Does Basic Income make sense as a worldwide project? - Philippe Van Parijs

This paper was presented by ;Philippe Van Parijs to the closing session of the 9th BIEN Congress in the ILO office in Geneva on September 14, 2002.
The full text may be accessed here.

Progressing Basic Income on a Range of Fronts

Progressing Basic Income on a Range of Fronts Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds

BIEN Conference, Paper presented in Berlin, October 2000

Abstract

Debate on basic income has focused mainly on 'what' and 'why'; this paper deals mainly with 'how', where' and 'when'. Our involvement in the ongoing work of proposing the introduction of a basic income system and developing a viable model for implementation has been predicated on the view that basic income is worthwhile because it fulfils certain principles. Various tax reforms are under consideration in Ireland, including basic income and refundable tax credits; these can lead to identical outcomes for citizens in terms of net incomes. In addition, there are other pathways towards basic income. Accordingly, progress towards basic income is best considered across a number of fronts.

1. Introduction

A great deal has been written on Basic Income in recent years and the volume of that writing appears to be growing substantially. Much of what has been written, however, has focused on responding to the questions 'What is Basic Income?' and 'Why should a Basic Income system be introduced?' Far less has been written to address key questions that are constantly raised by policy makers and others once they become aware of basic income and seek either to promote or reject it as a policy option. These questions include

• How could a basic income system be introduced?
• How would it meet some key policy objectives of particular political parties or governments?
• When could it be implemented?
• Are there stages through which its implementation could/should proceed?
• Where can progress be made in the policy context to ensure that the introduction of basic income is more likely?

This paper is about a little 'why' and more 'how' 'when' and 'where'

2. Guiding Principles

First, a little on the question 'why?' Basic Income is not an end in itself. Rather, we support the introduction of a full Basic Income system because it is the best way we know to fulfil certain principles.

There are eight principles that we believe should guide any tax/welfare system.

The first principle we identify is that nature and its resources are for the benefit of all. No one should be excluded from participating in, and benefiting from, economic growth.

The second principle we identify is adequacy. All citizens have a right to an income sufficient to live life with basic dignity. To be adequate payments must prevent income poverty in the contemporary context of a particular society. In its National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS), the Irish government gave the following definition of poverty.

People are living in poverty if their income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally. As a result of inadequate income and resources people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities which are considered the norm for other people in society.

A minimum income guarantee should be set at a poverty line as defined by NAPS.

The third principle we identify is that of guarantee. Knowing the level at which an adequate income should be set is not enough. This income level should be guaranteed. The only way this can be done is to place the guarantee on a statutory basis. Only then can we be sure that every citizen will receive an adequate income. It is important to note that having such a guarantee does not mean that all the income would have to come from the State. It could, for example, in whole or in part, come from payment for a job. The statutory guarantee would ensure that unemployed people and those in low-paid employment would be assured of a minimum income which was adequate to live with dignity.

The fourth principle we identify is that the adequate income must be provided on a penalty-free basis. Some welfare systems are experienced as degrading by many recipients. Some tax and welfare systems are linked in such a way that poverty traps abound and many unemployed people face income losses if they take up a job. An adequate income guarantee system should ensure that all receive the adequate income without encountering these or other penalties.

Our fifth principle concerns equity and equality. This means that the system should promote both horizontal and vertical equity. It would also include gender equity. This, in practice, would mean that inequalities in income would be reduced and resources transferred to ensure that everyone received the basic payment to which they were entitled. It would also involve an equitable sharing of the costs of such a system. Within this principle it would also follow that identical needs and circumstances should be dealt with identically.

The sixth principle we identify concerns efficiency. When we speak of efficiency here, we are not referring to economic efficiency alone. Nor do we believe that an adequate income guarantee system has to provide conditions that produce optimal growth. Rather, we believe that this system should have a positive impact, relative to the status quo, on both the situation of the worst-off in society and on the socio-economic situation as a whole.

The seventh principle concerns simplicity. As far as possible an adequate income system should be simple to understand and to administer. Many social welfare systems are complex. This complexity leads to increased administrative costs, constant confusion, delays and (unintended) victimisation. In practice, many people fail to claim their full entitlements. It should not be beyond the capacity of society to devise a simpler system that would also follow the principles listed here.

The eighth principle we propose concerns freedom. We believe that an adequate income guarantee system should promote autonomy and reduce dependency. The present system forces many people into a dependency situation. For example, some social welfare systems force people to do nothing as a condition of receiving their payment. This conditionality creates a dependency culture. In the case of couples receiving social welfare payments one is treated as a "dependent" of the other. In most welfare systems people in receipt of payments lose benefits if they earn money through work, some even lose if they take up study. This reduces their autonomy. A more progressive system is required which encourages and promotes the involvement of every person in the social, economic, political and cultural life of the society.

The principles outlined above were developed to help in assessing whether or not a particular proposal was likely to be acceptable and which, among competing proposals, would be most acceptable.

