by Vito Laterza | Dec 9, 2015 | News
In the last week, the basic income experiment in Finland has gone viral, making headlines around the world, from UK-based Telegraph to Russia Today. Not all the reports however were correct. Here is what we know.
Update March 2016: KELA has published its recommendations – see a summary here.
Some articles mistakenly gave the impression that the Finnish government has already made plans to introduce a nation-wide basic income. As we reported before here and here, for now the government has committed to implement a basic income experiment. KELA, the Finnish government agency in charge of welfare benefits, rectified the misperception on Tuesday.
In a previous statement released on November 19, KELA provided additional information about the experiment. It highlighted four objectives behind the program. It aims to find feasible options for an overhaul of the social security system in response to labor market changes. Some of these trends include the growth of temporary contracts and freelance work that is not covered by the current work-based benefits structure. The experiment will also explore how to make the system more effective in terms of providing incentives for work, and avoiding the poverty trap – benefit recipients are discouraged from taking up employment, if the additional income received from a job is only marginally higher than means-tested benefits. Another goal is to reduce bureaucracy and simplify complex and costly procedures for administering benefits.
The experiment will be carried out in a context marked by three years of economic downturn, which has led to rising unemployment and pressures on public spending. The current center-right government took office after general elections in April this year, and is carrying out a wide-ranging program of cuts that will affect education, health and welfare provisions.
A working group has been created with the task of providing a preliminary study that will lead to the actual experiment. The study will identify a model for basic income to be tested. The experiment will evaluate the effects of giving a basic income to members of different population groups, and produce an overall cost estimate.
The preliminary study is a collaboration between Kela’s Research Department, the Universities of Helsinki, Tampere, Turku and Eastern Finland, the Sitra Innovation Fund, the think tank Tänk, and the VATT Institute for Economic Research. Kela’s research director Professor Olli Kangas is the project’s head. The study is already under way. A decision by government on the details of the basic income experiment is expected in the second half of next year. The experiment is scheduled to start in 2017.
The American news website Vox published a PowerPoint presentation by Kangas that highlights some of the issues currently under discussion in the working group. BIEN-Finland President Otto Lehto stresses that this should be read as a general indication, rather than an official position of government or the working group.
The government has set aside 20 million euros for two years for the experiment. There are several options that the working group will consider. The first is a full basic income, where the amount paid to participants would be high enough to replace “almost all insurance-based benefits”, hence a significant monthly sum. As in other European welfare states, Finland has an insurance system where workers receive their unemployment and pension benefits from sector-specific funds. These are usually higher than the basic benefits administered to welfare beneficiaries regardless of their occupational status. The figure of 800 euros per month circulated by many news outlets is to be read as a possibility under this option, rather than anything set in stone.
The second option is a partial basic income that would replace basic benefits, but leave intact almost all existing insurance-based benefits. The presentation notes that, in this case, the monthly sum should not be lower than the existing level of basic benefits, which is around 550 euros per month. The same figure was reported in several media without the appropriate context.
A third option is that of a negative income tax, where income transfers are made through the taxation system. Other models might also be considered, including the option of a participation income given to unemployed people as an incentive to seek additional income – this alternative is discussed by Kangas himself and Jan Otto Andersson in a 2002 paper.
The size of the sample and the geographical areas covered are other key topics to be addressed. According to Kela, the next step will be the delivery of a review of available evidence from universal basic income models tested in other countries, which will be presented to government in spring 2016. In a recent survey carried out by Kela, nearly 70% of respondents support the idea of a universal basic income, and most of them think it should be set at around 1000 euros per month.
Here is a list of relevant sources for more information:
Kela, “Universal basic income options to be weighed,” November 19, 2015.
Kela, “Contrary to reports, basic income study still at preliminary stage,” December 8, 2015.
Kela, “Experimental study on a universal basic income.”
Olli Kangas, “Experimenting basic income in Finland,” presentation, December 8, 2015.
Liam Upton, “Finland: New government commits to a basic income experiment,” Basic Income News, June 16, 2015.
Stanislas Jourdan, “Finland: Government forms research team to design basic income pilots,” Basic Income News, October 15, 2015.
“Kela to prepare basic income proposal,” Yle, October 31, 2015.
Ben Schiller, “How Finland’s exciting basic income experiment will work – and what we can learn from it,” Fast Company, December 7, 2015.
