by Andre Coelho | Apr 10, 2020 | News
In the current context of a global pandemic, the universal basic income (UBI) policy has been gaining ground all over the world. Given this sudden raise of awareness about UBI, it was important for the French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB), as well as 40 other French civil society organizations and public figures, to highlight the importance of having a real democratic debate around its implementation.
These UBI advocates support the idea of basic income, but not at all costs. Basic income finds itself at the crossroad of two very different paths: it can either be included in a series of measures aiming at promoting a social and environmental transition, or it can be a plaster to the current neoliberal system. In the French context, where the social protection system has been strong for the past decades, but which has also been attacked in recent years, the risks of having UBI used politically to weaken established social rights are also important.
That is why the implementation of a real protective basic income must not only be about the economy, but be an outgrowth of a real democratic debate. That to make sure it will help reduce inequalities, reinforce labor rights and help create social protection systems. And to improve working conditions of the “essential jobs” that are currently underpaid and at the frontline of the sanitary crisis. It shall also be used to question the relevancy of “bullshit jobs”.
The strength of UBI has always relied on its capacity to promote debates on an extremely wide range of topics. Today, more than ever, it is crucial to debate collectively about the society we want in the aftermath of this crisis.
The original article [in French]:
Colective at MFRB, “Revenu de base: l’urgence d’une société plus solidaire [Basic Income: the urgence of a more supportive society]”, Politis, April 2nd 2020
by Guest Contributor | Apr 16, 2019 | Opinion
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is once again in the news as a promising program in the upcoming general election in India after finding its place in India’s 2016-17 economic survey. Proponents say UBI is economically prudent and could make a significant dent on poverty in the country. UBI bypasses India’s weak system of existing welfare schemes which are riddled with misallocation, leakages, and exclusion of the poor. It also makes sense from the perspective of an individual, who is assumed to be economically rational and thus can spend in accordance to his priorities and choices.
Having said there is insufficient empirical evidence to demonstrate how UBI could accomplish social justice and poverty reduction, especially in a country like India which is still held down by a regressive social structure in the form of a caste system. The caste system leads to a lack of mobility, producing a semi-feudal system of land ownership. Land is held by a small fraction of the population with the rest being landless or having little property, especially in rural areas. The fact that most of the poor are also concentrated in India’s rural areas makes the case that UBI could be successful at alleviating poverty.
Moreover, the proposition that UBI will reduce poverty assumes that the market works competitively and allocates resources efficiently. However, markets do fail in providing an efficient and just outcome in the presence of informational asymmetry, externalities, and monopolies. This is especially true in the case of India where the market is disproportionately in the hands of a few big players who can influence it to their advantage. For instance, giving out cash as opposed to goods and services in kind may not help in remote places if the corresponding supply of essential goods are not there (this role is otherwise performed by the public distribution system in India which may be dismantled to make fiscal space for UBI). A monopoly supplier may hike the prices to neutralise the extra income. To the extent the purchasing power of cash transfers in the form of UBI is curtailed by market fluctuations, the efficacy of basic income to alleviate poverty could be limited.
UBI even in the presence of efficient market can capture only poverty in terms of economic deprivation, whereas factors such as poor health, lack of education, discrimination and lack of entitlements cannot be addressed by the market but are crucial from the perspective of eradicating poverty.
John Rawls in his seminal work propounding the concept of distributive justice is guided by the ‘difference principle,’ which stresses that goods and services should be arranged in a manner that serves to benefit the least advantaged and foster growth towards equality of opportunity. To the extent that everyone will receive the same amount of cash transfer irrespective of his or her requirement, the UBI fails to ensure distributional justice, in accordance with the ‘difference principle’. In this case, justice would require maximizing assistance to those who need it most, which at present our welfare schemes (despite its weaknesses) strives to achieve. UBI at best can only work in conjunction with the existing policies. In order to fully eradicate poverty, the welfare state should work towards increasing its capacity to deliver and regulate rather than leaving it to the market.
Rishi Kant
Currently pursuing Master’s in public administration (MPA), LKY school, National University of Singapore. Graduated in Economics from Delhi University and Post Graduated in Economics from Jawaharlal Nehru University. 5year experience of teaching in various colleges of Delhi University and working with the government of India under various capacities. He has worked as a researcher in the field of Labour economics and evaluated major labour market policies in India such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Program. He has also part of capacity development programs organised by IMF in the areas of Macro-Economics, Fiscal and monetary policies, and Financial Programming and policies.
References
Ackerman. B, et al (2006), ‘Redesigning distribution: basic income and stakeholder grants as cornerstones of an egalitarian capitalism’, The Real Utopias Project, Vol. V. London.
