by Andre Coelho | Feb 24, 2016 | News
Last week, an important conference was held in Lisbon focused on basic income (BI) and its implications. Although similar initiatives have occurred in Portugal in the past, this was the first conference of its scale; it brought together national and international speakers, received a large amount of media attention and was organized by multiple partnering organizations: Grupo de Estudos Políticos, the political party PAN (Pessoas, Animais e Natureza), Movimento Rendimento Básico Incondicional – Portugal, Grupo de Teoria Política – CEHUM, and IHC (Instituto de História Contemporânea). This initiative accompanies PAN’s intention to propose, in parliament, a countrywide BI feasibility study.
The conference spanned two days, the 15th and 16th of February, and drew an audience of around 100 people.
The first day’s session, held in a conference room at the parliament building, was chaired by PAN’s Jorge Silva and presented keynote speakers such as Amílcar Moreira, Jurgen De Wispelaere, Roberto Merrill, Sjir Hoeijmakers, Pedro Teixeira and Miguel Horta. It also included the presence of political party representatives Ivan Gonçalves (PS), Ricardo Moreira (Bloco de Esquerda) and Miguel Santos (PAN).
Jorge Silva. Credit to: Luís Gaspar
Roberto Merrill opened up the session, presenting a theoretical framework for basic income: pre-distribution (instead of redistribution). According to his research, social problems do not derive from the lack of jobs but from restrictions in access to resources. He also listed a range of authors and most prominent publications on the subject.
Jurgen De Wispelaere’s presentation focused on the Finnish BI experiment, which is planned to begin next year. This two-year experiment is aimed at assessing the ability of BI to eliminate the poverty trap and reduce complexity, bureaucracy and costs in social security. According to Jurgen, the fundamental reasons to experiment with BI are to demonstrate its potential, raise awareness and build a political coalition. Finland’s experiment will necessarily have shortcomings, such as its limited duration, sample size and resources, but it nevertheless can be used to study a wide array of effects, such as popular opinion and preferences and the impact of a BI on labor markets, social security and poverty.
The next speaker, Sjir Hoeijmakers, presented the municipal experiments in the Netherlands, which are expected to start by late 2016 or early 2017 and involve at least 90 municipalities. Although there are around 300 municipalities in the Netherlands, the 90 that have already agreed to participate in the study represent more than 50% of the country’s population; thus, there seems to be a strong public support for these initiatives. In his talk, Sjir described the main worries that prompted the experiments: technology replacing jobs, and the complexity, conditionality and lack of freedom under the traditional social security system.
Jurgen De Wispelaere. Credit to: Luís Gaspar.
Amílcar Moreira and Pedro Teixeira presented more cautious views regarding basic income, although both were generally supportive. Amílcar warned that Portuguese social politics have historically been very conservative and favorable to the establishment of conditions on social security. Pedro presented a model for financing a basic income of 200 €/month, which he considers politically easier to implement than higher-valued BI proposals. He warned, however, that there would be a need to finance a BI through taxes other than labor (e.g., taxes on property, natural resources and pollution), since labor taxes are already imposing too much stress on the middle class.
The last keynote speaker of the day, Miguel Horta, presented his BI study, according to which higher redistributions occur with higher income inequality. In his model, which is self-balanced and budget neutral, a 50% tax on labor income can finance a 435 €/month BI in Portugal, with 25% of it given to children up to 18 years old. The current labor tax would be replaced, and a few social security programs would be rendered irrelevant, which would leave the fund for a BI only 2200 M € short. Miguel reasoned that this relatively small amount could be obtained from savings in health, security, very high pensions (caps), tightened fiscal collection on high incomes and reduced costs associated with bureaucracy.
After the last keynote address, the audience had time to interact with the speakers, and the political party representatives presented their views on BI. Among the political party representative, Ricardo Moreira of the left-wing party Bloco de Esquerda was the only to clearly oppose BI. Ricardo views BI as a right-wing tool to wipe out the welfare state.
Miguel Horta. Credit to: Luís Gaspar.
