by Hilde Latour | Feb 9, 2017 | Research
David Piachaud, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics and an associate of The Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE), published a discussion paper on Citizens’ Income (CI) in December of last year.
Abstract:
A Citizen’s Income, or a Basic Income, is not a new idea but it has been receiving
increasing attention. There is confusion about the idea and an attempt is made to
distinguish different concepts. Then a full Citizen’s Income is examined in relation to four key criteria: the justice of an unconditional benefit; the possibility and fairness of a simple individual benefit; economic efficiency; and political feasibility. On all four criteria, Citizen’s Income fails. It is concluded that Citizen’s Income is a wasteful distraction from more practical methods of tackling poverty and inequality and ensuring all have a right to an adequate income.
Summary
Piachaud first acknowledges that a CI, or a basic income, is attractive in its simplicity, and he cites article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948: “Everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family.”
Piachaud states, “A Citizen’s Income could ensure that right was achieved.”
He then describes four different concepts of a Citizen’s Income (CI):
- Bonus CI (a basic income based on a dividend)
- Partial CI (a basic income for particular groups only)
- Supplemental CI (additional income alongside a social security system)
- Full CI (an unconditional basic income adequate to live on to all citizens)
In the rest of his paper, Piachaud examines a full CI (which in his definition is not based on dividend but fully financed out of taxation) in relation to four key criteria. Through his analysis, he concludes that Citizens’ Income fails all four of these tests:
- The justice of an unconditional benefit
Piachaud discusses Philippe Van Parijs’s paper “Why Surfers Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income” and argues that it is unfair (and therefore unjust) for healthy people to live off the labor of others.
- The possibility and fairness of a simple individual benefit
A full CI is intended to ensure (in a simple manner) that needs are met, but not everyone has the same needs. Piachaud gives examples related to disability, diversity in housing costs, and diversity in living arrangements (people living alone or with others). Basing a CI on individuals and assuming their needs are identical, is therefore unjust, Piachaud argues. “The social security and in some ways the tax system attempt to take these factors into account, however inadequately.”
- Economic efficiency
Piachaud defines a full CI as an unconditional income fully financed out of taxation. With respect to the economic efficiency, he argues:
“A full CI goes to everyone unconditionally, whereas social security is targeted at certain groups who in the absence of social security would be most likely to be poor. In consequence, a full CI that replaces social security is far more costly than social security, and this has to be paid for from higher taxes on all incomes with far-reaching economic consequences. The inevitable conclusion is, therefore, that a targeted social security system was, is, and will be more efficient and equitable than a full CI.”
- Political feasibility
Piachaud finds it very unlikely any political party will adopt an unconditional CI as a policy proposal either in the full or supplemental forms
After this analysis, David Piachaud concludes, “Citizen’s Income is a wasteful distraction from more practical methods of tackling poverty and inequality and ensuring all have a right to an adequate income.”
Info and links
The full paper can be found here.
Special thanks to Josh Martin and Danny Pearlberg for reviewing this article
Photo: diversity by Nabeelah Is, january 2012, CC-BY-SA 2.0
by Julen Bollain | Feb 7, 2017 | News
(Picture credit: Counterpunch)
In this article Julie Wark and Daniel Raventós write about why the trade unions do not support an unconditional basic income when “properly understood and administered, basic income could have enormously positive consequences”.
Prior to their discussion of the reasons why trade unions do not support an unconditional basic income, they first try to assess both the normative and the practical questions that must be answered when it comes to speaking about the unconditional basic income.
It is also analyzed the right-wing and left-wing unconditional basic income supporters.
Finally, Their discussion is comprised of a point by point response to the six arguments most often raised by unionists when opposing basic income and after discussing them the article is finishes by saying that unionists “also raise basic issues about what kind of society we should and might be able to have because the underlying human rights concerns are always the same and they affect everybody: freedom, justice and dignity”.
Daniel Raventós is a lecturer in Economics at the University of Barcelona and author inter alia of Basic Income: The Material Conditions of Freedom (Pluto Press, 2007). He is on the editorial board of the international political review Sin Permiso.
Julie Wark is an advisory board member of the international political review Sin Permiso. Her last book is The Human Rights Manifesto (Zero Books, 2013).
More articles by Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark, here.
