by Kate McFarland | Mar 4, 2017 | Research
Bédia François Aka, a teacher in the Department of Economics and researcher in the Center of Research for Development (CRD) of the University of Bouaké in Côte d’Ivoire, has previously been highlighted in Basic Income News for his scholarly work on the potential impact of a basic income in Côte d’Ivoire.
In a subsequent paper, “Feasible Utopia,” Aka conducts simulations of the effect of a basic income on poverty and inequality in the country. Aka rules out a basic income approximately equal to Côte d’Ivoire’s poverty line (CFAF 22,448 per month, or approximately 36 USD), which he believes to be fiscally impossible: “Taking a total population of 21 million in Côte d’Ivoire in 2007, giving this minimum to all population will lead to CFAF 5,656,896 million representing 58% of year 2007 GDP. Indeed this is not possible” (p. 89).
Instead, then, he simulates two lower amounts of a basic income (or partial basic income): CFAF 7,500 per month (about 12 USD), and CFAF 10,000 per month (about 16 USD). Aka estimates that the latter amount should be sufficient to reduce Côte d’Ivoire’s poverty rate by half. As a funding mechanism, he simulates an increase in the Value Added Tax (VAT) and use of half of the nation’s spending for the poor (as measured from the 2015 budget) (see p. 90).
On the basis of these simulations, Aka concludes that a basic income “would be particularly effective firstly in reducing considerably poverty and inequality and increasing financial inclusion of the population, and secondly in ultimately eliminating poverty towards the new sustainable development goals (SDGs)” (pp. 94-5).
Download the full article:
Bédia François Aka, “Feasible utopia: cutting poverty rate in half using basic income grants in regions and cities of Côte d’Ivoire,” Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Vol 16.2, 2016.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Guillaume Mignot
by BIEN | Jan 30, 2017 | News
(Credit to: The Freepress Journal)
Anjit Ranade, senior economist based in Mumbai, writes in The Free Press Journal that a direct universal cash benefit “can replace ill-targeted subsidies on cooking gas, fertiliser and food grain,” under India’s current welfare system.
4.2% of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spent on subsidies: electricity, fertilizer, food, oil, rail, and water. Many of the subsidies do not make their way to the purported beneficiaries because they are untargeted. Ranade reports, targeted subsidies can use the subsidies better.
Vijay Roshi, Reader in Economics at Oxford University, is an early supporter of UBI for India. With all considered, Roshi sees UBI as a possibility with 3.5% of India’s GDP. Ranada said, “UBI is based on a Gandhian principle: societal welfare is determined by how we treat our worst off.”
Read the full article here:
Ajit Ranade, “From NREGA to universal basic income“, The Free Press Journal, December 12th, 2016
by Kate McFarland | Jan 24, 2017 | News
The Indian Statistical Institute hosted its 12th Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development (ACEGD) on December 19-21, 2016. ACEGD’s plenary sessions included a 90-minute panel on universal basic income and its relevance for India.
Universal basic income (UBI) has become a hotly debated issue in India. At the end of January, the Ministry of Finance will release its Economic Survey, which is expected to include a chapter addressing UBI. Leading economists have defended various forms of UBI for India (see, for example, a recent e-symposium in Ideas for India), and MPs such as Varun Gandhi and Jay Panda have voiced support.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, a panel on UBI was also held as part of the latest Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development, held in December at the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) in Delhi. This conference included a panel on UBI, featuring five economists: Debraj Ray (New York University), Kalle (Karl Ove) Moene (University of Oslo), Rajiv Sethi (Columbia University), Himanshu (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and Amarjeet Sinha (Government of Bihar).
Ray and Moene have jointly developed a proposal for what they call a “universal basic share” (UBS) in India. Like a UBI, a UBS would provide each citizen with regular unconditional cash transfers of an equal amount. However, in contrast to most UBI proposals, a UBS fixes the amount of these transfers to a fraction of the GDP rather than a specific monetary amount. Ray and Moene recommend that India dedicate 12% of its GDP to the provision of a UBS. They calculate that, at present, this would provide each adult citizen with a basic income approximately equal to the country’s poverty line.
