by Louise Haagh | May 11, 2020 | News, Opinion
In April BIEN’s Executive Committee agreed some plans to feature the growing public attention around basic income as a response to the Coronavirus crisis, in an informative and critical way. We launched the new BIEN Bulletin, which is up and running. We also agreed a BIEN zoom-cast to be anchored by Louise Haagh, Sarath Davala and Jamie Cook. Finally, BIEN’s academic blog the Navigator, will feature the Covid-crisis in its first edition, to be launched this Autumn.
We are pleased today to publish the first episode of the BIEN Conversations Zoom Cast, in which some of the general themes we envisage will run through the series of dialogues are sketched.
To watch the video, click here.
The Zoom Cast does not aim to generate BIEN positions, and does not reflect BIEN positions. The opinions of the anchors and guests are their own.
The aim of the Zoom cast is to fill a gap in the coverage of Covid and basic income, by reflecting critically on both the opportunities and risks which this new context for the discussion about basic income creates.
What is the relationship of a prospective basic income with other economic security schemes, such as Furlough in Britain? How does the existing labour market affect the need for cash grants and the government response? What can we learn from cases such as the US, where the government has extended what looks like a rich-tested temporary UBI, in the form of flat income grants to individuals of 1200$ (for anyone earning less than 125K$)? To what extent it this response a feature of the US labour market context, including the spectre of huge job losses? In India and parts of Eastern Europe, with large labour migrant populations being either stuck or forced to return to their home country without income security, the role of a potential temporary unconditional cash grant scheme addresses deeper problems of labour migration.
What about the preparedness for Covid in different countries? Are there lessons for basic income from the differences in state capacity and social organisation which country responses to Covid reveal? For example, countries which have been able to track and reduce instances of Covid have needed less extensive lock-down restrictions and in turn the economic outlook may be better. Contrasting examples show vividly how the need for and capacity to support basic income-like schemes and transitions may be at odds: greater need often comes with less capacity. What implications can we draw of relevance for the wider debate from this sort of scenario?
Other issues the Zoom cast series hopes to cover include the relationship of basic income debate, rationale, and prospects with larger questions affecting the conditions in which basic income be can be realised and be effective. Relevant background factors include post-covid servicing and potential restructuring or relief of public debt, and government-led choices about austerity versus social investment. Debates which pit basic income against other public policy measures will be more likely where short-term debt servicing trumps long-term social investment and planning. Some say that short-term recovery measures can be turned into a permanent basic income scheme. But is it that simple? How do administrative, political and funding logics intersect? What is already clear is that in the post-covid context the debates about what motivates basic income, and if choices need to be made, which features of a UBI matters most in a transitional context, will only become more urgent. Perhaps we need to accept these choices and their answers will look different in different places. A theme that has always motivated me however is the importance in general of emphasizing basic income as an institutional innovation, which is linked not only with unconditionality but also with the scheme’s permanency.
Permanency is key to a UBI’s impact on health and motivation, and thus the sense of freedom, and to the potential to support other public policies. Without permanency, the fit of basic income to other economic institutions and to development transitions such as towards a green economy, are harder to envisage.
Permanency of basic income is accepted as an inbuilt feature of UBI by most experts, but it is lost sight of in public debates in favour of short-term needs – understandably, and this tendency becomes naturally more prominent in crisis conditions. However, being able to maintain a long-term perspective, with an eye on the advantages of permanence can also be argued to be even more important at critical junctures such as these, including to avoid an impression that basic income is essentially a crisis or anti-poverty measure.
All these considerations, and many others, are harder to balance in moments of, respectively, opportunity and crisis.
In the Bien Conversations series, we hope to raise some of these and other issues through a dialogue that engages events, and their regional dimensions, whilst also brining the long-standing debates to bear on our reflections.
The format of the Conversations series will be a discussion of the news and events, combined with a focus on regional experiences and on topical issues, led by the anchors and with the presence of guests from around the world.
feature the growing public attention around basic income as a response to the Coronavirus crisis.
Louise Haagh, BIEN Chair
To watch the video, click here.
.
by Guest Contributor | May 7, 2020 | Opinion
Time for a new story
A corona is the halo of light around the solar eclipse. The coronavirus crisis can ensure a more balanced economy. Care and solidarity must support our economy and society.
Under a crystal-clear sky and the chirping of birds, our economy glides into a state of slow motion. Foremost, the virus is a drama and poses a great risk for society and its people. Next to that, it is also a strange experience. It is quiet, mostly dogs with their owners populate the streets.
