by Gabriela Cabana | Jan 17, 2021 | Spanish
La versión en ingles de este articulo puede ser encontrada aquí.
Una silenciosa división entre lo rural y lo urbano se ha ido profundizando rápidamente en las últimas décadas en nuestro país. La recuperación del mundo rural como un espacio de vida plena y digna ha sido postergada por demasiado tiempo. Desde los tiempos de la Reforma Agraria que no ha existido en Chile un proyecto que saque al campo de su deterioro y condición de “patio trasero” del país al servicio de la agroindustria exportadora; producción de energía y recepción de desechos de la ciudad, papel al que lamentablemente ha sido relegado.
Las zonas no urbanas ofrecen la posibilidad de enfrentar los grandes desafíos de nuestro tiempo: quienes las habitan pueden cuidar de la biodiversidad de los territorios, enfrentar con conocimiento y experiencia proyectos extractivos que podrían dañar aún más los ecosistemas, y dedicarse seriamente a desarrollar proyectos de soberanía alimentaria.
Pero todo esto es posible únicamente con un piso mínimo de seguridad económica. Sólo eso permitiría, por ejemplo, romper la dependencia del agronegocio o industrias tan dañinas como la salmonicultura en el sur de nuestro país, que se han instalado en poblaciones que tenían escaso acceso a dinero y las han capturado en formas de trabajo precarizadas y peligrosas. Una Renta Básica Universal podría ser un primer paso para robustecer la posición y posibilidades de las y los habitantes rurales de hacer realidad otros proyectos de vida.
Una forma práctica en la que la implementación de una Renta Básica Universal podría reconocer esta deuda histórica y proyecto de transformación urgente sería priorizando provincias o regiones con alta proporción de ruralidad. Esto permitiría evaluar tempranamente los efectos de esta política en revitalizar los circuitos económicos locales que en muchos casos están completamente deprimidos, así como fomentar un retorno al campo de personas que quizás cortaron su relación con sus territorios ancestrales por la necesidad de tener dinero en efectivo, pero que tienen aún las herramientas, las posibilidades y las ganas de hacer de la vida fuera de la ciudad algo significativo.
Sería una oportunidad para el florecimiento y recuperación de actividades como el eco y agroturismo a pequeña escala, el pastoreo no invasivo, o el cultivo de granos, frutas o verduras que se han perdido por no encajar con el modelo de agroexportación, pero que fortalecen y enriquecen nuestra herencia bioalimentaria. Podría también detener la urgencia de la desforestación por aumentar las zonas cultivables para commodities como las plantaciones forestales en el sur del país. Podría, en suma, romper con círculos viciosos que han minado el fundamento social-ecológico de gran parte del territorio chileno por la urgencia de contar con ingresos (muchas veces muy bajos) en el día a día.
Tener un campo resiliente es fundamental para un país que se está adentrando en el período de transformaciones ecológicas más importantes desde la emergencia de la especie humana moderna. Desafíos tan importantes como enfrentar la sequía y detener la desertificación pueden ser enfrentados de mejor manera si quienes habitan estos territorios en crisis tienen un ingreso garantizado.
En suma, salir de una perspectiva urbano-céntrica vuelve aún más evidentes los potenciales efectos positivos de tener una RBU en Chile, y más urgente su implementación.
by Gabriela Cabana | Jan 17, 2021 | Featured, Opinion
A spanish version can be found here.
A silent division between the rural and the urban has been rapidly deepening in recent decades in our country. The recovery of the rural world as a space for full and dignified life has been postponed for too long. Since the times of the Agrarian Reform, there has not been a project in Chile to take the countryside out of its deterioration as the country’s “backyard” at the service of the export-oriented agro-industry, energy production and reception of waste from the city, a role to which it has unfortunately been relegated.
Non-urban areas offer the possibility of facing the great challenges of our time: those who inhabit them can take care of the biodiversity of their territories, defend them from damaging extractive projects and dedicate themselves seriously to developing projects of food sovereignty.
But all this is possible only with a minimum level of economic security. This key element would allow, for example, to break the dependence on agribusiness or industries as harmful as salmon farming in the southern coasts of our country. This model has disrupted populations that had had little previous access to money, entramping them in precarious and dangerous forms of work. A Universal Basic Income could be a first step to strengthen the position and possibilities of rural inhabitants to make other life projects a reality.
A practical way in which the implementation of a Universal Basic Income could recognize this historical debt and urgent transformation project would be by prioritizing provinces or regions with a high proportion of rurality for its roll-out. This would allow an early evaluation of the effects of this policy in revitalizing local economic circuits that in many cases are completely depressed, as well as encouraging a return to the countryside of people who perhaps cut off their relationship with their ancestral territories due to the need to have cash. but they still have the tools, the possibilities and the desire to make life outside the city something meaningful.
