by BIEN | Jan 22, 2015
Overview
Founded in 1986, the Basic Income European Network (BIEN) aims to serve as a link between all individuals and groups interested in basic income (i.e. a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement) and to foster informed discussion on this topic throughout the world.
Members of BIEN include academics, students and social policy practitioners as well as people actively engaged in political, social and religious organisations. They vary in terms of disciplinary backgrounds and political affiliations no less than in terms of age and citizenship.
The mission of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) is to offer education to the wider public about alternative arguments about, proposals for, and problems concerning, basic income as idea, institution, and public policy practice. To this end, BIEN organises public conferences around the world on an annual basis in which empirical research and new ideas are disseminated and discussed. BIEN promotes and serves as a repository of published research, including congress papers, an academic blog featuring balanced debate for and against the basic income proposal in different contexts and forms, and by means of an independent academic journal linked with BIEN – Basic Income Studies. BIEN does not subscribe to any particular version of basic income, and fosters evidenced-based research, plural debate, and critical engagement about basic income and related ideas and public policy developments. Individuals connected with BIEN – including affiliated organisations – may express particular opinions about basic income, but they are not opinions of BIEN. BIEN’s explicit mission is to remain neutral among competing arguments for and against basic income and the relation of basic income with other ideas and policies.
By the early 2000s, “Basic Income European Network” had become somewhat of a misnomer, as scholars and activists from other continents have actively joined the network. BIEN expanded its scope to become the “Basic Income Earth Network” in 2004. It is an international network that serves as a link between individuals and groups interested in basic income, and fosters informed discussion of the topic throughout the world.
Executive Committee
A new Executive Committee was elected at the General Assembly held on the 26th August 2018
BIEN’s Executive Committee (EC) is elected by the General Assembly. It usually meets once a month via the internet. Within the limits set by the decisions of the General Assembly and BIEN’s constitution as a charitable organization, it takes any action it judges useful to the pursuit of BIEN’s purposes.
Members of the Executive Committee
| Louise |
Haagh |
Chair |
| Sarath |
Davala |
Vice Chair |
| Julio |
Aguirre |
Secretary |
| Mark |
Wadsworth |
Treasurer |
| Jamie |
Cooke |
Assistant Treasurer |
| André |
Coelho |
BI News Editor |
| Tyler |
Prochazka |
BI Features Editor |
| Leah |
Hamilton |
BI News and Volunteer Recruitment Officer |
| Kate |
McFarland |
Research Manager |
| Toru |
Yamamori |
Research Manager |
| Jasper |
van den Bor |
Affiliate Outreach |
| Julio |
Linares |
Public Outreach |
| Demétrio |
Ruivo |
Website manager |
| Aoife |
Hegarty |
Fundraiser |
| Anne |
Miller |
Bank Account Trustee |
| Jay |
Ginn |
Bank Account Trustee |
| Jake |
Eliot |
Bank Account Trustee |
Volunteers
General Manager
Malcolm Torry, Director of Citizen’s Income Trust, UK was appointed General Manager by the EC in May 2007.
Features Editor, Basic Income News:
Tyler Prochazka (tyler.prochazka@yahoo.com), United States,
BIEN is entirely run by volunteers. It has no paid employees. It has created or is in the process of creating at least six volunteer task forces. We are interested in people who want to volunteer for any of them and in people who have additional ideas they would like to volunteer for. Click here to find out how to volunteer and what volunteers are doing.
The currently existing or forming task forces are:
Non EC members with official roles in BIEN
Honorary Co-Presidents
The Honorary Co-Presidents are past Co-Chairs of BIEN who continue to be actively involved in BIEN and who have been confirmed in this status by the General Assembly.
Claus Offe, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany.
Guy Standing, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, United Kingdom.
Eduardo Suplicy, Federal Senator, São Paulo, Brazil.
Members of the International Advisory Board
The International Board consists of the current members of the Executive Committee, representatives of the recognized national affiliates, and all former members of BIEN’s Executive Committee (listed below).
