by Kate McFarland | Aug 29, 2017 | Research
Ville-Veikko Pulkka, a public policy researcher and doctoral candidate at the University of Helsinki, has published his paper “A free lunch with robots – can a basic income stabilise the digital economy?” in European Review of Labour and Research.
Pulkka was previously employed as part of the research team at Kela, the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, responsible for the design and preparation of the nation’s two-year experiment replacing conditional unemployment benefits with an unconditional basic income.
The Finnish experiment has been the topic of most of his previous published work and presentations related to basic income (including presentations at conferences in Switzerland, Poland, Finland, and Ireland).
Pulkka’s research at the University of Helsinki, including his doctoral dissertation, centers on the implications of the digital economy for labor and public policy.
“A free lunch with robots,” his latest publication on basic income, moves away from focus on the Finnish experiment to explore the latter topic in more general terms:
The discussion on the possible implications of the digital economy for labour continues unabated. An essential dimension of the discussion is the widely shared view that a basic income could guarantee sufficient purchasing power for unemployed, underemployed and precarious workers should technological unemployment and labour market insecurity increase. A budget-neutral basic income has serious limitations as an economic stabilisation grant, but if financing proposals are revised, these limitations can be tackled. Even though guaranteeing sufficient purchasing power for unemployed, underemployed and precarious workers does not necessarily require an unconditional universal benefit, it seems clear that traditional activation based on strict means-testing and obligations will not be a strategy flexible enough to guarantee sufficient consumer demand in fluctuating labour markets. An economically sustainable solution might be to reduce means-testing gradually and to study carefully the effects.
The full article is available behind a paywall here.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Helen Taylor
by Dave Clegg | Aug 21, 2017 | Research
This paper represents a massive undertaking by both University of Melbourne Australia faculty and an independent agency called the the Brotherhood of St. Laurence dedicated to social Justice. It looks at a collection of BI pilot projects, as well as other projects which can be considered close approximations of a BI, from around the world. Government projects which have been run in the past as well as private and government projects currently being implemented.
The paper provides a number of graphs and and analyses aimed at comparing and contrasting the examined projects while underlining the incredible number of variables affecting both the design and the outcome of any such project that must be attended to. But the main focus of this paper is to determine how a BI can ensure equity of income, improved efficiency of governance and an end to the stigma of social supports.
While considering the concept of a BI to be attractive for a host of reasons, not the least of which are equity and the automation of the workplace, the paper is decidedly cautious and suggests careful consideration of “… broader issues and the intersecting domains and policies” which one can only assume refers to the social and economic ramifications of such a project. A very bureaucratic summation of some extremely crucial social concerns.
by Guest Contributor | Aug 21, 2017 | Opinion
Why do so many leading economists pronounce themselves in favor of a Basic Income? Because of its positive economic effects on the distribution side, for example. Basic Income stabilizes the overall domestic consumption and provides a kind of regulation for the ratio between expenditures and savings. Furthermore, the Basic Income helps up to a certain degree to equalize the “unnecessary” distortions arising from the free play of market forces within the context of automation, digitalization, delocalization and further developments in society. And finally, Basic Income constitutes a lean and just system to provide every single individual with the minimal share of the wealth of nations that he/she is entitled to.
The economist and former head of the Hamburg World Economic Institute Thomas Straubhaar does not put the emphasis on the macroeconomic aspects. In 2006, he was one of the originators of the liberal Basic Income proposal “Solidary Citizens’ income” promoted by Dieter Althaus, member of the center-right party CDU and Thuringia’s prime minister at the time. Straubhaar’s new publication “Radikal gerecht” (radically just) shows some interesting development, while maintaining the core of the arguments in favor of a Basic Income from a liberal perspective.
The principles remain the same: Basic Income is paid unconditionally, to each individual, in addition to existing income and an amount that allows for a dignified living of each person. According to Straubhaar, Basic Income is a liberal concept because it promotes free choice of the individual (including the poor) and abolishes social bureaucracy. And it is a just cause because people with a high income pay more net taxes than those with a low income. While the citizen’s income of 2006 was calculated at €600 per adult per month (Bürgergeld), Straubhaar now speaks of €1,000 per person. He does not insist on this sum, saying that a) the basic needs of the individuals have to be re-evaluated periodically by the responsible office, for instance the federal statistical office, and b) in addition the amount is and will be a function of the political debate. A higher Basic Income requires higher taxes, which is the expression of the political will respectively of the political majorities. “It is obvious that the amount of the Basic Income and the tax rate are the levers of the policy makers and of the population to steer this new social system”, he writes on page 17.
