by Sandro Gobetti | Nov 4, 2018 | News
Roberto Ciccarelli (journalist, writer and member of the Basic Income Italy) has published an article on the proposal of the Italian government’s citizenship income.
In the article Ciccarelli talks about the poverty benefit misleadingly called a “citizenship income”, proposed by M5Star government. “What has been included in the soon-to-be-approved budget law” he says “is nothing but a sham and a deliberate misuse of words”. A real “citizenship income” is not tied to an obligation to work and has nothing to do with the “disciplining and punishment of beneficiaries which prominently feature in this M5S-Lega version of “workfare,” which apes the worst features of the Hartz IV German system”. “This benefit”, Ciccarelli writes, “doesn’t have any of the traits of universality, justice, equitability and unconditionality. It is neither a “universal income” nor a “citizenship income.” It is a workforce reintegration benefit of last resort for the unemployed, temporary workers and the poor, part of the authoritarian turn of the welfare state aimed at the creation of one or more parallel labor markets”. Ciccarelli also recalls that “They are talking about a new category of so-called “citizenship crime,” with up to six years in prison in case of fraud. The benefit will be tied to eight hours of unpaid work per week, to compulsory training. The duration of the benefit is also unclear and uncertain. It was said at first that after the first twelve months, the so-called “income” would gradually diminish to zero”.
Ciccarelli also writes that “The idea of this “income”— as repeatedly explained by Pasquale Tridico, an advisor to Di Maio — in just a short time, the person in “absolute poverty” will start buying “Italian products,” will get employed (in a permanent position, Tridico seems to imagine—not in small temporary jobs, as is most likely), and will contribute to the “wealth of the nation.””
The many problems of the M5S proposal, however, should not divert the attention from the political fight that has been waged over the past five years, a confrontation which has naturally intensified during the election campaign ahead of the latest 4th of March elections.
Ciccarelli also speaks about “the Democratic Party fighting against the proposal that has been (grossly misleadingly) called a “universal income.” Disingenuously pretending to believe the dishonest characterization of their own proposal by the Five Stars themselves, Renzi and his followers have spent at least four years attacking the very principle of an income that would be provided to all without asking them to do any work in return”.
What the M5S was actually proposing was not a universal income at all, but a significant extension of the “social inclusion income” (REI), a flagship proposal of the Democratic Party, approved during the 2013-2018 legislature.
Ciccarelli concludes that “A universal income is truly needed—this fact is absolutely clear. This so-called “citizenship income,” and other schemes such as the French “universal working income,” are marred by the tension between giving people the possibility to choose how they live their own life and an authoritarian discourse of penalties and obligations. Welfarism clashes with dirigism: one is not allowed to sit on the couch all day, nor to take any break between unpaid community work and a training course. This project shows clearly the present tendency to demand a lot from those who have little in order to justify granting them a benefit of last resort that will not work towards overcoming poverty, but towards making the regime of full precarious employment a reality.”
More information at:
Roberto Ciccarelli, “The linguistic scam of Italy’s ‘citizenship income’”, Basic Income Network Italia, October 24th 2018
(In Italian)
Roberto Ciccarelli, “La società della piena occupazione precaria: il “reddito” secondo Macron e Di Maio“, il manifesto, September 14th 2018
Reviewed by André Coelho
by Andre Coelho | Oct 3, 2018 | News
Picture credit to: Feminism in Canada (Youtube)
Could a guaranteed livable income create healthy societies and save the planet?
A grassroots group of Asian feminists address this question by organizing a panel of leading experts on basic income and environmental justice, taking place on Wednesday, October 17th 2018, the International Day to Eradicate Poverty. Guaranteed Livable Income and Sustainable Futures is the second annual public event on basic income hosted by Asian Women for Equality, and will take place at La Maison du Développement Durable (House of Sustainable Development) in Montreal, Canada.
