by Florie Barnhoorn | Nov 2, 2016 | News
A citizens’ initiative for the introduction of a basic income in the Netherlands in 2018 recently handed over a petition containing 58,800 signatures calling for a debate in the Parliament. The signatories are advocates of a guaranteed income of approximately 1000 EUR per month for all adults, plus basic health insurance and an extra payment for children under the age of 18 years. The supporters say that a basic income will allow everyone more freedom to decide whether to work, study, start a company or, for example, take care of elderly family members, instead of being stuck in a hated job to provide for their families. The citizens’ initiative has collected 58,800 signatures, significantly more than the 40,000 needed to place a controversial issue on the agenda of the Parliament.
The paper invitation to sign the petition was spread as a ‘Civil Relief Assessment Notice’, similar to an assessment notice directed to all Dutch taxpayers. According to Johan Luijendijk, one of the initiators of the citizens’ initiative and co-organizer of Basicincome2018, an informal digital platform for sharing information on basic income and the exchange of experiences, the threshold of 40,000 signatures was already met in April: “This happened so fast that we adjusted our ambitions to 100,000. But the growth slowed down, so if we continue at this rate, we will not achieve our goal soon.” He believes that the general public is still unfamiliar with the subject and that the relatively small circle of proponents has been reached: “I suppose that many people still have ’cold feet’ to endorse the rather radical idea of a unconditional basic income”, he says. Hence, it was decided to submit the initiative this week.
-
-
Civil Relief Assessment Notice
-
After the presentation of the petition to Members of Parliament, the signatures will be counted and validated. The whole process can be completed in about a month, according to RTL. It is also checked whether this is a topic parliament hasn’t dealt with recently. Last September, members of the Second Chamber of Parliament (House of Representatives) discussed with the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment, Lodewijk Asscher (Partij van de Arbeid / PvdA / Labour Party) a memorandum initiated by Norbert Klein, leader of the Vrijzinnige Partij (Cultural Liberal Party) wherein he advocates the introduction of a basic income. However, the MPs have postponed the voting procedure, so there is a chance that Parliament is obliged to consider the current initiative. If a majority is in favor of the proposal, the responsible minister will be asked to change his or her policy towards a basic income.
At present, the basic income movement has to transfer its focus to the upcoming elections for new members of the House of Representatives in March 2017. Political parties are now making their programmes. So far, only a few of them (Party for the Animals with 2 seats in Parliament; Cultural Liberal Party with 1 seat; Pirate Party no seats) have explicitly included a guaranteed income in their programmes for the next four year. Intensive debates will take place with GroenLinks (GreenLeft), PvdA (Labour Party), D66 (Democrats 66), SP (Socialist Party) and the minority of proponents in VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) and CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal) in order to persuade these political parties to adopt an unconditional basic income as an indispensable part of their political ambitions (according to an email communication with Alexander de Roo, the chairman of the Dutch branch of BIEN). “We are also planning to intensify our lobby towards entrepreneurs. We want them to speak openly about the benefits and necessity of the introduction of a universal basic income.”
Thanks to Ali Özgür Abalı for reviewing a draft of this article.
Credit Picture ‘Public debate on basic income‘ CC Zeptonn
Credit Pictures’ Civil Relief Assessment Notice‘ Verlichtingsdienst
by Hilde Latour | Nov 1, 2016 | Research
In a recent review, the World Bank estimates that around 150 countries in the ‘developing world’ have implemented cash assistance programmes, which together reach approximately 800 million people.
The impact of such programmes in sub-Saharan Africa was thoroughly evaluated, using experimental data from two Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) programmes implemented by the Government of Zambia, where each programme is accompanied by a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
A UCT is similar to an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) in that beneficiaries are paid directly in cash with no requirements on their actions. The main difference between the types of programmes concerns the inclusion criteria for participation. A UBI is targeted at every citizen, regardless of (for instance) socioeconomic status, whereas the UCT’s are often available for the poor population only, often with specific inclusion criteria, such as the presence of children of a specific age in a household or geographical criteria.
