by Thiago Santos Rocha | Jun 18, 2020 | News
When, at the end of February 2020, the first case of COVID-19 was registered in Brazil, unemployment, job insecurity and poverty were already very well established in the Brazilian social structure. In January 2020, the rate of unemployment among the Brazilian population was 11.2%. According to data from 2018, 25.3% of the residents in Brazil lived in poverty and only 43.4% had some income from work. This was the scenario found and aggravated by the pandemic.
After a strong social mobilization, Law 13.982 was published on April 2, 2020, creating the Emergency Workers’ Aid (EWA), an exceptional social protection measure to face the health emergency. (The EWA is sometimes called an Emergency Basic Income, but it ought not to be as it does not fulfil the definition of a Basic Income).
Although the text of the law tries to induce the idea that the benefit is intended exclusively for workers who have lost their source of income during the pandemic, in the end this is not an eligibility requirement, since the EWA reaches even those who have long been in a situation of economic vulnerability.
In sum, the EWA is a payment of R$ 600.00 (US$ 115.00) per month to the person over eighteen years old, who does not have an active formal job, is not the holder of another social security or welfare benefit (except for the Bolsa Família), has monthly per capita family income of up to half a minimum wage (R$ 522.50; US$ 100.00) or total monthly family income of up to three minimum wages (R$ 3,135.00; US$ 608.00) and has not earned income above the income tax exemption range in the 2018 fiscal year. No more than two people from each family may receive the benefit. The law also recognizes the condition of special vulnerability of the woman provider of a single-parent family, granting her the value equivalent to two quotas of the aid (R$ 1,200.00; US$ 230.00).
On May 14, Law 13,998/2020 made some changes to the EWA, among which is its extension to mothers under 18 years of age. Amendments that extended access to the benefit, mainly by withdrawing the requirement of proof of income in 2018, were vetoed by the President of the Republic after being approved by the National Congress.
As for its coverage, at the beginning of the implementation of the EWA the government estimated that it would reach 54 million people. However, after 2 months 107 million applications had been submitted, of which 59 million were approved and 42.2 million were considered ineligible.
It should be noted that implementation is facing serious problems on the part of the Government. This has motivated the Brazilian Basic Income Network, along with 161 other organizations that support the measure, to prepare a report about the 20 main obstacles to the implementation of the EWA , among which is the delay in analyzing the applications submitted and the denial of applications without providing a valid justification.
It should be noted that the law provides that the benefit may be extended by the President of the Republic while the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 lasts. However, the Government gives signs that, if it extends the EWA, it intends to do so with a monthly amount equivalent to one third of what is currently paid.
This whole context has raised to another level the public discussion about the importance of a right to income security and the respective public policy to ensure it, which transcends the conjunctural situation caused by the pandemic and leads several segments of society to seriously consider permanent policies, such as the Citizen’s Basic Income, approved by the Law 10.835/2004 with all the characteristics of a Universal Basic Income, but never fully implemented.
A local experiment
Maricá, a coastal town in the state of Rio de Janeiro, is experimenting with a local currency income-tested benefit for its own population. Articles about the experiment are available in both Portuguese and English. The articles use both ‘Universal Basic Income’ and ‘basic income guarantee’ terminology. Because the payments are only being paid to poorer households, and are therefore not a Basic Income, the use of this terminology is confusing. However, this is an important experiment, and it will be interesting to hear about its effects.
by Pablo Yanes | May 21, 2020 | News
The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, a regional organism of the United Nations Secretariat has declared itself in favour of a new regime of welfare and social protection that includes the gradual, progressive and sustained establishment of universal basic income in the region of Latin America and the Caribbean.
On May 12th, its executive secretary, Alicia Bárcena, presented the 3rd Special Report COVID-19: the social challenge in times of covid-19, which reads:
To address the socioeconomic impact of the crisis, ECLAC proposes that governments guarantee temporary cash transfers to meet basic needs and support household consumption, which will be crucial to achieving a sound, relatively rapid recovery (p. 14)
The Proposal however, is not limited to this emergency programme which would involve at least one cash transfer, equivalent to a poverty line, for 1/3 of the population, but rather:
From a long-term perspective, ECLAC reiterates that these transfers need to be ongoing, should reach beyond those living in poverty and cover broad strata of the population that are highly vulnerable to falling into poverty, such as the low-income non-poor and the lower-middle income strata. This would make it possible to move towards a universal basic income that could be implemented gradually over a period suited to each country’s situation. (p.15)
ECLAC has held the position now for 10 years that the current dominant development style needs to be replaced, as it has brought low economic growth, high social inequality and accelerated environmental destruction. It has been 10 years since ECLAC highlighted that this should be the hour of equality in Latin America and the Caribbean, and as such has been working on developing and deepening far reaching initiatives and proposals aimed towards building a new style of development centred around a core of equality and sustainability.