On the second day of the conference discussion continued at the FCSH university campus, with authors André Barata and Renato Carmo presenting their arguments for BI. Renato suggested that an exclusively national attempt to implement BI is too difficult, however, and instead recommended an approach like that proposed by Van Parijs, who calls for an European dividend. José Neves also defended BI, while cautioning activists to avoid purely cost/benefit logic, as if BI were a simple matter of arithmetic. He also called for a wider trust network in society, which comes when one considers every member of society as potentially creative and productive. Mariana Duarte Silva, an arts and co-work manager in Lisboa, also presented her arguments for BI, focusing on its universal nature, although admitted that she learned of the concept only when she was invited to this conference. Another newcomer to the BI discussion was workers’ and women’s activist Lina Lopes, from the union UGT, who found the concept interesting and promising. Lina suggested that BI could start out as a distribution to caretakers (the majority of which are women).
José Augusto Oliveira, representing the workers union CGTP, presented an opposing view of BI. Like Ricardo Moreira, José Augusto adheres to a full-employment ideal and believes that BI would effectively subsidize sloth. António Dores used his speaking opportunity to challenge the way in which social NGOs are managed at present: hostage to conditional financing schemes, which end up wrapped in dubious financial practices if not blatant corruption. Dores also denounced the precarious work conditions within these NGOs, concluding that BI would revitalize NGOs and provide dignity to a host of volunteers who participate in these organizations.
João José Fernandes, CEO of the Portuguese NGO Oikos, delivered an interesting and timely presentation on food (in)security, the main reason the national health service in Portugal is presently under tremendous stress. It turns out, according to Fernandes, that food intake problems are correlated with unemployment, most notably with insufficient income. This trend is aggravated by low levels of education. Fernandes pointed out that, for an average Portuguese adult, the minimum income for maintaining a healthy diet is around 200 €/month. He argued that any BI proposal must take this into account, and that the amount of the basic income must be adequate to cover a healthy diet, in addition to other basic necessities.
Three final presentations were given by Glória Fonseca, from Movimento de Trabalhadores Cristãos (Christian Workers Movement), robotics specialist and BI activist Dario Figueira, and Jurgen De Wispelaere. Glória focused on the natural link between Christian values and BI. Dario reviewed BI pilot studies worldwide, presenting their main results. Finally, Jurgen spoke on political feasibility and challenges; he surveyed the political obstacles to BI implementation, and recommending caution and clear-sightedness at every step of the way.
Throughout the entire conference, the audience was very active in questioning the authors and speakers, generating a healthy and useful debate about many facets of BI. The event was closely covered by the media, who interviewed for SIC Notícias TV André Silva from PAN and some of the main speakers for publication in newspapers and magazines. (See the list of publications below.)
Conference room at Portuguese Parliament. Credit to: Luís Gaspar.
More information at:
Language: Portuguese
Sofia Rodrigues, “PAN vai propor estudo sobre atribuição do Rendimento Básico Incondicional [PAN is proposing a study on Basic Income]“, Público online, 15th February, 2016
Sábado Magazine, Entrevista a Jurgen De Wispelaere [Interview with Jurgen De Wispelaere], 18th February, 2016
Paulo Chitas, “Especialista defende que o rendimento básico não promove a inatividade [Specialist defends that the Basic Income does not promote inactivity]“, Visão Magazine online, 15th February, 2016
Maria João Lopes, “E se tivéssemos direito a um rendimento só por nascermos [What if we were entitled to an income just for being born?]“, Público online, 15th February, 2016 (interview with Jorge Silva)
Maria João Lopes, “Com um RBI, há mais liberdade para ter um trabalho, remunerado ou não [With a Basic Income there is greater freedom to work, getting paid or not]“, Público online, 15th February, 2016 (interview with Roberto Merrill)
Movimento Rendimento Básico – Portugal website.
