by Kate McFarland | Aug 28, 2016 | News
The 148th annual UK Trades Union Congress will be held this year in Brighton from September 11 to 14 — and will include a vote on whether to endorse universal basic income.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is, as it were, a “union of unions”. As the TUC itself puts it, “Just as individual workers benefit by joining together in a union, so unions gain strength by acting together through the TUC. The TUC brings unions together to draw up common policies on issues that matter to people at work.”
The TUC represents a total of more than 5.8 million workers from 51 unions. Its member unions range in size from small specialists unions of a few hundred members to the UK’s largest trade union, Unite, with around 1.4 million members. The TUC states that its mission “to be a high profile organisation that campaigns successfully for trade union aims and values; assists trade unions to increase membership and effectiveness; cuts out wasteful rivalry; and promotes trade union solidarity.”
The largest member, Unite, endorsed basic income this past July. It has now introduced a motion supporting basic income for consideration at this year’s Congress.
This is the full text of the motion on which the Congress will be voting (available in the Congress’ Preliminary Agenda, pp. 49-50):
Universal Basic Income
Congress notes the growing popularity of the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ with a variety of models being discussed here and around the world. Congress recognises the need for a rebuilding of a modern social security system for men and women as part of tackling poverty and inequality.
Congress believes that the TUC should argue for a progressive system that incorporates the basis of a Universal Basic Income system paid individually and that is complementary to comprehensive public services and childcare provision.
Congress believes that such a system would be easier to administer and easier for people to navigate than the current system which has been made increasingly punitive and has effectively been used to stigmatise benefit claimants. The operation of sanctions pushes people into destitution for trivial reasons.
Congress recognises that until the housing crisis is resolved there would also be a need for supplementary benefits to support people on low incomes with high housing costs and that there will always be a need for supplementary benefits for disabled people.
The transition from our current system to any new system that incorporates these principles should always leave people with lower incomes better off.
Congress believes that our social security system must work in tandem with our agenda for strong trade unions and employment rights and secure, decently and properly paid work.
Reviewed by Robert Gordon
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Toban B.
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Toru Yamamori | Aug 27, 2016 | News
Liisa Siika-aho (provided by herself)
As we’ve already reported here, Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has announced their most recent move in a plan to launch a basic income experiment. On 25th August the Ministry canvassed for the Finnish public’s opinion on a bill regarding a basic income experiment. Here is a follow up with the Ministry’s comments and experts’ responses.
Liisa Siika-aho, director, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health responded to BIEN on 26th August as follows:
Q: What is the basic income experiment and what is its aim?
A: The basic income experiment is included in Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s Government Programme. The experiment is one of the activities aiming to reform social security so that it better encourages participation and employment.
Q: Why is the basic income experiment carried out?
A: The objective of the legislative proposal is to carry out a basic income experiment in order to assess whether basic income can be used to reform social security, specifically to reduce incentive traps relating to working.
Q: How are the participants selected?
A: Persons receiving Kela’s unemployment-related benefits, under certain limitations, would be included in the experiment. From the target group, a test group of 2 000 persons would be selected by means of random sampling.
Q: Is it mandatory to participate in the experiment?
A: Participation in the experiment would be mandatory for those selected.
Q: When will the experiment start?
A: It is suggested in the legislative proposal that a basic income experiment will be carried out in 2017–2018.
Q: What would be the level of basic income in the experiment?
A: The level of basic income would be EUR 560 per month. Basic income would be tax free for the receivers.
Q: How is the experiment financed?
A: A total of EUR 20 million has been reserved in the budget for the basic income experiment.
In addition to this, the benefits that Kela is paying at the moment would be used as an addition for those persons who are receiving basic security benefits at the beginning of the experiment.
Q: Who is responsible for carrying out the experiment?
A: The Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela) would be responsible for carrying out the experiment.
Finland has a long history of advocating UBI (for a brief summery, see here). Here are those advocates’ Comments.
Jan Otto Andersson with an article in the Helsingin Sanomat (taken by Toru Yamamori)
Jan Otto Andersson, Emeritus associate professor at Åbo Akademi, has been advocating UBI since around 1980 and is a founding member of the BIEN (European Network at that time). On 26th August, he had this to say:
It is not a test for what a basic income for all in the society would mean, but for just to see how it affects those who have been unemployed. …. So it is limited but interesting. It will improve the discussion which has been here for a long time….It [my feeling on the experiment] is positive because this makes the idea more well known.
