by Yannick Vanderborght | May 18, 2011 | Research
GAMEL, Claude, (2011), ‘Basic income and ELIE transfers: Argument for compatibility despite divergence’ in GAMEL, Claude & LUBRANO, Michel (eds.), 2011, On Kolm’s Theory of Macrojustice. A Pluridisciplinary Forum of Exchange, foreword by Tony ATKINSON, Springer Verlag, 2011, 370 pages.
The theory of macrojustice, introduced by S.-C. Kolm, is a stimulating contribution to the debate on the macroeconomic income distribution. The solution called “Equal Labour Income Equalisation” (ELIE) is the result of a three stages construction: collective agreement on the scheme of labour income redistribution, collective agreement on the degree of equalisation to be chosen in that framework, individual freedom to exploit his-her productive capacities (the source of labour income and the sole basis for taxation). For example, by giving to society the market value of one day of their working week, the individuals pay a lump-sum tax, which varies from one individual to another only in terms of the productive capacities of the individual concerned. In return, they receive from society the average value of all incomes derived from this one working day.
This collective book is organised as a discussion around four complementary themes: philosophical aspects of macrojustice, economic analysis of macrojustice, combination of ELIE with other targeted transfers, econometric evaluations of ELIE. Gamel devotes chapter 5 (pp. 145-185) to the comparison between Van Parijs’ book – Real Freedom for All (1995) – and Kolm’s book – Macrojustice (2005) -. Despite being formally close, both propositions diverge because the financing of basic income is not really guaranteed and the treatment by ELIE transfers of “eccentric productive people” who choose not to work is not obvious. Both projects remain nevertheless compatible: from a philosophical point of view, Van Parijs tries to equalise individuals’ “external endowments”, while Kolm exploits only their “internal endowments”; from an economic point of view, TECIE transfers which would be based on “external endowments” could thus complete ELIE transfers stemming from “internal endowments”. The first examination of this “hybridisation” provides the framework of a temporary conclusion.
Further information on line at:
https://www.springer.com/economics/public+finance/book/978-3-540-78376-3
by Citizens' Income Trust | Apr 30, 2011 | News
1000 Euro for everyone. Freedom. Equality. Basic Income is the title of a new book (€1.000 für Jeden: Freiheit. Gleichheit. Grundeinkommen in the original) by Götz W. Werner and Adrienne Goehler, published in August 2010. According to the Amazon.de website it is currently in place No. 1,563 of all books being sold, but in the category ‘Social Justice’ it is No. 1. It is clearly of considerable significance to find so much interest in a Citizen’s Income in a European country.
An interesting review of this book appears in the January Review of Books in Sp!ked. The first half of the review is factual and informative and is reproduced below (with permission from Sp!ked. You can read the original dated Friday 28 January 2011 at www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/10136/ )
The idea that the state should give everyone a basic income has seized the imagination of Germany’s middle class and politicians.
by Johannes Richardt (head of PR and communications at Novo Argumente publishing house)
At the moment, more than €1 trillion flows into the more or less state-controlled German welfare complex every year. Representing one third of German GDP, this vast amount of money covers every social benefit, from child allowance to health insurance. If the economic stats were not striking enough, of the 80 million people living in Germany only 40 per cent earn a wage. So a large proportion of the population is dependent either partially or wholly upon the state.
But the German welfare state does not just provide a financial safety net. It also seeks to regulate the behaviour of benefits claimants through various forms of lifestyle intervention, such as dictating how much claimants should be allowed to spend on cigarettes. In this regard, the so-called Hartz IV legislation, passed in 2005 by the then ruling Green-Social Democrat coalition, is important. Named after its originator, Peter Hartz – then a social democratic trade unionist and manager of part state-owned Volkswagen before being imprisoned for embezzlement in 2007 – Hartz IV effectively revised the status of the unemployed. They were no longer citizens in need of assistance while out of work: they were deemed welfare dependent. They were no longer people fallen on hard times, but fully capable of getting back into work: they were psychologically dependent upon welfare and incapable of getting back into work.
