by Kate McFarland | Sep 13, 2016 | News
The Centre justice et foi (CJF, “Center for Justice and Faith”), a Montréal-based center for social analysis, is hosting public discussions on basic income on September 27 and 28.
The goal of these discussions is to shed light on common questions surrounding basic income and related policies. One important issue to be addressed is the difference between the policies typically called universal basic income (UBI) and guaranteed minimum income (GMI). Under a guaranteed minimum income, all individuals are eligible to receive an unconditional “top-up” of their earnings to guarantee that their total income is above a certain threshold (such as the poverty level). Receiving the top-up would not be conditional on working or looking for work. However, in contrast to the way in which UBI is commonly described, the payouts of a GMI would be “clawed back” with higher earnings. Individuals above a certain income level would not receive the GMI. (Depending on the accompanying tax policies, a UBI and GMI could result in an identical income distribution.)
Much of the discussion surrounding “basic income” in Canada has centered on GMI: the much cited Angus Reid poll, released in August, asked specifically about a GMI; Hugh Segal’s latest remarks indicate that the pilot in Ontario will investigate a GMI. Notably, this was also the type of policy tested in Dauphin, Manitoba in the oft-referenced Mincome experiment of the late 1970s.
Other questions to be addressed include the following:
- Would the implementation of such a policy justify cuts to important social programs?
- How would the policy impact the private sector?
- What consequences would a UBI or GMI have on the job market?
Although perhaps eclipsed by Ontario in media coverage, Québec has also shown considerable interest in basic income (or guaranteed minimum income), and might be moving toward testing or implementing such a policy. Earlier in the year, François Blais was appointed as Québec’s Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity and tasked to work on developing a guaranteed minimum income plan for the province.
The first CJF event will be held on Tuesday, September 27 in the Cultural and Environmental Centre Frédérick-Back in Québec, and feature three speakers: Sylvie Morel (Professor of Industrial Relations at Université Laval), Serge Petitclerc (political analyst and spokesman of the Collective for a Poverty-Free Quebec), and Eve-Lyne Couturier (researcher at the Research Institute of Socioeconomic Information).
The second event will take place the following evening at Montréal’s Bellarmine House. Petitclerc and Couturier will again be participating, in addition to Marie-Pierre Boucher (Professor of Industrial Relations at Université du Québec en Outaouais).
See the event flyer for details concerning the time and location. Both are free, although a donation is suggested.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Translation help from Jenna van Draanen and Denny Flinn
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Meriol Lehmann
Shout out to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Guest Contributor | Sep 12, 2016 | Opinion
Basic Income Québec (RBQ) and the French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB) had been preparing for the World Social Forum (WSF) event for almost a year. Their efforts paid off – the activities organized by the France-Québec team were an unmitigated success. For the first time ever, basic income achieved prominence at WSF, reflecting the growing worldwide interest in the idea.
A successful opening march with basic income robots that did not go unnoticed
The six members of the MFRB delegation teamed up with their counterparts of RBQ in order to organize several initiatives centered on basic income at the WSF in Montreal.
A wild workshop, a prelude to the Create-a-thon planned for Tuesday, August 9th, led to the creation of two robots (a concept developed by the MFRB local group of Lyon) along with signs and ponchos for the opening march taking place that day in Montreal, from Lafontaine Park to the Place des Arts that attracted about 15,000 people.
Marcus Brancaglione, Brazilian guest from the ReCivitas association, joined the jubilant “gang” of dozen-or-so activists who merrily spread the word about the program for the week, inviting passersby to come and take part in the workshops, conferences and debates.
The robots attracted quite a bit of attention. They were a big hit…or as the co-founder of RBQ (Luc Gosselin) put it, they “made a splash,” using a Quebec expression. They served as a rallying point throughout the week.
On the morning of August 10th, the group took possession of the two rooms that were graciously provided by the University of Quebec in Montréal (UQAM), enabling them to welcome more than two hundred motivated participants during the three days (excluding the Grand Conference).
Create-a-thon. Eighteen hours of creation. Fourteen stories from around the world.
