by Kate McFarland | Apr 4, 2017 | News
Paul Basken has written an article about scholarly research on basic income for The Chronicle of Higher Education, a US-based news service aimed toward individuals engaged with higher education.
Despite concerns about job loss due to automation, and despite an increase in the popularity of basic income as a potential countermeasure, it is rare that university researchers in the United States seek (let alone obtain) funding for research projects on basic income. As Basken’s article points out, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the main federal agency sponsoring academic research, has not received a “surge in proposals for research on basic income” — nor has it made any strides to encourage such topics.
However, as Basken also notes, many scholars are themselves not sure what research could reveal about the implementation and effects of basic income, given the inherent limitations of experiments and simulations and the complexities of implementing the policy in practice.
Basken’s article features commentary from three scholars who have researched and written upon basic income: Michael C. Munger (Political Science, Duke University), Michael A. Lewis (Social Work, Hunter College), and Matt Zwolinski (Philosophy, University of San Diego).
Read the full article:
Paul Basken, “Universal Basic Income: An Idea Whose Scholarly Time Has Come?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, 2017.
Reviewed by Robert Gordon
Photo CC BY 2.0 Stewart Butterfield
by Sarah Harris | Apr 2, 2017 | News
Cardiff Garcia, a writer for the UK-based Financial Times, interviewed Martin Sandbu, a philosopher and economist who writes Free Lunch, a daily newsletter on global economic policy. As he describes in the interview, Sandbu believes that a background in philosophical logic enables one to identify and question assumptions that are inherent within normative economic policy. His own philosophically informed analyses of economic policy have led him to support the idea of basic income — another topic discussed at length in the interview.
Sandbu discusses basic income in the historical and current context of American political, social, cultural and economic challenges. Among potential outcomes of basic income, Sandbu highlights positive ones that include risk encouragement, higher bargaining power for rural people, and decreased resentment within low and middle-income groups.
Listen to the podcast episode here: Alphachat
Photo CC BY 2.0 Zhou Tong
by Kate McFarland | Apr 1, 2017 | News
This year’s Managing the Disruption, an annual conference organized by the billionaire real estate entrepreneur Jeff Greene, will include a talk by basic income advocate and writer Scott Santens. The two-day conference will focus on themes related to ways in which our social institutions can and should adapt to technological and cultural change — including, in particular, the threat of technological unemployment. Santens will speak on the question “Universal Basic Income: Possibility or a Dream?”
The conference will take place April 2-3, 2017, in Palm Beach, Florida, with Santens’s 10-minute talk to be held at 11:35am on April 3.
Other speakers include former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and, immediately following Santens, former US Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers, among many others. The event is registration only, with ticket prices beginning at $1,750 for general admission.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram and Robert Gordon
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Richard Tanton
by Kate McFarland | Apr 1, 2017 | News
On March 22, 2017, the popular debate program Intelligence Squared U.S. (IQ2US), hosted and moderated by ABC News correspondent John Donvan, held a debate on the question “Is the universal basic income the safety net of the future?” Specifically, the panelists debated the proposal of a $12,000 per year UBI for Americans.
On the “yes” side, Andrew Stern, former President of the Service Employees International Union and author of Raising the Floor, partnered with libertarian author and scholar Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. Their opponents were two leading economists of the Obama administration: Jason Furman (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to President Barack Obama) and Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden).
Prior to the debate, members of the live audience were asked whether they were “for the motion”, “against the motion”, or undecided.
During the first round of the debate, each debater was given time to make opening speeches delineating their positions. Initiating the round, Stern argued that current welfare programs are insufficient, leaving millions of Americans in poverty, and that impending job disruption due to automation will make the economic situation even more dire. Opening for the “against” side, Furman maintained that the threat from automation has been overblown, that UBI is not financially viable–at least without removing benefits from those who need them–and that there are better policy options, such as programs designed to help individuals obtain jobs.
