by Kate McFarland | Oct 31, 2016 | News
The American magazine The Atlantic hosted its first Future of Work Summit on October 26 in Chicago, Illinois.
This day-long conference included sessions on automation and technological unemployment (e.g. “Are Robots Taking Our Jobs?” with McKinsey Institute Partner Michael Chui); the rise of the sharing and gig economies (e.g. “The Sharing Economy” with Freelancers Union’s Sara Horowitz, Lyft’s Joseph Okpaku, and New York University Professor Arun Sundararajan); and the nature and importance of work (e.g. “Do We Need Work to Be Happy?” with Emeritus Professor of Psychology Barry Schwartz)–among others.
While many of the topics explored at the Future of Work Summit are relevant to the current movement for basic income, it is particularly noteworthy that one session was specifically focused on the topic: Atlantic editor Steve Clemons interviewed prominent BI advocate Scott Santens about his personal experience crowdfunding his own basic income, as well as the potential for a basic income in the United States.
A video of the entire Future of Work Summit is also available:
Read more about the conference here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/live/events/future-of-work-summit/2016/
N.B. Around 9:03, Clemons asks Santens if he has pressure-tested the idea of basic income against someone “dark and cynical and skeptical of good things”. The author would like to submit herself as someone who considers herself such a person but who nonetheless supports basic income as a utopian ideal, and who was influenced by Santens’ work. She is reported to have reacted to the question by pounding the desk and declaring, “Cynicism and utopianism are not inconsistent!”
by Nick Yeretsian | Oct 31, 2016 | News
On October 16, Chris Hughes (Facebook co-founder) and Eduardo Porter (NY Times columnist) debated basic income on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria.
Arguing in support of basic income, Hughes not only emphasized that job security is falling, but also that Americans are currently living on less than they were 20 years ago. He cited a federal report published in May 2016, finding that nearly 50% of Americans could not find $400 in the case of an emergency—but rather that they would have to borrow or sell something to come up with that amount of money.
Arguing against basic income, Porter said he is confident we will be able to create other demands and find new jobs for people—given that humanity has done so in the past. He estimates that the cost of an American UBI would equal the total amount of federal government expenditure today. Furthermore, he believes that if the US were to implement a basic income, it should be conditional.
Watch the debate here:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/10/14/exp-gps-porter-hughes-ubi-debate.cnn
Photo: CNN, screenshot from debate.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 26, 2016 | News
The government of India is beginning to seriously consider a universal basic income, as recent remarks by Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian reveal.
Arvind Subramanian CC BY-SA 2.0 PopTech
As previously reported in Basic Income News, Arvind Subramanian, the Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India, has revealed that the pros and cons of universal basic income will be studied as part of the next Economic Survey–an annual report on developments in India’s economy which is prepared by the Ministry of Finance and presented to Parliament.
Since this time, Subramanian has reaffirmed his commitment to investigating UBI. In addition, he had divulged further details of the proposed UBI program that might be considered by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
First, in an interview with Rediff (published on September 29), Subramanian reaffirmed that universal basic income will be a theme of the Economic Survey. Asked what a UBI would entail, he responded, “We are still working on it. These are issues we have to think about. This is an idea that has a lot of promise, but also challenges.”
A few days later, while addressing at audience at prayer meeting at Gandhi Peace Foundation in New Delhi on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, Subramanian elaborated upon some of the challenges associated with the implementation a UBI. As described in a report in The Indian Express (dated October 3), he laid out several objections that Gandhi might have taken to UBI, before responding with considerations in favor of the policy proposal.
At the same event, Subramanian dropped hints about the type of policy that the national government might be considering, mentioned “a proposed new scheme through which the Narendra Modi government is considering giving unconditional cash transfer of about Rs 10,000-15,000 on an annual basis to each and every citizen in the country” [1].
It is not certain exactly what programs and subsidies the unconditional cash transfer would replace–but it is clear that they would be numerous. The Indian Express quotes Subramanian as saying: “[T]oday the government spends a lot of money on schemes to help the poor. Today there are at least 1000 schemes that the Central government runs for the poor… It is not clear that the money actually reaches the poor. So the question is whether the UBI is a more effective way of reaching the poor that the current schemes that government employs.”
