by Kate McFarland | Apr 4, 2017 | News
Paul Basken has written an article about scholarly research on basic income for The Chronicle of Higher Education, a US-based news service aimed toward individuals engaged with higher education.
Despite concerns about job loss due to automation, and despite an increase in the popularity of basic income as a potential countermeasure, it is rare that university researchers in the United States seek (let alone obtain) funding for research projects on basic income. As Basken’s article points out, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the main federal agency sponsoring academic research, has not received a “surge in proposals for research on basic income” — nor has it made any strides to encourage such topics.
However, as Basken also notes, many scholars are themselves not sure what research could reveal about the implementation and effects of basic income, given the inherent limitations of experiments and simulations and the complexities of implementing the policy in practice.
Basken’s article features commentary from three scholars who have researched and written upon basic income: Michael C. Munger (Political Science, Duke University), Michael A. Lewis (Social Work, Hunter College), and Matt Zwolinski (Philosophy, University of San Diego).
Read the full article:
Paul Basken, “Universal Basic Income: An Idea Whose Scholarly Time Has Come?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, 2017.
Reviewed by Robert Gordon
Photo CC BY 2.0 Stewart Butterfield
by Guest Contributor | Apr 4, 2017 | News
According to a recent survey, 61% of Flemings agree that “everyone should have the right to a guaranteed basic income”. About a quarter say that, if guaranteed this right, they would start their own business, and women in particular would be more entrepreneurial.
The questions about a basic income guarantee formed part of a larger survey on the economy, conducted by Trendhuis (“Trend House”), a research group that has been following trends in public opinion in Belgium since 2005. For its survey on the economy, which was released in January 2017, it polled 1,028 members of the Flemish population (Dutch-speaking Belgians) over the age of 18.
In the web-based survey, Trendhuis asked respondents whether they support a basic income, defined as a fixed (monthly) income provided by the government to all citizens, without means test or work requirement. As seen in the table below, a majority in each demographic group analyzed — young and old, male and female, “short-” and “long-” educated — supported the idea. The greatest support came from the 51-65 age group, in which 67% of respondents favored basic income.
These results are roughly consistent with those found in Dalia Research’s EU-wide study of attitudes about basic income, conducted in April 2016.
More Entrepreneurship
Survey subjects were further asked about entrepreneurial activity. Overall, 20% of the respondents indicated that they would set up their own company in the future even without a basic income, while 25% would do so if they were provided with a basic income.
The difference was more pronounced for women: 14% said that they would start their own business in the future without a basic income; this proportion jumped to 23% with a basic income.
Changing Behavior
One of the big questions of the basic income debate is whether people will still be motivated to work with a guaranteed basic income. In the Trendhuis study, 6% of the Flemings surveyed indicated that they would completely give up their jobs. More than one in three said that they would consider working less (for example, part-time or four-fifths)–with women (40%) more inclined to do so than men (31%).
Almost half of those surveyed said that they would find work better suited to their abilities (47%) and commit more time to volunteering (45%). Additionally, four in ten respondents said that they would study. More than half of the women expressed an intention to commit to voluntary work (54%), versus 39% of men.