Khera. R (2016) ‘A Phased Approach Will Make a Basic Income Affordable for India’, The Wire.
Michel. H (2008), ‘Global Basic Income and its Contribution to Human Development and Fair Terms of Global Economic Co-Operation: A Political-Economic Outlook’, A Paper for the Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network, University College, Dublin, Ireland.
Pettit. P (2007), ‘Basic Income and the Republican Legacy’, Basic income studies, International Journal of Basic Income Research Vol. 2.
Porter. E (2016), ‘A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty’, New York Times.
Standing. G (2002), ‘Beyond the New Paternalism: Basic Security as Equality’, London.
Standing. G (2015), ‘India’s experiment in basic income grants’, Global Dialogues, Vol. 5.
Taylor. T (2014), ‘Economics and Morality’, Finance & development, a quarterly publication of the international monetary fund, Volume 51.
Todaro, Smith (2015), ‘Introducing Economic Development: A Global Perspective’ Economic Development, 12th edition, chapter 1, Pg 20.
Tobin. J, et al (1967), ‘Is a negative income tax practical’? The Yale Law Journal.
Van. P (1995), ‘Real Freedom for All’, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
https://www.ft.com/content/100137b4-0cdf-11e8-bacb-2958fde95e5e
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/can-universal-basic-income-actually-work
https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/poverty-inequality/the-tale-and-maths-of-universal-basic-income.html
https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/WwFH79xl9Ypyb8Qk7f4yiL/Is-universal-basic-income-a-feasible-idea-in-India.html
https://www.iep.utm.edu/sen-cap/
https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_mpi_jahan_alkire.pdf
https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sandel00.pdf
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/can-universal-basic-income-actually-work
************************
by Karl Widerquist | Nov 7, 2017 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
I have just posted a new academic article on my “selected works” cite. It’s called, “Justice as the Pursuit of Accord: Toward a non-utopian theory of justice.” Here’s a brief summary:
The hardest thing for any society to do is to avoid oppressing its least advantaged people. This article argues that well-meaning theories of justice contribute to this problem by employing utopian assumptions that imagine solving unsolvable problems. They eliminate the disadvantages they know and understand, but their overconfidence leads to errors that systematically disadvantage the least powerful people in political, social, and economic terms.
This article previews a theory of justice, I call “justice as the pursuit of accord” (JPA), which by attempting to eliminate these unrealistic assumptions, creates a fundamentally different framework than most prevailing political theories of justice. In this sense, JPA attempts to be an “agathatopian” theory with far more tentative assumptions about what is achievable. The essay introduces JPA as I have outlined it in past works, contrasts it with prevailing theories, and previews JPA property theory as I will outline it in much greater detail in the forthcoming book, Justice as the Pursuit of Accord.
The main difference between JPA and more conventional social contract theories is that JPA assumes the impossibly of a contract that all rational, reasonable people will have reason to accept. Social agreements are inherently insider-outsider agreements. Under those circumstances, the article argues, a just society has a responsibility that is unrecognized by either social contract or rights-based theories of justice: to minimize negative impact of social arrangements on dissenters (the outsiders the insider-outsider agreement). Among other things, JPA provides three arguments for basic income: to protect everyone’s status as a free person, to compensate people for unequal duties imposed on them by a property rights system, and to help minimize the negative impact of all social arrangements on dissenters.
The article is online at:
Karl Widerquist, “Justice as the Pursuit of Accord: Toward a non-utopian theory of justice,” Unpublished Manuscript available at SelectedWorks. Fall 2017.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 21, 2017 | Research
Matt Wilder, doctoral candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto, won first place in the 2016 Progressive Economics Forum (PEF) graduate student essay contest with his paper “Debating Unconditional Basic Income”.
A revised version of Wilder’s award-winning paper has recently been published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science.
Abstract:
Much of the literature on unconditional basic income considers reciprocity to be necessary for its success. From a normative standpoint, receiving without giving is unjust. From a technical standpoint, the absence of mechanisms that promote reciprocation invites free riding which threatens to erode the economic structure upon which the system of distribution depends. As a solution, it has been proposed that communities adopt social norms that encourage basic income recipients to contribute to the productive capacity of society by engaging in volunteer work. This article interrogates whether this alternative to conditionality is consistent with the rationale for implementing unconditional basic income and finds the instillation of stronger norms to be unnecessary for the project’s success.
Wilder uses data from the World Values Survey to establish his claim that stronger social norms are unnecessary to reduce the threat of freeriding, arguing that individuals with income security are already inclined to act altruistically.
The PEF student essay contest is open to all Canadian students, with separate competitions for graduate and undergraduate students. The graduate competition carries a $1000 cash award for the first prize.