The creation marathon was organized by the RBQ team. This two-and-a-half day event began with Lenny Watson’s presentation on the first Create-a-thons organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Finland.
Following an exchange between participants, an idea emerged. Inspired by a participant’s story about her mother, they began collecting stories of people they knew and explaining how a basic income would change their lives.
They started filming the next day. Aurélie Hampel handled video while Louise Allaire did the scripting and by day’s end 14 stories had been made, thanks to the many people who dropped by. Each told their story, stories from around the world, in their own language: in English, French or Portuguese.
On Friday, Aurélie and Louise pulled out the key themes and words from these stories. They were grouped into five chapters.
The following themes were chosen:
A basic income… when life is merciless
A basic income… to find one’s place in life
A basic income… in case of extreme poverty
A basic income… freedom to choose your own path in life
A basic income…to provide end-of-life care for loved ones
Teaser: https://youtu.be/wpKPSuSmZT4
All videos will be available on the MFRB YouTube channel, by the International Basic Income Week.
Ğeconomicus
The goal of the Ğeconomicus workshops was to promote the idea of changing our money system to bring about basic income without getting mired in politics and to start changing our debt-money-induced behaviour.
Carole Fabre and Damien Vasse hosted two game sessions, testing different monetary systems through card-playing. To sum up, each player exchanged cards with others to form squares. Each square represented a created value and was accounted for with a piece of candy (a new candyless version is possible. See website).The number of created value was tallied up at the end.
Human lifespan was introduced to test monetary exchange systems while keeping the same markers introduced in the Théorie relative de la monnaie by Stéphane Laborde.
With two and a half hours set aside for each workshop, they changed the rules and reduced human lifespan to 60 years as well as the duration of each round of play. They then played using a monetary system based on debt–today’s current system – and using a monetary system based on basic income and open money. Other systems could also be tested, such as barter and mutual credit, but they were unable to do so due to time constraints.
This game helps us understand how the structure of the monetary system affects our behaviors and exchanges.
Debt-money is boisterous and full of competition, trickery and knavery. With open money, tensions subside after two rounds, cooperation emerges and the ambiance changes. They were able to set aside over half an hour at the end of each workshop for a post-game discussion and debate. It was very rewarding each time, as people became aware of the debt-money trap and the unbelievable power of banks. With basic income in money creation, people saw that it was still possible to create value, but with a different behavior.
Co-creating our basic income using open money is finally possible, thanks to Duniter, an open money generator that took four years of work by developers and coders to make it fully operational. Now that it has proven successful in computer simulations, it is ready for the real world. The game provides an opportunity to show people that the system works and that it is up to us to make it happen.
Convergence Assembly: From realistic utopia to public policy
The two convergence assemblies were developed and facilitated in cooperation with Pierre Barbès and Gilles Charest, sociocracy experts at l’École Internationale des Chefs. The aim was for these meetings to be as inclusive as possible and to make people aware of the working methods we used by the MFRB, with a focus on sociocracy.
Right, Pierre Barbès,speaker and author, certified in sociocracy and community spirit development.
The conference ended with a round table giving everyone a chance to share what they gained from the workshop.
Convergence Assembly: “Income: A non-medical remedy?”
The idea for the assembly came from the Forum’s Health Space Committee, which two members of Basic Income Quebec took part in. The committee consisted of Quebec health professionals. RBQ wanted to ensure that one of the determinants of health – income – would be discussed and that everyone knew about the proven efficiency of basic income in areas where pilots had been conducted. Committee members were very receptive to the idea, as many of them were already familiar with the concept of basic income.
RBQ considers it as an important strategic step in Quebec. The group would like to see Quebec health professionals adopt a position in favor of basic income, just like their English Canada counterparts, both within their organizations and individually. The English group played a key role in the Ontario government’s decision to launch a basic income pilot, which is currently being developed.
The meeting reflected the keen interest in basic income by people from different countries who are primarily concerned with health, either as professionals or as citizens. Various courses of action were suggested.
