by Karl Widerquist | Mar 21, 2012 | News
The Basic Income Canada Network has released the tentative schedule for the Eleventh Annual North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress: “Putting Equality Back on The Agenda:
Basic Income and Other Approaches to Economic Security for All.” The conference will take place at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, May 3-5, 2012.
While Canada, the United States, and many other OECD countries have grown increasingly unequal in recent years, equality has not been on the political agenda. Yet evidence shows that income inequality is accompanied by a range of significant negative consequences. Putting Equality Back on the Agenda will examine this growing trend of inequality and consider the option of a basic income to reduce economic disparity.
More than 50 researchers, activists, and political practitioners will present research on the economic, political, sociological, and philosophical issues of poverty, inequality, and basic income.
Featured speakers include:
- Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham Medical School and co-author of The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better;
- Charles Karelis, Research Professor of Philosophy at The George Washington University and Author of The Persistence of Poverty: Why the Economics of the Well-Off Can’t Help the Poor;
- Erik Olin Wright, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin – Madison, author of Envisioning Real Utopias, and American Society: How it Actually Works;
- Armine Yalnizyan, Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives;
- John Rook, Chair of the National Council of Welfare and CEO of Potential Place Society;
- Evelyn Forget, Professor, University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine, author of a major forthcoming study on Mincome (the Manitoba minimum income experiment);
- Simon Lewchuk, Centre for Public Justice;
- Senator Art Eggleton, Former Mayor of Toronto;
- Trish Hennessey, Director of Strategic Issues for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; and
- Dan Meades, Director, Vibrant Communities Calgary.
The North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress is a joint Conference of the U.S. and Canadian Basic Income Guarantee Networks. It takes place in Canada and the United States on alternating years.
The registration deadline is April 15, 2012. The registration fee is: $150 for Private, Corporate, University, and Government Registration, $90 for Not-for-Profit Registration, $40 for Low income, students, and seniors.
The entire schedule is online at:
https://biencanada.ca/content/11th-north-american-basic-income-guarantee-congress-schedule.
Registration, hotel, and venue information and an overview of the Congress are online at:
https://biencanada.ca/content/11th-north-american-basic-income-guarantee-congress-registration-now-open
by Yannick Vanderborght | Feb 25, 2012 | News
At the initiative of several green movements, this event will (among other things) include a projection of “Basic Income”, the documentary by Daniel Häni et Enno Schmidt, and a debate between basic income supporter Philippe Defeyt (former leader of the green party Ecolo) and basic income critic Bernard Friot (French sociologist and expert in issues of social protection).
This event takes place in Namur, Belgium on March 17, 2012 between 2:30PM and 10PM. Location: Faculté de médecine, Place du Palais de Justice, 5000 Namur.
Further information: https://objecteursdecroissance.be/IMG/pdf/revenu_de_base_mpoc_leger_2_.pdf
Or contact: Michèle Gilkinet <michele.gilkinet@base.be>
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jan 29, 2012 | Opinion
Tony Fitzpatrick (ed.), Understanding the Environment and Social Policy, Policy Press, 2011, xviii + 366 pp, hbk, 1 847 42380 1, £65, pbk, 1 847 42379 5, £21.99
This is an exploration of the complex relationship between social policy and the environmental challenges which we all face, with social policy here defined as ‘systematic public interventions relating to social needs, well-being and problems’ (p.2) – and the relationship really is complex because, whereas in the short term there might be a trade-off between money spent on protecting the environment and money spent on health, housing and education, in the longer term money not spent on protecting the environment will impact on health, housing and education. In the other direction, social policies in areas such as fuel poverty will have an impact positively or negatively on the environment; social policies have often been designed to promote economic growth, and this has an impact on the environment; and to redirect the aims of social policy will have an impact, too, and preferably one which will steer us away from the worst of the possible climate change outcomes.
In the first chapter Hodgson and Phillips describe the causes and implications of climate change and the depletion of non-renewable resources, and they discuss the different solutions available: mitigation, adaptation, geoengineering, and conservation. In chapter 2 Hannigan asks how ecologically valid solutions can be politically feasible when economic growth appears to be the political imperative. Any useful solution will therefore need to moderate consumption by the wealthy and provide a basic level of security for the poor so that they don’t need to destroy the forests. In chapter 3 Fitzpatrick discusses environmentalists’ criticisms of social policy’s current presuppositions, and outlines a ‘green economy’ and the social policy agenda to which it would give rise (for instance: ‘How can social insurance systems be adapted to cope with collective uncertainties?’ (p.84))
Chapters follow on the state’s (historically understood) role in environmental protection, environmental (consequentialist) ethics, philosophies (of environmental justice), and environmental policy (markets, regulation, and education); and then chapters on particular social policy fields: health, urban planning, transport, employment, citizenship and care, and international development and global poverty.