It would be an opportunity for the flourishing and recovery of activities such as eco and small-scale agrotourism, non-invasive grazing, or the cultivation of grains, fruits or vegetables that have been lost because they do not fit with the agro-exporting model, but that strengthen and enrich our bio-food heritage. It could also stop the urgency of deforestation by increasing the arable areas for commodities such as forest plantations in the south of the country. It could, in short, break with vicious circles that have undermined the social-ecological foundation of much of the Chilean territory due to the urgency of having income (often very low) on a day-to-day basis.
Having a resilient countryside is essential for a society that is entering the period of most important ecological transformations since the emergence of the modern human species. Challenges as important as increasing drought and desertification can be better faced if those who inhabit these territories in crisis have a guaranteed income.
In sum, leaving an urban-centric perspective makes the potential positive effects of having a UBI in Chile even more evident, and its implementation more urgent.
A translation into Chinese can be found here.
by Guest Contributor | Mar 1, 2018 | Opinion
By JOHN MCCONE
Basic income has many advantages over means-tested benefits: no processing times (with funding gaps where people can be left homeless); no restrictions on freedom; less disincentive to work; and a higher credit value to raise loans at lower interest compared to means-tested benefits. Overall the reliability, unconditionality and lack of bureaucracy makes basic income the dream benefit to receive.
But while basic income may be the dream benefit for recipients, it is a budgetary nightmare for those funding it. Whichever way you run the numbers, a given tax revenue distributed evenly throughout society will provide the most needy with less than if they were the sole recipients. This typically causes enthusiasm for basic income to wane as policy makers consider the practicalities of budgeting for it.
Is there any way for society to reap the benefits of a universal basic income while reducing its cost? What if basic income was restricted to those who live in the countryside (who don’t regularly commute to the city)? Most developed countries today are highly urbanised with 70% or more of their populations living in cities (82.6% in the U.K. in 2015). A rural basic income would cost the taxpayer 3 to 5 times less than a universal basic income and leave room in the budget for means-tested benefits to the needy.
While a basic income limited to rural inhabitants would not be universally distributed, it would be universally available. Anyone could move to the countryside and automatically receive it. This would close any gaps in the benefits system and ensure that those who were truly desperate but did not qualify – or understand how to apply – for means-tested benefits could always move to the countryside and immediately receive a rural basic income. The countryside is very different from the city due to different ways of life. People in the city are more likely to go to the gym, whereas, those in the countryside are more like to go shooting or become a collector. You could learn more about shooting, accessories (red dot sight) and insurance at Sniper Country in case you wanted to give it ago!
In addition to reducing the budget, distributing a basic income to rural locations, where land rents are minimized, maximizes its impact. All a person really needs is food, shelter and water. Low rents make shelter less expensive as well as providing land where people can cheaply grow food. We often overlook the amount of extra time that otherwise unemployed people have compared to salaried workers which, given the right tools and resources, they can apply to provide for themselves. Thus, a basic income does not necessarily have to be large enough to enable people to purchase their material needs from retailers (e.g. groceries, restaurants); it must only be sufficient to give people access to the capital they need (e.g. fertilizer, greenhouses, farm tools) to apply their own labour to produce what they need for themselves. So low land rents have a huge impact on the cost of self-provision.
Given two choices people usually choose the more preferable option. If the goods that can be procured with a given amount of effort from a lifestyle in the countryside are greater than the goods that an identical effort in the city can procure, then people will tend to move to the countryside. It is perfectly possible that the quality of life that working in nature, with low rent payments and a solid basic income of £5,000 (front-loaded with a low interest loan to buy, say, a log cabin) in the countryside might be better than a precarious salary of £20,000 and a 2 hour daily commute in a high rent area of the city. If this is the case, all those with lower salaries than £20,000 will leave for the countryside creating labour scarcity and increasing the salary of unskilled labour to £20,000. Thus, a relatively modest basic income in an area where money is scarce and the cost of living low could exert a highly leveraged effect on salaries in areas where the cost of living is high and money is plentiful.
Beyond raising wages, giving everyone the option to provide for themselves in nature, as opposed to working for somebody else, will strengthen the negotiating position of employees across the board. Managers will have to struggle to retain their workers, this struggle will produce more satisfying jobs and a more fulfilling work environment. A scarcity of labour will also mean that jobs in the city will be easily available to anyone who wants to take them. Furthermore, even a small number of people heading for the countryside will leave a surplus of un-rented accommodation. This in turn will make rents more affordable.
From this we can see that, not only is a rural basic income an affordable way to conveniently pay benefits to those who choose to move to the countryside, but it will also indirectly increase wages, employment and job satisfaction in the city along with lowering rents. A rural basic income could thus affordably improve the lives of everyone.
Author of The Countryside Living Allowance (Link: https://www.blurb.co.uk/b/8487802-the-countryside-living-allowance)