Political party PAN – political priorities.
by Marc de Basquiat | Feb 1, 2016 | Opinion
Multiple surveys across many countries show an increasing support for the idea of providing every citizen with a monthly lump-sum allowance to ensure everyone can meet their basic subsistence needs. In France, the IFOP (a leading French national market research institute) has shown that this support goes beyond political orientation divisions. From the question: “Are you in favour of implementing a guaranteed basic income for all citizens which would replace most existing allowances?” came a positive answer, depending on the degree of support for one party or another, from 72% to 79% for left wing sympathizers and from 50% to 54% for right wing sympathizers.
However, what would an unconditional basic income in France look like in concrete terms?
The Finland experiment
Since the election in April of the Finnish pro-basic income coalition, the topic has given rise to renewed international interest. All started when the Prime Minister of Finland Juha Sipilä announced the launch of a series of pilots, the most important being a “universal basic income” [1], in order to reform the social security system in response to the evolution of the labour market. This will also allow the evaluation of how to reinforce autonomy and incentives to work, as well as reducing bureaucracy and the complexity inherent in accessing social assistance.
The lead role in this project has been given to professor Olli Kangas (KELA) who has outlined the following schedule[2]: preparation phase from December 5th, 2015 to November 15th, 2016; two-year experimentation starting in 2017; evaluation in 2019.
Olli Kangas explained that the work group will evaluate at least four options:
- a “full basic income” (~800 €) replacing almost all basic and insurance-based benefits;
- a “partial basic income” (~550 €) replacing all basic benefits but leaving intact almost all insurance-based benefits;
- a negative income tax in which benefits would phase out as people earn more money;
- miscellaneous other approaches including a universal income and additional components.
Everyone who has recognised the need for major reforms of our social protection mechanisms perceives the announcement of the Finish pilot as an opportunity. However, we need to give time to our Finnish friends for their project to mature.
Which options are possible in France?
The Association for the Introduction of an Existence Income (AIRE) has been working on these questions since 1989, gathering studies and proposals from numerous experts, philosophers, economists, sociologists, politicians, etc. The French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB) created in 2013 involves activists from a wide variety of backgrounds, leading actions through the country and enriching proposals by bringing together citizen experiences from the grass-roots[3].
Despite apparent simplicity, an unconditional basic income would require a series of structural choices. Precise adjustment of the parameters would need to be made in order to ensure it performs optimally in terms of justice and efficiency. Considering the vast number of options, it would be fallacious to believe that there is an ideal solution. Actually several options that must be weighted by parliamentary and experts in order to create a consensus that is adapted to the reality of our country.
Our experience leads us to recommend a universal income that would vary based on the beneficiary’s age. In particular the case for children should be processed separately, which means organizing an in-depth discussion about the French family assistance policy. This means replacing all or part of the actual eight allowances[4] by a lump-sum for each child. A key stake is to eliminate the high variability of the State grants according to the child’s rank within the family, the matrimonial status of the parents or the parent’s income (knowing that a single child of a middle-income level couple currently receives a remarkably low grant). The potential variation of the universal income amount according to child age (3, 14, 18 year old thresholds) must also be further investigated.
Similarly a discussion is needed regarding senior citizens. The question of incentive to work disappears with the elderly, but the dependency issue arises. Do we need to define a higher amount above 65 years old? How should the matrimonial life conditions be integrated? The ASPA[5] level (800 € for a single person, 1242 € for a couple) gives an indication but not a clear answer on the solution to be implemented.
The coordination with housing allowances constitutes a third theme to be carefully analysed. Acknowledging the inflationary effect of housing allowances (APL) on the rental market price, some politicians and economists[6] are investigating the potential effects of merging the APL and the RSA[7]. As the AIRE association is attached to the Tinbergen rule[8], we are highly reluctant to support this proposal, but the underlying issues must nonetheless be addressed. In any case, it is important to revisit conditionality links between several allowances and the housing grant, in particular the existence of a problematic “housing lump-sum” component within the RSA.
The last framing issue is to define the scope of beneficiaries for a “universal income”. Despite this designation, it is necessary to limit eligibility to a national community. This needs to be defined in terms of residence and/or nationality, probably through continuity of the rules applying today for the RSA beneficiaries. However, this still creates a variety of fundamental questions, for example the potential right to the universal income for prisoners or asylum seekers (currently receiving the ATA[9]).
