by Andre Coelho | Oct 15, 2015 | News
PAN congressman André Silva (credit to: RTP)
Political party PAN – Pessoas, Animais, Natureza – a minority party in Portugal since its inception in 2009, has increased its votes in the most recent general election (which was on the 4th of October) by 30% relative to 2011. This has allowed PAN to finally elect one congressman. This is of relevance, because PAN will be the first political party in Portugal defending the basic income concept with a seat on the Portuguese parliament. André Silva will be this congressman, who gave a short but hearty speech on the election night. PAN’s elected congressman manifests his availability to search for political stability in the country, establishing dialog with all the other political forces.
Basic income can be found as a feature in PAN’s electoral program (in Portuguese).
More information at:
In Portuguese:
Sandy Gageiro, “O partido Pessoas-Animais-Natureza conseguiu eleger um deputado e afirmou-se disponível para dialogar com as demais forças políticas [Political party PAN managed to elect a congressman and stated its availability to establish dialog with the other parties]“, RTP Website, October 5 2015
by Stanislas Jourdan | Oct 3, 2015 | News
Last week (Sept 23rd 2015) the Swiss Parliament voted for a motion calling on the Swiss people to reject the Popular Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income.
Update: the date of the referendum has be set to 5th June 2016
After hours of debate, the National council (the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland) voted for a recommendation by the ruling party to reject the popular initiative for unconditional basic income after six hours of debate.
The motion was passed with a large majority (146 votes), with only a minority of 14 MPs supporting the initiative and 12 abstentions (see the detailed vote report here).
“The most dangerous and harmful initiative ever”
Basic income was opposed by all political groups, but the harshest critics came from the Centre and Right-wing parties. Sebastian Frehner (Centrist) described the initiative as “the most dangerous and harmful initiative that has ever been submitted,” mentioning the risks of immigration, disincentive to work, and that the basic income proposed would not be financeable anyway.
For similar reasons, the Liberal party spokesman Daniel Stolz described the initiative as “intellectually stimulating,” but that it is also a “cocked hand grenade that threatens to tear the whole system to pieces.” His party colleague Ausserrhoden Andrea Caroni spoke of basic income as a “bomb in the heart of our society and our economy.”
The most noticeable supporter of basic income was probably the Socialist MP Silvia Schenker who argued that basic income was the answer to the complexity and loopholes of the current welfare system and a better way to integrate the people “who have no place in the world of work.”
This was not enough however to convince the Greens and other Socialists. “The Greens support the objectives of the Popular Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income, but as it stands, it endangers our social system,” said Christian van Singer, spokesperson for the Greens. He argued that while one goal of the initiative is to simplify the social system, “it could level down the benefit system to the detriment of those who do not find work or cannot work.”
Similarly, the Socialist MP Jean-Christophe Schwaab said he opposed basic income because it could be a pretext to dismantle the welfare system and reduce wages.
Politicians dismiss it, electors like it
Basic income campaigners just published a new book and distributed in front of the Parliament.
Ironically, while politicians were voting against basic income by a large majority, an online poll (Tagesanzeiger.ch) showed that 49% of the Swiss would vote in favour, while 43% are against it, and another 8% said it depends on the amount.
The general outcome of the six-hour session was not a surprise. The strong opposition to basic income followed a similar opinion from the Federal Council (the executive branch of government) which rejected the initiative in August 2014. Earlier this year the two relevant parliamentary committees on social affairs had also recommended opposition to the initiative. The Upper chamber of the Parliament will deliberate on the issue over the winter.
Under the Swiss Constitution, all citizens’ initiatives that collect more than 100,000 signatures get the right to have a referendum. However, this referendum only takes place after a series of official deliberations in the Federal Council and the National Council. In practice, this can allow the legislative power to immediately adopt into law proposed citizens’ initiatives if representatives agree with it, thus accelerating the process.
This vote is therefore not decisive, it is only a recommendation. Whatever the politicians decide, a nationwide referendum will be organised for 2016.
The Popular Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income was launched in March 2012 and successfully collected 125,000 signatures by October 2014.
“Politicians are afraid of the People”
Despite the unsuccessful vote in Parliament, “The debate was good for the idea and the movement for Basic Income,” wrote basic income campaigner Che Wagner in a column for the Swiss newspaper Tages Woches.
Wagner said the debate revealed how afraid politicians are of the people: “Among the political class, the fear has spread, a threat has been identified: they are afraid of the people of this country and their potential epidemic laziness. Until the referendum in Autumn 2016 we will find out whether and how much these dangerous people are afraid of themselves too.”
by BIEN | Sep 11, 2015 | News
In a public square in Berlin, Ralph Boes can be found sitting at a table. Anyone who would like to can speak to Boes, who will then explain his protest of the current German welfare system. Boes demands a “livable income”, a guaranteed minimum income that can provide enough for everyone to meet their needs. Germany’s welfare sanctions mean that if an individual refuses a job, regardless of the circumstances, they lose their welfare benefits. Boes believes that this policy of sanctions fundamentally sacrifices the dignity of the individual. Boes has been on strike since July 1, and plans to continue his strike to educate people about the basic income.
For more information on Boes and his ideas, visit Boes website, or the Tumblr page dedicated to his efforts.
by Guest Contributor | Sep 9, 2015 | Opinion
The Eurozone clearly needs a structural yet flexible central bank policy instrument that can be used to kick-start the economy as and when it is needed. A miniature version of the increasingly popular basic income policy would provide exactly this type of instrument.
By Willem Sas and Kevin Spiritus, originally published in Flemish Newspaper De Tijd, translation by Will Wachtmeister.
