by Kate McFarland | Mar 15, 2017 | Research
Labor policy researcher Anne Gray has written a new research article, “Behavioural Effects of a Citizen’s Income on wages, job security and labour supply,” for the Citizen’s Income Trust (BIEN’s UK affiliate).
Gray begins her article by noting two predictions about the labor supply effect of basic income that appear in tension with one another: the first is that a basic income would increase the labor supply by removing the poverty trap (unemployed individuals could take jobs without the elimination of their benefits); the second is that a basic income would decrease the labor supply by allowing individuals to quit jobs to (for example) perform unpaid labor, retrain, or take more time to find a suitable job. She examines both of these hypothesizes in some detail, stressing that a basic income could result in employers’ reducing wages if the labor supply increases.
Gray then proceeds to “guestimate” the effect of a basic income on workforce participation for various groups (differing according to employment status, socioeconomic status, and household status, for example). She concludes that labor supply would indeed increase among low-wage workers. Thus, a minimum wage would be necessary to enforce in addition to a basic income, in order to prevent the basic income from becoming an employer’s supplement to low wages.
Reviewed by Dave Clegg
Photo: CC BY 2.0 Stephen Bowler
by Kate McFarland | Mar 7, 2017 | Research
The German political foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) has released a short report on digitalization in the UK and its consequences for public policy [1].
The report notes that, to this point, education and skills-training have been the central strategies to confront the effect of automation on the labor market. It concludes, however, by suggesting that it will be necessary to investigate basic income as a long-term solution:
“Education policy represents at best only a medium term solution to the problems arising from transformation. Over the long term other, much broader structural changes will have to be discussed, which will also seek to detach work from social security coverage. Whether, for example, the often mentioned unconditional basic income – above the subsistence level – could be a sustainable solution here must be subject to more detailed empirical research.”
The report was published as part of FES’s “Politics for Europe” project, which promotes the development of strong social democratic institutions in Europe. In general, basic income has not been a focus point of FES’s publications in the series. For example, a longer report on digitalization in Europe does not suggest universal basic income as a solution to the challenges presented by the changing nature of work.
[1] Markus Trämer and Rolf Frankenberger, “On the Way to Welfare 4.0 – Digitalisation in the United Kingdom,” Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2017.
[2] Daniel Buhr, Claudia Christ, Rolf Frankenberger, Marie-Christine Fregin, Josef Schmid and Markus Trämer, “On the Way to Welfare 4.0? Digitalisation of the Welfare State in Labour Market, Health Care and Innovation Policy: A European Comparison,” Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2017.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo CC BY 2.0 tico_24
by Kate McFarland | Mar 1, 2017 | News
BIEN cofounder Annie Miller has written a new handbook about basic income, fittingly titled A Basic Income Handbook, which will be published by Luath Press Limited in March 2017.
Publisher’s summary:
“In this informative book, Annie Miller not only explores the idea of basic income: she exhaustively explains what it is and what it would mean to implement, using extensive economic data. Miller starts off from a broad, existential position, outlining why the current system is no longer suitable for the times and needs to change. Her proposed solution is a society with BI, which she first outlines abstractly before diving into its internal workings, explaining who would be eligible for BI, what would happen to the rest of the welfare system, and other crucial details. Miller backs up her statements with substantive economic research and analysis. She ends with a section on how to achieve a society with BI, giving examples of pilot schemes elsewhere and discussing the politics behind implementation. Thus she brings the reader full circle from aspiring to a BI society, to seeing what it would take to reach it.”
Annie Miller, a former instructor of economics at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, has a long and distinguished history in the basic income movement: she was a cofounder of the Basic Income Research Group (which later became the Citizen’s Income Trust, BIEN’s UK affiliate) in 1984, a cofounder of BIEN itself in 1986, and a cofounder of Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland (BIEN’s Scottish affiliate) in 2016.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo credit: Enno Schmidt
by Andre Coelho | Feb 18, 2017 | News
(From left to right: Louise Haagh, Annie Miller, Becca Kirkpatrick, Ben Southwood)
As reported recently, a formal hearing called by the Work and Pensions Committee of the UK Parliament was carried out on the 12th of January 2017, in Birmingham, for a session dedicated to basic income. This hearing was recorded on video, and can be watched here.
