As in other countries, the coronavirus shutdown makes the economic situation increasingly precarious for many people. For many, this is a sudden new experience, especially for self-employed people who have no reserves and do not receive short-time work benefits. It is true that in Germany the payment of the subsistence minimum by the social welfare office (approx. 400 €/month) is being administered generously in the crisis, but bureaucratic hurdles remain, and for many people it is simply too little to be able to pay their current living costs in view of a total loss of income. Also, the income of partners and roommates is still taken into account.
In this situation, a number of very successful petitions quickly emerged. The largest, with 460,000 signatures in four weeks, is the collection launched by designer Tonia Merz ‘With the unconditional Basic Income through the corona crisis’. It demands an unconditional Basic Income for 6 months. The argument is based on the plight of the self-employed, artists, etc. in particular: they do receive loans, but how are those supposed to be paid back if no income can be expected for several months (or even years)?
However, the petition points out that the Basic Income should not only apply to the particularly affected group of the small self-employed enterprise. That is understandable, because administrators cannot judge each case fairly. For example, it is not possible to determine whether someone is a ‘full-time’ self-employed person, an artist or not, and so on. Many are self-employed in addition to other mini-jobs. The 6 months Basic Income should therefore be given to everyone – and at the same time it should be a test for the principle of an unconditional Basic Income in general.
In addition, there is a similar petition with 288,000 signatures from countertenor David Erler entitled ‘Help for freelancers and artists during the Corona shutdown’, which is explicitly aimed at freelancers and demands ‘unbureaucratic bridging money, e.g. in the form of a temporary (unconditional) basic income’. (This income does not quite conform to the definition of a Basic Income because it is not universal.)
Both public petitions are, however, legally non-binding, even though they reach a large public, and many people have thus committed themselves to a Basic Income for the first time. But there is also a very successful official petition to the German Parliament. It comes from the Basic Income activist Susanne Wiest. It calls for the introduction of an unconditional Basic Income for all citizens ‘in the short term and for a limited period of time, but for as long as necessary’ due to the economic impact of the Corona pandemic. It should ‘secure livelihoods and enable participation in society. An amount of 1000 € per person is conceivable’.
Such parliament petitions have some small hurdles to overcome when signing: You have to register, then you get a password etc. Therefore, the figures cannot be compared with informal petitions. Nevertheless this petition reached 176,000 signatures in four weeks: The electronic petition with the highest number of supporters ever.
Since the quorum of 50,000 was reached, the initiator must now be heard in a public meeting of the Petitions Committee and the proposal must be discussed in the Parliament. This will certainly lead to a further upswing in media coverage and the social discussion about a Basic Income in the crisis, but also about the general idea, as has been clearly felt in recent weeks.
This is because the justification for a Basic Income in the Corona crisis is the same as the justification for a Basic Income in general. It gives everyone a basic security in the event of economic crises or downturns, regardless of how they are triggered: By a virus, by ecological restrictions, or by a change in consumer habits and production structures.
A Basic Income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.
Sometimes called Universal Basic Income, a Citizen’s Income, or a Citizen’s Basic Income, it is not the same as a Minimum Income Guarantee; A Basic Income does not reduce as one earns more. For more information: About Basic Income
Why do we need it?
Because someone’s Basic Income would never be taken away, it would
provide a secure financial platform to build on
enable the employment market to become more flexible at the same time as enhancing income security
give to everyone more choices over the number of hours for which they were employed
enable carers to balance their caring and other responsibilities
make it easier to start new businesses or to go self-employed, and
encourage personal freedom, creativity, and voluntary activity
Because everyone would get a Basic Income, it would
create social cohesion, and
carry no stigma
Because the Basic Income would never be withdrawn, it would
reduce the poverty trap for low income families, enabling them to lift themselves out of poverty by seeking new skills, better jobs, or additional hours of employment
reduce the unemployment trap, so getting a job would always mean additional disposable income
Because Basic Income would be simple and efficient, it would
be easy to understand
be cheap to administer and easy to automate
not be prone to errors or fraud
Many current benefits system are no longer fit for purpose. They assume that everyone has a stable single employment, that household structures don’t change, and that individuals’ circumstances change very rarely. Our lives are no longer like that: and as technology and the employment market continue to change, our benefits systems will become even less appropriate.
