by Andre Coelho | Feb 7, 2017 | News
This twenty-seven-minute audio broadcast from BBC World Service is dedicated to discussing basic income, on general terms, and has been played for the first time on the 20th of November, 2016. The discussion is chaired by Ed Butler, who has invited Louise Haagh (University of York and Basic Income Earth Network Co-chair), Michael Faye, Michael Tanner (economist, senior fellow at the Cato Institute) and Ian Gough (visiting professor at the London School of Economics).
Michael Faye starts out by saying that giving cash directly to people is more effective than all the advice and control any “expert” can provide. He communicates that Give Directly is presently launching the most ambitious program ever in the organization, providing a basic income for 25,000 people in East Africa, for 15 years. According to him, there is plenty of positive evidence from these trials, with people investing the money in improving their lives. He concludes that cash transfers are effective, whether given to less or more developed nations (in spite of their differences).
Louise argues that the case for basic income does not rely solely on evidence collected from pilots, but also by verifying the limitations and problems with welfare states. State’s response to growing precariousness, lower wages and rising economic insecurity has been ineffective and ever more punitive. The moral error here, according to Louise, is to qualify people as deserving and not deserving, in order to provide them with social benefits (even just for the bare minimum of subsistence). She refers to basic income as possibly cost neutral (although some critics challenge this notion), using tax structures to transfer money from the relatively wealthy to the relatively poor. Louise points out that most current basic income proposals are not meant to replace the welfare state, with its wide range of public services, but to complement it.
Louise Haagh (credit to: Michael Husen, BIEN Danmark)
Michael Tanner states that in principle the basic income idea is a good one. It is less paternalistic, and creates more incentives within the system. He feels the problems arise in the practical aspects of implementation, citing the (presumed) prohibitively expensive cost for rolling out the policy in the United States. This, he thinks, means that basic income will not be taken up in the US any time soon. However, he recognizes that the present social security system is failing, regarding a basic income strategy as more humane and efficient. He also agrees that delinking income from work is beneficial when it comes to some aspects of social security, and that this may actually eliminate the associated disincentives to work (of the present system). Treating people like adults and not paternalizing them with conditions is, according to him, the way forward. In his final words, Tanner expresses that basic income is one of the most promising ideas for social development.
On the critical side of basic income, Ian Gough does not believe that basic income experiments in poorer countries are helpful for the case of (basic income) implementation in wealthier countries. He dismisses basic income as unaffordable or incapable of providing a decent level of security. Furthermore, he associates basic income with the dismantling of public services such as health and education. Gough also mentions that providing a basic income at the poverty line would mean an average tax level of 50%, which he thinks is not attainable.
Listen to the full conversation:
BBC World Service, “Universal Basic Income – Has its time come?”, BBC World Service – In the Balance, November 20th 2016
by BIEN | Feb 5, 2017 | News
(Credit to: The American Prospect)
Delphine d’Amora from Mother Jones has offered a brief history of the idea of basic income, tracking its development from the 18th century to its current resurgence with prominent modern advocates, such as Belgian philosophy professor Philippe van Parijs, and various basic income experiments ongoing in a number of countries.
“After decades of obscurity, the idea is suddenly in fashion,” d’Amora notes, “Politicians around the world are interested and a handful of governments, such as Finland and the Canadian province of Ontario, are planning or considering basic-income pilot projects.”
The article is an in-depth, chronological history of basic income, starting with the 18th century, and including various manifestations of the idea, including negative income tax as described by American economist Milton Friedman in an embedded video.
Read the full article here:
Delphine d’Amora, “A Brief History of the Idea That Everyone Should Get Free Cash for Life“, Mother Jones, December 26th 2016
by Genevieve Shanahan | Jan 31, 2017 | News
Meeting of the Minds, an organization that aims to identify and raise the profile of practical innovations in the field of urban sustainability, has published an article explaining the motivation for the Finnish basic income experiment, initiated earlier this month, co-written by one of its designers.
The “stick” mentioned in the article’s title refers to the sanctions claimants face under existing workfare policies, while the “carrot” refers to the fact that the basic income will continue to be paid to study participants even if they take up work or gain income through entrepreneurial endeavours.
The authors explain that the experiment “is designed to reform the Finnish social security system to better correspond to changes in modern working life, to make social security more participatory and diminish work-disincentives, and to reduce bureaucracy and simplify the overly complex benefit system.”