Figures
“I think that everyone should have a right to a guaranteed basic income”
(Percentages = ‘agree’ + ‘strongly agree’)
| Overall |
61,06% |
| Men |
59,46% |
| Women |
62,70% |
| 20-35 y.o. |
58,00% |
| 36-50 y.o. |
56,07% |
| 51-65 y.o. |
67,22% |
| Short Educated |
63,29% |
| Long Educated |
60,28% |
“If I had a right to a guaranteed basic income, I would…”
(Percentages = ‘agree’ + ‘strongly agree’)
|
Overall |
Men |
Women |
20-35 |
36-50 |
51-65 |
Short Ed. |
Long Ed. |
| Start own business |
24,90% |
26,39% |
23,34% |
37,05% |
28,28% |
11,98% |
19,12% |
26,91% |
| Volunteer more. |
46,09% |
38,96% |
53,95% |
49,87% |
46,17% |
43,80% |
38,80% |
48,62% |
| Work less. |
35,23% |
31,11% |
39,79% |
37,00% |
37,17% |
35,37% |
31,87% |
36,39% |
| Stop to work. |
5,85% |
5,07% |
6,71% |
2,73% |
3,79% |
10,83% |
7,76% |
5,18% |
| Find work that better fits my talents. |
46,65% |
46,47% |
46,95% |
51,30% |
43,24% |
45,83% |
51,17% |
45,07% |
| Return to school. |
42,50% |
42,49% |
42,62% |
52,81% |
40,71% |
33,99% |
38,42% |
43,92% |
| Negotiate for better work conditions. |
24,06% |
26,86% |
21,08% |
28,10% |
24,65% |
20,15% |
26,07% |
23,37% |
|
“I see myself starting up a company in the future”
(Percentages = ‘agree’ + ‘strongly agree’) |
“If I had a guaranteed basic income right then I would set up a private enterprise” (Percentages = ‘agree’ + ‘strongly agree’) |
Difference in percentage points |
| Overall |
19,48% |
24,90% |
+ 5,42 |
| Men |
24,27% |
26,39% |
+ 2,12 |
| Women |
14,41% |
23,34% |
+ 8,93 |
| 20-35 y.o. |
33,22% |
37,05% |
+ 3,83 |
| 36-50 y.o. |
21,53% |
28,28% |
+ 6,75 |
| 51-65 y.o. |
7,26% |
11,98% |
+ 4,72 |
| Short Educated |
13,46% |
19,12% |
+ 5,66 |
| Long Educated |
21,58% |
26,91% |
+ 5,33 |
Edited by Kate McFarland; reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Daniel Mennerich
by Michael Lewis | Apr 2, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Michael A Lewis
As someone interested in basic income (BI), I read a fair amount about the topic. I read pieces by supporters and opponents, as well as those who might be considered more neutral. I’m often struck by the degree of uncertainty concerning implementation of BI.
A popular argument for BI these days is based on concerns about the possibility of mass technological unemployment. Some in the “tech industry” contend that BI will become necessary as automation replaces more and more human laborers in the years to come. This has led to a debate among economists and others regarding whether automation will result in a net loss of jobs (for humans) big enough to warrant the need for something like BI. Both sides of this debate bring evidence to make their cases. But in the end, we simply don’t know for certain if and when automation will lead to a net loss of jobs for us human beings.
Assuming BI might be implemented in a society which would still require a fair amount of human labor power, we’d like to know what impact BI would have on people’s inclination to sell their labor or, more commonly, “work.” A BI could affect labor supply in at least two ways.
One is that people who received an income they didn’t have to work for may be inclined to work less. The second possible effect has to do with how BI would be financed. If it were financed by an increase in income taxes, this could also reduce labor supply. The reason is that a large proportion of many people’s incomes are earnings, meaning that an income tax is largely a wage tax. A higher wage tax has two possible effects on labor supply.
On the one hand, such an increase could cause people to work less because with the higher tax (and all else equal) their take home pay is smaller than it was before, creating an incentive to work less. On the other hand, a smaller take home pay means one would have to work more than before to maintain their standard of living. This would create an incentive for people to work more not less. If BI were implemented, we have no way of knowing which of these effects would dominate the other.
Leaving the labor market (but still related to it), another area of uncertainty has to do with how people would spend their time, assuming they did reduce their labor supply. Opponents of BI worry that people would use their time “unproductively”, while proponents tend to argue that individuals would engage in more care work or pursue “self-actualization” through pursuing education, writing poetry, starting a business, and the like. But if we’re being honest, regardless of which side of the debate we’re on, we must admit that we don’t have much of an idea what the relative proportion of unproductive to productive activities would be, assuming we could even agree on how to categorize activities as unproductive or productive.
A third area of uncertainty is related to personal relations and household composition. BI could have an effect on who lives with whom, who marries whom, who has kids or not (as well as how many to have), etc. As a society, we obviously differ when it comes to our values about such matters, meaning we might differ on the desirability of BI. But we don’t really know for sure how implementation of BI would affect “family life.”
Now I’m not saying we’re completely in the dark when it comes to questions of BI’s effect on labor supply, use of non-wage time, etc. Economists, sociologists, and others can draw on theory to help us think through these matters. And, by this point, there’ve been several experiments/studies (as well as more recent “startup” studies) which offer a lens on what might happen if BI were implemented. But we should be careful not to overestimate how much help we can receive from such experts, as well as the studies that have been (and are being) conducted.
