Videos of all the plenary sessions are available on youtube. Abstracts of all the concurrent sessions are available here. Full papers and slides of some presentations are available below.
This table contains the papers uploaded to the congress website prior to the congress. If other authors submit their papers then they will be added to this list.
Videos are available of many of the congress sessions. Click here to see them.
BIEN 2016, Seoul
The Proceedings of the 2016 congress are contained in a single document, in which can be found plenary session addresses and parallel session papers. Click here to download the document.
Toward a renovation of economic circulation and institutionsMorley-Fletcher, Edwin (IT) Opening AddressOzanira da Silva e Silva, Maria (BRA) The Minimum Income as a Policy for Increasing Child Education in BrazilPelzer, Helmut (GE) Funding of an Unconditional Basic Income in Germany via a Modified Tax/Transfer SystemPioch, Roswitha (GE) The bottom line of the welfare state in Germany and the NetherlandsQuilley, Steven (UK) Sustainable Funding of Basic Income: Environment, Citizenship & Community, and a Trajectory for Basic Income Politics in Europe (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Reynolds, Brigid (IRE), with Sean Healy
From Concept to Green Paper: Putting Basic Income on the Political Agenda (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Robeyns, Ingrid (B)
An emancipation fee or hush money? The advantages and disadvantages of a basic income for women’s emancipation and well-being (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Roos, Nikolas (NL)
Basic Income and the justice of taxationSalinas, Claudio Caesar (ARG), with Philippe Van Parijs Basic income and its cognates. Puzzling equivalence and unheeded differences between alternative ways of addressing the new social question (published in Basic Income on the Agenda) Scharpf, Fritz (D) Basic Income and Social Europe (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Schutz, Robert (US)
More Basic IncomeSerati, M. (IT), with E. Chiappero & F. Silva Basic income: an insidious trap or a fruitful chance for the Italian labour market?Silva, F. (IT) ), with E. Chiappero & M. Serati Basic income: an insidious trap or a fruitful chance for the Italian labour market?Smith, Jeffery (US) From Potlatch to EarthshareStanding, Guy (SWI) Seeking Equality of Security in the Era of GlobalisationTerraz, Isabelle Redistributive Impact of a Basic Income: A Focus on Women’s SituationVan Parijs, Philippe (B), with Claudio Caesar Salinas Basic income and its cognates. Puzzling equivalence and unheeded differences between alternative ways of addressing the new social question (published in Basic Income on the Agenda) Widerquist, Karl (US) Reciprocity and the guaranteed income
The Dutch government has implemented a new programme for self-employed individuals who have suffered a loss of income due to the COVID-19 pandemic – the Temporary bridging measure for self-employed professionals (Tozo). The new arrangement entitles individuals who are self-employed to up to 1050 Euros per month for single individuals or up to 1500 Euros per month for couples for a total of three months.
After the 2008 financial crisis, thousands of individuals who applied for unemployment benefits – known as Bijstand – had to sell their homes before they were able to qualify. A notable feature of the new arrangement is that an individual’s eligibility is not reliant on whether or not they own a house or have any other assets. This is seen as a step forward for those would like to see the adoption of a Basic Income in the Netherlands.
The new arrangement does not, however, meet the criteria for a Basic Income for a number of reasons. BIEN’s definition of a basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirements. Under BIEN’s definition, a Basic Income has five key criteria: it is unconditional of income, there is no work requirement, it is individual, it is universal, and it is periodic.
It does not meet the first requirement as the new programme only includes individuals whose monthly income has fallen under the national minimum. It meets the second criterion in that there is no work requirement. It does not meet the third, fourth or fifth requirements as it is not individual (as less is paid to individuals in a couple) or universal, and it will only be provided temporarily. It is however quite generous as it is in line with the living wage.
While the new arrangement does not meet BIEN’s UBI criteria, it has helped to give UBI supporters the footing they need to push the Basic Income agenda further. Alexander de Roo, member of the Green Party and chairman of the Basic Income Network Netherlands, has written an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Rutte, calling for the adoption of a temporary UBI in response to COVID-19 and a permanent UBI to be implemented after the general election in March 2021.
The open letter referred to in this article can be found here. (Readers might wish to be aware that ‘Basisinkomen’ as used in this letter does not always accord with BIEN’s definition of Basic Income)
Canada is taking measures to face the Covid-19 pandemic. The situation requires, together with radical and fast actions in medical terms, radical and fast actions in economic and social terms.
The introduction of a Basic Income has been a topic for years in Canada and with the current crisis, it is showing even more possible benefits. While one can always approach a private money lender for emergencies, having a basic income can better sort the situation.
On the 18 March the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced the federal response to the crisis: a $82 billion relief plan which allocates $27 billion in direct support and $55 billion to help businesses liquidity through tax deferrals. So far, the Opposition parties have been supportive, especially the New Democratic Party which is pushing the Government for more generous and comprehensive measures.
