The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Newsletter, October 2000 This is the newsletter for USBIG the US Basic Income Guarantee Network. If you would like to be removed from the list simply reply and ask to be removed. If you know anyone who would like to be added to this list, please ask them to send their email address to this box. CONTENTS: 1. UPCOMING USBIG SEMINAR 2. THE 8TH BIEN CONGRESS 3. RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON THE BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE 4. LINKS AND OTHER INFO 1. UPCOMING USBIG SEMINAR at Columbia University, Nov. 3. Brian Steensland, of Princeton University, will present "Defining Welfare: Media Depictions of the Struggle over Guaranteed Income, 1966-1980" at the October/November USBIG Seminar. The seminar will take place Friday, November 3rd from 5 to 7 PM in room 411 of Fayerweather Hall in the Sociology Department of Columbia University on main campus next to St. Paul's Chapel near the entrance at Amsterdam Avenue and 117th Street. 2. THE 8TH BIEN CONGRESS The Basic Income European Network (BIEN) held it's 8th Congress in Berlin on October 6 and 7. Two hundred people attended from twenty countries including a several attendees from the United States and Canada. Most of the presentations at the Congress focused on four themes: "Legitimizing Non-Market Work," "Lifetime Flexibility and Income Security," "Citizenship Rights, Responsibility, and Paternalism," and "Basic Income and Social Cohesion in an Integrating Europe." All of the papers at the conference can be downloaded from BIEN's website (link below). BIEN's executive committee met and decided that the next Congress will be held in Geneva in September 2002. 3. RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON THE BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE (Reprinted from the BIEN newsflash) COHEN, Joshua and ROGERS, Joel eds., Delivering Basic Incomes, special issue of the Boston Review 25 (5), October-November 2000 (http://bostonreview.mit.edu). This is probably the most substantial published debate on basic income in the US since the early seventies. It is published in the MIT-based bimonthly political-literary magazine Boston Review and will be republished in the Spring of 2001 in the form of a book published by Beacon Press in its "New Democracy Forum" series under the title What's Wrong with a Free Lunch? In the lead piece, Philippe Van Parijs (University of Louvain) sketches the case for basic income in today's North-American context. It is followed by fifteen comments by leading intellectuals, most of them from the US. The overall tone of the responses is surprisingly (and unrepresentatively) sympathetic. Thus the LSE economist Ronald Dore ("Dignity and Deprivation") and the Nobel laureate in economics Herbert A. Simon ("Universal Basic Income and the Flat Tax") provide neat formulations of a justification of an unconditional basic income as a fair distribution of what we owe to the luck of our circumstances. The Yale University professor of tax lawh Anne Alstott ("Good for Women") emphasises the many ways in which a basic income would be particularly favourable to women. Katherine Mcfate ("A Debate We Need"), of the Rockefeller Foundation, argues that a debate on basic income in the US should get off the ground and that the discussion of family policy p^rovides a promising point of departure. Gar Alperovitz ("On Liberty"), president of the Washington-based Center for economic and security alternatives, argues that it would contribute to the citizens' economic independence which a democracy requires. The Cambridge University historian of economic thought Emma Rothschild ("Security and Laissez-Faire" ) reminds the readers of the efficiency arguments for economic security to be found in Condorcet and Adam Smith, but also urges them to take the inbternational dimension into account. Fred Block ("Why Pay Bill Gates?"), professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, argues for the negative income tax variant of basic income on the ground that it is less costly. Bill Galston, Elizabeth Anderson and Brian Barry, professors of political philosophy at the Universities of Maryland, of Michigan and Columbia, respectively, all have misgivings about a philosophical justification of an unconditional basic income in terms of justice as real freedom for all. But whereas Galston ("What about reciprocity?") holds that social justice is better served by a package of more conditional measures, Anderson ("Freedom and Responsibility") is sensitive to the stigma associated with more targeted programmes and seems to acknowledge the legitimacy of a case resting on equal property rights, as in Alaska's dividend programme, and Barry ("Universal Basic Income and the Work Ethic") develops a forceful pragmatic case in favour of an unconditional basic income, with a participation income as a possibly unavoidable intermediate step. This is also the opinion of Robert Goodin ("Something for Nothing?"), professor of political philosophy at the Australian National University, who argues that the flux of today's careers and life patterns makes an undifferentiated income guarantee the only workable alternative to a highly discretionary and arbitrary assistance system. In a