One topic of discussion at the Conference was the model (in various possible versions) of Basic Income or Guaranteed Adequate Income. Such a new approach would be a way of reinstituting the principle of universality in income security programs that has been undermined by governments of all political stripes over the last thirty years. Working to achieve BI / GAI could also be a counterweight to neo-liberal ‘poor-bashing’ rhetoric and punitive workfare practices of Canadian social assistance programs. 

Besides BI / GAI, the Economic Security Conference also focussed on many other necessary components of comprehensive economic security, including:

• labour market policies to promote economic justice
• community economic development in First Nations
• economic justice for women
• the need to protect and extend universal social programs such as medicare, child care, and social housing
• keeping rural Saskatchewan economically vibrant and healthy
• specialized income security measures to ensure social inclusion and participation for persons with disabilities.

Unfortunately, a commentary posted on ActUpInSask.org on 11 June 2007 (by Kathleen Donovan and Garson Hunter) misrepresented the thrust of the Economic Security Conference. Based on this commentary, the reader might think that the Conference was pitching the idea of a ‘stand alone’ program of Basic Income to the exclusion of all other economic security measures. This was neither the purpose nor the outcome of the Conference. The Donovan / Hunter piece also trotted out some old arguments from the traditionally-thinking left about why the model of Basic Income or Guaranteed Adequate Income should not even be discussed. Their points are recapped below, and brief rejoinders are provided.

The BI / GAI model is a right wing conspiracy

In fact, early proponents of a guaranteed share of wealth and resources for everyone in society included the 18^th century revolutionary Thomas Paine, 19^th century radical thinkers such as Charles Fourier, Joseph Charlier, and John Stuart Mill, and 20^th century progressives such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, and prominent Canadian feminist Judy Rebick. While the conservative economist Milton Friedman and some other right wingers have proposed particular versions of GAI, neo-liberals and free-marketeers generally don’t like the idea of a guaranteed adequate income for everyone.

BI / GAI opponents on the left get suspicious when parties of the centre and the right express interest in this approach. To be sure, the left must be clear that there are acceptable and unacceptable versions of BI / GAI, and levels of support and delivery mechanisms matter. On the other hand, if we are to move ahead pragmatically towards universal guarantees of economic security, should be not seek support from various points in the political spectrum? It is interesting to note that two Canadian politicians currently expressing support for the idea of a guaranteed adequate income are Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, and Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who is often identified as a ‘red Tory.’ 

The BI / GAI model is a business-friendly scheme to subsidize wages and form a pool of cheap labour

The famous American sociologist Erik Wright argues that an adequate and universal GAI would be the biggest organizing tool and strike fund imaginable for working class people who are stuck in lousy jobs with poor wages. Providing a base of economic security for low wage workers, that is not dependent on their labour market participation, could actually lead to the improvement of wages and working conditions. BI / GAI could also ensure that working people get their fair share of the ‘technology dividend’ that is dramatically downsizing the amount of paid work available in industrialized countries. 

BI /GAI would lead to the elimination all current welfare state programs and would provide a lower level of income support

This is the ‘scorched earth’ argument – we can only expect to achieve BI / GAI if we dismantle all existing income security programs, and settle for a minimalist ‘one-size-fits-all’ model. Thoughtful and well-informed proponents of Basic Income (including conference speaker Yannick Vanderborght) are very emphatic that GAI / BI must not be seen as a stand-alone ‘magic bullet’ to ensure economic security. They do see new forms of universal and unconditional income support as a necessary and useful component in a broader, coherent package of economic security measures. 

Such a package would include categorical supports (e.g. for people with special needs related to disability), universal public programs (e.g. health care, child care, social housing), and human services to provide counselling and support to those coping with personal problems (e.g. addiction, emotional distress, and poor parenting skills).

BI / GAI is an unknown quantity. Despite the flaws of the current system, the welfare state as we know it is ‘fixable’ and worth defending

Despite several decades of well-intentioned and strenuous effort by progressive social movements, we still have a generally inadequate, complicated, and inefficient mess of income support programs. The current system has failed to correct economic inequalities and to alleviate poverty rates. It has particularly failed certain economically vulnerable groups such as single mothers, Aboriginal peoples, new immigrants, and people with disabilities. Despite years of campaigning to end child poverty, our percentage of poor kids in Canada has remained virtually unchanged since 1989.