Workshop: “On the Equitable Sharing of Wealth: Considering a Universal Basic Income and Maximum Wealth”
Many people pre-registered for this workshop as soon as it was announced, and it drew an at-capacity crowd. Wealth-sharing is an issue that has been addressed in various ways at the Forum. A universal allowance (or basic income) is an often-mentioned way to perform this sharing function in our societies. Maximum wealth has the same goal, but is less present in the public space. As a result, the majority of participants came to the workshop with a better grasp of basic income than maximum wealth. The similarities between the two ideas generated a lot of interest and lively debate with both facilitators, Alexandre Chabot-Bertrand and Christian Jobin. The exchanges continued long after the workshop had ended.
Grand Conference: Basic Income, a Major Social Innovation for the 21st Century?
Watch the conference video: https://youtu.be/tEumE1N1E0Y
The activities were concluded with a grand conference attended by nearly 500 people on the evening of Friday, August 12th. The speakers, each from a different country and approaching the issue of basic income from different perspectives, made quite an impression by their presence, their passion for the issue and their humor.
The conference began with a video from South African partner, Nkateko Chauke, Basic Income Grant Campaign Coordinator for the SADC (South African Development Community, which includes fifteen countries ranging from Tanzania to South Africa)
The conference began with a video from South African partner, Nkateko Chauke, Basic Income Grant Campaign Coordinator for the SADC (South African Development Community, which includes fifteen countries ranging from Tanzania to South Africa), who unfortunately was not able to attend. Watch the video here.
Rutger Bregman, Dutch journalist and author who recently published his book, Utopia for Realists: A Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek, led off the discussion by addressing basic income from a labor perspective
Rutger Bregman, Dutch journalist and author who recently published his book, Utopia for Realists: A Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek, led off the discussion by addressing basic income from a labor perspective. He questioned the moral imperative to work in a world that promotes the creation of what David Graeber calls bullshit jobs, referring to those pointless jobs, both for the people performing them and for society as a whole.
Karl Widerquist, from the United States and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), then spoke about the three successive waves of basic income in our history
Karl Widerquist, from the United States and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), then spoke about the three successive waves of basic income in our history. A first wave took root in the twentieth century (although the idea had already been discussed by the likes of Thomas Paine or Thomas More), especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries with advocates such as Bertrand Russell, George Henry and Virginia Woolf. The arguments at the time dealt primarily with principles of social and agrarian justice. The second wave emerged in the 1960s, with basic income being championed mainly by civil rights activists – Martin Luther King being the most eminent example. We are now in the third wave, which calls into question the current system, the conditionality of social welfare and our response to the changing nature of work. These changes have led to a wider acceptance of the idea, with more and more people showing an interest for it, including politicians and journalists.
Marcus Brancaglione, president of the ReCivitas association, presented the project being conducted in the town of Quatinga Velho in Brazil since 2008
Lastly, to demonstrate the potential of basic income, Marcus Brancaglione, president of the ReCivitas association, presented the project being conducted in the town of Quatinga Velho in Brazil since 2008. Marcus Brancaglione views basic income not just in terms of a pilot project but as a fundamental human right because he believes that poverty exists in society only because we allow it to. Brazil is the first country to have it enshrined in its Constitution as a long-term goal. The time has come to implement it.
The three speakers were very well received by the very engaged and enthusiastic audience. Hundreds of hands were raised throughout the discussion, as a lot of people wanted to ask questions and to share their thoughts on what a basic income would mean for them.
All these wonderful, diversified and varied initiatives helped spread the word about basic income throughout the world, clearly marking this year’s edition of the World Social Forum in Montreal.
Thanks to all those who helped make this event a success for basic income around the world!
The MFRB-RBQ organizing team: Aurélie Hampel, Carole Fabre, Christian Massault, Damien Vasse, Nicole Teke, Sylvie Denisse, Luc Gosselin, Louise Allaire, Lenny Watson and Sylvia Bissonette.
