by Andre Coelho | Dec 5, 2019 | News
The Centre for Welfare Reform, a citizen think tank formed in 2009 and based in Sheffield, has published a statment in support of basic income. It can be read in this kind of manifesto:
Over the past few decades there have been successful pilots of UBI in many other countries and there’s growing grassroots support for testing the idea and for exploring many of the practical questions that need to be resolved to make UBI work for everyone. In our view, now is the time to pilot UBI in the United Kingdom.
Signing this community support for basic income and its experimentation on British soil are, among others, longtime basic income advocates and researchers, such as Jamie Cooke, Jurgen De Wispelaere, Malcolm Henry, Becca Kirkpatrick, Barb Jacobson and Guy Standing.
by Andre Coelho | Nov 4, 2019 | News
From left to right: Hans-Jochen Schiewer, Beatrice Werner, Bernhard Neumärker, Asema Bahadori and Helena Steinhaus.
The new Freiburg Institute for Basic Income Studies (FRIBIS) has been founded, at the University of Freiburg, on the 28th of October, 2019. A public event marked the date, at which the initiators and donors Beatrice and Götz W. Werner where represented by Beatrice Werner, who introduced FRIBIS.
This new institute gathers researchers from various faculties and basic income protagonists from civil society, NGOs and activists, working together in interdisciplinary topical groups to examine universal basic income (UBI) in all its facets. Their work aims to follow UBI projects and to contribute with research results for implementation strategies in public society and to support political decisions, as much as possible following the scientific method. Knowledge transfer from science meets the challenges of civil society, strengthening its opportunities.
Bernhard Neumärker
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Neumärker, the head of the Götz Werner Chair of Economic Policy and Constitutional Economic Theory, is a founding director of the Competence Network FRIBIS, along with professors from the Institutes of Computer Science, Psychology, Ethnology, Educational Science and the Faculty of Theology (from the University of Freiburg). At the Götz Werner Chair, Enno Schmidt is in charge of public effectiveness, transfer and networking. This team’s aim, on heading the FRIBIS, is to take the Götz Werner Chair to another level.
For context, Götz Werner is the founder of the dm drogeriemarkt group, emplying approximately sixty thousand people today, and has been, in the last decades, one of the most important voices for UBI in Germany. Earlier this year, in May, the Götz Werner Professorship was established, backed by the University of Freiburg’s rector.
The FRIBIS network is already functioning, on a series of levels. This is being achieved by interdisciplinary teams, working on topics such as “VAT-financed basic income” (Helmo Pape; Friedrich Schneider), the “Psychology of the Basic Income” (cross-faculty research programme), “The management of UBI-NGO’s”, “Foreign Aid Basic Income” and UBI as strengthening the resilience of societies in Africa, against the sellout of the countries and their resources. Other projects, as the “Sanktionfree / HartzPlus” are being closely followed by project manager Helena Steinhaus and Prof. Dr. Rainer Wieland from the University of Wuppertal. Further national and international teams, cooperating with individuals, institutes and projects are in preparation. FRIBIS will also organize conferences and be represented at conferences.
Götz and Beatrice Werner
Further information or interest for membership can be sought by writing to Enno Schmidt (enno.schmidt@vwl.uni-freiburg.de).
Article written by Enno Schmidt and edited by André Coelho.
General view of the Conference room
by Guest Contributor | Oct 24, 2019 | Opinion
For the past 3 years, my primary goal has been to get the Liberal Party of Canada to include Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) on its electoral platform. (Support for this policy is already in the official Party program.) The election was held on Monday, October 21st and UBI was never mentioned. My ultimate goal is to see UBI implemented in my lifetime.
I ended up fighting on two fronts and losing on both.