The panel includes Rob Rainer of Basic Income Canada Network, Cathy Orlando from the Citizen’s Climate Lobby Canada, Indigenous activist Cherry Smiley, and a host of other community organizations that will delve into what basic income could mean for sustainability and environmental justice, and how this relates to advancing Indigenous rights, women’s rights and racial equality.
Simultaneous interpretation will be available between French and English, and the venue is wheelchair accessible. Registration is possible here.
by Andre Coelho | Oct 2, 2018 | News
On the 9th of October 2018, at 6 pm, professor Sascha Liebermann will speak at the GLS Bank in Frankfurt. The event is organized by the Bündnis Grundeinkommen Hessen (Hesse Basic Income Alliance) political party and is expected to last for around two hours.
General description of the event:
Unconditional basic income (UBI) is a monthly amount of money which is sufficient for your existence, unconditional and for everybody. The UBI is a polarising idea for most groups in society. Opponents fear that the principle of pay-for-performance will be undermined. Others think that the UBI will weaken social justice, because the existing social welfare state will disappear. Supporters of UBI claim that it will be an effective mechanism to create a humane working environment, in a time of increasing digitalisation of work. Above all, supporters claim that UBI gives the opportunity to free human beings from an economic straight-jacket and existential threats, allowing all members of society to prosper and develop their own potential.
The GLS Bank in collaboration with the ‘Bündnis Grundeinkommen Hessen’ party has invited Professor Sascha Liebermann from the ‘Alanus Hochschule für Kunst und Gesellschaft’ near Bonn as guest speaker. The purpose is to explore the concept and discuss with the audience the risks and opportunities of UBI.
by Karl Widerquist | Sep 5, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This blog was originally published at the USBIG NewsFlash in January 2001. It’s a good example of the way Basic Income was treated by major media outlets before the recent wave of support took off.
On Saturday, December 9th, just after the ruling Liberal Party won a
decisive victory in the Canadian Parliamentary election, the basic income
guarantee suddenly and surprisingly appeared on the front pages of
Canadian Newspapers. Under a banner headline, the National Post (one of
the most conservative national dailies in Canada) reported that Prime
Minister "Jean Chretien assembled a top-level committee in hopes of
creating a cradle-to-grave guaranteed annual income program that he hopes
will be his political legacy. This news was very exciting to basic income
supporters because the Liberal Party has the strength in Parliament to
pass any such proposal even over the objections of all the other major
parties. Several in the Post articles over three days claimed that
high-level sources had confirmed that the government was looking into the
idea, but one could easily miss the disclaimer in the first article
saying, "The prime minister's office refused comment and refused to
confirm the existence of the special committee."
Although readers of the USBIG newsletter last April will remember that
Anthony Westell, of the Globe and Mail called for the Liberals to take up
Basic Income as an issue for the coming campaign, the Liberals ignored the
call and the issue was not discussed before the election. It was
surprising that the issue would then be brought up shortly after the
afterword, but a guaranteed income would help the Liberals fulfill
promises made during the campaign to use half of Canada's federal budget
surplus to restore funding to social programs and to attack child poverty.
Chretien was quoted as saying, "The fact is that our prosperity is not
shared by all. … As a Liberal, I believe that the government has the
responsibility to promote social justice." Such as speech would be
shocking in the United States, because he used the phrase, "As a Liberal."
Over the following four days, the National Post followed with more
front-page articles including one with the headline, "Foes slam
'Socialistic Experiment.'" All of the other major parties managed to say
something negative about either the idea or the timing of the action. The
Conservative Party leader criticized both the timing and the idea although
his party seriously looked into an income guarantee in the 1970s. A
prominent member of the liberal NDP slammed the timing of the proposal
saying, "It makes a farce of our democratic system." Then, surprisingly,
he went on to say that the NDP supports it in principle and he bragged
that the NDP had pushed the Liberals to endorse the idea back in the
1960s. Similarly, a member the Quebec separatist party criticized the
timing and said that income support is a matter of provincial
jurisdiction, but did say that the idea was worth further study. The
harshest criticism came from Stockwell Day, the leader of Canada's
Alliance Party, which is known for being
more-conservative-than-the-Conservative Party. He accused the Liberals of
misleading the Canadians during the election and said that Chretien should
name a mountain after himself if he wants to leave a lasting legacy rather
than spend billions to fund a cradle-to-grave welfare program. Such harsh
criticism is surprising coming from the leader of the Alliance party
because the Reform Party (as Mr. Day's party was known before it
restructured two years ago) endorsed the guaranteed income in its election
platform in 1993 as a way to streamline Canada's convoluted
income-security programs.
