by Guest Contributor | Mar 31, 2017 | News
Photo: Hôtel du Parlement du Québec, CC BY-SA 3.0 Jeangagnon
Quebec hints at basic income1 in recent budget, aims to bypass testing
By Roderick Benns
The Quebec Liberal government has hinted strongly in its recent budget that some form of basic income guarantee is imminent – but likely only for a portion of the province, at least to begin with.
Of note in the announcement is that Quebec will bypass any testing of the program, unlike Ontario with its commitment to a pilot project, and instead will begin a restrained roll-out of a minimum income program aimed at lifting the most vulnerable out of poverty.
After Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard put Francois Blais in charge of the Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity in January of 2016, it was clear there was interest in the Quebec government for some kind of basic income guarantee program. Blais wrote a book about the topic in 2002, called Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians.
A committee was also established in 2016 by the government to examine ways to improve the current income support system.
In the recent budget, more about the plan “to fight poverty and social exclusion” will be unveiled in a few months by Blais.
“For the first time, this plan will be aimed at lifting over 100,000 persons out of poverty, particularly single persons and couples without children,” states the budget.
“Increasing available income will be the focus of the approach taken,” reads the budget, suggesting a gradual implementation of some kind of minimum income program.
There are other poverty reduction measures mentioned, including increasing the available income of social assistance recipients who make an effort to work, provisions to ease their entry into the labour market, and “measures to foster participation by individuals and families in community life.”
The government states in its budget that in preparing their plan they will evaluate the recommendations made in the coming months “by the expert committee on the guaranteed minimum income.”
In neighbouring Ontario, the Province recently released its summary of the survey completed by 34,000 people. The province is looking to create a pilot that would test how a basic income might benefit people living in a variety of low income situations, including those who are currently working.
Minister of Poverty Reduction, Chris Ballard, like his Quebec counterpart, is also concerned with the sea change Ontario has experienced in its job market. He told the Precarious Work Chronicle that this insecurity seen goes hand in hand with a basic income.
“Everybody is very sensitive with the changing nature of work. It’s not the same world, where you work in the same place for 30 years. We worked so hard as a society to get out of poverty, and then suddenly we’re fearful we might slide back in. Basic Income might provide a fantastic safety net,” he says, to help reduce anxiety.
However, unlike Quebec, which appears to be edging toward a gradual implementation, Ontario will test these assumptions with a pilot project with more details announced in the weeks to come.
1 Editor’s note: In Canada, it is common to use the term ‘basic income’ to refer to guaranteed minimum income programs (including programs on which the incomes of low earners are “topped up” to some minimum threshold). This is a broader usage than that employed by BIEN insofar as it does not require that the subsidy be “paid to all, without means test”. It may also be a narrower usage insofar as the minimum income guarantee is generally stipulated to be high enough to lift recipients out of poverty, whereas BIEN’s definition of ‘basic income’ does not constrain the size of the payment.
Roderick Benns is the author of Basic Income: How a Canadian Movement Could Change the World.
He is also the publisher of the Precarious Work Chronicle, a social purpose news site designed to shine a spotlight on precarious work and the need for basic income.
by Andre Coelho | Mar 15, 2017 | Opinion
A debate has arisen about the definition of basic income and the facts that support the movement. To contribute my input to the debate, I feel the need to respond, line by line, to Francine Mestrum’s latest article published on Social Europe.
It starts right at the top, with Mestrum equating basic income, professed in the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Newsletter articles, with guaranteed minimum income. To justify this approach, she mentions the fact that no basic income has ever been implemented, and that the pilots concerned transferred cash only to poor people. Although her view is understandable, she fails to see that these pilots intended to test the outcome of a basic income implementation (which effectively transfers income from the relatively richer to the relatively poorer). It’s not that in a future basic income implementation rich people will not get it (as opposed to the Negative Income Tax approach); universality implies they also get it, but then all of the basic income and more is taken away, through taxation. That’s redistribution functioning.
We already see that in our current welfare states, but in twisted, unfair and inefficient ways. The conditionalities associated with present-day social security are creating poverty traps all around, so the unconditionality associated with basic income is intended to eliminate them. However, and as a matter of fact, her reference to the Canadian basic income experiment at Dauphin is misplaced, since Dauphin was actually an experimental saturation site, which means that everyone in the town was eligible for the cash. The income monitoring and distribution simulated the taxation effect (only positive transfers for the relatively poor).