Osmo Soininvaara, a former minister of Social Services with the Finish Green League and another long term advocate of UBI in Finland, posted a harsh criticism on his blog on 26th August, where he calls the experiment as ‘such a stupid model’. His reasons were as follows:
……
In a proper BI model, the received basic income does not, indeed, get smaller when your income level rises, but taxation starts from the very first euro earned. That’s why a proper basic income does not bring net income gains to people in mid-income jobs.
In this experiment taxation is left untouched. If you get into a 4000 euro per month job, you will earn 560 euros more than the person doing the exact same job next to you. We cannot afford to increase the income level of every job earner by 560 euros per month.
In this regard, the model is guilty of the accusations levelled against BI by those people who do not understand who basic income is supposed to work.
…..
(translated by Otto Lehto)
Otto Lehto, the former president of the BIEN Finland, gave us his comments, which seems to have a more nuanced tone:
Feelings, as an individual and academic, formerly of BIEN Finland, can be summed up as follows: The research parameters are about exactly the sort of compromise that one would expect to emerge as a result of the recommendations of an expert coalition commissioned by a wide-ranging coalition government spurred to action by a vague and compelling sense that something needs to be done, but equally held back by the realization that many toes will inevitably be stepped on, and many special interests will need to be reconciled, before anything can be done. Change breeds fear, and fear breeds paralysis. To allay skepticism, the parameters are designed to be the least offensive to, and the smallest possible departure from, the established norms and expectations of the Finnish workfare/welfare-state. In particular, excluding young people and students is, in my opinion, a moralistic choice of little merit and little justification, but it makes sense as a compromise within the status quo, and as a precaution against the critics of “free money to lazy students.”
The budgetary constraints and time constraints are beyond Kela’s control, so the main fault lies within the government. They also set the original goals and parameters within which the labour market participation focus has been raised as the main criteria, with the predictable result that human right, liberty. equality and other considerations of social justice bent have been largely set aside, to the chagrin of many (myself included). This. however, is the state of things, and can only be changed in the next general election of 2019.
2000 participants is a small sample, but if the budget does not change, this cannot be helped. Limiting the sample to people on the government unemployment benefits makes nominal sense as a result of the government’s single minded focus. But it skews the experiment by excluding a number of potential beneficiary groups, including people on low-paying jobs, students, the self-employed, etc. This does not even make sense from the government’s own (limited) perspective, since labour market participation is a more complex notion than the old-fashioned distinction, reflected in the official unemployment statistics, between people who are “in” and “out of” work.
The taxation aspect is another potential disaster. If taxation cannot be changed to reflect the new benefit structure, this will inevitably make SOME recipients of basic income better off than their peers, while some of them will be worse off than their peers. Such a model, with its creation of a massive budget-deficit, cannot be generalized for the whole national economy, as Osmo Soininvaara, the father of the Greens’ basic income model, has written in his recent blog, very critical of the government’s/Kela’s proposal.
I am very skeptical this experiment will produce any really interesting scientific results, but it serves the function of satisfying the nominal requirements of the government’s plan, and the pressures from the various interest groups. It does not appear too radical, too left-wing, nor too right-wing. It might serve a useful purpose in propelling the basic income discussion forward. At the same time, many instances will probably try and use to it squelch any further discussion, too.
Beyond my own views, I will now say something about how this proposal has been received more generally. The overwhelming consensus among my own group of friends, representing multiple parties, left-wing and right-wing, those opposed to basic income as well as those in favour, is that the experiment seems disappointing in many respects, and perhaps even doomed to fail. (Some will conspiratorially add: consciously?) Many people, including opponents and skeptics, would like a more thorough, larger-scale and better designed experiment. The lukewarm success, bordering on failure, of the experiment, before it has even gotten off the ground, is a good indication of the difficulty of institutional change in our country. Good ideas become OK ideas, bad ideas become OK ideas, until we are left with nothing but OK ideas. So, yes, this experiment seems… OK.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod.
by Kate McFarland | Jul 5, 2016 | Research
Dutch sociologist Dick Pels has published a new book, A Heart for Europe: The Case for Europatriotism, which is available for free download from Good Works Publishing Cooperative based in Bristol, UK.