Next, Murray argued that a basic income would open more options to individuals, remove the need for the poor to supplicate themselves to government bureaucrats to receive benefits, and restore more responsibility to family and friends in supporting one another’s needs. Finally, Bernstein laid out a case that basic income would waste resources on those who don’t need them, eliminating funds from programs that could do much more to help poor and middle-class Americans, ultimately to the detriment of those who need help the most.
The opening statements were followed by an interactive debate moderated by Donvan. This second round began with the question of the extent to which technological unemployment is a real threat. While Furman emphasized that earlier fears of mass job loss to automation turned out to be unfounded, Stern and Murray contended that the threat is indeed significantly greater now. Meanwhile, Bernstein stressed that there is still plenty of work that needs to be done today.
Redirecting discussion from the impasse over the magnitude of the automation threat, Bernstein stressed that the most important point of the “against” side is not that automation is not a major concern, but that UBI wastes money on those who don’t need it, rather than investing that money in programs targeted at the most vulnerable. In response to assertions by Stern that the poor are obviously better off under a UBI, given that they have an additional $12,000 per year, Furman challenged the arithmetic of the “for” side–challenging Stern and Murray to explain how their UBI can be financed.
Near the end of the round, the debate shifted to the more “ephemeral” parts of the pro-UBI argument, focusing on the potential impact of UBI on civil society.
After the second round of the debate, members of the studio audience were invited to ask brief questions, and, finally, each of the four panelists summarized their key points in two-minute closing statements.
At the end of the debate, the audience members were against asked to vote “for”, “against”, or “undecided” on the motion that UBI is the safety net of the future.
In the end, the “against” side clearly dominated the contest. While only 20% of attendees were opposed the motion prior to the debate (with 45% undecided), fully 61% were afterwards. Meanwhile, the proportion in favor dropped from 35% to 31%.
The “against” side also won in a poll of the online viewing audience, although less starkly. At the beginning of the debate, 49% of online viewers expressed support for the motion–rising to 53% by the end. The percentage against, in contrast, started (and ended) smaller, but saw a much larger increase–from 19% to 42%.
It is important to keep in mind that these results reflect the views only of a small self-selected group of individuals, and thus neither the “before” or “after” votes should not be taken as representative of Americans’ views on UBI.
Watch the Debate
Reference
“The Universal Basic Income is the Safety Net of the Future” at Intelligence Squared Debates.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod.
by Austin Douillard | Mar 27, 2017 | News
Village women. Credit to: Andrew Renneisen for The New York Times
GiveDirectly, a New York-based nonprofit, which activity has been covered in Basic Income News before, has initiated a pilot program in a rural village in Western Kenya, this past October. The organization recently published an internal analysis of the pilot program, in a first attempt to process the results of a GiveDirectly basic income project. The results will set the tone for future programs and influence basic income policy making moving forward.
The Pilot Program
The cash transfers are made via mobile phone to the village residents. Each of the 95 participants received 2,280 shillings (about US$22) every month to save or spend however they see fit. Participants are all guaranteed this income for the next 12 years. Before GiveDirectly began the payments, many people in the village were living on less than US$0.75 a day; afterwards, no one was. GiveDirectly’s analysis claimed that “for 45% of the village’s residents, the first month’s basic income payment was the largest amount of money they’d ever had.”
The Results
The organization recently published the qualitative results of the first study of the pilot program. The research was conducted through follow-up call center-based phone surveys, as well as small focus group conversations. The survey asked about the biggest difference the money has made in their lives. Some of their answers are below:
- “I will be getting transfers that will enable me to pay medical bills for my condition and also buy other things. Since I went for checkup after receiving the transfer, my health situation has improved and I am able to go about my business without much stress.” Grace, 68.
- “Since I have been able to improve on my business, I have gotten income to help me meet my daily expenses and also buy enough food for my children.” Diana, 33.
- “The biggest difference in my daily life is that I can have 3 meals in a day.” Dorcus, 87.