Can anyone remember what times were like before the crisis? When “cut-backs” was a word ascribed to the 1990s. When growth rates were healthy and inflation stable. When the benefits of a unified single European currency were still plain for all to see. Memories of those times have been fading rapidly. Especially so with persistent wage stagnation, mounting inequality and interest rates that have been reduced to basically their lowest possible level. Is there really no way out?
A policy response that is often put forward is looser monetary policy, the proverbial printing press. And since 9 March, the printing press has been in full swing in Europe too. Under the established label quantitative easing (QE), the European Central Bank has, after four years of hesitating, begun spending billions on buying up assets. This involves buying up private loans just as much as government bonds. The hope is essentially that this will stimulate both private and public investment.
Unfortunately, QE will not necessarily lead to more economic investment within the European Union. Insofar as public authorities aren’t able – or allowed – to invest, insofar as the financing doesn’t reach businesses and businesses don’t want to take on loans, QE will prove a fruitless endeavour. At the same time, QE could well lead to even more debt: by stimulating the economy through credit creation, it potentially blows more air into the bubbles caused by the most recent crisis. A massive buy-up of bonds and shares will in the end also cause asset-price rises, with the benefits going mainly to larger, wealthier investors.
Helicopter money
This all means that success is far from guaranteed: the approach is fraught with risks and has damaging implications for equality. QE thus does not appear to be the best way forward for Europe. This is why there are economists who propagate a more efficient alternative, the so-called “helicopter money” approach. For as long as the economy fails to recover, newly printed money is simply distributed directly to the general population, as if it were dropped from a helicopter. Research shows that the money would be spent pretty much straight after it’s received, which would restore confidence to invest among businesses. It would also restore business confidence to take on new employees, who in turn respond by consuming more. And so the result becomes a virtuous circle.
But there are drawbacks. Sharing out helicopter money is a temporary measure that can only be adopted in exceptional circumstances. If at some point it transpires that the ECB has gone too far and created a threat of runaway inflation, it is very difficult to remove the newly created money from the economy. This is why there is a clear need for a structural and flexible policy measure which the central bank is able to use to kick-start the economy as and when it is necessary.
A variation on the helicopter theme, a monetary basic income, provides a way forward. Under this scenario, the ECB would distribute an amount of money to each citizen on a monthly basis, calculated as a percentage of average income (the amount therefore varies between countries). Let’s assume for the sake of simplicity that the amount is 400 euros a month throughout the Eurozone. It’s important that the individual Eurozone countries remain responsible for raising the 400 euros – for example by reducing benefit payments or tax allowance levels – whereupon they pay it back to the ECB.
So far, this is a neutral measure that shuffles money around without creating a stimulus. This remains the case except in times of crisis when the central bank increases the monthly payment to, say, 600 euros, until the economy recovers. Meanwhile, each national authority keeps its repayment levels fixed at 400 euros. The ECB thereby ends up printing an additional 200 euros per person per month, and this money is relatively quickly spent. As the economy recovers and growth and inflation figures rise, the basic income can be returned to the neutral level of 400 euros. In cases where the ECB had been too generous, the basic income level could even be lowered temporarily to 300 euros until inflation stabilizes. This would essentially remove money from the economy.
Viewed as a monetary policy instrument for tackling crises, this type of basic income can hardly be considered an indulgence. But there is more to it than that. The approach also does what it says on the tin: it is a miniature version of exactly the sort of basic income which increasingly features in public debate. Supporters claim that a structural basic income would provide a way of dealing with automation, growing inequality as well as the stress and agitation of everyday life. It would also enable people to be more creative and entrepreneurial.
This last point is far from a certainty and in effect represents the biggest drawback of a basic income policy. How many people would actually invest in new skills? And what will happen to the labour supply? There do exist several economic models that simulate the effects of minor reforms but when it comes to the effects of a comprehensive reform such as basic income, we’re very much in the dark.
Income shock
As long as we can’t anticipate the consequences of introducing a basic income, making a case for it will remain difficult. And because the advantages will only really be felt when basic income is set at higher amounts, introducing it step by step is just as problematic.
Here our proposal for a limited monetary basic income offers yet another opportunity. To be sure, we don’t expect an amount that guarantees a dignified life to be introduced from the outset. But our proposal does allow economists to research the effects of a large income shock. When the central bank increases the monthly payment in times of crisis, this will generate a great deal of valuable evidence. As soon as the positive effects are ascertained, the neutral-level basic income can be increased step by step, eventually reaching the point of a fully-fledged basic income.
So we have stronger guarantees of success, less risk, and more equal opportunities to boot. That’s a better idea than quantitative easing for a start.
Willem Sas and Kevin Spiritus are completing their doctorates in public economics at the Center of Economic Studies at Belgian university KU Leuven.
Credit Picture CC Bobby Hidy
by Josh Martin | Sep 7, 2015 | News
The Council of Europe has released an EU-funded report titled Living in dignity in the 21st century: Poverty and inequality in societies of human rights à the paradox of democracies in which a large group of researchers sought to determine what it will take to live with dignity in Europe in the 21st century. The report focuses on the three key principles that underline the Council of Europe’s human rights approach: universality, indivisibility, and integrity. Through contextual analysis of Europe’s social security systems, the report considers many possible policy answers to help citizens live with dignity in the 21st century, with basic income being mentioned as a real possibility. The report mentions basic income over twenty times, and two members of BIEN, Yannick Vanderborght and Louise Haagh, were among the contributors to the report. In fact, basic income is listed as a required policy to combat poverty and inequality and to allow everyone to live with dignity in the 21st century.
To read the full report, click on the following link:
Council of Europe, “Living in dignity in the 21st century: Poverty and inequality in societies of human rights à the paradox of democracies”, Council of Europe Publishing, February 2013.
