by Florie Barnhoorn | Aug 5, 2017 | News
Summer 2017,
On Thursday, July 21, the city council of Amsterdam decided that it will in no way adopt stricter local rules for its social assistance recipients, not even on paper. A large majority of the members supported a motion submitted by the chairman of the GreenLeft (GroenLinks), Rutger Groot Wassink.
The motion called for Amsterdam’s alderman for Work, Income and Participation, Arjan Vliegenthart (Socialist Party), not to lay down regulations for forced compensation in a local statute (as described below) and to launch its own social assistance experiment in September. Only the VVD and the CDA voted against it. A conflict was born.
The Participation Act, which was introduced in 2015, requires municipalities to force each social benefit recipient to make a useful contribution to society, in exchange for his or her social benefit payments. This is the very controversial so-called ‘compensation’ (Dutch: Tegenprestatie). The ‘compensation’ can be voluntary work, taking up a language training or giving informal care.
The Participation Act also requires every municipality to lay down the regulations regarding the ‘compensation’ in a local statute. This document may contain for instance punitive measures that can be imposed on a reluctant recipient. Since the introduction of the law in 2015, Amsterdam has refused to fulfill these requirements. The city does not demand a compensation from every social benefit claimant and has not recorded the necessary regulations in its local statutes. However, Jetta Klijnsma (PvdA / Labour Party), the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment, will only give her permission for social assistance experiments in municipalities that have fully implemented the Participation Act.[1] (See also NETHERLANDS: Design of BI Experiments Proposed.)
Consequently, Amsterdam is heading to a confrontation with Klijnsma, who insists that the municipal authorities record their local rules on paper first in accordance with the law. Only then would Amsterdam be allowed to start with its social assistance experiment.
Earlier in the week, on July 14, Klijnsma called on Amsterdam to be pragmatic by incorporating the desired ‘technical adjustment’ (i.e. regulations with regard to the compensation as stated in the Participation Act and the local legislation in case of default, mentioned above) into its local statutes: “It would be very sad, if the Amsterdam City Council misses the opportunity, because of this ‘technical point’, to execute an experiment with the social assistance program. If Amsterdam participates, wide public support will be generated and the experiments will gain more significance.”
Additionally, in an attempt to pacify the situation, she stressed that “Municipalities do not need to impose that obligation in practice, because they have much ‘freedom of policy’ in the execution of the Participation Act.”
Municipal councillor and leader of GroenLinks, Groot Wassink, refers to Klijnsma’s demands as ‘ridiculous’. He does not want to ‘give in’ due to the ‘blackmail’ of an outgoing secretary of state: “It seems that the state secretary has launched a kind of punitive expedition to Amsterdam.”
Vliegenthart, who is not happy with the politicized debate with the PvdA state secretary, is nevertheless planning to implement the motion. He wants to present the design of his own experiment in September. According to the councillor, such an experiment exclusively for Amsterdam is legally possible: “I will make it legal as waterproof as possible.” The plan will be very similar to a research proposal that the city submitted earlier to Klijnsma and which was already approved.
“According to scientific research, compulsion and coercion do not help,” says Vliegenthart, “We want to make it easier for our social benefit recipients to find a job, not to impose on them restrictive measures.” He wants to start a social assistance experiment whereby recipients, who have difficulties in getting paid work, are allowed to earn some money on top of their benefits. In this way, on Vliegenthart’s view, work would be not only a compensation for society’s ‘gift’ (i.e. the welfare payments), as Klijnsma views it, but a project that really yields something.
The Council of State has already decided that the municipalities are free to include the compensation in the experiments or not. Vliegenthart also thinks so, after obtaining legal advice. “I suppose the state secretary is wrong,” he has said. However, she can still block Amsterdam’s experiment by legal means.
Groningen (including the neighboring village of Ten Boer), Wageningen, Tilburg, Deventer and Nijmegen are the first municipalities which have been given permission to begin social assistance experiments. Since early July, another municipality, Apeldoorn, has also started a social assistance experiment directed at developing self-management skills and tailor-made solutions. The municipalities of Epe, Oss and Geldrop-Mierlo, relatively rural municipalities situated in the eastern and southern part of the Netherlands, have joined the project that is led by Apeldoorn. This experiment fits within the framework of the Participation Act. The research involves about 90 participants from Epe and 450 from Apeldoorn and receives scientific guidance from Tilburg University. The trial will run until July 2019.