3. Why Basic Income?

In our work on Basic Income we have always been guided by the core concern of developing an income distribution system that would ensure every person in society had sufficient income to live life with dignity. For us, this has been a core justice issue that was not being given appropriate priority in most economic and political arenas. We were also very attracted to a Basic Income approach because it addressed the huge changes emerging in the labour market and recognised the critical distinction between work and employment. Too often, modern economic and political thinking tended to equate these two concepts and see them as identical. To us it was clear that very large numbers of people were doing a great amount of work every day and this work was not recognised as employment. One consequence of this approach was that much work was/is not valued as an essential component of the progress of society. We have written extensively in other publications on the reasons why we believe policy makers should adopt a Basic Income approach. (1)

At all times we have been very conscious of the social, economic, political and cultural terrain within which we sought the introduction of a Basic Income system. We recognised that introducing a Basic Income system would demand huge transformation in this terrain. We have constantly insisted that we should not allow "the best to be the enemy of the good". We were prepared to consider staging posts along the way to a destination of a full Basic Income system. We have always been prepared to look at a wide range of pathways along which this project could travel before arriving at its final destination.

4. Pathways to a Basic Income

There are four main pathways to the introduction of a Basic Income system. These are:

• All at once
• By Groups
• Step by step

Via Tax credits or negative income tax.

The first of these is the least likely. It would demand a huge change that most, if not all, political systems would be afraid to risk. Insisting on an 'all at once' approach, in our experience, simply frightens politicians and results in the building of substantial, and totally unnecessary, resistance to even looking at or considering a Basic Income system.

Looking at the other three approaches, however, it appears to us that these are viable, individually or in tandem, as pathways to the introduction of a Basic Income system. In their study of the Irish system Charles M.A.Clark and John Healy (2) opted for a step by step approach as the smoothest pathway.

It is important to recognise and acknowledge that suitably configured refundable tax credits and negative income tax can deliver an identical net income to every citizen as Basic Income. Consequently, we believe that Basic Income can be viewed both as an objective in itself and as a criterion for assessing progress towards the most desired destination.

It makes no practical sense to simply insist on the superiority of Basic Income over all other systems while ignoring the substantial similarity between Basic Income, Negative Income Tax and Refundable Tax Credits.

5. The Irish Experience

Developments in Ireland are interesting in this regard. Sean Ward (1998) has provided a comprehensive overview of how the debate in Ireland progressed up to 1998. We will not repeat that here.

The need for integrating the tax and welfare systems has been widely acknowledged for a number of decades. Competing proposals on how to progress such integration have been advocated and discussed. CORI has been to the forefront in advocating the introduction of a Basic Income system.

In the last few years there have been a number of very interesting and useful developments in this area. Among these have been:

• The introduction of a tax credits systems.
• The use of tax credits to make payments to stay-at-home spouses with caring duties.
• The commissioning of a number of studies on Basic Income by a Government-appointed working group. These have examined its viability, its costs, its distributional impacts and its impact in labour market terms. The publication of these studies is imminent (October 2000). This work followed a commitment in the national agreement Partnership 2000 that covered the period 1997-2000.
• The commitment by the present Government to produce a Green Paper on Basic Income. The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) has confirmed this commitment recently.
• The acceptance by the National Economic and Social Council (in December 1999) of the value of investigating the impact of making tax credits refundable.
• The establishment in October 2000 of a working group, chaired by the Department of Finance, to investigate the viability and impact of introducing refundable tax credits. This was a commitment agreed as part of the new national agreement the Programme for Prosperity and Progress (PPF) (2000).
• Agreement, as part of the PPF that a review be conducted of the strategic options for the future of the tax and welfare systems over the next 10 years, taking account of emerging trends and policy objectives. This review is now underway and will include Basic Income as part of its overview. The review is to be completed by September 2001.

What we are witnessing here is a very vibrant, ongoing debate about the shape and integration of the tax and welfare systems. This debate involves Government, civil servants, the Revenue Commissioners (who are responsible for collecting tax), academics and all four pillars of social partners (employers, trade unions, farmers and the community and voluntary pillar).

Substantial changes have been introduced that can be seen as very progressive from a Basic Income perspective. Principal among these has been the introduction of a tax credits system for all income tax payers. All income tax payers now have the same tax credit. Consequently, increasing tax credits in the annual budget, combined with standard rating of all discretionary tax allowances, provides government, at present, with a means of achieving greater equity among the top two-thirds of households in income terms. This is far closer to the Basic Income ideal than the previous tax-free allowance system that gave larger benefits to those with higher incomes. Chart 1 shows the impact on income distribution if the Irish government increased the current tax credit by IR£100 a year in its next budget. It is clear that, once a person has sufficient income to benefit fully from such an increase, all income groups benefit equally.

