The facts of the basic income movement

The facts of the basic income movement

by | 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

What Is Poverty, Exactly?

What Is Poverty, Exactly?

by | 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.

  1. The Low Income Measure (LIM) is 50% of the adjusted mean income of Canadians[6]
  2. 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]
  3. 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)

BIEN affiliated organisations and their definitions of Basic Income

BIEN affiliated organisations and their definitions of Basic Income

by | Jan 19, 2017 | Opinion

Introduction

By Malcolm Torry, director of the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT) and co-secretary of BIEN

There has been much discussion, at congresses and elsewhere, as to what should be included in the definition of Basic Income. In order to inform the ongoing debate, I have studied the definitions to be found on the websites of organisations affiliated to BIEN, and subsequently the BIEN news team has contacted affiliated organisations in order to check and if necessary amend the information.

We can conclude from the survey that all of the definitions of BI employed by BIEN affiliates describe it as unconditional, nonwithdrawable, individual, and a right of citizenship, although not necessarily in those precise words. They either say or assume that the payment will be regular and of a consistent amount, i.e., weekly or monthly, not annually, and not variable. Some state that the BI will be a right of citizenship, or of legal residence, and others might be taken to assume this.

But there are differences when it comes to the levels at which BI will be paid. In the table at the end of this article, if the definition given on the website does not mention the amount of the BI, then the second column in the table is empty. Where a definition on the website does mention the level of BI, only the relevant part or parts of the definition are quoted.

Conclusion:

Definitions of BI are quite diverse in relation to the amount to be paid.

  • Some do not mention the issue, suggesting that the amount to be paid is not integral to the definition;
  • Some say that a democratic process will be used to decide the amount;
  • One mentions a particular amount (Southern Africa);
  • And some offer a description of the kind of life that the BI will be expected to fund (‘subsistence’, ‘dignity’, ‘participation’, ‘poverty line’) in relation to the national context, but without specifying the relevant level of BI.

If BIEN is to be the global body to which national organisations will affiliate, then any definition that BIEN offers will need to include all of the national definitions. This means that it will mention unconditionality, non-withdrawability, and a BI’s individual basis; it might wish to say that BI would be a regular and invariable but uprate-able payment; and it might use ‘rights’ language (in relation to legal residence or citizenship).

In relation to the levels at which BIs should be paid, there are two options that would include all of the national definitions: a) the definition should not mention the amount at all; b) the definition should say that in each country the normal democratic process will determine the levels of BIs and their funding mechanisms.

 

Table: BIEN affiliated organisations’ statements about the BI levels included in their definitions of Basic Income

EUROPE: Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBI-Europe) ‘UBI is universal, individual, unconditional, and high enough to ensure an existence in dignity and participation in society.’

https://basicincome-europe.org/ubie/unconditional-basic-income/
SOUTHERN AFRICA: 1. Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute (SPII), and 2. UBI Africa 1.               ‘Amount: The grant should be no less than US$15.00 per person per month on introduction, [*which in 2013 was sufficient to meet peoples’ basic needs in the region], and should be inflation indexed.’ https://www.spii.org.za/index.php/sadc-big-principles/

2. ‘A wide variety of Basic Income proposals are circulating today. They differ along many other dimensions, including in the amounts of the Basic Income, the source of funding, the nature and size of reductions in other transfers that might accompany it, and so on.’ https://ubi-africa.blogspot.co.uk/
ARGENTINA: Red Argentina de Ingreso Ciudadano
AUSTRALIA: Basic Income Guarantee Australia (BIGA) ‘A Universal Basic Income (Basic Income Guarantee) is an unconditional cash payment to individuals sufficient to meet basic needs (Universal Basic Income New Zealand, 2003).’ https://www.basicincome.qut.edu.au/about-basic-income/frequently-asked-questions.jsp
AUSTRIA: Netzwerk Grundeinkommen und sozialer Zusammenhalt – B.I.E.N. Austria

 

 ‘Existenzsichernd: die zur Verfügung gestellte Summe soll ein bescheidenes, aber dem Standard der  Gesellschaft entsprechendes Leben, die Teilhabe an allem, was in dieser Gesellschaft zu einem normalen Leben gehört, ermöglichen.’ https://www.grundeinkommen.at/index.php/grundeinkommen

