by Kate McFarland | Oct 18, 2017 | News
The Social Prosperity Network, a research network at University College London’s Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), released a report this month arguing for Universal Basic Services for the UK.
The authors propose that the UK expand its set of free and universal public services to include shelter (social housing), food, transportation (e.g. bus passes), and information (e.g. internet access), in addition to the National Health Service, public education, and public legal services.
Like universal basic income, Universal Basic Services (UBS) are intended to secure the necessary means to a life for everyone, unconditionally. The unconditionality of the benefits is a key distinctive feature. As IGP’s Andrew Percy writes in the introduction to the report, the Social Prosperity Network has been motivated by the challenge to design a modern social safety net that is “[m]ore flexible and effective than the conditional benefits system we have inherited”.
As IGP Director Henrietta Moore mentions in the forward to the report, the authors have been inspired in their thinking by the recent global interest in basic income. Percy refers to the policies as “complementary components of a sustainable future for social welfare”:
Progressive proponents of a UBI assume the pre-existence of a platform of social welfare services, and advocates of UBS must acknowledge that there are both personal and specific needs that will require some form of monetary distribution to preserve freedom and agency.
While it is clear that Percy does not rule out UBI on matters of principle, he does maintain that UBS is a more effective use of available government revenue.
Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King’s College London, contributes a discussion paper to the report in which (in part) he contrasts UBS with several other potential solutions to challenges currently facing the UK economy. Although he devotes more attention to basic income than other competing options, Portes worries that UBI fails to address the main shortcomings of the UK welfare system (housing and disability benefits), that it would be prohibitively expensive if paid at an adequate level, and that it could devalue the importance of workforce participation. He concludes that “while some version of a basic income may be a useful complement to ambitious reforms of the welfare system, expecting basic income on its own to be ‘the answer’ is neither realistic nor desirable”.
Technical analyses of the cost and distributional impact of UBS are contributed by Howard Reed of Landman Economics (a name familiar in UBI circles as the coauthor of last year’s report “Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?” for the UK think tank Compass).
Download the full report here: “Social prosperity for the future: A proposal for Universal Basic Services”
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: Demonstrators in London, UK, CC BY 2.0 DAVID HOLT
by Kate McFarland | Sep 28, 2017 | News
The Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, which has published a series of reports on the feasibility and implementation of basic income, commissioned a recently published survey on attitudes towards basic income in the UK.
The survey was conducted by the British market research organization Ipsos MORI, who interviewed a sample 1,111 individuals from the UK population aged 18 to 75. Interviews were conducted online in August 2017. In the recently published results, the survey data are weighted to represent the general UK population according to age, gender, region, employment status, social grade, and educational attainment.
In a series of three multi-part questions, Ipsos MORI queried respondents about their views on universal basic income (UBI), which it defined, similarly to BIEN, as “a regular income paid in cash to every individual adult in the UK, regardless of their working status and income from other sources In other words, it would be: universal (i.e. paid to all), unconditional (i.e. paid without a requirement to work); and paid to individuals (rather than to a household).”
Interviewees were also instructed to assume, for the purposes of the survey, that the amount of the UBI “would be set roughly at the amount the UK government judged to be necessary to cover basic needs, e.g. food and clothing (but not housing costs).”
Before laying out the description of UBI, the survey questionnaire additional mentioned, “As you may be aware, some countries are considering introducing a basic income.”
Results
Asked whether they would support UBI described as above, 49% of respondents replied affirmatively (15% “strongly support” and 33% “tend to support”), while 26% replied negatively (17% “strongly oppose” and 9% “tend to oppose”).
Reported levels of support decreased substantially, however, when funding mechanisms were specified. Only 30% would support UBI if it entailed an increase in taxes, with 40% opposing UBI in this case. Meanwhile, 37% would support, and 30% would oppose, a UBI funded by cuts on spending on current welfare benefits. If both funding mechanisms were put into place, support for UBI decreases to 22%, while opposition increases to 47%.
The preceding result is similar to what was observed in a 2016 poll conducted by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute, which saw that respondents tended to favor basic income in principle, but would not support an increase in taxes to fund it in their country.
In the second question, respondents were asked “Regardless of whether you support or oppose the UK Government introducing a basic income, which of the following, if any, would be your most preferred way of mainly funding a basic income, if it was introduced?” Options included “increasing taxes on wealth” (34% favored), “cutting existing welfare benefits” (28% favored), “raising income tax” (12% favored), and “other” (3% favored).
The second part of this question broadens the definition of a “basic income scheme” from the initial definition, asking respondents if they would support such as program if certain compromises were made to universality and unconditionality. More than half of respondents replied that they would support a policy “only paid to those who are in work, in training, doing voluntary work, or pensioners” (52% strongly support or tend to support) or one “only paid to those on low incomes” (57% strongly support or tend to support), with only 18% and 17%, respectively, reporting opposition to the policies. (It should be noted, however, that it would conflict with most established uses of the term–including that of BIEN–to call such a policy a “basic income” scheme.)