Article translated from French into English by Didier Di Camillo.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 7, 2016 | News
In August, UK Prime Minister Theresa May declared that the revenues produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) should be invested in the communities in which the industry is based, possibly as cash payments to households. Many environmental groups oppose this shale gas dividend, which they see as a bribe to allow fracking. Basic Income UK has also released a critical statement, below.
The British government has announced plans to create a Shale Wealth Fund, which would be funded a portion of tax revenues (up to 10%) from shale gas. The funds would then be used for the benefit of communities that host sites where shale gas is obtained by fracking.
According to the consultation report (dated August 8), the Shale Wealth Fund could generate up to £1 billion in funds during its lifetime, which would be paid out to communities during the course of 25 years (which, according to the report, is the approximate lifetime of a fracking site; p. 7).
The report specifies that the communities which are local to shale developments “should be the first to benefit from the Shale Wealth Fund, and they should get to decide how a proportion of the funding is used” (p. 7). The national government suggests multiple possibilities, including infrastructure, local skills-training programs, “investment in the local natural environment”, and “funding for community groups and the development of community assets, such as libraries, or sports facilities” (p. 11).
Notably, the report also raises the suggestion of direct cash payments to residents:
We are also interested to hear whether an appropriate use of the Shale Wealth Fund would be to allow residents of communities to benefit by directly allocating funding to households. There will clearly be a trade-off for communities in either choosing to benefit from SWF funds directly, which may result in a relatively small per-household payment, depending on the revenues and the size of a particular community, or in investing in an asset which benefits the community at large (p. 12).
The latter proposal was added by Prime Minister May in August. She was quoted as explaining, “It’s about making sure people personally benefit from economic decisions that are taken – not just councils – and putting them back in control over their lives.”
Since the announcement, some have accused May of “bribing” individuals to allow fracking.
For example, The Guardian quotes MP Barry Gardiner, the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, as saying, “Appealing to people’s higher nature, Theresa May gives a £10,000-plus bribe if you live near a frack site. If you live near a wind farm, nothing … The asymmetry is amazing.” And Greenpeace scientist Doug Parr:
You can’t put a price on the quality of the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the beauty of our countryside. If Theresa May wants to show the UK is open for business, she should reverse the policies that have harmed our vibrant clean-energy sector and back the technologies that can supply cheap, homegrown energy for decades to come.
Basic Income UK has released the following statement on the proposal:
This proposal to pay local people a small share of the money from fracking operations in their area shows how desperate the UK government is to divide and silence the strong opposition shown by almost all UK communities where fracking has been proposed.
Given that the fall in oil and gas prices has made fracking unprofitable in many areas of the US, it is uncertain whether in the UK, local people will see any money from a tax on fracking profits. The payments (if they materialise at all) will vary from area to area depending on how many households live there, and how much tax is raised on each individual fracking operation. This idea comes as part of a package of local investment proposals about which the government has opened a consultation.
This is not really about ‘sharing the wealth’ from fracking. In Alaska it was recognised that a share of the oil wealth should go to everyone in the state as a common resource whether people live near the wells or not. Here the proposals are area-specific, and could bring complications around the question of who qualifies. Another way this is different is that the proposal here is to pay households, and not individuals. It is unclear from the consultation papers whether there would be regular, ongoing payments or one lump sum, and how transparent the government will be about taxes raised in any given area.
The environmental costs seen where fracking has already happened: earthquakes, degradation of land around fracking operations and most especially contamination of groundwater, will be much higher and longer-lasting than the benefit of any amount of money people might get. This proposal shows the strength of the opposition to fracking, and is not an endorsement of the principle of basic income.
Basic Income should be paid to each individual as a share of the general wealth of the society we all contribute to, whether in a job or not. A basic income for everyone would really ‘put people back in control of their lives’. Here people are asked to chose between a short-term financial windfall and long term environmental security. Many of the areas affected are desperate for income and investment, but fracking could badly affect their environment and wellbeing long after operations have ceased, and any payments have stopped. It would be far better if the government helped people set up renewable energy coops around wind farms and solar energy installations.
References
Shale Wealth Fund: Consultation
Daniel Boffey, “Local People to Get Cash Payments from Fracking”, The Guardian; August 6, 2016.