In 2010, the Zambian government began testing two different UCT-programmes. The programmes are still on-going. One of them is targeted at households with a child under age 3, while the other is targeted at households with various types of vulnerabilities (female or elderly headed households taking care of orphans or disabled children). Neither of the programmes is explicitly poverty targeted at the household level, but the (geographical) inclusion criteria resulted in 90% of beneficiaries below the Zambian poverty line. The outcome-parameters are identical in the two programmes. In each case, the annual amount transferred to a household is $144 ($24 every two months).
The effects after 2 and 3 years were compared to baseline. Far-reaching effects were reported in both groups, not only on the primary objective, food security and consumption, but also on a range of productive and economic outcomes.
A relatively simple flat cash transfer, unconditional and paid every two months, is shown to have wide-ranging effects on ultra-poor households in rural Zambia, significantly raising consumption and increasing food security, children’s schooling and material well-being, while at the same time strengthening economic capacity and assets.
After three years, household spending was -on average- 59% larger than the value of the transfer received.
These results are presented in a paper published by UNICEF: “Can Unconditional Cash Transfers Lead to Sustainable Poverty Reduction? Evidence from two government-led programmes in Zambia.”
Additional info:
A Basic Income News article by Tyler Prochazka about a recent meta-analysis (of 165 studies) on the effects of Cash Transfers can be found here.
cover photo (published with permission) and full citation of the paper:
Handa, Sudhanshu; Natali, Luisa; Seidenfeld, David; Tembo, Gelson; Davis, Benjamin. Can Unconditional Cash Transfers Lead to Sustainable Poverty Reduction? Evidence from two government-led programmes in Zambia, Innocenti Working Papers no. IWP_2016_21, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence
Special thanks to Josh Martin and Kate McFarland for reviewing this article.
by Dave Clegg | Oct 25, 2016 | News
CTV news, Sept 22/16 reports Vancouver BC city council will implement a “living wage” policy deemed to be a minimum of $20.64 an hour for its municipal employees. In the Fraser valley just a few miles east of the Vancouver boundaries that living wage is pegged at $16.28.
This could easily be characterized as an opening salvo for the Basic Income by highlighting the huge discrepancies between the wages being offered to our most vulnerable citizens and the soaring costs of living today. Sadly, these civic employees are but a small fraction of the workers in the Vancouver area, more and more of whom, are in need of a real, honest ‘living wage’. Conversely, the Vancouver “living wage” is a long way from the minimum wage of $10.85 an hour recently set by its own BC government for everyone else in the province unfortunate enough not to be in a civic union or to have a full work week.
The Living Wage for Families Campaign – initiated by the Vancouver non-profit First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition – is focused primarily on a fair and compensatory exchanges of labour for wages. They “define a living wage as an hourly amount a two-parent family with two children needs to earn to cover basic expenses, including food, clothing, rental housing, child care, transportation and a small savings to cover illness or emergencies”. This idea also assumes that a person is able to acquire enough working hours to equal 35 hours a week or more.
However, a truly functional BI does not discriminate or target any particular group or individual or hours worked. A BI has to be universal in its application to be truly equitable and fair. Of course there have to be some limiting parameters such as citizenship and/or residency for enfranchisement. Most importantly, a BI helps resolve the marginalizing and stigmatizing of our most vulnerable citizens as witnessed with the managing, policing and monitoring of so many of our social programs today.
That said, championing a living wage is a good start, but it is far too limited in scope. Of course, a voluntary application of it amongst all employers would surely result in even more inequities within the labour market, while mandating it would surely ignite an employers revolt.
A Basic Income is the most certain avenue to achieving the goal of the “… amount a two-parent family with two children needs to earn to cover basic expenses, including food, clothing, rental housing, child care, transportation and a small savings to cover illness or emergencies”. In fact, a BI might very well motivate employers to offer far more than a living wage in terms of competitive salaries and benefits when prospective employees are able to bargain without the spectre of homelessness and destitution lurking in the background.
Image: Vancouver CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Neil Roger
by BIEN | Oct 18, 2016 | News, Testimonies
André Coelho (credit to: Ann-Kathrin Anthon)
What made you become an activist for basic income, and devote so much time to it?