[Ensuring existence: The sum made available is intended to make possible a life that is modest, but corresponding to the standards of society, and participation in everything that belongs to a normal life in this society.]
BELGIUM: Belgian Network for Basic Income

 

 ‘Ce revenu de base vise à permettre à chacun et chacune de mener une vie digne et de participer à la vie en société sous toutes ses formes.’ https://basicincome.be/fr/quest-ce-que-le-revenu-de-base/

[This basic income is intended to enable each and every individual to lead a dignified life and to participate fully in society.]
BRAZIL: Rede Brasileira de Renda Básica de Cidadania

 

 ‘A RBC é uma renda suficiente para que uma pessoa possa prover as suas necessidades vitais, como alimentação, saúde, educação e outras, que sera paga pelo governo a toda e qualquer pessoa residente no país, inclusive as estrangeiras residentes há cinco anos ou mais no Brasil, não importa sua origem, raça, sexo, idade, condição civil ou mesmo socioeconômica.’ https://eduardosuplicy.com.br/renda-basica-de-cidadania/

[The Basic Citizenship Income (CBR) is a sufficient income for a person to provide for his or her vital needs, such as food, health, education and other necessities, which will be paid by the government to all persons residing in the country, … regardless of their origin, race, gender, age, civil status or even socioeconomic status.]
CANADA: Basic Income Canada Network / Réseau canadien pour le revenu garanti ‘A basic income guarantee (BIG) ensures everyone an income sufficient to meet basic needs and live with dignity, regardless of work status.’ https://www.basicincomecanada.org/
CANADA: Quebec – Revenue de base Quebec (RBQ)

 

 ‘Le revenu de base est un revenu versé par une communauté politique à tous ses membres sur une base individuelle, sans condition ou contrepartie, dont le montant et le financement sont déterminés démocratiquement.

Un revenu de base garantit ainsi un niveau de vie décent à tous et il reste cumulable avec tout revenu perçu par ailleurs.’ https://revenudebase.quebec/

[A Basic income is an income paid by a political community to all of its members on an individual basis, without condition or withdrawal, of which the amount and the funding method are determined democratically.A basic income thus guarantees a decent standard of living for all and to it can be added income from other sources.]
CHINA: BIEN China

Affiliated in July 2016

 Cheng Furui: 对基本收入定义，我们的网站和BIEN网站的一样。但是，关于我们所做的研究和推广，会更加注重社会分红，基于中国的实际情况。网站原文如下：“我们关注当前世界范围的“基本收入”运动，但基于中国公有资产占社会总资产的相当比例的国情，我们力促“社会分红/基本收入”的研究与教育活动。”

Regarding basic income, our website and BIEN is the same. But, regarding our research and what we promote, we emphasize the social dividend, considering China’s actual circumstances. The website originally states: “Our attention is on the modern global movement for the Basic Income, but considering the proportion of China’s publicly owned resources, we are pushing for a social dividend/basic income in our research and education activities.

[Translation: Tyler Prochazka]
DENMARK: BIEN Denmark (Borgerlønsbevægelsen)

 

 ‚Hvor stor skal basisindkomsten være? I princippet kan den have en hvilken som helst størrelse, som man i et samfund kan blive enige om, men den mest almindelige holdning er, at den skal være på et niveau, som gør det muligt at leve af den, om end på et beskedent niveau. Hvis man har en defineret fattigdomsgrænse i et samfund kan dette være et vejledende niveau for en basisindkomst. Basisindkomsten kan gradueres, så der er lavere satser for børn, for unge osv.‘ https://basisindkomst.dk/hvad-er-basisindkomst/

[How big should the basic income be? In principle, it can have any size, as agreed by a country, but the most common view is that it should be at a level that makes it possible to live on, albeit at a modest level. If you have a defined poverty line in a society then that can be a guide for the level of basic income. Basic Income can be of different amounts, so there would be lower rates for children, young people, etc.]
FINLAND: BIEN Finland – Suomen perustuloverkosto ‘According to the model of BIEN Finland, basic income is paid monthly for every member of society with no strings attached. Basic income would simplify the complex jungle of the current social security system, would facilitate the reconciliation of work and social security, and fill the gaps in the social protection. Income increase by UBI for people with high and middle income would be reclaimed from their earned income taxes. For implementation of basic income, there are several different models.’ * [English translation provided by Jouko Hemmi]
FRANCE: Mouvement Français pour un revenu de base

