by Andre Coelho | May 8, 2018 | News, Research
Since 2016 that Congresswoman Araceli Damián has supported and “presented an initiative to reform the Mexican Constitution and create the right to [a] universal citizen’s income”. In the latest version of this proposal, it is framed as an intrinsic human right, arguing that no human being’s survival should be dependent on any condition, “not even by the idea that a person should be socially useful”. The purpose has been to deliver basic income as a “central element for social policy, to face this crisis and to check the implications of including it in the Mexican Constitution”.
The problems faced by the Mexican society are generally the same in many other regions afflicted by the capitalist system: unemployment due to automation and globalization, lower economic output (to restore some equality in resource redistribution), rampant labour precarity and failure of present social policies to reduce poverty. Given this grim scenario, which has been aggravating for the last decades, it has already been pointed out by the Mexican Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (National Council for Social Policy Evaluation), or Coneval, that basic income-like policies should be looked into, in a 2014 document titled “Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social en México 2014” (2014 Social Policy Evaluation Report).
Reporting back to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this basic income implementation proposal for the United States of Mexico is intended to be based on the basis that “every person shall have a standard of living compatible with their wellbeing”. This, according to Araceli Damián, would allow Mexico to “engage in the construction of a Social Rights Welfare State”, and would align the Mexican constitution with international legal standards on human rights.
As a first stage of implementation, the proposal suggests an individual monetary transfer covering basic (normalized) food necessities. This first step would be implemented in 20 years, and according to four sub-stages (extending coverage every five years), accounting for residency (urban/rural), age and sex. On a second stage, and for another 20 years period, basic income would be gradually distributed until normalized basic needs are met for all people. The purpose being to meeting all Mexicans basic needs by 2050.
Araceli Damián and her partner Norma Colín have calculated both costs and benefits for this kind of gradual basic income implementation in Mexico. Costs are associated with extra fiscal efforts to finance such a policy, while benefits also include avoided costs with public health, safety and social security.
For the first step of the proposal’s implementation, covering basic food necessities, an individual amount of 1765 Mexican Pesos per month (92 US $/month) would be enough. That would also include a 15% margin for affording conservation, preparation and consumption of food. According to the sub-stages referred above, priority would be given to rural population, elderly and children, which are already covered in part by existing social assistance programs. Coverage of (adult) women would also take priority over (adult) men, due to known structural disadvantage gaps and the need to reduce women’s economic dependence from men.
Araveli Damián. Credit to: El Colegio de México A.C.
The basic food needs coverage on the first stage would reduce poverty substantially, right from the start. Calculations show that total poverty could be approximately cut in half (72.7% in 2014, compared with 39.5% of the total population, with all four sub-stages of the first implementation step completed). This program would not particularly affect the higher income brackets parts of the population, while reducing extreme poverty almost down to zero (from 36.3% down to 0.7%). This step would represent 13.2% of the gross national product (GDP) if implemented today, which is below the OCDE countries average of 21.9% of GDP spending in social protection. Implementation costs would rise gradually, from 1% of GDP if starting this year (2018), up to 9.4% of GDP after 20 years.
However, according to Araceli and Norma calculations, a full basic income for Mexico, at this moment, would represent around 54.4 % of all state revenue. For the food coverage partial basic income, on the other hand, several financing sources are identified (values per year): savings from restructuring present-day social security (at all levels of government, in about 7000 million Pesos (360 million US$)), cuts in governmental overspending (around 697 000 million Pesos (35 800 million US$)), reduction in fiscal evasion (accounting for more 484 000 million Pesos (24 900 million US$) and progressive fiscal reform (there is room for incrementing fiscal collection, from present-day 19.6% GDP, up to at least 25% GDP).
The study argues that this food coverage basic income would help stabilizing gross demand, particularly among the poorest. This stimulates a better use od existing resources, without rising operation costs for companies, while considerably reducing inequality and poverty. It is also foreseen that implementing basic income in Mexico would increase employment in at least 3%.
Finally, Araceli and Norma propose to rewrite the Mexican Constitution in several articles, highlighting the following addition to article 4th:
“Every person, since birth, has the right to a universal basic income. The State will guarantee this right through monetary transfers, which value shall be enough for all people to reach a dignified minimum quality of life. The Law shall state the amount, periodicity and transfer method, as well as a program for its roll out in a gradual fashion.”
More information at:
(in Spanish)
“Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social en México 2014 [2014 Social Policy Evaluation Report]”, Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Politica de Desarrollo Social (Coneval), February 2015
Araceli Gonzaléz and Norma Colín, “Que reforma y adiciona los artículos 4o. y 73 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, suscrita por las diputadas Araceli Damián González y Norma Xóchitl Hernández Colín, del Grupo Parlamentario de Morena”, Gaceta Parlamentaria 4864-IV, 12th September 2017
by Andre Coelho | Sep 2, 2016 | Opinion
Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has just published a press release, announcing an experiment based on a partial basic income (< 800 €/month), instead of a full basic income (> 1000 €/month). Although the latter had also been considered for the experiment, it appears that the government has decided that the experiment should be conducted as a partial basic income, specifically 560 €/month. Here are the reasons for which Kela decided to recommend against running the trial with a full basic income:
- It would imply higher taxes;
- It would result in lower earnings-related contributions to unemployment and pension funds;
- Low income earners might quit contributing to unemployment funds and joining trade unions.
