by Kate McFarland | Dec 21, 2016 | News
On November 29 and 30, the White House, the Stanford University Center on Poverty and Inequality, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative co-hosted the Summit on Poverty and Opportunity.
Held at Stanford, the event brought together “275 high-level players in technology, philanthropy, community service, government, and academia” to listen to and participate in a series of panel discussions on social and economic policy and the role of technology and big data.
The conference included a 40-minute panel on “The Future of Jobs and the Question of a Basic Income”:
PANELISTS (from viewer’s left to right)
– Sam Altman, president of the startup incubator Y Combinator, and the initiator of its plan for a basic income experiment. Y Combinator is currently running a pilot study of a basic income in Oakland, with plans for a larger scale experiment in the future.
– Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook and (as of this month) a co-chair of the Economic Security Project, which will be distributing $10 million in grants to support basic income projects in the US.
– Juliana Bidadanure, an assistant professor in Stanford’s Department of Philosophy who specializes in political theory and public policy. Bidadanure will be teaching a graduate seminar on the philosophy of basic income in winter 2017.
Future of work expert Natalie Foster moderated the discussion.
All four participants are supporters of universal basic income.
PANEL OVERVIEW.
Bidadanure, Hughes, and Altman, respectively, begin the panel by describing how they came to interested in basic income and outlining their reasons for supporting such a policy. Following these introductory remarks, discussion turns to past and present basic income experiments: Altman talks about Y Combinator’s newly launched pilot study, Hughes describes the work of the charity GiveDirectly, and Bidadanure lays out the results of past experiments in Manitoba, Namibia, and India. Altman additionally stresses the ability of a basic income to alleviate financial anxiety for people who currently live paycheck to paycheck. Finally, panelists present their thoughts on the question of how to finance a basic income. Due to concerns about feasibility, Hughes proposes beginning with a small basic income of $100 or $200 per month; Bidadanure and Altman, however, raise concerns with the implementation of a basic income that is it not sufficiently large to allow for freedom and security.
Additional press on the Summit on Poverty and Opportunity:
Nitasha Tiku, “Stanford, The White House, And Tech Bigwigs Will Host A Summit On Poverty”, BuzzFeed News, November 28, 2016.
Reviewed by Jenna van Draanen
Photo (Stanford University) CC BY 2.0 Robbie Shade
by Kate McFarland | Dec 13, 2016 | Opinion
This fall, BIEN celebrated 30th anniversary of its founding. Video recordings of its founders’ reunion are available online.
On October 1, several founding members and other past and present BIEN leaders — comprising three generations of basic income advocates — united at the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium for a conference held in commemoration of the occasion in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of UCLouvain’s Hoover Chair of economic and social ethics and the retirement of BIEN cofounder Philippe van Parijs as its director. (See also a Basic Income News interview in which Philippe discusses the past, present, and future of BIEN.)
Reflecting on the event and the history of BIEN, Belgian entrepreneur and long-time basic income advocate Roland Duchâtelet said:
What impresses me most is that during the 30 years of BIEN many different personalities expressed many different views regarding UBI models, implementation, and the way the organisation should behave… and yet, I do not believe there have been any defectors. Moreover, despite the highly diverse background of the members and their desire to succeed, the organisation managed to keep its harmony.
To me this was the prevailing feeling of the 30th anniversary event: we are a (strong) group of friends.
Roland Duchatelet (credit: Enno Schmidt)
For Jose Luis Rey Pérez (Adjunct Professor of Philosophy of Law at Universidad Pontificia Comillas in Madrid), BIEN’s 30th anniversary event rekindled memories of studying with van Parijs and others at UCL years earlier:
I was in Chair Hoover [in UCL] two months in April and May 2003, while I was writing my PhD. I learnt a lot from Philippe van Parijs during that time, and I had the opportunity to read everything that was published about basic income in that time. (In those years where books and articles were not on internet like now.) I had also the opportunity to share coffees, time and discussions with Axel Gosseries, Hervois Portouis, Yannick Vanderborght, Jurgen De Wispelaere and Myron Frankman who were in the Chair at that time.
It was nice, 13 years later, to listen and learn again from some authors that I have studied deeply. I wish Philippe a very rich retirement. I know that he will continue through his conferences, books and articles to enrich the philosophical thought. We have a lot of things to learn from him yet. Because he is one of the best philosophers of this XXI century.
Two other attendees, Bonno Pel and Julia Backhaus of the TRANsformative Social Innovation Theory (TRANSIT) research project, have written an extended feature article on the event (“BIEN Celebrates Thirty Years: Basic income, a utopia for our times?“), looking at the 2016 UCL event as a reflection of (a photo of) the founding meeting in 1986.
Video Footage
Belgian filmmaker Steven Janssens videotaped six conference sessions: (1) BIEN’s improvised birth, (2) Basic income implemented in the short and the long run (note: a parallel session on the history of basic income was not recorded), (3) Lessons from the Swiss referendum, (4) Promises and limits of past and future experiments, (5) Moving forward, (6) Final reflections.
(Janssens is also the driving force behind the documentary about a basic income pilot in a Ugandan village, with a planned launch date of October 2018.)