 

 ‘Le revenu de base est un droit inaliénable, inconditionnel, cumulable avec d’autres revenus, distribué par une communauté politique à tous ses membres, de la naissance à la mort, sur base individuelle, sans contrôle des ressources ni exigence de contrepartie, dont le montant et le financement sont ajustés démocratiquement.’ https://www.revenudebase.info/mfrb/

[Basic income is an inalienable, unconditional right, cumulative with other income, distributed by a political community to all its members, from birth to death, on an individual basis, without control of resources or counterpart requirement, of which the amount and funding mechanism are adjusted democratically.]
GERMANY: Netzwerk Grundeinkommen ‚Ein Grundeinkommen ist ein Einkommen, das eine politische Gemeinschaft bedingungslos jedem ihrer Mitglieder gewährt. Es soll die Existenz sichern und gesellschaftliche Teilhabe ermöglichen, …‘ https://www.grundeinkommen.de/die-idee

[A basic income is an income which a political community unconditionally grants to each of its members. It shouldensure subsistence and enable social participation …]
INDIA: India Network for Basic Income (INBI)

 

 ‘Basic Income is modest income paid by government unconditionally to all its citizens. It is paid monthly to every individual, irrespective of their social and economic status, i.e., without any means test or work requirement. The basic principle behind this idea is that every citizen is entitled to a basic income, as a matter of right, so as to meet her / his basic material requirements of life.’ https://basicincomeindia.weebly.com/
IRELAND: Basic Income Ireland

 

 ‘A basic income is a payment from the state to every resident on an individual basis, without any means test or work requirement.

It would be sufficient to live a frugal but decent lifestyle without supplementary income from paid work.’ https://www.basicincomeireland.com/
ITALY: Bin Italia (Basic Income Network Italy) [I can’t find a definition]
JAPAN: BIEN Japan

 

 ベーシックインカムとは

ベーシックインカムとは、全ての人が、生活に足るだろう所得への権利を、無条件でもつ、という考え方です。

考え方としては２００年ほどの歴史があります。思想家、哲学者、経済学者たちが議論する一方、土地の共有化を求めたり、分権的な社会主義を求めたり、金融の民主化を求めたり、福祉から性差別をなくすことを求めたり、といった社会運動のなかでも要求されてきました。https://tyamamor.doshisha.ac.jp/bienj/bienj_top.html

Basic income is the idea that everyone has the unconditional right to an income to live on.
MEXICO: Red Mexicana Ingreso Ciudadano Universal [Website not available]
NETHERLANDS: Vereniging Basisinkomen

 

 ‚Het bedrag is hoog genoeg voor een menswaardig bestaan

Hoog genoeg : Het bedrag moet zorgen voor een fatsoenlijke levensstandaard, die aan de sociale en culturele normen voldoet in het betrokken land. Het moet materiële armoede te voorkomen en bieden de mogelijkheid om te participeren in de samenleving en in waardigheid te leven.‘ https://basisinkomen.nl/informatie/de-vier-criteria-voor-een-onvoorwaardelijk-basisinkomen/

[The amount is high enough for a decent life:High enough: The amount should provide a decent standard of living according to social and cultural norms prevailing in the country concerned in order to avoid material poverty and provide the opportunity to participate in society and live in dignity.]

