by Ian Orton | Jun 3, 2013 | Opinion
In 2011, the United Nations (UN), fronted by Michelle Bachelet, head of UN Women, launched the Social Protection Floor [SPF] initiative (1). This initiative aims to support the development of social protection worldwide. Arguably, this development represents an opportunity for more experimentation with basic income and possibly fully-fledged basic income programmes.
National SPFs aim to extend social security vertically (providing more comprehensive services and benefits) and horizontally (extending coverage to a greater number) to cover all groups. In particular, SPFs can assist the extension of coverage to the unprotected, the poor and the most vulnerable, including workers in the informal economy and their families. Countries should define their floors according to national needs and priorities and progressively build their floors in the most advanced yet achievable manner. The UN states that SPFs should comprise at least the following social security guarantees:
- Access to essential health care, including maternity care;
- Basic income security for children;
- Basic income security for persons in active age who are unable to earn sufficient income;
- Basic income security for older persons (1,2).
The UN’s use of ‘basic income security’ should not be understood in the same way as the Basic Income Earth Networks use of “basic Income.” Basic income security literally means a set of minimum income guarantee that could or could not be arranged as an unconditional, universal payment. These guarantees can be fulfilled in different ways through social insurance, social assistance or effective minimum wage or labour market measures.
In spite of a possible divergence with BIEN’s conception of a basic income, it is likely that these policies would represent a significant step toward basic income by legitimising the idea of basic income security as an essential ingredient for human development. Arguably, these would create a social policy culture more conducive or receptive to BIEN-type notions of basic income. In fact, many of the income security programmes championed by the SPF are those often touted by the BIEN community as precursors to fully-fledged basic incomes, such as the Bolsa Familia in Brazil. Clearly, there is some convergence.
In June 2012, this initiative was bolstered further when the International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organization voted on an historic Recommendation for a SPF, which supports the extension of social protection coverage and the progressive building of national social security systems. The adoption of this new international labour standard, the Recommendation concerning national floors of social protection (No. 202) (3), marks a major milestone for social security, as it reaffirms the human right to social security and renews national commitments to extend coverage.
The current momentum gathering behind the SPF and the actual proliferation and strengthening of existing SPFs throughout middle- and low-income countries already provides the basic income with an entry point as well legitimising basic income discourse in general. In fact many social pensions and family benefits (as advanced by the SPF) are essentially a basic income for the elderly and for children. Moreover, they have proven their impressive positive economic and social impacts (4) However, extending a rights-based discourse to basic income (in the BIEN sense of the world) still remains plagued by an array of difficulties where active population (i.e. the working population) groups are concerned. In other words, the SPF has a more ‘workfare’ view of income guarantees for the working poor, and that this group should not get unconditional income guarantees. Rather they should have to participate in some kind of public works’ programme.
Perhaps even more interesting still, is the emergence of a new hot topic within development discourse of the SPF: the idea of a specific ‘global fund’ to finance SPFs globally (5). If new financing sources do become available this may open up new financing sources for basic income-type programmes to be introduced for specific population groups. Thus, all those interested in the basic income would be well advised to keep an eye on the emergence of a global fund.
Naturally, many have well founded reservations about a yet another vertical fund earmarked for a specific use. It may add to an already confounded and highly fragmented international development assistance architecture, and result in top down prescriptions of how countries should develop their SPFs. Nonetheless, in spite of these concerns there is a discernable groundswell of political support for the idea of global fund for SPFs. It is perhaps conceivable that the idea of basic income will find ripe opportunities here. Watch this space.
For more information on this issues see:
1. ILO. 2011. The Bachelet report: Social Protection Floor for a fair globalization, Report of the Advisory Group chaired by Michelle Bachelet Convened by the ILO with the collaboration of the WHO (Geneva).
www.ilo.org/global/publications/ilo-bookstore/order-online/books/WCMS_165750/lang–en/index.htm
2. Ian Orton. 2012. The ILO Recommendation on Social Protection Floors: A milestone in the extension of social security coverage. ISSA, Geneva.
www.issa.int/News-Events/News2/The-ILO-Recommendation-on-Social-Protection-Floors-A-milestone-in-the-extension-of-social-security-coverage
3. ILO. 2012. Social security for all: The ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation (Briefing note). Geneva, International Labour Office.
www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/RessFileDownload.do?ressourceId=31089
4. Ian Orton. June 2010. Reasons to be cheerful: How ILO analysis of social transfers worldwide augurs well for a basic income (with some caveats). Submitted for the 13th International Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network, Sao Paulo, Brazil, basic income as an instrument for justice and peace.
www.bien2010brasil.com
5. Magdalena Sepúlveda & Oliver de Schutter, 2012. Underwriting the Poor: A Global Fund for Social Protection. Briefing Note 7. United Nations SpecialRapporteur on the Right to Food.
www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20121009_gfsp_en.pdf
Disclaimer:
The responsibility for opinions expressed in this article rests solely with the author and dissemination does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Organization of the opinions expressed in it.