Support decreased if the program were only to benefit young people (aged 18 to 24) “who are in work, full time education, or in training”: 35% would support (or tend to support) such a program, while 33% would oppose (or tend to oppose) it.
The third and final question queried interviewees on the “how convincing” they personally found each of six arguments that have been made in favor of basic income. The results tentatively suggest that, among British adults, arguments that emphasize the ability for UBI to support unpaid work tend to have more pull than those that emphasize the policy’s potential to encourage traditional paid work.
The argument judged most convincing was one that framed UBI as a way of recognizing the value of unpaid work: “Many people do very important work that is unpaid, such as caring or other voluntary work. A basic income would be a way of rewarding and encouraging others to do this type of work.” A full 79% of respondents found the argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, while only 15% judged it “not very” or “not at all” convincing.
All arguments provided were found to be more convincing that not (i.e. considered by a majority of survey respondents to be “very” or “fairly” convincing). However, the least persuasive was found be the following: “Many unemployed people do not have an incentive to find a job because benefits they may currently be receiving are withdrawn. As everyone would receive it, a basic income would encourage unemployed people to get a job by allowing them to keep that basic income if they find work.” A relatively small 57% deemed this argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, and 35% found it unconvincing (or “not very” convincing).
Other arguments focused on automation, job insecurity, bureaucracy in administering welfare, the “harsh and unfair” nature of conditional welfare programs.
More information about the survey, including all weighted and unweighted data, is available here:
Ipsos MORI, “Half of UK adults would support universal basic income in principle,” 8 September 2017.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo (Newquay, Cornwall, United Kingdom) CC BY 2.0 Giuseppe Milo
by Kate McFarland | Sep 27, 2017 | Research
The Institute for Policy Research (IPR) at the University of Bath has released a policy brief titled “Assessing the Case for a Universal Basic Income in the UK”.
The 94-page policy brief surveys the rise in popularity of the idea of universal basic income (UBI), especially in the UK context, and examines its feasibility and possible implementation strategies.
The report’s author, IRP Research Associate Luke Martinelli, draws upon his previous microsimulation studies, including “The Fiscal and Distributional Implications of Alternative Universal Basic Income Schemes in the UK” (March 2017) and “Exploring the Distributional and Work Incentive Effects of Plausible Illustrative Basic Income Schemes” (May 2017). He supplements his own work with the simulation analyses of other researchers, including Malcolm Torry (Citizen’s Income Trust) and Howard Reed and Stewart Lansley (Compass) in the UK and Olli Kangas (Kela) in Finland. Martinelli argues that microsimulation techniques, which can be used to model the economic effects of UBI at a national level, allow researchers to address questions about the feasibility and desirability of UBI that are out-of-reach by “real-world” experiment–given that the latter “do not test for the crucial effects of accompanying tax changes, nor examine how changes in income and behavioural responses would be distributed across different demographic groups in the case of a truly universal payment” (p 16).
In Chapter 3 of the policy brief, Martinelli applies these simulation studies to the question of the affordability of UBI. Investigating both full and partial UBI schemes, Martinelli investigates the fiscal implications of the policy for the UK government, taking into account potential adjustments to the existing tax and benefit system, as well as their consequences for poverty and inequality. Overall, Martinelli finds that data “appear to suggest” that “it is possible to design a UBI such that it is both affordable and adequate” (emphasis in original), with the most feasible option being a partial UBI on top of existing means-tested benefits (p 48). However, he issues several notes of caution in interpreting this (apparent) consequence.
One cautionary note concerns the fact that the simulation studies use only static models, which do not provide for possible changes in labor market participation resulting from the introduction of UBI. In Chapter 4, however, Martinelli examines the labor market effects of UBI in detail, again drawing upon simulation studies. Here, he considers the results of studies that model the impact of UBI schemes on financial work incentives, concluding that UBI does significantly improve incentives, especially for low-income groups and recipients of means-tested benefits (although, as the author admits, monetary incentives are “by no means the only factor affecting labour supply decisions,” p 63). In this chapter, Martinelli supplements the simulation analysis with empirical findings from previous experiments on unconditional cash benefits (including, especially, from the negative income tax experiments conducted in Manitoba in the late 1970s). He also reviews a range of theoretical considerations, including the prima facie tension between the positions of UBI supporters who see the policy as a way of incentivizing employment (e.g. as contrasted to means-tested benefit schemes) and those who advocate the policy as providing an “exit option” from employment.
In the final chapter of the policy brief, Martinelli scrutinizes implementational challenges facing UBI in the UK, including complications building political coalitions around the idea. As Martinelli stresses, apparent political consensus around UBI is likely to dissolve when specific policy implementations are issue. In concluding the report, he urges supporters of UBI not to demand a full basic income immediately, but instead to consider an incremental approach. As potential first steps, Martinelli mentioned a small universal payment (“partial basic income”) or a basic income restricted to certain age groups (e.g., as suggested by Malcolm Torry, young adults or adults nearing pension age).