Straubhaar presents the Basic Income as a kind of radical reform of the tax system. He calls it a negative income tax, however. A core element of this tax reform would be a flat rate tax on all kinds of income, not only wages, but also capital revenues and revenues from automats and robots. Here, Straubhaar reacts in a raw form to the fact that in the future, products from fully automated factories are going to have a price as well. Hence these have to be taxed like any other income. This is a major difference to most other models (and specifically the solidary citizen’s income of 2006) which deal mostly or exclusively with revenue taxes, and it is very welcome to see such an adaptation from the liberal side and in a systemic (even if at this moment still rather crude) form.
Concerning the financing, Straubhaar argues that the €960 billion cost of a Basic Income of €1,000 per person per month (80 million x €12’000) is somewhat higher than the actual expenses for the social state in Germany of €880 billion. The actual gross value-added amounts to €2.73 trillion (2015), which means that a flat rate of tax of 40% on this (at the moment it is transformed into income) would provide €1.1 trillion. The rest of the state’s expense would be covered by indirect taxes. At the same time, the contributions for the classical social insurance that actually are deducted from the gross salaries would largely be abolished.
Straubhaar admits this calculation to be very rough and not able to reflect all the possible and dynamic effects of the introduction of a Basic Income scheme, and insists on the flexible elements such an introduction will imply (estimation of cost of living, political process etc.). As with other authors, financing is not the core of this motivation. He sees the Basic Income as the best and most viable solution to adapt the classical system of social insurance of the 19th century to the 21th century. It creates a sort of a “blind” social policy, contrary to the targeted schemes whose advantage all too often is only to maintain a class of social bureaucrats who decide on sums and subjects. Furthermore, it is a core contribution to big issues of our times, namely an ageing population, digitalization/automation, individualization, and so on. Economically, it is not only viable, but it makes sense within the context of globalization and full automation. And he insists on paid labor continuing to be the main source of income but in new, more flexible and open forms, as activities and careers keep changing, as we witness already today. In this context, the existing organizations like trade unions or entrepreneurs’ federations will maintain their significance. The work motivation, which some economists see threatened by a Basic Income, will not decrease, but on the contrary increase thanks to the increased degree of freedom.
Straubhaar’s book is an important step for the liberal promotors of the Basic Income scheme in Germany. He aligns in practice with the other wings (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen, Goetz Werner) by speaking now of a sum of €1,000 per person per month (without being categoric about it). He urges it as a core element for the rebuilding of the social state, an adaptation to the 21th century and a blind social policy with arguments that are widely acknowledged by intelligent people. However, it is not certain that his fellow liberal economist colleagues in Germany are willing to follow his arguments. Many of them are still anchored in the concept of a 19th century social state. On the promotor’s side, some might be tempted to criticize Straubhaar’s concept of a negative income tax. Furthermore, several questions about the additional tasks of the social state remain.
There is one point that cannot be conceived in the way Straubhaar does. On page 98, he writes that every German citizen is part of the Basic Income scheme from birth until death, and those living abroad would have a right to their full claim, independent of their new country of residence. This is a flashback to the 19th century concepts of citizenship and nationality. Today, we speak of resident population and debate the introduction of a Basic Income in the whole world. Thus, if a German citizen would live in France, he would get the French Basic Income without the German Basic Income. But this is a tiny remark and does not impair the substantial progress of “Radikal gerecht”.
Finally, although Straubhaar labels Basic Income as radically just, he does not close the loop from a moral perspective to a legal standpoint, by omitting the step from basic income to basic right. As Thomas Paine wrote in 1796, the whole earth was originally in the possession of the whole human race. Now, on the base of an immensely increased wealth of nations and individuals, Basic Income represents the entitlement of every individual to a minimal (or basic) share of this wealth.
More information at:
(in German)
Thomas Straubhaar, Radikal gerecht [Radically just], Edition Körber-Stiftung, 2017
Written by: Albert Jörimann
Albert Jörimann, was president of BIEN-Switzerland from 2008 until 2013. His main research subject is financing questions of basic income.
Works cited:
Das Solidarische Bürgergeld. Analyse einer Reformidee.» Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Edited by Michael Burchard, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2007.
by Jason Burke Murphy | Aug 16, 2017 | Opinion
I hardly ever respond to anything in writing if I am not remembering it at least a year or so later. The piece I am remembering is an episode of the podcast Freakonomics called “Is The World Ready for A Guaranteed Basic Income?” I recommend it as an introduction.