The following is an introduction from the author:
European civilization is the never-ending quest for a more gentle, more relaxed, more trustful and less dangerous society: a society in which people are no longer afraid of each other, of their institutions, or of themselves. But Europe currently finds itself in the eye of a ‘perfect storm’, being chased by the multiple dangers of populist nationalism, Russian revanchism, neoliberal financial havoc, religious terrorism and refugee chaos. Facing these violent challenges, we urgently need to rethink our European ideals of peace, freedom, democracy, sustainability and the good life. It is urgent that we regain the original passion which lay behind the European project, in order to rescue the idea of a civilized European patriotism from the politics of fear which is conducted by both rightwing and leftwing nationalists.
Most of the book does not specifically address basic income; however, Pels does briefly make a case for a Europe-wide basic income in a chapter entitled “The European Good Life”.
While he does not foresee a basic income in the immediate future, Pels believes that Europeans might look forward to “something like an individualized European basic income, which would not only provide citizens with a guaranteed income but also relax the work ethic and relativize the political goal of full employment” (p. 102) — which he goes on to call a “eurodividend”.
Like the first legal state pension introduced in 1889 by Bismarck, who intended to outflank social democracy and to forge stronger ties between the newly united German states, such a ‘eurodividend’ could effectively bind citizens to the European project, while also removing economic imbalances within the eurozone and halting the social race to the bottom. It would lay a common European ‘social floor’ under the national welfare states, which would otherwise retain their diversity. As an individual share in the profits of European unification, the eurodividend would literally ‘make the profits of Europe visible for everyone’ (pp. 102-3).
Another major benefit of a “eurodividend”, according to Pels, is that it permits a more equitable distribution of time. Noting that a good life requires that “we win back command over our own time…from the economic production and consumption spheres,” Pels states, “A European basic income could be one way of distributing this time freedom more evenly and fairly. It would not only benefit the stressed-out multitaskers and burnt-out managers of the rich Northwest, but every EU citizen” (p. 104).
Read more about the book — or just download and read the book itself — at the publisher’s website.
Dick Pels has taught at various Dutch and English universities, and he was the director of the Bureau de Helling, the research foundation of the Dutch Green Party, until 2013. His previous English-language books include Property and Power, A Study in Intellectual Rivalry (1998), The Intellectual as Stranger (2000), and Unhastening Science (2003). He has also co-edited a volume on basic income, Het basisinkomen: sluitstuk van de verzorgingsstaat? (1995), with Robert van der Veen.
A guitarist and singer-songwriter, Pels writes and performs songs in the blues and folk-rock genres. He lives on the historic yacht Nymphaea.
by Sandro Gobetti | Jul 3, 2016 | Research
Article by Luca Santini and Sandro Gobetti (BIN Italia), published on Cadmus journal Vol. 2 Issue 6 may 2016.
Abstract
A feeling of uncertainty about the future as well as the perception that the past classical securities are gone are widely spread among people. Criticism or disaffection affects the majority of the traditional political forces of the European continent. It is not possible to talk about the European crisis without referring to the crisis of wage-based society. All political options of the past century have de facto put labour at the centre of society.
The post-classical era got its start in the ’80s when, for the first time since World War II, the phenomenon of mass unemployment affected Europe. The crisis of wage labour cannot be regarded as a temporary economic conjuncture of an otherwise unlimited growth; all consequences of the phase must be contemplated in order to design at once a society based on new principles.
For years, after the end of the Fordist system, nothing has been done to cope with the conditions of precarious workers. The issue of a guaranteed income is, therefore, crucial and inescapable in order to exit this long-term European crisis. The European Union should take a stand on the protection of human dignity and on the “right to exist”. Could basic income at the continental level be the basis for a social Europe? We are looking forward to it.
Click here to read the article in pdf.
Click here to download Cadmus Journal Vol. 2 issue 6 May 2016.
by Guest Contributor | Jun 20, 2016 | Opinion
The level of Basic Income (BI) is a matter of heated debate in discussions of BI for national implementation, investigating the level at which BI would be ‘high enough’. There is also growing dispute regarding ‘partial’ vs. ’full’ BI. This was the central topic of investigation at this year’s BI conference in Maastricht in January. The following calculations, using a common formula and comparing BI levels for 24 European/OECD countries, aim to assist in the resolution of this debate.
We don’t want to make the system worse than it is. It’s logical, then, that the minimal level of BI should reach, at least, the level of current Social Assistance (SA): we could call this ‘partial’ BI. All BI proposals included in this analysis satisfy this condition.