Three scenarios for a universal basic income for “active age” adults
Similarly to the Finnish approach, we identify three quite different scenarios to defining a universal basic income that would be paid to any adult in France.
- Baseline: extend the distribution of the “RSA single person allowance” to the whole country population (excluding the housing lump-sum component), being 470 € by month in 2016, financed by a flat tax system replacing several current basic social and family allowances as well as tax mechanisms.
- Maximised: distribute equally to the whole population the entirety of the social protection budget, including pensions and unemployment benefit. This would mean about 800 € per month.
- Dynamic: delete all employment incentives to companies and allowing a massive flexibility improvement in terms of minimum salary, in order to finance a basic income ranging between 500 € and 550 € by month. This would also replace a major part of the social and tax mechanisms but leave intact all insurance-based benefits.
The financial feasibility of scenario A is proven and it does not lead to a large upheaval of the redistribution operating in France. It allows a massive simplification of the social and tax systems, facilitating the daily life of the population and reducing operational costs. This scenario, like the following ones, eliminates many inconsistencies, iniquities, and numerous more-or-less known perverse effects. In terms of microeconomic analysis, it implies a massive evolution neither by an income effect nor by a substitution effect, unlike the other scenarios. However, when it comes to tax in france for non residents, one may have to pay tax on income that comes from French sources. In other words, if you work for a French company, even if you do not reside permanently in France, the income you earn will be taxed.
Scenario B designates the losers: those who contributed all along with their life for pensions and unemployment benefits and who would be left without those related benefits. Neither the AIRE nor the MFRB association support this scenario. Such an approach – if it proves to be meaningful – could be considered only through a very long migration phase from one system to another. This would need to be built cautiously, with the implication of the labor unions. Besides, the high level of the benefit leads to a high income effect, many people being possibly satisfied by this amount without seeking a complementary paid activity. The substitution effect contributes on the same way, due to the high level of contribution necessary to finance it.
Scenario C is probably the most audacious challenge, by lightening massively legal constrains framing the labour market, leaving it up to individual and collective negotiations. Citizens with better secured economic status are then on a better position to decide whether to accept or not professional opportunity offers, or to create their own activity by minimising their personal and family risks. The micro-economic analysis is more ambiguous, the income effect being stronger than in scenario A and on the contrary the substitution effect encouraging the activity thanks to a higher flexibility of the labour market.
Of course, the consensus that will emerge from a parliamentary work gathering representatives of all parties and the support of experts from diverse fields could finally be a combination of those three scenarios with potential integration of others approaches. In any case, no option presented in this note should be excluded without in-depth investigation.
Special thanks to Xuan-Mai Kempf for translating the text from French.
ENDNOTES
[1] https://www.kela.fi/web/en/press-releases/-/asset_publisher/LgL2IQBbkg98/content/universal-basic-income-options-to-be-weighed?_101_INSTANCE_LgL2IQBbkg98_redirect=%2Fweb%2Fen%2Fpress-releases
[2] https://www.vox.com/2015/12/8/9872554/finland-basic-income-experiment
[3] Some discussion papers from the field can be tough however well documented. For instance, in order to rebel against the home control by the family assistance administration: https://www.lesenrages.antifa-net.fr/la-caf-contre-les-femmes/
[4] Family allowances, premium for age, family complement for 3 children, basic allowance for child under three, school yearly allowance, RSA increase for each child, income tax reduction according to the number of children, tax reduction for child schooling.
[5] Solidarity allowance for elderly persons.
[6] Cf. the « Unique social allowance » of François Fillon or the IPP report: https://www.ipp.eu/publication/juin-2015-reformer-les-aides-personnelles-au-logement/
[7] RSA: Revenu de Solidarité Active, is the main French allowance providing a minimum guaranteed revenue.