Only “vital functions” are fulfilled. Non-vital employees have to stay at home or work from home. They are not really necessary. Childcare is only available for people who work in healthcare, and other employees that we really cannot do without. The rest must arrange childcare themselves. Raising children is a vital function in society, and suddenly childcare is too.
This is remarkable. Our view of the economy and income is rapidly changing. Our values change. The term “Working Netherlands” takes on a different meaning than before. Our health is number one, and better-paid employees sit at home these days. We have traded shopping for a quiet walk. Nature makes itself heard, people no longer dominate everything.
Crucial reflection
And that new reality leads, next to all the illness and disruption, to crucial reflection. Considering how we have organized our society and our economy. We reflect on the value of well-paid, low-paid, and unpaid labor for the economy and our society. We reflect on the value of (working) time. And we reflect on what everything is all about.
Ever since the coronavirus spread throughout the world, there is great appreciation for the people who work in healthcare. Everyone now sees that these vital functions are worth a lot, but that at the same time they are not the highest-paying jobs.
It started with applause from balconies in Spain and Italy, followed by applause and flags in the Netherlands. A standing ovation. Professionals take care of the sick and are at risk themselves. This crucial interest is now visible and visibly appreciated.
In addition, there are care activities that are not paid. We also applaud all these unpaid people! Unpaid care activities, such as care for children, family, for the earth, the environment, social contacts, and culture, are vital as well. And this is more visible as well. In this time of crisis in the Netherlands, we are seeing more solidarity and more unpaid voluntary initiatives.
A different world
The current old economy is being hit hard, and we will soon have to deal with it when this is over. We are curious to hear what Prime Minister Rutte will say on behalf of the national government. Will it again be: “Buy the car you wanted for a long time”, trying to stimulate consumerism? Or does this crisis bring a different vision and a different world closer than ever?
Will there be a reflection on our incomplete society with our focus on rules and procedures? We need a vision of how we can organize society differently. A society where not money but people are completely central again.
Once again: paralyzing the current economy gives us time to reflect on this and think about a different economy. An economy in which we realize that it mainly consists of services and care. An economy in which solidarity and security of existence are paramount.
Making unpaid work visible
The crisis is a disaster, but it also shows us where we come short. And it brings up essential questions. How can we take better care of each other? How can we take better care of our Earth? How can we also make unpaid intrinsically-motivated care work visible in our economic model?
We should think about care credits. Some examples: a pension for unpaid caregivers, a universal global price for oxygen, better reimbursements for volunteers. And yes, we should consider a universal basic income.
These proposals and ideas can be a lever for changing values and appreciation for all the (unpaid) care work and solidarity that is now visible in this crisis. And these measures can be a safeguard to achieve a different society and a new economic model. Because there is no one who has never been taken care of, and everyone will ever take care of someone.
A corona is the halo of light around the solar eclipse. A fragile light shines behind the dark. The coronavirus crisis can provide a more balanced picture of the economy. It is not the banks and stock markets, but it is solidarity and care that support our economy and society.
It’s time for a new story.
Jan Atze Nicolai
Political thinker and poet
Member of the Board of Vereniging Basisinkomen (BIEN member)a
by Andre Coelho | May 4, 2020 | News
Faun Rice, a former Basic Income News editor, has just posted an article on the new Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) (and the characteristics it shares with universal basic income). That article, called “The Global Turn to Cash Transfers”, starts with a lucid but provocative opening:
Before March 2020, the Canadian public probably would have rebelled at the idea of a program that delivered a full-time minimum wage to 20% of the population without requiring them to demonstrate that they couldn’t find a job. A global pandemic has created an ideological shift where many of us are suddenly very empathetic with the unemployed — and this gives Canada an opportunity to trial unprecedented policies and ask some never-before-possible questions, including: what happens when we just give people money?
More information at:
Faun Rice, “The Global Turn to Cash Transfers“, Medium (Digital Policy Salon), April 30th 2020
by Ulrich Schachtschneider | Apr 29, 2020 | News
As in other countries, the coronavirus shutdown makes the economic situation increasingly precarious for many people. For many, this is a sudden new experience, especially for self-employed people who have no reserves and do not receive short-time work benefits. It is true that in Germany the payment of the subsistence minimum by the social welfare office (approx. 400 €/month) is being administered generously in the crisis, but bureaucratic hurdles remain, and for many people it is simply too little to be able to pay their current living costs in view of a total loss of income. Also, the income of partners and roommates is still taken into account.
In this situation, a number of very successful petitions quickly emerged. The largest, with 460,000 signatures in four weeks, is the collection launched by designer Tonia Merz ‘With the unconditional Basic Income through the corona crisis’. It demands an unconditional Basic Income for 6 months. The argument is based on the plight of the self-employed, artists, etc. in particular: they do receive loans, but how are those supposed to be paid back if no income can be expected for several months (or even years)?
