Sarath Davala is an Indian sociologist based in Hyderabad, India. He co-founded India Network for Basic Income and Mission Possible 2030 – both organisations working on basic income related issues. From 1993 to 2000, he was an Associate Professor at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. Between 2010 and 2014, he was the Research Director of the Madhya Pradesh Basic Income Pilot Project. He is the co-author of the book: “Basic Income: A Transformative Policy for India”, which summarised the findings of the MP BI pilot study. He is currently co-leading another basic income pilot with waste collectors in the city of Hyderabad, India, a project initiated by University of Bath, and supported by European Research Council. Sarath is also collaborating with different agencies to innovate solutions to reach cash the last mile in the rural parts of India.
Vice Chair
Hilda Latour
Hilde Latour has a background in biomedical sciences and cultural anthropology and years of experience in program- and knowledge-management. She is a life member of BIEN, board member of Basisinkomen Nederland (dutch BIEN) and co-founder of Mission Possible 2030 – Basic Income the key to SDG. As a Guest lecturer at the blockchain minor – International Financial Management and Control at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, she explores the boundaries of paradigm shifts, such as Building Commons on the blockchain, a new narrative for Basic Income
UN Liaison
Diana Bashur
Diana Bashur, MA: After working for the UN and other international agencies in development and political analysis in New York, Vienna and Damascus, Diana returned to university to research a different approach to peacebuilding. Currently at the University of Vienna, she is researching Basic Income as a tool for peacebuilding with a focus on the Middle East and a particular interest in its potential for social cohesion. Diana was elected BIEN Secretary in August 2021 and UN LIaison in August 2024.
News service editor
Peter Knight
Peter Knight joined BIEN in 2017. He is a PhD (Stanford University) economist and strategic analyst with broad international experience in digital transformation, e-development, e-government, distance education, electronic media, telecommunications reform, international banking, foundation work, and teaching. Peter is devoted to leveraging information and communication technologies to accelerate social, economic and political development. He currently focuses on promoting thought, communication, and action across three areas: sufficiency, sustainability, and innovation; he is Coordinator of the Sufficiency4Sustainability Network.
Features editor
Tyler Prochazka
Tyler Prochazka is the opinion editor for BIEN. He is the chairman of UBI Taiwan and a PhD student at National Chengchi University.
Research Coordinator
Jurgen De Wispelaere
Jurgen De Wispelaere is a political theorist turned public policy scholar, specializing in the political economy of basic income. He is currently a Visiting Professor at the Götz Werner Chair of Economic Policy & Constitutional Theory, University of Freiburg, as well as an Associate Professor (Docent) in the Faculty of Social Sciences at Tampere University. He has published extensively on the politics of basic income and is the co-editor of four volumes as well as the Founding Editor of the interdisciplinary journal Basic Income Studies. Jurgen has been a member of the BIEN EC in 2002-2004 and also co-organised the BIEN Congresses in Montreal (2014) and Tampere (2018).
Affiliate and public outreach Julio Linares
Julio Linares is an economic anthropologist from Guatemala. He holds an Msc in Anthropology and Development from the London School of Economics and Political Science and a MA in Applied Economics and Social Development from National ChengChi University (國立政治大學) in Taipei, Taiwan. His research focus dwells on the relationship between money, direct democracy and unconditional basic income. Julio is currently based in Berlin, Germany, where he explores these topics in practice with the Circles UBI project. Julio is currently serving his second term as Public Outreach for BIEN. He speaks Chinese, English, Spanish, German and a bit of Hungarian.
Hubs Supervisor
Hubs Supervisor
Dr. Neil Howard
Neil is a Lecturer in International Development at the University of Bath. His research focusses on the governance of exploitative and so-called ‘unfree’ labour and in particular the various forms of it targeted for eradication by the Sustainable Development Goals. He currently co-leads a pilot in India trialling UBI and participatory action research as potential policy responses to indecent or exploitative work in Hyderabad, India. Neil is also a founder and editor of the Beyond Trafficking and Slavery platform publishing at openDemocracy.net.
