by Faun Rice | Dec 21, 2017 | Research
“Wise Cities & the Universal Basic Income: Facing the Challenges of Inequality, the 4th Industrial Revolution and the New Socioeconomic Paradigm” by Josep M. Coll, was published by the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB) in November 2017. CIDOB is an independent think tank in Barcelona; its primary focus is the research and analysis of international issues.
The Wise Cities Model
CIDOB has published other works about a concept it calls “Wise Cities,” a term intended to holistically encompass words like “green city” or “smart city” in popular usage. Wise Cities, as defined by CIDOB and others in the Wise Cities think tank network, are characterized by a joint focus on research and people, using new technologies to improve lives, and creating useful and trusting partnerships between citizens, government, academia, and the private sector.
The 2017 report by Coll opens with a discussion of the future of global economies; it highlights mechanization of labour, potential increases in unemployment, and financial inequality. It next points to cities as centres of both population and economic innovation and experimentation. A Wise City, the paper states, will be a hub of innovation that uses economic predistribution—where assets are equally distributed prior to government taxation and redistribution—to maximize quality of life for its citizens.
Predistribution in Europe: Pilot Projects
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is one example of a predistribution policy. After touching on UBI’s history and current popularity, Coll summarizes European projects in Finland, Utrecht, and Barcelona in order to highlight city-based predistribution experiments. Coll adds that while basic income is defined as unconditional cash payments, none of these pilots fit that definition: they all target participants who are currently, or were at some time, unemployed or low-income.
Finland’s project began in January 2017, and reduces the bureaucracy involved in social security services. It delivers an unconditional (in the sense of non-means-tested and non-work-tested after the program begins) income of 560 €/month for 2,000 randomly selected unemployed persons for two years. Eventual analysis will consist of a comparison with a larger control group of 175,000 people, and the pilot is a public initiative.
The city of Utrecht and Utrecht University designed an experiment which would also last two years, and would provide basic income of 980 €/month to participants already receiving social assistance. The evaluation would assess any change in job seeking, social activity, health and wellness, and an estimate of how much such a program would cost to implement in full. The author comments that the program was suspended by the Netherlands Ministry of Social Affairs, and the pilot is currently under negotiation.
Barcelona has begun an experiment with 1,000 adult participants in a particularly poor region of the city, who must have been social services recipients in the past. “B-Mincome” offers a graduated 400-500 €/month income depending on the household. After two years, the pilot will be assessed by examining labour market reintegration, including self-employment and education, as well as food security, health, wellbeing, social networks, and community participation. Because the income is household-based, and not paid equally to each individual, it is not a Basic Income, but the results could still provide useful evidence for the possible effects of a future Basic Income.
The Implications
Coll identifies several key takeaways from a comparison of these projects. None of the experiments assess the potential behavioural change in rich or middle class basic income recipients. In addition, multi-level governance may cause problems for basic income pilots, but these issues may be mitigated as more evidence assessing the effectiveness of UBI builds from city-driven programs. Coll also acknowledges that all of the experiments listed in his paper are from affluent regions.
In conclusion, the author argues that UBI is a necessary step to alleviate economic inequality. While cities are experimenting with the best ways to implement UBI, they are often not real UBI trials (as they are not universal), and they do not always take an individual-based approach; however, they are nevertheless useful components of the Wise City model.
More information at:
Josep M. Coll, “Why Wise Cities? Conceptual Framework,” Colección Monografı́as CIDOB, October 2016
Josep M. Coll, “Wise Cities & the Universal Basic Income: Facing the Challenges of Inequality, the 4th Industrial Revolution and the New Socioeconomic Paradigm,” Notes internacionals CIDOB no. 183, November 2017
by Citizens' Income Trust | Dec 18, 2017 | Opinion
This article is based on a research project conducted by a French student, Lucas Delattre, during the summer of 2016, and updated in October 2017
Introduction
A Citizen’s Basic Income is an unconditional, nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship.
In 2016, at a discussion on Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams’ book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a world without work (Verso, 2015) at the New Economics Foundation, Ed Miliband was asked what needed to happen to move us towards the implementation of a Citizen’s Basic Income scheme. ‘A pilot project’ was the answer. Others have made the same suggestion.
Existing pilot projects
Many of the projects that have been claimed as Citizen’s Basic Income pilots do not satisfy the criteria of being universal, unconditional and based on the individual. Those that do pay unconditional incomes to individuals cannot be absolutely universal, since they necessarily exclude those outside the sample. This is also an ethical issue that cannot be avoided. And the short duration of most projects enables some short-term effects to be detected, but not long-run or life-time effects. (A project in Kenya is giving 23 US$ per month to 40 villages for 12 years, which is much longer than the two years for which most experiments run.)