I have been to quite a few conferences on BI / GAI recently. An interesting dynamic to observe at these events is that it is usually the established academics and policy wonks who object to more universalistic measures for economic security. Poor people, on the other hand (and notably women trying to live on social assistance) have less interest in defending the existing system. Those who live in poverty are much more open to universalistic approaches and ‘radical’ ideas such as BI / GAI.

BI / GAI does not target poverty, and thereby wastes money

Benefits for everyone (that not stigmatized and thereby less vulnerable to cuts by reactionary politicians) can be delivered in concert with tax measures that claw them back from higher income groups at rates proportional to income levels. We can have universal benefits, and still provide a much higher proportion of support to people at lower income levels and than we do to the “wealthy banker’s wife” (to borrow Linda McQuaig’s old metaphor).

In our current ‘patchwork quilt’ welfare state there are in fact some programs that resemble the Basic Income model, such as the child tax benefit and old age security. These programs can be thought of as ‘non-purist’ or ‘hybrid’ approximations of BI. They provide universal and unconditional benefits, although they are targeted to particular demographic groups (families with children and seniors) who have lower levels of income (but do not necessarily live in abject poverty). Such existing programs illustrate that it is possible to harmonize universality and equity goals. 

Basic Income, Redistribution, and Saving the Planet

The Economic Security Conference just scratched the surface of another line of argument in favour of the BI / GAI model – the connection that must be made between economic justice and environmental sustainability. Traditional social programs have depended on a growing economy and an expanding tax base to pay the freight. With looming environmental crises, it is time to move away from our fixation on economic growth and ‘trickle down’ approaches to spreading the prosperity around. We must focus on steady state economics, lowering consumption levels in the overdeveloped north of the globe, and seeing redistribution within and between nations (rather than growth) as means advance economic justice and prosperity for all. 

Basic income is a simple and just way to redistribute wealth and social goods. With environmental sustainability in mind, the oft-cited objection of the right that “we can’t afford guaranteed adequate income” can be turned around. The question becomes “can we afford NOT to pursue GAI / BI models (on both the national and international levels) to ensure economic justice for humanity and the ecological health of the planet?” But this is a huge question that deserves much further exploration and discussion, and no doubt one or more conferences of its own …..

 ***

 To learn more about the BI / GAI debate, you can consult the Economic Security Conference website, http://www.uregina.ca/arts/justice-studies/esc/index.html. More resource material and a report on the Conference will be added to this website in the upcoming weeks.

A brief but incisive article on BI / GAI can be found in the November 2006 CCPA Monitor. It is by Guy Standing, and is entitled “Unions everywhere should campaign for basic income.”