Although India has played a significant role in the basic income movement in recent years–Madhya Pradesh was the setting for two successful pilot studies conducted between 2011 and 2013–the recently expressed interest from Subramanian and the Modi government is a turning point. It should be noted that the government’s interest in UBI was not a response to the pilot studies conducted by Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) and UNICEF, but arose independently. Indeed, neither Subramanian nor any other government official has referred to these these pilots or the book they spawned (Basic Income: A Transformative Policy for India) in their public comments on basic income–as sociologist Sarath Davala, founder of the India Network for Basic Income (INBI), reports in comments to Basic Income News.
Before Subramanian shifted attention to UBI, the government had discussed direct benefit transfer (DBT) programs, intended to reduce efficiencies in the distribution of aid by transferring cash subsidies directly to the bank accounts of beneficiaries. To the Indian government, UBI, like DBT, is attractive primarily as a pragmatic means to reduce bureaucracy and administrative costs. For similar reasons, some states of India are already experimenting with replacing India’s largest welfare program, the food security program–widely regarded as inefficient and ineffective–with a cash transfer. Correspondingly, recent political discourse on UBI has remained focused on welfare delivery and efficiency rather than (for example) individual rights or social justice.
INBI, BIEN’s Indian affiliate, has expressed support for the inclusion of UBI in the Economic Survey and offered to assist the government in this project (such as by providing data and qualitative assessments from the earlier pilot studies); however, at the time of this writing, it has received no response. Additionally, INBI is planning a national conference in Delhi to take place in late March 2017, at which it will present its position on UBI to the national government.
According to Davala, Subramanian’s recent remarks are significant because they imply that the UBI is becoming mainstream and “no longer a crazy idea”. Speaking as part of INBI, he says “our job is made easier” by the attention and legitimacy that Subramanian and others are bringing to UBI.
At the same time, however, Davala expresses surprise at the “radio silence” from traditional opponents in the face of the announcement of the inclusion UBI in the Economic Survey. In India, many on the Left oppose UBI, which they see as the government “washing its hands” of its responsibility to directly assist those in need (e.g., through transfers in-kind). Opponents from the Right, meanwhile, tend to worry that the policy wastes money on the “undeserving” poor and disincentivizes work. Davala notes, however, that both types of critics have largely remained silent despite the recent upsurge in interest in UBI.
Davala himself sees two major sources of complication that pose challenges to the implementation of a basic income in India. First is the question of universality. In a country of 1.3 billion people, a fully universal basic income is likely to strike many as prohibitively costly, and a more feasible approach might be what Davala describes as “targeted universality”: the distribution of unconditional cash transfers to everyone within a certain sub-population (e.g. a universal income for all children or all seniors, for all individuals within a certain geographical region, or all members of a certain caste or tribe). While Davala agrees that universality is the ideal goal, he believes that it is likely to be most realistic to approach it incrementally, with such targeted universality adopted as an interim strategy. On this point, though, he notes that even complete universality will now seem less “crazy” since India’s Chief Economic Adviser is seriously discussing is it.
The second challenge concerns question of replacement: what existing programs will the UBI replace? Here, Davala is less encouraged–and more concerned–by Subramanian’s recent comments, since it’s unclear which of the “1000 or more schemes” he would propose to replace, and a basic income that replaces too much might leave many of the most vulnerable individuals worse off. According to Davala, INBI’s position is that “the state should combine Unconditional BI with public provisioning of certain basic needs such as education, health, infrastructure, transportation, etc”. He goes on, “A large number welfare schemes that have a well established record of failure should be removed. The crux of the Indian debate will revolve around this. And rightfully so.”
[1] 10,000-15,000 Indian Rupees (Rs) is equivalent to about 134-200 EUR or 150-225 USD. (For comparison: in a 2013 survey, the median per capita income in India was equivalent to about 616 USD.)
References
Indivjal Dhasmana, Sanjeeb Mukherjee and Arup Roychoudhury (September 29, 2016) “With inflation slowing, there is space for monetary easing: Arvind Subramanian” Rediff.com.
Avinash Nair (October 3, 2016) “Implementation of Universal Basic Income has many challenges: Arvind Subramanian” The Indian Express.
Sarath Davala, INBI (personal communication)
Reviewed by Sarath Davala
Cover photo: “India- Gujjars the nomadic tribe” CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 sandeepachetan.com
by Florie Barnhoorn | Oct 26, 2016 | News
The Dutch State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment has sent a document to Members of Parliament proposing a basic income experiment. However, the proposed design has met criticism from many scientists, activists, and others instrumental in the original development of the experiment.