The first front consisted of my lobbying efforts within the Liberal Party. I was hoping I could convince them to include a promise to implement UBI as a commitment to the electorate should they win re-election. When I got cold feet and neglected to contact the guy who was writing the platform, my project was probably doomed. Plus, several weeks into the 6-week election campaign I changed strategies. On September 19th an independent report by UBIWorks was published. It presented the case that the Canada Child Benefit was a UBI. I stopped presenting Basic Income as an experimental policy to be tested and, instead, argued that it was a fait accompli in Canada, hiding in plain sight. My efforts to get the press to ask questions and to stimulate debate among the Liberal candidates came to nothing.
Despite high-level contacts within the Party, I had the impression that my message was not getting through to the right people. In hindsight, it is equally possible that my suggestion was being heard loud and clear in the right quarters and that appealing to their electoral self-interest rather than their consciences was spot on the best approach. After all, while I was emphasizing the economic impact of the Child Benefit for GDP growth, job creation, corporate profits, and tax revenue, the platform kept droning on about poverty reduction, a subject that people would rather not think about because they find it depressing and it makes them feel guilty. Perhaps Liberal strategists, who were staking their reputations on their message, simply rejected my proposal as not being something that would, at this point in the campaign, help them win reelection. Was this a mistake that partially explains why the Liberals lost their majority in the House of Commons? It would be pretentious of me to suggest this.
However, today’s flop may yet bear fruit in the next electoral cycle in 4 years. This is what cooler heads than mine thought from the outset.
While all this was going on, a second front was opened with my allies in the Basic Income community. To bolster my position that UBI already existed in Canada under another name, I tried to convince famous people in the movement to lend their credibility to this argument. I was flabbergasted by the strong and nearly universal resistance I encountered: no, the Canada Child Benefit could not be called a Basic Income, full stop.
While two or three people got on board immediately, most of the cognoscenti insisted that what I was advancing was inconsistent with the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) definition of UBI for a variety of reasons. Theoreticians and experimentalists alike, as well as activists, flatly refused to go along with my plan to leverage this unique opportunity to change the narrative about UBI. I thought: “I’m caught in a paradigm shift, as it happens!”
Some argued that the Child Benefit was not universal because it was only earmarked for kids. Yang’s Freedom Dividend which excludes minors still qualifies as a UBI, though. Others claimed it violated individuality because it was given to families, as though it makes any sense to hand $500 to a toddler. However, most objected on the grounds that the Child Benefit is means-tested. This was the breaking point where everything I was trying to do simply collapsed. I never saw it coming.
The Canada Child Benefit is not means-tested, it is income-tested. People outside Canada are colour-blind to the distinction. Income-testing is just not part of their paradigm. Means-testing is an evil policy tool that allows bureaucrats to arbitrarily deprive vulnerable people of funds and services that they need and have a right to receive. It grinds them into the ground and makes an example of them to terrorize everybody else. Income-testing is a horse of another colour.
In Canada, we have a progressive tax system just like the one Adam Smith himself proposed: “It is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion.” That is why no one questions the practice of taxing back from the rich funds equivalent to the Child Benefit from which they derive no important advantage and thereby recover some of the cost of a program, which is immensely useful for everybody else. Conscientious objectors to means-testing will insist that even when this claw-back is done specifically for the purpose of recouping UBI, it does not infringe on the principle of universality because it is done in separate operations, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. In Canada, we tend to view this as an elaborate and unnecessary fiction. Covering up the mechanism does little to hide the process which serves no other purpose than to claw back UBI from the rich.
In the FAQ on the BIEN definition of Basic Income, we read under the caption Is Basic Income paid irrespective of income?
“Taxable “means” may need to be taxed at a higher average rate in order to fund the basic income. But the tax-and-benefit system no longer rests on a dichotomy between two notions of “means”: a broad one for the poor, by reference to which benefits are cut, and a narrow one for the better off, by reference to which income tax is levied.”
The second notion is used universally to assess the Canada Child Benefit, which is why we use the term income-tested and not means-tested. My argument failed to convince. How it is possible, on the one hand, to clearly distinguish the two notions and, on the other hand, still insist on using the same term to describe them?
