by Kate McFarland | Nov 11, 2016 | News
The 2016 Global Action Summit, convening November 14-15 in Nashville, Tennessee, will include a panel on issues such as automation, the future of work, and universal basic income.
The annual summit of the Global Action Platform brings together corporate and nonprofit leaders, government officials, academics, and other invited guests for a series of keynote lectures and panel discussions. This year, 400 invited guests will take part in discussions on the theme of “scalable, sustainable solutions for abundant food, health, and prosperity.”
Of particular note to Basic Income News is a panel on the topic “Life in a Post-Employment Society”, whose participants include two prominent figures in the basic income movement (see short video clips below): Jim Pugh, who co-founded the Universal Income Project and The Basic Income Podcast, and freelance UBI writer Scott Santens. Completing the panel are M. Douglas Meeks, Professor of Theology at Vanderbilt University, and Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Tanner has previously expressed skepticism of universal basic income, despite acknowledging potential advantages over the current state. More recently, he moderated a high-profile basic income forum with Charles Murray and Andy Stern.
During this panel, corporate advisor Bob Castro will moderate a discussion of ways in which governments or other institutions can help individuals and society cope with a world with fewer opportunities for employment. Panelists will address such topics as the feasibility of a universal basic income and possibilities for finding personal meaning outside of jobs.
The 2016 Global Action Summit will take place November 14-15 in Nashville, Tennessee, and the “Life in a Post-Employment Society” panel will be held on the afternoon of Monday, November 14.
The conference’s keynote speaker is journalist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria, who will offer a forecast of the effect of the election of US President Donald Trump on food security, health, and prosperity. Zakaria himself recently moderated another high-profile basic income debate, between pro-UBI Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes and anti-UBI New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter.
A complete schedule of other panels and events at the Global Action Summit is available at this page: https://globalactionplatform.org/pages/view/global-action-summit.
Note that registration is open only to participants and invited guests.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY 2.0 Steve Jurvetson
by Kate McFarland | Nov 9, 2016 | News
Social Justice Ireland’s 2016 Social Policy Conference in Dublin will center on the topic of basic income in Ireland and throughout Europe.
Social Justice Ireland, an independent think tank and advocacy organization, hosts an annual Social Policy Conference, which focuses each year on a different issue related to social justice.
Its 2016 conference, which will take place on November 22 in Dublin, is titled “Basic Income: Radical Utopia or Practical Solution?” and will explore current thinking about basic income in both the global and Irish contexts.
Themes to be addressed include:
- The role of basic income with respect to citizenship rights and responsibilities.
- How a basic income provides a route to a “more inclusive, equal, and creative society.”
- The international experience on implementing a basic income, highlighting experiments planned for countries such as Finland and the Netherlands.
- Possibilities for implementing a basic income in Ireland.
2015 SJI Conference, image courtesy of Michelle Murphy
Conference Speakers
The conference will be divided into two main sessions: one on the international state of the basic income movement, with a focus on experiments, and one on the potential for basic income in Ireland.
The first session, on the international context, will bring in researchers and basic income experts from throughout Ireland, the UK, and beyond:
- Anthony Painter – Director of Policy and Strategy at the British think tank RSA (Royal Society of Arts); author of the RSA Basic Income Model.
- Ville-Veikko Pulkka – Researcher at Kela (the Finnish Social Insurance Institution); one of the lead researchers behind Finland’s forthcoming basic income pilot.
- Ronan Lyons – Assistant Professor of Economics at Trinity College Dublin.
- Ursula Barry – Senior Lecturer and Deputy Head of the School of Social Justice at University College Dublin (who has previously presented at events held by Basic Income Ireland).
In the second session, Roisin Mulligan of Basic Income Ireland and Michael Taft of Unite (the UK’s largest trade union, which endorsed basic income in July) will speak about the Irish context, as will multiple members of Social Justice Ireland (Michelle Murphy, Eamon Murphy, Seán Ward, Seán Healy, and Brigid Reynolds).
Social Justice Ireland’s Stance on Basic Income
Social Justice Ireland supports a basic income and is on the steering committee of Basic Income Ireland, BIEN’s Irish affiliate.
The organization elaborates its stance on basic income in its 2015 policy proposal on income distribution (see pp. 68-72), from which the following excerpt was taken:
“As we are proposing it, a basic income system would replace social welfare and income tax credits. It would guarantee an income above the poverty line for everyone. It would not be means tested. There would be no ‘signing on’ and no restrictions or conditions. In practice, a basic income recognises the right of every person to a share of the resources of society.