Wilder also won the 2014 PEF graduate student essay contest for “Internationalization and Variable Confluence in State-Assisted Economic Sectors: Lessons from Canada’s Experience Under Free Trade”.
Reviewed by Caroline Pearce
Photo: Soup kitchen in Montreal, CC BY 2.0 Gerry Lauzon
by Bryan Tierney | Aug 2, 2017 | News
Comments to European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) consultation on the Future of Europe in Dublin, Ireland, June 7, 2017
Social Justice Ireland, an independent Irish think tank and justice advocacy organization, has endorsed proposals for the introduction of an EU-wide basic income system. Speaking at an EESC event held in Dublin on June 7th, Dr Seán Healy, Director of Social Justice Ireland, identified two key areas eroding confidence in the EU:
“1.1. Failure to address the ongoing vulnerability of many EU citizens.
1.2. Failure of the European Commission to protect small countries against its larger, stronger members.”
Addressing the first point, Dr Healy referred to recommendations made in May 2017 by a UN expert group meeting on “Strategies for Eradicating Poverty to Achieve Sustainable Development for All”:
“The social welfare systems in developed countries are no longer fit for purpose. There should be an adjustment of the paradigm including promotion, and openness to study new ideas around a new social contract that is more appropriate for the 21st century. This may entail moving towards a universal basic income system, supporting a living wage rather than a minimum wage, recognizing all work (not just paid employment) as meaningful, and ensuring that all government decisions are subjected to a poverty-proofing process. While the centrality of employment and decent jobs to eradicate poverty is well recognized, employment growth has not been sufficient to absorb the growing labour force, particularly in those countries and regions with large youth populations. Further, there has been a divergence between productivity and wages growth, as well as growing employment insecurity and casualization in all countries.”
In his speaking notes, Dr Healy agreed with the UN expert group’s analysis and recommendations, adding that the EU has consistently ignored these issues. According to Dr Healy, none of the five options provided in the EU White Paper on the Future of Europe address these points, going on to note that:
“An alternative option is required that will protect the vulnerable and move towards a future that effectively addresses poverty, unemployment, inequality and exclusion. The EU needs to become, and be seen to become, a caring Union.”
In the context of Irish politics, universal basic income (UBI) has been endorsed by some of the main political parties. The Green Party has long been in favour of the establishment of a basic income, while Fianna Fáil—the country’s second largest party—has talked about the idea for many years. Fianna Fáil’s spokesperson on social protection, Willie O’Dea, has called for radical reforms of the welfare system. The veteran politician and basic income advocate has said that, if Fianna Fáil were in office, a government-established commission would report on the idea within six months. Writing about UBI in a news article in January of this year, he said:
“While the broad concept of UBI has been around for a while, the challenges facing us today – particularly the changing and often precarious nature of work, not least the threat to jobs posed by automation and short-term contracts – make it a realistic and workable response.
“UBI would replace virtually every non-pension welfare payment except disability and housing benefits. Scrapping the myriad complex and often contradictory welfare codes would mean the end of welfare administration and expensive means-testing, an end to pointless and unproductive Intreo/job-centre interviews and hated sanctions. The biggest long-term saving, however, would stem from ending the poverty trap disincentives built into the current system, where taking a job can leave you financially worse off.”
The current government, which was formed following the appointment of Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach (prime minister) in June 2017, comprises the largest Irish political party, Fine Gael, and several independents, and is propped up by Fianna Fáil – Fine Gael’s historic rival – in a confidence and supply agreement. Fine Gael have been critical of Fianna Fáil’s basic income proposals and they do not currently have any proposals for the introduction of UBI. The Irish budget for 2018 will likely bring about increases to existing social welfare payments without any of the radical reforms proposed by rival parties.
References and further reading
Dr Seán Healy, Comments to the EESC Consultation on the Future of Europe, Social Justice Ireland, June 2017, <https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/publication/4855/2017-06-07-jointeventforeesc-seanhealyspeakingnotes.pdf>
Expert Group Meeting, “Strategies for Eradicating Poverty to Achieve Sustainable Development for All”, United Nations Headquarters, 8-11 May 2017, <https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2017/04/report-egm-poverty2017.pdf>
Willie O’Dea, “Basic incomes for all would end the welfare poverty trap and give people greater control of their lives”, Independent.ie, 19 January 2017, <https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/basic-incomes-for-all-would-end-the-welfare-poverty-trap-and-give-people-greater-control-of-their-lives-35379503.html>
European Commission, “White Paper on the Future of Europe”, European Commission, March 2017, <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf>
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: Irish flag, CC BY-SA 2.0 by jcdcv