Adriaan Planken, VBi secretaris a.i. adds: ‘UBI is universal, individual, unconditional, and high enough to ensure an existence in dignity and participation in society.’
NEW ZEALAND: Basic Income New Zealand Incorporated (BINZ)

 

 ‘A basic income is an individual income paid to all legal residents as of right without means test or work requirement. … the government and the public together decide how much it will be. BINZ does not promote any particular solution. Additional funding can be nothing at all for an income-neutral basic income where each household receives the same total income after tax as it does now. It can be moderately redistributive like the examples shown in the handbook published on the BINZ website that substantially reduce poverty by redistributing about 2% of national income. Or it can be any other greater or lesser amount.’ https://www.basicincomenz.net/faq
NORWAY: Borgerlønn BIEN Norge

 

 ‚En universell, individuell og ubetinget inntekt som er høy nok til å gi hver og en av oss et verdig liv, uavhengig av arbeidsstatus.‘ https://www.borgerlonn.no/

[A universal, individual and unconditional income that is high enough to give each of us a dignified life, regardless of employment status.]
PORTUGAL: Rendimento Básico

 

 ‘O Rendimento Básico Incondicional é uma prestação atribuída a cada cidadão, independentemente da sua situação financeira, familiar ou profissional, e suficiente para permitir uma vida com dignidade.

Um RBI é:
– Universal – não discrimina ninguém, todos o recebem
– Incondicional – um direito para todos, sem burocracias
– Individual – garante autonomia às pessoas em situação vulnerável
– Suficiente – para viver com dignidade’ https://www.rendimentobasico.pt/

[Unconditional Basic Income is a benefit attributed to each citizen, regardless of their financial situation, family or professional, and sufficient to allow a life with dignity.An RBI is:

– Universal – does not discriminate against anyone, everyone

– Unconditional – a right for all without bureaucracies

– Individual – guarantees autonomy for people in vulnerable situation

– Enough – to live with dignity]
SCOTLAND: Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland ‘A basic income is a fixed amount of money paid to citizens which never decreases or disappears no matter the circumstances of that citizen. For example, unemployed, low wage, and rich people of the same age-bracket (i.e. not a child or a pensioner) would all receive the same basic level of state support. Children, adults, and pensioners would be provided with different levels of basic income. The objective of a basic income is to alleviate poverty caused by low wages and the benefits trap.’ https://cbin.scot/what-is-a-basic-income/
SLOVENIA: Sekcija za promocijo UTD v Sloveniji [I couldn’t find a definition]
SOUTH KOREA: Basic Income Korean Network (BIKN)

 

 따라서 기본소득은 보편적 복지이자 그 이상입니다. 모든 구성원의 적절한 삶을 보장한다는 점에서 보편적 복지이고, 단순한 재분배정책이 아니라 사회적 생태적 전환의 기초가 된다는 점에서 이행전략입니다. 기본소득은 정의상으로는 매우 단순하지만 필요성, 정당성, 지향성의 측면에서는 복합적이고 심층적입니다. www.basicincomekorea.org/all-about-bi_definition/

Therefore, basic income is more than universal welfare. It is a universal welfare in that it guarantees the proper life of all members, and is a transition strategy in that it is the basis of social ecological transformation, not a simple redistribution policy. Basic income is by definition fairly simple, but complex and deep in terms of necessity, legitimacy, and direction.
SPAIN: Red Renta Basica

 

 ‘La renta básica puede ser definida de distintas formas. En la web la Red Renta Básica ha utilizado esta definición: la renta básica es un ingreso pagado por el estado, como derecho de ciudadanía, a cada miembro de pleno derecho o residente de la sociedad incluso si no quiere trabajar de forma remunerada, sin tomar en consideración si es rico o pobre o, dicho de otra forma, independientemente de cuáles puedan ser las otras posibles fuentes de renta, y sin importar con quien conviva. En menos palabras: una renta básica es una asignación monetaria pública incondicional a toda la población.’ https://www.redrentabasica.org/rb/que-es-la-rb/

[Basic income can be defined in different ways. On the web the Basic Income Network has used this definition: basic income is an income paid by the state, as a right of citizenship, to each full member or resident of the society even if they do not want to work in a paid way, without taking In consideration whether he is rich or poor or, in other words, regardless of what the other possible sources of income may be, and regardless of who he lives with. In less words: a basic income is an unconditional public monetary allocation to the entire population.]
SWITZERLAND: BIEN Switzerland ‘The unconditional basic income (UBI) is a monthly payment by a public agency, to each individual, of a sum of money high enough to cover basic needs and enable participation in social life, as a monthly, lifelong rent. It is the concretization of a basic human right.’ https://bien.ch/en/story/basic-income/what-unconditionnal-basic-income
TAIWAN: Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association in Taiwan
UNITED KINGDOM: Citizen’s Income Trust

 

 ‘A Citizen’s Income is

‘Unconditional’: A Citizen’s Income would vary with age, but there would be no other conditions: so everyone of the same age would receive the same Citizen’s Income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else.