Chair
Philippe Van Parijs, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Former members of BIEN’s Executive Committee:
Anja Askeland
Borja Barragué
Simon Birnbaum
David Casassas
Alexander de Roo
Jurgen De Wispelaere
Kelly Ernst
Andrea Fumagalli
Louise Haagh
Seán Healy
Lena Lavinas
Edwin Morley-Fletcher
James Mulvale
Eri Noguchi
José Antonio Noguera
Claus Offe
Ilona Ostner
Steven Quilley
Dorothee Schulte-Basta
Guy Standing
Eduardo Suplicy
Robert J. Van Der Veen
Ingrid Van Niekirk
Philippe Van Parijs
Walter Van Trier
Yannick Vanderborght
Karl Widerquist
Lieselotte Wohlgenannt
Pablo Yanes
Almaz Zelleke
Reports from the General Assembly
Minutes of the General Assembly
Treasurer’s Reports
BIEN is registered as a charity in the United Kingdom
Constitution
Charity registration number: 1177066
The 2018 General Assembly will be held at Tampere in Finland on the 26th August 2018
See the General Assembly page for further details
Press Contacts
Louise Haagh, Chair of BIEN
louise.haagh@york.ac.uk,
Sarath Davala, Vice chair of BIEN
sarathdavala@gmail.com
A Short History of BIEN
The origins (1983-1986) – An idea, a collective, a prize. In the Autumn of 1983, three young researchers decided to set up a working group in order to explore the implications of an extremely simple, unusual but attractive idea which one of them had proposed to call, in a paper circulated a few months earlier, “allocation universelle”. Paul-Marie Boulanger, Philippe Defeyt and Philippe Van Parijs were then, or had recently been, attached to the departments of demography, economics and philosophy, respectively, of the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium). The group became known as the Collectif Charles Fourier. Its main output was a special issue of the Brussels monthly La Revue nouvelle (April 1985). But along the way, it won a prize, with a provocative summary of the idea and its putative consequences, in an essay competition on the future of work organised by the King Baudouin Foundation.
The first meeting – With the money it thus unexpectedly earned, the Collectif Charles Fourier decided to organise a meeting to which they would invite a number of people to whom the idea of an unconditional basic income had, they gradually discovered, independently occurred . This became the first international conference on basic income, held in Louvain-la-Neuve in September 1986, with sixty invited participants. This was quite an extraordinary event, with many seemingly lonely fighters suddenly discovering a whole bunch of kin spirits. They included, among others, Gunnar Adler-Karlsson, Jan-Otto Andersson, Yoland Bresson, Paul de Beer, Alexander de Roo, Rosheen Callender, Nic Douben, Marie-Louise Duboin, Ian Gough, Pierre Jonckheere, Bill Jordan, Greetje Lubbi, Annie Miller, Edwin Morley-Fletcher, Claus Offe, Hermione Parker, Riccardo Petrella, David Purdy, Guy Standing, Robert van der Veen and Georg Vobruba.
Seeds of a lasting network – At the final session of the conference, several participants expressed the wish that some more permanent association be created, with the task of publishing a regular newsletter and organising regular conferences. Guy Standing proposed calling this association Basic Income European Network, which gathered an easy consensus, since no one could beat the beauty of the corresponding acronym (BIEN). Its purpose, later enshrined in its Statutes, was formulated as follows: BIEN aims to serve as a link between individuals and groups interested in basic income, and to foster informed discussion on this topic throughout the world. Peter Ashby (National Council for Voluntaty organisations), Claus Offe (University of Bremen) and Guy Standing (International Labour Organisation) became co-chairmen. Walter Van Trier (University of Antwerp) became secretary, and Alexander de Roo (parliamentary assistant at the European Parliament) treasurer.
BIEN’s past and current activities – From 1986 on, in addition to smaller events, BIEN has been organising one major international congress every second year, in an increasingly structured and professional way. In each case, a major academic or international organisation has accepted to host it, and financial support has been forthcoming from many sources, both public and private, both national and international. BIEN’s first two congresses were small enough to lend themselves to the publication of proceedings, but subsequent congresses had far too many contributions for them to fit into a volume of proceedings. Many of the papers presented were independently published and several found their ways into three books largely inspired by BIEN’s congresses:
- Philippe Van Parijs ed., Arguing for Basic Income. Ethical Foundations for a Radical Reform. London & New York: Verso, 1992
- Robert J. van der Veen & Loek Groot eds., Basic Income on the Agenda. Policy Options and Political Feasibility. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2000
- Standing, G. ed., Promoting Income Security as a Right. Europe and North America, London: Anthem Press.
