by Genevieve Shanahan | Feb 3, 2017 | News
Renowned French economist Thomas Piketty, best known for his 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, has been making headlines for his positive comments regarding basic income in a number of blog posts. However, the approach he proposes is not basic income as it is commonly understood.
In a blog post published on 13 December, Basic income or fair wage?, Piketty states that while he’s pleased to see such consensus across the political spectrum on the idea of a minimum income within France, discussions of a basic income and its specific level are not radical enough – that such conversation “leaves the real issues unexplored and in reality expresses a concept of social justice on the cheap.” He points instead towards progressive taxation, fairer approaches to education and fair pay and control within corporations as topics deserving focus.
Returning to the question of basic income, Piketty raises what is essentially an important administrative concern. He notes that, at present, employees earning the minimum wage rate in France have their taxes and social contributions deducted from their wages at source, putting their net wage below the threshold for social assistance. However, the worker must herself apply and wait several months to receive the social assistance necessary to bring her income back up to the minimum level. Piketty seems to be concerned that such inefficiencies and poverty traps would proliferate under a basic income scheme.
Then, on 25 January, a collection of prominent researchers, including Piketty and famous sociologist Dominique Méda, published in ‘Le Monde’ a call in support of Benoît Hamon’s basic income proposal – Pour un revenu universel crédible et audacieux [For a credible and audacious universal income]. Some news organisations quickly followed with headlines claiming Piketty had endorsed basic income, yet the scheme it describes is not what we would ordinarily understand as basic income (and certainly strays from BIEN’s definition on a number of points).
To begin, the researchers defend an interpretation of Hamon’s basic income scheme that may not be entirely accurate, stating:
“Benoît Hamon never said that he would pay 500 euro a month to 50 million adults. On the contrary, he has explicitly noted the fact that the new system could be subject to resource conditions and concern only wages of less than 2000 euro, with amounts that would clearly not be the same for all.”
However, as we have covered here and here, Hamon does indeed hope to ultimately offer a full basic income, and while his steps towards such full implementation have been modified somewhat over the course of his campaign, the first step he proposes is for a basic income to be paid to those between the ages of 18 and 25, unconditional on resources or low wages.
A two-speed social security scheme?
Piketty’s administrative concern again arises here, with the authors claiming that “it would hardly make sense to pay 600 euro a month to those earning 2000 or 5000 euro a month, to then immediately take back the same amount by increasing their taxes.” This leads the piece to end with an argument for “basic income” to be provided essentially as tax credits on the payslips of the stably employed.
In response to requests for clarification following this post, Piketty published another blog post on 30 January – Notre revenu universel est-il vraiment universel? [Is our universal income really universal?]. In this article, Piketty clarifies his recommendation, suggesting that it would be most efficient to establish different methods of payment of the basic income dependent on different employment circumstances:
“We believe that it is high time to move away from the comfortable abstractions that often characterise this debate, and finally to say precisely how it is possible to proceed. In this case, the solution we propose is to pay the universal income in a mixed form. For all those without jobs, or who only have a very part-time job, or indeed whose job is divided between multiple small employers or contractors, then there is no other solution than to pay the universal income in the form of an allocation managed by public agencies.”
Piketty claims, however, that direct payment of an income top-up on stable employees’ payslips is to be preferred, where feasible, because it links the idea of basic income with that of a fair wage and because, in practical terms, he does not believe the basic income payment would be as simple and automatic as the top-up.
Nicole Teke, public relations coordinator for the French Movement for Basic Income (MFRB), has the following to say:
“Even though he clearly shares the spirit of UBI in terms of establishing an income floor for everyone, his proposal would create further polarisation of the labour market by having a two-speed system for stable workers vs. unstable workers and the unemployed. This contradicts the principle of universality of basic income.”
MFRB have laid out a number of responses to Piketty’s comments here. This includes a useful side-by-side comparison of one of MFRB’s basic income proposal and Piketty’s suggested scheme, and an analysis of the potential perverse effects of the latter.