The article is written by Olli Kangas and Heikki Hiilamo. Kangas is Director of Government and Community Relations for Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, and one of the designers of the basic income trial administered by that organization. Hiilamo is a professor of social policy at the University of Helsinki and Kjell Nordstokke Professor at the VID Specialized University in Oslo.
Read the full article here:
Olli Kangas and Heikki Hiilamo, “Universal Basic Income: Does the Carrot Work Better than the Stick?”, Meeting of the Minds, January 25, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Sibelius Monument, Helsinki. CC BY 2.0 Dennis Jarvis
by BIEN | Jan 31, 2017 | News
Credit to Business Insider
According to Chris Weller from Business Insider, Sam Altman, President of Y Combinator (the largest startup accelerator in Silicon Valley), recently voiced some of his doubts regarding people replacing their current work with other meaningful work or activities if given a basic income.
Weller reports Altman puts faith in the provision of free money to make people both healthier and happier, but isn’t betting everything on it.
According to Weller, Altman, and other Y Combinator researchers, will implement an experiment in 2017, located in Oakland, California. It will give 100 families $2,000 per month. It is to test whether free, regular money helps “people escape poverty and live healthier lives,” Weller explains.
According to Weller, experiments, in Kenya and Honduras, show this; both are underdeveloped countries. Some see work for work’s sake as an intrinsic value. Well suggests separation of work from income might not sit well with those people, but might if presented as freedom from hated work.
“Citizens could finally do the work that matters most to them rather than the work that pays the best.” Weller argued.
Read the full article here:
Chris Weller, “One of the biggest VCs in Silicon Valley explains how basic income could fail in America“, Business Insider, December 18th, 2016.
by Guest Contributor | Jan 30, 2017 | Opinion
“The UBI Bait and Switch” by Bruenig, Jauhiainen, and Mäkinen: A Critical Response
By Otto Lehto, political economist, King’s College London; former chairman of BIEN Finland (2015-2016).
A recent article in Jacobin Magazine on the Finnish UBI experiment is mostly an accurate and well-researched piece of journalism. I was especially impressed by its fastidious attention to detail in its account of the timeline of events leading up to the experiment. However, as someone well-acquainted with Finnish UBI experiment, allow me to bring another perspective on the matter. Jacobin Magazine has all the right to be as firebrand leftist as it wants to be. No question, the rhetoric of the commentary is in line with its socialist ethos. But I would just like to point out a few things that are inaccurate or misleading.
I, too, have written about the government’s proposal in harsh and unforgiving tones in the past, so I really can’t fault them for that. The experiment, let us not mince words, is badly mangled, expert advice is ignored or distorted, and the government coalition’s commitment to any form of basic income is half-hearted, with the gracious exception of a few MP’s. The narrow focus on reducing unemployment and increasing workforce incentives is unfortunate. It becomes tragic when one realises that this ideological agenda drowns out the human rights perspective.
But this is where it gets tricky to fully agree with the Jacobin article’s apocalyptic spin. It describes the current experiment as a “UBI-as-workhouse nightmare”. Now hold on a minute. A workhouse is a place where you must work in exchange for basic amenities. This is a preposterous description of the UBI proposals and experiments underway today. Even under the most critical lens, the (partial) UBI model under experimentation in Finland, while obviously targeted too narrowly and with too many exclusions, significantly reduces the “workhouse nightmare” nature of the benefit system.
What are we to make of the conundrum? It would be useful to separate the general political ambitions of the Sipilä government and the UBI experiment itself. The Sipilä government has an admittedly “schizophrenic” attitude towards basic income. While, on the one hand, it is committed to seeing through the UBI experiment, it is simultaneously, via other channels, pushing for stringent workfare conditionality. These draconian practices – nonsense baked in the tears of unemployed people – are truly deplorable, even from the point of view of austerity itself, i.e. even if one believes the anti-Keynesian line that one must balance the budget when national output is down. The proposed and enacted cuts are disproportionately hurting poor people, relative to the cuts affecting the mid income and high income sectors. The richest people have even been given delicious tax cuts, while students, pensioners, sick people, disabled people and others have suffered.
All that is worth criticising. Some other enactments of the government, like drastically deregulating the opening hours of stores, or shaking the stiff and moribund government monopoly on alcohol sales, I personally find most welcome developments. But all things considered, the general direction of the austerity program, and the government’s attitude towards poor people, leaves a lot to be desired. But I would argue that one shouldn’t judge the UBI experiment on this basis.