However, equity between the low-paid and better off would require not only that the value of tax credits be increased but also that tax credits be made 'refundable'. When the tax credit is not refundable those with incomes so low that their tax bill is lower than the value of the tax credit do not benefit from any increase in the value of that tax credit. This is clearly seen in Chart 1 where couples with low incomes do not benefit from the increase of IR£100 illustrated in the example provided.

When tax credits are refundable those whose tax bills are less than the credit receive a payment equal to the difference. The main beneficiaries of refundable tax credits would be low-paid employees. This is illustrated in Chart 2 where we show the impacts if the current tax credit in Ireland were made refundable. All the benefit goes to those on low incomes.

The major advantage of making tax credits refundable would be in addressing the disincentives currently associated with low paid employment. If refundable tax credits were introduced, subsequent increases in the level of the tax credit would then be of equal value to all employees.

The commitment to examine what impact refundable tax credits would have, and the work currently being undertaken in this area, mark significant progress towards addressing the major weakness we identified in the current system. They also move the present tax and welfare system closer to a Basic Income system.

With a refundable tax credit system in place every adult with a job would, in effect, gain the full value of a tax credit. Almost every other adult in the country i.e. adults without a job, are entitled to a social welfare payment. All that is required is to designate a part of the social welfare payment equivalent to the tax credit as a tax credit and reduce the social welfare payment accordingly. Then we have a situation where everyone has an effective tax credit. The simplest way to administer this refundable tax credit system would be to pay it as a Basic Income.

Every child in the country already has a tax-free child benefit payment paid to its parents or carers. This, in effect, is a Basic Income.

Consequently, the path currently being followed in Ireland could be transformed, rather easily, into a Basic Income system. (The issue of adequacy is a separate issue we address later in this paper.)

6. Acknowledging Progress, Challenging Regression

Involvement in advocacy for Basic Income requires acknowledgement of progress where that occurs. It also requires criticism of backward steps (such as widening the income gaps between rich and poor). Consequently, ongoing analysis and critique of policy proposals and budgetary action is required. In Ireland CORI does this analysis on an annual basis. Each year we produce a socio-economic review that analyses and critiques the various policy proposals being advocated in the public arena and/or being considered by government. We also update the Basic Income numbers (e.g. payment levels, tax rates etc.). Each year we also publish a detailed analysis and critique of the government's budget as soon as it has been announced. Within this process we highlight the contrast between the impact of government's actions and the impact of introducing a Basic Income system. In all of this work we take great care to acknowledge progress as well as to challenge regression.

We believe that progress towards substantial Refundable Tax Credits or Negative Income Tax, with the removal of discretionary tax breaks, constitutes progress towards Basic Income. Progress along these lines leads to fulfilment of the principles that Basic Income serves and that we have identified earlier in this paper. Consequently we welcome such developments and acknowledge them as progress.

If/when substantial Refundable Tax Credits or Negative Income Tax has been achieved the switch to BI will be easy. The merits of the switch will be considered under headings such as dignity, customer service, administration costs and simplicity.

7. Advocating Basic Income on Other Fronts

In the ongoing discussions, debates and advocacy of Basic Income it is important to keep in mind that work is required on different fronts. The economics of Basic Income must be constantly assessed. This has both macro and micro dimensions - ranging from its impact on the labour market or migration patterns to the levels at which payments are made and the tax rate it requires or the tax base on which it is to be developed. Work at this level is fundamental and must be constantly pursued. Otherwise the argument may be lost because its viability in economic terms may not be obvious at first glance. For us the issue of adequacy is crucial. Consequently, we have constantly argued that the level at which the Basic Income payments are set for adults and children need not be very high but should be sufficient to enable people live life with basic dignity. This position must also be argued and justified if it is to be accepted eventually.

The politics of Basic Income is another dimension that must be constantly reviewed. A recent study for the Citizens Income Study Centre in the UK, and co-sponsored by CORI, (Jordan et al, 2000) analysed the political cultures of the UK and Ireland on the issue of tax-benefit reform and their implications for the introduction of Basic Income. It took a different approach to that pursued by CORI in Ireland. It sought to persuade the Labour Party in the UK that Basic Income is implicit in various statements of the party's objectives. CORI, by contrast, has sought to present the feasibility, desirability and impact of introducing a Basic Income system in Ireland. Different political situations require different responses. A review of the UK study in the Financial Times engaged with the study's approach in a positive way, which is interesting in this context. In Ireland there is an open attitude to Basic Income, which is recognised in the UK study referred to above. CORI has sought to facilitate analysis and debate in the Irish context and continues to do so with some success in terms of keeping Basic Income on the Irish political agenda.

The cultural arguments for Basic Income also require constant attention. This dimension is crucial because the economic arguments may be won but the political system may reject the introduction of a Basic Income system because it is perceived as being at odds with values such as efficiency, personal responsibility, participation etc. In our view Basic Income supports each of these values. It also supports a range of other values that are considered as important in much of the debate about the core culture of a modern society. This may not be obvious, however, and must be argued and pursued constantly.