Dylan Matthews, “Finland’s hugely exciting experiment in basic income, explained,” Vox, December 8, 2015.
Jan Otto Andersson and Olli Kangas, “Popular support for basic income in Sweden and Finland,” Conference paper presented at the 9th BIEN Congress, 2002.
by Will Wachtmeister | Nov 23, 2015 | News
National charity Food Banks Canada has put basic income policy top of the list of recommendations in its recently published annual report.
From: https://www.foodbankscanada.ca/getmedia/01e662ba-f1d7-419d-b40c-bcc71a9f943c/HungerCount2015_singles.pdf.aspx
“It has been clear for many years that welfare is a broken system,” the HungerCount 2015 report says. “Benefit levels are unreasonably low, the administrative bureaucracy is extremely difficult to navigate, and stigmatization of those in need is widespread. The system seems beyond repair.”
Just over 850,000 Canadians turn to food banks each month – over a quarter more than before the global financial crisis – and over one-third of current users are children.
Levels of social security support are “plainly inadequate” in a situation where around 70% of households with social assistance are food insecure, Food Banks Canada says citing an earlier study by international research group PROOF.
HungerCount reports have consistently warned that the food bank network is an unofficial safety net that fills the gaps in Canadian provinces’ social assistance programs. Basic income as a policy solution has featured less prominently or not at all in earlier HungerCount reports.
Roderick Benns, “Food Banks Canada calls for basic income policy.” Leaders and Legacies, 17 November 2015
Food Banks Canada,”HungerCount 2015: comprehensive report on hunger and food bank use in Canada and recommendations for change.” www.foodbankscanada.ca, 3 November 2015
Tarasuk, V, Mitchell, A, Dachner, N. (2014). Household food insecurity in Canada 2012. PROOF, 6 February 2014
by BIEN | Nov 14, 2015 | News
The word unemployed changed to employed on torn paper
Kevin Boyd, an associate policy analyst at the R Street Institute, authored a post directly comparing the negative income tax, a variation of the basic income guarantee, to traditional welfare and the minimum wage. Boyd contends that a negative income tax would avoid the potential for job loss and price hikes caused by the minimum wage while avoiding the pitfalls of the current welfare bureaucracy. Boyd advocates for an income threshold set at 130% of the poverty line, which would amount to a guaranteed minimum income of $30,711.20. W-9 forms would be collected monthly and payments would be calculated each month based on the previous month’s income. Paired with the abolition of the minimum wage, Boyd believes that unemployment can be greatly reduced without an increase in poverty thanks to the negative income tax.
For the entirety of Boyd’s post, see
Kevin Boyd, “A negative income tax beats both the minimum wage and welfare” R Street Institute, September 12, 2014
by BIEN | Oct 7, 2015 | News
U.S. Department of Arts and Culture’s report, “An Act of Collective Imagination: The USDAC’s First Two Years of Action Research” recommends a universal basic income grant (BIG). The USDAC report highlights how artists under present policies have to acquire grant money for each individual project. Such a grant would be especially useful for artists to focus on their creative passions, but also beneficial for the rest of society. USDAC also argues that the adoption of the BIG would greatly reduce bureaucracy by guaranteeing every citizen a sufficient income to pay for basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.).
For the full report:
Arlene Goldbard, “An Act of Collective Imagination: The USDAC’s First Two Years of Action Research” U.S. Department of Arts and Culture.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Aug 26, 2015 | Opinion
Anthony B. Atkinson, Inequality: What Can Be Done?, Harvard University Press, 2015, ix + 384 pp, hbk, 0 674 50476 9, £19.95
Politicians of all political parties tell us that inequality is a problem and that they are working to reduce it. Now they have the manual that they need: and what we all now have is a book that builds on Tony Atkinson’s lifetime of careful and relevant research, that offers analysis of the definitions and causes of inequality, that proposes policies to deal with the problem, and that shows that the policies proposed are affordable.