Fitzpatrick’s concluding chapter is an eloquent description of the options facing us: a sustainable global society, the human race clinging to survival at the Earth’s poles, and something between the two.
In Fitzpatrick’s chapter on environmental justice there is a discussion of a Citizen’s Income’s complex relationship to environmentally sustainable social policy, and at various points social insurance and taxation are discussed, but there is no chapter on income maintenance. This policy area is discussed in his Freedom and Security (Macmillan 1999) and in his Environment and Welfare (Palgrave 2002), but a chapter here would have aided our ‘understanding [of] the environment and social policy’.
The proof reading is poor in places. A particularly nice error is Fitzpatrick’s ‘I promised to void complexities’ (p.77).
This book does exactly what it sets out to do. It offers us understanding of the environment and social policy, and it does it well.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jan 28, 2012 | Opinion
Policy and Politics, volume 39, number 1, January 2011, Special issue: Basic Income, Policy Press, 2011, 144 pp, pbk, ISSN 0305 5736, online ISSN 1470 8442
This substantial collection of articles rehearses a plethora of arguments for a Citizen’s income (here termed a Basic Income), arguments both pragmatic and visionary; and an important byproduct for the reader is a distinct sense that the pragmatic and the visionary are related in a way more complex than we might at first have thought.
Guy Standing calls a Citizen’s Income an ‘economic stabilisation grant’ because it would boost aggregate demand, more efficiently allocate resources, and tackle uncertainty and rising inequality. As he suggests, times of crisis can lead to major change, and a failing paradigm can find itself displaced – but only if a new paradigm is ready to take its place (p.21):
One modest recommendation is that the emerging generation of economists and social policy students should urge their peers, and particularly the new political leaders, to match their rhetoric about being ‘radical’ by assessing genuinely radical ideas. Economics is a constantly unfolding body of thought, and those charged with implementing economic and social policy should face demands to think afresh and evaluate alternatives with open minds. (p.22)
Almaz Zelleke suggests that a feminist theory of justice requires a Citizen’s Income, and that such a universal unconditional income would promote a more gender-inclusive citizenship. ‘Most importantly, basic income indirectly compensates care and society’s other unpaid work without reinforcing the existing gendered distribution of labour or the primacy of the public sphere by equating care with work’ (p.38). Louise Haagh’s following article notes the correlation between a country’s level of equality and its citizens’ control over their time, and seeks a balance between employment and non-employment which she believes would be best served by a Citizen’s Income in a social insurance context.
Stuart White discusses two different ‘citizen’s endowments’: a Citizen’s Income, and universal capital grant. ‘Freedom’ and ‘entitlement’ arguments fail to separate the two options, and the way in which different ‘freedom’ arguments lead in different directions suggests that a combination of a Citizen’s Income and a universal capital grant might be the best option. Leading to the same conclusion, Tony Fitzpatrick discusses the concept of paternalism, distinguishes between a variety of types, recommends a ‘social paternalism’ that prioritises autonomy but doesn’t exclude other values, and suggests that a Citizen’s Income and a universal grant together will best promote such a social paternalism.
Bill Jordan recognises that the UK Government’s current benefit reforms as a useful step along the way to a Citizen’s Income, and raises the question: Will a small Citizen’s Income, established to make labour markets more flexible, then be increased in order to create a new basis for citizenship, or will it remain small and fulfil only its initial purpose? ‘The first steps towards basic income may become politically feasible for a variety of reasons, at a number of different developmental stages, all of which will also be perilous for the principle in various ways’ (p.112) – but those steps should not for that reason be rejected: ‘Social policy can seldom deal in pure principles or utopian solutions, and basic income is no exception. It cannot resolve all the challenges of globalisation … in a single reform, but these measures may be a step in the right direction’ (p.112).
