabu defended the policy by pointing to inefficiencies in the nation’s current systems of aid. He was reported in the Indian press as stating, “Not only will it [direct cash transfers] eliminate all the leakages, the cost of delivery will also be reduced dramatically.”
Drabu also said, however, that executing the plan for a cash transfer system would require “not only concurrence but help from the central government as well”.
This might not be an unrealistic hope. The national government of India has expressed murmurs of interest in universal basic income, which will be a theme of the Economic Survey released at the end of this month. In recent weeks, some misleading reports in the news media have suggested that India has already endorsed or is about to implement a basic income; most of these reports, however, were based on a misconstrual of remarks reported in an interview with economist and BIEN cofounder Guy Standing. Standing has since clarified his remarks in an editorial in The Financial Express and in a statement on Basic Income News.
References
Asit Ranjan Mishra, “Jammu and Kashmir commits to idea of Universal Basic Income,” Mint, January 12, 2017.
“Budget initiates radical restructuring, reforms,” Greater Kashmir, January 12, 2017.
Article reviewed by Danny Pearlberg.
Cover photo: Chatpal, Kashmir by sandeepachetan.com, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
by Kate McFarland | Jan 10, 2017 | News
Archbishop Filippe Neri Ferrao, delivered a Christmas address in which he stressed that the Earth’s natural resources rightfully belong to all of the Earth’s children, including future generations, shared equally.
The Goenchi Mati Movement (GMM) advocates for the reform of mining practices in the Indian state of Goa. At part of these reforms, the group endorses a type of basic income: a citizen’s dividend financed by returns on money made from the sale of iron ore and other minerals (similar to the model of the Alaska Permanent Fund and Dividend, from which GMM draws inspiration). According to GMM, the minerals of Goa are rightfully owned in common by all of the state’s residents and their progeny; thus, any monetary gain from these minerals should be invested for the sake of future generations, and earnings on these investments should be distributed equally among all Goans.
In December, GMM was delighted to hear the Archbishop of Goa and Daman, Rev. Filippe Neri Ferrao, express similar sentiments in his annual Christmas address, while explicitly discussing Goa’s controversial mining practices. In the latter half of the address, while speaking about the duties of civil government, Rev. Ferrao stated:
Our beloved Pope Francis says: “The earth is essentially a shared inheritance, whose fruits are meant to benefit everyone.” He further says: “Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for the coming generations.” The Pope is referring to the principle of inter-generational equity, which the Supreme Court of India has made into a law to be followed in the Goa mining case that it heard in 2012-14.
We are trustees of our land holdings. It is our solemn duty to ensure that the value of the land is passed on to our children and future generations. Only then may we enjoy the fruits, shared equally. All generations and all within a generation would benefit equally. This would truly embody the central message of most religions, “treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.”
But what we see is an extensive environmental and social damage to Goa, which has generated rampant corruption and even weakened governance. It has been an assault on our community and on our natural wealth. More distressingly, it has been a loss to our children and to our future generations. Are we not answerable to them? Or are they going to remember us as an irresponsible generation that has squandered natural wealth for the benefit of a few?
In a subsequent press release, GMM announced, “The Goenchi Mati Movement welcomes the statement of the Archbishop at the recent Annual Civic Reception endorsing the idea of intergenerational equity in mining. As was rightly pointed out, minerals are a shared inheritance. And the existing system is leading to enormous corruption and mis-governance.”
With state elections to take place on February 4, 2017, GMM is encouraging Goans to only vote for candidates who support its call for a permanent fund and citizen’s dividend, as well as the rest of its Manifesto.
Read more:
Archbishop Filippe Neri Ferrao’s Civil Reception Speech.
Shweta Kamat, “Goenchi Mati movement gets boost after Archbishop’s ‘down to earth’ speech,” Goa Herald, December 30, 2016.
Kate McFarland, “GOA, INDIA: Mining reform group releases Manifesto, calls for citizen’s dividend,” Basic Income News, November 24, 2016.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Cover photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Eustaquio Santimano
by Kate McFarland | Jan 7, 2017 | News
A major news outlet in India has claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi intends to introduce a universal basic income, inaccurately attributing the claim to an interview with BIEN cofounder Guy Standing (SOAS, University of London). In a statement to Basic Income News, Standing clarifies that he never made such an assertion.