I will concede that the general ethos of the Sipilä government certainly permeates the parameters of the experiment. The limits of the experiment were decided after the 2015 elections. The result is a predictable beast built upon the sorrowful soil of a Protestant work ethic that fetishises work incentives and bemoans the metaphysical sinfulness of laziness. It involves the misguided and conscious exclusion of people who are either too old or too young, or who are not currently recipients of the mainline unemployment benefit. This distorts the experiment from the start.
But here’s something to consider. The only people for whom the current UBI experiment is a significant welfare-reduction are people who fulfill all of the following criteria: 1) they happen to be long-term unemployed, 2) they happen to be taking part in the UBI lottery and 3) they happen to have received a slightly higher level of benefit from the state in the past. The diversity of benefits in Finland translates to a diversity of levels of income security, with some people relatively well-off while others receiving pennies (if anything at all). The universal UBI level of approximately €560 can be a reduction to people who have received approximately €650 in the past. The UBI is topped off with housing benefits and other types of discretionary benefits. But a few will obviously be net losers in any equalizing scheme. This is understandable. But this hardly qualifies as a “workhouse nightmare.” In fact, the reduction in quantity comes with many obvious upsides that may or may not compensate for the marginal reduction in the absolute level of welfare income for some people.
Even with net-losers mixed in with net-gainers (in a yet-to-be-determined proportion), the proposed UBI model is an improvement over the current system in almost every respect: 1) it is given automatically and without hassle (for the duration of the experiment), 2) it provides a long-term safety net (a steady shower rather than a drizzle of sporadic benefits) and 3) it is not withheld from people who take up part-time or full-time work (thus improving work incentives). I will surely not need to enumerate for my audience the other well-known benefits of a non-utopian UBI system.
In fact, since the tax system hasn’t (yet) been reformed to account for the UBI system, those lucky participants in the experiment who find employment, full-time or part-time, will also gain significantly in terms of post-tax income. To this extent the experiment is arguably too generous. The tax system obviously needs to be reformed as well, since money doesn’t just grow on trees.
But there’s another thing. Some of the aims of the utopian left, as evinced by this piece, are just contradictory or confused. One cannot simultaneously call for more legal power to the unions, in the style of the old corporatist model of the Nordic welfare state, and to call for a truly universal basic income guarantee. This, however, is the paradoxical cry of the Jacobin piece, whose logic I simply cannot comprehend. The power of the unions has been traditionally very strong in Finland. This has meant, e.g., the legally protected collective bargaining of wages and benefits. For all the good this has brought to industry-insiders, this has meant very little for people outside the framework. It has created a natural opposition between “inside” and “outside” groups: the “insiders” being the members of the protection racket of the unions and the employer’s associations, who receive good and generous benefits, while the “outsiders” being all the other people that fall outside the “standard” model of employment. The insiders have received semi-automatic and hassle-free benefits for a long time, while outsiders have suffered from the “workhouse nightmare” of the discretionary welfare bureaucracy. The guarantee of a non-union-based unemployment and sick leave benefit scheme in the form of a UBI naturally chips away at the monopolistic power of unions to determine who deserves what, when and under what conditions. This is a good thing.
Out of the four demons conjured by the authors of the Jacobin article in the concluding paragraph – “forcing unemployed workers into bad jobs while undermining organized labor, earnings equality, and the welfare state” – the first one, about forcing people into bad jobs, is simply false (nobody is forced under the UBI system to accept any bad jobs, either de jure or de facto); the second one, about undermining organized labor, is actually a mixed blessing (since it actually helps “outsiders” gain benefits at a cost to “insiders”); the third one, about earnings equality, is something that the authors give no reason to think is threatened by the experiment (and indeed, it seems like a complete throwaway line); and the fourth point, about undermining the welfare state, is a tad question-begging.
The real question is, which structures should be reformed and which not. The existing welfare state has obviously failed in many ways to provide effective welfare for all people, and it is impossible to reform the system (for the better) without breaking a few eggs.
If the accusation is levelled at the other stuff the Sipilä government is doing, or the broken moral compass of the austerity crowd, the accusation sticks much better. But I have tried to show these should be kept separate. The UBI experiment is, indeed, severely compromised as a result of a confluence of factors. It survives, barely, within narrow ideological bounds. But the important thing is that the experiment tests the waters for a paradigm shift – slowly, ineluctably.
Even a compromised UBI marks a steady improvement over the status quo in almost all conceivable dimensions. And those are just the conceivable dimensions.
Reviewed by Kate McFarland
Photo: Finland’s “frozen waves”, CC BY-ND 2.0 Marjaana Pato