Since 1988 BIEN published a Newsletter three times per year since 1988 (33 issues, some in collaboration with the London-based Citizen’s Income Study Center). Publication of the Newsletter has been discontinued, but instead since January 2000 BIEN has started publishing a regular NewsFlash. BIEN’s NewsFlash appears every second month and is dispatched electronically to over 1500 subscribers. Since 1996 BIEN maintains a very substantial website. All issues of the newsletter and the newsflash can be downloaded from BIEN’s website. Finally, BIEN keeps an archive in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) which includes, among other items, a great number of books and reports on BI. The titles currently stored in the archive are listed here (updated November 2010).
After its Congress in Barcelona (2004), BIEN extended its scope: now its name is Basic Income Earth Network. All life members of the Basic Income European Network, many of whom were non-Europeans, automatically became life members of the Basic Income Earth Network.
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 17, 2014 | News, Research
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare—a peer-reviewed, academic research journal—will have a special issue on the Basic Income Guarantee to be published in 2016. Manuscripts submitted by September 30, 2015 will be considered. The editors released the following call for papers:
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 and its recessionary aftermath have, once again, raised the issue of whether a market economy can be relied upon to assure economic security. Although the market economy is dynamic and quite productive, the financial crisis has highlighted its instability and tendency to produce high unemployment, low wages, stagnant wages, greater income inequality or a combination. Many would argue that the social welfare system, with its myriad of safety net programs, is intended to address such conditions. Yet it has holes that have allowed many to still live in poverty, many more to live with a very realistic fear of falling into poverty, and an erosion of the middle class. This instability and tendency toward low wages, stagnant wages for middle class families, or no employment in a market economy, coupled with a social safety net system riddled with holes, suggests that it is time to think about new approaches to income and wealth distribution, not only for purposes of poverty prevention or even poverty reduction, but also for social justice. Are there fairer and more efficient ways to distribute the fruits of our individual and collective efforts to everyone’s benefit?
One such program is the basic income guarantee (BIG), also called the guaranteed income. The idea is simple: replace most income support programs with a floor under everyone’s income, structured so that no one is in poverty and everyone is better off financially if they earn more in the private market. We’re issuing a call for papers for a special issue of The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare (JSSW) to explore the merits of BIG and related proposals such as guaranteed jobs, stakeholder grants, asset accumulation policies, and living wage legislation. We’re interested in proposals related to BIG because some have argued that the goals of BIG could be better realized by other approaches, such as government guaranteeing a job instead of an income. The special issue is intended to consider the economic, social, political, and philosophical questions about BIG and related policies. The papers will be written by social workers and academics in related disciplines. The special issue is intended to explore some of the following Topics:
- BIG, other related programs, and social justice
- BIG, other programs, and gender relations
- Financing BIG and related programs
- BIG, other programs, and the labor Market
- BIG, related programs, and civic engagement
- BIG, related programs, and the bargaining power of workers
- BIG, related programs, and the family
- The political feasibility of BIG and related programs
This special issue of JSSW will be co-edited by Professors Michael Lewis, The Silberman School of Social Work, Hunter College, and Richard K Caputo, Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University. We invite authors to submit manuscripts not to exceed thirty double-spaced (12-pitch font) pages (including references) on any of the topics above as well as related topics. Manuscripts received by September 30, 2015 will be considered for a special issue of JSSW with an anticipated publication date in June or September 2016. Please send MS Word manuscripts that adhere to the APA Manual, 6th edition style, electronically, as email attachments to:
Michael A. Lewis, Associate Professor: michael.a.lewis@hunter.cuny.edu
by Stanislas Jourdan | Nov 25, 2014 | Opinion
Last month, the Icelandic Pirate Party made a significant move in order to create discussion in Iceland about basic income by submitting a resolution to the national parliament. While the proposed resolution remains to be discussed, we have contacted its author Halldóra Mogensen, Deputy MP of the Pirate Party of Iceland in order to get to know more about her initiative.
Can you tell us more about the Icelandic context in regards to basic income?