Jetta Klijnsma CC Roel Wijnants
On the last Friday of September 2016, the Dutch government decided to allow basic income experiments on a limited scale and under strict conditions. Mrs. Jetta Klijnsma, State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment, has sent a document Ontwerpbesluit Experimenten Participatiewet (Design for Experiments in the context of the Participation Act) to the Members of Parliament in which she outlines the rules, conditions and goals of the forthcoming basic income experiments. Mrs. Klijnsma, (PvdA, Partij van de Arbeid / Labour Party) is optimistic. As soon as both Chambers of Parliament accept the proposed framework, she can give permission to start with the experiments–hopefully, January 1st 2017.
However, many of the pioneers involved in the experiments (including scientists, activists, city counsel members, local councilors, and civil servants) are less excited. In order to overcome political arguments–mainly coming from the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy), a right-wing party that hates the idea of a basic income–the original study design has been changed in such a way that these stakeholders worry about the consequences for the pilots.
Proposed Design of the Dutch Basic Income Pilot
Before we return to their concerns, let’s look at the design of the experiment in more detail.
The research questions as they are now formulated are:
• Does the intervention in the research groups lead to acceptance of paid labor?
• Which intervention causes the most complete independence of social assistance benefit?
A maximum of 25 municipalities, or 4% of the total number of Dutch welfare claimants, will be allowed to participate in the experiments. According to Statline (Electronic Databank of Statistics Netherlands), there were 546.090 persons with a social assistance benefit in December 2015; thus, around 21.843 persons will be involved in the experiments. Only municipalities which have implemented the Participation Act in fullness will be selected for one of the pilots. The duration of the experiments is set at two years. Stakeholders criticize this as of ‘too limited duration’.
Each basic income experiment will consist of six groups. Larger municipalities will use all six groups, for smaller municipalities three groups are enough.
Welfare claimants are randomly assigned to one of these five groups:
1. A group who is exempt from formal obligations to find employment. Subjects in this group will not receive formal sanctions in case they fail to actively look for paid work [1]. However, after six and twelve months, the municipality will check whether sufficient efforts have voluntarily been made by the participant to find paid labor. When too few activities have been undertaken, the trial period will be terminated;
2. A group that will be subjected to additional obligations and duties during the experimental period in order to reintegrate them into the labor market, entailing at least a doubling of contacts with civil servants responsible for carrying out the Participation Act;
3. A group who is allowed to keep 50 percent of their earnings in addition to the welfare payments with a maximum of 199 EUR per month for single persons and 142 EUR for married couples (which is less than the legal minimum wage);
4. A combination of the above groups, whereby the first two groups always should be combined in an experiment;
5. A control group.
In addition to these five randomly-assigned groups, the experiments will use a reference group consisting of social assistance recipients living in the same municipality, but not participating in the experiment (e.g. benefit claimants in a neighboring municipality not involved in the trial).
Welfare claimants sign an agreement which states that their participation is strictly voluntary. However, it is forbidden to stop during the course of the experiment. They will receive their normal benefit allowances during the project (Sjir Hoeijmakers, email communication).
Criticism from Stakeholders
Meetings of activists in Groningen CC Zeptonn
Stakeholders are critical about the design of the basic income experiments. In a letter addressed to Members of Parliament, scientists of the four collaborating universities (Tilburg, Utrecht, Groningen and Wageningen) contend that reliable scientific research cannot be tested within the proposed framework.
For example, Professor Dr. Ruud Muffels from Tilburg University criticizes the introduction of a group with more government control. “The effects of sanctions have been extensively studied. I wonder what kind of information you want to find. It will also complicate the interpretation of the results of the pilot. If freedom has consequences – the participant can be banned from the experiment after one year when he or she is not ‘active enough’ in seeking a paid job – this line of inquiry cannot be tested. It might also create an ethically difficult dilemma, because we are looking for volunteers for the research, and we have to clarify the implications of their participation.”
As a consequence of these concerns, researchers like Dr. Muffels fear that the proposed framework will deter benefit claimants from participation in the experiments, due to the use of a group that will experience much more control.
The researchers call upon the MPs to pay attention to their concerns when the framework is discussed with the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment in the Parliamentary Committee for Social Affairs and Employment.
Divosa (Association of Executives in the Social Domain) also has doubts about the value of the experiments. According to Divosa’s vice-president Jellemiek Zock, “It is more difficult to measure the effects of the pilots, because they are more limited than in the original design. Besides, activities like taking a part-time job, starting a business, caring for children or other family members are excluded from the experiments. Nevertheless, given the situation in the present government – a coalition of VVD and PvdA – I think this is the most we can get at this moment. But we will proceed.”
