by Citizens' Income Trust | Apr 19, 2017 | Opinion
An article by John Clarke, ‘Progressive Dreams Meet Neoliberal Realities’, poses an important question: Is it true that ‘we can draw a line between the models that are concerned with improving lives and raising living standards and those that are focused on intensifying the capacity for capitalist exploitation’?
First of all for some of the mistakes in the article. The ‘progressive’ camp is well described as offering a range of schemes that would be ‘responsibly redistributive, reduce poverty and inequality and ease up on bureaucratic intrusion’, and that would provide enough money to live on: but it is not true that those who propose schemes that would be ‘responsibly redistributive, reduce poverty and inequality and ease up on bureaucratic intrusion’ ‘pay great attention to explaining how nice their systems would be but give little if any thought to the concrete prospects of implementation’. Research published by the Institute for Social and Economic Research and by the Citizen’s Income Trust shows that schemes that would be ‘responsibly redistributive, reduce poverty and inequality and ease up on bureaucratic intrusion’ can be perfectly implementable.
A second mistake is to suggest that ‘there is a fight to be taken forward for living income, full entitlement and programs that meet the real needs of unemployed, poor and disabled people, as opposed to the present ‘rituals of degradation’ they embody.’ Unfortunately, it is precisely the fitting of benefits to needs that results in the ‘rituals of degradation’.
In the section of the article that matters, ‘Neoliberal version’, Clarke suggests that the motive underlying the schemes proposed by at least some of those governments proposing pilot projects is in fact the same as Charles Murray’s: the dismantling of all other welfare provision. He suggests that Citizen’s Income plans might be described with ‘progressive’ phrases, but their purpose is pernicious. He also suggests that Citizen’s Income proposals can provide cover for additional austerity within the current system; and that Citizen’s Income is being proposed in order to promote a more exploitative employment market.
In the section ‘Progressive Dreams’, Clarke suggests that ‘progressive’ versions of Citizen’s Income would be politically infeasible because they would tip the balance of power away from employers. He claims that it is neoliberal governments that seem to be interested in Citizen’s Income, suggesting that ‘progressive’ versions don’t stand a chance; that pursuing an infeasible Citizen’s Income might divert attention from tackling neoliberal depredations; and that Citizen’s Income would be an inadequate response to the problems facing our society. Clarke suggests that what we need is such public services as ‘free, massively expanded and fully accessible systems of healthcare and public transportation’, social housing, universal childcare, ‘living wages, workplace rights and real compensation for injured workers’.
Clarke’s final paragraph is worth quoting in full:
I am suggesting that our movements need to challenge, rather than come to terms with, the neoliberal order and the capitalist system that has produced it. For all its claims to be a sweeping measure, the notion of progressive BI is a futile attempt to make peace with that system. In reality, even that compromise is not available. The model of BI that governments are working on in their social policy laboratories will not ‘end the tyranny of the labour market’ but render it more dreadful. The agenda of austerity and privatization requires a system of income support that renders people as powerless and desperate as possible in the face of exploitation and that won’t change if it is relabelled as ‘Basic Income’.
The arguments need to be tackled one by one, starting with Charles Murray’s. Those who would like to replace public services such as healthcare with a Citizen’s Income confuse two different kinds of universality. The universality of healthcare must be one of availability, whereas the universality that characterises Citizen’s Income is one of provision. Whether healthcare is provided via the highly efficient NHS, or via an insurance system riddled with market failures, what individuals require is availability when it is needed, however much that costs. One person’s absorption of healthcare resources will be very different from another’s. Some people might spend months in hospital, and others might hardly ever see the inside of one: but they all need healthcare to be there when they need it. No standard amount of money can replace such a universality of availability. No doubt this argument will need to be made constantly. The important thing is that it is the only right argument and that it has to be made.