Chris Mason, “Households could get fracking payments under government plans”, BBC; August 7, 2016.
Rowena Mason, “Trying to bribe public to accept fracking won’t work, say campaigners”, The Guardian; August 7, 2016.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Victoria Buchan-Dyer
Article reviewed by Barb Jacobson
Thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Sep 6, 2016 | News
Arvind Subramanian, Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, has hinted during an outreach event that the next Economic Survey of India will address the pros and cons of universal basic income.
The Economic Survey is an annual document prepared by India’s Ministry of Finance and presented to Parliament. The survey describes changes and developments in the nation’s economy over the past year, including detailed statistical data, and discusses policy initiatives and the near-term prospects of the economy.
Last week, Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian spoke to students at an Economic Survey Outreach event in Bhubaneswar. In reply to a student’s question about basic income, he stated:
The idea is gaining a lot of resonance all over the world, especially in India. So you are really on the ball here. In fact, [I] am a bit unhappy with you for stealing the thunder of the next survey because it is going to be one of the big topics (we are going to address in that survey). What are the pros and cons of having an universal basic income?
Asked whether India was ready for a UBI, Subramanian added:
The answer to whether or not we could have a universal basic income could well be a ‘yes’, but under certain conditions. It is always easy to give but very difficult to take away politically. …
Even though ideally you might, say, use this to replace other subsidies, let me guarantee you that when it comes to trying to replace some subsidies there will be a lot of noise. Both in terms of politics and economic[s] there is a whole range of very important things we have to look into, and are going to look at, very carefully.
The Economic Times reports that Subramanian did caution, however, that the exploration of UBI remains an “academic exercise” at this stage. The article quotes:
It is an idea that’s exciting the whole development community around the world, we should not be behind the curve… The job of the survey is to explore new ideas. It is not just what the government will immediately explore.
BIEN cofounder Guy Standing, who has organized past pilot studies of basic income in India, calls the inclusion of UBI in the Economic Survey a “significant development in India”.
References:
Meera Mohanty, “Next Economic Survey might float Universal Basic Income balloon“, The Economic Times; September 5, 2016.
BI India Bureau, “Universal Basic Income could feature in the next economic survey, says India’s Chief Economic Advisor“, Business Insider India; September 5, 2016.
Guy Standing, personal communication.
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Photo: Arvind Subramanian at PopTech 2011 CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Kris Krüg
Thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Sep 6, 2016 | News
The Fabian Society, a prominent left-wing think tank in the UK, has published a book-length report on recommendations for improving the country’s social insurance, especially for non-pensioners (“For Us All” by Andrew Harrop). Among other topics, the report discusses–but not does not endorse–basic income. As an alternative, its author recommends a universal (but not unconditional) “individual credit” for adults.
In a Fabian Society report published on August 31, general secretary Andrew Harrop advises that the UK not replace existing social insurance benefits with a basic income (which he describes as a “single flat-rate payment for each individual”). His main concerns are that a basic income “would create many losers and would not reduce poverty or improve the incomes of those with least today,” unless there were to be a substantial increase in tax revenue, and that it would not eliminate the need for certain means-tested benefits, especially those related to housing (p. xix).
Harrop does, however, propose a type of universal cash payment that he calls an “individual credit”. All adults would be eligible to receive this payment in addition to Universal Credit payments and child credits for primary guardians. Universal Credit, a centerpiece of Britain’s current system of social insurance, is means-tested — and Harrop believes that retaining and supplementing the policy, rather than replacing it, “would significantly reduce poverty and increase low and middle incomes” (p. xx).
It is worth noting here the fact that the individual credit does not replace all means-tested benefits does not, in itself, imply that it is not a type of “basic income”. In principle, at least, basic income — a universal and unconditional cash payment paid directly to individuals — could be distributed in addition to universal credit or other conditional and means-tested benefits. Indeed, Compass, another British think tank, has recently recommended such a “modified scheme” as a way to introduce a universal basic income in the UK.