“The Basic Income system ensures that looking for a paid job and earning an income, or increasing one’s income while in employment, is always worth pursuing, because for every euro earned the person will retain a large part. It thus removes poverty traps and unemployment traps in the present system. Furthermore, women and men would receive equal payments in a basic income system. Consequently the basic income system promotes gender equality because it treats every person equally.
“It is a system that is altogether more secure, rewarding, simple and transparent than the present tax and welfare systems. It is far more employment friendly than the present system. It also respects other forms of work besides paid employment. This is crucial in a world where these benefits need to be recognised and respected. It is also very important in a world where paid employment cannot be permanently guaranteed for everyone seeking it. There is growing pressure and need in Irish society to ensure recognition and monetary reward for unpaid work. Basic income is a transparent, efficient and affordable mechanism for ensuring such recognition and reward” (pp. 69-70).
More Information and Registration
See the website of Social Justice Ireland for more information about the upcoming conference, including schedule details and bios of all speakers:
www.socialjustice.ie/content/civil-society-policy/social-policy-conference-2016.
To register, go here: https://groupvite.io/v/tagqy.
According to the organizers, the conference will interest “policy makers, academics, social justice activists and others interested in looking at innovative ways of creating a more equal, just and fair society.”
Conference details provided by Michelle Murphy of Social Justice Ireland
Cover photo: Lady Justice at Dublin Castle CC BY-NC 2.0 Derek Bruff
by Kate McFarland | Oct 28, 2016 | Research
Earlier in the year, Stewart Lansley (Visiting Fellow at the University of Bristol and at City University) and Howard Reed (Director of Landman Economics) co-authored an extensive report on basic income for the British think tank Compass.
As described in the executive summary, “This paper examines the desirability and feasibility of introducing a universal basic income (UBI) scheme in the UK. It examines the merits of such a scheme, how it might be implemented and what role it might play in the search for a good society, one that is more equal, sustainable and democratic. In particular, it presents the results of a number of simulations of how such a scheme would work in practice, including its cost, distributional impact and feasibility.”
More recently, Lansley and Reed summarized their conclusions and policy recommendations–a gradual and incremental approach to the introduction of a UBI–in an article for the London School of Economics blog.
Read more:
Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed (October 13, 2016) “How to make a Universal Basic Income a reality” LSE blog.
Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed (May 2016) “Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?” Compass.
Also see Tyler Prochazka’s Basic Income News exclusive interview with Lansley about the Compass report.
Image CC BY 2.0 Steven Depolo
by Citizens' Income Trust | Oct 14, 2016 | Opinion
There was an uncanny similarity between two referenda held in June: the UK’s referendum on whether to remain in the European Union, and the Swiss referendum on a Citizen’s Income. In each case, the ballot paper asked a simple question: whether to remain or leave, and whether to establish a Citizen’s or Basic Income – an unconditional income for every Swiss citizen. In the latter case, the wording was explicit that the Swiss federal government was to decide on the level of the Basic Income and on the means of funding it.
And then in both cases the campaigns leading up to the referenda were less about the referenda questions than about very different issues.
In the Swiss case this was largely the fault of the proposers of the referendum question. The wording having carefully left the decision as to the level of the Citizen’s Income to the Swiss government, the campaigners then suggested a level of 2,500 Swiss francs per month – about £400 per week. It was largely this that led to so many members of the Swiss parliament asking people to vote against the proposal; it was the proposed figure that dominated the campaign; and it was the fear of the massive tax increase that would have been needed to fund such a large Citizen’s Income that led to so many people voting against the proposal. All of this could have been avoided quite easily. If the campaigners had wanted to inform the debate about potential levels of Citizen’s Income and possible funding methods then they could have undertaken the kind of careful costing work that we and others have undertaken in the UK. If that had happened, then the government could have made clear the level of Citizen’s Income that they would be likely to agree on if the referendum were to pass, and the debate and the decision might have been rather more rational.
Having said that, the referendum was in many ways a success. The referendum was held; it contributed significantly to media and public interest in Citizen’s Income, both in Switzerland and around the world; and 23% of the Swiss population approved of the idea. The referendum will be seen as an important stage in the Swiss and global Citizen’s Income debates.