Some of Clarke’s other statements are genuine wake-up calls, and suggest that only Citizen’s Income schemes that do not impose losses at the point of implementation should be proposed. Similarly, nobody should be suggesting that a Citizen’s Income scheme could substitute for a National Minimum Wage or for a Living Wage. Citizen’s Income and a Living Wage would function very happily alongside each other, and would function far better than a Living Wage with a means-tested benefits system. Every time a Living Wage level is raised, means-tested in-work benefits fall, whereas this would not happen to a Citizen’s Income.
Some of Clarke’s arguments need to be tackled. No financially feasible Citizen’s Income would tip the balance of power very far away from employers and towards employees, if at all. Means-tested benefits function as dynamic subsidies – that is, they rise if wages fall – whereas Citizen’s Income functions as a static subsidy because it doesn’t rise if wages fall. Thus employers might experience more resistance if they attempt to cut wages. Also, because a Citizen’s Income might give to some employees more choice over employment patterns, and thus more ability to negotiate in the employment market, it might look as if the balance were shifting towards employees. However, because the overall effect would be to reduce the inefficiencies in the employment market, employers would find their firms becoming generally more efficient. This really could be a situation in which everyone wins.
No doubt some experiments are being conducted by neoliberal governments. This will not be a problem if researchers test the piloted schemes for household losses, and for changes in inequality and poverty. The best response, though, would be for governments across the political spectrum to research and pilot Citizen’s Income, and not to leave it to governments at only one end of it.
Finally, if universality and unconditionality are good for benefits systems, then they are good for everything else. The UK’s Sure Start childcare provision was designed to be universal, which removed the possibility of stigma. The NHS attracts no stigma, and it is highly efficient. Some services will need to be paid for, at least to some extent: experiments with free public transport can mean overloaded transport systems – but many public services are more efficient if free at the point of use. So far from Citizen’s Income being seen as a replacement for public services, it should be regarded as a default model for them unless proved otherwise.
As for Clarke’s final paragraph: let’s be realistic – the neoliberal age might be with us for some time to come, so what the situation requires is survival mechanisms and a modelling of how it might evolve to the benefit of people and planet. Citizen’s Income is precisely what is required. If Mr. Clarke would like to suggest a better alternative then we would be pleased to hear from him.
by Cordelia Holst | Apr 14, 2017 | News
Y Combinator has filmed a video in which researchers Elizabeth Rhodes and Matt Krisiloff discuss the firm’s basic income pilot.
Y Combinator is a firm based in Silicon Valley that invests and coaches promising young startups, connecting them to potential investors. They have currently launched the first phase of their pilot in Oakland, California. (See the recent Stanford Panel for details)
Elizabeth Rhodes, a PhD in Social Work and Political Science, is the Research Director for the Basic Income Pilot at Y Combinator’s Research arm, YC Research. Matt Krisiloff joined YC Research from Y Combinator where he had worked on Y Combinator Fellowship.
Rhodes begins the discussion by defining Basic Income as unconditional cash payments to individuals to ensure a minimum level of economic security.
Krisiloff explains the Basic Income Pilot was influenced by Y Combinator´s Open A.I. project. As the team began to see the possibilities in General Artificial Intelligence, they saw the implications on the traditional work environment and a need for a more robust safety net in the U.S. to allow people to react to changes.
Rhodes gives a brief overview of Basic Income pilots to date, noting that no modern studies have been conducted in the U.S. since the 70´s. Rhodes explains that the current Y Combinator pilot is to test logistics, survey methods, recruitment, while simultaneously devising the research plan for a larger study. YC Research has pulled together a working group of 24 academics and policy people, as well as following guidelines laid out by the Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects to ensure all ethical requirements are met.
The larger pilot will give unconditional cash transfers to a test group of individuals. Rhodes notes that past studies have focused on workforce participation, this study hopes to gain more holistic learning about the effects a basic income has on the individual’s- health, mental health, well-being, time use (family time, volunteering) and economic health.
Watch the full video to hear thoughts around possible outcomes in terms of future policy changes, welfare, unconditional cash transfers and possible effects on the economy.