Jim Mulvale

Associate Professor

Dept. of Justice Studies

University of Regina

Comments

More good news. Written by www.livableincome.org on 2007-06-29 17:34:43   4. FINLAND’S PRIME MINISTER SPEAKS FAVORABLY OF BIG    NewsRoom Finland reports that the prime minister of Finland, Matti  Vanhanen, of the Centre Party, said that the structure and level of  basic security should be reappraised, and that the current wide range of  benefits could be replaced by a basic income guarantee of about 600 or  700 euros per month. He argued, however, that BIG should be supplemented  by incentives to encourage those capable of work to enter the labor  market. According to NewsRoom Finland, “Mr Vanhanen's comment comes amid  a clash between the Social Democratic Party [SPD], the Centre's main  government partner, and the opposition Green League over guaranteed  minimum income.” The Finnish Greens accused the Social Democrats of  using made-up arguments to reject basic income. NewsRoom Finland  reported on February 26, “Finland's opposition Green League on Monday  accused the SDP of deploying trumped-up and populist arguments to reject  the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. The Greens' critique was a  response to a report by the Kalevi Sorsa foundation, an SDP-leaning  organization, faulting a basic income scheme as promoted by the Green  League. The leaders of the Green League said in a joint statement that  the foundation's report played down problems related to social security.  Ville Kopra, a researcher, says in the foundation's report that basic  income could endanger both universal validity on the labor market and  earnings-related unemployment security. The Greens say the Social  Democrats' resistance to change is dividing people into two classes  where only those in regular employment should enjoy sufficient basic  security.”    Two reports are on line at:  http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15100&group=Politics  http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15103&group=Politics        8. SEVERAL GERMANS ENDORSE BASIC INCOME    Several Germans have recently endorsed basic income. Ulrich Beck,  prominent sociologist in Germany and author of "The Risk Society," and  Kayja Kipping, chairperson of the left party PDS, have both endorsed  basic income as a way to give workers greater negotiating power to  demand more meaningful work. According to Kipping, many leftist are  uncomfortable with BIG because they suffer from “work fetishism.” Asked  to explain she replied, “Many think only paid work is a valuable  contribution. The ideology ‘whoever doesn't work should not eat' is  malicious. To me, this is a completely strange understanding of  contribution. Persons in the arms industry do social harm through paid  work. On the other hand, many activities that are not paid are important  for society.” Vienna. Should basic security be only for persons willing  to work and the needy? Ronald Blaschke , a philosopher, sociologist,  educator, and spokesperson of the German Basic Income Network also  argued for BIG and against work fetishism in an interview with Beate  Lammer on diepresse.com.    German businessman Gotz Werner argues has been arguing for basic income  in recent years. He renewed his support for BIG in an interview with the  daily die Tageszeitung, last November. The BIEN Newsletter published the  following excerpts from the interview:  Journalist: You speak very positively. You own over 1700 drug stores.  You have annual sales of 3.7 billion Euros. You are one of the 500  richest Germans.  Werner: That is untrue. Like almost all entrepreneurs, I wanted more and  more in the past. Today maximizing meaning is my top priority.  Journalist: Do you see the world with different eyes?  Werner: I have read the classics, Goethe, Schiller. I understand my own  success is not everything. I want to help others succeed. People are  central, not business. I try to imagine a positive world.  Journalist: "Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come," you say.  Werner: Victor Hugo said that. I only quoted him.  Journalist: Is the time right for your idea?  Werner: At least the idea could be discussed at last. Two years ago that  was something for a few experts. The halls are full when I give lectures  today.  Journalist: What has changed?  Werner: The old political slogans have nothing to do with the world  where people live. Unemployment grows despite temporary announcements of  success. Unbridled growth damages our resources. If Angela Merkel would  say "full employment" is possible, nobody would believe her any more…  Journalist: The unconditional basic income already has supporters in the  parties - from left to right. Why is this?  Werner: Because this is the most radical form of socialism and the most  radical form of capitalism. After one of my addresses, a listener wrote  to me: "Your basic income model has reconciled my socialist heart with  my neoliberal mind."    The full interview in German is available at:  http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/11/27/a0146.1/textdruck  An English translation is available at:  http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/14/18337615.php  Other articles on BIG in Germany are on the web at:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/354533.shtml  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/353198.shtml  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/352187.shtml  http://www.diepresse.com/textversion_article.aspx?id=607979  http://www.mbtranslations.com  http://www.commondreams.org  http://www.freitag.de/2006/50/06501501.php.      9. EDUARDO SUPLICY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT BASIC INCOME IN CHINA    Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy, one of the strongest supports of  basic income in any ruling government in the world, recently visited  China and reports substantial hope for the future of basic income in  China. Senator Suplicy spoke about basic income with several  highly-placed officials in the Chinese government. He found that  elements of universal, unconditional support exist in some current  Chinese anti-poverty programs, and that there is some hope the China  will move further in that direction. Suplicy also spoke with Professor  Tian Xiaobao, who is considered to be the first economist in China,  author of a 2006 book on Social Security in China.  According to Suplicy, “It was with Professor Tian Xiaobao that I had my  longest and very productive three hour conversation. After explaining  all the advantages of an unconditional basic income to him, after  describing experience of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend System and  the perspective of having such a system in Brazil, I asked him whether  he considered possible to think about having the institution of an  inconditional basic income for all 1 billion and 300 million or more  Chinese in the future. Professor Tain Xiaobao answered that he  considered the Basic Income a very sound and rational proposal, making  sense and being consistent with the objective of building a harmonious  society, such as advocated by Confucius 520 years before Christ. It is  also consistent with the objectives of today's Chinese government. He  told me, however, that to attain the objective of paying a basic income  to all Chinese, it would be required a time of preparation for the next  three quinquenal plans. Thus, a Basic Income would be desirable and  possible in 2020.”

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!