I am going to give you a quote and then I want you to keep reading.
Sam Altman runs Y Combinator, a technology venture capitalist firm that has had some great successes and is now interested in funding social science research that will include basic income. Here is the quote, which came up during his interview in this podcast episode:
Maybe 90 percent of people will go smoke pot and play video games. But if 10 percent of the people go create new products and services and new wealth, that’s still a huge net win.
We are back to the couch potato. This character appears in a lot of objections to basic income. Altman concedes that there will be couch potatoes. He just thinks that is a good price to pay to get more entrepreneurs, even only a few of them. I appealed earlier for the reader to keep going because most people in my orbit would not like this quote. (If it sounds good to you, then I guess I should still urge you to keep reading.) I will explain why some will push back and why I ultimately do not.
We are starting to see increased support for as well as new sorts of negative reactions to the idea. Not very long ago, basic income advocates were often introducing the idea to specific audiences. This meant one could get away with starting where you thought the listener would react best. If you were talking to someone on the left, you might call it a “strike fund for all”. If someone is more liberal, you would emphasize that a basic income reaches people that welfare is supposed to help. With libertarian types, you start with the efficiency and non-bureaucratic character of a basic income. I have been very impressed by recent writing that emphasizes basic income’s ability to remedy asset inequality for people of color and women.
Now, I am very pleased to see more people who have already heard about basic income from someone. Sometimes they caught the wrong person for them. As we explain basic income, we will need to separate the policy (giving everyone an unconditional cash grant) from the project (which can range from left to right).
A quote like Altman’s can swing a listener in different directions. I know this from my social media work. I imagine people running different movies in their head. Some hear “new products and services and new wealth” and visualize start-ups and think it all sounds great. Others try to imagine a world working well with 90 percent of people not doing anything anyone else wants them to do and they just can’t see that working out well. Others hear this and worry that basic income is part of a larger scheme to organize our lives around Silicon Valley capitalists. To them, Altman seems to overly glorify the tech entrepreneur. Other writers are more desperate in labeling basic income a “neo-liberal plot”, which would make you laugh if you went to one of our Congresses. We would not want to merely swap one set of capitalists for another.
I have not met Sam Altman. His other statements show that he also finds basic income interesting because it directly answers a moral mandate to make sure people are clothed, fed, and sheltered. I highly recommend the rest of the podcast. My objective here is to explain why I think we ought to look at this quote charitably. I will show in what way I think his quote is true. I also want to propose an alteration that makes it much more palatable for those I see reacting negatively.
No One is Saying Ninety Percent of Society Will Hit the Couch
Altman is not talking about a whole society in which only 10 percent work. He is saying that even if we lose some work-time to lame leisure (pot and video games), we will make it back even if only 10 percent start up new enterprises. Nor is he saying that he knows that we will get one successful start-up for every nine lives lost to the coach. He is only saying that losing nine to the couch would be an acceptable price to pay if we gain a start-up, which would offer something someone wants and would also be offering jobs. This is very plausible.
Most people with a basic income will live a lot like they do now. They will have a more stable income. They will worry less about many of their friends and family. They will have a plan if they need to train for a job or pay bills between jobs. This cuts into the number of people who would choose the couch. Work can be a place where we get recognized for our talents and for our cooperativeness. And jobs pay money. In fact, you can still count on a basic income if you take on a job. And you can count on it if you change your mind.
The problem now is that employees have very few options when workplaces go sour. Basic income creates one option (work for no one) and enables people to survive while they search for and train for other options. This will increase pressure on workplaces to improve.
I used to be suspicious of most rhetoric surrounding markets. I think that was because so much of it ended up with a conclusion like “Therefore, government should do less/nothing.” I have come to value markets more and more. Now, I want them for everyone. A basic income secures the capability to participate in markets for everyone. There are many sections of the United States that get very little government or market attention. That would be less likely with a basic income in effect. You will also see more start-ups under a UBI because failing doesn’t risk losing everything. Most entrepreneurs now come from the upper one percent of our society. Whole communities aren’t going to see much startup soon if we wait for the elite to try to make money there.
Add Caregivers and Organizers To The Mix
Someone organizing a non-profit, a political organization, or even an informal social scheme fits under Sam Altman’s phrase of “new products and services and new wealth.” He is not confining his hopes to technological startups.
Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone, written in 2000, lays out the loss of social networks and the harm that has caused most Americans. These can be voluntary associations, political clubs, fraternal organizations, or sports leagues. Participation has declined as work-hours per household has increased. This means that many will look for alternative ways to interact with like minded Americans, especially when it comes to sporting events.
