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
by Guest Contributor | Jan 27, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Pierre Madden
Basic Income, it is argued, provides an effective and efficient means of conquering poverty. What, exactly, is the problem that we are trying to solve? Mention poverty to someone and they are likely to immediately think of the Third World. Bringing the focus back to poverty in developed countries is fraught with preconceptions. People have predispositions to think about issues in certain ways. They share these predispositions with all other members of society regardless of specific opinions on social questions. Various models are utilized rather than others based upon how we frame the issue.[1] And so we feel that we have an intuitive grasp of the subject.
Courts will accept eyewitness testimony that someone was drunk. If a person were to get in an accident while driving and damage another’s car, then during the time of car accident settlements, the defense lawyer can bring in an eyewitness who can testify to the fact that the driver was intoxicated. The witness is not an expert. No Breathalyzer test was done; no blood sample was taken. They can just tell from a person’s demeanor and the nature of the accident whether or not it could have been a DUI case. It is considered common knowledge. The same can be argued for poverty. Broad definitions of poverty exist, such as: “the condition of a human being who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain economic self-sufficiency or to facilitate integration and participation in society.”[2] “In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith argued, ‘People are poverty-stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of their community.'”[3]
The problem is translating this qualitative information into numbers so that policies can be implemented and progress tracked.
Some people accept that poverty is undefinable because it is a personal experience. This complexity is highlighted in the expression ‘poverty and social exclusion.’ A concept that you can’t define is difficult to measure. We may be evaluating actions taken to reduce poverty by a method which measures something completely different. Just counting the poor turns out to be a daunting task.
Many approaches are taken to arrive at a threshold value that defines poverty. I will present examples from Canada, Europe in general, the United States and the United Kingdom. Debates surrounding the various metrics are discussed as they come up. Some work incomes and welfare benefit numbers provide context.
In Canada, no official definition of poverty exists. Statistics Canada has been making this point for almost 45 years[4]. What is measured is low-income. Some countries like the United States have an official definition of poverty even if ‘there is still no internationally accepted definition of poverty-unlike measures such as employment, unemployment, gross domestic product, consumer prices, international trade and so on.’[5]
Statistics Canada tracks three low income statistics.
- The Low Income Measure (LIM) is 50% of the adjusted mean income of Canadians[6]
- The Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) starts with the spending of the average Canadian family on shelter, food and clothing (43% of after tax income).[7] The threshold is set at 20% more.[8] Any family earning less is below this Low Income Line.[9]
- The Market Basket Measure (MBM) ‘is a measure of low income based on the cost of a specific basket of goods and services representing a modest, basic standard of living.’[10] It takes into account the ability to reasonably participate in community activities as well as physical health. It varies by geographical location.
This last metric developed in the late 1990s by Human Resource and Skill Development Canada is different from the other two, introduced by Statistics Canada. The first two statistics are unambiguously relative. Strictly speaking they measure income inequality. While the Conference Board of Canada does not hesitate to refer to the MBM as absolute[11], the specialist I spoke to at Statistics Canada was not so sure.[12] However, he felt that the basic-needs poverty line (BNPL) proposed by Professor Chris Sarlo of the Fraser Institute might qualify as absolute. Sarlo himself nuances this view:
This basic-needs approach to poverty is often referred to as an ‘absolute’ measure. This label is misleading insofar as it suggests that the list can never change and is therefore completely out of place in our rapidly changing society. While the basic needs line does propose a broad list of necessities that remains in place over time, the nature, standard of quality, and the quantity of each of the components will vary across societies and will vary over time in a given society. In other words, the basic-needs approach is partly absolute (the list is limited to items required for long-term physical well-being) and partly relative, reflecting the standards that apply in the individual’s own society at the present time.[13]
Stepping back a bit, you can often use absolute poverty as a synonym for extreme poverty, a term applicable to deprivation in very poor countries. Even so, relative elements remain: you can’t compare the situation of someone with no heating in the Arctic to that of someone with no heating in the Tropics. Moreover, Sarlo’s BNPL is approximately 30% lower than the MBM using a similar approach. Clearly, relative and absolute measures overlap and both involve a degree of judgment and arbitrariness.
There are many other variations on these themes. I will cover just a few.
In Europe, they use a measure called the at-risk-of-poverty threshold to define poverty. It represents a ‘percentage of the median or mean value of the Equivalised disposable Income after social transfers.’[14] ‘A threshold of 60% is the most commonly used.’[15] EU countries simply referred to the 60% level as ‘generally accepted.’ [16] Tables sometimes show statistics calculated at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70%, without comment.