In the British case there was always going to be a problem. Public understanding of the European Union is almost non-existent, so the only information that most people had available to them were the halftruths that campaigners on both sides and the press chose to feed to them. Members of the public were told that we could avoid EU workers having the right to live and work in the UK and trade within the single market, even though the European Commission had made it clear that remaining within the single market was conditional upon allowing EU workers to live and work in the UK. Throughout the campaign, leaving the EU was touted as a way of preventing immigration, whereas most immigration is from outside the EU and was therefore nothing to do with the question on the ballot paper.
There are two lessons to draw from these two referenda. One is that referenda are a bad idea in the context of an ill-informed public and a biassed media. The question on the ballot paper might be a simple one, but if it is about a complex reality then even generally well-informed members of the public might have little understanding of the possible consequences of a referendum result – whatever that result might be. In relation to complex issues about which members of the public understand little, representative democracy is the least bad system of government, and it is safer than referenda. It enables proposals informed by a civil service to be debated in a parliament and in committee, to be amended, to be tested in another parliament, and then amended again. Such a method has to be preferable to a one-shot referendum ill-informed by emotive campaigns. This is not to suggest that referenda are never appropriate. If the public is well informed about the issue on the ballot paper, if campaigns are based on evidence, if experts are heard, and if the print and other media see it as their role to educate rather than to persuade, then a referendum has some chance of assessing an informed population’s view on the question on the ballot paper. The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence came closer to this ideal referendum than either the Swiss Basic Income referendum or the recent British referendum on EU membership; and the Swiss Basic Income referendum came closer to it than the British referendum on EU membership. It would take a massive educational effort to enable the UK’s population to gain a sufficient understanding of the desirability and feasibility of a Citizen’s Income to enable it to compare a benefits system based on a Citizen’s Income with the current system. Whether such an educational effort is possible, or such an outcome feasible, must be in doubt: in which case the safer method will be for the institutions of representative democracy – Parliament and the Government – to evaluate the arguments for a Citizen’s Income and to decide in accordance with their findings.
The second lesson to draw is that careful research is essential if any future debate about Citizen’s Income is to be sufficiently well informed. It has been a pleasure to see recent well researched reports from the Royal Society of Arts, the Adam Smith Institute, and Compass, and up to date costings and other statistics relating to a particular illustrative Citizen’s Income scheme have recently been published by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex. We hope soon to be able to publish costings and other information relating to a couple more illustrative schemes, and we also hope to have available soon some information on how a range of typical households’ net incomes would be affected by some illustrative schemes. We would like to see even more research organisations involved in the rigorous testing of the financial feasibilities and consequences of illustrative schemes.
There is a connection between the Swiss and British referenda: EUROMOD, the microsimulation programme that we use to evaluate illustrative Citizen’s Income schemes. The programme’s development is funded by the European Union. We are very much hoping that the UK will continue to be involved in the European collaboration that makes such a useful piece of research infrastructure possible.
Another connection is the one between Citizen’s Income and important factors in the British European Union referendum. Widening inequality and deep social divisions appear to have been important motivations for voting to leave the EU, even though leaving the EU is unlikely to remedy the situation and might even make it worse. A Citizen’s Income would help to reduce inequality and to heal social division. It is therefore essential that widespread informed debate on Citizen’s Income should take place, and that the institutions of representative democracy should decide to implement a Citizen’s Income: perhaps informed by an advisory referendum.
by Tyler Prochazka | Oct 6, 2016 | News
Iceland is poised to elect the Pirate Party as one of the two largest parties in the new parliament. The Cato Institute recently reported that this could be great news for Basic Income advocates.
The Pirate Party introduced a proposal last year to research the feasibility of a basic income as a replacement to the existing welfare system. This proposal falls in line with the Pirate Party’s overall focus on direct democracy and technology.
However, Halldóra Mogensen, Deputy MP of the Pirate Party of Iceland, said in an email exchange with Basic Income News that the Cato Institute “seems to be taking quite a leap.”
“We (the Pirates) have a proposal in the welfare committee proposing that UBI be looked into as a possible substitute to the current welfare programs but that’s the extent of it. Who knows what will happen in the future, but as of now, there are no concrete plans,” Mogenson said.
The Pirate Party is known for pushing for accountability in government and using technology to engage civic society. Iceland’s move toward the Pirate Party coincides with their growing distrust of institutional parties. A basic income could be a mechanism for Iceland to achieve both of the Pirate Party’s goals by reducing bureaucracy and allowing individuals to more freely participate in civic society.
As the Cato Institute notes, the current welfare system in Iceland deters work and a basic income may “reduce these work disincentives” depending on how it is constructed.