Hartz IV not only produced a new form of state dependency; it also sought to prepare these damaged citizens for work. To this end, a new sector of senseless and unproductive labour for about 1.5 million of the unemployed benefits claimants was created (thus removing them from unemployment statistics). Under the pretext of empowering the unemployed by psychologically preparing them for the labour market, these benefits claimants are forced into absurd and degrading activities run by highly subsidised companies with Orwellian-sounding names like Neue Arbeit [New Work]. One example of this absurd work-for-work’s-sake philosophy is the Toys Company. In more than 60 factories around Germany, the formerly unemployed people work for an extra €1 per hour on top of their out-of-work benefits, recycling second-hand toys for poor children. One task is to check the completeness of second-hand puzzles. ‘The record for completing the 5000-piece puzzle is just 10 days’, explained Toys Company’s manager, ‘although unfortunately we found out that three pieces were missing’. Götz Werner and Adrienne Goehler refer to this example in their new book 1000 € für Jeden. Freiheit. Gleichheit. Grundeinkommen. (€1000 Each. Liberty. Equality. Basic Income.) They argue for a new model of state welfare distribution which would replace the bureaucratic, behaviour-management regime of Hartz IV with one based on a simple premise: the state would pay everyone a basic income.
At first sight their central idea of a basic income for everybody seems quite charming: Every citizen gets €1,000 from the state every month from cradle to grave. As Werner, the billionaire founder of a drugstore chain, and Goehler, president of the Hamburg Art Academy, note, €1000 represents more than just a living wage. They argue that it also enables people to participate in the cultural life of society.
Because this would be an amount that every person would be legally entitled to, there would be no more degrading means tests and interventions in the lives of benefits claimants. The welfare bureaucracy as Germans know it would be redundant: the unemployed would be freed from doing compulsory labour promoted by the state, and the rest of society would be freed from the imperative of wage labour provided by the market. Income would be separated from work. As one would not need to sell one’s labour in order to guarantee an income, the authors argue, people could choose their line of work, for whom they want to work and for how long. This would lead to a new society in which self-realisation, creativity and compassion replace the existential fears created by the current rat race.
The German political class is partially sympathetic to the idea of a basic income. Hence, with the exception of the Social Democratic Party (plus trade unions), all parties represented in parliament have been discussing various models of basic income at some point in the past few years. For instance, in its party programme, the liberal Free Democratic Party calls for a Bürgergeld (Citizen’s Income), an amount paid out whenever necessary but low enough to maintain the incentive to work. Elsewhere, the Greens call for a Bedarfsorientiere Grundsicherung (needs-based basic provision), and even within the conservative Christian Democrat Party there is support for a Solidiarisches Bürgergeld (solidarity citizen’s income).
… Support for the idea [also] comes from the German middle class. Campaign groups with names like ‘Freedom Instead of Full Employment’ and ‘Federal Agency of Income’ have emerged, advertising their ideas on various websites, in films and at events and demonstrations. It is important to note that support for a basic income does not come from unemployed and poorly educated low-wage employees. It comes from privileged and educated young professionals with middle-class backgrounds who, working in poorly-paid, insecure positions in the media and cultural sector, hope for an unconditional basic income to make their lives that little bit more secure. This is no struggle for abundance for all. For these metropolitan types, a basic income promises security, opportunities for self-realisation and psychological well-being.
It is to the fears and prejudices of this post-material milieu that the book €1000 Each speaks. In this way, the book exemplifies the rampant social pessimism so prominent in contemporary Western societies. The authors describe the insecure working conditions of the ‘creative class’, surviving on short-term contracts and project work, as the future for a society that has given up on the goal of well-paid and meaningful work for everyone. According to the authors, only a minority of people will earn their money in secure, long-term work. The rest of us will be left to the fate currently endured by the creative class, the ‘vanguard of precarious conditions’.
Referring to American sociologist Jeremy Rifkin’s 1995 book The End of Work, Werner and Goehler argue that the advance of globalisation, automation and rationalisation has led to a post-industrial society in which production can no longer serve as the basis of societal wealth. Economic growth, they assert, ‘is a dead duck’. Instead, Werner and Goehler urge us to focus on creativity as ‘the only remaining, sustainably exploitable resource of the twenty-first century’. This is why they argue for a basic income. Because to tap into this resource of creativity, while avoiding the social unrest that will come with the shortage of constant, paid work, requires everyone to be accorded a level of material security.
This is where the first half of the review ends. The second half of the review is highly critical of the whole idea of a Citizen’s Income: ‘Basic income, low aspiration: The idea that the state should give everyone a basic income has seized the imagination of Germany’s middle class and politicians. Their enthusiasm is testament only to the poverty of their ambition’ is the full title of the review. In the next issue of the Citizen’s Income Newsletter these anti-CI views will be reproduced and critically examined.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Apr 30, 2011 | News
Kevin Donnelly, who was an active supporter of Basic (Citizen’s) Income from its early days in the 1980s, has died at his home in Manchester aged 82. In an article by Kevin in the BIRG Bulletin in 1989 he described himself as ‘currently supply teaching, writing articles and leaflets, after a career as high-school dropout, toolmaker, clerk, sales manager, then teacher’.