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 1, 2013 | Research
Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income
According to the publisher, “Freedom is commonly understood in two different ways: the absence of restriction or interference (scalar freedom) and the absence of slavery or oppression (status freedom). Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income argues that philosophers have focused too much on scalar freedom and proposes a theory of status freedom as effective control self-ownership—simply, freedom as the power to say no. This exciting new volume argues for and explores the implications of this theory of freedom. It shows that most societies today put the poor in situations in which they lack this crucial freedom, making them vulnerable to poverty, exploitation, and injustice. Widerquist argues that the basic income guarantee is an appropriate institution to help secure status freedom in a modern industrial society.”
Karl Widerquist is an associate professor in Political Philosophy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. This book is the first of two planned books examining a theory of justice he called “justice as the pursuit of accord.”
This book is part of Palgrave-Macmillan’s series “Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee.”
Widerquist, Karl, Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No, Palgrave Macmillan, March 2013. ISBN: 978-1-137-27472-4, ISBN10: 1-137-27472-7, 5.500 x 8.500 inches, 256 pages, $100.
Publisher’s book page
Publisher’s series page
A Kindle Edition is available on Amazon.com
by Karl Widerquist | Apr 18, 2013 | Research
Philippe Van Parijs
“Rediscovering The Utopian In Europe: An Interview With Philippe Van Parijs,” Global: The Global Journal. March 26, 2013
According to the author, “Philippe Van Parijs is a central figure in the worlds of philosophy and politics alike. Described by Amartya Sen as ‘one of the most original and creative thinkers of our time,’ he is famous for his defense of a Universal Basic Income – an unconditional monthly grant allocated to all – as the best expression of social justice and freedom. Building on the thought-provoking exchange between Francis Fukuyama and Jürgen Habermas published in May, this special extended interview challenges us to imagine a fairer future for the European project.”
https://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/1038/
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jan 7, 2013 | Opinion
BIEN now stands for ‘Basic Income Earth Network’. Once every two years BIEN holds a congress, and this year’s showed just how appropriate the name now is and how inappropriate it would be to still call it the ‘Basic Income European Network’. There were participants from South Africa, Namibia, India, Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Latin America, and numerous European countries. Over three hundred in all gathered for forty-eight hours of plenary sessions, workshops and panels: often six different workshops and panels at one time, with three or four speakers each, to enable all of the papers to be delivered and discussed.
The congress was titled ‘Pathways to a Basic Income’. There was a sort of pattern to the timetable. Friday’s sessions were largely on the current state of the debate, Saturday on routes towards implementation of a Citizen’s Income, and Sunday on a Citizen’s Income’s relationships with such vital themes as ecology, rights, justice, and democracy: but nothing is that tidy, and each day contained a wide diversity of presentations and discussions touching on all of those areas.
The high point was a set of presentations by Guy Standing and representatives of India’s Self Employed Workers Association on the Indian Universal Cash Transfers pilot project and on some of the interim results. Of all of the sessions that I attended this one got by far the longest applause. The other high point, though a rather lower key presentation, was the significant story of Iran’s Citizen’s Income told by Hamid Tabatabai during one of the panel sessions.
The Congress was a quite inspiring mixture of the visionary and the realistic, of the broad-brush and the detailed, of the theoretical and the practical, and Germany’s Netzwerk Grundeinkommen (Basic Income Network) is to be congratulated on organising such a highly successful event.
by Karl Widerquist | Nov 19, 2012 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
My new book, Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory Of Freedom as the Power to Say No, now has a release date of February 28, 2013. Although I have edited or coauthored six other books, this is the first book I’ve written all by myself. It is also the first published book in which I begin to outline—however tentatively—my theory of justice. The basic income guarantee is intimately tied up with this theory of justice, and so I would like to take this opportunity to explain some of the background that led me to write it.
I don’t know exactly when I began thinking about the ideas that made their way into this book. The general philosophical outlook is something that has been bouncing around in my head for a long time. The outlook didn’t appear as a whole at any one point; it gradually developed. My interest in social justice began when I was a kid. My parents were politically interested, liberal Christians (a rarity these days). They, my brother, my sister, and I regularly discussed politics around the dinner table. Growing up in that context in the 1970s, I was optimistic about the progress the United States had made against racism, and I began to believe that the biggest problem remaining in most democratic countries is the horrible way we treat the poor.
