In Memoriam: Simo Ruottinen (1970-2017)

In Memoriam: Simo Ruottinen (1970-2017)

In Memoriam: Simo Ruottinen (1970-2017)

On Friday, May 5, 2017, the basic income community in Finland and Europe sadly lost an irreplaceable pillar when the chairman of BIEN Finland, Simo Ruottinen, unexpectedly passed away in his home town of Tampere. Simo was one of the primary movers of the Finnish basic income movement ever since its inception, serving as its longest-standing chairman.

Outside of basic income activism, he was an outspoken animal rights activist and an excellent cook, always delighting his friends with mouth-watering vegan cuisine. His restaurant Café Veganissimo in Helsinki served as the unofficial hub for our citizen’s initiative campaign in 2013, which collected 22,000 signatures – largely thanks to Simo’s administrative and organizational skills. Bringing the BIEN world congress to Tampere – his home town – was one of his dreams and, ultimately, final accomplishments. We are all extremely happy to host the 2018 BIEN world congress, but also saddened to know that Simo won’t be there experience it.

Simo’s indomitable spirit can be summed up in the words attributed to Albert Camus: “the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” He had a burning sense of justice and liberty in all his actions, and he embodied that attitude in his everyday joie de vivre. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude for his leadership, energy and good humour. He seemed to have a way of seeing the bright side of everything, which illuminated our darkest moments. Sadly, the tireless crusade for a better world will have to go on without him. He will be missed by his loving family and co-workers. Rest in peace, my friend.

Otto Lehto, former chairman of BIEN Finland (2015-2016) & political economist at King’s College London

FINLAND: First Results from Pilot Study? Not Exactly

FINLAND: First Results from Pilot Study? Not Exactly

On Tuesday, May 9, an article published in The Independent alleged that Finland’s Basic Income Experiment has already produced evidence that unconditional payments lower stress and improve mental health for unemployed Finns.

This widely shared article generated rumors that the Finnish government has released the first results of this two-year pilot study, which commenced on January 1, including the above findings. These rumors are inaccurate, and the present post aims to address this misconstrual.

 

Background on Finland’s Basic Income Experiment

Directed by Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, Finland’s nationwide pilot study of basic income generated widespread international interest from its announcement in 2015 to its launch at the start of 2017. In its current design, the experiment is restricted to those between ages 25 and 58 who were receiving unemployment assistance at the end of 2016. Nonetheless, it differs from several other contemporary so-called “basic income experiments” in that the experimental group–consisting of 2,000 randomly selected individuals from the above target group–receives cash payments (€560 per month) that are indeed unconditional, individual, and not means tested (compare, for example, to the experiments planned or underway in Ontario, the Netherlands, Barcelona, and Livorno, Italy).

Many basic income supporters and followers are, no doubt, eagerly anticipating the results of this experiment, which will continue through December 31, 2018. Here, though, it is important to keep in mind several caveats–especially as rumors of initial results begin to surface.

 

1. Kela will publish no results prior to the end of the experiment (i.e. December 31, 2018).

In a blog post published in January, in response to the widespread media attention directed at the experiment, research team leader Olli Kangas and three colleagues explain that publishing any results during the course of the experiment runs the risk of influencing participants’ behavior:

A final evaluation of the effects of the basic income can only be made after a sufficiently long period of time has elapsed for the effects to become apparent. The two-year run of the experiment is not very long for changes in behaviour to materialise. The potential of the experiment, short as it is, to provide reliable results should not be undermined by reporting its effects while it is underway.

 

2. Kela will conduct no questionnaires or interviews of participants while the experiment is in progress.

As the same blog states, the researchers will minimize their reliance on questionnaires and interviews to gain information about study participants–again to minimize the effect of observation on behavior–relying instead on data available from administrative registries. If any individual questionnaires or interviews are used, they “will not be conducted without careful consideration, and not before the experiment has ended.”

 

3. Analysis of the experiment will focus on labor market effects.

A major reason for the Finnish government’s interest in basic income has been the policy’s potential to improve employment incentives (in contrast to Finland’s current unemployment benefits, which are reduced by 50% of earned income if a recipient takes a part-time job and which demand much bureaucratic oversight of individuals). Correspondingly, a main objective of the experiment, as stated by Kela, is to determine “whether there are differences in employment rates between those receiving and those not receiving a basic income.”

Some basic income proponents have criticized the Finnish pilot for its lack of attention to other potential beneficial effects of basic income, such as its effects on individual health and well-being; however, Kela has no current plans to examine such effects.

 

“Reduced Stress” Claim 

It is in this context that we must read The Independent’s recent article “Finland’s universal basic income trial for unemployed reduces stress levels, says official.”

As its data, the article quotes Kela official Marjukka Turunen (Head of Legal Affairs Unit) as saying, “There was this one woman who said: ‘I was afraid every time the phone would ring, that unemployment services are calling to offer me a job’,” and, “This experiment really has an indirect impact, also, on the stress levels [of people] and the mental health and so on.”

These quotes originate in a recent interview on WNYC’s podcast The Takeaway, in an episode on automation and the future of work, in which host John Hockenberry interviewed Turunen about Finland’s basic income experiment, having presented basic income as a possible policy response to technological unemployment. After stressing the potential of basic income to promote employment (by avoiding the welfare trap and reducing bureaucracy and paperwork), Turunen related the anecdote above in reply to a question in which Hockenberry turned about the effects of basic income on feelings of confidence and self-respect.