From the Work and Pensions Committee, the members present (formally named as witnesses) were Steve McCabe (Chair), Mhari Black, Ms Karen Buck, James Cartlidge, Frank Field and Craig Mackinlay. On the witness bench, supporters and critics of basic income were aligned: Louise Haagh (Reader in Politics from the University of York and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network), Annie Miller (Chair of the Citizen’s Income Trust), Becca Kirkpatrick (Chair of the UNISON West Midlands Community Branch), Ben Southwood (Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute) and Andrew Harrop (General Secretary of the Fabian Society) on the supporting side, along with Declan Gaffney (independent political consultant) and Peter Alcock (Emeritus Professor of Social Polity and Administration at the University of Birmingham) on the critical side.
The purpose of the hearing was one of collecting evidence from experts, specifically on the issue of basic income, on which Chairman Steve McCabe noted there seemed to be a “newfound interest”. He then went on to ask whether the witnesses were for or against the idea of basic income, and why, beginning with Louise Haagh.
Louise is firmly in favor of basic income, which she sees as a very important – crucial even – policy that welfare states need to implement, in order to relieve what she regards as a tendency towards more punitive strategies in present day social security schemes. Basic income can help a lot in providing “a more humane form of social security at the bottom of the welfare state”.
Louise Haagh
Seated next to Louise, Annie Miller starts by undersigning all her previous statements. In addition, she points to some definitional information about basic income, such as individuality, universality and non-conditionality except that of age. Miller also clarifies that basic income is only intended to cover basic needs, not luxurious lifestyles. That implies, given regional cost variations and various personal circumstances, that for instance housing and disability benefits would still need to be kept in place, at least in the United Kingdom (UK). She closes this initial statement by saying that basic income schemes will vary depending on the policy maker’s objectives.
Becca Kirkpatrick also began with her support for basic income, including the UNISON West Midlands labor union in that support. She cites ongoing discussions about basic income within the union she represents, which include a right to a dignified existence, as unconditional cash transfer, or as more widely conceived strategies to eradicate or alleviate poverty. Becca frames the question more generally not on a matter of technical or economic feasibility, but as an issue of political will, on “what the public of this country would like to see and believe they are entitled to”.
Following this, Ben Southwood went on to say that, although he supports basic income, he stands somewhere slightly different in relation to the issue. He defends basic income as a simplification of the welfare state, where he sees great opportunity for reducing or eliminating disincentives to work. Cutting most social benefits and replacing them with the basic income would, in his view, allow people currently on benefits a greater degree of freedom.
Annie Miller
On his part, Peter Alcock, while recognizing basic income’s appeal as a progressive idea for society, feels that it is “too good to be true”. Afraid of the co-option of basic income by neo-liberals – as an excuse for slashing away the welfare state – he looks upon it with as a “distraction from other more pressing issues”. He was followed, and supported by, Declan Gaffney. He was also weary that basic income supporters so often defend BI with promises of unconditionality even when, when practically considered, a basic income would still need to be attached to conditions. However, he does give the idea credit as “a thought experiment”.
Finally, Andrew Harrop said he was “sitting on the fence” with basic income. He thinks basic income should be seen more from a tax reform prism, rather than a change to social security. Harrop ultimately envisions a kind of hybrid system that combines universal unconditional cash transfers with means tested benefits for those “who have earned entitlement”.
Ms Karen Buck then raised the question of work and basic income: in an increasingly unstable labor market, with lower and less certain incomes accruing from work – how serious should these tendencies be regarded, and how might basic income address them? Declan Gaffney, in reply, doubted that, given the previous economic instability, we were witnessing permanent job loss due to technological change. In this he adhered to the views of others like Alan Manning. This was followed by a short discussion between Ms Karen Buck and Becca Kirkpatrick, over if the problem was the existence of conditions within the system, or the absence of the system. According to Becca, the system does not exist, not in a way as to “prioritize guaranteeing for everyone”, and went on to state the premises and broad results of UNISON internal debate on the issue of basic income. That survey, she says, has exceeded expectations as to the level of support for the idea, in general terms.
At that point, James Cartlidge joins the conversation, asking what he thinks is “the most important question”: how generous will this basic income be? Ben Southwood then introduces the issue of basic income versus the negative income tax issue. After clarification of the differences between these two systems of cash transfer, Annie Miller points out that the “housing benefit is not a problem of the basic income, it is a problem of the housing policy”. However, James, and to a certain extent, Peter Alcock state their opposition to basic income on a more fundamental basis: that people will not work if given a sufficiently generous basic income. James Cartlidge is also not convinced (about basic income), as some models, according to him, result in greater poverty with basic income.