Finally, the social dimension of introducing a Basic Income system must also be pursued. Some have argued against it because it would create new exclusions. Others have suggested that it would allow the lazy to benefit at the expense of others. We don't believe either of these suggestions is true. However, the case has to be constantly argued and presented in a way that makes sense to the wider society. Otherwise the overall argument may well be lost. In this context the issue of adequacy arises again. If the payments levels are too low they will not ensure that everyone has sufficient income to live life with basic dignity. If this were to happen then the Basic Income system would fail to meet the requirements of at least one of the guiding principles already identified in this paper, principles we believe should guide any tax/welfare system.

8. Conclusion

CORI's involvement with Basic Income has been predicated on the view that Basic Income is a worthwhile objective to fulfil certain principles. Various tax reforms are under consideration in Ireland, including Basic Income and refundable tax credits. These can lead to identical outcomes for people in terms of net incomes. In addition, there are other pathways towards Basic Income. These have to be presented, analysed and discussed if they are to be engaged with and acted upon. Likewise, the economic, political, cultural and social dimensions of introducing a Basic Income system must be presented, analysed and discussed if this approach is to be adopted. Accordingly, progress towards Basic Income is best considered across a number of fronts

REFERENCES:

Callan, Tim, Cathal O'Donoghue and Ciaran O'Neill (1994), Analysis of Basic Income Schemes for Ireland, Dublin: ESRI.

Callan, Tim, B. Nolan, B.J. Whelan, C.T. Whelan and J. Williams (1996), Poverty in the 1990s: Evidence from the 1994 Living in Ireland Survey, Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Clark, Charles M.A., and Catherine Kavanagh (1995), "Basic Income and the Irish Worker" in Brigid Reynolds and Sean Healy (eds.), An Adequate Income Guarantee for All, Dublin: CORI.

Clark, Charles M.A., and John Healy (1997a), Pathways to a Basic Income, Dublin: CORI.

CORI (1994), Tackling Poverty, Unemployment and Exclusion: A Moment of Great Opportunity, Dublin: CORI.

CORI (1995), Ireland for All, Dublin: CORI.

CORI ((1998) Priorities for Progress, Dublin: CORI.

Dowling, Brendan (1977), Integrated Approaches to Personal Income Taxes and Transfers, Dublin: National Economic and Social Council.

Healy, Sean and Brigid Reynolds (1994). "Arguing for an Adequate Income Guarantee" in Brigid Reynolds and Sean Healy (eds.), Towards an Adequate Income for All, Dublin: CORI.

Healy, Sean and Brigid Reynolds (1995). "An Adequate Income Guarantee for All" in Brigid Reynolds and Sean Healy (eds.), An Adequate Income Guarantee for All, Dublin: CORI.

Honohan, Patrick (1987), "A Radical Reform of Social Welfare and Income Tax Evaluated", Administration, Vol. 35, No. 1.

Jordan, Bill, Phil Agulnik, Duncan Burbidge and Stuart Duffin, (2000) Stumbling Towards Basic Income, London: Citizens Income Study Centre.

Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness (1996), Dublin: Stationary Office.

Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000), Dublin: Stationary Office.

Report of the Commission on Social Welfare (1986), Dublin: Stationery office.

Report of the Working Group on the Integration of the Tax and Social Welfare Systems, (1996), Dublin: Stationary Office.

Reynolds, Brigid and Sean Healy (eds.) (1994), Towards an Adequate Income for All, Dublin: CORI.

Reynolds, Brigid and Sean Healy (eds.) (1995), An Adequate Income Guarantee for All: Desirability, Viability, Impact, Dublin: CORI.

Ward, Seán (1994), "A Basic Income System for Ireland" in Brigid Reynolds and Seán Healy (eds.), Towards an Adequate Income for all, Dublin: CORI.

Ward, Sean (1998), "Basic Income" in Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds (eds.), Social Policy in Ireland, Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Notes

(1) Among our publications addressing this issue are New Frontiers for Full Citizenship (1993), Towards an Adequate Income For All (1994), An Adequate Income Guarantee For All: Desirability, Viability, Impact. (1995), Surfing the Income Net (19997), Priorities for Progress (1998). Other CORI publications addressing the same issues include Pathways to a Basic Income (1997) by Charles M>A> Clark and John Healy and Basic Income in a 21st Century Economy by Charles M. A. Clark (forthcoming).

(2) Pathways to a Basic Income, (1997), Dublin: CORI.

Impact Basic Income would have on poverty in Ireland - Government's Green Paper conclusion

Basic Income
"...the Basic Income system studied would have a substantial impact on the distribution of income in Ireland in that, compared with conventional options, it would on average improve the incomes of 70% of households in the bottom four income deciles ...and raise more than half of those who would be below the 40% poverty line under conventional options above this line."
Irish Government's Green Paper on Basic Income 4
 
 

Full text of the Irish Government's Green Paper on Basic Income

Full text of Irish Government's Green Paper on Basic Income published September 2002 may be accessed here.