There is very little awareness of the ideas behind the unconditional basic income (UBI) in Iceland. There are a couple of groups that I know of that have put UBI on their agenda. One is Alda, Association for Sustainability and Democracy, the other is the Icelandic Humanist Party which ran in the 2013 national elections.
The best literature I have come across so far on UBI in Icelandic is a bachelors essay (pdf) written in 2013 by Bragi Þór Antoníusson. The essay looks at the UBI from an Icelandic point of view and attempts to calculate costs and benefits of introducing such a system in Iceland. The calculations however were incomplete due to the lack of transparency in government accounts.
I recently sat in parliament for two weeks as a deputy for Pirate Party MP Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson and used the opportunity to, amongst other things, ask the health minister and the housing and welfare minister for a written account of the total operational costs of the entire welfare system. The answers will help give us a better idea of the feasibility of introducing a UBI in Iceland.
Why is the Icelandic Pirate Party interested in the idea of basic income – and how did you come up with this resolution?
There are other Icelandic Pirates who are very interested in UBI ideas but it has never really been discussed on any proper channels within the party. I am a proponent of taking an holistic approach in all issues. As a society I feel we spend too much time and effort treating symptoms when we should be looking at the root disease causing these symptoms. I feel UBI has the possibility of addressing the root cause of the inequality and dysfunctional democracy we face as a society.
When I received the news of my short entrance into parliament my original thought was to write a speech about poverty and inequality and to touch upon the subject of UBI as a possible solution when Aðalheiður Ámundadóttir, human rights lawyer and employee of the Icelandic Pirate Party, suggested that I write a proposal instructing the housing and welfare minister along with the finance minister to put together a team to research the UBI idea. I delved into the project and rallied together individuals who have been writing about UBI in Iceland and sought out their help in writing the proposal (here on the parliament’s website).
What sort of reactions have you received so far?
Mostly curiosity, especially from other MP’s. Apart from Pirates MP’s who were very enthusiastic about the idea, other Icelandic MPs were very hesitant to sponsor the proposal but found the idea to be interesting and positive. No one I spoke with had heard of UBI before, and that most likely explains their hesitation. Hopefully the proposal will spark an interest in gathering more information on the subject.
What are the chance for the resolution to pass?
I have to admit that I am not incredibly hopeful that the proposal will pass, it might never even go to the vote. The first step in the process is for me to speak on behalf of the proposal in parliament after which time it will go to a committee to be discussed. The committee will then decide whether the proposal gets put through to a parliamentary discussion. After two rounds of spoken discussions there could be a vote.
This being said the main goal of writing this proposal was to start the conversation, not only in parliament but in the community. I wanted people to get acquainted with the ideas behind the UBI and start the conversation in Iceland, and to me this was the first step on that journey.
Can you tell us more on how you got into the idea of basic income?
I really cant remember how I got into the idea of basic income. I read a lot and spend time around strange, radical minded people I guess! I have enjoyed following the discussion going on in Europe and seeing the idea gaining support. I was very excited to see UBI being discussed in The Economist, going into the main stream is a big step. I am also very hopeful for the Swiss elections on a basic income. All of this international coverage seeps into the Icelandic conversation but there is a need for more literature in Icelandic. I hope to see this happen in the near future as the idea gains support.
Halldóra Mogensen, thank you!
by BIEN | Oct 26, 2014 | Opinion
Book review of Birnbaum, Simon. 2012. Basic Income Reconsidered: Social Justice, Liberalism, and the Demands of Equality. Basic income guarantee series. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 246 pp.
ISBN 978–0–230–11406–7
Published in Ethical Perspectives, vol.3, 2014, p.464-5.
Roberto Merrill (University of Minho)
In his book Basic Income Reconsidered: Social Justice, Liberalism, and the Demands of Equality, Simon Birnbaum builds a defence of an unconditional basic income which is based on three pillars: the first consists in a radical-liberal interpretation of John Rawls’ theory of justice, the second offers a reconstruction and defence of Van Parijs “jobs as gifts” argument for basic income, and the third proposes a definition of a work ethics which is not perfectionist and is compatible with state neutrality.
The book is divided in three parts.