A revolution is taking place here and now, and each person has a choice: to be an active part in that revolution (to work for it to succeed), to be a passive part in it (to let it happen, if it must), or to fight against it. For me, the latter is just plain nonsensical. To be passive does not quite go along with my character, so I guess I could only go with the first one.
I identify with this revolutionary course – the implementation of basic income – because it’s about recognizing the humanity in us all, of our birth right to a decent living, and enough freedom to actually pursue happiness in this life.
What are other terms or phrases for ideas associated with, but not the same as, Basic Income (BI)? What characterizes them?
In most welfare states there are social benefits in place, paid in cash or in the form of tax credits. However, all of them are conditional, usually on income and/or willingness to take up a job. In Portugal, for instance, there is a minimum insertion income (RSI), which is only given to people who clearly show they have no other source of income.
There are also, for example, child benefits, disability benefits, income assistance…a whole set of income redistribution schemes, which always entail some conditionality. The only exceptions I know of, other than basic income pilot projects, are the Alaska and the Macau dividends. The latter two dividends, although unconditional, are not basic (not enough to cover basic expenses).
What makes the BI plan of action unique?
If I can put my finger on one main feature, I would say it is its unconditional nature. That’s what makes people roll their eyes around. What? Now we’re giving all this money to people, even if they don’t work? That’s just plain unfair.
Well, of course this is a short sighted opinion at best, and a plain lie at worst. It’s a limited view on our humanity. Usually people view themselves as active and willing to contribute with their work, but then are suspicious that their neighbours will do the same.
Of course that if everyone thinks this way we’ll arrive at an impossible proposition: that everyone is active and willing, while not being active nor willing, at the same time. But apart from our personal sensibilities, results from basic income pilot projects show that people contribute as much or more to society with their work, while receiving a basic income.
And even when slight decreases are observed, these are coupled with investments in education.
What are the most common success stories of BI or similar programs? Any failures?
The basic income pilot projects I usually cite are the Namibian, Indian and Canadian experiences. The first two were experiments in very poor, rural contexts, while the Canadian one was both urban and rural, involving the entire local population.
In all these cases, people receiving the basic income did not stop working (clearly the opposite in the Namibian and Indian cases), health conditions improved, as well as education indicators. There were also other benefits, such as reduced crime rates (in Namibia and India).
I think that, in the context of basic income experimentations, there cannot be ‘failures’. If done properly, these experiments aim to widen our knowledge, while temporarily helping the populations in question.
Of course that, as it was the case in the United States experiments, the results can be “spun” in different ways for political purposes. But that is always a risk attached to any experiment, especially those related with social behaviour.
What country seems the most progressive and forward thinking in implementation of BI?
According to news information around these days, Finland seems to be the part of the world most willing to formally take up the idea of trying basic income. Finnish officials and partners are developing an experiment, which is setup to start in 2017.
However, I would not say that translates necessarily into greater progressiveness than other regions of the world. The Finish experiment is already plagued by several shortcomings, even before it has started (although I still think it’s worth it).
The Canadian central and regional governments, and particularly the latter, are also seriously considering experimenting with the basic income. As well as regional Dutch officials, who are already developing their own basic income experiments (similar to Finland’s experiment).
Let’s also not forget the Swiss case, that recently held a national referendum on the subject. And also Spain, particularly in the Basque region. However, the interest in basic income is growing quickly around the world, so who knows who will implement it first?
Activist networks for basic income are also spreading. At this moment, BIEN already has 30 national and regional affiliates, and this is expected to rise in the next few years.
What is your work on BI?
At Basic Income News, I do writing, editing, training and coordinating. I also represent BIEN, on occasions, as an advocate for basic income in international meetings (up until now, related to the CO-ACTE project).
Locally, I also participate in some actions for our activist network in Portugal, by writing articles, speaking at venues and organizing events.
Any advice for would-be policy makers or activists about strategies for the implementation of BI?
I guess that if I could choose one piece of advice it would be not to consider basic income as a ‘miraculous’ cure for all social problems. Basic income is a helpful tool, even a crucial one, but cannot replace a “systems approach” thinking about society, a holistic view.