Under the Participation Act, up to 25 municipalities in the Netherlands may execute experiments, with each experiment lasting two years. Nationwide there is room for over 18.000 beneficiaries between the various projects.
See also Kate McFarland in The Netherlands: Government authorizes social assistance experiments in first five municipalities.
Credit Photo: Pixabay (Amsterdam, City Hall), tpsdave.
Thanks to Kate McFarland for reviewing the article and for her enthusiasm.
1. All social assistance experiments must be approved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. For that reason the ministry has developed a general administrative regulation (Dutch: Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur / AMvB). This document sets out the exact standards for the implementation of the social assistance experiments. See also The Netherlands: All that’s left is the action. Where do we stand with the social assistance experiments?↩
by Tyler Prochazka | Aug 2, 2017 | News
Students from across Taiwan have assembled for the first UBI Taiwan Summer Fellowship. The group is studying and researching Universal Basic Income (UBI) this summer, with the goal of producing a national basic income proposal by September.
The summer fellows met for the first time mid July to be trained in communicating basic income with those that have never been introduced to the idea. The fellows have developed a comprehensive strategy to promote and research UBI in Taiwan.
There are over 30 students from universities across Taiwan participating in either communications or research focused tasks.
“The summer seminar is bringing together both theoretical and practical considerations as a way of creating positive public policy for people,” said Julio Linares, a recent graduate of National Chengchi University (NCCU). Linares, originally from Guatemala, is helping to lead the research team and the seminar.
The fellows are producing a UBI white paper, which is scheduled to be completed by late August, to outline how Taiwan could implement UBI nationally. UBI Taiwan is planning to introduce the policy proposals to Taiwanese policymakers. They are also considering how to create a framework for a basic income pilot program experiment in Taiwan.
Within the fellowship are different teams focused on specific projects, such as social media and news production.
Dongyan Wu, also a NCCU student, is leading the news team for the summer fellowship. Wu said he believes UBI has the potential to transform Taiwan.
“If UBI is successful in Taiwan, everything we do, all our jobs and all the activities, will finally have meaning,” Wu said.
Tyler Prochazka, the fellowship director, started preparing the seminars and recruitment four months ago. Fellows were chosen from nearly 100 applicants based on their skill set and interest in understanding UBI.
Toru Yamamori, Cheng Furui, and Sarath Davala are scheduled to give presentations to the fellows in the coming weeks on various topics related to basic income. Enno Schmidt, the Swiss referendum leader, gave a presentation to the fellows last week.
Ping Xu, the coordinator for UBI Taiwan, said the summer fellowship is part of building up “the kind of future we want to see” in Taiwan.
James Davis, a rising senior from Columbia University in New York, flew to Taiwan for two months to help lead the summer seminar and oversee research for UBI Taiwan. Davis is the director of field research, which is producing the pilot program framework.
“UBI Taiwan’s mission is critical for the future of work in Taiwan. I have really enjoyed getting to know the volunteers, learning about their backgrounds, and sharing their passion for helping others,” Davis said.
by Bryan Tierney | Aug 2, 2017 | News
Comments to European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) consultation on the Future of Europe in Dublin, Ireland, June 7, 2017
Social Justice Ireland, an independent Irish think tank and justice advocacy organization, has endorsed proposals for the introduction of an EU-wide basic income system. Speaking at an EESC event held in Dublin on June 7th, Dr Seán Healy, Director of Social Justice Ireland, identified two key areas eroding confidence in the EU:
“1.1. Failure to address the ongoing vulnerability of many EU citizens.
1.2. Failure of the European Commission to protect small countries against its larger, stronger members.”
Addressing the first point, Dr Healy referred to recommendations made in May 2017 by a UN expert group meeting on “Strategies for Eradicating Poverty to Achieve Sustainable Development for All”:
“The social welfare systems in developed countries are no longer fit for purpose. There should be an adjustment of the paradigm including promotion, and openness to study new ideas around a new social contract that is more appropriate for the 21st century. This may entail moving towards a universal basic income system, supporting a living wage rather than a minimum wage, recognizing all work (not just paid employment) as meaningful, and ensuring that all government decisions are subjected to a poverty-proofing process. While the centrality of employment and decent jobs to eradicate poverty is well recognized, employment growth has not been sufficient to absorb the growing labour force, particularly in those countries and regions with large youth populations. Further, there has been a divergence between productivity and wages growth, as well as growing employment insecurity and casualization in all countries.”