At the ACEGD panel, Ray introduces the idea of UBS, after briefly outlining the present worldwide interest in UBI, precursors such as the Alaskan Permanent Fund and Dividend and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, and several sources of the present interest in UBI in India, including the pilot studies in Madhya Pradesh, the Goan permanent fund, and political and popular “exasperation” with the nation’s current subsidies for the poor. Following Ray, Moene elaborates upon the UBS proposal and some of its advantages, such as encouraging risk-taking and allowing individuals to do the work they want. Moene also replies to the common objection that a basic income would discourage work, stressing that this is not what is observed in the most generous welfare states, nor what’s observed when wealthy people receive an inheritance.
Sethi, who has studied UBI primarily in the US context, presents additional arguments in favor of the policy, including its cross-partisan appeal and its ability to mitigate economic shock due to automation. He also raises questions concerning the precise design of a UBI, such as whether the basic income should extend to minors and how it would be linked with macroeconomic policies.
The last two panelists, Himanshu and Sinha, argue that India should prioritize public spending on universal basic services, rather than simply distributing cash to individuals. About UBI, Himanshu states that the question is not whether it should be adopted, but why and when. While allowing that UBI is a good idea in principle, he maintains that it is not yet time to introduce such a policy in India, given that many in the country lack clean water, access to education, and other essential public goods. Sinha, expanding on Himanshu’s thesis, stresses that “we should not lose sight of the need to craft credible public systems” — and worries that a UBI would divert money and attention from necessary improvements of education, health, housing, and public infrastructure.
Video, Part 1: Ray, Moene, Sethi
Video, Part 2: Sethi (cont’d), Himanshu, Sinha
The five presentations were followed by a 30-minute Q&A session, touching on such topics as private versus public provision of services (which Ray eventually describes as a distraction from the real issues), immigration and basic income, UBI versus UBS during economic downturns, and others.
Video: Q&A
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Photo: Delhi, India CC BY 2.0 Ville Miettinen
by BIEN | Jan 22, 2017 | News
Credit to The Conversation
Universal basic income (UBI) has gain traction in the developed world. Some citizens in Australia support it. Gigi Foster, Associate Professor in the School of Economics at University of New South Wales, said, “…while good in theory, it’s no panacea for the challenges of our modern economy.”
That is, UBI is gaining traction in the developed world, but, according to Foster, is not a cure-all for the Australian economy. Foster notes this would replace some social security and welfare programs. “In the developed world, Canada is trialling a UBI scheme,” she said, “Finland also just rolled out a UBI trial, involving about 10,000 recipients for two years.” In short, there are UBI experiments.
“The present Australian welfare system (excluding the Medicare bill of A$25 billion) costs around A$170 billion per annum,” Foster said, “Our GDP is around A$1.7 trillion per year, so this welfare bill is about 10% of annual GDP.”
Read the full article here:
Gigi Foster, “Universal basic income: the dangerous idea of 2016“, The Conversation (Australia), December 26th, 2016
by Guest Contributor | Dec 19, 2016 | Opinion
What is a negative basic income?
“A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.” A negative basic income would be one where a periodic cash payment is unconditionally demanded from all on an individual basis, without means-testing or a work requirement. This is nothing but a per-head tax or a poll tax, a payment for existence, an equal amount taken from everyone, unconditionally.
The extreme unfairness is apparent. How can you take the same amount from the billionaire and the beggar? Not surprisingly, there have been very few pure poll taxes in history – most had a number of exclusions, especially for the poor. However, there is a different kind of per-head tax that is large, widespread, and right under our noses. This is when there is loss or diversion of the commons.
Let’s take a toy example to understand this. Imagine a tiny commons, 100 people who own a 1 kg slab of gold in common, inherited from the past. As they are worried about theft, they store it under the protection of the local deity. But it is a continual worry. The community decides to sell the gold, and to invest in a piece of land. They reason that at least the land can grow a crop, whereas the gold generates no income. As long as they maintain the fertility of the land, they can all share the crop. This would be the equivalent of a commons dividend or a cooperative dividend, essentially a Universal Basic Income for the community.
Now imagine that when they go to sell, they find the gold is simply stolen. Clearly it is a loss of 10 grams each (100 persons x 10 grams = 1,000 grams = 1 kg). This is nothing but a per-head imposition of the equivalent of 10 grams of gold. Since it is an inherited asset, the loss is suffered by all future generations as well. In a different sense, the loss is the opportunity to receive the commons dividend, the universal basic income in perpetuity.
We can extend this logic to diversion of either the capital (the value of the gold), or the income stream from the new asset (the land). If the government appropriates the value to finance infrastructure or health or education, it is still effectively financing these investments with a hidden per head tax.
