by Andre Coelho | Mar 17, 2016 | Opinion
Informal settlement in Soweto. Credit to: The Conversation
The hypothesis: basic income has not been deployed in South Africa in part because the powers that be do not let go of their interest and ability to explore people.
The following article attempts to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis.
Let’s begin with some background. Basic Income (BI) is not a new idea in South Africa. In fact a thorough economic analysis for BI implementation has existed since 2004. The analysis was drawn from the work of recognized economists, specialists in the field, and the findings were summarized in what became known as the Taylor Committee. The Basic Income Coalition (composed of Black Sash, COSATU and SAAC), used these results to prove that BI is feasible, or at least should be tested, in South Africa.
More than 10 years have passed, and yet nothing resembling BI has been implemented or even tested in South Africa. Why not?
It is not due to lack of need: 54%1 of South Africans – over 29 million people – live under the country’s poverty line, and over 40% of the labor force is unemployed2. Moreover, according to the BIG Financing Reference Group report, it is also not due to a lack of funds:
“The Basic Income Grant is an affordable option for South Africa. Although the four economists [Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI), Prof. Pieter le Roux, Prof. Charles Meth and Dr. Ingrid Woolard] posit slightly different net costs for the BIG, representing transfers to the poor of different amounts, there was consensus that the grant is affordable without necessitating increased deficit spending be government.”
In spite of this, the same report also states that government officials believe that BI cannot combat poverty. They have refused to consider a BI, despite knowing that current social assistance plans fail to reach over 50% of those living under the poverty line, or nearly 15 million people. These officials have continued to say that BI would not be effective despite demonstration by the Taylor Committee that basic income is the best way to diminish or even eradicate poverty in the shortest amount of time. They also ignore fiscal collection and social security savings when speaking of BI, which more than doubles its actual net cost of about 24 million ZAR/year (1.35 billion €/year), according to the calculations of the Taylor Committee. In short, most government officials completely ignore these very consistent and thought-out analyses from the Taylor Committee. Why is that?
Well, the answer may lie in the kind of structure of South African economy. The private sector accounts for around 80% of the country’s economy3. The median income is 3036 ZAR/month (171 €/month)4, which is low compared to European standards. Taking the United Kingdom as reference, the following table can be set up (Table 1).
Table 1 – Income relationships, South Africa / UK
The relationship between the median income and the average living income is considerably higher in the UK than it is in South Africa. Moreover, the ratio of median income to statutory minimum income is also much higher in the UK. Indeed, while the median income in the UK is above the minimum income (as it should be), this is not the case in South Africa: more than half of South Africans have wages below the statutory minimum income. Finally, as we can see on the graph below, the spread of incomes in South Africa is clearly skewed to the lower end on the income axis, while incomes in the UK are much more evenly distributed around the center (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1 – Income spread in South Africa4
Figure 2 – Income spread in the UK5
These data show that the South African economy is impoverished compared to a country like the UK, and that most economic activity depends on a low-wage, low-skilled work force6. This situation is best maintained when a large number of poor, dependent people are craving for jobs in the economy. Given their subservient position, these millions of people will naturally accept low wages and substandard working conditions that they might not otherwise accept. They are also kept away from most schooling and higher education, which could provide them with extra skills and allow them to apply to other jobs or start their own businesses. This is convenient for large corporations, and these corporations lobby and finance politicians and governments to protect their interests by providing them with access to cheap labor and lax environmental laws. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deals, for example, are just a formally imposed recognition of the attitudes of domination that large corporations foist upon governments and the people at large.
There is a link between corporate interests and government policy. Furthermore, the implementation of a basic income would basically be contrary to corporate interests: BI would lift millions of people out of poverty, empower them to refuse conditions of exploitation and start their own business, invest in education and bettering their lives – depriving the corporations of their pool of cheap labor. Government policymakers may also respond out of ideology or prejudice, but corporate political sponsoring response must not be ruled out, given the entrenchment and longevity of their denial (relative to progressive policies like basic income).
More information at:
A. BIG Financing Reference Group, 2004. ““Breaking the poverty trap”: Financing a basic income grant in South Africa.” Basic Income Grant (BIG) Financing Reference Group conference, Johannesburg, 24 November 2003. March, 2004.
Notes:
1 – World Development Indicators – Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of population), 2010
2 – A more accurate, expanded definition of unemployment, including the so-called ‘discouraged jobseekers’, according to reference A.