Finally, Jürgen De Wispelaere and Lindsay Stirton study ‘the administrative efficiency of basic income’. Identifying those people entitled to a Citizen’s Income would be a necessary administrative task, and a variety of payment methods might be needed in order to reach the maximum number of payees, so administration of a Citizen’s Income would not be as simple as some might think. The authors discuss a dilemma: ‘Proponents can claim important administrative savings for basic income, provided they restrict those arguments to the most radical paradigmatic form, while simultaneously having to face up to the reality that this radical version of basic income may face insurmountable political obstacles’ (p.121: their italics). De Wispelaere and Stirton also quite properly suggest that a Citizen’s Income isn’t the only way to make administrative savings: other forms of administrative simplification are possible, such as the sharing of information between tax and benefits authorities and aligning tax and benefits rules with each other.
To round off the substantive articles section of this focused and comprehensive edition of Policy and Politics with De Wispelaere’s and Stirton’s article, which concludes that ‘administrative efficiency … is … political’ (p.128), seems really quite appropriate.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jan 23, 2012 | Opinion
Passported benefits
The Government’s Social Security Advisory Committee’s press release of 15 June 2011 heralded a ‘Public Consultation: Passported Benefits under Universal Credit – review and advice.’ In a footnote, the press release stated:
By Passported Benefits we mean those benefits to which working-age claimants of certain means-tested benefits are automatically entitled. For example, free school meals, free prescriptions, free dental treatment, etc.. We will consider the range of Passported Benefits available to working-age claimants but the recommendations will focus on the main Passported Benefits. We are particularly interested in receiving views about benefits in kind but welcome responses relating to cash benefits and discounts as well.
In this short article, I briefly examine the concept of Passported Benefits (PBs) as presented in the consultation document of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) (https://ssac.independent.gov.uk). Then I examine whether these needs would be met already within a CI scheme, or whether special arrangements would have to be made.
Passported benefits in the consultation document
The SSAC’s consultation document’s Annex B gives the consultation’s Terms of Reference:
The purpose of the advisory report is to analyse the range of passported benefits (“benefits”) which currently exist in order to:
- classify the target audience(s) for these benefits;
- identify the needs which those benefits address, and the wider policy objectives served by them now and in the future;
- identify and analyse the mechanisms that are currently employed to determine entitlement;
- consider the potential impact of changes in eligibility rules.(The document’s annex A comprises the table below)
The target audience (recipients) for PBs comprises working-age claimants who are in receipt of certain means-tested benefits (MTBs), such as Jobseeker’s Allowance and certain Tax Credits. It can, therefore, be assumed that the recipients are poor and that many of them will be living in poverty. Residents are likely using a payday loan to pay their bills. The payday loans are probably one of the main reasons they can afford to keep the lights on and have food in their fridges, keeping them afloat.
The purpose of the benefits appears to be to support low-income households, whether out-of-work or in-work, in specific ways. Some are designed specifically to help low income people meet the ordinary costs of raising children (Healthy Start Vouchers, free school meals, and school clothing grants).
Some PBs address exceptional circumstances that lead to extra expenditure, such as Exemption from Court Fees, Help with Prison Visiting Costs, and Legal Aid. These are circumstances that most of us do not experience as a matter of course. Educational Grants to enable gifted children to receive special training, for instance, in music and dance, provide another example. The travel costs associated with healthcare, and School Transport provision for those in rural areas, also fall into this category.
Many PBs can be seen as part of wider policies, often representing an investment in the future, (eg. our children’s health and education), and in the general health of the population (through free prescriptions, eye and dental care, leisure services and healthcare travel costs), thereby reducing future National Health Service bills. Similar considerations apply to the environment, such as Warm Front, and bus and tram discount schemes. Others represent an attempt to redress failures of public policy.
Benefits-in-kind are often controversial, because they offer no choice compared with cash benefits. Cash benefits permit the consumer the autonomy that most of us enjoy. Sometimes it may be cheaper to give benefits-in-kind rather than cash, but often it is a case of controlling benefit recipients because they are not trusted (rightly or wrongly) to select what others regard as best for them.
An interim statement says this:
The information-gathering phase of the Social Security Advisory Committee’s review has found that more than 25 different passported benefits are provided by government departments and through local authorities. The committee’s findings to date confirm that passported benefits are viewed by many respondents as fulfilling important needs. The consultation found that the value placed by claimants on individual passported benefits differs depending on their personal circumstances; respondents’ views on the withdrawal and delivery of passported benefits were mixed. For example, some respondents supported a tapered withdrawal whilst others favoured a timed withdrawal when a claimant moves into work; and the design of passported benefits should incentivise people to both move into work and stay in work. (Hansard, 5 Oct 2011, Column WS75, Written Statement on Universal Credit)
The final report will be published in the Spring.
