by Kate McFarland | Jan 25, 2017 | News
In a reversal of a decision last December, the council of the Eastern Ontario town Smiths Falls has voted to send a delegate to an upcoming convention of municipalities to lobby for the town’s selection in Ontario’s basic income pilot study.
Background: Ontario’s Pilot Plans
The Canadian province of Ontario is currently in the consultation phase of the design of a pilot study of a basic income guarantee. According to the recommendations of the project adviser Hugh Segal, the pilot should test a guaranteed minimum income of approximately $1320 per month, plus an additional $500 for those with disabilities, which would replace the province’s current welfare and disability programs (Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program) for at least three years. Segal proposes that this basic income guarantee take the form of a negative income tax, in which participants with no income would receive the full $1320 cash transfer, with no strings attached. The amount of the transfer would be gradually clawed back with additional earnings, with the result that participants whose income remains sufficiently high would receive no money as a result of participation in the pilot. The pilot will likely be designed to assess a variety of outcomes, such as health, food security, education, and employment.
While the final design of the pilot has not yet been announced, Segal has recommended that it include the selection of three saturation sites: communities in which every adult resident would be assured of the guaranteed minimum income. Saturation sites allow the province to investigate the effects of a basic income guarantee at a community level (such as effects on crime, utilization of public services, and civic participation), as well as to examine the process of administering the program within an entire municipality. (Segal advises that government test the basic income guarantee in such saturation in addition to conducting a randomized control trial in a large urban area.)
Segal further suggests that three saturation sites be chosen to represent three different “faces” of the province: Southern Ontario, Northern Ontario, and indigenous communities. He recommends that the communities be relatively geographically isolated, to limit “contagion” effects from surrounding communities, and to have stable populations. (For more discussion of the desired characteristics of saturation sites, see “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario”.)
The final design of the study is expected to be announced in April 2017, after which the pilot will enter its implementation phase.
New Support from Smiths Falls Council
Smiths Falls, an Eastern Ontario town of around 9,000 residents, now plans to lobby the provincial government for selection as one of the saturation sites. On January 16, 2017, the town’s council voted to send a delegate to the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) Conference, which will take place at the end of the month in Toronto. At the conference, municipal delegates will have an opportunity to present their cases before Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS).
The council’s vote reversed a decision of December 19, 2016, when it voted 3-2 against sending a delegate to ROMA to lobby for the town’s selection in the pilot — a decision that defied the wishes of Mayor Shawn Pankow and incited protests among the Smiths Falls residents.
Prior to the December 19 meeting, Pankow had written to MCSS, expressing a desire that the provincial government consider Smiths Falls as a site for its basic income pilot. This action was taken without the knowledge of full council, leading some councillors to hesitate endorsing the proposal (with one later stating that he had felt “blindsided” by the mayor’s action). Pankow himself was unable to attend the meeting during which the council voted down the motion to lobby in favor of the pilot, having been stuck in holiday traffic en route from Ottawa.
The December 19 vote was not a vote against participation in the pilot per se (as the provincial government could still select Smith Falls for the pilot, even if the town itself does not produce a delegate lobby for it), and not all councillors who cast negative votes were themselves opposed to the idea of a basic income guarantee (or even, necessarily, its implementation in Smiths Falls). Nonetheless, some councillors did use the opportunity to voice their general opposition to basic income. Councillor Dawn Quinn, for example, was widely cited in the press for her assertions that the distribution of unconditional cash transfers is the wrong approach to poverty and that, instead, poor people must learn how to better budget their money.
The council’s initial decision faced a backlash from residents. One resident, Carol Anne Knapp, started a petition in the days after the vote, calling upon the council to conduct a re-vote on the matter. In early January, Knapp and another resident, Darlene Kantor, interrupted a city council meeting to demand the council support efforts to bring the basic income pilot to Smiths Falls.
The town has faced economic hardship following the closure of a Hershey’s chocolate plant in 2008, as well as the loss of other manufacturing plants such as Shorewood Packaging and Stanley Tools. Residents like Knapp and Kantor believe that the council should welcome the basic income pilot (if Smiths Falls is selected) as a potential solution to its high rate of poverty.
On January 12, a public information session on the basic income pilot, convened by the Smiths Falls council, drew a crowd of more than 250 people.
The response of constituents was influential in the council’s reversal of its decision at the January 16 special meeting.