In a context of rapid change, the only useful system is a simple one. A Basic Income is as simple as it gets.
Why pay money to the rich when they don’t need it?
It is efficient to pay the same level of income to everybody of the same age and then tax it back from those who don’t need it. The alternative is to means-test incomes so that only those who are poor receive them: but that results in complexity, stigma, errors, fraud, and intrusive bureaucratic interference in people’s lives.
Would Basic Income be financially feasible?
Tests for a Citizen’s Basic Income scheme’s financial feasibility might be listed as follows:
Revenue neutrality ( – that is, it would be funded by making changes to the current tax and benefits system), or sustainable additional funding should be shown to be feasible
Poverty and inequality need to fall
Low income households should suffer no significant losses at the point of implementation, and no household should suffer unmanageable losses
Income Tax rates should rise by a clearly manageable amount
A significant number of households should be released from means-tested benefits
Would people still work?
If by ‘work’ we mean ‘paid employment’, then the answer is yes. In the short to medium term, we are unlikely to see a Basic Income that would be sufficient to live on, so everyone would need additional sources of income. And because Basic Incomes would not be withdrawn as earnings rose, any family taken off means-tested benefits by their Basic Incomes would experience a reduction in withdrawal rates, and would experience more incentive to seek employment, or to start their own business, than they do now.
If by ‘work’ we mean purposeful activity of any kind, then the answer is again yes. By providing a secure layer of income, a Basic Income would enable people to readjust their employment hours in order to undertake additional caring and community work.
Why pay money to people who do nothing?
In many countries we are already paying means-tested benefits to people who do nothing, and the complexity and sanctions associated with those payments demotivate people and can tip their families into poverty. A Basic Income would take a lot of people off means-tested benefits, and so would encourage economic activity. Pilot projects in India and Namibia showed that in countries with less developed economies, and without comprehensive benefit systems, even quite small Basic Incomes increase economic activity among households with the lowest disposable incomes.
Would immigration go up?
As with other benefits, a government would be likely to require a period of legal residence before someone could receive a Basic Income. Because Basic Income would provide everyone with a secure layer of income, and therefore a greater employment incentive than means-tested benefits, anyone coming into the country would be even more likely to contribute to the economy than they are now.
Would wages fall?
Means-tested benefits function as dynamic subsidies – that is, they rise if wages fall, which can encourage wage-cutting. A Basic Income would not rise if wages fell, so employers would experience more resistance if they attempted to cut wages.
Some wages might rise. Because everyone would have a secure financial platform on which to build an income strategy, some workers would be more able to leave undesirable jobs in order to start their own businesses, or to learn new skills and seek new jobs; and workers would be able to spend longer looking for a job that they might want, rather than just any job. Either currently undesirable jobs would have to improve, or wages would have to rise in order to attract workers.
Some wages might fall. Because everyone would have a secure income layer, some people might decide to take a desirable job even if it didn’t pay very much. Wage levels for desirable jobs might therefore fall.
Would a Basic Income threaten the welfare state?
If a revenue neutral Citizen’s Basic Income scheme were to be implemented, then no cuts to public services would be required. The amounts of means-tested benefits received by households would fall, but only because those households were already receiving Basic Incomes. Benefits specifically designed to cover the additional costs of disability, and benefits to cover the differing housing costs in different areas, would continue.
Would a Basic Income cause inflation?
Inflation occurs when the amount of money available to spend is greater than the value of the economy’s productive capacity. In that situation, if the amount of money keeps growing, then each unit of money can buy progressively less, so money loses its value, sometimes rapidly. A Basic Income scheme paid for purely by making changes to the current tax and benefits system would not add to the money supply, so inflation would not occur. If the amount of money available to spend was below the productive capacity of the economy, then a government could create money until the gap was filled, and that new money could be used to pay a Basic Income: but if inflation started to occur, then money creation would have to stop, and new taxes would have to be used to pay for the Basic Income.
Has a Basic Income ever been tried?
Short pilot projects have taken place in Namibia and India, and something like a Basic Income has been implemented by accident in Iran. Experiments with the similar but different Minimum Income Guarantee and Negative Income Tax in the United States and Canada during the 1970s showed useful social outcomes and very little withdrawal from employment. The similarities between the economic effects of a Minimum Income Guarantee and Basic Income would suggest that the results of the Minimum Income Guarantee experiments would be replicated if a Basic Income were to be implemented; and the differences between them mean that the effects are likely to larger for Basic Income than for the 1970s experiments. Basic Income pilot projects and similar experiments continue in the United States, Uganda, Kenya, Spain, and the Netherlands, and experiments are planned for Scotland.