This is the perspective that corresponds to the proposals for progressive structural change, equality pacts and the initiative for a great environmental push. Through all these years ECLAC has insisted on and reiterated the need for social policies that are universal and with a focus on rights. In this decade there have been different mentions of the importance of guaranteeing income, of the possibilities of basic income as an emancipation mechanism and the possibility of implementing basic income for women as a tool for building their economic autonomy. Now, ECLAC is declaring the need for universal basic income and rates it, beyond the emergency and the short-term, as a strategic objective.
Facing the profound weaknesses in the welfare and social protection regimes that have been laid bare by the pandemic, and the unprecedented growth in the volume of cash transfers that, through different modes, have been implemented by the region’s governments, the interest in basic income has grown exponentially. Its appeal is not only philosophical, but also includes its power and utility for solving practical problems and achieving an immediate, opportune and far-reaching impact.
It has been said many times that the most intense debates are not solved by new arguments, but rather by great outcomes. This seems to be the case for the basic income proposal, a proposal whose debate, analysis and experimentation increased significantly after the great recession of 2008-2009 and which has placed itself, with a previously unknown force up until a few weeks ago, into the public and political spheres of various countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is an idea whose time, it seems, has arrived.
The question regarding what would have been the impact and dynamic of the pandemic if instead of having highly precarious and unprotected societies there had been a practical, operating basic income is ever more present. We would surely be talking about a different story in terms of poverty and inequality and uncertainty. Likewise, the physical distancing and home confinement measures involving people that, facing a sudden loss of income had to continue going out into the street to try and earn a survival income, would have been implemented more successfully and with less suffering.
Due to all this, ECLAC highlights the importance of having a universal basic income, within the broad framework of a welfare state and a strong social protection system. That is, basic income as an additional pillar for a new welfare regime, where most importantly the fragmentation, hierarchization and commodification of health services must be overcome, as the same document states.
Regarding the types of policies to be implemented, ECLAC says:
Before the pandemic, the social situation in the region had been deteriorating since 2014 in terms of poverty and extreme poverty, with a slowdown in the pace of inequality reduction.
-
- In view of the major persistent gaps that the pandemic has widened, ECLAC reiterates that it is time to implement universal, redistributive and solidarity-based policies with a rights-based approach, to ensure that no one is left behind.
- From a rights and welfare perspective, emergency responses rooted in social protection must be developed to avoid a serious deterioration in living conditions.
- Social protection responses must link the short-term measures needed to address the most acute manifestations of the crisis to medium- and long-term measures aimed at guaranteeing the exercise of people’s rights, by strengthening the welfare State and providing universal social protection. (p. 18)
If the covid-19 pandemic is, as Ignacio Ramonet says, a comprehensive social fact, the least that can be done is to learn from it and to understand that social precariousness and the fragility of life cannot be part of the new normal, of the new post-pandemic reality. So much suffering for so many people cannot be and must not be, repeated or assumed to be natural.
This article was originally published in Spanish at Sin Permiso. www.sinpermiso.info
Regional Research Coordinator for the subregional headquarter of ECLAC in Mexico. The opinions stated here may not be those of the United Nations System.
by Marc de Basquiat | May 1, 2020 | News
There is a translation of this article into French
On 30 April 2020, the six political groups met through video conference to deliberate on a long-awaited report. Since 2017, an ad hoc committee has been studying the possible advantages and conditions for a Basic Income in the island of Corsica. The report was proposed by Jean-Guy Talamoni, the chairman of the Assembly, who got deeply involved in the preparation work.
The mechanism proposed by the report is inspired by Tony Atkinson’s “basic income flat tax proposal”. * Since 2019 the French tax administration has been aware of almost all of the income of individuals on a monthly basis. Using this data, a monthly tax is computed using a personalized rate. For most of the top 20% of incomes, the tax calculation follows a strict formula: 30 % of the income less 498.52 euros per individual (thus 498.52 for a single person and 997.04 for a couple).
As a matter of fact, the amount granted to the least advantaged in the society – known as the RSA – is almost the same: 497.01 euros for a single person, often supplemented by housing and family benefits. The Corsican project proposal is for a monthly Negative Income Tax to bridge the income tax calculation and the allowance for the poor.
Each month the tax administration would compute the difference between a 500 euros notional ‘basic income’ for each adult and 30 % of the income earned during the past month. This way, all people with a monthly income below 1,667 euros will receive their 500 euros less the tax by automatic transfer to their bank account. Those with higher incomes will automatically be charged monthly by the tax less 500 euros.