On December 13th, the basic income guarantee disappeared from Canadian
front pages as quickly it had appeared, when the Globe and Mail reported
in a small article on page 12 that Chretien denied any part in suggesting
the idea. Chretien said, "I don't know where that idea comes from. I
haven't said a word about it." While he was at it, he also denied any
desire to do anything to ensure that he has a lasting political legacy.
Apparently what we witnessed was a trial balloon that was quickly shot
down. Still, there is apparently a high level committee looking into how
to fulfill the Liberals promise to use half of the budget surplus to fight
poverty. It is possible that the committee will consider the guaranteed
income as a way of achieving that goal. Chretien is not expected to say
how he will attack poverty until his Throne Speech next month. If the
committee endorses the idea, conceivably it could still happen. Given that
all five of the major parties have either endorsed or seriously considered
some form of income guarantee at one time or another, there is some hope
that a broad coalition in favor of the idea could develop: Although they
will differ about the amount of income redistribution that should be done,
the various Canadian politicians could conceivably agree that an income
guarantee is the best way to redistribute income. But, such an agreement
does not seem likely. Nor does it seem likely that Chretien will make such
a proposal or make the needed effort to create such a coalition.
If the basic income guarantee is to succeed in Canada--or anywhere
else--it will need strong political leadership that will do more than
float a trial balloon. Leaders will need to convince the public of the
need for an income guarantee and build up a constituency in favor of it.
As is, the trial balloon was only an exciting piece of good news to the
tiny minority of people in Canada who already knew of and supported the
idea. Most likely, the Liberals did not make the guaranteed income an
issue in the campaign because they did not believe it was a political
winner and they didn't believe enough in the idea to risk their nearly
certain electoral victory to promote it. However, if the leadership in
Canada's Liberal Party decides to make such a bold move, the enactment of
a basic income guarantee could be closer than most supporters would have
thought possible.
-Karl Widerquist, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, 2001
Jean Chretien
by Andre Coelho | Sep 5, 2018 | News
After reporting on the two first days of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Congress in Tampere, Finland, 24th and 25th of August, a second and final part is here lay forth, covering for the event on the last day (26th). (Note 1)
Jamie Cooke, Sarath Davala, Evelyn Forget, Loek Groot and Olli Kangas all sat together at the University of Tampere main auditorium to speak and discuss basic income experiments. These stood for, respectively, the Scottish feasibility study (not yet a functional pilot), the Indian Madhya Pradesh basic income pilot (concluded – ran through years 2011 and 2012), Canadian experiments (past “Mincome” experiment and the interrupted Ontario pilot), the Netherlands transfer schemes (several Municipalities) and the Finish ongoing two-year experiment. The session was chaired by Phillipe van Parijs.
Jamie Cooke
The speakers were asked to freely describe each case. Olli Kangas assured the audience that the Finish experiment is going on as planned, and that results will start to be collected and organized after the ending date, in December 2018. He also confirmed that the studied variables were essentially related to paid work and related job market interactions, adding that survey data would be published at the beginning of 2019 at the latest. As for Evelyn Forget, she reminded that basic income experiments in Canada have been more focused on health outcomes, although work-related results have also been captured. She believes the Ontario pilot – six months into its planned duration – was cancelled for ideologic reasons (the new conservative government arguing that people should get jobs, instead of depending on unconditional transfers). In his turn, Loek Groot informed the audience that experiments in the Netherlands are not testing basic income, but several ways of managing people on benefits. He also added that the social benefits system in the Netherlands is decentralizing, hence the Municipalities initiatives to start these experiments which, generally, measure work-related variables, plus health and life satisfaction data. Finally, Jamie Cooke explained that the basic income idea in Scotland has very much gained from BIEN’s affiliate in the region (Basic Income Scotland) and its actions to spread the word about it. That and the work of RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), both in the United Kingdom and the local Scottish RSA, has helped in gaining traction for the (basic income) experiment. Jamie noted that the language used when presenting and discussing basic income must be clear, because people need to understand what is being done or planned.