Let’s address each of these points:
- Kela links the higher tax rates with the “incentives for work”. The argument is that the former will lead to a reduction in the latter. Why? Ok, so a person on a job will pay more taxes. Assuming these taxes are maintained under reasonable levels, why is Kela assuming these people will stop working? Kela assumes a purely economic standpoint here – meaning that, according to Kela’s logic, people’s decisions, and particularly those related to work, result exclusively from monetary arithmetic. This logic, ironically, is completely non-economical in nature. Kela is assuming that people’s interests, preferences, and particular drives to do things for reasons other than money are not important, and hence can be discarded. Furthermore, Kela assumes that the possible effects of these preferences and drives on the experiment are not even worth trying to capture or understand. Stripping the argument from its technicalities and white-collar language, it can be reduced to the most common, basic, and prejudice-laden argument against basic income: that with a (full) basic income, people will stop working (“the laziness argument”). Nothing about the nature of the work itself is mentioned – such as whether it is socially useful or not, or whether it is contributing or not to people’s sense of belonging and happiness. The only thing that concerns Kela’s officials, analysts and institutional partners is whether a person stays on the job (whatever that job may be): if he/she does (or if an unemployed person becomes formally employed), that’s great; if not, that’s bad. Let’s not forget this is an experiment. If doubts exist, it’s precisely by undertaking an experiment that we might understand more about the subject being tested – in this case, ourselves. If the experiment is only intended to confirm what we already know, then it’s not an experiment: it’s a purposeless act taken only to gain collective confidence, much closer to public relations than science.
- Kela’s second argument goes like this: if people receive a full basic income, then why would they bother saving for unemployment and pension funds? Of course, these savings would be nonsensical at amounts lower than the basic income. But if someone has an average income above the basic income threshold, then a certain amount of unemployment and/or pension saving could be a wise investment, in order to maintain the same level of earnings in case of unemployment and retirement. For sure, this implies that, overall, there would be reduced contributions to unemployment and pension funds. But would that be a bad thing? After all, with the existence of a full basic income, people’s need for unemployment or retirement security would be reduced, so these funds wouldn’t need to be as large as they are today. Anyway, unemployment and pension funds are composed of money belonging to those who have directly contributed to them (or they are supposed to be). So they should only be as large as those people’s need for them. So what if a person stops paying their contribution to unemployment and/or pension funds because now he/she has a basic income? Nothing really happens, other than that the person will have a smaller amount of money to draw from when he/she becomes unemployed or retired. However, that person would never sink below the basic income level, and so a basic safety would always be in place.
- The first part of Kela’s third argument has already been dealt with in our second point. So, the remaining question is just about unionization. Why does Kela assume that joining a union is so important—so important, in fact, that a decrease in union membership could justifying not even testing a full basic income? Trade unions represent a certain kind of vision about work which is declining. In the USA, in the last fifty years, trade union membership has declined from around 33% (of all employees) to about 10% nowadays (Planet Money, 2015). Also in the UK, the number of registered union members has sharply declined in the last 35 years, from 13 million in 1979 down to 6.4 million as of 2014. A moderate to strong reduction in trade union membership has occurred in most other European countries as well, including Finland (Henrique de Sousa, 2015). At the same time, self-employment has been on the rise in several countries (e.g.: Austria, Belgium, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Finland)– although, in the European Union overall, it has stabilized around 16.7% since 2008 (World Bank). The vision of work that the trade unions represent includes fixed working periods, clear employer/employee relations, fixed negotiated incomes (collective bargaining), and holiday arrangements. All of these are getting less relevant as the time goes by. This comes with the acute rising of work flexibility, uncertainty over work periods and earnings, and the increase of precarious working conditions (Guy Standing, 2011). Precarity, unions’ number one enemy, does not necessarily represent a problem if a full basic income is in place. Unions were formed to give workers collective bargaining powers over wages and working conditions; in their absence, the threat of destitution was constantly used by employers to retrain and control workers. The employers could push less favourable deals onto workers, who were forced to choose between a bad deal and poverty. But this relationship, based on employees’ fear and employers’ abuse of power, need not exist – and, under a full basic income, would not exist. This makes sense because individual workers would have the personal bargaining power that a full basic income brings. Being part of a trade union would thus cease to be a necessity, and turn into a mere preference. So, reduced unionization is no grounds for rejecting implementing a full basic income, let alone merely experimenting with one.
Kela is rejecting a full basic income out of fear. This is an experiment. Of course there are issues, but that is exactly why the experiment is needed in the first place: to look at the extent of the consequences, within a controlled setup, before any full implementation. And experiment is needed to study the effects, expected or not. And to observe changes in people’s behaviours, when they are able to enjoy (during the experiment’s limited timeframe) a larger degree of freedom that they have never experienced before. I, for one, think that it’s entirely worth it. For the future of Finland – and of humanity.
More information at:
In Finnish:
Olli Kangas & Ville-VeikkoPulkka (eds.), “Preliminary report on a universal basic income”, Prime Minister’s Office, March 30th 2016
In English:
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, “Ministry of Social Affairs and Health requests opinions on a basic income experiment“, Sosiaali-Ja Terveysministeriö; August 25th 2016
Planet Money, “50 years of shrinking union membership, in one map”, February 23rd 2015
Department for Business Innovation & Skills, “Trade Union Membership 2014 – statistical bulletin”, June 2015
OECD Data, Self-employment rate (% of employment, 1990 – 2015)
World Bank, Self-employed, total (% of total employed)
Guy Standing, “The Precariat: the new dangerous class”, Bloomsburry Open Access / Creative Commons, 2011
In Portuguese:
Henrique de Sousa, “Sindicalização: a vida por detrás das estatísticas [Unionization: thelifebehindthestatistics]”, WorkingPaper, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, September 2011
Article reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı, Kate McFarland and Tyler Prochazka.