The Canada’s Covid-19 Economic Response Plan includes a temporary boost to Canada’s Child Benefit payments, a new emergency Care Benefit to provide income support to workers, the Canada emergency response Benefit (CERB) and other targeted measures. The CERB is a monthly payment of 2000$ a month for a period of 4 months that will go to any worker who earned at least 5000$ in the past 12 months and has suddenly lost their job as a result of the pandemic. The Government has estimated that more than 2 million Canadians will receive a temporary Basic Income through the CERB. Understandably, Basic Income advocates have stressed the desirability of a more universal approach, as opposed to the long list of targeted measures such as those above, which can represent a cost in terms of classifying the beneficiaries due to long and sometimes bureaucratic processes. They have pressed for keeping a Basic Income model which can last after the pandemic is over, because Covid-19 will probably not be the last major setback to the Canadian economy. The next time it could be the shock from climate crisis or technological unemployment.
The CERB is not the first measure something like a Basic Income that Canada has experienced. An experiment called a Basic Income pilot was introduced in April 2017 by Kathleen Wynne’s liberal Government. The program consisted in monthly payments for 4000 randomly chosen individuals living under the poverty line, without work conditions, in three communities in Ontario. The program, originally stated to be for 3 years, ended prematurely, but showed interesting effects: the majority of the people who had low wage jobs before the trial remained in the workforce. Many went back to school, and mental health improved. The payments were like a Basic income in that they were not work-tested, but because they were income-tested and based on the structure of the household, the experiment was not a Basic Income pilot experiment.
The Basic Income Canada Network has proposed some options for Canada: among them there is cash transfer based on household income for 18-64 year olds people, of $22.000 per year ($31.113 for a couple) that decrease gradually as other income increases. This would be similar to the Ontario experiment, and so not strictly a Basic Income, but the report does model a fully individual, universal basic income option.
The time for Basic Income may have come and Governments around the world are implementing measures to address the financial fallout of the Covid-19 crisis. To many, a Basic Income – regular payments to individuals that are not work-tested or means-tested – may sound radical, but it might be the most rational thing the Government can do for Canadians.
In the current context of a global pandemic, the universal basic income (UBI) policy has been gaining ground all over the world. Given this sudden raise of awareness about UBI, it was important for the French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB), as well as 40 other French civil society organizations and public figures, to highlight the importance of having a real democratic debate around its implementation.
These UBI advocates support the idea of basic income, but not at all costs. Basic income finds itself at the crossroad of two very different paths: it can either be included in a series of measures aiming at promoting a social and environmental transition, or it can be a plaster to the current neoliberal system. In the French context, where the social protection system has been strong for the past decades, but which has also been attacked in recent years, the risks of having UBI used politically to weaken established social rights are also important.
That is why the implementation of a real protective basic income must not only be about the economy, but be an outgrowth of a real democratic debate. That to make sure it will help reduce inequalities, reinforce labor rights and help create social protection systems. And to improve working conditions of the “essential jobs” that are currently underpaid and at the frontline of the sanitary crisis. It shall also be used to question the relevancy of “bullshit jobs”.
The strength of UBI has always relied on its capacity to promote debates on an extremely wide range of topics. Today, more than ever, it is crucial to debate collectively about the society we want in the aftermath of this crisis.
Reports are emerging that Spain is hoping to deploy a “permanent” basic income type program in the near future. The program comes as Spain aims to respond to the economic crisis from the global coronavirus pandemic.
Spain has one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the world with over 13,000 deaths.
Spain’s push for establishing basic income as a “permanent instrument” that “stays forever” will help reduce financial anxieties for many families worried about their jobs. Sending cash to families rather than corporations will better ensure economic security for the most vulnerable.
However, questions remain about the nature of the program and whether it will be truly universal and unconditional.
If Spain successfully implements basic income, it will become the first European country to implement the program on a national scale and one of the only places in the world to do so.
Finland famously experimented with a basic income pilot program. The experiment made recipients happier and healthier. Nonetheless, some government officials were upset the basic income pilot did not significantly affect employment status within a year for recipients.
Nadia Calviño, Spain’s minister for economic affairs, said the payments will be targeted to families and will differentiate based on their “circumstances.” In practice, differentiating based on circumstances will result in means tests that fall on the poor. If there are strict criteria, then some families who need assistance may be unnecessarily excluded or have their assistance delayed.
A better system is presuming each individual qualifies and allowing wealthier individuals to opt-out. If an individual who received basic income has a large income by the end of 2020, the government can phase out their basic income through the income tax system the following year.
Universality helps the poor, not the rich. It ensures all those who need assistance can receive it immediately. The true costs of universality are lower because it requires less administration and bureaucracy to implement the program.