The full report can be downloaded here:
Luke Martinelli, “Assessing the Case for a Universal Basic Income in the UK”, Institute for Policy Research, September 2017.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo (Bath, England) CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 David McKelvey
by Claire Bott | Sep 16, 2017 | News
Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, announced that a number of basic income experiments in her country will be funded by the national government. The local councils concerned – these being Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife and North Ayreshire – had already committed to the experiments, but this is the first time that national funding for them has been made available.
The original plans for the experiments were developed in partnership with the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA), a British charity which had previously produced an award-winning report on the potential means of implementing basic income in the UK. Anthony Painter, Director of the RSA’s Action and Research Centre and co-author of the report, said “There is a myth that Basic Income is at odds with work. We believe that it in fact forms a foundation for better work… We welcome experimentation and the support committed today helps Scotland join Finland, Canada and several places in the US in exploring how Basic Income can enable better and more secure working lives. We hope to see more such experiments across the UK.”
Jamie Cooke, Director of RSA Scotland, commented, “We are delighted to see this commitment from the Scottish Government to support the development of UBI pilots… We face challenges within the current social security system as it struggles to respond to modern challenges, and are in a period of flux in terms of the changing nature of work and employment. UBI offers an opportunity to respond to these challenges, breaking down barriers to work which currently exist, offering space for better quality work, and helping move people out of the precarious lives that many are currently stuck in.”
Sturgeon has stated that the results of the experiments will “inform parliament’s thinking for the future.” However, as Scotland is still part of the UK, it will not currently be able to put basic income into practice without the approval of the government of Great Britain.
The decision to fund the experiments has been reported on by the national British press, including the Independent and the Telegraph, both of which included a brief and largely accurate summation of the nature of universal basic income (UBI).
Sturgeon’s decision comes as she put forward a government programme which includes higher taxes to fund social services, and a plan to phase out sales of new petrol and diesel-powered vehicles. This has been seen by some as a political move to the left in order to fight back against the Labour party’s resurgent popularity in Scotland since the recent general election.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 30, 2017 | Research
Inequality in the UK has been rising for some time as gaps between the lower and upper classes increase. But, there are movements such as levelling up the north east that are looking to reducing this inequality to ensure everyone gets good healthcare, education, job opportunities, etc. And now, the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex has released a paper titled “Reducing poverty and inequality through tax-benefit reform and the minimum wage: the UK as a case-study” as part of its EUROMOD working paper series.
The paper uses the EUROMOD microsimulation model to examine the impact on poverty and inequality of the proposals put forth in economist Anthony Atkinson’s most recent–and final–book Inequality: What Can Be Done? (2015). Atkinson, himself a co-author of the ISER study, passed away on January 1, during the final stages of preparation of the working paper.
The proposals considered include a “significantly more progressive income tax structure,” a “major increase in the minimum wage” (i.e. a “living wage”), and an increase in the amount of the nation’s universal child benefit, and two types of programs of social transfers: a strengthening of the UK’s social insurance system, and a “participation income”. A participation income–an idea developed and promoted by Atkinson–is similar to a basic income in that it guarantees all members of society a stable and secure livable income. It differs from a basic income, however, in that it is not fully unconditional: as its name suggests, a participation income is subject to a participation requirement. According to Atkinson, however, fulfilling this requirement should not require paid work or looking for paid work; it should also be able to be met through caregiving, community volunteer work, full-time education, or other unpaid but socially valuable activities.
In the simulation study, the authors note that “this participation condition cannot be imposed in our simulation exercise due to lack of data” and thus carry out the study “on the basis that everyone is entitled.” In other words, for the purposes of the working paper, they have chosen to simulate what is effectively an unconditional basic income.
The authors simulate a basic income at the level of £75 per week (or £3,902 per year), which replaces many means-tested programs.
One conclusion of the study is that, in comparison to strengthened social insurance (SI), the set of reforms introducing a participation income (PI) “produces a larger immediate impact on both inequality and poverty”. As the authors summarize, “[i]n achieving this greater impact the PI-focused package affects considerably more households, both positively and negatively: 43% of all households see a substantial gain and 21% a substantial loss, compared to 34% and 10% respectively with the SI-focused alternative.”
Other researchers have also recently used the EUROMOD microsimulation method to model the effects of basic income policies–including Malcolm Torry of the Citizen’s Income Trust (“A variety of indicators evaluated for two implementation methods for a Citizen’s Basic Income“) and, to more skeptical conclusions, the OECD (“Basic Income as a Policy Option: Can it add up?“).
The full working paper is free to download from ISER’s website:
Anthony B. Atkinson, Chrysa Leventi, Brian Nolan, Holly Sutherland and Iva Tasseva (June 2017) “Reducing poverty and inequality through tax-benefit reform and the minimum wage: the UK as a case-study,” EUROMOD Working Paper Series.
Reviewed by Caroline Pearce.
Photo: “The Poverty Trap…” CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Neil Moralee (taken in Taunton, England)