I think we are confronted with two incommensurable competing paradigms in both the political sphere and the academic domain. The old paradigms have accumulated a thick crust of unresolved problems such that business-as-usual can no longer operate smoothly. In politics, poverty reduction continues to dominate social policy discussions even though it no longer provides useful solutions. In the UBI academic community, a rigid definition stifles progress towards implementation by ensuring that the ideal program remains unattainable. I will be fleshing out this argument at a later date.
I have not lost hope that the politicians will eventually learn to frame UBI as a powerful economic stimulant and an entitlement for all Canadians, especially the middle class. The academics too, will at some point loosen their church-like grip on orthodoxy and accept a leading role in promoting social justice, down in the trenches.
However, I would hate to end up like Moses, who never did reach the promised land, and spent 40 years not getting there. I do not have that kind of time. I will be quickly making new friends in the party that holds the balance of power and leveraging these connections to achieve my goal of seeing Unconditional Basic Income implemented for all, in my lifetime.
Pierre Madden
WhatsApp/Cell: +1 514 238-0044
https://www.basicincomemontreal.org/
https://www.revenudebasevilleray.com/
https://www.patreon.com/PierreMadden
by Andre Coelho | Oct 16, 2019 | News
Basic Income seems to be a hot issue to debate at the local elections run in Thunder Bay (Ontario, Canada). Ever since the cancellation of the Ontario basic income pilot project, by the Doug Administration, discussions over basic income type of policies have been growing in number and intensity. Thunder Bay was one of the localities over which the pilot was being run.
At Thunder Bay’s Chamber of Commerce, last week on October 9th, political candidates from all six colors (Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Greens, People’s Party and Liberatarians) agreed, at least in principle, on the necessity of implementing a basic income over time. Although differences existed between the candidate’s approach to it, all agreed that something needed be done about poverty in Canada, and that people needed assistance to cope with the ever-changing nature of work and life challenges. The Libertarian candidate, though, underlined that, according to him, basic income was unlikely to be implemented in Canada within the next four years. The Ontario interrupted basic income pilot project was mentioned several times over the event, since it represents the most palpable reference as a basic income experiment within Thunder Bay’s territory.
More information at:
Leith Dunick, “Candidates argue merits of basic-income guarantee”, tbnewswatch, October 9th 2019
André Coelho, “Canada: Report “Signposts to Success” shows how beneficial the cancelled Ontario basic income experiment was being”, Basic Income News, June 5th 2019
Kate McFarland, “ONTARIO, CANADA: New Government Declares Early End of Guaranteed Income Experiment”, Basic Income News, August 2nd 2018
by Karl Widerquist | Oct 5, 2019 | News
27th International Conference of Europeanists – Council for European Studies
Reykjavik, Iceland, June 22-24, 2020
This Call for Papers is interested in empirical studies that look at the social and political processes surrounding UBIs discussions, including pilot test and experiment designs and implementations, either at the local, national or supranational level, in Europe and elsewhere. Examples of questions that are particularly welcomed are: To what extent are these openings the result of successful UBI campaigns? How and to what extent have these ideas permeated political parties and leaders? When and how are civil society organizations (e.g. trade unions, women and feminist groups, migrants associations) willing to incorporate UBI to their demands? What are the resistances and oppositions that UBI advocates face? How has the public opinion reacted to UBI? How UBI’s framing impinges upon its popularity? What is the role of social movements and other forms of grassroot activism in these processes?
The purpose of this CFP is to gather papers to organize a panel(s) at the next conference of the Council for European Studies (CES), to be held in Reykjavik, Iceland, June 22-24, 2020. Please submit your abstracts (300 words maximum) before 10 October 2019 to cesar.guzman-concha@eui.eu . Note that all paper authors must also submit their abstracts proposals through the CES online system, before the official deadline: 15 October 2019
Paper panels consist of 4-5 papers organized around a common theme with comments provided by a chair and a discussant.