Also I would recommend to self-analyse and make clear why each of us is defending basic income, and how we think it should be implemented. Because the devil is in the details, and basic income can get “dirty” when analysed in its implementation depth.
I have been, more than once, challenged by the possibility of a “right-wing” basic income, which would come as a replacement of all other social benefits and welfare state public systems, including health and education.
This approach to basic income is common among the “right-wing” side of the political spectrum. It is dangerous and a real possibility which all activists should be aware of if they really care about the wellbeing of present and future society.
Thank you for your time, André.
by Guest Contributor | Oct 17, 2016 | Opinion
By Jennifer Lawson
Per capita payments, or ‘per caps’, as they are known in Indian Country, function as a kind of basic income for tribal nations that have them. In this piece, I want to examine the distinct difference between the thinking about such a basic income in Indian Country and the United States in general.
The other day, I was talking to a small group of non-native Americans about basic income. One of them said to me, “Basic income seems like something like that would take a long time to gain ground.”
In the United States in general, the thinking about basic income is not as far along as it is in Indian Country, where per caps have been a staple for many tribes for several years.
One of the first questions, for tribes that gained discretionary income in the last decade, has been, “What do we do with this money?”
Many tribal nations have tribally owned businesses and, unlike the general thinking in the United States, no one worries that this may be a form of communism or socialism. It is simply, for many tribal nations, in keeping with their tribal values to have a collectively owned business.
The revenue from such businesses, as well as the revenue from natural resources and other ways tribes gain money, provide the discretionary income that tribal nations work with.
The answer to the question, “What do we do with this money?” is answered differently by different tribal nations. Some provide services to their citizens, such as childcare, early childhood education, hospitals, and so forth. Others provide per caps to their members.
I do not want anyone to come away thinking that tribal nations are flushed with cash or that Native people are, in general, rich from per caps. Rather, I want to look at the differences between the tribal way of thinking and the United States’ way of thinking
From the tribal point of view, when you have a collectively owned business, it makes sense that one option would be to divide the revenue up and disperse it among citizens of the tribe. In general, what to do with the money is voted upon and the decision about what to do with the money is decided that way.
For non-native people, we do not have collectively owned businesses to decide how to divide the revenue. A large portion of people in the United States would rebuke such a business as socialism or communism.
However, we do have other ways of gaining access to a basic income without having collectively owned businesses. Some have suggested taxing pollution, for example.
For tribal nations, some of the arguments that are familiar to people in basic income have been espoused, both for and against. One worry, for example, is that people will not attend college because the thinking What’s the use? is in effect. That is, if you don’t need to attend college for future employment, why go? This thinking saddens many tribal people, who have a pre-colonial history of being interested in education, contrary to stereotypes.
But the biggest issue for tribes, which has become a real problem, is that of disenrollment. Disenrollment is, in effect, making people ineligible to be tribal citizens. While many tribal nations are growing as of late, some tribal nations with per caps have closed and/or tightened up their citizenship requirements to make per caps go further, and to allow each individual to have as much money from per caps as possible. If a tribal nation is doing pretty well economically, it does even better when the tribe is small.
With the large population of the United States, as well as our open citizenship requirements, where people may become citizens after completing various acts and learning about our government and founding documents, what we can afford to give our citizens depends on how we collect that money.
Because the issue of having collectively owned businesses seems to be less compatible with the values of the United States than of tribal nations, we of the United States have to be creative in how we decide to fund a basic income.
No matter the problems that tribal nations have experienced due to per caps, what is clear is that tribes that have the ability, and vote accordingly, can provide a basic income for their citizens. This should make us wonder why the United States, which has more wealth, opportunity, and so forth, cannot.
Looking over the state of per caps in Indian Country has made me, at least, realize that it can be done, and that we should do it. After all, if we had a basic income, I might be able to be in Standing Rock right now, standing with my Native brothers and sisters against the Dakota Access Pipeline—or engaging in other activist or cultural activities.
There is much that Indian Country can teach us. The issue of basic income is one we should look into further.