Affiliates Coordinator
Olaf Ostertag
Awaiting text.
Treasurer
Malcolm Torry
Dr. Malcolm Torry was elected as BIEN’s treasurer in 2021 following five years in the voluntary post of General Manager, during which time he facilitated the stabilisation of BIEN’s registration, administration, and financial affairs. He is a priest in the Church of England who is now Priest in Charge of St Mary Abchurch in the City of London. For twenty years he was Director of the Citizen’s Basic Income Trust in the UK, for ten years he was a Visiting Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics, and he is now a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath. He has written several books on Basic Income, and has edited two editions of the Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income: https://torry.org.uk/basic-income.
Social Media Manager
James Grant
James has been contributing to BIEN’s online presence since 2018, becoming the Social Media Manager for the organisation in 2021. He studied International Relations at Queen Mary, University of London, and currently works in the tech sector, focused specifically on Virtual Reality technology.
Bank account trustees (not members of the Executive Committee): Jake Eliot, Annie Miller, Simon Duffy, Reinhard Huss
Chair of the International Advisory Board: Philippe Van Parijs
Tasks related to the different posts
The task of the EC
BIEN’s purpose is: To educate the general public about Basic Income, that is, a periodic cash payment delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement; to serve as a link between the individuals and groups committed to, or interested in, Basic Income; to stimulate and disseminate research about Basic Income; and to foster informed public discussion on Basic Income throughout the world.
The task of the EC is to ensure that BIEN fulfills its constitutional purpose and to set policy to that end.
General duties of EC members
To attend EC meetings, and if not attending to send apologies. At least 50 % of meetings must be attended between one General Assembly and the next
To fulfill and develop the tasks related to the post to which you were elected
To work with any working group(s) to which you are allocated in order to fulfill the tasks allocated to the group(s) by the EC
Individual duties
Chair
The role of the Chair is to collectively develop a vision, mission and long-term strategy for BIEN. In all aspects the Chair should work closely and in consultation with the Vice-Chair.
She / he should seek new partnerships globally and develop meaningful collaborations with people and organizations that will further the strategic objectives of BIEN in terms of strengthening research about Basic Income, its dissemination worldwide in as many languages as possible so that basic income discussion becomes rigorous and robust. In addition to these strategic aspects of the role, Chair in consultation with the Vice-Chair and the EC members should fulfill the following tasks:
To chair meetings of the EC and the General Assembly
To propose policy and initiatives for BIEN and to lead them
To ensure that decisions made by the EC conform to BIEN’s purpose
To take any urgent decisions required between EC meetings
To represent BIEN to other organizations and individuals
To liaise with the congress Local Organizing Committees over the content of congresses
To submit an annual report to the General Assembly
To raise funds for BIEN and make it financially sustainable
To encourage new organizations to affiliate to BIEN, and work for growth of membership
Vice Chair
To fulfil all of the functions of the Chair whenever the Chair is absent
To fulfil any of the tasks of the Chair by mutual agreement
To support and help the chair in proposing policy goals and initiatives for BIEN and to assist with leading them
Secretary
In consultation with the treasurer, to keep an up to date register of BIEN members and of members of the EC
To take minutes of EC and GA meetings
In consultation with the Chair, to prepare meeting agendas
To prepare papers required by the EC
To send agendas, minutes and other papers to EC members before EC meetings and to BIEN members before meetings of the GA
To receive correspondence and ensure that it is acted on
To undertake correspondence as required by decisions of EC and GA meetings
To ensure that all requirements of registration by the UK’s Charity Commission are met
To administer elections, including proposing tellers to the EC
Treasurer
To keep income and expenditure accounts along with evidence of income and expenditure
To make payments as agreed by the EC
To submit regular financial reports to EC meetings
To prepare annual accounts
To liaise with the auditor over auditing of the accounts
To prepare budgets if asked to do so by the EC
To manage the bank and other accounts
To propose financial rules to the EC
Hubs Supervisor
The Hubs Project involves building regional BIEN hubs in Africa, Asia and Latin America and professionalising BIEN’s day-to-day activities. The project aims to strengthen the basic income ecosystem and BIEN’s role in it.