CORI Justice: statement on the Irish Government-funded Reports for the Working Group on Basic Income

CORI Justice statement on the Irish Government-funded Reports for the Working Group on Basic Income.

March 26th, 2001.

The following are the points contained in the CORI Justice Commission statement:

CORI Justice Commission has welcomed the Final Report of the Working Group on Basic Income.

In particular it has welcomed the fact that the Report vindicates CORI Justice Commission's claims that a Basic Income system would have a far more positive impact on reducing poverty than the present tax and welfare systems.

The ESRI study done for the Working Group found that a Basic Income system would have a substantial impact on the distribution of income in Ireland in that, compared with the present tax and welfare system it would:

• Improve the incomes of 70% of households in the bottom four deciles (i.e. the four tenths of the population with lowest incomes) and
• Raise half of the individuals that would be below the 40% poverty line under 'conventional' options above this poverty line.

According to the Report, these impacts would be achieved without any resources additional to those available to 'conventional' options.

The Working Group's Report also found that the tax rate (including PRSI replacement) required to fund Basic Income, based on January 1999 estimates, would be 47%. Since then the economy has grown significantly and the revised rate, based on Revenue Commissioners estimates of the tax base, is 42.7%.

This shows that a Basic Income system is far more effective at tackling poverty and should form part of a comprehensive strategy to totally eliminate income poverty in the years immediately ahead.

Government should now honour its commitment to publish a Green Paper on Basic Income. Implementation of this commitment has been delayed pending receipt of this Working Group's Report. Now that its results are available it should be relatively easy for Government to publish its long-promised Green Paper.

The Report should also be considered by the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) as it prepares its study on the medium-term development of the tax and welfare systems. This study was promised as part of the new national agreement, The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).

Looking at the 'losers' identified in the Report, there are two key issues that need to be borne in mind:

Over a three-year implementation period of a Basic Income system all the 'losers' would be better off than they are at present. They would simply not gain as much under Basic Income as they would under the present system.

The 'losers' in the bottom four deciles identified in the Report can be easily targeted and compensated through the Social Solidarity Fund that forms part of the Basic Income structure

On the macro-economic aspects the Report itself acknowledges that the findings were very tentative, speculative and hard to quantify. However, it welcomed the Report's conclusion that a basic income system could encourage some people to move from the unofficial economy into regular employment.

For CORI Justice Commission the critical test of any tax and welfare system is its impact on people with lower incomes. While many poor people have benefited from developments of recent years, especially through employment, the fact remains that the gap between poor people and the rest of society has been widened over the past twelve years.

While the proportion of the population described as "consistently poor" has been declining the percentage of households and persons below every income poverty line measured by the ESRI is higher now than it was in 1987. This situation must be reversed immediately. Obviously, the introduction of a Basic Income system would have an immediate and positive impact on those most in need in Irish society.

The choice between a Basic Income system and 'conventional' tax/welfare options is a trade off between greater equity and a risk of lower economic growth versus less equity and less risk to higher economic growth. At a time when there so much concern is expressed about the country's growth rate being unsustainable, the argument in favour of introducing a Basic Income system is further strengthened."

CORI is a Social Partner and was one of the organisations that negotiated and signed the last two national agreements i.e. Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. It represents more than 135 religious congregations with 12,000 members in 1,400 communities throughout Ireland

Text of debate in Dail Eireann on the issue of Basic Income.

April 10, 2001: Text of debate in Dail Eireann (Irish Parliament) on the issue of Basic Income.

Leaders Questions in Dail Eireann 2003

2003 April 9: Leaders Questions in Dail Eireann (Irish Parliament) in which the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Mr Bertie Ahern, TD, responded to questions on Basic Income.

Download Pdf

Executive Summary Irish Government-funded Studies on Basic Income

Executive Summary Irish Government-funded Studies on Basic Income

This executive summary includes the overview to these studies as published and a summary of the conclusions of the studies prepared by CORI Justice Commission, March 2001.

1. Background

Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness provided that:

"A further independent appraisal of the concept of, and full implications of introducing a basic income payment for all citizens will be undertaken, taking into account the work of the ESRI, CORI and the Expert Steering group on the Integration of Tax and Social Welfare and the international research. A broadly based steering group will oversee the study".

In pursuance of this commitment a Steering Group was established under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach. The Group was composed of representatives of the Social Partnership Pillars and officials from the relevant Government Departments. Its composition is at Appendix I. The Group met on 10 occasions. The Group agreed Terms of Reference for a study on Basic Income, and these are attached at Appendix II. The elements of the study were commissioned following the normal tendering requirements.