Considering the many BI experiments (as well as proposed ones) around the world, we need to be cautious about what lessons might be learned. The philosopher Nancy Cartwright, well known for her work in the philosophy of science, has a phrase that’s quite relevant to this discussion: “it works somewhere.” Cartwright frequently utters this phrase within the context of discussing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the so called gold standard of empirical research in the social sciences. Her point is that even if a well-designed RCT shows that a policy works in one context, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll work in another one. This is relevant to BI studies because they’re being conducted, or proposed, in a variety of different contexts. So if we find out that something works in India or Finland, that doesn’t mean it’ll work in Japan or the U.S. In the article cited above, Cartwright goes into great detail about why generalizing experimental findings from one context to another can be so difficult. For those interested in what we might learn from BI experiments, I think her work is quite instructive.
When engineers design systems, such as buildings, bridges, etc., they also must face uncertainties. To be double sure of the approaches that they take, many engineers tend to avail the services of engineering consultancy firms, so that they can rest easy knowing they are backed up by the same opinion. However, they don’t know for sure what loads the systems will end up having to bear, they don’t know if there will be earthquakes, they don’t know how forceful the winds will be, etc. One of the things engineers do to deal with such uncertainties is to include safety factors in their designs.
For example, suppose an engineer is designing a structure and wind, seismic, and other data indicate that it’ll have to bear a load of 1000 kg. Suppose also that the engineer wants a safety factor of five. Then the load which the structure should be able to bear isn’t 1000 kg but 5×1000 = 5000 kg. So a safety factor is a multiple used to increase the strength or robustness of a system beyond that which is thought to be required to account for uncertainty in what’s thought to be required.
Those of us designing policies don’t have the luxury of being able to use simple equations, which include safety factors, the way engineers do. But perhaps we should adopt a similar safety factor mentality. Implementation of BI would be a complicated undertaking, involving a great deal of uncertainty. Perhaps BI supporters should consider how to increase its robustness in response to labor supply reductions, as well as other unanticipated effects. I admit I’m not exactly sure how to do this. But I believe it’s something worth thinking about.
Michael Lewis
by Kate McFarland | Apr 1, 2017 | News
On March 22, 2017, the popular debate program Intelligence Squared U.S. (IQ2US), hosted and moderated by ABC News correspondent John Donvan, held a debate on the question “Is the universal basic income the safety net of the future?” Specifically, the panelists debated the proposal of a $12,000 per year UBI for Americans.
On the “yes” side, Andrew Stern, former President of the Service Employees International Union and author of Raising the Floor, partnered with libertarian author and scholar Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. Their opponents were two leading economists of the Obama administration: Jason Furman (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to President Barack Obama) and Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden).
Prior to the debate, members of the live audience were asked whether they were “for the motion”, “against the motion”, or undecided.
During the first round of the debate, each debater was given time to make opening speeches delineating their positions. Initiating the round, Stern argued that current welfare programs are insufficient, leaving millions of Americans in poverty, and that impending job disruption due to automation will make the economic situation even more dire. Opening for the “against” side, Furman maintained that the threat from automation has been overblown, that UBI is not financially viable–at least without removing benefits from those who need them–and that there are better policy options, such as programs designed to help individuals obtain jobs.
Next, Murray argued that a basic income would open more options to individuals, remove the need for the poor to supplicate themselves to government bureaucrats to receive benefits, and restore more responsibility to family and friends in supporting one another’s needs. Finally, Bernstein laid out a case that basic income would waste resources on those who don’t need them, eliminating funds from programs that could do much more to help poor and middle-class Americans, ultimately to the detriment of those who need help the most.
The opening statements were followed by an interactive debate moderated by Donvan. This second round began with the question of the extent to which technological unemployment is a real threat. While Furman emphasized that earlier fears of mass job loss to automation turned out to be unfounded, Stern and Murray contended that the threat is indeed significantly greater now. Meanwhile, Bernstein stressed that there is still plenty of work that needs to be done today.
Redirecting discussion from the impasse over the magnitude of the automation threat, Bernstein stressed that the most important point of the “against” side is not that automation is not a major concern, but that UBI wastes money on those who don’t need it, rather than investing that money in programs targeted at the most vulnerable. In response to assertions by Stern that the poor are obviously better off under a UBI, given that they have an additional $12,000 per year, Furman challenged the arithmetic of the “for” side–challenging Stern and Murray to explain how their UBI can be financed.