Regular oversight of the Hubs project
Meeting with BIEN coordinator and regional hubs managers to check progress and course correct
Strategic support to coordinator and regional hubs managers
Reporting to the BIEN EC about project progress
Connecting with partners and donors around the project.
BI News Editor
In consultation and cooperation with the EC and Chair to develop news policy
To oversee BI News posts on the website
To issue monthly BIEN Bulletin emails
To supervise the work of the volunteers allocated to the news service
To ensure that guidelines agreed by the EC are adhered to by volunteers
Social media manager
In consultation and cooperation with the EC, Chair and News Editor to develop social media policy
To oversee social media channels
To supervise the work of the volunteers allocated to social media
To ensure that guidelines agreed by the EC are adhered to by volunteers
Affiliate and Social Outreach
To maintain an up to date register of affiliated organizations and their contact details
To liaise between affiliated organizations and the EC
To convene meetings of representatives of affiliated organizations at and between congresses
To oversee BIEN’s relationships with international and other organizations in consultation with the Chair and in conformity with policy set by the EC
To assist with convening meetings between BIEN and other organizations both at congresses and on other occasions in consultation with the Chair and Congress local organizing committees
Website Manager
To manage the website and liaise with its other users in consultation with the Chair and in conformity with policy set by the EC
Volunteer Recruitment Officer
To oversee the recruitment, allocation and training of volunteers
In consultation with the Chair and in conformity with policy set by the EC to liaise with volunteers and to manage volunteer policy
Congress Organizer (appointed by the EC and the Local Organizing Committee)
To co-ordinate the Local Organizing Committee (LOC) that plans the congress
To liaise between the EC and the LOC by attending EC meetings and in other ways
Bank account trustees
To facilitate the relationship between BIEN and the Charity Commission
To facilitate the efficient management of the bank account
Research Coordinator
To develop research policy and initiatives in consultation with EC and Chair
To review and update information related to research pages on the BIEN website
To assist and suggest measures to promote quality of research at BIEN congresses
To serve as point of contact for outside research-related organizations and activities
To facilitate research initiatives in collaboration with external research and community partners
To engage in exploring strategic funding options for basic income research initiatives
The full title is “Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices”, and it’s the most recent publishing of the World Bank on the specific issue of basic income, by the hands of editors Ugo Gentilini, Margaret Grosh, Jamele Rigolini and Ruslan Yemtsov. From the original World Bank webpage it can be read:
Specifically, the book examines how UBI differs from or complements other social assistance programs in terms of objectives, coverage, incidence, adequacy, incentives, effects on poverty and inequality, financing, political economy, and implementation. It also reviews past and current country experiences, surveys the full range of existing policy proposals, provides original results from micro–tax benefit simulations, and sets out a range of considerations around the analytics and practice of UBI.
Contributors to the book include (but are not limited to) Francesca Bastagli (Head of the Equity and Social Policy Programme and Principal Research Fellow at the Overseas Development Institute), Jurgen De Wispelaere (Policy Fellow with the Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath), Ugo Gentilini (Global Lead for Social Assistance with the Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice at the World Bank) and Tina George (Senior Public Sector Specialist at the World Bank).
The book is available as a free download, accessible the World Bank’s webpage dedicated to it.
The project will “examine the economics of Basic Income, including the interaction between technology, output GDP, consumer income and expenditure.” The project has been set up with the collaboration of Geoff Crocker from Basic Income Forum.