Then, Mestrum goes on to say that current basic income experimental plans in the Netherlands, Finland and Scotland “can threaten social protection mechanisms”. Well, we in the basic income movement have already heard enough about the possibility of basic income being highjacked by right-wing neo-liberals threatening to dismantle social protection mechanisms (and much more) with the introduction of a basic income. I can hear them say, between the lines: “Here’s free money to everyone! Now get out of our faces and let us dismantle everything in existence publicly owned or managed.” Of course there’s a risk. I’m not denying it. However, any person who is aware will not be fooled by such intentions. I, among many other basic income defenders (most of them, actually), support a basic income which is complementary to the welfare state, not a substitution for it. Louise Haagh makes a very good case for this defense, as expressed here.
Then the questions. According to Francine, the only serious questions worth answering on basic income are whether income distribution schemes, like in Alaska, should be limited to resource-rich regions, and whether there shouldn’t be a global fund (linked to resources from all regions) to cover global needs. These are important questions, no doubt. But hardly the only serious ones. How about, “Should not all people enjoy a minimum amount of freedom in their lives, instead of being pressured and exploited all the time?”, or “Should not countries and their governments make efforts to reduce structural inequalities, which are seen as the source for countless social problems?”, or even “Should not countries introduce a way to guarantee basic financial security for all, as a way to effectively deal with the changing nature of work, precariousness and automation?”. My view is that Francine Mestrum nurtures a very narrow view on what is and what is not meant to be a basic income.
As for semantics, notably the “basic income” vs “minimum income” discussion in France, I do have not much to say. However, if we limit ourselves to a pure language discussion, note that “basic income” can mean anything from the most abject dictatorial sanctions-based system (as in present-day United Kingdom) of social assistance, to the most progressive, avant-garde unconditional system of cash transfers. Once each one of us explains what he/she understands these terms to be, there should be no confusion left.
Next, Mestrum identifies BIEN as a source of the problem, to be held responsible for these disputes in language (which she inelegantly calls “communicating on alternative facts”). This is unfair. More precisely, it is unfair because it stems from a misunderstanding of the mission of BI News. BIEN’s Newsletter is a collection of articles from Basic Income News for a given month. These articles convey information about what is happening around the world concerning basic income, and an article about the alleged confusion between “basic income” and “minimum income” would actually be a good candidate for Basic Income News. Articles can report news from someone defending basic income, or somebody else critiquing it (as Francine Mestrum does). Events and other publications on the Internet are also frequently highlighted byBasic Income News. What is posted on Basic Income News does not necessarily convey BIEN’s views on basic income. Instead, for that end, a short, general definition is available on BIEN’s website. There can be absolutely no mistake here.
Another thing has to be perfectly clear. As a BIEN member, and Basic Income News editor-in-chief, my role is not to speak for the minds of other people, even when they are confusing “basic income” with “minimum income”. Basic Income News is expected to be an impartial news service, aiming nonetheless to disseminate information about basic income. Interested readers will take their time to digest all this information, to think and to draw their own conclusions. Here I resort to a line I normally use in these situations: no one convinces no one, only the individual becomes self-convinced. Now, for that, of course, one must be in possession of enough information. And that’s where we, at Basic Income News, step in.
Understandably, Francine Mestrum has a deep rooted fear that basic income implementation will lead to the collapse of the welfare state and, with it, all the hard won social conquests, such as public education and public health and, of course, democracy. We are all too weary of the effects of the rentier capitalist economy thriving these days, chief among them the erosion of democracy. But Francine’s fears are not against basic income. These are against, as she herself puts it, “those who do not believe in society”. And that’s why all true defenders of a social basic income, the one that promotes solidarity, complements the welfare state and recognises the commons, must do exactly that: promote solidarity, defend the welfare state (while improving it) and help expand the commons.
Otherwise, I must agree with Francine: our society will inevitably decay into a dystopia of unbelievable proportions, destruction of the environment and exploitation of the people.
More information at:
Francine Mestrum, “The alternative facts of the basic income movement”, Social Europe, 16th February 2017
by Kate McFarland | Feb 23, 2017 | News
Ronald Blaschke, a writer and advocate for universal basic income in Germany and Europe, has contributed to the Degrowth in movement(s) project at Degrowth.de.
In a series of 32 essays, Degrowth in movement(s) investigates the relationship of the degrowth movement with other social and political movements.
Blaschke’s introductory piece describes the idea of UBI and the current state of the UBI movement in Germany, with special attention to intersections between the latter and other social movements in Germany, especially (of course) the movement for degrowth. For example, basic income supporters participated in the 2014 Degrowth Conference for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity in Leipzig, resulting in the formation of a working group on basic income. Moreover, in May 2016, an international conference specifically on UBI and Degrowth convened in Hamburg, with the goal of fostering dialogue to allow the two movements to “learn about the relevance of the other and ultimately aim to identify points of intersection, common challenges and opportunities for cooperation.”