The first part of the book, untitled “A Society of Equals: Radical Liberalism, Self-Respect, and Basic Income” is divided in two chapters, the first one being devoted to a defence of a rawlsian case for basic income, and the second chapter is an examination and refutation of the claim that only contributors are entitled to social rights. The general aim of the chapter is to defend an understanding of Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, in particular Rawls’ theory of primary goods, including self-respect, which can be compatible with the promotion of a basic income as the best way to protect the status of the least advantaged as free and equals throughout their lives.
A first convincing strategy proposed by Birnbaum in arguing for a rawlsian case for basic income is to recall that John Rawls, following the work of James Meade on property-owning democracy, argued that justice must also achieve resource equalization ex ante rather than only corrective adjustments ex post. Ex post justice is what the welfare state in capitalist societies already does and it’s not working. A basic income should thus be considered as an adequate illustration of a public policy which contributes to realize the ideal of a property-owning democracy. Furthermore, according to Birnbaum paid work should not be considered as a necessary condition of rawlsian self-respect, otherwise it would imply a perfectionist conception of self-respect incompatible with liberal neutrality (Birnbaum, 2012:61).
Another convincing argument proposed by Birnbaum allowing to block a potential objection to a defence of basic income from the rawlsian conception of society as a system of cooperation is to distinguish two conceptions of cooperation: a thick and a thin one. A thick conception of cooperation implies both economic and political cooperation and a thin conception implies only one of them (Birbaum, 2012: 68). Furthermore, both economical and political cooperation can be thick or thin. According to Birnbaum, a thick conception of cooperation, which implies labour market participation is in tension with some of Rawls basic intuitions about justice and therefore should be rejected. If true, this clears the way for a compatibility between Rawls’ conception of social cooperation and a basic income, and thus for radical liberalism.
The second part of the book, untitled “The Exploitation Objection against Basic Income: Equality of Opportunity, Luck, and Responsibility”, is also divided in two chapters.
The first chapter consists of a review and a refutation of the main variants of the “exploitation objection” against the defence of a basic income such as formulated by Philippe Van Parijs in his book Real Freedom for All, which, according to Birnbaum, offers the best defence against the exploitation objection. The main variant of the exploitation objection examined is the “restriction objection”, according to which the distribution of the pool of resources is only for those that are willing to work and are involuntary unemployed (Birnbaum, 2012: 34-35). In this chapter, Birnbaum examines Van Parijs’ controversial claim according to which employment rents, incorporated in wages of privileged jobs, must me considered as resources to which all are entitled. Birnbaum distinguishes a weak and a strong version of this objection and argues that Van Parijs “jobs as gifts” argument, according to which the employment rents should be considered as common resources to which all have an equal claim, survives the strong version of the restriction objection. However, this is only possible if some qualifications related to the “long term stability of justice” are incorporated to the argument. These qualifications are developed in the second chapter, in a clear and convincing reconstruction and defence of Van Parijs “jobs as gifts” argument for basic income. According to Birnbaum, if Van Parijs’ argument is to be successful in rejecting the exploitation objection, apart from accommodating the “stability of justice” clause, it also needs to accommodate some considerations regarding the social and economical conditions of basic autonomy (which are fleshed out in part one of Birnbaum’s book).
The third and last part of the book, untitled “The Feasibility of Basic Income: Social Ethos, Work, and the Politics of Universalism”, is divided in two chapters. The first chapter proposes a conception of a “work ethics” which is compatible with liberal neutrality. Contra Van Parijs, Birnbaum argues for a non obligatory work ethos which avoids any perfectionist implications, by proposing a wide definition of an ethos of contribution which includes activities that are not “productivist”. However, Birnbaum acknowledges that his anti-perfectionist definition of a work ethics, although having the advantage of being compatible with neutrality, also exposes itself to the structural exploitation objection, since it does not protect self-sacrificing individuals to be exploited by selfish ones (Birnbaum, 2012: 160). But this is not the freedom that liberal neutrality should protect, nor the freedom that radical liberal egalitarians seek to promote through the implementation of a basic income. For this reason Birnbaum tries to avoid this consequence of his redefinition of the work ethos by introducing the notion of a “minimal autonomy” to which all individuals must have access if they are to avoid ethical servility and make well informed choices about their life-plans (Birnbaum, 2012: 162). As a neutralist, one might worry here that Birnbaum’s minimal autonomy constraint implies a work ethos and a duty to contribute which after all may not be compatible with liberal neutrality, although it clearly is less perfectionist than the alternative of a strictly productivist ethos while at the same time resisting well to the exploitation objection.