The research will look at the fitness of BI as an element for the management of macroeconomic demand. Through the use of empirical economic data, the research will test the hypothesis that in highly technological economies the increase in productivity causes wages to fall (a phenomenon that together with falling employment rates is known as the great decoupling), requiring the introduction of a source of income disjoined from work: Basic Income.
The research project will also compare the effectiveness of BI in combating the unemployment and poverty traps with other forms of unearned income, and consider its effectiveness in avoiding economic crisis, that is, its stabilizing effect, in comparison with consumer credit and household debt.
The study will also investigate whether public sector deficit is an inescapable reality in high technology economies, and if there is potential for using debt free fiat money as a replacement for it and as a source of funding for BI, an idea already proposed by Crocker.
The Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, which has published a series of reports on the feasibility and implementation of basic income, commissioned a recently published survey on attitudes towards basic income in the UK.
The survey was conducted by the British market research organization Ipsos MORI, who interviewed a sample 1,111 individuals from the UK population aged 18 to 75. Interviews were conducted online in August 2017. In the recently published results, the survey data are weighted to represent the general UK population according to age, gender, region, employment status, social grade, and educational attainment.
In a series of three multi-part questions, Ipsos MORI queried respondents about their views on universal basic income (UBI), which it defined, similarly to BIEN, as “a regular income paid in cash to every individual adult in the UK, regardless of their working status and income from other sources In other words, it would be: universal (i.e. paid to all), unconditional (i.e. paid without a requirement to work); and paid to individuals (rather than to a household).”
Interviewees were also instructed to assume, for the purposes of the survey, that the amount of the UBI “would be set roughly at the amount the UK government judged to be necessary to cover basic needs, e.g. food and clothing (but not housing costs).”
Before laying out the description of UBI, the survey questionnaire additional mentioned, “As you may be aware, some countries are considering introducing a basic income.”
Results
Asked whether they would support UBI described as above, 49% of respondents replied affirmatively (15% “strongly support” and 33% “tend to support”), while 26% replied negatively (17% “strongly oppose” and 9% “tend to oppose”).
Reported levels of support decreased substantially, however, when funding mechanisms were specified. Only 30% would support UBI if it entailed an increase in taxes, with 40% opposing UBI in this case. Meanwhile, 37% would support, and 30% would oppose, a UBI funded by cuts on spending on current welfare benefits. If both funding mechanisms were put into place, support for UBI decreases to 22%, while opposition increases to 47%.
The preceding result is similar to what was observed in a 2016 poll conducted by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute, which saw that respondents tended to favor basic income in principle, but would not support an increase in taxes to fund it in their country.
In the second question, respondents were asked “Regardless of whether you support or oppose the UK Government introducing a basic income, which of the following, if any, would be your most preferred way of mainly funding a basic income, if it was introduced?” Options included “increasing taxes on wealth” (34% favored), “cutting existing welfare benefits” (28% favored), “raising income tax” (12% favored), and “other” (3% favored).
The second part of this question broadens the definition of a “basic income scheme” from the initial definition, asking respondents if they would support such as program if certain compromises were made to universality and unconditionality. More than half of respondents replied that they would support a policy “only paid to those who are in work, in training, doing voluntary work, or pensioners” (52% strongly support or tend to support) or one “only paid to those on low incomes” (57% strongly support or tend to support), with only 18% and 17%, respectively, reporting opposition to the policies. (It should be noted, however, that it would conflict with most established uses of the term–including that of BIEN–to call such a policy a “basic income” scheme.)
Support decreased if the program were only to benefit young people (aged 18 to 24) “who are in work, full time education, or in training”: 35% would support (or tend to support) such a program, while 33% would oppose (or tend to oppose) it.
The third and final question queried interviewees on the “how convincing” they personally found each of six arguments that have been made in favor of basic income. The results tentatively suggest that, among British adults, arguments that emphasize the ability for UBI to support unpaid work tend to have more pull than those that emphasize the policy’s potential to encourage traditional paid work.