Near the end of the round, the debate shifted to the more “ephemeral” parts of the pro-UBI argument, focusing on the potential impact of UBI on civil society.
After the second round of the debate, members of the studio audience were invited to ask brief questions, and, finally, each of the four panelists summarized their key points in two-minute closing statements.
At the end of the debate, the audience members were against asked to vote “for”, “against”, or “undecided” on the motion that UBI is the safety net of the future.
In the end, the “against” side clearly dominated the contest. While only 20% of attendees were opposed the motion prior to the debate (with 45% undecided), fully 61% were afterwards. Meanwhile, the proportion in favor dropped from 35% to 31%.
The “against” side also won in a poll of the online viewing audience, although less starkly. At the beginning of the debate, 49% of online viewers expressed support for the motion–rising to 53% by the end. The percentage against, in contrast, started (and ended) smaller, but saw a much larger increase–from 19% to 42%.
It is important to keep in mind that these results reflect the views only of a small self-selected group of individuals, and thus neither the “before” or “after” votes should not be taken as representative of Americans’ views on UBI.
Watch the Debate
Reference
“The Universal Basic Income is the Safety Net of the Future” at Intelligence Squared Debates.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod.
by Guest Contributor | Mar 31, 2017 | News
Photo: Hôtel du Parlement du Québec, CC BY-SA 3.0 Jeangagnon
Quebec hints at basic income1 in recent budget, aims to bypass testing
By Roderick Benns
The Quebec Liberal government has hinted strongly in its recent budget that some form of basic income guarantee is imminent – but likely only for a portion of the province, at least to begin with.
Of note in the announcement is that Quebec will bypass any testing of the program, unlike Ontario with its commitment to a pilot project, and instead will begin a restrained roll-out of a minimum income program aimed at lifting the most vulnerable out of poverty.
After Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard put Francois Blais in charge of the Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity in January of 2016, it was clear there was interest in the Quebec government for some kind of basic income guarantee program. Blais wrote a book about the topic in 2002, called Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians.
A committee was also established in 2016 by the government to examine ways to improve the current income support system.
In the recent budget, more about the plan “to fight poverty and social exclusion” will be unveiled in a few months by Blais.
“For the first time, this plan will be aimed at lifting over 100,000 persons out of poverty, particularly single persons and couples without children,” states the budget.
“Increasing available income will be the focus of the approach taken,” reads the budget, suggesting a gradual implementation of some kind of minimum income program.
There are other poverty reduction measures mentioned, including increasing the available income of social assistance recipients who make an effort to work, provisions to ease their entry into the labour market, and “measures to foster participation by individuals and families in community life.”
The government states in its budget that in preparing their plan they will evaluate the recommendations made in the coming months “by the expert committee on the guaranteed minimum income.”
In neighbouring Ontario, the Province recently released its summary of the survey completed by 34,000 people. The province is looking to create a pilot that would test how a basic income might benefit people living in a variety of low income situations, including those who are currently working.
Minister of Poverty Reduction, Chris Ballard, like his Quebec counterpart, is also concerned with the sea change Ontario has experienced in its job market. He told the Precarious Work Chronicle that this insecurity seen goes hand in hand with a basic income.
“Everybody is very sensitive with the changing nature of work. It’s not the same world, where you work in the same place for 30 years. We worked so hard as a society to get out of poverty, and then suddenly we’re fearful we might slide back in. Basic Income might provide a fantastic safety net,” he says, to help reduce anxiety.
However, unlike Quebec, which appears to be edging toward a gradual implementation, Ontario will test these assumptions with a pilot project with more details announced in the weeks to come.
1 Editor’s note: In Canada, it is common to use the term ‘basic income’ to refer to guaranteed minimum income programs (including programs on which the incomes of low earners are “topped up” to some minimum threshold). This is a broader usage than that employed by BIEN insofar as it does not require that the subsidy be “paid to all, without means test”. It may also be a narrower usage insofar as the minimum income guarantee is generally stipulated to be high enough to lift recipients out of poverty, whereas BIEN’s definition of ‘basic income’ does not constrain the size of the payment.
Roderick Benns is the author of Basic Income: How a Canadian Movement Could Change the World.
He is also the publisher of the Precarious Work Chronicle, a social purpose news site designed to shine a spotlight on precarious work and the need for basic income.