The last chapter proposes an exploration of the political implications of radical liberalism, in practical policy issues, such as political legitimacy, environmental sustainability, and gender equity. The author explores these issues in a clear and well informed way. The book ends with a realistic proposal by arguing for a gradualist implementation of a basic income scheme. Overall, the book is a major contribution to the liberal egalitarian literature on basic income.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Sep 15, 2014 | News
Conference report: 63 people attended the conference, held by invitation of the British Library at its conference centre.
Anne Miller, Chair of the trustees, welcomed everyone to the conference, offered a brief history of the recent Citizen’s Income debate in the UK, and explained that an important aim of the conference was to help the Citizen’s Income Trust’s trustees to develop a strategy for the next few years. Jude England, Head of Research Engagement at the British Library, then introduced the British Library and its many research and educational facilities. Malcolm Torry, Director of the Citizen’s Income Trust, explained a few terminological matters: that a Citizen’s Income is an unconditional, nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship; that different rates can be paid for people of different ages; that a Basic Income is the same thing as a Citizen’s Income (as is a Universal Benefit or a Social Dividend); and that in the UK the words ‘minimum’ and ‘guarantee’ are tainted by association with means-testing and so should be avoided. Child Benefit would be a Citizen’s Income for children if it were paid at the same rate for every child. Debate ensued on the definition of a Citizen’s Income, and on the meaning of citizenship.
Guy Standing, Professor of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, spoke on ‘Citizen’s Income: an income floor for the Precariat, and the means of global development’. He explained that we are in the midst of a painful transition. More flexible labour markets are leading to the breakdown of social insurance methods for sustaining income and to a resultant increase in means-testing, which in turn leads to categorising people as deserving and undeserving poor. Means-testing reduces incentives to seek employment so coercion, sanctions and ‘workfare’ are the result. The precarity trap (the fact that it is irrational to take short-term low-paid employment if that means frequent benefits applications) might now be as significant as the poverty trap. Professor Standing described some of the results of the recent Citizen’s Income pilot projects in Namibia and India, and offered four justifications for a Citizen’s Income:
- Justice: our wealth is due to the efforts of our forebears, so we all deserve a social dividend.
- Rawlsian: a policy is only justifiable if it improves the position of the poorest member of society. A Citizen’s Income can pass this test
- A policy must pass the paternalism test: that is, no policy is just if it imposes tests on some groups that are not imposed on others. A Citizen’s Income passes this test, too.
- The ‘rights not charity’ principle. Due process was an important provision in the Magna Carta. Means-tested benefits allow discretion to State officials, thus bypassing due process.
John McDonnell MP introduced Tony Benn’s theory of political change: that new policies are thought ‘bad’ and then ‘mad’ before everyone claims to have thought of the idea. Thomas Kuhn’s research on scientific change suggested that current theory becomes problematic, new possibilities emerge, and suddenly a paradigm shift occurs. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit and other changes are revealing the problematic nature of the current benefits system, but there is a vacuum in terms of new ideas. A Citizen’s Income brings together debates about citizenship and poverty, and provides the necessary new paradigm: but obtaining agreement on the implementation of a Citizen’s Income won’t be easy. For the Labour Party, Ed Miliband will only move when it is safe to do so (as he has, for instance, over energy bills). When he does move, then he gathers support. We therefore need to make a Citizen’s Income safe for politicians. We need to lead so that the leaders can follow. The Labour Party is bereft of policies designed to tackle poverty and precarity, so the Trust needs to work with think tanks to provide the required package, and it needs:
- A seriousness of intent
- A professional approach
- Confidence
- Excitement and enthusiasm
Natalie Bennett (Leader of the Green Party) suggested that the outcome of a successful campaign would be that she would be able to say ‘Basic Income’ on Newsnight and everybody would know what she meant. People do ‘get it’ when the idea is explained to them, because the welfare safety net has fallen apart and they want to be able to feed their children without going to food banks. Public education is essential. Biological evolution is punctuated evolution: that is, alternating periods of stability and change. A Citizen’s Income constitutes the next major change because it would change everything, and in particular would provide both economic security and ecological sustainability. The Trust’s task is to educate people about a Citizen’s Income and its effects.