It is important to emphasise at the outset that the P2000 commitment did not refer to, and thus the Steering Group was not considering a specific detailed model of Basic Income for implementation, but rather the implications of a Basic Income approached. Basic Income has been put forward as an approach to improve substantially the distribution of income with particular reference to the lowest income deciles of the population. It is intended to remove unemployment and poverty traps and to simplify the tax/social welfare system. Its proponents argue that it can contribute to the common good by providing citizens with greater liberty to achieve self-fulfilment and contribute to the development of society. The approach has been developed and analysed in several papers. The analysis in this study was based on a set of proposals developed by CORI and agreed by the Group, in order to illustrate the implications of a Basic Income approach.

In addition it should be noted that, in line with the mandate of the Steering Group, this overview of the analysis should not be understood to be an endorsement of any particular specification for a basic income, or indeed, for a basic income scheme itself.

2. Consultancy Study

The Steering Group commissioned consultants to undertake analysis in two distinct but inter-related phases. Phase 1 of the study was designed to examine the first round or static effects of the introduction of a Basic Income system in Ireland, without allowing for possible changes in individual behaviour as a result of its introduction.

This part of the study was undertaken by two separate consultants, Professor Charles Clark, St John's University, New York and the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

(a) Professor Clark provided an aggregate analysis of the costing of the basic income scheme, using macro economic statistics, and an analysis of the distributional effects on illustrative households, along the lines of Clark and Healy, 1997.

(b) The ESRI conducted a microsimulation-based analysis of the costs and distributional impact of a basic income on actual families, using the SWITCH tax benefit model based on relevant survey data.

Phase 2 of the study was designed to take account of the dynamic effects and the long-term sustainability of a basic income scheme from a broad economic and social perspective. This phase was carried out by a consortium led by the Economic and Social Research Institute.

3. Parameters of the Study

The Group's concern was with the broad concept of Basic Income rather than any specific scheme. For the purposes of this study a basic income option was developed for the year 2001, based on information which was available at the time of Budget 1998, i.e. February 1998. The option was developed so that it would have available precisely the same level of exchequer resources as three "conventional" options which were also projected to 2001. The intention behind this equalisation of resources was that the effects of basic income as a system could be compared with "conventional" options.

All of the recent work on basic income that has been carried out under the aegis of CORI has included a Social Solidarity Fund, which permits targeted payments to be made to certain low income groups. Within the above exchequer constraint and in consultation with the ESRI, the Steering Group developed detailed specifications for the disbursement of this Fund and these disbursements were included in the comparisons of basic income with "conventional" options.

The Group did not examine the detailed administrative and eligibility conditions which would be necessary to achieve such targeting, as the analysis was intended to be indicative rather than comprehensive. Consequently, no judgement is made about the viability of these provisions. A number of iterations of a basic income proposals that includes the application of a Social Solidarity Fund were considered by the Group.

(a) Within this framework the rates of payment to be examined were harmonised as between the basic income payment levels and the assumed rates of payment under the social welfare system.

(b) It was assumed, conservatively, that tax cuts of £250 million (on a full year basis) would be made available in each of the years 1999, 2000 and 2001.

(c) It was assume that all farm income supports, which reflect EU policies, would remain in place. The rate of DIRT was set at 24%. A Social Responsibility Tax, which forms part of the proposed basic income structure, was set at 8%.

The Group agreed these technical assumptions for the purposes of the study. Some variants were examined in the research by way of sensitivity analysis. The benchmark scenarios against which the Basic Income approach was compared, were taken to represent a reasonable approach to the structure of tax and social welfare policy, without implying any commitment to the particular set of rates; payments or tax/social welfare structure.

While in retrospect the benchmark scenarios and economic assumptions may seem to have been conservative, these do not invalidate the research. The key point underlying the research is that the structural comparison between Basic Income and the conventional system should be done on a consistent basis and this has been achieved.

4. Social Solidarity Fund

The Basic Income scheme studied by the consultants included a Social Solidarity Fund amounting to £387 million, aimed at compensating those who would lose out in a transition to basic income. However, the exact scope of the Social Solidarity Fund had not been specified at the time the studies were initiated.

An initial microsimulation analysis of the Basic Income proposal without a Social Solidarity Fund revealed a substantial number of losers in the bottom four income deciles. The ESRI noted that the aggregate amount earmarked in the proposed fund had the potential to compensate low income losers, if it were sufficiently well targeted.

Following consideration of the draft reports, the Group agreed a possible specification of the Social Solidarity Fund. As with the assumptions in Section 3, the technical specification set out below was agreed by the Steering Group for the purposes of the research study, and does not imply any commitment to these policies or rates of payment. The Group did not examine the detailed administrative and eligibility conditions which would be necessary to achieve such targeting, as the analysis was intended to be indicative rather than comprehensive. Consequently, no judgement is made about the viability of these provisions.