[8] Based on the name of the first Nobel Prize for Economics winner, Jan Tinbergen, a supporter of an unconditional basic income, who stipulated that for each policy objective, one policy instrument is needed, and one only.
[9] Allocation Temporaire d’Attente.
by Stanislas Jourdan | Jan 26, 2016 | News
Basic income continues to make headway in France after the Minister of Economy and the Minister for Digital Affairs sent positive messages about it.
Interviewed in the popular radio and TV show Bourdin Direct, Emmanuel Macron, the French Minister for Economy, said he believed in the principles behind basic income and thought the topic deserved to be investigated further:
“Basic income is an interesting idea. The debate shouldn’t only be about being pro or against, but I think it’s an idea we should investigate further. Why? Because it means giving the possibility to everyone to have a starting point in life. This is the idea of basic income. There is also the idea of having a basic capital [a one-off payment given to everyone] for all persons of a certain age.”
He went on:
“Ultimately, it refers to what philosophy we have of our society. Personally I believe in freedom, I believe in openness (…) I think the role of the state is to recreate conditions of equality at every moment in one’s life: at school, when starting one’s professional life, and when life accidents occur, through social standards and social benefits and education policy for unemployed persons (…). But I don’t believe in egalitarianism, rather I believe in equal opportunities; and the idea of basic income or basic capital for all goes in this direction and I’m interested in this.”
The interview was broadcasted live on January 20, you can listen to the extract about basic income below:
“Basic income is following the natural course of history”
The night before however, the French National Assembly had rejected several amendments calling on the government to carry out a comprehensive study on basic income to assess its feasibility and explore different ways to implement it.
The amendments were championed by Socialist MP Delphine Batho and her Republican colleague Frédéric Lefebvre in the context of a current bill on so-called ‘Digital Republic’, and were meant as a follow-up of the release of an important report on the transformations of work in the digital era.
The night just before the French National Assembly rejected the amendments by only one vote. However Luc Belot, rapporteur of the bill, and Axelle Lemaire, Minister for Digital Affairs, said they were open to the idea.
“The idea is very seductive and could find consensus across all political parties – as long as we don’t go into the details” said the Minister. “In reality this sort of unique safety floor could lead to removing many benefits such as student grants, family and housing benefits and others. On the other hand, one may also consider the possibility that basic income could complement other social benefit schemes. The debate is infinite. You are right to raise this question, and to do that today. In fact, this subject is definitely following the natural course of history.”
However, both the Minister and rapporteur called on the MPs to reject the amendments on the ground that the topic fell outside of the focus of the bill being discussed. They invited MPs to include basic income into the work of another parliamentary working commission led by Christophe Sirugue, which has been tasked to produce a comprehensive review of the welfare system.
The French Movement for Basic income (MFRB) has been asked to contribute to the commission’s work. “We are currently working on providing concrete proposals to pave the way towards basic income” said researcher and MFRB member Jean-Éric Hyafil.
Credit picture CC École Polytechnique
by Stanislas Jourdan | Jan 22, 2016 | News
British Member of Parliament Caroline Lucas, the only Green Party representative, tabled a motion which calls on the Government to commission research into basic income models. Now an unprecedented level of support is required to make it successful.
On Wednesday 20, MP Caroline Lucas tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) “calling on the Government to fund and commission further research into the possibilities offered by the various Basic Income models, their feasibility, their potential to guarantee additional help for those who need it most, and how the complex economic and social challenges of introducing a Basic Income might be met.”
The EDM justifies the need for basic income by castigating the “evident inability of our bureaucratically costly social security system, with its dependence on means-testing and often arbitrary sanctions, to provide an adequate income floor.”
The motion goes on: “Basic Income, an unconditional, non-withdrawable income paid to everyone, has the potential to offer genuine social security to all while boosting entrepreneurialism and the creation of small businesses.”
Uncertain success
This is the first time that such a motion has been submitted to Parliament, and its potential for success in uncertain. Under the UK’s Parliamentary procedure, MPs can submit so-called Early Day Motions to provoke a debate in the House of Commons, but they need significant support from other MPs to win a full debate.