The first part of the book discusses the meaning of ‘inequality’, and then studies how inequality has changed during the last hundred years. A particularly important conclusion is that in the immediate postwar decades, the welfare state was ahead in the race to keep up with widening inequality of market incomes, but since the 1980s it has failed to do so – often as a result of explicit policy decisions to cut back on benefits and on coverage. (pp.67-8)
Then the economics of inequality are discussed, and the final conclusion of the first part is that in order to reduce inequality market income inequality needs to be reduced and governments need to achieve more redistribution through tax and benefits systems. The second part of the book makes detailed proposals for policy change: technological innovation to increase worker employability; a better balance of power between the different stakeholders in the economy; guaranteed public sector employment at the minimum wage; a national pay policy (including a living wage); a guaranteed positive real rate of interest on savings; a capital endowment payable at the age of majority; a sovereign wealth fund; a more progressive Income Tax; a broader tax base; an Earned Income Discount; a progressive lifetime capital receipts tax; a progressive or proportional property tax; increased Child Benefit; increased overseas development aid; and either a participation income or a renewal of social insurance. Each of the proposals is persuasively argued.
In the third part of the book, Atkinson tackles three possible objections to his proposals: that they would reduce economic growth; that globalization would make them difficult to implement; and that we wouldn’t be able to afford them. He shows that the welfare state makes a positive contribution to economic performance; that his proposals would have incentive effects in the employment market; that global competition restricts the scope for redistribution rather less than we might think; and that his proposals could be revenue neutral.
Of particular interest to readers of this Newsletter will be the social security proposals. Atkinson is well aware of the problems relating to means-testing, he regrets that so many families in the UK are so dependent on means-tested benefits, and he studies two alternative possibilities: a Participation Income, and a renewed social insurance system. In relation to Child Benefit, he would like to see the end of the tax penalty for households that include higher rate taxpayers; he would like it to be paid at a higher single rate; he would like it to be taxed; and he would like the European Union to take the initiative in establishing an unconditional income for children throughout Europe.
Atkinson then discusses a Citizen’s Income, and decides that a flat tax to fund a Citizen’s Income high enough to replace existing benefits would be at too high a rate. He has here allowed research that he conducted thirty years ago into the rate at which a flat tax would need to be set to fund a Citizen’s Income to create an inconsistency in his approach. One of the proposals in this book is for a more progressive income tax than we have now: so why expect a Citizen’s Income to be funded by a flat tax? And why not consider paying for a Citizen’s Income by reducing or eliminating the Personal Tax Allowance?
Atkinson’s solution to the dilemma that he has constructed is a Participation Income that would be paid to people making a contribution to society. He recognizes that an administrative process would be required to decide who should receive the Participation Income, but when he begins to outline the kind of casework approach that would be required we can quickly see the size of the bureaucracy and the extent of the complex regulations that would be needed. To create the kind of workable definition of ‘citizenship’ or of ‘legal residence’ that the administration of a Citizen’s Income would require would be a lot easier. Research that the Citizen’s Income Trust undertook when Atkinson first suggested a Participation Income thirty years ago suggested that the list of eligibility criteria that he outlined then would have meant that only about 1% of the population would not have received a Participation Income. This research would now need to be repeated, but the outcome would not be very different. It would surely be both easier and cheaper to pay a Citizen’s Income than to pay a Participation Income.
And then comes a further contradiction: The chapter on costings employs the EUROMOD software managed by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex (Professor Holly Sutherland and her colleagues are well thanked in the book’s acknowledgments). The graph on p.297 that shows the effects of a Participation Income on inequality shows no evidence of any ‘participation’ conditions having been taken into account: and it is difficult to see how a programme such as EUROMOD could take into account such social contributions as voluntary work. What appears to have been modeled is a Citizen’s Income.
An alternative to a Citizen’s Income would be a reinvigorated social insurance system, which, as Atkinson recognizes, would need to be adapted to today’s labour market. He takes as his model the new Single Tier State Pension, and suggests that other National Insurance benefits should be higher in value and should achieve greater coverage – for instance, by lasting longer – and that National Insurance Contributions should be credited for periods during which any kind of contribution is being made to society (echoing the eligibility criterion for a Participation Income). The graph showing the effects on inequality of both a Participation Income and a reinvigorated Social Insurance system suggests that the former would redistribute from rich to poor, and the latter more towards middle income households.
We hope that this well researched and clearly written book will be carefully read by anyone with any connection to the making of social policy; that we shall see implemented as many as possible of the policies for which Atkinson has provided such useful evidence and such persuasive arguments; and that the arguments both for and against a Participation Income will contribute to the increasingly vigorous
and informed debate about a Citizen’s Income.
The book contains a useful glossary and a detailed index. The publisher is to be congratulated on publishing a good quality hardback at such a low price. Other academic publishers might like to follow this example.
[This review was first published in the Citizen’s Income Newsletter, 2015, issue 3.]
