by Hilde Latour | Jul 17, 2017 | News
Investopedia published an article in May this year, “The Long, Weird History of Basic Income – And Why It’s Back”
In this article, written by David Floyd, the history of support of UBI is described from the period of hunter-gatherer societies and how the networks in those societies took care of people who could not provide themselves with a basic standard of living. The article then describes how agriculture and urbanization made an end to such networks and how problems were not handled well by the institutions that took the place of the original networks, referring to Charles Eastman who described this problem in 1915.
Thomas Paine was one of the famous people who noticed the creation of poverty, caused by cultivation, which did not exist before. He was the first to propose a UBI (Paine called it a “groundrent”) in the late 18th century, as a compensation for the dispossession of the majority of inhabitants of their natural inheritance. Cole first used the term Basic Income in 1953.
From Paine, via Henry George, Huey Long, G.D.H. Cole, Martin Luther King, Mc Govern and Nixon, the current boost of support for UBI in the 21st century is explained as a reaction to poverty and inequality, predominantly used as an argument by proponents on the left political spectrum, and inefficiency of the welfare state, used as an argument on the right wing.
In addition to the political perspective, a distinction between “reformers” and “futurists”, which cross-cuts left and right, is described in further depth.
The group of “reformers” is described as a group of basic income supporters who is mostly concerned with addressing problems in society as it is now, mostly caused by the broken welfare system, such as:
- “Employment traps” (where people are kept form leaving their job out of fear and bad employers are supported as a result of that)
- “Unemployment traps” (“earn a dollar from work, lose a dollar in benefits”)
- “Welfare cliffs” (where the effect tax on additional income even exceeds 100%)
- Stigma associated with public benefits
- Bureaucratic inefficiency
The group of “futurists” is described as supporters who see technological unemployment as a main threat in the future and offer basic income as a solution or who see a basic income as a cornerstone of an eventual utopia.
The two main criticisms of a universal basic income are its cost and the expectation that it would reduce or eliminate incentives to work.
This discussion is described with calculations of “The Economist” and views of Bill Gates, Karl Widerquist, Guy Standing, Philippe van Parijs and others. Brief attention is given to Alaska’s “Permanent Fund Dividend” and the outcome of experiments, such as Manitoba and India. Furthermore, the definition of ‘work’ is discussed, the effects of UBI on poverty and even the experiments in Finland, Oakland and Ontario get attention.
Floyd summarizes his article with a question: “Could doing away with poverty, sweeping away patronizing bureaucracy, neutralizing the threat of mass unemployment and increasing the value society places on worthwhile, but unprofitable, pursuits really be as simple as handing everyone cash?” He then uses Confusius’ quote to guide us towards the answer:
“The way out is through the door.”
Info and links
Full article at investopedia.com
Photo: Money! by Hans Splinter, CC-BY-SA 2.0
Special thanks to Dave Clegg for reviewing this article
by Andrew Sisk | Mar 11, 2017 | News
Charlie Wood, writer for the Christian Science Monitor, presents evidence from “cash transfer” programs showing that assigning monetary payments to citizens regardless of employment seems not to encourage retirement, alcohol use, or “laziness”, as some suspect it would.
In fact, results of cash transfer programs conducted by several NGOs show guaranteed cash reduces poverty and increases personal income and savings. Wood’s article, which appears on the CSM website, recognizes the difference between UBI and targeted charity, though the results of a UBI will likely come soon from studies in Finland and other places.
See the full article:
Charlie Wood, “Guaranteed paycheck: Does a ‘basic income’ encourage laziness?” (March 1, 2017)
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 1, 2014 | Research
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Since its formulation by the Collectif Charles Fourier in 1984, the idea of allocation universelle / basic income / citizens income has produced a deep debate and obtaining consensus from intellectuals, philosophers and politicians of very different frameworks. The international literature on the subject shows the existence of a kind of theoretical agreement that, with suitable expression, Rawls has defined as overlapping consensus. In front of the social and economic changes and the ideological and economical crisis of the welfare state, this paper highlights the importance to reshape the social policies trough a broad consensus, wider of the one that a political majority can offer. A reformation of the existing guarantees of social rights need a policy that can be sustained from ( and continuing to embrace) different views of the world. The basic income, this beautiful, disarmingly, simple idea (to use the words of Philippe Van Parijs) , already obtained a discreet theoretical overlapping consensus and it is possible – for the author desirable – that it will soon carry around such a consensus on the more concrete level of political decision.
ITALIAN ABSTRACT: Sin dalla sua formulazione da parte del Collectif Charles Fourier nel 1984, l’idea di allocation universelle / basic income / reddito di base / reddito minimo universale ha pro- dotto intorno a sé un dibattito sempre più ampio e un consenso variegato da parte di intellettuali, filosofi e politici che pure si richiamano a quadri concettuali, mo- delli valoriali e dottrine comprensive a volte molto diverse tra loro. La letteratura internazionale sul tema mostra l’esistenza di un dibattito poco noto in Italia, dibat- tito nel quale è possibile riscontrare, almeno a livello teorico, ampie convergenze raggiunte a partire da valutazioni ideali differenti. Una forma di accordo che, con felice espressione, Rawls ha definito overlapping consensus, cioè consenso per intersezio- ne. Questo lavoro cercherà di evidenziare come, davanti agli importanti mutamenti sociali ed economici degli ultimi anni, la crisi ideologica e ideale del welfare state richieda un ripensamento delle forme di garanzia dei diritti sociali per il quale è necessario un ampio e trasversale consenso attorno a una policy che possa essere sostenuta proprio a partire da (e continuando ad abbracciare) visioni del mondo differenti. Il reddito di base, questa beautiful, disarmigly, simple idea (per usare le pa- role di Philippe Van Parijs), può già vantare a livello teorico un discreto overlapping consensus, ed è possibile – per l’autore auspicabile – che esso possa presto convo- gliare attorno a sé un simile consenso anche al livello più concreto della decisione politica.
Emanuele Murra, “Ragioni Differenti Per Una Proposta Condivisa: Reddito Di Base E Consenso Per Intersezione [Different Reasons For a Shared Proposal: Basic Income and Overlapping Consensus].” Centro Einaudi, Laboratorio di Politica Comparata e Filosofia Pubblica Working Paper-LPF no. 3, 2014.
Centro Einaudi
by Karl Widerquist | May 31, 2014 | Research
This article argues for BIG in terms of logistics, costs, effectiveness, and flexibility.
Thomas Wells, “How to end global poverty: Just give money to the poor.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC): Religion and Ethics: Opinion. 24 Feb 2014.
“The main impediment to effective global action against poverty is not the amorality of rich world citizens or politicians, but cynicism that anything we try can make a positive difference.” Photo: shutterstock.com via ABC