In comments to Basic Income News, Turunen explained that this situation involved a participant who agreed to participate in a media interview and volunteered this information to the reporter. While some participants themselves offer feedback to Kela, Kela itself is not allowed to divulge this information to the media, nor to provide any personal information about the study participants. However, this does not prevent participants themselves from volunteering to talk about the experiment to media, as in the present situation.

Thus, it is important not to mistake this unsolicited feedback from experiment participants for official and formal results–which are still more than a year and half away. As Turunen comments,

We do not have any results yet, not until the end of next year; these insights are coming from the customers themselves willing to talk about this in the media. And these are only insights, the results must be very carefully analyzed according to the information we only get at the end of next year.

 

More Information:

Kela, Basic Income Experiment 2017–2018. (Official website on the experiment.)

Olli Kangas, et al, “Public attention directed at the individuals participating in the basic income experiment may undermine the reliability of results,” Kela blog, January 16, 2017.

The Shift: Exploring America’s Rapidly Changing Workforce,” The Takeaway (podcast), May 4, 2017. (Marjukka Turunen’s remarks in context.)


Reviewed by Russell Ingram

Photo (Helsinki) CC BY-NC 2.0 Mariano Mantel

Chris Weller, “Finland just launched a radical experiment in giving people free money — here’s how 5 residents are using their extra cash”

Chris Weller, “Finland just launched a radical experiment in giving people free money — here’s how 5 residents are using their extra cash”

A cash-transfer experiment in was initiated in Finland at the beginning of 2017. In the experiment, the country’s social security agency, Kela, will pay €560 ($600) a month guaranteed for two years to 2,000 Finns, unemployed when the program began.

Chris Weller, profiles five participants in the program in an article for BUSINESS INSIDER. In this “modified version of Basic Income” participants are not told how to spend the funds they receive, nor will the payments be reduced if they get a job or start trading online currencies with a Bitcoin Trader mit Risiken verbunden?

 

For the full article:

Chris Weller, “Finland just launched a radical experiment in giving people free money — here’s how 5 residents are using their extra cash”, (March 7, 2017)

Raine Tiessalo, “Universal basic income ‘useless’, says Finland’s biggest union”

A test of UBI began this year in Finland in which a monthly stipend is paid to randomly-selected unemployed recipients even if they become employed. Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), says it’s the wrong direction.

So writes Raine Tiessalo for online newspaper The Independent. Tiessalo quotes Kaukoranta describing a Finnish UBI as “impossibly expensive”, though SAK’s opposition may be related to potential loss of union membership and bargaining power if UBI made trade unions less relevant.

Raine Tiessalo, “Universal basic income ‘useless’, says Finland’s biggest union” (Februaury 9, 2017)

VIDEO: Al Jazeera Panel Debates Basic Income

VIDEO: Al Jazeera Panel Debates Basic Income

A discussion on “the basic income experiment” was the focus of an episode of Al Jazeera’s The Stream, with Femi Oke and Malika Bilal, in January 2017.

The debate, which centred around the Finnish BI experiment, included perspectives from both sides of the issue: those concerned basic income will eliminate incentives to work and those who see BI as a path to reducing unemployment.

The debate included Marjukka Turunen, head of Kela’s legal unit (Finland’s Social Insurance Institution); Guy Standing, co-founder of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN); Oren Cass, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute; as well as Scott Santens, writer and advocate for basic income.

The discussion began by asking what life will be like going forward for the 2,000 who were randomly selected by Kela for Finland’s first BI experiment: one man selected described his new sense of freedom on Facebook. Marjukka described how those selected could now do “whatever they want,” and will be studied only “in the background.”

Guy Standing was asked, with regard to his experiments in India, how people reacted when they were told they would receive an unconditional basic income. Guy discussed awareness days hosted before launch where the villages were told how the program worked, and where its unconditionality was emphasized. Guy also talked about the nutrition and health improvements, increased work, and “equity effects.” There were gains for the disabled, and the pilots had an “emancipatory effect.”

Also involved in the discussion was Scott Santens, who designed his own scheme: in 2015 he built up a crowd fund on Patreon and was able to receive 1,000 dollars a month, in what was meant to be his own personal basic income. Santens calls BI, “money that enables people to pursue what they wish to pursue.” He notes that he had not realized just how insecure he was until he found the security his basic income provided.

Oren Cass argued during the debate that that what happened in India was in fact not a basic income, because it did not undermine the principle that it is important to work for a living and similarly that Santens’ BI was not truly a basic income. The problem for Oren with Scott Santens’ scheme was that it does not indicate anything about whether or not we want society “to be a place where everybody receives a check no matter what they do.”

The discussion also touched on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the broken income distribution systems of the 20th century. Guy claimed that the share of the economy going to labor is no longer constant: it is disproportionately going to capital. He noted the rise of political extremes and his theory of the precariat.

Oren stated that the rationale for a basic income had a number of “conflicting explanations” and he suggested a wage subsidy instead of BI. Scott argued this only benefits corporations, and that the BI provides employees with bargaining power. Marjukka noted later on that “we can’t know” whether BI is the solution “unless we experiment.”

In the brief post-show, the issue of automation, and the replacement of labour with capital, alongside Elon Musk’s position, were briefly touched upon.
More information at:

The Stream, “The basic income experiment.” Al Jazeera, January 5 2017. https://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201701052319-0025352

Credit Picture CC Mohamed Nanabhay (more…)