Looking at basic income from a narrow perspective
A common thread through these three articles seems to be Piketty’s belief that basic income, when implemented, would amount to a mere increase of the amount of money eligible citizens could apply for, with no change to its bureaucratic system of administration. He then repeatedly contrasts a system whereby the full “basic income” is listed on stable employees’ payslips, along with the relevant taxes that partially or fully outweigh this amount, with his preferred system of simply listing the balance, if any, owed to the worker.
This preconception of how basic income would be implemented seems to be partially motivated by his own preference regarding the message a basic income would communicate: that work is valuable, and basic income is a way of offering a just salary and equitable remuneration for work. He also espouses a belief that working life won’t change in response to automation and “Uberisation” as much as others suggest, so we should prefer top-up payments on payslips to a separate, standardised basic income system for all, paid directly by the government.
In this way, while Piketty begins by chastising basic income proponents for lacking radical vision, he ultimately endorses just a minor part of the basic income proposal – that of automatic payment. And while, in the joint letter, we are entreated to offer a concrete basic income proposal, the system put forth caters only to a subsection of the population, with hand-waving regarding how this would connect to basic income for the rest.
As Nicole Teke of MFRB concludes:
“By focusing on the financial distribution effect of UBI, Piketty misses the bigger point of UBI: to emancipate citizens. Despite his good intentions in fostering the debate, Piketty has created somewhat more confusion on the definition of universal basic income, which MFRB has tried to establish as a standard in the debate in France.”
Read more:
Thomas Piketty, “Basic income or fair wage?”, Le Monde, 13 December, 2016.
Thomas Piketty et al., “Pour un revenu universel crédible et audacieux” [For a credible and audacious universal income], Le Monde, 25 January, 2017.
Thomas Piketty, “Notre revenu universel est-il vraiment universel?” [Is our universal income really universal?], Le Monde, 30 January, 2017.
Jean-Éric Hyafil, “Commentaires sur le ‘revenu universel’ de Thomas Piketty” [Comments on Thomas Piketty’s universal income’], Le Mouvement Francais pour le Revenu de Base, 2 February, 2017.
Adrien Sénécat, “Revenu universel : Valls et Hamon se disputent la référence à Piketty” [Universal income: Valls and Hamon disagree over Piketty’s reference], Le Monde, 26 January, 2017.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Pro basic income candidate set to win socialist primary election”, Basic Income News, 25 September, 2016.
Genevieve Shanahan, “FRANCE: Hamon becomes Socialist Party presidential candidate following basic income-focused campaign”, Basic Income News, 30 January, 2017.
Photo: Thomas Piketty, CC 2.0 Universitat Pompeu Fabra
by Genevieve Shanahan | Jan 30, 2017 | News
The French Socialist Party has elected a pro-basic income politician, Benoît Hamon, as its candidate for the presidential election this spring.
Benoît Hamon, the left-wing politician who has gained considerable media attention in recent months for his basic income proposal, has won the Socialist Party presidential nomination. He comfortably beat rival and former prime minister Manuel Valls by 58.9% to 41.1%, after his surprise win in the first round.
“Universal basic income is a tool to liberate work, allowing people to actually choose their work and not suffer from it” Hamon declared yesterday in his speech to supporters after his victory was made official.
A centerpiece of Hamon’s campaign has been his universal basic income proposal, which he claims should be introduced step by step:
- Introducing, in 2018, a basic income without means-testing for those between the ages of 18 and 25.
- Raising existing unemployment and underemployment benefits (RSA) to 600 euro a month.
- Instituting a system of automatic payment of such benefits, to replace the existing system under which eligible persons have to apply (meaning that a third of those eligible do not receive their entitlements).
- Launching a citizens’ conference to determine the details of the basic income’s ultimate extension to all citizens, and increasing the payment to 750 euro a month.