3 – World Development Indicators – General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) = 20.3. Hence Non-government (private) final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) = 79.7
4 – From the spread of households within the income distribution in South Africa, 2008.
5 – From Measuring National Well-being – Personal Finance, 2012 (UK)
6 – Higher skilled professionals are usually paid on or above the median income, so a low income distribution as shown in Figure 1 must be related with a high proportion of low skilled workers.
by Guest Contributor | Dec 22, 2015 | Opinion
By Tom Streithorst
The Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is back in the news. The Finns are considering implementing it, as are the Swiss, replacing all means tested benefits with a simple grant to every citizen, giving everyone enough money to survive. Unlike most current benefits programs, it is not contingent on being worthy or deserving or even poor. Everybody gets it, you, me, Rupert Murdoch, the homeless man sleeping under a bridge. Last seriously proposed by Richard Nixon in 1969, more and more economists and bloggers are suggesting that the Basic Income Guarantee may ultimately be the salvation of capitalism. The BIG will eliminate poverty, lessen inequality, and vastly improve the lives of the most vulnerable among us. But that is not why we need it. It may seem impractical, even utopian, but I am convinced the BIG will be instituted within the next few decades because it solves modern capitalism’s most fundamental problem: lack of demand.
Technology and capitalism have largely solved the problem of supply. We are able to make more stuff, with fewer inputs of labor and capital, than ever before. We have the know-how, we have the resources, we have the trained labor, we have the money. The only thing businesses lack is customers. Making stuff has become easy. It is selling it that keeps entrepreneurs (and central bankers) awake at night. Stagnant wages tell us that the supply of labor exceeds demand. Microscopic interest rates tell us that we have more capital than we need. Since the Great Depression most economists have recognized that demand is the Achilles heel of the modern economy.
Over the past 80 years, we have solved the problem of demand in three very different ways. The first is war. In 1938, US unemployment was almost 20%. In 1944 it was barely 1%. Everybody knows World War II ended the Great Depression. But it is worth remembering that it wasn’t the slaughter of civilians or the destructions of cities that reinvigorated the global economy, but rather the massive fiscal stimulus of government borrowing. Had we borrowed and spent as much on building schools, homes and roads as we did on defeating the Axis powers, the economic effect would have been even greater. The advantage of military Keynesianism is political: conservatives who loathe government spending are able to overcome their distaste when it comes to war.
The second, during the post war Golden Age, was rising salaries. Between 1950 and 1970, the average American worker saw his real wages double: since then, they have barely gone up at all. Back then, productivity improvements translated almost immediately into wage gains. As workers’ wages went up, so did consumer spending. Productivity increases meant each worker was able to make more stuff. Wage increases meant he was able to afford to buy it. Advertising transformed luxuries into necessities. Productivity gains combined with wage hikes gave the Golden Age the greatest GDP growth the world has ever seen.
In our most recent era, from 1982 until the financial crisis, the engine of economic expansion was ever increasing levels of private debt. After Reagan and Thatcher, median wages stopped going up, even as productivity maintained its inexorable rise. With wages stagnant, only by taking on more debt were consumers able to keep spending enough to buy all they produced. As long as banks were happy to lend, the economy managed to grow (albeit much more slowly than during the Golden Age) and the party could go on. But after the financial crisis, both household willingness to incur more debt and bank willingness to lend contracted, leaving us with the stagnant economy we are trapped in today.
These three old methods of stimulating demand have passed their sell by dates. Global war would reinvigorate the economy, but at an unbearable cost. Rising wages, unfortunately, are unlikely, with more and more of us replaceable by robots, software or much cheaper foreign workers. And higher levels of debt not only increase inequality, they also engender financial instability. What is to be done?
Every year, technological progress allows us to make more goods and services with fewer inputs of labor and capital. As consumers, this is wonderful. We can buy better and cheaper goods than ever before. As workers, however, productivity increases threaten our jobs. As we need fewer workers to make the same amount of stuff, more of us become redundant. And it is likely to get worse. The rise of the robots may eliminate 47% of existing jobs within the next two decades. Unfortunately, even though a robot can make an iPhone, it cannot buy one. If we are hurtling towards a post scarcity future, only a Basic Income Guarantee can ensure sufficient demand to keep the global economy ticking over.