Another stakeholder in the experiment says, “We wanted a simple pilot based on trust rather than repression. We wanted to give benefit claimants more freedom, more choice, more purchasing power. Now we have a complicated set of rules. What remains is a puzzle, which makes it difficult to shape the experiments and understand the results. However, we are glad to start.”
For her own part, the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment is content with the outcome: the proposed framework is still miles away from a really unconditional basic income.
[1] Under Dutch social laws, a benefit claimant is normally sanctioned when he or she is not actively looking for paid work. These sanctions are described in the Participation Act and executed by civil servants employed by a municipality.
Cover Photo CC OuiShare
Thanks to Kate McFarland for reviewing a draft of this article.
by Nick Yeretsian | Oct 22, 2016 | News
Benoît Hamon, member of the French National Assembly for Yvelines, is making unconditional basic income a key component of his Socialist Party (PS) primary campaign.
Though all of the Green candidates have showed support for basic income, Hamon is the only PS candidate to express vigorous support for the idea.
In an article in Les Echos, Hamon lays out some of his main reasons for advocating for a UBI:
“We can not accept that thousands of French are forced to sacrifice their physical and mental health for grueling and precarious jobs. A transition is necessary and the ambition is great. Tomorrow, our citizens could be released from sustained uncertainty and, instead, choose their mobility. Tomorrow, all working forms of economic and social utility are recognized and valued, beyond the single employee or paid work. The value of an individual and his right to dignity would not be indexed to their contribution to GDP.”
Relatedly, Hamon campaigns for the recognition of “burnout” as an occupational disease. “The Law on social dialogue and employment” first recognized burnout in this way last year, and Hamon would like to make further advancements.
“[I]n 2016, 20% of French say they are on the edge of burnout, and 70% of paid employees do not feel noticed.”
In his arguments for a UBI, Hamon also stresses the risk of unemployment due to increased mechanization of work. As he points out on his website,
“In Europe, between 2000 and 2010, 7.6 million jobs have disappeared under the direct impact of new technologies.”
“While 10% of the workforce is unemployed, up to 3 million jobs could disappear in France with digitization by 2025.”
Moreover, today in France, 24% of individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed. “The youth… should no longer be synonymous with insecurity,” writes Hamon.
Hamon proposes an unconditional basic income distributed to every adult citizen on an individual basis. He says, “its amount and funding would be adjusted regularly to ensure each and every citizen has sufficient income to live and participate in public life.”
Hamon’s Breakdown
Here are the main features of the UBI program that Hamon proposes.
Every adult citizen would receive €750 per month. This would cost €300 billion per year. The UBI would exist alongside €18 billion in housing subsidies, €23 billion in social benefits, and €53 billion in family benefits–his rationale being that “the Basic Income should strengthen, not reduce the social protection of the French.”
Hamon plans to finance the basic income in part through reforms to the tax system, expecting to bring in €24 billion in revenue by individualizing income tax, €84 billion by closing tax loopholes, and €80 billion by fighting against tax evasion. He also recommends taxing wealth and digital technology, in addition to other appropriate taxation (he provides the example of French tax authorities who are currently demanding €1.6 billion in back taxes from Google).
Le revenu universel, la voie pour le progrès socialLe #RevenuUniversel pose la question fondamentale de la société que nous voulons pour demain. Pour aborder l’avenir avec confiance, notre pays a besoin d’un projet mobilisateur en ce début de XXIe siècle. Ayons l’audace de créer le revenu universel, comme nous avons eu l’audace de créer la sécurité sociale, pour protéger chaque citoyen face aux aléas de la vie.
Posted by Benoît Hamon on Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Hamon wants to change conceptions of wealth, the value of individuals, and the value of work from economic (GDP) to social, cultural, and educational. He explains his vision in the above video.
September polls show Hamon with support from 14% and 16% of those who intend to vote in the election. The PS presidential primary will take place on January 22, 2017.
On October 18th, Hamon invited people to a well-attended Q&A over coffee and drinks. Hamon’s campaign is part of a growing surge of interest in UBI in France. France’s prime minister, for instance, recently reopened the gates for discussion on basic income.
Cover Photo: by Margot L’hermite, published on Facebook on Oct 25, 2013.
Graphic: by BenoitHamon2017, campaign flyer.
Video: by Benoit Hamon, published on Facebook on Oct 4, 2016.