The survey also asked how the money was spent.
- “I spent the entire transfer received from GiveDirectly to purchase a fishing net and a floater.” Erick, 40.
- “I spent the money received from GiveDirectly to buy clean water, food, soap, and used most of the amount to pay school fees.” Fredrick, 70.
- “I spent most of the money I received from GiveDirectly on buying a goat since I want to buy livestock. I also bought food for my household.” Patrick, 38.
- “I spent the money received from GiveDirectly to purchase food and kept most of the transfer as savings.” Milka, 44.
Do recipients of basic income stop working? This question has been at the center of the basic income debate despite much of the evidence indicating that recipients don’t stop working, and don’t spend money on alcohol. Here are some of their responses:
- “I feel I need to work harder and engage in other income-generating activities to get more money.” Samson, 70.
- Yes, receiving the payments has changed my feeling towards work since I really want to finish my driving course and immediately look for employment.” Fredrick Odhiambo Awino, 28.
- “I will not be working since I am old and sickly. I will just wait for the transfers.” Jael, 73.
- “I will still continue with my small business and charcoal burning since the family needs the extra income to enable us to meet all our expenses without borrowing from relatives each time.” Norah, 30.
Villagers. Photo: Credit Andrew Renneisen for The New York Times
Another survey question asked about how the money will affect recipients’ decisions or attitudes around entrepreneurship or other risk taking, like migrating to look for work. GiveDirectly stated that “So far, seven recipients have indicated that they had plans to or had left the village to look for some form of work. On entrepreneurship, some recipients plan to use the cash transfers to expand existing businesses or start new ones, while others think they haven’t received enough money to start anything meaningful.”
- “There is a time I was selling maize, buying and selling but it collapsed but for now I know I will revive it because during that time we had a drought and so we consumed the maize.” Mixed gender focus group respondent.
- “I want to start a small ‘omena’ (small fish) business.” Caroline, 28.
- “I want to start a second-hand clothes selling business.” Millicent, 33.
- “Personally, I desire to start a business but it’s not easy to start one here. For example, if we do the same business, it gets difficult to get customers. We have to fight for the few that are available. We are not able to do business in far places. If you start one you can only do it within the village next to your house. Getting the capital is also difficult but we would wish to start businesses.” Women’s focus group respondent.
Another question was whether recipients would pool some of their money toward shared projects like building a well or repairing roads. GiveDirectly’s analysis said, “when we first explained the program, one of the community leaders suggested this at the village meeting, and it’s obviously on people’s minds, but we haven’t yet seen any large projects launched as a result.” This question is especially salient because not everyone in the village is receiving the basic income grant. In a New York Times article about this pilot program, Annie Lowry noted that this has been a source of tension in the village: “by giving money to some but not all, the organization had unwittingly strained the social fabric of some of these tight-knit tribal communities.” However, community projects that benefit everyone could ease this tension. One of the focus group respondents indicated that such projects are certain in the future:
- “We just started receiving this cash just the other day and after doing a few things with it in the house here, we can think of coming together as a village and we agree that we pool some cash together that we can use to do something, at the moment we have not started, but we will.”
GiveDirectly widely considers these results to be encouraging. It plans to continue fundraising to expand the number of recipients, and launch a full study later this year. This pilot is part of a larger plan in Kenya to offer similar unconditional transfers to people in 200 villages.
More information at:
Annie Lowry, “The future of not working”, The New York Times, February 23rd 2017
Catherine Cheney, “Early insights from the first field test of universal basic income”, Devex, February 27th 2017
David Evans, “Do the Poor Waste Transfers on Booze and Cigarettes? No”, The World Bank, May 27th 2014
Joe Huston and Caroline Teti, “What it’s like to receive a basic income”, GiveDirectly, February 23rd 2017
Kate McFarland, “US / KENYA: Charity GiveDirectly announces initial basic income pilot study”, Basic Income News, September 25th 2016