It is not just the poor that profit. The rich get exactly the same payment, in the form of a tax cut. Corporations also win. With more money in consumers’ pockets, sales increase, raising profits. And since firms no longer need provide a living wage, labor costs could go down, which would give employers reason to hire. Meanwhile, workers, with a guaranteed income, no matter what, will have the freedom to tell an unreasonable boss to “take this job and shove it.” These benefits suggest that a Basic Income Guarantee could command considerable support from diverse sectors. But these are all merely side benefits.
If technological progress continues to eliminate jobs, the BIG may well be the only way we will be able to maintain demand in a post-work future. By giving every citizen a monthly check, a BIG will be as fiscally stimulative as World War II without requiring the murder of millions. The BIG is economically sensible and politically practical. What then stands in its way?
The first problem is that it sounds too good to be true. We have been told to be suspicious of anyone promising a free lunch, and giving people money for doing nothing certainly seems like a costless gift. Fear of scarcity is built into our DNA. For the BIG to seem viable for most people, they need to learn that demand, not supply, is the bottleneck of growth. We need to recognize that money is something humans create, not something with fixed and limited supply. With Quantitative Easing, central banks created money and gave it to the financial sector, hoping it would stimulate lending. Today, even mainstream figures like Lord Adair Turner, Martin Wolf and even Ben Bernanke recognize that “helicopter drops” of money into individuals’ bank accounts could have been more effective. Technocrats are beginning to recognize the practicality of Basic Income. We in the economic blogosphere need to bring this message into the public eye. The rise of the robots, ever declining prices for goods and services, and disappearing jobs may ultimately teach this lesson more effectively than any number of well-meaning essays.
The second problem is sociological. Most of us are still in employment. We feel, in some fundamental way, that our work makes us more worthy than lazy layabouts on benefits. This simultaneously makes us disinclined to raise benefits for others (or increase the number of people on benefit) and equally disinclined to think of ourselves as the kind of people that receive money from the state. Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (the book he considered his masterpiece), said that we humans are motivated primarily by the regard of others. We want people to think well of us, and we want to think well of ourselves. The psychological pleasure of considering ourselves better than welfare recipients can trump genuine economic benefit. To overcome this objection, we need to recognize that defining ourselves by our jobs is very 20th century. If technological progress continues to kill traditional jobs, this objection too will eventually dissipate. As full-time jobs become harder to find, more of us will recognize the need for a BIG.
The third problem is perhaps the most central. By stimulating the economy and pushing it towards its production possibilities frontier, the Basic Income Guarantee will be growth enhancing, but it is undeniable that it will also be redistributive. The pie will be larger, but it will be sliced differently. For the past 30 years, we have stimulated the economy by shoveling money towards rich people. A BIG shovels money towards poor people. And for many in the top 1%, that is anathema.
Conservatives generally favor tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy. Although they do not like to admit it, this is textbook Keynesianism. As long as the government does not cut spending, more money in consumers’ pockets will inevitably increase demand. Unfortunately, tax cuts generally favor the richest among us, and they, unlike the poor, are liable to save rather than spend their windfall. Stimulating savings is a waste of a tax cut. Today, we have an over-abundance of saving and a shortfall of investment and consumption. A BIG can be thought of as a tax cut targeted to those most likely to spend it, which is what the economy needs.
The Basic Income Guarantee solves the problem of demand, stimulates the economy, increases corporate profits, gives workers more freedom, and provides a safety net to the most vulnerable. It is economically sound and politically savvy. But the very rich do not fear unemployment, they fear redistribution and they will be the most significant force against the implementation of the BIG.
Related reading:
Frances Coppola, “The changing nature of work,” Coppola Comment, August 5, 2012.
Francesc Coppola, “The wastefulness of automation,” Pieria, July 8, 2013.
Tom Streithorst, “The central paradox of the 21st Century,” Pieria, June 25, 2014.
Anna Hedge, “Basic income and a room of one’s own,” Pieria, February 26, 2014.
Anthony Painter, “In support of a Universal Basic Income: introducing the RSA basic income model,” RSA, December 16, 2015.
Tom Streithorst has been a union member, an entrepreneur, a war 
cameraman, a promo producer, a journalist. These days, he mostly does voiceovers and thinks about economic history. An American in London, he has been writing for magazines on both sides of the pond since 2008. He is currently working on a book on post scarcity economics, and how the incredible productive power of capitalism and technology has the potential to bring us all prosperity and happiness but so far, we keep screwing it up.