Some projects call for volunteers, and so are unlikely to be representative. Mandatory involvement of a representative sample is to be preferred; and even better is a saturation sample, covering a defined geographical area, which can enable effects to be picked up at a local level. Projects that compare the experience of pilot groups that receive an unconditional income to the experience of control groups that do not are preferable to experiments that do not employ control groups.
In 2008 and 2009 a privately-financed pilot project was held in the small rural settlement of Otjivero-Omitara in Namibia. 100 Namibian dollars (£7) was paid each month to every member of the population for a period of two years, and significant results were achieved in relation to health, education, crime reduction, economic activity, and poverty reduction. There was no control group with which to compare these results.
Between 2011 and 2013, similar projects in India paid 300 rupees (£3) per month to every member of several pilot villages, and in India the impressive results obtained in the pilot project villages could be compared with those in the control villages.
The Alaskan Permanent Fund (APF) is a sovereign wealth fund based on Alaska’s oil revenues, and invested in the international stock market. It gives an annual dividend payment to every Alaskan citizen, who has been resident for at least a year in Alaska. The APF has usually been able to provide a dividend of between $1,000 and $2,000 each year. Obviously, it is annual and variable, and is not sufficient to take on the role of social security: but it has had beneficial effects on the population of Alaska.
A micro-level pilot project in Germany provides Citizen’s Basic Incomes to selected individuals for one year. In Finland, a random sample of 2,000 people aged 25-58, who were unemployed at the end of 2016, are receiving €560 per month Income for two years in place of existing benefits, and the sample subjects can keep their payments after they have found employment. However, while being based on the individual and unconditional, this does not fulfil the Citizen’s Basic Income criteria of being universal. A similar approach is being considered by some Dutch municipalities. The current experiment in Ontario, Canada, is a Guaranteed Minimum Income project where a means-tested household-based benefit targeted on subjects aged 18-64 is being tested.
The Negative Income Tax experiments in the USA and Canada during the 1970s were based on the household, and so did not fulfil the criteria as a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot projects.
None of this is to suggest that the projects that have been undertaken are not of value. They are. Valuable lessons have been learnt in Namibia, India, Alaska, and the various states in Canada and the USA where Negative Income Tax experiments have taken place; and additional useful lessons will be learnt in Berlin, in the Netherlands, and in Finland. But we still await a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project. It is arguable that the Indian and Namibian experiments were as near to genuine pilot projects as possible because they were of sufficient duration to enable trends in behavioural change to be evaluated and trajectories predicted.
The UK
Might it be possible to run a Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project in the UK? A genuine Citizen’s Basic Income pilot project? Multiple problems present themselves:
- the project would have to be for a sufficiently long period for a sufficient number of assessments of behavioural change to be made to enable trajectories to be plotted and reliable estimates made of the likely behavioural changes that would accompany a permanent Citizen’s Basic Income scheme;
- any Citizen’s Basic Income viable in the short to medium term in the UK (and in any developed country) would have to be funded wholly or in part by changing income tax and social insurance contribution levels and thresholds. So a genuine pilot project would require government departments to make those adjustments just for the individuals involved in the project, and to recycle the savings into pilot project participants’ Citizen’s Basic Incomes – a somewhat unlikely proposition;
- the project would need to involve a cross-section of the population if it were to stand some chance of modelling a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income; and
- because any revenue neutral or almost revenue neutral scheme would impose losses on some households (- preferably on households in the higher income deciles), some participants in the pilot project would lose disposable income at the point of implementation.
A feasible Citizen’s Basic Income experiment
What would be feasible would be to provide a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income to a small community on top of existing benefits provisions and without altering National Insurance contributions or Income Tax payments. This would avoid government departments having to change current tax and benefits provisions: but it would require additional funding and it would not mirror the tax and benefits changes that would be required to fund a genuine Citizen’s Basic Income. This is why I have called it an ‘experiment’ rather than a ‘pilot project’. Important lessons could be learnt: but nobody would be able to regard the experiment’s results as evidence for how a Citizen’s Basic Income would work in practice.
A further feasible option would be to give a Citizen’s Basic Income to all sixteen to eighteen year olds and not give them an Income Tax Personal Allowance. This approach would create minimal problems for the tax and benefits authorities and for employers, and it would result in almost no losses at the point of implementation. The important question would be whether to promise permanence – in which case it would be a genuine pilot project; or whether to limit the experiment to a stated number of years – in which case it would be an experiment. (Microsimulation research on such a pilot project/experiment can be found in a recent working paper. )
by Albert Joerimann | Dec 17, 2017 | News
In a 2016 vote regarding a Basic Income initiative in Switzerland (rejected by 76% of the people), two districts in Zurich voted in favor of the initiative. In November of 2017, the Zurich parliament accepted a parliamentary postulate that proposes the launch of a Basic Income pilot project in these two districts. The city council has two years to examine the proposal and to evaluate the conditions and necessities of such a pilot project. It may be likely that the city council will reject the proposition since the Councilor in charge, Raphael Golta, has already expressed his negative stance towards the principles of Basic Income as well as towards the postulate—which was brought to parliament by his own social-democratic party.