The next step of the project is to gain support from the French ministry of Finance to implement an experimental monthly income tax calculation in Corsica.
For many decades, millions of tourists flew to Corsica because of its unique landscape, beaches, mountains, culture and history. The island of Napoleon Bonaparte will certainly continue to welcome visitors and maybe display in the near future the pride of experimenting with the first wholly financed genuine Negative Income Tax with a notional basic income in Europe.
A translation of the Corsican report is available here for international review and comments.
* A.B. Atkinson, Public Economics in Action: The Basic Income/Flat Tax Proposal, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995
Marc de Basquiat is Chair of the French Association pour l’Instauration d’un Revenu d’Existence (AIRE)
An article about the initiative can be found here.
by Malcolm Torry | Apr 22, 2020 | News
UBI Europe is to hold webinars. They say this about them:
Europe and the world under the siege of a virus: Difficult days to cope with for the most of us. At the same time, we begin to realise – the world might never be again like before the epidemic. Will Basic Income become part of the post-Corona world order?
To explore this and related questions, but also to give you proper facts and analysis rather than second hand headlines, UBIE is starting a new experiment: From this week on, we are going to invite you every Sunday at 5pm CEST for a “Basic Income Tea” – a one-hour online talk with various guests from all over Europe on subjects related to the Corona crisis and UBI.
In the first edition, on Sunday, 26 April we are going to ask: “Has the EU shown solidarity in the Corona crisis?” With Stanislas Jourdan (Executive director, Positive Money Europe) and Francois Denuit (Policy Advisor, European Parliament) , moderated by Alessandra Bianchi (Vice-Chair, UBIE), we will take a thorough look at the EU institutions’ reactions and policy packages adopted or discussed. We will also be discussing alternatives on the table like eurobonds, helicopter money, and basic income.
Want to meet other basic income advocates, share your thoughts via live chat, and be able to put your questions to our guests? Then please register here until Saturday, 25 April, 6pm, so we can send you the connection details for the video conferencing tool (most likely Zoom)!
However, if you just want to listen and enjoy, you can also watch the live stream on the UBIE website and on our social media channels (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube) starting Sunday, 26 April, 5 pm CEST.
.
by BIEN | Apr 21, 2020
What is a Basic Income?
A Basic Income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.
Sometimes called Universal Basic Income, a Citizen’s Income, or a Citizen’s Basic Income, it is not the same as a Minimum Income Guarantee; A Basic Income does not reduce as one earns more. For more information: About Basic Income
Why do we need it?
Because someone’s Basic Income would never be taken away, it would
- provide a secure financial platform to build on
- enable the employment market to become more flexible at the same time as enhancing income security
- give to everyone more choices over the number of hours for which they were employed
- enable carers to balance their caring and other responsibilities
- make it easier to start new businesses or to go self-employed, and
- encourage personal freedom, creativity, and voluntary activity
Because everyone would get a Basic Income, it would
- create social cohesion, and
- carry no stigma
Because the Basic Income would never be withdrawn, it would
- reduce the poverty trap for low income families, enabling them to lift themselves out of poverty by seeking new skills, better jobs, or additional hours of employment
- reduce the unemployment trap, so getting a job would always mean additional disposable income
Because Basic Income would be simple and efficient, it would
- be easy to understand
- be cheap to administer and easy to automate
- not be prone to errors or fraud
Many current benefits system are no longer fit for purpose. They assume that everyone has a stable single employment, that household structures don’t change, and that individuals’ circumstances change very rarely. Our lives are no longer like that: and as technology and the employment market continue to change, our benefits systems will become even less appropriate.
In a context of rapid change, the only useful system is a simple one. A Basic Income is as simple as it gets.
For a list of 101 reasons for a Basic Income, see Malcolm Torry’s book, 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income.
Why pay money to the rich when they don’t need it?
It is efficient to pay the same level of income to everybody of the same age and then tax it back from those who don’t need it. The alternative is to means-test incomes so that only those who are poor receive them: but that results in complexity, stigma, errors, fraud, and intrusive bureaucratic interference in people’s lives.
Would Basic Income be financially feasible?
Tests for a Citizen’s Basic Income scheme’s financial feasibility might be listed as follows:
- Revenue neutrality ( – that is, it would be funded by making changes to the current tax and benefits system), or sustainable additional funding should be shown to be feasible
- Poverty and inequality need to fall
- Low income households should suffer no significant losses at the point of implementation, and no household should suffer unmanageable losses
- Income Tax rates should rise by a clearly manageable amount
- A significant number of households should be released from means-tested benefits
Would people still work?