The possible payments agreed were:

• An additional payment of £30 per week to those living alone or where a second adult is in need of care (only made to those where there is no additional source of income in the household)
• The basic rate of payment for the third and subsequent children to be raised to £23.80 per week
• A disability payment of £4 per week
• A temporary transitional payment for 18-21 year olds who, on the introduction of a Basic Income system, were on a higher rate of Unemployment Assistance than the Basic Income
• A special tax allowance of £2,000 for elderly people in receipt of an occupational pension and who currently have an entitlement to a Contributory Old Age Pension
• The allocation of a sum of £100 million for socially useful work.

5. Overview of Findings of Study

The consultants' studies on Phases I and II, which are reproduced in full in this Report, set out the conclusions of their examination.

The brief of the Steering Group was to steer and oversee the study. The Group has not taken any policy position in regard to the various findings and issues contained in the reports. However, the Group considered it useful to point out some key issues which have emerged in the studies. These are contained in the following paragraphs.

(a) Phase I Findings

Phase I entailed a static analysis of the cost and distributional implications of the introduction of a system of basic income in Ireland. Therefore, the two pertinent issues emerging from Phase I relate to

• The tax rate required to finance the basic income proposal and rate of payment under examination.
• The distributional implications for respective income groups within the economy i.e. who would gain or lose out financially under the system being proposed.

Tax Rate

The Basic Income payment cited was £74.80 per adult to be indexed over time, (£96 for an elderly person), and that the costs of these hypothetical basic income payment levels would be just over £12 billion, which would need to be funded by either tax or savings on other areas of expenditure. The ESRI calculated that this would require a tax rate of 51.6%. When the social solidarity fund was specified more precisely the required tax rate was closer to 53%. Clark estimated a rate of 47.26%.

The different rates reflect differences in the respective approaches to determining the available tax base, the cost of funding Government services (other than the elements of a basic income system) and the treatment of a Social Solidarity Fund which would compensate those losing out in a transition to basic income. The sensitivity analysis carried out by the ESRI (pages 20-21 of the ESRI phase I study) sets out some of the differences, and yields a tax rate in the range of 2 percentage points lower, or 1 percentage higher, than the original estimate. In the context of the different methodologies, the Group considers that both sets of estimates represent a reasonable indicator of the range of likely tax rates, and that the difference does not invalidate either study.

The parameters supplied to the consultants in February 1998 were rapidly overtaken by the faster than expected economic growth that occurred since then. In 1999 the Steering Group asked the Department of Finance to provide tax base data to enable the consultants to prepare an updated estimate of the required tax rate. The result of this exercise was that a rate of 47.7% would be required in 2001. Further economic growth since 1999 would enable this estimated tax rate to be reduced further. Equally, the tax rates applicable in the conventional benchmark scenarios would also be reduced. Tax reductions significantly in excess of the benchmark assumptions have, of course, been implemented over the past three years.

The additional resources which were calculated to be available for this updated estimate were not included in the income distribution analyses of basic income that were carried out by the two sets of consultants. The reason for this is that the additional resources could be used not just to enhance basic income but equally they could be used to enhance the conventional options. Hence, by using tax rates which they calculated based on the original study parameters, the consultants achieved "like with like" comparisons.

Distributional Effects

The distributional analysis compares the outcome in 2001 under the basic income system with the outcomes of three conventional options with access to the same resources. This type of analysis is very rigorous. It differs from analyses that are usually carried out of the annual Budget, where pre and post-Budget outcomes are set out side by side; in this usual kind of analysis it is sometimes possible to show that every person gains from a Budget. However, in the analyses that were undertaken for the Steering Group, it is not possible to achieve an outcome where everyone gains. The gains experienced by some people under any option, in relation to an alternative option, must be balanced by losses under this option in relation to the alternative option.

Distributional effects were first analysed by both sets of consultants before the Social Solidarity Fund was distributed. The different methodologies used by consultants to examine the distributional effects yielded somewhat different results.

Clark found that the average household income for all of the bottom 6 deciles would be higher in 2001 than under the conventional system, while average household income in the top 4 deciles would be lower in 2001 than under the conventional policies. Clark also found that over a three year implementation period, average households in every decile would see their disposable incomes rise in absolute terms; under the conventional system, some growth in absolute incomes would also occur.

The ESRI found that on average there were gains for the bottom six income deciles and losses for the top four. This analysis found that families headed by single, widowed, separated or divorced persons, rather than by a couple, accounted for most of the potential losers. Single unemployed, lone parents and others (including those who are ill or disabled, some carers and widows below pension age without children) account for 95% of all potential losers in the bottom four income deciles.

The specification of a Social Solidarity Fund provides a mechanism to compensate losers under the hypothetical scheme. The Group reiterates that these mechanisms are merely indicative, in order to provide a broad view of how such a fund would operate. Therefore, the Group is not commenting on the viability of the proposals made under the Fund.

It should, however, be noted that such a specification under the Social Solidarity Fund reintroduces a form of means testing into the tax/welfare system, and implies retention of significant elements of the administrative costs associated with such a system.