Nicole Teke of BIEN’s French affiliate, the French movement for basic income (MFRB), said the following of the result: “This is a beautiful victory, not only for Hamon but also for the idea of basic income. This vote shows that hundreds of thousands of people want basic income to be at the heart of political debate. This is such progress when compared with the misunderstanding of the idea three years ago! The advocacy work carried out by the MFRB along with other associations has borne fruit today.” She highlights that MFRB have contacted all the presidential candidates, advocating for the swift introduction of basic income across the political spectrum. Basic income is proving to be a popular idea in France, as elsewhere, with the Senate just last October releasing a report calling for pilot projects to investigate the policy.
In explaining his reasons for adopting such a stance, Hamon focuses on arguments regarding the changing nature of work given advances in automation. In an interview with Le Monde, for instance, he states: “According to all serious studies, there are hundreds of thousands of unskilled or low-skilled jobs that are beginning to be destroyed in Western economies. We must manage this transition and make the most of this amazing opportunity that the digital revolution offers us to work less and live better.”
This proposal drew sharp criticism from the pro-business Valls, who (despite earlier statements) instead offered a “decent income” of 800 euro a month, targeted solely at the worst-off. This would involve simplifying the French welfare system, but maintaining means-testing.
Hamon’s success has been compared to that of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, as both represent a return to socialist values within parties that have been moving ever closer to the political center. Hamon’s platform also includes a tax on robots to fund the basic income, reductions in working hours.
Now Hamon will face a hard battle to win the presidential election against his rivals. The Socialist Party has lost a massive number of supporters under the mandate of President Hollande and is expected to be a big loser in the upcoming election.
According to the most recent polls, Hamon would only receive 15% of the votes, in fourth position behind Front National’s Le Pen (25%), Conservative Fillon (22%) and Centrist Macron (21%), but ahead of the radical-leftist Mélenchon (10%). This estimate is, however, much higher than earlier polls suggested, which had predicted Hamon to receive only up to 6% of the votes if he were to become the Socialist candidate.
The first round of the presidential election will take place on 23 April.
Read more:
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Pro basic income candidate set to win socialist primary election“, Basic Income News, 22 January, 2017.
Thomas Samson, “Part-Sanders, part-Corbyn: how French socialist Hamon stepped out of the dark“, France 24, 25 January, 2017.
Pascal Guyot, “French left mulls universal basic income ahead of primaries“, France 24, 12 January, 2017.
Cédric Pietralunga and Bastien Bonnefous, “Benoît Hamon : « Le revenu universel est la nouvelle protection sociale »” [Benoît Hamon: universal income is the new social security], Le Monde, 4 January, 2017.
Mathilde Damgé et Adrien Sénécat, “Hamon-Valls : deux revenus de base, un même flou de financement” [Hamon-Valls: two basic incomes, a common haze on financing], Le Monde, 24 January, 2017.
Barbara Carnevale, “La proposition de revenu universel de Benoît Hamon” [Benoît Hamon’s universal income proposal], Le Mouvement Francais pour le Revenu de Base, 23 December, 2016.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Prime Minister Pledges Again to Open the Debate on Basic Income“, Basic Income News, 25 September, 2016.
“FRANCE: Senate Report Marks Another Milestone for Basic income“, Basic Income News, 23 October, 2016.
Additional reporting by Stanislas Jourdan
Photo: Benoît Hamon CC 2.0 Parti socialiste
by Guest Contributor | May 5, 2016 | News
Sunday #41 March (April 10th), place de la République in Paris. Hundreds of people were present to discuss the basic income and other topics related to employment. The French Movement for Basic Income attended the meeting thanks to the invitation of the #NuitDebout movement. This citizens’ movement was created following demonstrations against the proposed French labour reforms and has since organized several popular gatherings in Paris as well as in dozens of towns in France and abroad.