This piece was originally published in Coppola Comment.
by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 19, 2015 | News
Interest in the Universal Basic Income (UBI) is sweeping across Europe, with British think tank RSA coming out in support of the UBI in a new report launched on December 17 at a public debate. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce, also known as RSA, is a prestigious institution founded in 1754 and granted Royal Charter in 1847.
Report authors Anthony Painter and Chris Thoung said the current approach to welfare “is no longer fit-for-purpose” and requires a new approach.
“The major concern is ultimately people: the lives we are able to lead, our ability to have a sense of security so we can pursue our ambition, and our ability to contribute to supporting one another, innovating, and developing the creative potential of society,” the report said.
“That is where Basic Income has the potential to be so much stronger than our current welfare state.”
The RSA endorsement follows another high-profile British think tank, the libertarian Adam Smith Institute. They published a report earlier this year also advocating for a basic income in the form of a negative income tax.
The RSA proposal for a British basic income
The RSA report suggests replacing the current welfare state with a UBI that would cost an additional 1 percent of UK’s GDP. RSA’s proposal is modeled after the Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT), an affiliate of BIEN, and derives most of its figures from this framework – read the CIT proposal here.
Under the RSA, citizens between 25 and 65 would receive an annual income of 3,692 British pounds, or £308 per month. People between 5 and 24 would get an annual payment of £2,925, or £244 per month. Citizens over 65 would receive an annual pension of £7,420, or £618 per month. Parents of children under 4 would receive an additional annual payment of £4,290 for their first child, or £358 per month. They would fetch £3,387 annually, or £282 per month, for additional children under 4.
It suggests potentially gradually rolling out the basic income to different demographics, such as those above age 55 and those below age 25. At the same time, a small basic income could be introduced while gradually reducing other benefits.
Regarding housing, the report notes that housing benefits should not be folded into a basic income because of the high cost of real estate in the UK. It proposes a Basic Rental Income. The idea is to utilize property taxes as a means to ensure universal housing income, but the report does not delve into the specifics. Nonetheless, this novel approach does deserve more discussion in UBI circles.
In offering these policy specifics, the RSA illustrates that a UBI is not simply a utopian ideal, as some of its critics claim. In fact, the report points out that far more radical changes to taxes and benefits have been implemented in the past.
Painter and Thoung note that a UBI would help society confront challenges created by rapidly improving technology and an aging population, a point that most other UBI proponents stress as well.
One of the attractions of the UBI, and why even conservatives and libertarians have been drawn to the policy, is its simplicity compared to the current system. Substituting current welfare policy with a UBI would eliminate its “perverse incentives, intrusion and complexity entirety.”
Since the UBI is universal there would be less fraud, they contend. And it would not undermine relationships and families because a UBI would not punish individuals for cohabitating as the current system does. This “strengthening of the family” aspect will likely win over more conservatives to the UBI cause over time.
More entrepreneurship and more time for family and community
From an economics perspective, the report argues that a UBI is the best system to incentivize work and avoid the welfare trap. In the current system, benefits quickly diminish as incomes rise, discouraging beneficiaries from taking up work. The report also claims that a UBI’s safety net allows individuals to pursue risks and creative endeavors. Instead of taking the first menial job available, a worker can spend more time searching for the work most suited to increasing their productivity.
This argument has been borne out by empirical studies on the UBI, such as the basic income trial in India that substantially increased entrepreneurship.
One of the criticisms of a UBI is that it lets some individuals take more time off from work. The key is whether their free-time activities are more valuable to society than their work hours. “Basic Income is a foundation for contribution. It incentivizes work but supports other forms of contribution too,” the report said. It suggests that the UBI would allow individuals to care for the elderly and other vulnerable individuals, which is especially important as society ages.
The actual work disincentive effect has been found to be small. The report briefly reviews evidence from experiments with a negative income tax carried out in the US and Canada between 1968 and 1980. The loss of labor hours for men was minimal. Women did lower their workload more substantially. They chose to spend more time with their family or newborns, activities of high social value. In Alaska under the Permanent Fund Dividend, a policy similar to a UBI, inequality fell in the 1990s and 2000s, while it increased in every other American state.
Another key issue is who qualifies for basic income and whether it would be extended to migrants. RSA’s proposal states that EU nationals should have first “contributed to the system for a number of years” before receiving the basic income. International migrants would be subject to current rules to access benefits. Individuals serving custodial sentences would have benefits restored once their sentence was concluded.