At this moment, van Parijs introduced a provocative question: What, if any, would be the results of a basic income experiment that would lead you to give up on the basic income idea? Olli Kangas recognized that there could be such a result, taking on a cautious approach. However, he added, experimental results could always be “spun” politically in several directions, according to ideologic agendas. Evelyn Forget didn’t oppose to that view, although, contrary to Kangas, she thinks the outcomes of such experiments are already more or less predictable (drawing from past experiments analysis). Sarath Davala wouldn’t quite imagine himself not being a supporter of basic income, and so returned a more passioned answer: “I don’t know, and I don’t want to think about it!”. He added, however, that basic income experiments also test if trusting people is good or not (he believes that it is good). Near the end of the session, Evelyn concluded that people love stories, caring much less about numbers and statistics. That is why she worries about eventual social destructive behaviours which may occur during (basic income like) experiments.
Parallel sessions during this last day of the Congress were widely varied, although only lasted through the morning period. Papers on freedom and (social) reparation, trade unions, work, rights, alternative currencies and the relation of all these with basic income were presented.
Evelyn Forget
The last Plenary Session was featured by Evelyn Forget, who explained in further detailed what happened with the Ontario experiment. She informed that first the new government argued that the experiment had “failed”, which could not be true since there was no data to justify that statement. In a subsequent argument (for having cancelled the experiment), the same government alleged that 25% of the recipients had dropped out, which was also false, for the same reason (no data). The true reason for slashing the basic income pilot finally came, when an official from the newly elected government stated that they did not believe in “free money”, but in people getting jobs. Forget was further concerned about this situation, aggravated by the fact that recipients were getting more or less twice then they would have from regular benefits (and now had to return to their original earnings, with no previous warning). The need to ease these recipients out of the experiment has motivated an insurgence of activity by Canadian social activists (mainly basic income advocates and anti-poverty organizations), to try and restart the experiment or at least to help people transition from their income support during the experiment to their former earnings.
Forget concluded the Plenary with more general considerations on income, welfare and basic income. According to her, income security is not only linked to precarious employment, but also with welfare bureaucracy, which has gotten so complex that people have difficulty in knowing what their earnings will be from month to month. Hence basic income would introduce a kind of income regularity that most people nowadays cannot really expect from the market nor from the State. She ended on the note that the goodness of basic income very much depends on its financing mechanism, which could turn an output of social solidarity into one of societal disintegration.
Closing the Congress, Annie Miller shared a few last words, emphasizing that BIEN Congresses have greatly expanded since their inauguration in 1986. All the same subjects are covered nowadays, as were before (ex.: poverty, social justice), but now including issues such as (basic income) experiments, environmental issues and cryptocurrencies. For her, the importance of research, dissemination of knowledge and activism for basic income cannot be overstated. Finally, Miller is confident that, although present-day world is (mainly) governed by sociopaths, the time has arrived to replace them with empathy, kindness and honesty.
Note 1 – Mistakenly, Lena Lavina’s Plenary Session was held on the 26th (first in the morning), but reported on part 1 as having been on the 25th. So now, the last Plenary held on the 25th, on basic income experiments, is reported on in the present article (part 2).
More information at:
BIEN Congress 2018 website
André Coelho, “BIEN Congress 2018 (part 1)”, Basic Income News, September 3rd 2018