Read the original article:
Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark, “Why don’t Trade Unions support an Unconditional Basic Income (precisely when they should)?”, Counterpunch, January 11th, 2017
by BIEN | Feb 4, 2017 | News
(Image Credit: Le Monde)
Thomas Piketty, Professor in the Paris School of Economics and author of Capital in the 21st Century, in his blog (in Le Monde) reports “there is a degree of consensus in France” on the provision of a minimum income. French citizens are for it.
For the minimum income, Piketty says disagreements exist around the amount. The consensus for the provision of a basic income is seen in “numerous other European countries,” Picketty claims. Piketty notes the problem with discussions about basic income is the “real issues” are not explored and can represent “social justice on the cheap.”
“The question of justice is not simply a matter of 530 Euros or 800 Euros a month,” Picketty said, “If we wish to live in a fair and just society we have to formulate more ambitious objectives.”
Piketty said, “The debate on basic income has at least one virtue, namely that of reminding us that there is a degree of consensus in France on the fact that everyone should have a minimum income.”
In a previous interview, Piketty supported some arguments for a basic income (financing access to basic goods) and remained skeptical about other arguments (substitute for basic goods) for a basic income.
Read the full article here:
Thomas Piketty, “Basic income or fair wage?“, Le Monde, December 13th, 2016
by Genevieve Shanahan | Feb 3, 2017 | News
Renowned French economist Thomas Piketty, best known for his 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, has been making headlines for his positive comments regarding basic income in a number of blog posts. However, the approach he proposes is not basic income as it is commonly understood.
In a blog post published on 13 December, Basic income or fair wage?, Piketty states that while he’s pleased to see such consensus across the political spectrum on the idea of a minimum income within France, discussions of a basic income and its specific level are not radical enough – that such conversation “leaves the real issues unexplored and in reality expresses a concept of social justice on the cheap.” He points instead towards progressive taxation, fairer approaches to education and fair pay and control within corporations as topics deserving focus.
Returning to the question of basic income, Piketty raises what is essentially an important administrative concern. He notes that, at present, employees earning the minimum wage rate in France have their taxes and social contributions deducted from their wages at source, putting their net wage below the threshold for social assistance. However, the worker must herself apply and wait several months to receive the social assistance necessary to bring her income back up to the minimum level. Piketty seems to be concerned that such inefficiencies and poverty traps would proliferate under a basic income scheme.
Then, on 25 January, a collection of prominent researchers, including Piketty and famous sociologist Dominique Méda, published in ‘Le Monde’ a call in support of Benoît Hamon’s basic income proposal – Pour un revenu universel crédible et audacieux [For a credible and audacious universal income]. Some news organisations quickly followed with headlines claiming Piketty had endorsed basic income, yet the scheme it describes is not what we would ordinarily understand as basic income (and certainly strays from BIEN’s definition on a number of points).
To begin, the researchers defend an interpretation of Hamon’s basic income scheme that may not be entirely accurate, stating:
“Benoît Hamon never said that he would pay 500 euro a month to 50 million adults. On the contrary, he has explicitly noted the fact that the new system could be subject to resource conditions and concern only wages of less than 2000 euro, with amounts that would clearly not be the same for all.”
However, as we have covered here and here, Hamon does indeed hope to ultimately offer a full basic income, and while his steps towards such full implementation have been modified somewhat over the course of his campaign, the first step he proposes is for a basic income to be paid to those between the ages of 18 and 25, unconditional on resources or low wages.
A two-speed social security scheme?
Piketty’s administrative concern again arises here, with the authors claiming that “it would hardly make sense to pay 600 euro a month to those earning 2000 or 5000 euro a month, to then immediately take back the same amount by increasing their taxes.” This leads the piece to end with an argument for “basic income” to be provided essentially as tax credits on the payslips of the stably employed.
In response to requests for clarification following this post, Piketty published another blog post on 30 January – Notre revenu universel est-il vraiment universel? [Is our universal income really universal?]. In this article, Piketty clarifies his recommendation, suggesting that it would be most efficient to establish different methods of payment of the basic income dependent on different employment circumstances:
“We believe that it is high time to move away from the comfortable abstractions that often characterise this debate, and finally to say precisely how it is possible to proceed. In this case, the solution we propose is to pay the universal income in a mixed form. For all those without jobs, or who only have a very part-time job, or indeed whose job is divided between multiple small employers or contractors, then there is no other solution than to pay the universal income in the form of an allocation managed by public agencies.”