Videos of all the plenary sessions are available on youtube. Abstracts of all the concurrent sessions are available here. Full papers and slides of some presentations are available below.
This table contains the papers uploaded to the congress website prior to the congress. If other authors submit their papers then they will be added to this list.
Videos are available of many of the congress sessions. Click here to see them.
BIEN 2016, Seoul
The Proceedings of the 2016 congress are contained in a single document, in which can be found plenary session addresses and parallel session papers. Click here to download the document.
Toward a renovation of economic circulation and institutionsMorley-Fletcher, Edwin (IT) Opening AddressOzanira da Silva e Silva, Maria (BRA) The Minimum Income as a Policy for Increasing Child Education in BrazilPelzer, Helmut (GE) Funding of an Unconditional Basic Income in Germany via a Modified Tax/Transfer SystemPioch, Roswitha (GE) The bottom line of the welfare state in Germany and the NetherlandsQuilley, Steven (UK) Sustainable Funding of Basic Income: Environment, Citizenship & Community, and a Trajectory for Basic Income Politics in Europe (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Reynolds, Brigid (IRE), with Sean Healy
From Concept to Green Paper: Putting Basic Income on the Political Agenda (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Robeyns, Ingrid (B)
An emancipation fee or hush money? The advantages and disadvantages of a basic income for women’s emancipation and well-being (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Roos, Nikolas (NL)
Basic Income and the justice of taxationSalinas, Claudio Caesar (ARG), with Philippe Van Parijs Basic income and its cognates. Puzzling equivalence and unheeded differences between alternative ways of addressing the new social question (published in Basic Income on the Agenda) Scharpf, Fritz (D) Basic Income and Social Europe (published in Basic Income on the Agenda)
Schutz, Robert (US)
More Basic IncomeSerati, M. (IT), with E. Chiappero & F. Silva Basic income: an insidious trap or a fruitful chance for the Italian labour market?Silva, F. (IT) ), with E. Chiappero & M. Serati Basic income: an insidious trap or a fruitful chance for the Italian labour market?Smith, Jeffery (US) From Potlatch to EarthshareStanding, Guy (SWI) Seeking Equality of Security in the Era of GlobalisationTerraz, Isabelle Redistributive Impact of a Basic Income: A Focus on Women’s SituationVan Parijs, Philippe (B), with Claudio Caesar Salinas Basic income and its cognates. Puzzling equivalence and unheeded differences between alternative ways of addressing the new social question (published in Basic Income on the Agenda) Widerquist, Karl (US) Reciprocity and the guaranteed income
Cash-for-corona: why the current policy proposal being discussed in Spain has nothing to do with a universal basic income
This article was updated on the 19th April 2020
Since the outbreak of coronavirus and the subsequent social and economic lockdown, there have been numerous appeals from economists, journalists, public figures and policy makers, that the time was ripe for the implementation of a universal basic income. However, the media and public discussion of the imminent need for a universal basic income does not resonate with the measures which are currently being discussed for implementation to tackle the economic crisis derived from the coronavirus pandemic.
In Spain, there has been recent discussion to implement a minimum living income (ingreso minimo vital, IMV, in spanish) as a means of alleviating the economic downturn that is approaching. Some media outlets (see for instance the posts in Bloomberg, the independent, Business Insider, The Local, or Forbes) have used the concept of a universal basic income, instead of a minimum income, to repot the current policy proposals being discussed in Spain. The term basic income was even used by a Spanish journalist in an interview with the third Vice-president of the Spanish government, Nadia Calviño, when she asked her about the minimum income policy that is currently being discussed.
The media’s inaccurate portrayal of Spain’s minimum income policy is not only causing confusion amongst the general population or public opinion, but is also misleading political leaders. Some British members of parliament for instance have tweeted about the possibility that Spain will be introducing a universal basic income. See for instance, Rebecca Long Bailey, sharing the Morning Star’s news post, Douglas Chapman’s tweet, or Dr Philippa Whitford, sharing the Independent’s post.