The official United States poverty threshold has a fascinating history.[17] Based on the work the Social Security Administration economist Mollie Orshansky, it is often referred to as absolute. However its creator labelled it ‘arbitrary but not unreasonable.’[18] As early as 1959, Orshansky was aware of the pitfalls and limitations of the standard budget (usually called market basket today) approach to defining poverty. At the time, and even today, only with food, because of its nutritional value, can we reach some consensus about what minimal requirements are. Orshansky used the two lowest budgets devised by the Department of Agriculture: the low-cost food plan and the even less expensive economy plan. For the non-food portion, she used Engel’s Law (named for the statistician Ernst Engel not Marx’s collaborator Friedrich Engels), a normative principle establishing that a family spends one third of its total income on food. Using a multiplier of three for food costs under both plans, with adjustments for childless couples and single people, 124 thresholds were developed for farm and non-farm families of various compositions. With a few minor modifications and yearly inflation updates, this measure, based on the economy plan, is still in use today to count the poor in the United States.
A novel variant of the market basket approach, the Minimum Income Standard for the United Kingdom (MIS) is maintained by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, UK. [19]
MIS is based on detailed research with groups of members of the public specifying what items need to be included in a minimum household budget. The groups are informed by expert knowledge where needed, for example on nutritional standards. The results show how much households need in a weekly budget and how much they need to earn in order to achieve this disposable income.’ [20]
MIS is not an absolute measure like the US poverty line nor is it entirely relative.[21] ‘MIS also seeks to ensure that minimum income is looked at in the context of contemporary society, but does so in an evidenced way.’[22] Rather than make assumptions about societal standards, public input is used. Also, the UK’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which created the MIS, does not consider it to be a measure of poverty[23] and uses the 60% of mean measure in reports it publishes such as Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2016.
To understand how different the figures are and to visualize the impact they have on the number of poor that are counted, I have converted all the metrics discussed into dollar amounts, in the table below. I make no claim that these numbers are comparable, only that they are reasonably accurate and up-to-date. The last three numbers are actual welfare payments rather than poverty statistics. They are strikingly lower than the rest and this fact does not speak for itself. It does, however, tell a story, if I may digress. The usual reaction when seeing these numbers is: how can someone live on such little income? I would ask: how does one get out of poverty under such straitened conditions? 5 In Quebec, a welfare recipient is allowed to earn $200 per month without penalty. Over that amount, for every extra dollar made their benefits are cut by a dollar (a 100% marginal tax rate). In France, every Euro earned is deducted. This is what is known as the poverty trap. The system is structured so as to remove any incentive to get out of poverty.[24] When governments set payment schedules so far below poverty lines and also discourage the poor from improving their situation, what message does that send?[25] And in case you were thinking that the answer is ‘Get back to work’, item 11 shows what those who cannot work receive about 50% more, still nowhere near any threshold, except Sarlo’s BNPL (item 4), which has been ‘criticized as being too stringent and even “mean-spirited”.’13 More on that later.
Items 8 and 9 are incomes for a 40-hour workweek. These numbers indicate that poverty is not an issue confined to the unemployed. For example, in 2014, ‘Walmart’s low-wage workers cost US taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing.’[26]
| |
Annual thresholds for a single person in 2016[27] |
CDN$ |
US$ |
| 1 |
Canadian Low Income Measure (LIM) [28] |
$22,652 |
$16,904 |
| 2 |
Canadian Low Income Cut-off (LICO) [29] |
$20,788 |
$15,513 |
| 3 |
Canadian Market Basket Measure (MBM) for Montreal [30] |
$17,944 |
$13,391 |
| 4 |
Sarlo of the Fraser Institute: Basic-Needs Poverty Line (BNPL) (Canada) 13 [31] |
$12,205 |
$9,108 |
| 5 |
European low-income measure (60% of mean income) applied to Canada. |
$26,941 |
$20,105 |
| 6 |
US poverty threshold [32] |
$16,202 |
$12,091 |
| 7 |
Minimum Income Standard MIS (UK)[33] [34] [35] |
$28,533 |
$21,293 |
| 8 |
Pre-tax full-time earnings at minimum wage in Quebec [36] |
$22,360 |
$16,687 |
| 9 |
Pre-tax full-time earnings at US federal minimum wage [37] |
$20,207 |
$15,080 |
| 10 |
Actual welfare payment in Quebec for those deemed fit for work. [38] |
$7,476 |
$5,579 |
| 11 |
Actual welfare payment in Quebec for those deemed unfit for work. [39] |
$11,340 |
$8,462 |
| 12 |
French Revenu de Solidarité Active (RSA) [40] |
$8,752 |
$6,531 |
As mentioned previously, the most striking pattern in the table is how the last three entries are low, compared to the rest. The others cluster together with the notable exception of item 4 (Sarlo’s Basic-Needs Poverty Line) and Item 10 (the US poverty threshold). Both of these statistics tend towards absolute measures, which are meant to focus on deprivation rather than income inequality. Which measure is appropriate in a developed country? If all you have achieved is to avoid destitution, are you no longer living in poverty? Not if integration and participation in society is beyond your reach. This is why relative measures of poverty are deemed more appropriate choices, especially in developed countries: they account for social inclusion.