Piketty claims, however, that direct payment of an income top-up on stable employees’ payslips is to be preferred, where feasible, because it links the idea of basic income with that of a fair wage and because, in practical terms, he does not believe the basic income payment would be as simple and automatic as the top-up.
Nicole Teke, public relations coordinator for the French Movement for Basic Income (MFRB), has the following to say:
“Even though he clearly shares the spirit of UBI in terms of establishing an income floor for everyone, his proposal would create further polarisation of the labour market by having a two-speed system for stable workers vs. unstable workers and the unemployed. This contradicts the principle of universality of basic income.”
MFRB have laid out a number of responses to Piketty’s comments here. This includes a useful side-by-side comparison of one of MFRB’s basic income proposal and Piketty’s suggested scheme, and an analysis of the potential perverse effects of the latter.
Looking at basic income from a narrow perspective
A common thread through these three articles seems to be Piketty’s belief that basic income, when implemented, would amount to a mere increase of the amount of money eligible citizens could apply for, with no change to its bureaucratic system of administration. He then repeatedly contrasts a system whereby the full “basic income” is listed on stable employees’ payslips, along with the relevant taxes that partially or fully outweigh this amount, with his preferred system of simply listing the balance, if any, owed to the worker.
This preconception of how basic income would be implemented seems to be partially motivated by his own preference regarding the message a basic income would communicate: that work is valuable, and basic income is a way of offering a just salary and equitable remuneration for work. He also espouses a belief that working life won’t change in response to automation and “Uberisation” as much as others suggest, so we should prefer top-up payments on payslips to a separate, standardised basic income system for all, paid directly by the government.
In this way, while Piketty begins by chastising basic income proponents for lacking radical vision, he ultimately endorses just a minor part of the basic income proposal – that of automatic payment. And while, in the joint letter, we are entreated to offer a concrete basic income proposal, the system put forth caters only to a subsection of the population, with hand-waving regarding how this would connect to basic income for the rest.
As Nicole Teke of MFRB concludes:
“By focusing on the financial distribution effect of UBI, Piketty misses the bigger point of UBI: to emancipate citizens. Despite his good intentions in fostering the debate, Piketty has created somewhat more confusion on the definition of universal basic income, which MFRB has tried to establish as a standard in the debate in France.”
Read more:
Thomas Piketty, “Basic income or fair wage?”, Le Monde, 13 December, 2016.
Thomas Piketty et al., “Pour un revenu universel crédible et audacieux” [For a credible and audacious universal income], Le Monde, 25 January, 2017.
Thomas Piketty, “Notre revenu universel est-il vraiment universel?” [Is our universal income really universal?], Le Monde, 30 January, 2017.
Jean-Éric Hyafil, “Commentaires sur le ‘revenu universel’ de Thomas Piketty” [Comments on Thomas Piketty’s universal income’], Le Mouvement Francais pour le Revenu de Base, 2 February, 2017.
Adrien Sénécat, “Revenu universel : Valls et Hamon se disputent la référence à Piketty” [Universal income: Valls and Hamon disagree over Piketty’s reference], Le Monde, 26 January, 2017.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Pro basic income candidate set to win socialist primary election”, Basic Income News, 25 September, 2016.
Genevieve Shanahan, “FRANCE: Hamon becomes Socialist Party presidential candidate following basic income-focused campaign”, Basic Income News, 30 January, 2017.
Photo: Thomas Piketty, CC 2.0 Universitat Pompeu Fabra
by Kate McFarland | Jan 17, 2017 | News
Juliana Bidadanure, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, has designed a graduate seminar on the philosophy of basic income, which she is currently teaching for the winter term.
According to the official course description, the seminar will address questions such as the following: “[I]s giving people cash no strings attached desirable and just? Would basic income promote a more gender equal society through the remuneration of care-work, or would it risk further entrenching the position of women as caregivers? Would alternative policies be more successful (such as job guarantees, stakeholder grants, or a negative income tax)? How can we test out basic income? What makes for a reliable and ethical basic income pilot?”
The seminar will analyze and critique basic income from multiple perspectives in political theory, including feminism, liberalism, republicanism, communism, and libertarianism. Initial readings include classic works by Philippe van Parijs and responses from his critics. Subsequent sessions will address contemporary philosophical work on basic income, as well as potential alternatives, such as job guarantees. Additional topics include empirical work on the health (and other) effects of basic income, the role of automation in motivating basic income, and basic income in relation to gender and racial justice, among others.