Despite the media’s insistence in using the label of a basic income, the current policy in question is far from a universal and unconditional policy as such. Although the Spanish government is still considering the implementation details, Minister of Social Security and Migration, José Luis Escrivà confirmed in a recent interview that this policy is a minimum income to be targeted to vulnerable households, and the generosity will be dependent on the the family typology (mono-marental households will receive more generous quantities) and upon the number of number of children. In a recent article by La Vanguardia, the quantity has been stipulated as for 500 euros for individuals living by themselves, and up to 1000 euros for families with children. Currently, the ministry is working in the elaboration of household typologies and calculating how many households would be eligible for such benefit. However, although the generosity has not been defined still, it is known that this measure will not be temporary but permanent, as a last resort safety net that is more durable than other types of benefits.
This is a non-contributory cash payment, which adds to current policies in different ways: those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits can have access to it, and those who are not eligible for unemployment benefits will have access to it if they comply with other criteria. Very importantly, in principle this is a permanent measure, so it is not exhausted until the recipient is employed. Such a design is convenient to target particular vulnerable groups of people like domestic workers without contracts, or self-employed people who have seen their activity come to a halt. According to calculus made by the minister of employment, Yolanda Diaz, this measure could benefit a total of 5 million people, which is close to 10% of the Spanish population.
Although it adds to current policies in several ways, this is far from a basic income in various ways as it is not individual, unconditional or universal, which are three of the key characteristics of the so called universal basic income policy that some media outlets are are using to label the future policy that will be implemented in Spain. Quite on the contrary, the type of policy being discussed is a non-contributory last resort benefit that will go to the most vulnerable households, and precisely, will be given to households and not individuals, closer to current non-contributory pensions than a basic income, as summarised in the table below:-
Characteristics
IMV (current proposal being discussed in Spain)
Basic Income
Universal
No
Yes
Unconditional
No: the aid is conditional on the number of children, previous income, household typology
Yes
Cash payment
Yes
Yes
Individual
No: households; currently elaborating a household typology and calculating the number of households that will be covered
Yes
Non-contributory
Yes
Yes
Not only a cash-for-corona policy
The minimum living income currently on the political agenda in Spain is not a unique response to coronavirus. The implementation of such a policy was part of the governmental agreement signed between the two coalition parties PSOE and Podemos, already in 2019, as specified in article 2.4.2. of this document. In this scenario, there was an estimation of 600 euros per person, with some households reaching to a top 1,200 euros and with an approximate cost of 10.000 million euros. During an interview in early April, in La Sexta channel, the third Vice-president, Nadia Calviño announced that the introduction of the IMV that is currently being discussed was intended as a pilot of the policy that was agreed upon in the governmental agreement in 2019. In this sense, regardless of the shape that this policy takes now, its implementation is intended to be structural and with a permanent character.
Yet another re-appropriation of the UBI label
Once more however, the media response has been to appropriate the name of universal basic income to label policies that are far from it. In fact, the whole package of policies that comprise the government’s emergency response to the coronavirus resonate with the same targeted and means-tested logic of welfare state comprised of a patchwork of benefits to cover different needs, with many individuals falling through the cracks. The government has already implemented the ERTEs (temporary regulation expedients of employment), in order to prevent mass unemployment, a moratorium on mortgages, a fiscal moratorium for self-employed workers, with benefits for those who have seen their activity massively reduced, and, which belong to the same rhetoric of a patchwork of programs rather than an effective safety net without any cracks, like universal basic income. due to the complexity of the different conditions’ individuals face and are not captured by the all the series of programs and administrative processes.
Political process
This emergency policy took speed yesterday, in ameeting between Pablo Iglesias, Yolanda Diaz -Minister of Employment-, Jose Luis Escrivà -Ministerof Inclusion, Social security and Mogration- and key interest group representatives in Spain, including NGOs like Oxfam, Cáritas, Facua or Cermi, trade unions like CCOO and UGT, although key business organisations like the CEOE did not participate. There is another meeting which has been scheduled for today (10th April 2020) with the Minister of Employment, in which the CEOE has refused to participate. However, Pablo Iglesias had been in contact telephonically with key business and banking sector figures who spoke positively of this measure, and had also been in contact with Antonio Garamendi, CEOE’s president, with whom he had exchanged some documentation.