However, there are still important differences between Harrop’s individual credits and a basic income. Notably, the scheme that Harrop proposes is not strictly unconditional. He states that “Eligibility for the adult credit should depend on paying direct taxes or on productive participation in society” (p. xx). He elaborates on the “participation requirement” in the section on individual credits:
As a start, it [the credit] should only be available to people who both have a national insurance number and are on the electoral register (or an equivalent register for people without the right to vote). This would promote political participation and reduce the risk of fraud. Except for people with significant disabilities, receipt should also be dependent on either paying a certain amount of income tax or national insurance, or on learning, parenting, caring, job search or work preparation. The policing need not be particularly onerous, but people who refused the offer of a guaranteed job or educational place, after a significant time without working or paying direct taxes, should not continue to receive the credit (pp. 144-5).
Thus, unlike a basic income, the individual credit does carry a work requirement — even if a comparatively lenient and flexible one, which allows exemptions for students, parents, and caregivers.
At the same time, Harrop does not rule out basic income as a potential long-term goal. Indeed, he describes his own proposal as one that might provide a “gradualist, ‘Fabian’ route to creating a full basic income in the distant future”:
It would at least put in place the machinery that would make it possible to make larger universal payments should it be required, becoming an insurance policy in the event of a structural decline in the total hours of work, or of a severe recession which required a fiscal stimulus to support household spending (p. 143).
But paving the way for a basic income is not Harrop’s own goal in proposing individual credits. On the contrary, he goes on to say that “it is better to think of individual credit as ‘child benefit for adults’ not a step towards a basic income – i.e. a universal component in a hybrid system, which also includes contributory and means-tested elements” (pp. 143-4). Elsewhere, he enjoins policymakers to “focus on practical, incremental policy changes which embody something of the spirit of the basic income idea, but make sense as reforms in themselves” (p. 139).
Indeed, Harrop himself seems ambivalent as to whether basic income is a desirable himself endpoint — at one point stating that the case has not yet been settled either way (cf. pp. 137-9). An appendix to the report includes a summary of the reasons for and against a basic income (see Appendix 7, on final page).
In a September 1 interview with The Independent, Labour Party shadow chancellor John McDonnell — a long-time supporter of basic income — referred to the Fabian Society’s report when discussing his intention to continue to push for a universal basic income in the UK:
The Fabian society has just introduced a report today which is looking at reforms to the welfare state and it’s recommending a form of initial basic income for us to explore so we’re going to take that into account. When we look at the experiments that are taking place across Europe at the moment we’ll review those then consider what are options are.
Thus, McDonnell does seem to view Harrop’s proposal as route to basic income — even if Harrop himself deemphasizes this potential facet of the policy. (In the same set of remarks, McDonnell suggests that he also views child benefits, in the form of unconditional cash transfers to primary caretakers, in much the same way — that is, as a type of “initial” basic income.)
The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank, founded in 1884. Today, it has approximately 7000 members and 70 local chapters. The society was one of the founders of the UK Labour Party, although it is not organizationally affiliated with the party today.
It summarizes its political mission as follows:
Our commitment to Fabianism means we believe in the fight against inequality, the power of collective action and an internationalist outlook. We believe in social progress, evidence, expertise, rationality and long-termism. We advocate gradualist, reformist and democratic means in a journey towards radical ends. We are a pluralist movement and create space for open debate.
The Fabian Society’s sister organization in Australia (not formally affiliated) recently sponsored a debate in Sydney on the topic of whether Australia should adopt a universal basic income.
To learn more about current basic income schemes proposed in the UK, see the compiled list at Basic Income UK.
References:
Andrew Harrop, For Us All: Redesigning social security, for the 2020s, Fabian Society, 2016.
Ashley Cowburn, “John McDonnell: I will win the argument to give every citizen in the UK a basic income“, The Independent; September 1, 2016.
See also:
Jon Stone, “Tax free allowances ‘must be axed to pay out modest basic income’, radical welfare blueprint suggests“, The Independent; August 30, 2016.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo of Fabian Society conference attendees CC BY 2.0 Fabian Society
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s patrons on Patreon