In his speaking notes, Dr Healy agreed with the UN expert group’s analysis and recommendations, adding that the EU has consistently ignored these issues. According to Dr Healy, none of the five options provided in the EU White Paper on the Future of Europe address these points, going on to note that:
“An alternative option is required that will protect the vulnerable and move towards a future that effectively addresses poverty, unemployment, inequality and exclusion. The EU needs to become, and be seen to become, a caring Union.”
In the context of Irish politics, universal basic income (UBI) has been endorsed by some of the main political parties. The Green Party has long been in favour of the establishment of a basic income, while Fianna Fáil—the country’s second largest party—has talked about the idea for many years. Fianna Fáil’s spokesperson on social protection, Willie O’Dea, has called for radical reforms of the welfare system. The veteran politician and basic income advocate has said that, if Fianna Fáil were in office, a government-established commission would report on the idea within six months. Writing about UBI in a news article in January of this year, he said:
“While the broad concept of UBI has been around for a while, the challenges facing us today – particularly the changing and often precarious nature of work, not least the threat to jobs posed by automation and short-term contracts – make it a realistic and workable response.
“UBI would replace virtually every non-pension welfare payment except disability and housing benefits. Scrapping the myriad complex and often contradictory welfare codes would mean the end of welfare administration and expensive means-testing, an end to pointless and unproductive Intreo/job-centre interviews and hated sanctions. The biggest long-term saving, however, would stem from ending the poverty trap disincentives built into the current system, where taking a job can leave you financially worse off.”
The current government, which was formed following the appointment of Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach (prime minister) in June 2017, comprises the largest Irish political party, Fine Gael, and several independents, and is propped up by Fianna Fáil – Fine Gael’s historic rival – in a confidence and supply agreement. Fine Gael have been critical of Fianna Fáil’s basic income proposals and they do not currently have any proposals for the introduction of UBI. The Irish budget for 2018 will likely bring about increases to existing social welfare payments without any of the radical reforms proposed by rival parties.
References and further reading
Dr Seán Healy, Comments to the EESC Consultation on the Future of Europe, Social Justice Ireland, June 2017, <https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/publication/4855/2017-06-07-jointeventforeesc-seanhealyspeakingnotes.pdf>
Expert Group Meeting, “Strategies for Eradicating Poverty to Achieve Sustainable Development for All”, United Nations Headquarters, 8-11 May 2017, <https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2017/04/report-egm-poverty2017.pdf>
Willie O’Dea, “Basic incomes for all would end the welfare poverty trap and give people greater control of their lives”, Independent.ie, 19 January 2017, <https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/basic-incomes-for-all-would-end-the-welfare-poverty-trap-and-give-people-greater-control-of-their-lives-35379503.html>
European Commission, “White Paper on the Future of Europe”, European Commission, March 2017, <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf>
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: Irish flag, CC BY-SA 2.0 by jcdcv
by Hilde Latour | Jul 31, 2017 | News
Covering the philosophy of freedom, an explanation of universal basic income and the economics behind it, Karl Widerquist, vice-chair (at the time of the interview he still was co-chair) of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), was interviewed by Sam Barton from Talk of Today in Australia.
During the interview, Widerquist talks about what it means to be a fully free person and argues people should regain their freedom from forced labour. “If you are a free person, you can choose to be given and follow orders for 40 hours a week, but you can also choose not to,” Widerquist states. Many people can only survive by paying for resources that are owned by others, and according to Widerquist, people should be “compensated financially for that so they don’t have to work for others if they don’t want to.” As most people can choose their employer, the labour force cannot be compared with slavery, but “to say you are fully free, you have to be free from oppression”, and many people are not, Widerquist argues.
Widerquist explains a Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a means to create a market economy where income doesn’t start at zero and where you can get a higher income from a job on top of that. Some wages will rise as a result of UBI according to Wilderquist. But at the moment, “there are so many people that need their jobs to survive that employers put the wages down.”
UBI can replace a lot of programs that don’t work so well. It will have to be high enough to meet people’s basic needs, but people with special needs, such as paraplegics, will have to get some additional support, as they will need more to meet their basic needs. Other things, such as campaign contributions, can be cancelled in order to finance UBI according to Wilderquist.