I have tried to frame the question of poverty in such a way as to provide a better understanding of the numbers that inevitably come to define it at some point. Many judgments and choices are involved in calculating these numbers. Agreeing on a number requires social consensus. Unfortunately, focusing on the numbers is not conducive to building such a consensus and is even counterproductive, in that it immediately evokes highly emotional questions of cost and fairness. The whole debate sidesteps issues of social exclusion and lack of opportunities, to which people can better identify in their own lives.
Getting back to the original question, we need a definition of poverty to implement Basic Income. However, labeling it with a threshold number is both necessary and self-defeating. It is not possible to implement Basic Income without pinning down the benefit and cost numbers, yet focusing on these numbers distracts from the positive principles that would muster support for them. Framing the question of what poverty is in such a way that principles are explored before we formulate a numerical definition is more important than the number itself. This reframing is thus a prerequisite to Basic Income.
Author biography: Pierre Madden is a zealous dilettante based in Montreal. He has been a linguist, a chemist, a purchasing coordinator, a production planner and a lawyer. His interest in Basic Income, he says, is personal. He sure could use it now!
Sources:
[1] Volmert, A., Gerstein Pineau, M., & Kendall-Taylor, N. (2016). Talking about poverty: How experts and the public understand poverty in the United Kingdom. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute.
[2] An Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion, CQLR c L-7 Quebec, Canada, art. 2
[3] Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Quoted in Wikipedia: Poverty threshold
[4] On poverty and low income by Ivan P. Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada September 1997
[5] Ibid.
[6] Statistics Canada Table 206-0091 Low income measures (LIMs) by income source and household size in current dollars and 2014 constant dollars.
[7] Statistics Canada Low-income cut-offs
[8] “Twenty percentage points are used based on the rationale that a family spending 20 percentage points more than the average would be in ‘straitened circumstances.'” Ibid.
[9] LICO for a single person in a metropolitan area in 2012 = $19597
[10] Market Basket Measure (2011 base)
[11] https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx#ftn12
[12] Andrew Heisz, assistant director of the Income Statistics Division of Statistics Canada, personal communication, October 19 2016
[13] Sarlo, C. (2006). Poverty in Canada: 2006 Update. The Fraser Institute.
[14] E-mail from Geoffroy Fisher, Eurostat User Support, Eurostat helpdesk December 28, 2016.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insee)
[17] All of the information in this paragraph and much more, as well as a wealth of references to primary sources can be found in Gordon M. Fisher, The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official US Poverty Measure, May 1992-partially revised September 1997
[18] Orshansky, “Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 1965, p.4. Quoted in Fisher (see previous note)
[19] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
[20] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/whatismis/
[21] “…We would not expect the content of a MIS basket to stand still. But we also don’t think that changes in the average AUTOMATICALLY trigger proportionate changes in the minimum, and in this sense it is not a relative measure.” Donald Hirsch, Director of Centre for Research in Social Policy, personal communication, Nov 1 2016
[22] Donald Hirsch, Director of Centre for Research in Social Policy, personal communication, Nov 1 2016
[23] Joseph Rowntree Fondation Press Office, personal communication, January 11, 2017
[24] John Stapleton Why is it so tough to get ahead? How our tangled social programs pathologize the transition to self- reliance. Metcalf Foundation November 2007
[25] There is no question that low welfare payments are a political choice. In 1969, when Quebec introduced its first welfare legislation, benefits for people under 30 were set at 70% of the amount provided to everyone else. Accounting for inflation, this still represents more than what someone unfit for work receives today.
[26] Forbes April 15 2014
[27] Throughout, $US1 = CDN$1.34
[28] Statistics Canada Table 206-0091 Low income measures (LIMs) by income source and household size in current dollars and 2014 constant dollars.
[29] Statistics Canada Table 1 Low-income cut-offs (1992 base) after tax. 2014 figures for large metropolitan areas adjusted for inflation.
[30] Statistics Canada Market Basket Measure thresholds (2011-base) for reference family of two adults and two children, by MBM region Data for Montreal converted to single person (see note 1 in table)
[31] $10314 X 129.1/109.1 = $12,205
[32] US Census bureau Poverty Thresholds for 2015 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 years $12082 adjusted for US inflation (0.1%), 1 US$ = 1.34 CDN$
[33] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
[34] Minimum Income Calculator
[35] £1 = US$1,23
[36] Minimum wage in Quebec = CDN$10.75
[37] US$7.25 per hour as of July 2016
[38] Emploi Quebec How benefits are calculated
[39] Ibid.
[40] Le revenu de solidarité active (RSA)
