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 Dawn Howard | Sep 12, 2019 | News
by Dawn Howard
Jonathan Herzog is a Democratic candidate currently running for US Congress in New York’s 10th District. He is attempting to unseat Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in next year’s election.
Herzog is a former Iowa campaign staffer for US Presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who is currently polling in sixth place according to the polling average by RealClearPolitics.
Herzog has adopted many of Andrew Yang’s policy positions, including Yang’s central campaign pillar – The Freedom Dividend – where all Americans above the age of 18 would receive $1000 each month, regardless of their income or employment status.
Jonathan Herzog holds an undergraduate degree from Harvard, an MBA from NYU Stern, and a JD degree from Harvard Law.
Dawn Howard: When did you first become aware of basic income?
Jonathan Herzog: I learned about Universal Basic Income a long while ago, but first committed myself seriously to fighting to make it a reality when Andrew Yang launched his bid for President.
DH: Have you been in touch with the Yang campaign or Andrew Yang himself since you announced? If so, what has the response been?
JH: Andrew and the entire Yang campaign have been so awesome and supportive!
DH: Do you believe that others will follow your lead in running for office on a platform of Universal Basic Income because they were inspired by Andrew Yang’s campaign?
JH: A number of folks in New York and across the country have already announced their runs for Congress on Universal Basic Income, such as James Felton Keith and Chivona Newsome in NY, as well as David Kim in Los Angeles. It’s incredible to see the momentum – 2020 is the year to bring it across the finish line.
DH: Given that poverty is typically considered a bipartisan issue, how feasible would it be to implement a small-scale basic income pilot in one of the boroughs of New York City, given the state’s current budget concerns and overall political climate?
JH: We’re seeing a number of local basic income pilots arise in cities across the country, but they’re mainly privately financed. No single entity has the requisite scale or scope to pass basic income other than the U.S. federal government. It’s why I’m running for Congress. The goal is to implement Universal Basic Income nationwide in 2021.
DH: One of the things that has been so fascinating to watch as Andrew Yang’s campaign grows is the way that many Trump supporters and conservatives gravitate towards his message and ideas – particularly The Freedom Dividend of $1000 every month. Have you been receiving a similar response from conservative voters in your district?
JH: The message truly is “not left, not right, but forward.” My district is heavily Democratic, but even so, the bipartisan appeal of the Freedom Dividend is resoundingly clear.
DH: Many activists within the basic income community posit that our current economic system (capitalism) is inefficient and unsustainable and that eventually, we must transition to a system that better addresses the core needs of humanity and the planet’s ecosystem. Do you see basic income as a type of incremental step toward this transition?
JH: I think Andrew Yang offers us a meaningful way forward with what he calls “Human-Centered Capitalism,” which essentially refers to a more inclusive set of measurements to measure economic progress and growth, including environmental sustainability, mental health, and freedom from substance abuse, and other quality of life metrics. Basic income is part and parcel of this transition to a more sustainable, healthy, human-centered economy.
If you would like to learn more about Jonathan Herzog, you can visit his web site: www.herzog2020.com
Follow him on social media:
Twitter/Instagram @jonathanherzog5
Facebook: facebook.com/Herzog2020
by Andre Coelho | Jun 12, 2019 | News, Research
According to a recent report (May 2019) by UCL Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), guaranteeing universal basic services (UBS), such as health care, education, child care, transportation and digital information, would be more beneficial to low income groups than universal basic income (UBI).
It is argued, in the referred report authored by Anna Coote, Pritika Kasliwal and Andrew Percy, that “extending public services is likely to be more effective in addressing poverty, inequality and wellbeing than unconditional cash payments to individuals”. That assertion is linked to a yet to be published article by Coote and Yazici called “Universal Basic Income, A literature review”, while the present report does not “consider the case for UBI in any depth”. The discussion defending UBS, in the report, seems then to be unilateral. However, cost considerations between the two systems, for the United Kingdom reality, have been done in a previous report (from 2017). From these calculations, the authors have reached the conclusion (stated after the 2019 report’s release) that UBS would cost around 10% less than UBI to implement in the country.