Tony Fitzpatrick (Reader, University of Nottingham) entitled his paper ‘Schemes and Dreams’. The welfare state established after the Second World War was the closest that we’ve ever got to achieving both security and freedom. We must now ask how we should achieve that combination today. Dr. Fitzpatrick discussed four moral contexts: productivism, distributivism, the deliberative, and the regenerative. A post-productivist settlement is needed if we are to conserve the world’s resources. A Citizen’s Income could contribute to that happening, and it could conform to all four moral contexts.
After discussion, and then lunch, three working groups met and then presented their findings at a plenary session:
Brief reports from the working groups
- Funding options: If the level of the Citizen’s Income is too low then it might not be politically inspiring. A variety of funding methods were discussed, but because policymakers are cautious, in the short term it might be important to concentrate attention on the Citizen’s Income itself rather than on possible funding mechanisms: so initially a Citizen’s Income would need to be funded by reducing existing tax allowances and benefits, with other mechanisms being considered later.
- Political feasibility: We need to avoid current vocabulary in order to avoid stale current debates; we need to offer a clear message of hope through visual representations; we need both a core message and variants to appeal to different audiences; we need a group of sponsors to raise the debate’s profile; and we need to relate to MPs, MEPs, NGOs, and other groups, so that they can promote the idea. A Citizen’s Income is the route to emancipation and freedom, and to the exercise of a variety of rights, and rights language could be useful. A Citizen’s Income enables people to care for others, so care language could also be helpful. Pilot projects will be important.
- The research required: Qualitative research is needed to test the acceptability of different ways of expressing a Citizen’s Income. The level at which a Citizen’s Income would be paid would also affect the idea’s acceptability. We need to show that people would wish to work in order to demolish the myth that there would be numerous free-riders. We need to show that a Citizen’s Income would act as an economic stabiliser in the context of a gap between wages and productivity; and we need to show how a Citizen’s Income would impact on health and other outcomes.
Panel discussion
Natalie Bennett (Leader of the Green Party) asked the Citizen’s Income Trust to provide both a wide variety of material and a clear and simple message; Kat Wall (New Economics Foundation) asked the Trust to be clear how work and social participation would be affected by a Citizen’s Income; and Neal Lawson (Compass) said that the time is right for a Citizen’s Income so we need to grasp the opportunity. A moral argument is required, and not just the figures. We need the courage to be utopian. Whilst a Citizen’s Income isn’t about everything, it is about security. Such central connections need to be clearly represented in new ways. Bert Schouwenburg (of the GMB Trade Union) discussed the fact that no trade union has a position on Citizen’s Income, and that that needs to change. Trades unions are wage brokers, and it needs to be made clear that a Citizen’s Income would complement that activity. Chris Goulden (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) explained that researchers are meant to be sceptical. A Citizen’s Income is dignified and simple and it avoids stigma, but such questions as who gains and who loses are important. ‘Something for something’ remains a significant public attitude, and lifecourse redistribution is acceptable, but not redistribution across income groups. A Citizen’s Income campaign needs to take account of such attitudes.
Further discussion followed; and then Professor Hartley Dean (London School of Economics), who had chaired the panel discussion, summed up the conference:
Citizen’s Income is a technology, or policy mechanism, which can serve a variety of ends. We must ensure that it serves social justice. We need to say how it would work, and the detail matters. Citizen’s Income is also a philosophical proposition. It is elegant, and it challenges prevailing understandings, for instance, of work, of human livelihood, of relationships of care, and of rights. ‘Unconditional’ is a stumbling block when applied to people of working age: but ‘working age’ is socially constructed. Work is diverse, and not just what happens within a wage relationship. A Citizen’s Income would support a variety of forms of work. Social insurance is risk-sharing, and a Citizen’s Income would also constitute risk-sharing. It deals with risk now in ways that social insurance did sixty years ago.
A global Citizen’s Income is a distant prospect, but borders are breaking down and citizenship is changing. We need to keep alive a big vision.