In practice, very few motions actually get debated in Parliament even if they do attract wide support, although they may contribute to triggering public interest and debate in the media. And even if an EDM does get a debate, legislation does not automatically follow. It can be, however, a very good way to test support for potential legislation.
The Green Party of England and Wales adopted basic income as a party policy last year, ahead of the last general election in May 2015. However Caroline Lucas herself, the only Green Party MP, was not very enthusiastic about the idea at the time, referring to it as “a longer term aspiration” rather than a strong electoral commitment.
The sight of how her constituents in Brighton are suffering due to increasing cuts in welfare benefits, and the arbitrary way sanctions are applied, seemed to have convinced her to fully back the policy.
“I’m not for a second pretending that shifting to basic income would be simple. But with a rapidly changing economy the Government should be urgently exploring ways to offer people the security they need. I hope that MPs from across the House of Commons will join me in calling for more research into this bold new policy,” Lucas said to the Independent.
An interesting challenge for the movement
Indeed Caroline Lucas’ motion will need unprecedented support in the political establishment to get a Parliamentary debate. As the UK Parliament website explains, “In an average session only six or seven EDMs reach over two hundred signatures. Around seventy or eighty get over one hundred signatures. The majority will attract only one or two signatures.” And even if there is wide support for the motion, a chamber debate is not guaranteed.
So far the motion has already been supported by 8 other MPs, 7 Scottish National Party members and one Labour MP.
Following international developments in Finland, Netherlands and Switzerland, the idea was recently endorsed by two prominent British think tanks, the Royal Society of Arts and Nesta. This triggered an unprecedented wave of media attention and the idea has started to gain credibility in British public opinion. This EDM is a great opportunity to gather wider support.
UK Parliamentary picture is reproduced with the permission of Parliament.
by Will Wachtmeister | Jan 15, 2016 | Opinion
Malcolm Torry, 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income, Policy Press, 2015, xvi + 120pp.
Finding 101 reasons in favour of a Citizen’s Income and then condensing them into a lucid, concise book is probably a lot harder than Malcolm Torry has made it look in this readable and compact collection. 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income is a book packed with easy-to-grasp arguments written with clarity from an elegantly simple, practical point of view.
In a way, this is the type of book you would hope for from the director of the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust, a London-based organisation that promotes debate on the desirability and feasibility of a basic Income, and a BIEN affiliate. Torry keeps it mercifully short – just 120 small pages in total – which is clearly a good way of attracting new, curious readers. Showcasing a complete command of the finer points of the UK’s benefits system, the book’s approach also takes care to appeal to people of diverse political convictions. As a result, this is an excellent introduction for the great number of people who have never even heard of Citizen’s Income, and especially for those newcomers who are already interested in UK social policy.
Torry clearly has the sort of wide repertoire of arguments and skilful presentation that you would expect from someone who is both the current director of the UK Citizen’s Income Trust and an academic at the London School of Economics. Perhaps more tantalizingly for more seasoned Citizen’s Income fans, the author has also experienced the byzantine and counterproductive deadweight of UK social policy from what might have been the best (or worst) seat in the house, the Benefits Office in Brixton in the late seventies.
About this (and other matters) Torry shows a mature restraint, and the book is a far cry from the ranting and raving that this type of professional experience would have induced in other human beings (myself included). It is actually when Torry looks back on his personal experience that he serves up some of the book’s choicest nuggets. At one point he states, as a matter of blunt fact, that whilst working at the Brixton Supplementary Benefit Office “the claimants didn’t understand the regulations, and neither did we.” Deadpan aperçus and reminiscences add a little human interest and colour, and try not being moved – or get mad – by an officer who mutters over his casework “a man leaving, another coming, and then another – and with which of the two is she cohabiting, and who is the lodger?”