similar spirit, Claus Offe ("Pathways from Here"), professor of social theory at Humboldt University in Berlin, sketches various strategies through which basic income could be gradually approximated. In very different styles, the Georgetown University Professor of Law Peter Edelman ("The Bigger Picture") and the leader of the low-income people's association ACORN, Wade Rathke ("Falling in Love Again"), both express scepticism as to whether the fight for such an ambitious objective is worth while, given the energy it would divert from the pursuit of more achievable goals . The most hostile piece is by Columbia University economist Ned Phelps ("Subsidize Wages"). He notes that "most of western Europe has already gone a long way toward providing universal - that is, unconditional - benefits to its citizens" and takes his hat off for what he describes as "the strongest imaginable case for going the rest of the way with a universal basic income". But in the name of what he takes to be "America's collective project", he argues that this is not the way the U.S. must go. For massive subsidies focused on low-paid full time work are a far more effective way of anabling everyone to gain "a sense of contributing something to the country's collective project, which is business". The collection closes with a brief response by Philippe Van Parijs CHRISTENSEN, Erik. "Citizen's Income as a Heretical Political Discourse: The Danish Debate about Basic Income", in Inclusion and Exclusion: Unemployment and Non-Standard Employment in Europe (Jens Lind & Iver Hornemann Møller eds.), Aldershot (UK): Ashgate, 1999, 13-34. Basic income first erupted into Denmark's political discourse through the major impact of Oprør fra midten (København: Gyldendal, 1978, English translation: Revolt from the Centre, London: Marion Boyars, 1981) by the physicist Niels Meyer, the philosopher Villy Sørensen and the politician Kristen Helveg Petersen. Ever since, it has come and gone, with different connotations and degrees of marginality. "A further new discourse around the idea, so pitched as to bring together support from among socialists, liberals, feminists and 'greens' is still awaiting its relaisation. History seems to show that the idea has a vitality which allows it to re-appear in new shape, even after it has been forgotten for a time." GROOT, Loek & VAN DER VEEN, Robert (eds.) Basic Income on the Agenda: Policy Objectives and Political Chances. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. September 2000, Dfl 70,- 280pp Persisting unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, labour market, flexibility, job insecurity and higher wage inequality, changing patters of work and family life are among the factors that exert pressure on welfare states in Europe. After a short preface by Finland's Minister of Social Affairs and long-time BIEN member Osmo Soininvaara and a substantial introduction by the the volume editors and orgnisers of BIEN's 1998 Congress Loek Groot (University of Amsterdam) and Robert van der Veen (Warwick University), part I explores the potential of an unconditional basic income as a way of fighting unemployment without reducing poverty. The contrast between basic income and more employment-focused subsidies is at the focus of the chapters by Paul de Beer, economist at the Dutch Social Planning Bureau and initiator of the basic income discussion within the Dutch social-democratic party PvdA ("In Search of the Double-edged Sword"), by Philippe Van Parijs, professor at at the University of Louvain, and his research assistants Claudio Salinas and Laurence Jacquet ("Basic Income and its Cognates"), by Frank Vandenbroucke, Belgium's federal Minister for social affairs, and his collaborator Tom van Puyenbroeck ("Activation and the Burden of Working"), by Joachim Mitschke, professor of public finance at the University of Frankfurt ("Arguing for a Negative Income Tax in Germany"), by Anton Hemerijk, joint author of the recent report on income security for the Portuguese presidency of the European Union ("Prospects for Basic Income in an Age of Inactivity?") and by Indrid Robeyns, economist at the University of Cambridge ("Hush Money or Emancipation Fee? A Gender Analysis of Basic Income"). The European dimension is at the core of the chapters by Steve Quilley, sociologist at University College Dublin ("European Basic Income or the Race to the Bottom") and Fritz Scharpf, director of Cologne's Max Planck Institute ("Basic Income and Social Europe"), whose striking critical reflections at BIEN's 1998 Amsterdam Congress is here followed by a comment by Philippe Van Parijs ("Basic Income at the Heart of Social Europe? Reply to Fritz Scharpf"). Part II turns to the political chances of basic income in various European countries. Loek Groot and Robert-Jan van der Veen (the editors of the volume) present some "clues and leads in the policy debate on basic income in the Netherlands", while Erik Christensen and Jörn Loftager take the readers through "the ups and downs of basic income in Denmark ". Jan-Otto Andersson (professor at Abo University, in Eastern Finland) asks "why Basic Income thrills the Finns, but not the Swedes". Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds, the members of the Justice commission of the Conference of Religious of Ireland who have stimulated the Irish debate more than anyone else explain how "basic income is being put on the political agenda in Ireland". Stefan Lessenich (University of Göttingen) despondently surveys "the debate on social policy reform in Germany". Chantal Euzéby (University of Grenoble) sketches "the reforms that the minimum income provision needs in France". Finally, Yannick Vanderborght describes "the VIVANT Experiment ", i.e. the fate of the single-issue party that campaigned for a generous VAT-funded basic income and got 2% of the vote at Belgium's 1999 election. HUBER, Joseph & ROBERTSON, James. Creating New Money. A Monetary Reform for the Information Age. London: New Economics Foundation (www.neweconomics.org, info@neweconomics.org.uk), 2000, 92p., £ 7.95, ISBN 1 899407 29 4. (Authors' addresses: Institut für Soziologie, Martin-Luther-Universität, D-06099 Halle, huber@soziologie.uni-halle.de, The Old Bakehouse, Cholsey, OX10 9NU, England, robertson@tp2000.demon.co.uk.) The fruit of collaboration between a German academic and a British economic writer, this books argues for one reform: the reappropriation by governements of the right of seigniorage now possessed by private banks. About 95% of new money currently issued takes the form of loans made by private banks to their customers. Huber and Robertson want to make this illegal. The creation of new money, both cash and non-cash, should be the exclusive prerogative of the Central Bank. The latter should determine how much it creates in the light of the objectives chosen for the country's monetary policy, and credit the new money to the government, who will then put it into circulation by spending it. What on? The government of the day should decide. This would however be a natural source of funding - through "distribution" rather than "redistribution" - of a modest and fluctuating basic income, as explained by Huber in his earlier, more technical book (Vollgeld, Berlin, 1998) but not taken up in this more shorter and more accessible presentation of the reform proposal. SCHMITTER, Philippe. "The scope of citizenship in a democratized European Union: From Economic to Political to Social and Cultural ?", abridged as Chapter 3 of Ph. Schmitter, How to Democratize the European Union ... and Why Bother? Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000; forthcoming (expanded) in the European Journal for Social Policy. (Author's address: European University Institute, Department of Political and Social Sciences, CP 2330, I - 50100 FIRENZE, schmitte@datacomm.iue.it.) Among a number of proposals, some modest, others less so, that may help enhance the legitimacy of the European Union in its citizens' eyes, Professor Philippe Schmitter, professor of political science at the European University Institute(Florence), puts forward the idea of a Euro-stipendium. "An Euro-stipendium would consist of the monthly payment of a stipulated amount of Euros to all citizens or permanent residents living within the EU whose total earnings correspond to less than one-third of the average income of everyone living within the EU." Schmitter is aware of some of the drawbacks of mean-tested schemes. "It is not even too far-fetched to imagine", he therefore hopes, "that this means-tested welfare policy could eventually be converted into a universalistic one that would provide a minimal basic income to everyone, regardless of his or her earned income." It is interesting to quote at length the two reasons why this renown European Union specialist believes the Euro-stipendium to be an idea whose time has come: "One predictable effect of a single European currency and interest rate will be increasing regional disparities within member countries. The present policy of structural/regional funds is much too rigid to cope with such an eventuality - especially if the increased inequalities at the margin are not concentrated in areas already designed for such funds. The Euro-stipendium would both ensure that all those dramatically and negatively affected would be protected and it is not tied to any fixed territorial criterion. Those who slipped into extreme poverty as an indirect and unintended consequence of monetary unification would be protected no matter where they lived and no matter whether others in their vicinity were similarly affected. Moreover, the compensation would be automatic and not necessitate the (time-consuming, costly and politically contingent) intervention of price-setting committees or project designers. But the major appeal stems from the anticipated impact of Eastern Enlargement. Everyone recognises that the existing EU welfare policies of agricultural subsidies and regional grants cannot simply be extended eastwards without very substantial and politically discriminatory modifications." VAN DER LINDEN, Bruno. "Fighting unemployment without worsening poverty : Basic income versus reductions of social security contributions", in Wiemer Salverda, Claudio Lucifora and Brian Nolan (eds.) Policy Measures for Low-Wage Employment in Europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2000, pp 93-120. ISBN: 1 84064 410 9. (Author's address: IRES, 3 Place Montesquieu, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, vanderlinden@ires.ucl.ac.be ) In this technical