It follows that implementation of a BI close to the level offered by the current social security system (e.g., the SA level) implies budget neutrality in countries with a more universal system.[1] This follows the argument “If we can afford our current welfare system, we can afford basic income” that Max Ghenis has well elaborated. These proposals might be socially more acceptable, given that the change would be ‘minimal’.
So, if the level of SA in a country indicates 1) the socially acceptable level of social aid and 2) the first estimation of the social welfare budget, BI at the same level would likely be the most financially and socially affordable solution, offering the shortest implementation time frame. Proposals for Slovenia[2], Hungary[3] and Finland[4] belong to this category.
On the other hand, the level of BI should be high enough to ensure a material existence and participation in society. We assume this when we argue that BI should be at least at the level of the current Poverty Threshold (PT): we could call this ’full’ BI. BI at such a level would probably fulfill the role of an emancipatory welfare system.[5] Proposals for Switzerland[6] and the Netherlands[7] fit into this second category.
The question is, how costly are lowered aspirations regarding a ‘partial’ BI level (e.g., in Slovenia, Finland and Hungary) in service of affordability and/or social acceptance in the foreseeable future? Will we achieve anything? As the microsimulation in Slovenia demonstrated, however, even a partial BI proposal (budget neutral, well below PT and above SA) proved to be: 1) better for the majority, 2) the same or better for the more vulnerable and 3) better for the lowest deciles. The Hungarian BI proposal seems to draw similar conclusions.
To serve discussion regarding the level of BI in different countries, a common formula (similar to that used for the Slovenian proposal) was used to calculate the levels of BI proposed in various countries.
Formula: BI = an average of three components:
- Social Assistance for a single person with no children: Indicates the currently acceptable minimal level of social aid (and the ‘budget’ of the current social security system).
- 1/2 of the Poverty Threshold at the point of 60% of the median income: Takes into account income distribution and the risk of poverty.
- 1/3 of average net wages: Takes into account the ‘value of work.’
A table with Basic Income calculations for 24 European and OECD countries allows us to draw comparisons across and within countries regarding: the social protection system (e.g., SA), the average wage (AW), the poverty threshold (PT), BI calculations using the same formula (both in national currencies and euro) and different BI proposals. It’s very important to note, however, that in countries where the level of SA is already higher than the BI calculation, the existing SA should be taken as a starting point. BI proposals for Finland and the Netherlands belong to this group.
Such BI calculations (that are above SA & ‘budget neutral’ & below PT) could serve BI discourse as the first benchmark:
- at which we could expect results that would be: a) better for the majority, b) the same or better for the more vulnerable and c) better for the lowest deciles;
- of the BI level calculation for countries that, as yet, have made no BI calculations;
- to evaluate competing national proposals;
- to evaluate proposals across countries;
- to evaluate existing social security systems, investigating by how much they diverge from this preferable solution;
- of common European social welfare solutions made by the people (of 99%) for the people and not from the EU elites.
Valerija Korošec: PhD in Postmodern Sociology, MSc in European Social Policy Analysis. Author of (eng) UBI Proposal in Slovenia (2012) sl. Predlog UTD v Sloveniji: Zakaj in kako?(2010). Co-editor UBI in Slovenia (2011). Member of Sekcija za promocijo UTD. Member of UBIE. Slovenian representative in BIEN. Fields of expertise: poverty, inequality, sastifaction with life, social policy anlaysis, gender equality, ‘beyond GDP’, paradigm shift, postmodernism, UTD, basic income. Slovenian. Born 1966 and raised in Maribor. Lives in Ljubljana. Employed at the Institue of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (Government Office of Republic Slovenia). Views under my name are my own. @valerijaSlo
Footnotes:
[1] All included countries have a universal SA system, except: 1) Finland, Germany, Belgium, Estonia and Denmark, which have different levels of assistance based on employment status according to OECD statistic – in these cases it was the data for the ‘Employed’ SA level that were included; and 2) the United Kingdom, Greece and Italy, which have no scheme comparable to SA.
[2] https://basicincome.org/bien/pdf/munich2012/Korosec.pdf
[3] https://let.azurewebsites.net/upload/tanulmany.pdf (English version unavailable).
[4] https://basicincome.org/news/2015/12/finland-basic-income-experiment-what-we-know/
[5] https://basicincome-europe.org/ubie/charter-ubie/
[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004
[7] Alexander de Roo, by mail.