Blaschke explains several reasons for which the degrowth and UBI movements form a natural partnership. First, by mitigating economic insecurity, UBI removes a massive barrier to ecological progress. Degrowth advocates often agree that chronic economic insecurity “block[s] important transformation processes, including ecological ones.” Second, UBI is typically seen as promoting citizens’ participation in democracy, which it turn creates the groundwork for the transition to a more sustainable economy and society (which many believe to be attainable only through democratic means). Third, UBI could engender an economy based on solidarity rather than competition. Some parts of the degrowth movement hold that a solidarity-based economy (in contrast to a profit-driven competitive economy) is the only way to thwart excessive consumption of natural resources. Fourth, UBI enables individuals to exercise much greater control over their own time, and many in the degrowth movement maintain that “shortening the period of gainful employment and having more time available for other activities is a transition project on the way to a degrowth society.”
At the end of the piece, Blaschke provides a bibliography for future reading on the topic (with most pieces in German).
Read the full article (English version):
Ronald Blaschke (translated by Ellen Worrell), “Sustainable Ecological Transition is Impossible Without Unconditional Social Security for All People,” Degrowth in movements, January 24, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard.
Cover image CC BY-SA 2.0, swiftjetsum626.
by Pierre Madden | Feb 5, 2017 | News
Photo: Jean-Yves Duclos, CC BY-NC 2.0 UNU-WIDER
Thirty McGill students meet with Jean-Yves Duclos, the Federal minister of Families, Children and Social Development for Canada.
If you follow this site, you may remember a piece on my meeting with François Blais, Quebec minister of Employment and Social Solidarity, who, over 15 years ago—when he was an academic—wrote a well-regarded book on Basic Income. Minister Blais has been tasked by his boss Philippe Couillard, the Premier of Quebec, to explore options for its implementation.
On January 16, his federal counterpart, Jean-Yves Duclos, the minister of Families, Children and Social Development for Canada, sat down for an hour with some 30 McGill students to answer questions.
Unlike Blais, Duclos does not have a mandate from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to develop a plan for Basic Income. He is currently focusing on a National Housing strategy, a poverty reduction strategy and the issue of homelessness.
Although the discussion covered many topics, the common thread in Duclos’ responses was the eternal Canadian question of which is a federal and which is a provincial responsibility. I was not alone in asking some pointed questions about Basic Income. The underlying theme of his answers was also constitutional in nature [1].
When I asked the Minister what his thoughts were on Basic Income, he had only positive assessments:
He felt it would avoid poverty traps and that there is less stigma attached to it than social assistance. He also feels it is administratively simpler for both governments and the public, since Canada already has two Basic Incomes – one for children (the Canada Child Benefit), and one for seniors (the Canada Pension Plan). Expanding on the first, the minister explained that the entire pre-existing system was under federal control. Fifteen years ago, the support for children on welfare was taken over by the federal government and separated from the support for adults on welfare, which remained a provincial responsibility. The federal government, therefore, had all the necessary tools to implement the Canada Child Credit in July 2016. Provincial programs vary widely across the country. If an individual province wants to implement Basic Income in its area of jurisdiction, nothing can stop it. For the federal government to implement a national program would be far more difficult. “It would be a challenge, a problem of a different order of magnitude,” he said.
However, the federal government has a powerful tool to achieve national standards while respecting provincial competence: money. Today, Canadians enjoy the same level of health care no matter where they live because the provinces agreed to common standards of comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration, and accessibility, in exchange for cash transfers.
With regard to housing, the Minister had this to say:
In a federation, a natural and, in most cases, a productive tension exists between the different levels of government. In Canada, in some areas, the tension is avoided by claiming that one area is under some jurisdiction, completely. For housing, this not the case. Housing is shared. Provinces in these situations say: “Why don’t you transfer us the money and we, being closer to our citizens, should know better what to do with those resources.” However, then you lose accountability for these federal tax dollars and it is difficult to have a national, shared vision across all Canadians wherever they live. So the trade-off is between full control to provinces and territories versus a national sense of identity and a common set of values. So the tension is always there and when it’s properly managed, the outcome is always good.
The takeaway is quite clear. Clues to the process of implementing Basic Income are to be gleaned from the history of health care introduction. In that case, successful provincial programs in Western Canada evolved into the national system.
[1] Articles 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 lay out distinct responsibilities of the Federal and Provincial governments. Other articles spell out shared responsibilities. Although the division of powers for poverty is not clearly delineated, in part because of the complexity of the issue, the federal government has successfully imposed national standards in shared domains such as Health Care.