The consultation document’s Annex A: A list of main passported benefits and responsibilities
| Benefits in kind |
Cash Benefits |
Discounts on charges or fees |
| Responsibility of Government Departments |
|
|
| Benefits from the Pupil Premium (Department of Education) |
|
|
| Exemption from Court Fees (Ministry of Justice) |
Help with healthcare travel costs (Department of Health) |
|
| Free School meals (Department for Education) |
Help with Prison Visiting Costs (Ministry of Justice) |
|
| Health goods/services, e.g. free prescriptions/eyecare/dental care (Department of Health) |
|
|
| Healthy Start Vouchers (Department of Health) |
|
|
| Legal Aid (Ministry of Justice) |
|
|
| Warm Front (Department of Energy and Climate Change) |
|
|
| Responsibility of local authorities |
|
|
| Help with the costs of school visits |
School clothing grant (cash/cheque) |
Bus and Tram Discount Scheme – London (Transport for London) |
| Leisure services, e.g. free swimming |
|
Leisure discounts |
| School clothing grant (vouchers) |
|
|
| School Transport |
|
|
| Responsibility of other bodies |
|
|
| Leisure services |
|
BT Basic (BT) |
| |
|
Leisure discounts |
| |
|
Warm Home Discount/Voluntary Social tariffs from utility companies e.g. WaterSure |
Citizen’s Income and passported benefits
Our question is, ‘Are the needs addressed by PBs already accounted for in a typical CI scheme, and, if not, should they be, and how?’
A Full Citizen’s Income (FCI) would be expected to be adequate to meet the needs of the recipient, including people over pension-entitlement age, people with disabilities, carers of last resort, and the responsible parent of a dependent child. The more generous the scheme, the more likely this is to be true. Thus, if the FCI and Child CI (CCI) are sufficiently generous, then Passported Benefits should not be necessary. If they were necessary, then it would represent a failure of the scheme.
A Partial Citizen’s Income (PCI) would not meet all of the needs of the recipient and would not be enough to live on. With this scheme, where exceptional needs are indicated, the PBs should continue. But, the question arises: ‘Should all those with the exceptional needs receive these benefits, or only the poorest?’ If the latter, how do we identify those on low incomes? – because everybody would be in receipt of a Partial Citizen’s Income, so the benefit would not act as a passport to PBs. As the PCI would not be enough to live on, it would need to be topped up with other income, usually through earnings. There will be some individuals who are unable to obtain even part-time work, and there will be some areas that suffer from multiple deprivations, where opportunities for work are thin on the ground. There will therefore have to be safety-net arrangements, and a simple scheme, possibly in the form of a Housing Benefit, would have to remain. Thus, those receiving a PCI and who are also receiving Housing Benefit or some other safety-net assistance could be eligible to receive PBs.
The largest group in the population with exceptional circumstances are those with a variety of disabilities, and a CI scheme would grant to all of these, without any means test, a costs-of-disabilities package (for constant care, mobility, special diets, etc.) in addition to their CIs. Here, the receipt of the package could act as a passport to other PBs.
Where the PBs are seen to be part of a wider policy, one must question whether the PBs for low-income, working-age adults, and especially benefits-in-kind, are the best way to achieve the objectives. Investment in the early years of childhood is known to pay large dividends to society later, in terms of healthy, well-adjusted adults. Notwithstanding adequate FCIs and CCIs, maybe benefits-in-kind, such as Healthy Start Vouchers, and free school meals, should be universally available to all children. As well as education projects to inform people about healthy diets and lifestyles, other instruments might be necessary, such as subsidies on fresh fruit and vegetables, and taxes on processed food with significant proportions of fat, salt and sugar. A CI is not a panacea for all social ills, and, where other public provision is made, it will usually be better to get the policy right in the first place, rather than to use benefits to paper over the gaps.
Universal schemes, such as the NHS, and universal benefits such as Child Benefit, are popular, inclusive, and redistributive. If a generous CI scheme were to be introduced, one might find that expenditure on other public services, such as health and the criminal justice system, would fall significantly, especially where those systems combat the effects of poverty. As with most things, it is cheaper to prevent poverty than to deal with its fallout later.