If by ‘work’ we mean ‘paid employment’, then the answer is yes. In the short to medium term, we are unlikely to see a Basic Income that would be sufficient to live on, so everyone would need additional sources of income. And because Basic Incomes would not be withdrawn as earnings rose, any family taken off means-tested benefits by their Basic Incomes would experience a reduction in withdrawal rates, and would experience more incentive to seek employment, or to start their own business, than they do now.
If by ‘work’ we mean purposeful activity of any kind, then the answer is again yes. By providing a secure layer of income, a Basic Income would enable people to readjust their employment hours in order to undertake additional caring and community work.
Why pay money to people who do nothing?
In many countries we are already paying means-tested benefits to people who do nothing, and the complexity and sanctions associated with those payments demotivate people and can tip their families into poverty. A Basic Income would take a lot of people off means-tested benefits, and so would encourage economic activity. Pilot projects in India and Namibia showed that in countries with less developed economies, and without comprehensive benefit systems, even quite small Basic Incomes increase economic activity among households with the lowest disposable incomes.
Would immigration go up?
As with other benefits, a government would be likely to require a period of legal residence before someone could receive a Basic Income. Because Basic Income would provide everyone with a secure layer of income, and therefore a greater employment incentive than means-tested benefits, anyone coming into the country would be even more likely to contribute to the economy than they are now.
Would wages fall?
Means-tested benefits function as dynamic subsidies – that is, they rise if wages fall, which can encourage wage-cutting. A Basic Income would not rise if wages fell, so employers would experience more resistance if they attempted to cut wages.
Some wages might rise. Because everyone would have a secure financial platform on which to build an income strategy, some workers would be more able to leave undesirable jobs in order to start their own businesses, or to learn new skills and seek new jobs; and workers would be able to spend longer looking for a job that they might want, rather than just any job. Either currently undesirable jobs would have to improve, or wages would have to rise in order to attract workers.
Some wages might fall. Because everyone would have a secure income layer, some people might decide to take a desirable job even if it didn’t pay very much. Wage levels for desirable jobs might therefore fall.
Would a Basic Income threaten the welfare state?
If a revenue neutral Citizen’s Basic Income scheme were to be implemented, then no cuts to public services would be required. The amounts of means-tested benefits received by households would fall, but only because those households were already receiving Basic Incomes. Benefits specifically designed to cover the additional costs of disability, and benefits to cover the differing housing costs in different areas, would continue.
Would a Basic Income cause inflation?
Inflation occurs when the amount of money available to spend is greater than the value of the economy’s productive capacity. In that situation, if the amount of money keeps growing, then each unit of money can buy progressively less, so money loses its value, sometimes rapidly. A Basic Income scheme paid for purely by making changes to the current tax and benefits system would not add to the money supply, so inflation would not occur. If the amount of money available to spend was below the productive capacity of the economy, then a government could create money until the gap was filled, and that new money could be used to pay a Basic Income: but if inflation started to occur, then money creation would have to stop, and new taxes would have to be used to pay for the Basic Income.
Has a Basic Income ever been tried?
Short pilot projects have taken place in Namibia and India, and something like a Basic Income has been implemented by accident in Iran. Experiments with the similar but different Minimum Income Guarantee and Negative Income Tax in the United States and Canada during the 1970s showed useful social outcomes and very little withdrawal from employment. The similarities between the economic effects of a Minimum Income Guarantee and Basic Income would suggest that the results of the Minimum Income Guarantee experiments would be replicated if a Basic Income were to be implemented; and the differences between them mean that the effects are likely to larger for Basic Income than for the 1970s experiments. Basic Income pilot projects and similar experiments continue in the United States, Uganda, Kenya, Spain, and the Netherlands, and experiments are planned for Scotland.
Further reading
More detailed responses to questions can be found in chapter 10 of Malcolm Torry, Why we need a Citizen’s Basic Income: The desirability, feasibility and implementation of an unconditional income, Policy Press, 2018.
Recently published introductions to the subject are as follows:
Louise Haagh, The Case for Universal Basic Income, Polity, 2019
Annie Miller, A Basic Income Handbook, Luath Press, 2017
Guy Standing, Basic Income: And how we can make it happen, Penguin, 2017
Malcolm Torry, Why we need a Citizen’s Basic Income: The desirability, feasibility and implementation of an unconditional income, Policy Press, 2018
For a detailed treatment of feasibility, see Malcolm Torry, The Feasibility of Citizen’s Income, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016
For chapters on many aspects of the Basic Income debate by world experts, see The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income, Palgrave, 2019