However, the petition points out that the Basic Income should not only apply to the particularly affected group of the small self-employed enterprise. That is understandable, because administrators cannot judge each case fairly. For example, it is not possible to determine whether someone is a ‘full-time’ self-employed person, an artist or not, and so on. Many are self-employed in addition to other mini-jobs. The 6 months Basic Income should therefore be given to everyone – and at the same time it should be a test for the principle of an unconditional Basic Income in general.
In addition, there is a similar petition with 288,000 signatures from countertenor David Erler entitled ‘Help for freelancers and artists during the Corona shutdown’, which is explicitly aimed at freelancers and demands ‘unbureaucratic bridging money, e.g. in the form of a temporary (unconditional) basic income’. (This income does not quite conform to the definition of a Basic Income because it is not universal.)
Both public petitions are, however, legally non-binding, even though they reach a large public, and many people have thus committed themselves to a Basic Income for the first time. But there is also a very successful official petition to the German Parliament. It comes from the Basic Income activist Susanne Wiest. It calls for the introduction of an unconditional Basic Income for all citizens ‘in the short term and for a limited period of time, but for as long as necessary’ due to the economic impact of the Corona pandemic. It should ‘secure livelihoods and enable participation in society. An amount of 1000 € per person is conceivable’.
Such parliament petitions have some small hurdles to overcome when signing: You have to register, then you get a password etc. Therefore, the figures cannot be compared with informal petitions. Nevertheless this petition reached 176,000 signatures in four weeks: The electronic petition with the highest number of supporters ever.
Since the quorum of 50,000 was reached, the initiator must now be heard in a public meeting of the Petitions Committee and the proposal must be discussed in the Parliament. This will certainly lead to a further upswing in media coverage and the social discussion about a Basic Income in the crisis, but also about the general idea, as has been clearly felt in recent weeks.
This is because the justification for a Basic Income in the Corona crisis is the same as the justification for a Basic Income in general. It gives everyone a basic security in the event of economic crises or downturns, regardless of how they are triggered: By a virus, by ecological restrictions, or by a change in consumer habits and production structures.
.
by BIEN | Apr 21, 2020
What is a Basic Income?
A Basic Income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.
Sometimes called Universal Basic Income, a Citizen’s Income, or a Citizen’s Basic Income, it is not the same as a Minimum Income Guarantee; A Basic Income does not reduce as one earns more. For more information: About Basic Income
Why do we need it?
Because someone’s Basic Income would never be taken away, it would
- provide a secure financial platform to build on
- enable the employment market to become more flexible at the same time as enhancing income security
- give to everyone more choices over the number of hours for which they were employed
- enable carers to balance their caring and other responsibilities
- make it easier to start new businesses or to go self-employed, and
- encourage personal freedom, creativity, and voluntary activity
Because everyone would get a Basic Income, it would
- create social cohesion, and
- carry no stigma
Because the Basic Income would never be withdrawn, it would
- reduce the poverty trap for low income families, enabling them to lift themselves out of poverty by seeking new skills, better jobs, or additional hours of employment
- reduce the unemployment trap, so getting a job would always mean additional disposable income
Because Basic Income would be simple and efficient, it would
- be easy to understand
- be cheap to administer and easy to automate
- not be prone to errors or fraud
Many current benefits system are no longer fit for purpose. They assume that everyone has a stable single employment, that household structures don’t change, and that individuals’ circumstances change very rarely. Our lives are no longer like that: and as technology and the employment market continue to change, our benefits systems will become even less appropriate.
In a context of rapid change, the only useful system is a simple one. A Basic Income is as simple as it gets.
For a list of 101 reasons for a Basic Income, see Malcolm Torry’s book, 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income.
Why pay money to the rich when they don’t need it?
It is efficient to pay the same level of income to everybody of the same age and then tax it back from those who don’t need it. The alternative is to means-test incomes so that only those who are poor receive them: but that results in complexity, stigma, errors, fraud, and intrusive bureaucratic interference in people’s lives.
Would Basic Income be financially feasible?
Tests for a Citizen’s Basic Income scheme’s financial feasibility might be listed as follows:
- Revenue neutrality ( – that is, it would be funded by making changes to the current tax and benefits system), or sustainable additional funding should be shown to be feasible
- Poverty and inequality need to fall
- Low income households should suffer no significant losses at the point of implementation, and no household should suffer unmanageable losses
- Income Tax rates should rise by a clearly manageable amount
- A significant number of households should be released from means-tested benefits
Would people still work?