One week later in a newspaper interview, Philip Kovce rejected the proposed Basic Income pilot project in Zurich as well as pilot projects in general. Kovce is the co-author of a manifesto on Basic Income and of other publications, together with Daniel Häni, one of the leading promotors of the 2016 popular initiative. Kovce argues that the principles of a Basic Income should not be experimented with on a small scale, but rather fully understood through large popular discussions. With this view, he stands in opposition to the majority of Swiss Basic Income supporters, namely those of “Dein Grundeinkommen”, a spin-off of the “Generation Grundeinkommen”, which was the movement carrying the popular initiative.
More information at:
[In German]
Strad Zürich, “Auszug aus dem Protokoll des Stadtrats von Zürich [Excerpt from the minutes of the City Council of Zürich]“, May 17th 2017
Strad Zurich, “Existenzsicherung durch Erwerbsarbeit? Ein Beitrag zur diskussion über ein bedingungsloses grundeikommen [Livelihood through employment? A contribution to the discussion on an unconditional basic income]“, May 4th 2017
by Sara Bizarro | Nov 29, 2017 | News
Anna Dent, fellow of the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), recently wrote an article titled “How has Basic Income progressed from a radical idea to a legitimate policy?” In this article, Anna Dent looks for an explanation of why Basic Income developed from a fringe idea to a popular policy proposal.
Dent researched four different current Basic Income pilots in order to learn what motivated them. The pilots analysed were in Finland, the Netherlands, Ontario and Scotland. Dent found that even with the disparity of location, all the pilots shared “a striking number of common factors” from which more can be learned about the rising popularity of the idea of Basic Income.
Common factors between all pilots were: 1) The feeling that poverty, precarious work and unemployment have grown and that traditional policy solutions are not working; 2) Basic Income is considered as an innovative solution that can help with a wide range of problems; 3) Experimenting with Basic Income enables places to “project positive qualities such as innovation, progressiveness and leadership” and something that serves local cultural identities, the prime example being Scotland; 4) The pilots involve a lot of different people and organizations, from activists, to experts and academics, “providing a critical mass of engagement and interest in basic income, which helped to legitimise it as a solution.”; 5) All pilots were interested in evidence-based social policy.
Dent’s analysis indicates that the countries currently performing of preparing pilots are doing so because of current issues, poverty, precariousness, unemployment and dissatisfaction with traditional yet failing social security solutions. The policy is considered innovative, wide reaching and having a positive impact for the country’s status or social identity. Finally, Dent notes that overall the diversity of people involved, including experts and academics, has given Basic Income additional credibility; therefore, the policy is thought of as a more legitimate solution.
More information:
Anna Dent, “How Basic Income progressed from a radical idea to a legitimate policy?”, October 11th, 2017
RSA on Basic Income.
by Faun Rice | Nov 23, 2017 | News
Ontario Basic Income Network delegates. Credit to: Lindsay Advocate.
On November 4th 2017, the Ontario Basic Income Network (OBIN) held its annual meeting in Lindsay, Ontario, Canada. Lindsay is one of the sites of the Ontario basic income pilot project, with approximately 2,000 residents registered in the experiment. Delegates at the November 4th meeting unanimously passed “The Lindsay Declaration for a Progressive Basic Income.”
The Lindsay Declaration draws from human rights outlined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also highlights what it considers the benefits of basic income and the momentum built by the Ontario government’s three-year basic income pilot (ongoing).
The Declaration proposes nine principles to guide basic income policy. These state that basic income must be promoted as justice rather than charity, and as abundance rather than austerity. The principles further assert that basic income must be reliable, based on cost of living and protected from creditors. Finally, the Lindsay Declaration supports basic income that does not preclude a “comprehensive social security system,” and that aligns with progressive “personal and corporate taxation.”
After the meeting, delegates voiced their intention to use the Lindsay Declaration as a tool for basic income advocacy across Canada. The Declaration has received attention from regional news and social media.
More information at:
The Lindsay Declaration
Basic Income Canada Network endorsements
“Ontario delegates pass ‘Lindsay Declaration’ on basic income,” Kawartha Lakes This Week, November 7th 2017
Roderick Benns, “‘Lindsay Declaration’ on progressive basic income passed by delegates,” The Lindsay Advocate, November 7th 2017
“Town of Lindsay chosen to host basic income pilot program,” Global News, October 12, 2017