The television series “Free to Choose,” by Milton Friedman, first introduced me to the idea of a guaranteed income, which is now more commonly known as the basic income guarantee. He presented it mostly as a way to simplify the welfare system, but having thought about it over the years, I began to see it as the centerpiece of a just society and a serious challenge to the Left: If we really care about other people in society, we should care about them unconditionally. The effort that has so far resulted in this book is a self-exploration of why I think this perspective is so important.
As I see it, from the hanging gardens of Babylon to the modern sweatshop, one social problem occurs over and over again in different ways: advantaged people force disadvantaged people to serve them. Can this be justified? I find the social contract answer extremely dissatisfying: it’s OK to force people to do things as long as you can imagine conditions under which they would have signed a contract subjecting themselves to force.
For some time I thought I was a libertarian, but I eventually came to see the Right-libertarians, who call themselves “libertarians” in the United States, in a similar light as social contract theorists. I find their answer even more dissatisfying: it’s OK for owners to force the propertyless to do things, because someone did something before we were all born to give owners special rights over the Earth and its resources, so that the propertyless have no right to refuse the duty to serve owners. Right-libertarians talk about freedom from force, but they invite everyone to ignore the tremendous amount of freedom-threatening force involved in the establishment and maintenance of property rights to the earth and all its products. Without rectifying this issue, “libertarianism” becomes the defense of privilege at the expense of liberty.
Although these issues were important to me, I didn’t do much direct work on social justice until the mid-1990s, when Michael Lewis, Pam Donovan, and I decided to have weekly breakfasts to talk about the progress we were making on our theses. These discussions usually turned to politics, and one day we found the one thing we could all agree on was an unconditional basic income guarantee. So, Michael Lewis and I wrote a paper on it that was eventually published (about ten years later and in heavily revised form) as “An Efficiency Argument for the Basic Income Guarantee,” in International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment.
One paper on the basic income guarantee led to another as well as to involvement with the Basic Income Earth Network and to writing the Newsletter for the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network. I read a lot of impressive literature on basic income, but none of it quite seemed to articulate the reasons I thought it was so important. So, I had to explore my ideas further.
In 2001, I held a half-year fellowship at the Chaire Hoover at the Catholic University of Lovain in Belgium. By this time I had realized that my interest in economics was secondary to my interest in social justice, and I decided that the best way to work full-time on social justice was to go back to graduate school and get a doctorate in political theory. Getting a second doctorate still feels like a crazy idea, but in hindsight, it was the right thing for me. I started at Oxford in October 2002, and by April 2006 I completed a doctoral thesis entitled “Property and the Power to Say No: A Freedom-Based Argument for Basic Income,” which is my initial statement of the theory of justice as the pursuit of accord. Many of the ideas in this book appeared first in that thesis—often in a slightly different form.
I have discussed these ideas with so many friends, colleagues, students, and mentors that I can’t possibly name everyone who has influenced this book. If I’ve discussed politics or philosophy with you in my lifetime, you might have influenced this book in some way. So, thanks.
Since leaving Oxford, I have continued to rework and extend the ideas from my thesis on and off while working on other projects. Not long after Laurie Harting of Palgrave Macmillan approached me about becoming series editor for their new book series Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee, I thought about turning my thesis into a book. In the spring of 2012, I set out to do that, but as I revised it, I found that the chapters in the first half were growing and splitting into more chapters.
I finally realized that the book would be an extension of the first half of my thesis—concentrating on an exploration of the theory of freedom I call “effective control self-ownership” or “personal independence” and leaving the development of most of the rest of justice as the pursuit of accord for later works. Effective Control Self-Ownership is a theory of freedom that makes the freedom from directly or indirectly forced service central to an individual’s standing as a free person. The book defines, derives, and defends this theory of freedom in the context of the contemporary literature on freedom and justice. It examines the implications of the theory and argues that a basic income guarantee is an important tool to maintain personal independence in a modern society.
Now that the book is almost ready to be released, I still feel that it is tentative in many ways. I could spend years revising it, but it is best to get it out. Although tentative, it is a sincere expression of my beliefs on the issues discussed at this point. I hope to explore these ideas much more in the future.
-Karl Widerquist, Mojo’s Coffee House, New Orleans, Louisiana, August 2012; revised onboard a flight from Dallas to London, November 2012