There is a strong link between organizational affiliation and many different metrics for happiness or meaningfulness. We also see more affiliation in communities that have more political power and that generate more market activity. (There is likely a causal loop there. Lack of power and lack of market options may often precede losses in organizational depth. And a lack of organizational depth may well often precede losses in money and power.) Social-capital comes hand in hand with capital-capital.
Michael Lewis and Eri Noguchi apply Putnam’s work, and combine it with survey data, to give us strong reasons to think that we would see improvements in civic networks as well. Declines in civic participations can be shown to coincide with an increase in work hours. People who value civic participation will have an option to do so.
If you want to know how a basic income will benefit society, let’s make it clear that we are including “organizers” within our understanding of “entrepreneur”. Our culture is one that has to be reminded of this. Once we expand our understanding, we can look around and see how many people are trying to participate in institutions that organize in pursuit of truth, justice, and beauty.
Examples will help here: church committees, symphony boards, rotary clubs, sports leagues, poetry circles, craft guilds, environmental organizations, identity-based youth groups, identity-based cultural organizations, music bands, theater companies, unions, political organizations, lobbying organizations, etc. This list could go on a very long time.
At this point, I want to share a little bit of what I learned as a community organizer in Arkansas for ACORN. Organizing is difficult. There are many ways in which it is not like entrepreneurship at all. You aren’t selling anything. All organizations have trouble finding this skill set. It is also difficult to get the resources together for full-time organizing. We would often hire someone who loved the mission of the organization but had to leave for pretty small increases in money. It might also prevent the loss of organizers to the for-profit sector.
Please note: I have noticed that a large section of the US internet is trying to malign the very term “community organizer” but my argument includes organization of groups I disagree with.
The ratio of organizers to members goes beyond the one to nine ratio that Altman imagines. About six of us at Arkansas ACORN served around 5,000 households if you are only counting dues payers. The community that responded to our work was larger than that. There were meetings every month. People debated goals and tactics. Political leaders were interviewed or protested. Organizations that despised us did the same things, though often with more funding from fewer people.
Every time I hear the term “couch potato” brought up as some sort of nightmare case for basic income, I remember that I sat on thousands of couches, urging people to get active, to get involved with their community’s decisions. I know that with a basic income, we would have had more organizers and more active members. Rival organizations would have had the same benefit. We will live in a more democratic place.
I am still involved in political work, even though I am not employed to do it. I also have been published as a poet and as a photographer, though not paid. You will find a lot of people working on magazines, readings, and websites in which the true, the good, and the beautiful are debated. A lot of people can see how to raise some money doing cultural, social, or political work but they can’t get to a decent level. A basic income would generate audiences for artists, philosophers, preachers-good and bad. A thriving art world is full of disputed art. A thriving philosophical culture will have disputed philosophical projects. We will live in a more interesting place.
Norman Rockwell “Freedom of Speech”
Finally, we should look at the decision to care for a family like we would a “start-up”. The “caregiver” has started a “career” that works for many people like a vocation. For each caregiver, there is at least one other person, usually more, benefiting in a meaningful way. Economists often do not count care for children and elders unless someone is formally paid to do it. A basic income would enable people to say no to employment if someone they love needs them. We will live in a more caring place.
In fact, Robert Putnam shows us in his research, as do Michael Lewis and Eri Noguchi in theirs, that the “stay-at-home” mom was often a civic association organizer as well.
More markets, more culture, more democracy, more care. This looks to be well worth investing 3% of our GDP and letting a few people stay home.
When I read the comments and notes that come with all basic income articles, I can see that some people would worry about people not working because of basic income. Basic Income enables people not to work. Kate McFarland points out that a basic income enables people to say no to all social useful activity. But we are far away from that. Some people will live incorrectly. Many people live incorrectly now. Basic income is a good bet for increasing socially useful work.
- More entrepreneurs means more people are offered employment.
- More organizers mean more people are being invited to venues where what is true, what is good, and what is beautiful are debated and plans are made.
- More caregivers mean more people are taken care of.
Therefore, most likely, for every couch potato, we will have better reasons than ever to get off the couch.
About the author:
Jason Burke Murphy teaches philosophy and ethics at Elms College in Western Massachusetts. He serves on the board of US Basic Income Guarantee Network and recently presented at their North American Congress. He helps with social media for US Basic Income Guarantee Network. He has written before for Basic Income News. His most read piece so far is “Basic Income as Proposal, as Project, and as Idea.”
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?↩