Mhairi Black then raises the question of effects on the labor market, which she fears will be one without pay raises, if basic income is implemented. Louise doesn’t agree, arguing that people, with increased bargaining power, will only do difficult, unpleasant tasks if paid more to do them. On the other hand, going back to the quantitative value of basic income, Annie Miller reminds that 60% of the median equivalized household income is a good benchmark for quantifying the basic income in any given region, and elucidates about ways to finance it within the UK tax context. She goes on to state that this should actually be inscribed into a national constitution, if only the UK had one. On that point, Andrew Harrop states his preference for a hybrid tiered system, with both conditional and unconditional elements in it, plus some contributory part (for pensions and/or unemployment benefits).
Becca Kirkpatrick then introduced the issue of working conditions – on a general basis but also based on her own experience – which she thinks need to be addressed urgently, and strongly believes basic income is the way to do it. Louise then weights in by underlining that a basic income does not need to be a substitute for work regulations, nor to contributory benefit regimes. The two can go along in the same direction, one of reducing conditionality, complexity and punitive actions.
Craig Mackinlay from the Work and Pensions Committee was himself generally against the idea of a basic income, especially on the grounds that it will discourage work, plus it could increase poverty. Declan Gaffney, although also an opponent, recalls a study for the USA in which a 55% tax rate is applied to fund a basic income. Ben Southwood, on work changes due to basic income, sees a mixed effect which might somewhat reduce working hours – especially for single women with children – but at the same time increase income for extra hours worked. At this point, Louise introduces the calculations done by Malcom Torry, of the Citizen’s Income Trust, to fund a basic income in the UK, which predicts a 60£ a week for everybody, financed by progressive tax rates of 23% for incomes up to 42000£ per year, 43% up to 150000£ per year and 48% above that.
Peter Alcock
As final remarks, Andrew Harrop re-stated his vision of a hybrid social security scheme incorporating conditional and unconditional parcels. Declan declared himself reluctant to accept conditionality in the social security system, as well as some backstop sanctions regime. However, because he thinks basic income will discourage people from working, he favors a more traditional employment framework, with “permanent contracts, with proper in-work benefits with entitlements to holiday pay, sick pay and so on”. Peter Alcock firmly set his case against basic income, as something unachievable or that “isn’t worth pursuing”. Ben also concluded in support of basic income, although from a different point of view from other supporters. According to him, there is no principle distinction between a basic income and a negative income tax.
Becca Kirkpatrick went back to fundamental philosophical grounds justifying basic income, by saying that it “could have an interestingly powerful, new cohesive effect on society that we are yet to really experience”. She also rested her case with a unifying message that, effectively, the human species needs badly to unite, helped by such a policy as basic income, to address all other challenges it is facing in the world today. Annie Miller wrapped up her position by clarifying that, under a basic income scheme, higher earners are net payers of basic income, not receivers. She also added the important aspect of gender inequality, so much in favor of men presently, and that would be made more fair and realistic with basic income, paid individually. She still had time to summarize the current system, which she claimed is “just a regressive system”, and went on to point out that “we have freedom of choice for rich people but not for poor people”. Finally, Louise Haagh presented her closing statement underlying that, although with different views on the subject, the whole witness panel seems to show consensus that the benefits system needs changing. And that change will inevitably go towards basic income, if it is to become less punitive and more humane.
To view the full recording:
House of Commons Committees Youtube Channel, “Session on Citizen’s Income”, Work and Pensions Committee, live streamlined on the 12th January 2017
by BIEN | Feb 12, 2017 | News
Anthony Painter (credit to: RSA)
Anthony Painter, Director of the Action and Research Center at the RSA, in an editorial article described an experiment in the middle of the 1970s in the small town of Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada. As Painter describes, there were “statistically significant benefits” to the physical and mental health of the participants in the experiment, which was in the British Medical Journal.
The experiment involved the provision of “a basic income—a regular, unconditional payment made to each and every citizen” of Dauphin. A complete statistical analysis was not provided for several decades because of a loss of political interest.
Painter claims inequality and poor health outcomes is a well-established finding with the mechanism is less known.
Read the full article here:
Anthony Painter, “A universal basic income: the answer to poverty, insecurity, and health inequality?“, The British Medical Journal, December 12th, 2016