‘Automatic’: Someone’s Citizen’s Income would be paid weekly or monthly, automatically.

‘Nonwithdrawable’: Citizen’s Incomes would not be means-tested. If someone’s earnings or wealth increased, then their Citizen’s Income would not change.

‘Individual’: Citizen’s Incomes would be paid on an individual basis, and not on the basis of a couple or household.

‘As a right of citizenship’: Everybody legally resident in the UK would receive a Citizen’s Income, subject to a minimum period of legal residency in the UK, and continuing residency for most of the year.’ https://citizensincome.org/faqs/
UNITED STATES: U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG)

 

 ‘The Basic Income gives every citizen a check for the full basic income every month, and taxes his or her earned income, so that nearly everyone both pays taxes and receives a basic income. … A partial basic income guarantee is any income guarantee set at a level that is less than enough to meet a person’s basic needs.’ https://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.php

[* added following circulation of the original summary to affiliated organisations]

Canada: What is basic income?

Canada: What is basic income?

by | Oct 24, 2016 | Opinion

The article is meant to challenge Canadians and others to consider what precisely a basic income is and what goals it can accomplish. For BIEN’s official definition of basic income, click here.

By: Reza Hajivandi

Both as a concept and policy, basic income (BI) has been around for some time, losing and re-gaining traction at different points in history. However, the vague manner in which the term is sometimes used, and the lack of effort in providing any clear demarcations, has led to its obscurity.

To give the term clarity, first the question must be asked: What is basic income? Asking the question is not intended to provide a concrete and singular definition, nor is it a good idea to do so. The purpose is clarity, which could be achieved by first, asking the question; What is basic income? And second, journeying through the process of finding answers. The journey therefore takes priority here, by helping to provide clarity.

How can we approach the question in a way that provides answers and clarity? One possibility could be researching academic articles or the worldwide web to see how basic income is defined. However, as aforementioned, if the purpose is clarity, then skipping past the ‘journey process’ and jumping straight to the finish line will not be helpful. A more in-depth approach involves asking the ‘why’ question: Why Basic Income in the first place? By asking this question we will be forcing ourselves to embark on a journey of discovery, through which we may encounter difficult questions and decisions.

Why basic income?

Immediately we can respond by suggesting that the goal is to advocate for a policy that will effectively tackle obstacles such as precarity and poverty, which are preventing people from living with freedom and dignity. Such a response, however, immediately yields a new question: Do we not already have existing social security policies with the same purpose? And don’t some of those policies already possess elements that closely resemble the idea of basic income?

First, we have a social assistance program that is offered by each province. This is known as Ontario Works (OW) in Ontario, and British Columbia Employment and Assistance (BCEA) in British Columbia. Yet these services are quite distinct from basic income in that they are neither universal nor guaranteed, but targeted, means-tested, and subject to heavy claw backs and other conditions. The rates that are provided are also insufficient in the face of rising and already staggering living costs (rent, food, and other basic needs). It is for all these reasons that social assistance tends to perpetuate existing poverty, rather than helping people escape it. In addition, targeted assistance programs are known to be shouldered by government taxes that primarily target the middle class. This squeezes both the government and a shrinking middle class for scant funding. It also leads to class divisions by creating the popular perception that the lazy poor/refugee/immigrant etc on welfare are responsible for societal and economic problems, while wealthier segments stay off the tax and social radar and continue with their unfair and extensive accumulation of wealth.

Coming closer to the idea of basic income are other existing social security measures such as Old Age Security (OAS) and Canada Child Benefit (CCB). OAS is guaranteed to recipients aged 65 years or older almost regardless of income and other conditions. This might move us a little closer to what we want: A basic income that is the opposite of existing income security programs like OW and BCEA and more like guaranteed income ones like OAS.