Source Y Combinator, “Discussing Basic Income with Y Combinator Research,” YouTube, February 22, 2017.
by Kate McFarland | Apr 14, 2017 | News
BIEN’s European affiliate, Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBIE), held its latest annual meeting March 24-26, 2017, in London, UK. UBIE elected a new board at the meeting.
UBIE’s annual meeting began on the evening of Friday, March 24, with “Basic Income and the Europe we want”. At this public event, nine representatives from nine different countries — Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, the UK, Sweden, and France — shared reports on the current status of the basic income discussion in their respective nations.
Events on Saturday, March 25, featured speakers from the British trade unions GMB (which passed a pro-UBI motion in June 2016), Unite (which passed a pro-UBI motion in July 2016), and Unison (which has been “looking into” UBI over the course of the past year). Participants from UBIE described the event as a “very enriching and inspiring discussion for countries struggling to get in touch with their national unions”.
Later on Saturday, UBIE members met for workshops on topics such as a new European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) for basic income and lobbying the EU for basic income pilot studies or a a Eurodividend (a partial basic income paid to all Europeans).
The General Assembly, including the annual election of board members, convened on Sunday. As in previous years, UBIE employed an “election without candidates” process to select its board: each member nominated five individuals for the board, and those who obtain the most nominations were asked if they agreed to serve, proceeding down the list until all five spots have been filled. As a result of this process, the following board members were elected in 2017 (see more information about each here):
Chair: Dániel Fehér. Fehér, who now lives in Berlin, Germany, has been a member of UBIE’s board since 2015, and has assisted with its lobbying and publicity efforts since 2013. He was also active with the campaign for the ECI while living in Brussels.
Vice-Chair: Anja Askeland. Askeland served as BIEN’s Secretary from 2014 through 2016, and was a cofounder of BIEN’s Norwegian affiliate, Borgerlønn BIEN Norge, in 2012.
Vice-Chair: Lena Stark. Stark has been a member of UBIE’s board since 2015. She has also recently started a basic income political party in Sweden.
Secretary: Aurélie Hampel. Hampel is the international Coordinator of the French Movement for Basic Income. She is also active in campaigns for an “EU agrarian UBI” in France.
Treasurer: Ulrich Schachtschneider. Schachtschneider is active in German basic income movement and an activist and writer, having published considerably on an ecological approach to basic income.
![](https://i0.wp.com/basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/33579052381_178e56949f_z.jpg?resize=478%2C360&ssl=1)
Left to Right: Aurélie Hampel, Anja Askeland, Ulrich Schachtschneider, Lena Stark, Dániel Fehér
Barb Jacobson stepped down from the board at the meeting, after having served as its Chair since the formation of UBIE in February 2014. She commented, “It’s great to see some fresh faces, and it is time for me to concentrate on some specific UBIE and Basic Income UK projects. It has been a real honour. I’m looking forward to working with the new board and wish them all the best.” Former Secretary Nicole Teke also stepped down, following two years of service.
Following its first meeting, the new board of UBIE stated, “We feel that we are entering a new phase for basic income at the EU level,” calling the latest annual meeting “an opportunity to reaffirm UBIE’s goals” including the investigation of potential EU funding for basic income pilots and further research on the idea of a Eurodividend. The board further remarked, “It was an important moment of transition. UBIE is taking steps to formulate a more structured strategy using methodologies presented during the General Assembly. A wider team of volunteers was built to develop external communication, [and] workshops on a new ECI, the FutureLab exhibition project and basic income parties forming in Europe were also successful.”
Further updates from the new board will be shared in the UBIE newsletter.
Information and photos from Aurélie Hampel.
Post reviewed by Dave Clegg.
by Kate McFarland | Apr 13, 2017 | Research
Global Social Policy, a peer-reviewed journal on public policy and social development, has included a forum on basic income in its March 2017 volume.
The forum contains four short articles:
1. “Universal basic income in a feminist perspective and gender analysis” by Patricia Schulz (published previously, and summarized in Basic Income News here).
2. “Universal basic income as development solution?” by Anita Lacey (Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, New Zealand). Lacey outlines the potential for UBI to promote individual freedom and impact social and economic relations, and briefly describes the basic income pilot conducted in Namibia.