article, the labour economist and new chairman of Louvain University's economic research institute Bruno Van der Linden analyses a reduction of social security contributions and the introduction of a basic income (or, equivalently, of a negative income tax) in a dynamic general equilibrium framework with imperfect competition on the labour market (the so-called 'wage-setting/price-setting' model, with workers possessing either all the same skills, or two levels of skills). It turns out that both policies have a favourable long-run effect on the unemployment rate if they are appropriately designed, and that they can constitute Pareto improvements, i.e. make at least some better off without making anyone worse off. WHITE, Stuart. Review Article: Social Rights and the Social Contract - Political Theory and the New Welfare Politics", in Britisch Journal for Political Science 30, 2000, 507-32. (Author's address: Jesus College, Oxford, One major theme in contemporary debates about the welfare state throughout Europe is that "access to welfare benefits is one side of a contract between citizen and community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the individual citizen is obliged to meet". In this well-documented and well-structured article, Stuart White, fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, where he teaches political philosophy, investigates the normative underpinnings of this welfare contractualism. The last section is entitled "Basic income: an alternative to welfare contractualism?" He first summarises the principled justification of the basic income proposal to be found in Van Parijs's Real Freedom for All (OUP, 1995), but remains unpersuaded: "It is, I think, by no means clear that [a citizen surfer's] claim on society's supply of job assets carries the same moral weight as the claim made by an individual who wishes to make a productive contribution, or indeed any moral weight at all." However, White does find the idea of basic income attractive because it is likely to have a number of desirable effects from the standpoint of the normatively appropriate standpoint of "fair reciprocity", such as a reduction of the pressure to accept unpleasant jobs or the provision of an income to those who perform unpaid care work. True, some other measures could conceivable have the same effects without violating reciprocity. But in White's view, this defense of basic income is "proimising", and it "can be made even stronger" if we "complement the original basic income proposal so as to speak directly to the concern of fair reciprocity, for example by adding some broad participation condition (as proposed by A.B. Atkinson), or by combining it with a comulsory civic service (as proposed by André Gorz or Ronald Dore), or by imposing a time-limit on the enjoyment of a basic income: "moderated basic income proposals of this kind may have a useful contribution to make to the creation of a form of economic citizenship that satisfies the demands of fair reciprocity". 4. LINKS AND OTHER INFO: The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) can be reached at: www.usbig.net or by email at: widerquist@levy.org. There are several other BIG organizations and BIG web sites around the world including: The Basic Income European Network maintains a website and a newsletter and promotes basic income in Europe and around the world. If you are interested in finding out more about it, see the BIEN website: http://www.econ.ucl.ac.be/ETES/BIEN/bien.html Britain's Citizens' Income Trust publishes a newsletter and maintains a website; both have news on basic income/citizen's income from the United Kingdom and around the world. See their website: http://www.citizensincome.org Email: citizens-income@lse.ac.uk An email discussion group on basic income is up and running in Canada. If you're interested contact: Sally Lerner The Australian Basic Income group, OASIS, publishes an email newsletter. Anyone interested in receiving a copy should contact: Allan McDonald Tim Rourke maintains a BIG website: http://www3.sympatico.ca/tim.rourke/bi.html MATS HÖGLUND has created two web sites about the basic income guarantee: In English: http://go.to/basicincomemovement And in Swedish: http://go.to/basinkomst The Geonomy Society, which promotes using land taxes to support a universal basic income guarantee, can be reached by contacting: SMITH, Jeffrey J. President, the Geonomy Society, Portland, Oregon, USA www.progress.org/geonomy Manfred Fuellsack maintains an extensive BI bibliography on line at: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~fuellsm9/bibliobi.html Though it isn't guaranteed income, Social Agenda sponsors a Caregivers Tax Credit Campaign. It will distribute income to anyone caring for (directly or indirectly) another human in need. It is self declaring, administratively simple and a logical extension of what is already quasi in place. Feedback and all other forms of participation are welcome. Their website is: www.caregivercredit.org If you have any news on basic income or any comments on the newsletter or the web site, please let me know. If you know anyone who would like to be added to this list please ask them to contact me. If you'd like to be removed from this list please email me. -Karl Widerquist, coordinator, US BIG.