Explaining why she was inspired to develop the course, Bidadanure says, “It has been my dream for a while to teach a class on the Philosophy of Basic Income. First, because I am committed to the idea that everyone has a right to an income and because I think that UBI deserves serious treatment; second, because I think it is a great lens through which one can teach Political Philosophy. There is great writing for and against basic income from within pretty much each and every school of political thought. And so my idea was to introduce students of a variety of disciplines to a broad range of writers in political philosophy by focusing on UBI. Given the recent interest in Basic Income in the US, including by computer scientists, engineers and economists, I thought that the timing was right to launch the class!”
On February 8, a special panel on basic income experiments will be held in connection with the seminar.
The panel will feature guests Guy Standing (Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, University of London; BIEN co-founder), Elizabeth Rhodes (Research Director of Y Combinator’s basic income experiment), and Joe Huston (Regional Director at GiveDirectly). Standing, Rhodes, and Huston will speak about basic income research in (respectively) India, Oakland, and Kenya. The event will be presented as a roundtable discussion and open to the public. More information on this event is available here.
Reactions from Students
Although housed in the Department of Philosophy, the seminar spans topics of interest to students in many disciplines. The seminar group is constituted by 10 enrolled participants as well as a further 10 auditors, comprising students of philosophy, political science, psychology, economics, computer science, engineering, and business.
Asked about his interest in the seminar, one participant, a PhD student in Economics, remarks, “Basic income is such a hot topic, but I’ve not come across much rigorous academic thinking on the topic, in any discipline. I now discover there is a whole bunch in philosophy, which I was unaware of and which is really exciting!”
Commenting on his reactions after the first session, he adds, “It’s awesome that the class is about a third economists, a third philosophers, and a third computer scientists – it seems like the venue for a truly exciting exchange of views; and the arguments for and against basic income are so much richer and more diverse than this economist expected!”
Another student in the seminar, Sage, is currently working towards a masters in Symbolic Systems while also finishing an undergraduate degree in Computer Science. Her interest in the topic derives from her work in the technology sector:
“My masters thesis is a work of political philosophy analyzing the responsibility of tech companies to help those in poverty. I am interested in Universal Basic Income because it has grown increasingly popular in the US due to the fear that one day all of our jobs will be completed by robots. I am interested in exploring the other reasons for Universal Basic Income and determining if it is a viable choice in the U.S. given our trajectory in the tech sector. I was impressed by how diverse our class was by region, interest, and background. Having the opportunity to discuss topics in basic income with students so different from me is a fantastic opportunity to round out my research.”
Anusha, a graduate student in Computer Science says her love for data structures (especially the top view of binary tree) made her focus on natural language processing and computer vision. She became interested in the seminar due to her background in AI:
“I was really interested in this seminar because Universal Basic Income has been receiving a lot of attention lately, especially in the Computer Science and AI communities, due to the potential impacts of automation on the future of work. There have also been a lot of discussions around the joint responsibilities of Silicon Valley and policymakers to help those whose jobs are most at risk. I’m really excited about this seminar because it addresses Universal Basic Income from several different perspectives, and I’m eager to learn about the various arguments for and against UBI from those standpoints.”
Nishith, an undergraduate senior in Computer Science who works on computer vision and reinforcement learning, became interested in UBI following a discussion of the economic impact of self-driving trucks and President-Elect Donald Trump’s emphasis on bringing manufacturing jobs back to America. He is excited by Bidadanure’s seminar, adding, “I was surprised to learn that discussions about UBI need not revolve around automation (as they do in Europe) and had a great time talking about the potential benefits and pitfalls of this proposed policy [at the first class meeting].”
Dr. Bidadanure, who holds a PhD in Political Philosophy from the University of York, has research interests at the intersection of philosophy and public policy.
She has written on the theory and practice of equality, including, in particular, age-group justice and what it means to treat young people as equals. She has written on the specific arguments to give a basic income to young adults as well as on hybrids of basic income and basic capital.
Bidadanure plans to teach an undergraduate course on basic income at Stanford in the next academic year. She is also working to launch a basic income research initiative at Stanford as part of the Center for Ethics in Society in 2017.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
Information and photo provided by Juliana Bidadanure.