Citizen’s Income Trust director Malcolm Torry showcases a complete command of UK social policy (picture: Citizen’s Income Trust)
Otherwise, this is mainly a patient demolition of every defence that could conceivably be mounted of the current UK benefit system. Torry confidently shows that even if the UK system is given the benefit of the doubt at every step, there ultimately can be no justification for a bureaucratic machine that unnecessarily traps – and then horribly stigmatizes – people in poverty and unemployment. He also demonstrates clearly why a Citizen’s Income could solve the overwhelming majority of problems with the current system – especially the perverse work disincentives of means-tested benefits which, contrary to their trumpeted aim, penalise people in many different ways for finding and taking paid work. Presenting Citizen’s Income as the obvious alternative to the UK’s hopelessly unfair and ineffective benefits system is the book’s main point, and Torry makes it with brilliant lucidity and concision.
Elsewhere, Torry also pulls off the feat of invoking Kant’s categorical imperative and Rawls’ veil of ignorance without it seeming forced, weird or pretentious. Personally, I am grateful that the book manages to explain, where others including UK ministers have failed, the UK government’s Universal Credit reform in just a few sentences (spoiler alert: the Universal Credit is “neither universal, nor a credit”). Throughout, British party-political traditions and the sausage factory of Westminster policymaking are very well summarized – despite the book by its nature having little space available for context – as are the ways Citizen’s Income would fit into the wider political picture.
An added bonus is that Torry – bravely but necessarily – at certain points ventures into the uncomfortable tribulations around the resurgence of aggressive European nationalisms and immigration problems. He does so by arguing for the necessity of the social cohesion and the new sense of citizenship that a Citizen’s Income would generate. This is an argument urgently worth debating more extensively, given how much is now at stake in contemporary Europe.
The basic income movement is already a broad church, and a very diverse set of people need to continue to come on board if the policy is to become reality. One of the book’s great strengths is that it is designed to appeal to a wide range of people. From this point of view, it is interesting – and, in my view, somewhat problematic – that the book takes a scattered approach to the topic of innovation; surely, innovation is almost per definition something that everyone finds at least in principle desirable.
Rather than selecting as one of the 101 Reasons something along the lines of “A Citizen’s Income would set free innovation for the common good”, the book mentions innovation in several important but different ways. It offers crucial but somewhat isolated statements like “New software companies have the flexibility to innovate in ways in which the well-established companies cannot”, which is included in the section called “A Citizen’s Income would encourage new enterprise”. It also puts forward an in my view absolutely crucial – but again too isolated – observation that corporations disproportionately reap the rewards of innovation without reinvesting the proceeds: “The gap between wages and the proceeds of productivity is increasing. Less of the proceeds from production is now recycled back into industry via wages and consumption”. Elsewhere, Torry describes the world as having “economies in which innovation and automation are the norms” and being in need of Citizen’s Income to manage the upheaval.
Yet it is in the realm of lack of innovation, in the section called “Basic Income would break a logjam”, that we find what I think is the book’s most memorable passage. Torry describes how the world has today reached one of its periodic crises and is crying out for breakthrough innovation: “technology lying idle, human creativity frustrated, wealth flowing from poor to rich, and finite resources uncontrollably exploited … we are still waiting for the next new key concept. A Citizen’s Income might be just what is required.” In the same section, he describes the “key concept”: the breakthrough that in one fell swoop greatly boosts the well-being of every current and future human being. This is so because a key concept “enable(s) new ideas and new technology to create new kinds of wealth” and history shows how they have “freed the economy from stagnation and have stimulated new creative development, which has then itself stagnated until the next new key concept arrives.”
These are powerful sentences describing something that brings to mind a creative-destruction cycle of innovation in which the cycle is about to be put back into the ascendancy with the key concept of Citizen’s Income. But what is most interesting is that Torry neatly captures the constellations of historical periods in which these new key concepts are launched: “New developments that have set life’s evolution, scientific progress, or the economy free, have usually been prefigured by developments bearing some but not all of their characteristics; they have been symptoms of change as well as its cause; they have created revolutions with immense social implications; and in science and the economy they have had passionate advocates and equally passionate detractors – and, once in place, people have wondered why it all took so long.” In fact, this book already leaves the reader wondering why it’s all taking so long.