Emergency minimum living income – latest update 19th April 2020
Given that the implementation of the proposed IMV would take around three months, the government has been working to implement a ‘bridge’ minimum living income (IMVP given its acronym in Spanish), which would be a temporal and emergency measure to be implemented as soon as possible, to be expected in May, as announced on the 16th of april . This emergency IMVP will consist of 500 euros per households, and up to 950€ depending on the number of children, for those with lower incomes than 200 euros if they live by themselves, and lower than 450 if living with one person or more. The benefit generosity will be higher for those with children under their charge. The government has announced that while this measure is temporary it will remain in place until the approval of the permanent IMV, which has been estimated to last for about 3 months.
In a recent interview, Escrivà argued that this policy would arrive to one million households, up to 3 million individuals, with 10% of the households being mono-marental (N.B.: he called them monoparental). Importantly, he argued that this benefit would not be lost automatically once the recipient finds employment, but rather, when their economic situation is stabilised, being compatible with the recipients’ wage for sometime.
The limitations of such a policy
Although the details are yet not clear, it is evident that this policy is far from a basic income, and much further away of combating poverty in Spain. According to the latest report by the European Network against Poverty and Social Exclusion, only in 2019, there were 12,3 million of individuals at risk of poverty or social exclusion. However, this measure will not be getting to more than 3 or 4 million of individuals.
Indepentarianism exists. The Danish punk band, Husligt Arbejde [House Work] has recorded an indepentarian song, “Borgerløn – the power to say no,” which translates into “Basic Income – the power to say no.” According to Google translate, the band describes its music as “aggressively political, minimalist punk.”
“Indepentarianism” is the theory of justice I began to lay out in several works including my book, Freedom as the Power Say No. Universal Basic Income plays an important role in that that theory. I was overwhelmed to find the idea has made it into a punk song. I thought it might be a coincidence. (It’s a basic and obvious argument for UBI.) But I contacted the band and sure enough, the song was about the book.
Most of the song is in Danish. Only one line, “the power to say no” is in English, but they say it over and over again. The lyrics are below in both Danish and English.
Original Danish lyrics:
Kan en luder sige nej?
power to say no, power to say no
Kan en ansat gå sin vej?
power to say no, power to say no
Må en fattig bøje sig?
power to say no, power to say no
Er man fri uden sit nej?
power to say no, power to say no
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
Staten si’r den elsker dig
power to say no, power to say no
mens den strammer garnet om dig
power to say no, power to say no
Løb for vækst og BNP
power to say no, power to say no
“ellers går systemet ned”
power to say no
, power to say no
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
Liberal politik
power to say no
det var det vi aldrig fik
power to say no
Hvad er egentlig faktisk frihed?
power to say no
Det er økonomisk frihed!
power to say no
, power to say no
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
Velfærdsdamer, kontorister
power to say no, power to say no
Arbejdsprøvning, tusind lister
power to say no, power to say no
BU-REAU-KRA-T
power to say no, power to say no
Vi vil hel’re være fri!
power to say no, power to say no
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
BORGERLØN FOR BORGERFRIHED
English lyrics, translated by the band:
Can a whore say no?
power to say no, power to say no
Can an employee go his way?
power to say no, power to say no
Must a poor man bow?
power to say no, power to say no
Are you free without your no?
power to say no, power to say no
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
The state says it loves you
power to say no, power to say no
while tightening the yarn around you
power to say no, power to say no
Race for growth and GDP
power to say no, power to say no
“otherwise the system will crash”
power to say no, power to say no
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
Liberal politics
power to say no, power to say no
That’s what we never got
power to say no, power to say no
What is real freedom?
power to say no, power to say no
It is financial freedom!
power to say no, power to say no
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
Ha! Welfare ladies, clerks
power to say no, power to say no
Work testing, a thousand lists
power to say no, power to say no
BU-REAU-CRA-CY
power to say no, power to say no
We’d rather be free!
power to say no, power to say no
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
BASIC INCOME FOR BASIC FREEDOM
This isn’t the only Indepentarian song. Years before I began writing philosophy, when I was living in New York, going to school, and playing in bands, I was already formulating ideas along these lines, and some of them came out in my song, “The Home of the Fat Homeless.”
The lyrics are contained in the picture below (toward the bottome left):