References and Further Information:
Evelyn Harford, “Smiths Falls town council won’t have ultimate sway on basic income pilot project’s location, says province,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 6, 2017.
Evelyn Harford, “Protesters make a stand in support of basic income pilot at Smiths Falls town council,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 9, 2017.
Hillary Johnstone, “‘An occupy moment’: Smiths Falls residents demand basic income pilot project,” CBC News, January 10, 2017.
Evelyn Harford, “Council votes to send basic income delegation to ask questions, lobby province,” Smiths Falls Record News, January 16, 2017.
Chris Must, “Council reverses stance on basic income lobbying,” Hometown News.
See also:
John Chang, “CANADA: Council of small town Smiths Falls rejects basic income trial, residents disagree,” Basic Income News, January 16, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Bridge near Smiths Falls, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 David McCormack
by Tyler Prochazka | Jan 25, 2017 | Opinion
Among the political turmoil experienced by Hong Kongers, there is another crisis that is eroding the societal foundations of the global financial hub: debilitating poverty.
Hailed as one of the freest economies in the world, Hong Kong now has a higher per capita income than its former colonizer Great Britain. However, they also have a high and persistent poverty rate at nearly 20 percent.
It is not just relative poverty compared to the lavish lifestyles of many Hong Kongers. Many locals have become homeless or McRefugees (those who sleep in McDonalds at night) due to the prohibitively high cost of housing across the autonomous region.
One of the main contributors to the dissatisfaction with Hong Kong’s government is the sense of economic unfairness. Hong Kong youth have low social mobility; despite higher levels of education, they are unable to secure the wages their parents did at their age. The more serious factor is the high level of economic inequality, which threatens social stability.
Social welfare is severely lacking in Hong Kong, partly because many slip through the cracks. However, the lack of a comprehensive welfare system makes Hong Kong an ideal location to implement basic income. The large pool of wealthy individuals means a universal system would be feasible. The market-oriented nature and efficiency of basic income is also in line with its free market tradition.
The basic income would begin to address the various economic issues plaguing the youth and low-income individuals in Hong Kong. Youth will be able to search for more suitable jobs and have cash to afford rent. Those in poverty would not have to worry about finding a place to stay or finding their next meal.
Importantly, it would address many of the underlying factors that are causing tensions to undermine social harmony in the “city of protests.”
As of now, it appears the basic income movement does not have a significant presence in Hong Kong. A conversation with Hong Kong’s basic income Facebook page revealed the administrator was unaware of any prominent activists or academics in Hong Kong pushing the idea. Other regional activists were also unaware of individuals pushing for basic income in Hong Kong.
Due to the increasing awareness in interest in the basic income in China and Taiwan, as well as across Europe, it is probably only a matter of time before the idea gains greater traction in Hong Kong. For the sake of the people sleeping on the streets, and the youth worried about their future, let’s hope it is sooner rather than later.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 24, 2017 | News
The Indian Statistical Institute hosted its 12th Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development (ACEGD) on December 19-21, 2016. ACEGD’s plenary sessions included a 90-minute panel on universal basic income and its relevance for India.
Universal basic income (UBI) has become a hotly debated issue in India. At the end of January, the Ministry of Finance will release its Economic Survey, which is expected to include a chapter addressing UBI. Leading economists have defended various forms of UBI for India (see, for example, a recent e-symposium in Ideas for India), and MPs such as Varun Gandhi and Jay Panda have voiced support.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, a panel on UBI was also held as part of the latest Annual Conference on Economic Growth and Development, held in December at the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) in Delhi. This conference included a panel on UBI, featuring five economists: Debraj Ray (New York University), Kalle (Karl Ove) Moene (University of Oslo), Rajiv Sethi (Columbia University), Himanshu (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and Amarjeet Sinha (Government of Bihar).
Ray and Moene have jointly developed a proposal for what they call a “universal basic share” (UBS) in India. Like a UBI, a UBS would provide each citizen with regular unconditional cash transfers of an equal amount. However, in contrast to most UBI proposals, a UBS fixes the amount of these transfers to a fraction of the GDP rather than a specific monetary amount. Ray and Moene recommend that India dedicate 12% of its GDP to the provision of a UBS. They calculate that, at present, this would provide each adult citizen with a basic income approximately equal to the country’s poverty line.