If by ‘work’ we mean ‘paid employment’, then the answer is yes. In the short to medium term, we are unlikely to see a Basic Income that would be sufficient to live on, so everyone would need additional sources of income. And because Basic Incomes would not be withdrawn as earnings rose, any family taken off means-tested benefits by their Basic Incomes would experience a reduction in withdrawal rates, and would experience more incentive to seek employment, or to start their own business, than they do now.
If by ‘work’ we mean purposeful activity of any kind, then the answer is again yes. By providing a secure layer of income, a Basic Income would enable people to readjust their employment hours in order to undertake additional caring and community work.
Why pay money to people who do nothing?
In many countries we are already paying means-tested benefits to people who do nothing, and the complexity and sanctions associated with those payments demotivate people and can tip their families into poverty. A Basic Income would take a lot of people off means-tested benefits, and so would encourage economic activity. Pilot projects in India and Namibia showed that in countries with less developed economies, and without comprehensive benefit systems, even quite small Basic Incomes increase economic activity among households with the lowest disposable incomes.
Would immigration go up?
As with other benefits, a government would be likely to require a period of legal residence before someone could receive a Basic Income. Because Basic Income would provide everyone with a secure layer of income, and therefore a greater employment incentive than means-tested benefits, anyone coming into the country would be even more likely to contribute to the economy than they are now.
Would wages fall?
Means-tested benefits function as dynamic subsidies – that is, they rise if wages fall, which can encourage wage-cutting. A Basic Income would not rise if wages fell, so employers would experience more resistance if they attempted to cut wages.
Some wages might rise. Because everyone would have a secure financial platform on which to build an income strategy, some workers would be more able to leave undesirable jobs in order to start their own businesses, or to learn new skills and seek new jobs; and workers would be able to spend longer looking for a job that they might want, rather than just any job. Either currently undesirable jobs would have to improve, or wages would have to rise in order to attract workers.
Some wages might fall. Because everyone would have a secure income layer, some people might decide to take a desirable job even if it didn’t pay very much. Wage levels for desirable jobs might therefore fall.
Would a Basic Income threaten the welfare state?
If a revenue neutral Citizen’s Basic Income scheme were to be implemented, then no cuts to public services would be required. The amounts of means-tested benefits received by households would fall, but only because those households were already receiving Basic Incomes. Benefits specifically designed to cover the additional costs of disability, and benefits to cover the differing housing costs in different areas, would continue.
Would a Basic Income cause inflation?
Inflation occurs when the amount of money available to spend is greater than the value of the economy’s productive capacity. In that situation, if the amount of money keeps growing, then each unit of money can buy progressively less, so money loses its value, sometimes rapidly. A Basic Income scheme paid for purely by making changes to the current tax and benefits system would not add to the money supply, so inflation would not occur. If the amount of money available to spend was below the productive capacity of the economy, then a government could create money until the gap was filled, and that new money could be used to pay a Basic Income: but if inflation started to occur, then money creation would have to stop, and new taxes would have to be used to pay for the Basic Income.
Has a Basic Income ever been tried?
Short pilot projects have taken place in Namibia and India, and something like a Basic Income has been implemented by accident in Iran. Experiments with the similar but different Minimum Income Guarantee and Negative Income Tax in the United States and Canada during the 1970s showed useful social outcomes and very little withdrawal from employment. The similarities between the economic effects of a Minimum Income Guarantee and Basic Income would suggest that the results of the Minimum Income Guarantee experiments would be replicated if a Basic Income were to be implemented; and the differences between them mean that the effects are likely to larger for Basic Income than for the 1970s experiments. Basic Income pilot projects and similar experiments continue in the United States, Uganda, Kenya, Spain, and the Netherlands, and experiments are planned for Scotland.
Further reading
More detailed responses to questions can be found in chapter 10 of Malcolm Torry, Why we need a Citizen’s Basic Income: The desirability, feasibility and implementation of an unconditional income, Policy Press, 2018.
Recently published introductions to the subject are as follows:
Louise Haagh, The Case for Universal Basic Income, Polity, 2019
Annie Miller, A Basic Income Handbook, Luath Press, 2017
Guy Standing, Basic Income: And how we can make it happen, Penguin, 2017
Malcolm Torry, Why we need a Citizen’s Basic Income: The desirability, feasibility and implementation of an unconditional income, Policy Press, 2018
For a detailed treatment of feasibility, see Malcolm Torry, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016
For chapters on many aspects of the Basic Income debate by world experts, see The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income, Palgrave, 2019