In recent years, the welfare system has lost public support as people demand more rules and conditions for the poor to receive assistance. However, benefit sanctions are becoming increasingly “inhumane,” the authors said. In order to detect tax credit abuse, the system has become overly intrusive into citizens’ lives and activities.
The RSA makes a few recommendations for how the UBI will be applied to the youth, including requiring young adults between 18 and 25 year old to declare how they would use the income. They would sign contracts “with their local community” and not the government, and there should be “no state monitoring” of the contracts, the authors noted. Additionally, those over 18 would have to register to vote in order to receive the UBI.
In suggesting tying the basic income to the community, rather than the government, the RSA report shows precisely the unique potential of the UBI to move away from the impersonal welfare state and toward a more relationship-oriented society. These arguments parallel that of free-market economist Charles Murray in defense of his own UBI scheme.
This report is a serious and comprehensive look at how a UBI could realistically be implemented in the UK. It provides a persuasive look into the economic, societal and moral underpinnings of the basic income. As the debate over the UBI continues to simmer across Europe, the UK will be hard-pressed to ignore this pragmatic approach for a radical overhaul of its welfare system.
Anthony Painter & Chris Thoung, “Creative citizen, creative state: the principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income,” RSA, December 16, 2015.
Anthony Painter, “In support of a universal basic income – introducing the RSA basic income model,” RSA, December 16, 2015.
Citizen’s Income Trust, “Citizen’s Income: a brief introduction,” 2013.
Andrew Walker, “Think tank floats ‘basic income’ idea for all citizens,” BBC News, December 16, 2015.
Tyler Prochazka, “Would a universal basic income be the ‘death’ of civil society?” Basic Income News, November 21, 2015.
Maz Ali, “Money. For free. It’s been tested in Canada and India. Now one Dutch city wants to give it a whirl,” Upworthy, September 4, 2015.
by Josh Martin | Oct 24, 2015 | News
Streithorst writes an eloquent, thorough introduction to basic income, highlighting its ability to empower the consumers most likely to spend. Capitalism utilized higher wages and growing debt in previous golden ages to promote consumer spending, and Streithorst argues a basic income could facilitate such spending once again as technological unemployment continues to grow. Streithorst believes a basic income would stimulate demand, grow GDP, and decrease inequality.
Tom Streithorst, “A New Golden Age Part III: The Basic Income Guarantee”, Los Angeles Review of Books, 13 October 2015.
by Michael Howard | Sep 14, 2015 | Opinion
An emerging proposal for a carbon fee and dividend would yield a substantial dividend payment, eventually exceeding the amount of Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, to American households. Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) is proposing a revenue-neutral carbon fee. This would be collected from the companies operating hydrocarbon mines and wellheads, wherever carbon is first introduced into the economy, from which 100% of the revenue would be returned to the citizens as dividends. CCL’s proposal starts with a fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon, then would raise the fee by at least $10 per year (higher if faster carbon reduction is warranted) until environmental target reductions are met.
Using a carbon tax and dividend calculator at the Carbon Tax Center, I calculated what the individual and household annual dividends would be for selected years from 2016 (the hypothetical initial year) to 2039 (the last year available in the calculator). Households are assumed to contain an average of 2.6 people.
|
Individual |
Household |
Carbon Emissions, % below 2005 Levels |
| 2016 |
$264 |
$686 |
13 |
| 2017 |
433 |
1185 |
15.2 |
| 2025 |
1,613 |
4,194 |
30.7 |
| 2030 |
2,247 |
5,843 |
38 |
| 2039 |
$3,325 |
$8,646 |
48 |
Although not a full basic income by any means, a carbon dividend promises to be a significant addition to individual and household incomes, surpassing the average amount of the Permanent Fund Dividend in less than a decade. By 2039, it is estimated the proposed carbon fee would reduce CO2 emissions 48% from 2005 levels, substantially more than the reductions projected for the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
That sounds impressive, but is it enough? Citing experts at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in her compelling vision for remaking the economy to combat global warming, This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein claims that “our only hope” of keeping global warming below 2°C, “is for wealthy countries to cut their emissions by somewhere between 8-10 percent a year….This level of emissions reduction has happened only in the context of economic collapse or deep depressions” (21).
Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center maintains that there needs to be an 80% cut in emissions in the Annex 1 (wealthier) countries by 2030, if we are to meet the 2°C target, and also allow developing countries’ emissions to peak somewhat later. This, he argues further, requires a “de-growth strategy,” a planned period of reduced economic activity. He does not think that carbon pricing will suffice to reduce carbon emissions at the rate required, for the following reasons:
To summarise, if:
- reductions in emissions greater than 3-4% p.a. [per annum] are incompatible with a growing economy,
- the 2°C obligation relates to a twenty-first century carbon budget,
- a 50% chance of exceeding 2°C is adjudged an acceptable risk of failure,
- and Non-Annex 1 nations peak emissions by 2025 & subsequently reduce at ~7% p.a.,
- then the wealthier nations’ carbon budget is the global 2°C budget minus the poorer nations’ budget,
- and consequently wealthier nations must reduce emissions at 8 to 10% p.a.,
- Q.E.D. Annex 1 mitigation rates for 2°C are incompatible with economic growth
James Hansen et al., making somewhat different assumptions, also call for steep carbon emission reductions of around 6% per year.
More ambitious projections
Suppose that we need to reduce our emissions 80% by 2039. How much of a carbon fee would be needed, and how much would it yield in dividends? Starting at $20/ton, and beginning in 2016, with increments of $40/ton/year, these are the results from the Carbon Tax calculator:
|
Tax/ton |
Revenue, $ billions |
Carbon Emissions, % below 2005 Levels |
Individual Dividend (100% return) |
Household Dividend (average of 2.6 people) |
| 2016 |
$20 |
$110 |
14.7 |
$345 |
$896 |
| 2018 |
100 |
451 |
32.4 |
1,394 |
3,624 |
| 2020 |
180 |
708 |
43.2 |
2,153 |
5,599 |
| 2025 |
380 |
1,130 |
60.7 |
3,309 |
8,603 |
| 2030 |
580 |
1,419 |
70.4 |
4,010 |
10,427 |
| 2035 |
780 |
1,635 |
76.8 |
4,476 |
11,637 |
| 2039 |
$940 |
$1,785 |
80.4 |
$4,802 |
$12,485 |
Note that emissions in the US rose around 17% from 1990 to 2005, so to get emissions down to 80% below 1990 levels, the annual increase would need to be at least $45. This would, by 2039, produce emissions 82.7% below 2005 levels, with a fee of $1,055 per ton, yielding revenue of $1,770 billion and an individual dividend of $4,761 ($12,380 for a household). Presumably the lower revenue and dividends compared to the scenario with a $40 increment is the consequence of declining fossil fuel use and a lower tax base. (To reach 82.4% reductions from 2005 by 2030, Anderson’s target date, the fee increment would need to be $70/year. The maximum individual dividend in 2039 would be $4,268).
The carbon fee would constitute a steadily rising percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in terms of revenue. If GDP were held constant at $19 trillion, the fee would rise from 0.5% of GDP in 2016 to over 9% in 2039. Even if, as is more likely, GDP rises, the fee will still rise at a faster rate than GDP. Estimates for the 2030 US GDP range from $25.5 to $38.2 trillion. The percent of GDP of the carbon fee in 2030 would thus fall between 5.6 and 1.4, respectively.
At first glance, this suggests that the carbon fee would bring a halt to growth, as it would equal or exceed the normal growth rate of the economy (around 2%). However, accounting for the fact that the revenue is being returned as dividends, the effect may be to steer growth in another direction, away from carbon energy, which will quickly become unaffordable.
Of course, all this depends on the soundness of the projections for emissions reductions at various levels of carbon fee. We have no experience with carbon fees accelerating so rapidly. One case study suggests that carbon taxes may not be as effective as one would hope: the Norwegian carbon tax, one of the highest in Europe, resulted in relatively modest reductions of carbon emissions compared to business as usual, and over the 1990s, carbon emissions rose 15%. One problem was exempting industries on account of competitiveness, and another more telling issue was the inelasticity of demand for some forms of carbon use, such as transportation. The record of British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax is more encouraging, but since it topped out at $30 per ton in 2012, it is hard to extrapolate from that case to the more ambitious targets discussed here.
In the model discussed above, there are no exemptions. But with the more ambitious fee, it may not be possible for demand to shift rapidly enough from carbon fuel to renewables, and the effect of the fee could be mainly to depress demand, and with it economic activity, as has happened in the past when energy prices rise. Then it would appear that rapid carbon emissions reductions would not be compatible with economic growth.
For basic income researchers, I will conclude by noting the tension between analyses such as this, which envision basic income as part of equitable environmental policy and at least a transition period of de-growth, and those analyses that see basic income as an economic stimulus for growth.