At the ACEGD panel, Ray introduces the idea of UBS, after briefly outlining the present worldwide interest in UBI, precursors such as the Alaskan Permanent Fund and Dividend and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, and several sources of the present interest in UBI in India, including the pilot studies in Madhya Pradesh, the Goan permanent fund, and political and popular “exasperation” with the nation’s current subsidies for the poor. Following Ray, Moene elaborates upon the UBS proposal and some of its advantages, such as encouraging risk-taking and allowing individuals to do the work they want. Moene also replies to the common objection that a basic income would discourage work, stressing that this is not what is observed in the most generous welfare states, nor what’s observed when wealthy people receive an inheritance.
Sethi, who has studied UBI primarily in the US context, presents additional arguments in favor of the policy, including its cross-partisan appeal and its ability to mitigate economic shock due to automation. He also raises questions concerning the precise design of a UBI, such as whether the basic income should extend to minors and how it would be linked with macroeconomic policies.
The last two panelists, Himanshu and Sinha, argue that India should prioritize public spending on universal basic services, rather than simply distributing cash to individuals. About UBI, Himanshu states that the question is not whether it should be adopted, but why and when. While allowing that UBI is a good idea in principle, he maintains that it is not yet time to introduce such a policy in India, given that many in the country lack clean water, access to education, and other essential public goods. Sinha, expanding on Himanshu’s thesis, stresses that “we should not lose sight of the need to craft credible public systems” — and worries that a UBI would divert money and attention from necessary improvements of education, health, housing, and public infrastructure.
Video, Part 1: Ray, Moene, Sethi
Video, Part 2: Sethi (cont’d), Himanshu, Sinha
The five presentations were followed by a 30-minute Q&A session, touching on such topics as private versus public provision of services (which Ray eventually describes as a distraction from the real issues), immigration and basic income, UBI versus UBS during economic downturns, and others.
Video: Q&A
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg
Photo: Delhi, India CC BY 2.0 Ville Miettinen
by Kate McFarland | Jan 22, 2017 | News
On November 19, 2016, the BBC podcast In the Balance aired an episode called “Universal Basic Income: Has its Time Come?”
Special guests included Michael Faye (cofounder of GiveDirectly, the non-profit launching a basic income experiment in Kenya), Louise Haagh (Reader of Politics at the University of York and Co-Chair of BIEN), Michael Tanner (Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute), and Ian Gough (Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics).
During the approximately 25 minute episode, host Ed Butler questioned the guests on the many common concerns surrounding basic income, from its affordability to its political feasibility to charges of causing inflation and disincentivizing work. The guests also debated what types of programs and services a basic income would replace, as well as the question of whether and when cash transfers are more effective than transfers in-kind. Another topic to emerge was the role of pilot studies, with Faye defending the relevance of GiveDirectly’s studies in Kenya to the developed world and Haagh raising the point that, while useful, pilot studies are not needed to justify basic income, which she sees as motivated by the need to eliminate dysfunction in the current welfare system and make the disbursement of support “more humane”.
Faye, Haagh, and Tanner spoke generally favorably about basic income, although their precise reasons for supporting such a policy varied. Gough, meanwhile, maintained that the idea is impracticable, with any basic income scheme being either insufficient or unaffordable.
Listen to the full episode here.
Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg and Dawn Howard
Image: British Coins CC BY 2.0 Images Money
by BIEN | Jan 22, 2017 | News
Credit to The Conversation
Universal basic income (UBI) has gain traction in the developed world. Some citizens in Australia support it. Gigi Foster, Associate Professor in the School of Economics at University of New South Wales, said, “…while good in theory, it’s no panacea for the challenges of our modern economy.”
That is, UBI is gaining traction in the developed world, but, according to Foster, is not a cure-all for the Australian economy. Foster notes this would replace some social security and welfare programs. “In the developed world, Canada is trialling a UBI scheme,” she said, “Finland also just rolled out a UBI trial, involving about 10,000 recipients for two years.” In short, there are UBI experiments.
“The present Australian welfare system (excluding the Medicare bill of A$25 billion) costs around A$170 billion per annum,” Foster said, “Our GDP is around A$1.7 trillion per year, so this welfare bill is about 10% of annual GDP.”
Read the full article here:
Gigi Foster, “Universal basic income: the dangerous idea of 2016“, The Conversation (Australia), December 26th, 2016