Questions like these are less prominent in the United States because of the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
by Andre Coelho | Feb 3, 2017 | News
Photo: Nick Pearce. Credit to: Bristol Festival of Ideas.
In this audio recording of a conversation, in front of a live audience at the Bristol Festival of Ideas on the 17th of November, 2016, Louise Haagh, Anthony Painter, Nick Pearce and Torsten Bell discuss the pros and cons of the basic income idea, chaired by Jonathan Derbyshire.
In this talk, Anthony Painter, the Director of the Action Research Center at the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), starts by describing what he calls the “gig economy” (one economy driven by tasks, not by jobs). He also refers to the great changes in the distribution of work which are occurring right now, and in the relationships with intelligent machines. According to him, people are feeling increasingly uncertain and powerless, which generates stress. That is his first argument for basic income: it is an agent for freedom. He says politics for basic income must be based in solidarity, empathy and compassion, and that basic income should not be pursued as an end in itself, but as a test and a measure for the betterment of society.
Nick Pierce, professor of Public Policy at the University of Bath (and former Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research), goes on to say that he considers himself to be a “friendly skeptic” of basic income. He recognizes qualities in the basic income movement, led by many activists, who defend tackling problems with current welfare states and pursue a vision/trend for the betterment of society; not simply reacting to problems. On the other hand, he does not agree that basic income can liberate individuals (from entanglement with the State and with the market), nor that it can liberate individuals from work. According to Pierce, work is a way to gain personal fulfillment and, as such, looks at basic income proponents as “anti-work” in a sense. He also fears basic income might lead people to disengage from one another, hence he considers it a dangerous form of dependency, particularly towards the State (seen as a provider). Pierce also points out that basic income, as a policy, will be a result of the social forces that have forged the different welfare states, hence may differ considerably from region to region. He advises basic income advocates to consider all of these regional differences, in order to propose meaningful basic income strategies.
Louise Haagh
Louise Haagh, as Reader at the Department of Politics in the University of York and co-Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), replies that basic income is a “natural outgrowth of social democracy”. This comes despite Haagh’s agreement that, in fact, the basic income movement has failed to detail the implementation realities of basic income around the world. However, she feels it has succeeded in getting basic income out of academia and into mainstream discourse. She also points out that other welfare features, such as public education and health, do not contain as many conditions as income support (e.g. behavioral conditions), but agrees that basic income should not be seen as a replacement for organized fulltime employment. Rather, they should be seen as a complementary feature to guarantee full citizenship. She also sees basic income as a small but crucial strategic element that enables societies to think about their development with a more long-term approach.
On the critical side against basic income, Torsten Bell, Director of the Resolution Foundation, says that basic income interest has appeared due to two anxieties: robot anxiety (human jobs are being “eaten” by machines) and Left Existential anxiety (real wages stagnate or dropped, plus support for the traditional Left is fading). However, he perceives this interest as waning progressively. Bell is convinced basic income is not going to happen in the UK, reasoning that robots are systematically underperforming compared to their human counterparts, and that there have never been more jobs in the UK. Moreover, he says, statistics show that part-time jobs are not rising, or have not been, since records have existed. Bell detaches the United States case from the European reality, stating that what is happening in the former is not likely to happen in the latter, and equates basic income to higher taxes and higher poverty. He further reasons that it makes no sense to give a basic income to rich people, and that generally the public does not like the idea that “you should be paid not to work”. Finally, he disagrees with a political organization system where an elite at the top own the robots and make all the money, which is then redistributed to everyone else (assumed idle).
Replying to criticisms, Anthony Painter underlines that the world of work is getting more precarious, less paid and more insecure; hence something – like basic income – must be done about it. Contrary to Torsten’s assertion, he highlights that basic income advocates usually justify basic income as a way to validate work, giving people the opportunity to contribute to society in a meaningful way. He also points out that any basic income implementation cannot possibly surpass the already tremendously bureaucratic welfare state in the UK, so it is only bound to reduce it. On the other hand, Nick Pierce disagrees that basic income is waning, but agrees that politicians are constantly searching for “big ideas” to hold on to. Finally, Louise Haagh agrees that fortunately the basic income idea is not defended on a pure philosophical ground anymore, but instead has progressed to a more hands-on, practical approach. As Nick, she also disagrees that the notion of a basic income is waning, judging from the daily activity at BIEN.
Listen to the full conversation:
Bristol Festival of Ideas, “Basic Income – An idea whose time has come?”, in association with the Institute for Policy Research and the University of Bath, November 17th 2016