The argument judged most convincing was one that framed UBI as a way of recognizing the value of unpaid work: “Many people do very important work that is unpaid, such as caring or other voluntary work. A basic income would be a way of rewarding and encouraging others to do this type of work.” A full 79% of respondents found the argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, while only 15% judged it “not very” or “not at all” convincing.
All arguments provided were found to be more convincing that not (i.e. considered by a majority of survey respondents to be “very” or “fairly” convincing). However, the least persuasive was found be the following: “Many unemployed people do not have an incentive to find a job because benefits they may currently be receiving are withdrawn. As everyone would receive it, a basic income would encourage unemployed people to get a job by allowing them to keep that basic income if they find work.” A relatively small 57% deemed this argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, and 35% found it unconvincing (or “not very” convincing).
Other arguments focused on automation, job insecurity, bureaucracy in administering welfare, the “harsh and unfair” nature of conditional welfare programs.
More information about the survey, including all weighted and unweighted data, is available here:
Jurgen De Wispelaere, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath was interviewed on August 7th by Truthout, a nonprofit web-based news and commentary site whose aim is to provide “a platform for transformative ideas, through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis.” In this interview, he makes several important points regarding some of the issues in the current debate and research on Basic Income.
De Wispelaere’s key position is that Basic Income’s aim should be first and foremost about relieving poverty and social exclusion. Poverty is fundamentally a lack of money and Basic Income offers a solution to that problem. Compared to other forms of welfare, Basic Income avoids the well-known poverty trap, where earning wages leads to a loss of benefits, while also reducing the need for some of the bureaucracy associated with contemporary welfare states. De Wispelaere also says that welfare states already dispense some amounts of cash or quasi-cash, with Basic Income the main difference is really about how the money is distributed. As he says, “it is not just about whether or not you have more cash with a Basic Income, but also about how you get your cash.” Basic Income is characterized mainly by its unconditionality. De Wispelaere also mentions the Mike Leigh movie, “I, Daniel Blake” as an illustration of how current welfare policies can cause significant problems and how an unconditional Basic Income could make a big difference.
De Wispelaere also speaks about the value of Basic Income experiments, stressing that conclusions reached from one experiment may not be valid elsewhere due to limitations of time and location. Nevertheless, he argues that the experiments are worth pursuing and he identifies three key reasons for performing Basic Income experiments: implementation, politics, and philosophy.
There are a number of aspects of implementation that can be identified and fixed through running a limited experiment, things that are difficult to predict from a theoretical standpoint alone. Basic Income, although it is often presented as such, is not a simple policy; it will interact with other policies such as housing benefits, disability assistance, the tax system and pension rights. When doing an experiment, these interactions can also be tested, along with other parameters. Another great motivation for Basic Income experiments is politics. Risk-averse politicians may like the idea of a Basic Income but be reticent to propose implementing it in full. A limited trial can help gather more political support for a wider implementation. Finally, philosophical considerations reflect the different viewpoints as to whether we can trust people to play by the rules, or whether they are fundamentally lazy. Or, as De Wispelaere puts it, “do we think that the whole range of people to which Basic Income applies all are going to turn into Homer Simpsons?” According to De Wispelaere, “in many cases, evidence alone can’t solve these issues. It’s a philosophical and moral argument that has to be fought and won.”
De Wispelaere also says in the interview he is not convinced by the “Robots Are Coming” narrative. First, because we need Basic Income now to alleviate poverty, job fluctuation, and insecurity. Second, because when the robots do come there will be other significant issues that arise and Basic Income is not enough to solve those. Regarding the Silicon Valley positions, De Wispelaere says: “It is a bit of a caricature, but what they are effectively proposing is a very polarized, divided society. They talk about Basic Income as a necessary part of the solution but don’t mention other important social and economic struggles between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. For me, Basic Income may be necessary, but it’s certainly not enough.”