Andrew Percy, co-author of the report (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) and Citizen Sponsor at IGP, has said that “universal access to basic public services must be the foundation of 21st century welfare that delivers real social security, allows people to make meaningful choices about their work, and can be delivered in an affordable and practical way”, which doesn’t seem to pitch UBS against UBI. Others, like Will Stronge (Autonomy think tank) and Mathew Lawrence (Common Wealth think tank), explicitly consider UBI and UBS to be complementary in an evolving model for society.
Anna Coote. Picture credit to: Green European Journal
Anna Coote and co-author Edanur Yazici have also recently (April 2019) published another report (signing for the New Economic Foundation), entiled “Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective”, which clearly rejects UBI in favour of a UBS. That study has been published by the global trade union federation Public Services International (PSI), financially supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. This particular report was analysed by UBI activist Scott Santens, who has written that it is “a prime example of a disinformation campaign designed to manipulate public opinion against the idea of universal basic income”, and a “shameless propaganda” move.
The publication of the 2019 report on universal basic services, by the IPG, has also spurred a reaction in Guy Standing, a lifelong researcher, economist, author and activist for UBI. According to him, in an article published in Open Democracy, “there is no contradiction between having some public quasi-universal basic services and a basic income”. He adds, concluding, that these systems “address different needs and stem from different rationales. But having cash enhances freedom of choice, is potentially more empowering and can be more transformative. I plead with those advocating ‘Universal Basic Services’ to stop juxtaposing the idea of more and better public services with giving people basic income security.”
More information at:
Laurie MacFariane, “Universal services more effective than a Universal Basic Income, argues new report”, OpenDemocracy, May 16th 2019
Scott Santens, “‘Universal Basic Income Doesn’t Work’ Says New Prime Example of Fake News”, Medium, May 31st 2019
Guy Standing, “Why ‘Universal Basic Services’ is no alternative to Basic Income”, Open Democracy, June 6th 2019
by Claire Bott | Mar 4, 2018 | News
India’s Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanian, recently told reporters that he would “bet” that one or two Indian states would be implementing universal basic income (UBI) by 2020.
The high-level government advisor’s comments occurred within the context of the release of the 2017-2018 Economic Survey of India. The Economic Survey is a regular report which examines the country’s current economic status, and attempts to make some predictions regarding future growth.
The last Economic Survey, for 2016-2017, gave some details regarding the possibility of India adopting a form of UBI. The survey explored the possibility of an income which would be quasi-universal, being distributed to approximately 75% of the population. This does not match BIEN’s own definition of UBI, but was referred to as a UBI within the survey. This was not the only scheme that the government entertained, if you want to know all schemes of indian government in hindi visit:- Sarkari Yojana UP Here is All Information of the government yojana.
While its approach to the subject was broadly positive, the 2016-2017 Economic Survey stopped short of recommending that a UBI be implemented across the country. Subramanian has spoken positively on UBI in the past, saying during an interview in April of last year, “There could be, potentially, several positive impacts – you provide people with a minimum wherewithal with which they can access credit, with which they can invest – and one of the things I think is worth emphasising about UBI is the kind of psychological liberation you can provide for people.” However, in the same interview, he also indicated some issues which could arise, stating, “You can’t pay for it [UBI] unless you get rid of something else.”
A recent report from Carnegie India, India’s Basic Income Bedevilled by Details, by Shaksam Khosla, praised Subramanian for bringing “substantial rigour” to the debate on UBI in India, but also recommended that, prior to any implementation, a large-scale experimental test of the system should be carried out. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) describes itself as a global network of policy research centres with the aim of advancing peace through analysis and development of new policy ideas, as well as direct engagement with government, business and civil society. Khosla is a Research Analyst with Carnegie India, the CEIP’s sixth international centre to be set up.
Arvind Subramanian took office in October 2014. He previously worked for the International Monetary Fund, and has also been a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Global Development in America.
Edited by: Dawn Howard