1. BIEN’s Improvised Birth: Testimonies by Some Co-founders
Featuring Philippe van Parijs, Paul-Marie Boulanger, Annie Miller, Guy Standing, Claus Offe, and Robert van der Veen.
https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference1
2. Basic Income Implemented in the Short and the Long Run
Featuring Philippe Defeyt (“An income-tax-funded basic income of EUR 600”), David Rosseels (“A micro-tax on electronic payments”), and Karl Widerquist (“Sovereign funds and basic income”).
https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference2
3. Lessons from the Swiss Referendum
Featuring Nenad Stojanovic and Enno Schmidt.
https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference3
4. Promises and Limits of Past and Future Experiments
Featuring Yannick Vanderborght (overview), Guy Standing (on India), Jurgen De Wispelaere (on Finland), Alexander de Roo (on The Netherlands).
https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference4
5. Moving Forward
Featuring Louise Haagh, Stanislas Jourdan, Roland Duchatelet, Yasmine Kherbache.
https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference5
6. Final Reflections
Featuring Claus Offe, Gérard Roland, Joshua Cohen, Erik O. Wright.
https://vimeo.com/eight8/bienconference6
Reviewed by Tyler Prochazka.
Cover Photo: BIEN’s 30th anniversary renunion , credit Enno Schmidt.
by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 12, 2016 | Opinion
This week, I had the opportunity to be a guest on New York University’s Students for Criminal Justice Reform podcast. I spoke with Thurston Powers about the positive effects a basic income may have on American society.
One overlooked potential benefit is the effect of basic income on crime rates. I noted that a basic income could create more stable households and increase the likelihood of parents spending time with their children. Unstable and low-income households are linked with creating long-term issues for children that grow up in these situations. The fact that crime could be higher due to these circumstances speaks volumes about how important it is for families to have access to an income that can help them provide for their children without them having to consistently work to keep a roof over their heads. Crime happens all the time, and the use of firms such as Salwin Law Group, as well as similar other legal representation, may be used to show evidence on how financial issues have provided this base for criminal activity, not as an excuse but as a show of how the system needs to change to help people in these situations.
Those that critically point out single mothers work slightly less under a basic income do not understand this is probably a good thing. Considering it is single mothers in the data that show reduced work hours, it is likely they are spending their extra time raising their child. In the long-run, raising a well-adjusted adult will produce social and economic dividends.
In fact, research shows that basic income experiments have resulted in increased social cohesion. Studies have shown increased school attendance after the introduction of a basic income-type grant. In Namibia, there was about a 40 percent drop in crime in areas where the basic income was introduced.
While it is highly probable the basic income would improve some of the factors that lead to crime, I said in the podcast there is virtually no chance a basic income could increase crime. Frankly, the conservative narrative surrounding welfare is just not true.
The problem is not that welfare recipients become lazy, it is that the structure of welfare can discourage work. This is because welfare benefits diminish sharply as low-income individuals improve their wages — which is precisely why a basic income is more effective.
I also noted that most research demonstrates that overall people will not work less, and in some cases may work more if it benefits them, under a basic income. For libertarians that are interested in creating an effective solution to deal with the upcoming wave of automation, a basic income is the most efficient answer.
Listen to the full podcast below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW6KgITEdT0&feature=share
by Kate McFarland | Dec 11, 2016 | News
Entrepreneur Gary Fowler has written a guest column for the San Francisco tech zine VentureBeat in which he argues that universal basic income is a viable solution for technological unemployment and that, rather than making people lazy, it would permit the flourishing of human creativity.
After considering the capacity of AI technologies to reduce the need for human labor, and reflecting on the results of basic income trials and psychological studies of motivation, Fowler asserts that people will not become lazy and uncreative “if robots take our jobs and the government gives us a universal basic income.” He goes on to hypothesize that UBI could “lead to a decrease in unemployment as people work towards achieving their needs beyond physiological requirements.”
Fowler is the CEO and cofounder of Findo, a search assistant program, and the founder of Fowler International, an international business development consulting company. His VentureBeat draws from his experience with smart search assistants; in predicting the future of work, he envisions a society in which AI assistants look after individuals’ day-to-day needs.
Gary Fowler (November 6, 2016) “Universal basic income: If a robot takes your job, it could actually be good for you” VentureBeat.
Basic Income Fact-Checking.
It is worth clarifying a couple of ambiguous statements that Fowler makes about basic income pilots.
• Fowler writes, “Finland, for example has initiated a two-year trial period where each individual will get $600 a month as basic income.” To be precise, the two-year trial will only select participants from a subset of the population of working-age adults currently receiving social welfare benefits (see, e.g., “Legislation for Basic Income Experiment Underway“).
• The pilot in Namibia to which Fowler refers was not nationwide (as Fowler’s comment might suggest) but confined to the village of Otjivero. Additionally, it was administered by the Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition — a coalition of organizations including NGOs, churches, and unions that has committed to work with the Namibian government — rather than the government itself. (See the BIG Coalition for more information.)
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
by Kate McFarland | Dec 10, 2016 | News
The charity GiveDirectly, which is now preparing to launch a large-scale basic income experiment in Kenya, has been giving direct cash donations to poor individuals in Kenya and Uganda since 2009. Now donors and other interested parties will be better able to observe the effects of these cash transfers: in November 2016, GiveDirectly launched a new website, GDLive, which reports live and unedited updates from donation recipients.
As GiveDirectly explains in a blog post, “With GDLive, donors can see when (to the hour), how much, and to whom cash transfers were sent, and learn more about recipients’ lives. Respect also means a commitment to honesty: We aren’t cutting a single recipient’s answers and we’ll show everything they have to say about how GiveDirectly has impacted their lives: the good stories and the bad. We encourage recipients to be as honest as possible.”
To protect privacy, GDLive does not publish individuals’ last names or specific villages. The organization also gathers consent from recipients at multiple stages before publishing their testimonies.
In 2016, about 6500 households in Kenya received cash through GiveDirectly. As of October 19, GiveDirectly reports, about two-thirds consented to sharing their stories on GDLive.
Follow GDLive at live.givedirectly.org.
See also:
Michael Cooke (November 22, 2016) “Human stories are not the opposite of data” GD blog.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo of GiveDirectly recipient, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 PROcoolloud