3. “Social protection and basic income in global policy” by Moritz von Gliszczynski (LAG Soziale Brennpunkte Niedersachsen, Germany). Von Gliszczynski analyzes the lack of attention to UBI in global policy discourse, and argues that this is due to two factors: first, in contrast to alternative policies such as social cash transfers, UBI is not directly aimed at traditional goals such as “transform[ing] the poor into agents of development”; second, proposals for UBI are vague and supported by comparative little empirical evidence.
4. “Basic income: A social democratic perspective” by Andrew Jackson (Carleton University and Broadbent Institute, Canada). Jackson argues UBI is too expensive and risks jeopardizing existing programs. Additionally, raising taxing to support a large, untargeted benefit is likely not to be politically feasible.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 The Shopping Sherpa
by Kate McFarland | Apr 13, 2017 | News
Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy, a comprehensive book by BIEN’s Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, was published last month on Harvard University Press.
In honor of the launch of the book, Van Parijs has delivered several public lectures, beginning with events in Copenhagen, Denmark (March 28) and Stockholm, Sweden (March 30).
Copenhagen (Video Below)
The former was part of a workshop on basic income organized by the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen in conjunction with two political parties, the Alternative and the Social Liberal Party, and held at the Danish Parliament, Christiansborg.
In his talk, Van Parijs describes the origins of his own support for basic income and his discovery of previous supporters of the idea. He goes on to discuss the current popularity of the idea, examining three events that have popularized basic income within the past year: the Swiss basic income referendum, the decision of the Finnish government to conduct a basic income pilot study, and the election of president candidate Benoît Hamon in France’s Socialist primary.
Van Parijs’s lecture was followed by two additional presentations on the topic — a critical perspective from Otto Brøns-Petersen of the think tank CEPOS, and a sympathetic one from Torsten Gejl of the Alternative, who relates that the party is beginning to investigate a model for a feasible basic income for Denmark.
Stockholm (Video Below)
The second launch event was a seminar at Stockholm University, moderated by Institute for Future Studies Director Gustaf Arrhenius.
In this lecture, Van Parijs considers basic income from the standpoint of philosophical ethics and social justice, addressing the common objection that it is unjust to provide money to individuals without requiring some type of work or contribution. In countering the “freeloader” objection, Van Parijs begins with what he calls “ad hominem” replies — accusing the objectors of applying inconsistent principles. He proceeds to provide a positive account to justify the provision of a basic income without requiring anything in return, viewing it instead as a social inheritance. According to Van Parijs, most of the wealth in society cannot be ascribed to the contributions of any particular individuals, and is best conceived as rightfully belonging to all of us collectively. At the same time, he stresses that we still need an “ethos of contribution”, which is compatible with the provision of an unconditional basic income.
Ingrid A.M. Robeyns (Chair Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University) and Andreas Bergh (Associate Professor in Economics at Lund University) provided comments on Van Parijs’s talk.
Robeyns praises Basic Income, especially for its balanced and sympathetic treatment of critical views. Her comments provide a general critique of the discourse surrounding basic income, arguing that one cannot be “for” or “against” a basic income outright without specifying amount, funding source, and what other programs would be replaced.
Bergh also praises the book, calling it “convincing”, although he too has complaints with the current state of basic income discourse–beginning with the book’s subtitle. According to Bergh, basic income is not a “radical” proposal and, moreover, calling it such is unhelpful with respect to its political popularity. Bergh urges basic income advocates to “get their hands dirty with national politics”.
United States
After the European book launch events, Van Parijs traveled to the United States for additional public lectures. These included a talk at Bowling Green State University in Ohio on April 7, where he was one of three keynote speakers (along with Evelyn Forget and Matt Zwolinski) at the university’s annual Political Theory Workshop–which, for 2017, focused on basic income and the future of work. On April 12, Van Parijs spoke at Stanford University, as the second major event hosted by the university’s newly founded Basic Income Lab.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Cover photo credit: Enno Schmidt