This is even clearer in the instance of the fruit of the land and the commons dividend. If the government appropriates the entire crop, then it is identical to distributing a commons dividend as a basic income, and taxing it simultaneously to the exact same extent – the negative basic income.
This kind of underselling of the commons is widespread, particularly in minerals. To take a couple of examples, it has been estimated that the United Kingdom and Norway have extracted approximately equal amounts of oil from the North Sea. However, the United Kingdom received approximately GBP 400 billion less than Norway[1]. For a population of 64 million, this is a loss or a poll tax of GBP 6,250. Had this amount been saved, it could have financed a Citizen’s Dividend of GBP 250 in perpetuity, assuming a real return of 4%.
Another common problem is that the money received for the minerals is treated by the government as taxation revenue, not as the sale of the commons. Consequently, instead of creating a new asset, such as the land in the toy example, or more seriously, Future Generations Funds or Permanent Funds, the government simply spends the money as income. While this boosts the GDP figures, it is both the consumption of our inherited asset as well as the hidden imposition of a per head wealth tax. . Alaska only deposits 25% of its money from oil in to its Permanent Fund. The remaining 75% is treated as revenue in the state budget. This year, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend was set at US$2,072. By extension, the remaining 75% that was spent through the budget could have financed an additional dividend of $6,216 per annum.
The Norway oil fund presently saves all receipts from minerals in the Norway Government Pension Fund. This is the single largest fund in the world, approximately USD 900 billion. However, instead of paying out a commons dividend or a Citizen’s Dividend, the money is appropriated into the budget. This is clearly equivalent to imposing a per head tax on all Norwegians. The 2016 budget estimates a transfer of NOK 208,994 million to the budget[2]. For a population of 5.084 million[3], that is a negative universal basic income of NOK 41,108, or approximately USD 4,863[4]. It is doubtful that any modern democracy can impose a per head tax of such a staggering amount.
The Goenchi Mati Movement, a people’s movement in Goa has adopted simple principles that they advocate for governing mining of the commons. In short, the principles are:
- We, the people of Goa, own the mineral in common. The state government is merely a trustee of natural resources for the people and especially future generations (Public Trust Doctrine).
- As we have inherited the minerals, we are simply custodians and must pass them on to future generations (Intergenerational Equity).
- Therefore, if we mine and we sell our mineral resources, we must ensure zero loss, ie. capture of the full economic rent (sale price minus cost of extraction, cost including reasonable profit for miner). Any loss is a loss to all of us and our future generations.
- All receipts from minerals must be saved in the Goenchi Mati Permanent Fund, as already implemented all over the globe. Like the minerals, the Permanent Fund will also be part of the commons. The Supreme Court has ordered the creation of a Permanent Fund for Goan iron ore and already Rs. 94 crores is deposited.
- Any real income (after inflation) from the Goenchi Mati Permanent Fund must only be distributed to all as a right of ownership, a Citizen’s Dividend. This is like the comunidade zonn, but paid to everyone.
We argue quite simply that any other structure would impose per head taxes, which is fundamentally regressive and obviously unfair. The principle of zero loss mining was clearly violated in the UK receiving GBP 400 billion less than Norway. The principle of saving all receipts from minerals is widely violated, largely due to the way governments account and report for this – windfall revenues instead of it being a capital receipt. And where permanent funds do exist, in most cases the government appropriates the income instead of distributing it as a commons dividend.
This problem is not confined to minerals. All over the world, the commons are being destroyed at a rapid rate. For example, the “Mickey Mouse extension” of copyright is also nothing but a transfer from the commons to the private sector, an imposition of a negative basic income.
It is time that activists for basic income seriously hunt out instances of negative basic income. Simply eliminating them could achieve many of the desired benefits of basic income, with a moral argument in favour, rather than the uphill battle of helicopter money.
About the author: Rahul Basu
[1] Did the UK Miss Out on £400 Billion Worth of Oil Revenue?, David Manley & Keith Myers, Natural Resource Governance Institute, 5 October 2015
[2] https://www.statsbudsjettet.no/Upload/Statsbudsjett_2016/dokumenter/pdf/budget2016.pdf
[3] https://www.google.co.in/search?q=population+of+norway&oq=population+of+no
[4] Google. 1 NOK = 0.12 USD, 41,108 NOK = 4,863.76 USD. 13 Dec 2016, 12 noon GMT