This is perhaps where basic income takes its own character. It has to be universal, because if it isn’t, then it’s going to closely resemble what we already have in place, and prone to falling victim to the same problems that have historically plagued the social security system. Therefore, unless we are after a simple re-branding or name change, basic income has to be radically different from (and perhaps the opposite) of existing social assistance. Even the term ‘basic income’ seems to orient itself towards something that’s universal and guaranteed, because that’s what income is, anyway – a form of earning that is guaranteed. And if something is universal it needs to be guaranteed and come with almost no conditions, otherwise it cannot really be called universal. Not to play with semantics, a responsible BI program must therefore be universal, and tax the rich in ways that sufficiently redistribute the wealth in society [1]. By doing so it will be able to effectively reduce poverty, and strengthen class solidarity and people’s position against austerity and neoliberalism.

Now that we have a clearer idea of what BI could be, we have to be mindful of a piece of the puzzle that is not quite making sense: the government, and in our case, the current provincial and federal governments. We have to ask ourselves why the government is suddenly so interested in providing people with a new form of welfare? Let’s be honest, governments are almost never excited about spending on social security and welfare services. Instead, it tends to be the case that persistent and consistent mobilization from grassroots are necessary to secure even minor social gains. Yet absent is precisely this strong push from below, while instead the government seems to have filled the vacuum by acting as both the ‘activist’ and ‘saint’[2]. This is indeed a strange development. But what’s even odder is its occurrence in an era of neoliberalism and austerity, where the pressure is to cut services and spend less, not more. The goal here is not to undermine the groups that have been courageously fighting the government to pass a good BI policy [3]. But there is no doubt that the government has played a significant leadership role in advocating for BI as well.

Perhaps then it is useful to ask what ‘BI’ means to the government. In some sense, BI can provide the government a convenient way to increase the efficiency of social security by streamlining all or most of its existing services into one. This could save the government money through reducing the resources required to administer social security programs, and even more by keeping assistance at its current (insufficient) rates. Another way a BI program could save the government dollars – one that has community groups and organizations worried – is the implementation of BI with the aim of gradually reducing funding for existing welfare services such as health, housing, and community development. Therefore, BI can be an opportunity for the government to cut back and save resources, and this makes sense in an age of austerity and accumulation by dispossession. But it is likely that if subsidized services such as housing and food banks are scrapped and replaced with BI, social security recipients are going to be worse off than they were before, or, at best, live under the same conditions as today. It is also the case that a uniform rate under a streamlined system could actually serve to increase inequality and poverty by providing the poorer recipients with a lower rate than before [4].

In this conjecture then, BI seems to be a valuable opportunity for two parties (people and government) with nearly distinct and opposing goals. Many see the grossly insufficient social assistance rates and rapidly rising living expenses as their critical juncture to push for a BI. On the other hand, the government sees this critical juncture in other terms: one in which it can continue to make good with neoliberalism by cutting, streamlining, and creating more ‘efficient’ services. To the rest of the population the government may present this as evidence that it’s listening, ‘seeing’, and coming up with the appropriate solutions, even though it is more likely that the solution is for the benefit of the government, than for those who need it most [5]. Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is who is more likely to prevail and close this critical juncture in their own terms? The push from below is certainly strengthening, but to ensure an effective universal BI, more organizing and capacity building may be necessary. The goal then should not be to abandon BI, but to realize the risks involved and work together to build and strengthen the movement.

[1] This can be done through progressive forms of taxation, and with taxes that do not affect low-income and the poor, such as varieties of luxury and large-estate taxes.
[2] Senator Art Eggleton is starting a tour to promote Basic Income across Ontario. Also see:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sen-art-eggleton/art-eggleton-basic-income_b_9331180.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/17/wynne-touts-basic-income-pilot-project-to-help-poor.html

https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/12/scrapping-welfare/

[3] The Kingston BI Group in Hamilton, and others.
[4] See Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

[5] This is not to pit ‘government’ and ‘people’ as two antithetical forces; such a characterization would be both simplistic and inaccurate. Instead, the current conjecture and active promotion of BI from ‘above’ and weak push from ‘below’ serve to indicate that the government has a different purpose in promoting a BI model of social security, one that is at odds with the model imagined by BI advocates.