Kevin was passionate about doing something to better the lives of ordinary working men and women. He expressed this through his religious belief, as well as actively promoting a Citizen’s Income in any arena available to him. In 1989 he was a founder trustee of the Basic Income Research Group, which became the Citizen’s Income Trust in 1994.
The standard definition of a Citizen’s Income is that it should be paid for by levying tax on the incomes of workers. It was unease with this aspect of Basic or Citizen’s Income that led Kevin (and me) to become involved in monetary reform. If the state reclaimed the money-creating power from commercial banks, then the proceeds could be used to fund a small Basic Income. Monetary reform used to be the preserve of cranks (and sometimes bigots as well), but it has now become urgent and mainstream following the banking crash of 2008. An important forum for the monetary reform debate is the Christian Council for Monetary Justice, of which Kevin was a long term supporter.
Kevin, always inspirational, argued with infectious good humour. His great joy was in pricking the pomposities of the hide-bound and conventional. His do-it-yourself Christmas cards with their poems and pictures were a delight. Game to the end, his wife Shirley tells me he had several recently delivered books yet to read.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Apr 30, 2011 | Opinion
Ruth Lister, Understanding Theories and Concepts in Social Policy, Policy Press, 2010, xii + 311 pp, hbk 1 861 34794 7, £60, pbk 1 861 34793 0, £19.99.
Not only is this a most useful textbook, but it is also a sustained argument for the usefulness of theory. The back cover says that the book is for students and their teachers, but because it constantly draws connections between social science theory and practical social policy it will also be read with profit by social policy practitioners.
Most of the book’s chapters start with a set of theories or ideologies and then relate them to policy areas. Thus moral hazard and public choice theory inform our understanding of Thatcherism’s quasi-markets; feminism has changed the position of the public-private divide and thus our treatment of domestic violence; post-Fordism has contributed to the change from comprehensive education to niche-marketing academies; Foucault has uncovered the disciplinary networks which now influence many areas of our lives; and the idea of ‘social construction’ tells us where ‘the underclass’ comes from – to mention just a few of the many connections to be found in the book.
Three important chapters then start with social policy concepts – needs, citizenship, community, liberty, equality, and social justice; and these too are related to practical social issues: mental health, the relationship between social security claimants and the state, and press censorship – again, to name just a few.
The structure and method of the book reflects the author’s experience with the Child Poverty Action Group and as a university teacher, and the clarity of expression and organisation of the material have clearly benefited from her teaching experience. The final chapter on social movements similarly reflects Lister’s constant engagement with social policy issues through her involvement in organisations, through her speaking at conferences, and through her articles and books. This chapter would have benefited from a rather more personal approach and perhaps should have included an account of issues she faced while at the Child Poverty Action Group. In general, the last few chapters would have benefited from more practical examples.
This is a marvellously comprehensive and comprehensible textbook. There is bound to be a second edition. It should contain a chapter on future directions in social policy which outlines the options for reform of the welfare state, and in particular extends the material on the argument between universalism and means-testing briefly begun on p.191. The debate over the feasibility and desirability of universal provision will be increasingly important in an age of austerity, and students and practitioners would benefit from an extended treatment of the field.
by Yannick Vanderborght | Nov 16, 2010 | Research
BIRNBAUM, Simon (2010), ‘Två föreställningar om jämlikhet: Om rättvisa, självrespekt och välfärdspolitik’ [”Two conceptions of equality: On justice, self-respect and welfare policy”], Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning (Norwegian Journal of Welfare Research), 13 (2) 2010, 70-82.
A luck egalitarian view holds that inequalities are objectionable only if they are traceable to luck, i.e. circumstances beyond individual control. This article examines recent attempts to develop an alternative account of egalitarian justice that focuses, instead, on the conditions necessary for people to interact as social equals. Simon Birnbaum (Stockholm University) develops a contribution to this relational conception of justice by exploring the relationship between economic inequality, non-subservience and the bases of self-respect. A pluralistic conception is defended according to which such relational concerns should complement rather than replace luck egalitarian commitments. The author also discusses the political implications of this view with regard to income maintenance schemes and conflicts that may arise between the enforcement of responsiblity and the protection of self-respect.
Author’s email address: simon.birnbaum@statsvet.su.se.