On January 3, Business Insider published an article (“The Indian government is about to endorse giving all its citizens free money”) in which the journalist claims that the government of India is “set to endorse universal basic income”. The journalist based this assertion on portions of an interview with Guy Standing about India’s Economic Survey, quoting Standing as saying, “the Indian government is coming out with a big report in January. As you can imagine that makes me very excited. It will basically say this is the way forward.” (Adding later: “I don’t expect them to go the full way, because it’s such a dramatic conversion.”)
Other media outlets picked up on this report, including The Independent in the UK, fueling rumors that the Modi government plans to introduce a universal basic income. Significantly, on January 6, the popular Indian newspaper MoneyBhaskar.com published an embellished version of the story (in Hindi) asserting that the government would roll out a UBI. The article, which went viral, claimed its source as Business Insider‘s interview with Standing.
In comments to Basic Income News, Standing makes clear that these radical claims about the plans of the Indian government are false embellishments of his actual remarks:
“I never said Modi is going to introduce a basic income, and never said that I knew that. What I said to the Business Insider journalist who interviewed me for about half an hour on the phone, mainly on other matters, was that the pilots taking place in Finland and elsewhere were helping to legitimise basic income, that our pilots in India had helped legitimise the topic in India, that the Indian Government was contemplating introducing basic income and was issuing a chapter in its forthcoming Economic Report to be tabled in Parliament at the time of the budget. I am hopeful, I told him, but we will have to wait to see.”
Narendra Modi photo CC BY-SA 4.0 Jasveer10
Post reviewed and edited by Guy Standing
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | News
Cashrelief.org, a non-profit organization based in New Delhi, India, plans to launch a two-year cash transfer program in a poor village in India by April 1, 2017. Like a basic income, the transfers will be unconditional and available to all residents of the village.
Pilot Design
Cashrelief’s planned two-year pilot study will examine the effects of unconditional cash transfers in a poor village in India. The cash transfers will be set at an amount just above India’s poverty level of 972 rupees (about 14 USD) per month for an individual, and will be distributed to households. For a household of four, this amounts to 96,000 rupees (about 1,413 USD) over the course of the pilot.
The organization will select a village with a high percentage of ultra-poor residents, and will distribute the unconditional cash transfers to every household in that village (although households may voluntarily opt out). At present, it has identified three possible villages: Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh (which was, notably, the site of a previous basic income pilot led by economist Guy Standing and India’s Self-Employed Women’s Association in 2011). In total, about 50 to 70 families will receive the two-year benefits.
Cashrelief decided to make the cash transfers universal within the chosen village (rather than, for example, distributing them only to a random sample of households) in order to examine the social effects of a universal policy, as well as to avoid social conflicts that might result when only a subset of residents receive money.
Throughout the pilot, researchers will study how the households use their unconditional cash transfers. In particular, they plan to measure four parameters–income, assets, health-related spending, and education spending–at the start, midpoint, and end of the experiment. To assist in this undertaking, Cashrelief plans to involve an experienced, institutionally-affiliated principal investigator.
Despite its research element, Cashrelief states on its website that its “main motivation” for the pilot is simply to “reignite hope into people leading lives of quiet desperation in extreme poverty.”
Background and Influences
Cashrelief originated in mid-2016, when entrepreneur Vivek Joshi and veteran non-profit worker Rahul Nainwal developed the idea of running their own study of the effects of direct cash transfers as aid. Joshi and Nainwal were inspired by the work of the US-based non-profit GiveDirectly–which has been distributing aid in the form of unconditional cash transfers since 2009 and has recently initiated a long-term study of basic income in villages in Kenya–and anthropologist James Ferguson’s 2015 book Give a Man a Fish: Reflections on the New Politics of Distribution, which argues in favor of non-labor-based transfers as “rightful shares” of collective resources.
Nainwal also states that he was influenced by his personal experience in the non-profit sector, where he observed many inefficiencies in the way in which aid is distributed.
Describing his personal support for basic income in remarks to Basic Income News, Nainwal says that he sees the policy as a way to “level the playing field,” stressing that “it’s not people’s own fault that they’re poor.” He adds that it is not the role of the distributing aid to tell recipients what they need but that, instead, we “might as well give them the money and let them decide what to do with it.”
Article reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Cover Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 lapidim