Employment, housing, refugees, feminism, participatory democracy, constitution. Many subjects, concerns and values were discussed every day at the Place de la République since March 31. These discussions demonstrated the real concerns of citizens without the filter of the media. With the revelations from the Panama Papers, public institutions, particularly political parties, do not seem to inspire much confidence.
#MFRB Debout
On this #41 March (lets accept this new calendar!) two dozens of MFRB members from all over France have met on the Place de la République to take part on the first day of the convergence of struggles. The atmosphere was rather cordial. Questions and answers were exchanged with passers-by all day long. A conference was held with the MFRB, the Réseau Salariat network and the Economist and basic income supporter Baptiste Mylondo.
Workshops, co-facilitated by members of the MFRB and the network Réseau salariat, have enabled hundreds of people to discuss the basic income, living wage and on matters related to work as well as education, equal opportunities, free time, and many other topics. By late afternoon, a debate enabled participants to better understand these topics.
Conference about work, basic income and living wage
At the beginning of the afternoon, Nicole Teke, international coordinator of the MFRB, introduced the conference presenting the French Movement for a Basic Income, the notion of basic income and how the idea is currently progressing in France, Europe and the world. Past experiments in Brazil, Namibia and India were also presented, the results of which in terms of health, schooling, women’s emancipation and economic recovery are very convincing.
Benoît Boritz, member of the CGT trade-union (General Confederation of Labour), journalist and author of the book Coopératives contre capitalism (“Cooperatives against capitalism”) has presented examples of companies that are self-managed by their employees in forms of cooperatives (SCOP). This form of organisation has been gaining ground since 2010, as a number of companies have chosen it for its greater capacity to ability adapt to an evolving economy. The SCOP often aims at integrating ecological issues in their production and daily operations. Since 2013 the SCOPs’ number has grown considerably, and today they employ about 51,000 workers.
Following this, Baptiste Mylondo, member of Utopia and teacher in economy and political philosophy presented his counterproposal to the labour reforms, in five articles:
Article 1: Recognize everyone’s work by giving everyone the status of producers and contributors, whether one is unemployed or employed, active or considered inactive.
Article 2: Free work from the constraint of employment. “We all work every day as volunteers in a large organisation called society” said Baptiste Mylondo.
Article 3: Establish a sufficient citizen’s income to a level equivalent to the poverty line calculated at 60% of median income, i.e. 1,000€.
Article 4: Set up a cooperative working model to free us from the grip of capitalism and exploitation.
Article 5: Free our lives of work’s temporal control by a reduction of working time and the creation of an unconditional right to chosen part-time work.
In conclusion, Baptiste Mylondo specified his thoughts and suggested what could be the first reform to be associated with the introduction of a basic income:
“I speak about a sufficient income, not a minimum income. About a space of acceptable inequalities. To escape poverty and exploitation, to create a society where everyone can participate in democratic life. I am in favor of a ratio of 1: 4 between the lowest income and the highest one.”
Finally, Stéphane Simard, member of the network Réseau Salariat, presented the living wage project – different from basic income, even though some similarities can be noticed. Starting from 18 years old, this life-long living wage is based primarily on the evolution of labour in the twentieth century, mainly through the creation of the general scheme of Social Security in 1945. The amount could increase by validation of qualifications – in regard to the individual’s contribution to the society in the previous years. This living wage would be financed through an overhaul of the contributions’ system. Each company would contribute with 60% of its added value to the salary fund, meaning the same 1250 billion now paid for salaries, and another part would be paid into an investments office that would be dedicated to financing projects as an alternative to bank loans.
Convergence of struggles
Dissociation of labour and income, the need to change subordination to work, the willingness to recognize everyone’s contribution to the common good, the recognition of social utility, the interest to the SCOP initiatives… The convergence of struggles supported by the #NuitDebout from the very beginning of the movement has definitely enabled basic income to take a prominent place in the public debate.
To see the photos of the event: https://www.flickr.com/photos/revenudebase/
Collectively written by the MFRB – translated by Celine Le Carpentier