Whether or not UBI will cause inflation depends on the balance between taxing and spending, which is a task of the government, with or without UBI.
Info and links
Full interview podcast
Special thanks to Josh Martin and Dawn Howard for reviewing this article
by Julen Bollain | Jul 28, 2017 | Opinion
The Spanish publisher RBA has just released a new book by Daniel Raventós, Renta básica contra la incertidumbre (Basic Income against Uncertainty), in its “los retos de la economía” (Economic Challenges) collection. The book updates the most important developments in basic income and discusses recent writings. The collection, in which the book is included, is not academic, but one which presents the basic elements of today’s concerns (inequality, the welfare state, and so on) to non-specialist readers, in such a way as to serve as a basis for further study.
Raventós’ book not only discusses the theoretical issues of basic income, but also gives an account of the social and political situation which has led to this proposal becoming widely known and regularly debated in social movements, the media, political parties and trade unions. Just a few years ago, this was unimaginable. Some people were complacently asserting that basic income could never be openly recommended because it would “shock” or “repel” the population, or at least a good part of it. It would have to be introduced, if at all, through the back door.
Well, we have lived to see the day! Here we offer an extract from the introduction of Renta básica contra la incertidumbre, which will soon appear in an Italian edition. The book has six chapters in which Raventós discusses the normative aspects from the standpoint of political philosophy (with particular reference to property and freedom); how basic income has been received in social movements like feminism and environmentalism, as well as in trade unions; how to finance it; experiments with basic income in various parts of the world; the role of basic income in an increasingly unequal world, in which mechanisation is advancing at a dizzying pace; and the paradox of support from both the right and left.
“Basic income will be paid out to people simply because they exist as citizens or accredited residents, independently of gender, ethnic group, income, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or lack thereof. Hence, like universal democratic suffrage, basic income is a proposal with the formal characteristics of laicism, unconditionality and universality.
Basic income has to confront considerable intellectual, social, philosophical, economic and political resistance, often in the form of questions. Is basic income a just proposal? Do people who disdain a salaried job have the right to an unconditional cash transfer? Will it abolish poverty? Aren’t the usual welfare state conditional cash transfers a better way to combat poverty? Will people get or stay in jobs if they have a basic income? Wouldn’t it be better to aim for full employment? Would workers have better bargaining power if they received a basic income? How would basic income affect migratory flows of impoverished people from poor countries to rich countries? Would everyone, both rich and poor, gain with a basic income? Would or wouldn’t women benefit from a basic income? Given the threat of robotisation in many areas of work, does basic income have something to offer?
Since inequality between a tiny minority of extremely rich people and the rest of the population is constantly increasing—as Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel-Prize-winning economist and others have pointed out and studied—would basic income be a good idea? If basic income has supporters on both the right and left, are they advocating the same thing?
Then there is the most frequently repeated objection, also in the form of a question. Can basic income be financed? In fact, it would be more precise to say that it was “most frequently repeated until recently”. Although there are not many studies which demonstrate in detail and with technical competence how basic income can be financed, those that have been published are compelling. Whatever they might have in common, each region and each country is different in economic terms, but financing a basic income would have to take the form of changes in budgetary priorities and reforming tax systems. For example, there are proposals advocating the introduction of special mechanisms for taxing financial transactions.
These reforms would bring about a substantial reduction in inequality of income distribution and allow for simpler, more coherent tax and welfare benefits systems. Basic income is not a panacea or a quick-fix for all the world’s social and economic problems but, in view of many who study and espouse it, this measure would mean that people would be better equipped to participate in productive activities, social inclusion would improve, communities would be stronger, political and social participation would be revitalised, and there would be a significant reduction of poverty and all the problems that go with it.
Basic income is not a political economy, per se, but would be part of one, as well as a general project aiming to guarantee and underpin the material existence of the whole population. It might also be seen as a kind of indemnity for past and present wrongs since it requires more privileged citizens to contribute towards achieving the right of existence for everyone. And herein lies one of the main political obstacles for basic income.
This is also the point which makes it possible to explain the apparent paradox of left and right support for basic income. The book notes that the difference depends on financing. The left focuses on additional taxes on the rich, while the right wants to trim down existing welfare to pay for basic income.
“In other words, the left-wing position does not entail any cuts to existing social services or social rights, in education, health, support for dependents, housing, etc., all of which are essential in any welfare state worthy of the name.”