When the Social Solidarity Fund is distributed the ESRI found that the effects on Basic Income in relation to poverty would be as follows:

• 70% of household in the bottom four deciles would gain from basic income, while 16%would lose compared with conventional options
• Half of the individuals who would be below the 40% poverty line under conventional options would be brought over this poverty line by basic income.

(b) Phase II Findings

Phase II examined the potential dynamic impact of a basic income system and the long term sustainability of such a scheme, not least having regard to and the free movement of people and capital within the EU. The information derived from Phase I provided a basis for this study.

The second phase of the study was carried out by the ESRI et al. As the Phase I analysis was essentially empirical, it did not allow for behavioural changes in the labour market as a result of a basic income scheme and the impact on economic growth and competitiveness. The Phase II analysis was necessarily more speculative in that it was concerned with possible changes in behaviour of different groups of people consequent on the introduction of basic income. As basic income has not been implemented in any country, the Phase II inquiry sought out relevant evidence to give best judgement on the likely impacts of basic income.

The key issues emerging in the Phase II study are

• impact on labour supply
• impact on migration and on the informal economy
• impact on the labour market
• impact on economic growth and competitiveness

Labour Supply

An assessment of the impact of the proposal on financial work incentives for the potential labour force must consider not only those currently in employment, but also those who are unemployed those who classify themselves as fully engaged in "home duties". Two aspects are considered in relation to financial incentives to take up work - replacement rates and changes in marginal tax rates. For those who are unemployed and in receipt of unemployment assistance or benefit, basic income provides a substantial drop in the incidence of replacement rates over 70%. This provides an improvement in the financial incentive to work for the unemployed.

There is a substantial drop in the incidence of replacement rates over 70% and the proportion of unemployed people facing replacement rates over 80% would fall from 9.1% to 1.5%. there is a significant increase in the number of unemployed facing replacement rates of between 30% and 70%."

For those (almost exclusively women) who classify themselves as "engaged in home duties" replacement rates rise more often than they fall. The incidence of high replacement rates for those in employment is also significant. Married women were seen to be particularly likely to see their replacement rate rise, with one third of married women, currently classified as employees or in home duties, having replacement rates rise by 10 percentage points or more. For many of these, entitlement to a full personal basic income payment would mean their income while not in paid work would be a good deal higher than under the conventional welfare system.

The findings lead to a conclusion that a fall in labour supply is more likely than an increase. The main impact of a change to a basic income scheme was found to be on tax payers with marginal tax rates less than 30% under the conventional system, whose marginal tax rates would rise to about 50%, or more in certain circumstances, under a basic income system. This increase could apply to 57% of taxpayers. Changes in marginal tax rates can affect decisions regarding hours of work, decisions to work overtime, to take on extra hours or to opt for part time work. It should be noted that in a Basic Income system each person receives a tax-free payment from the state. This means that their average tax rate could, and in many cases would, be lower while their marginal tax rate would be higher.

Migration and the Informal Economy

In terms of impact on migration, broadly speaking a basic income scheme was seen to increase the attractiveness of Ireland for low skilled migrants who might depend on such an income, while reducing after-tax income for those nearer the top of the earnings distribution. However, the analysis of the evidence on the sensitivity of migration to financial incentives suggests that the introduction of basic income would in the short term have a very small impact on the net migration flow. It could have a more significant impact on the composition of gross inflows and outflows. However, the entry of poorer countries into the EU could lead to more significant immigration in the longer term.

As far as the informal economy is concerned, a basic income scheme could encourage some people to move from the unofficial economy into regular employment. Quantifying the scale of this effect is problematic, since it is also acknowledged that the incentive to conceal income could increase for a large number of those currently in employment and self employment. The net effect would therefore be unclear.

Labour Market

The study indicates that the potential impact of a basic income scheme on behaviour in the labour market relates more to the supply then to the demand side. Irish evidence suggests that the labour force participation of women, and in particular married women, tends to be significantly more responsive to financial work incentives than that of men. It has been shown that a substantial number of married women who are currently employees or working full time in the home would see a significant increase in their replacement rates. The incentive to participate in the paid labour force for this particularly responsive group would therefore be significantly reduced by a basic income scheme. This combines with a reduced willingness to work overtime and/or some inclination to reduce the hours worked.

The proposal under the scheme to abolish employers PRSI and replace it with a flat rate Social responsibility Tax, at a lower rate then employer PRSI but without a ceiling, could affect labour demand more directly. The increase in costs to employers for those on earnings above the conventional system's PRSI ceiling, and the reduction in liabilities for those below that ceiling, could increase the attractiveness of low or middle wages labour relative to high wages labour. The recent introduction of a National Minimum Wage will have an important impact here, however given the introduction of a basic income scheme in a context where the labour market was already very tight, a reduction in labour supply as a result of a shift could add to already considerable pressure on wage levels and potentially on inflation and competitiveness. However, uncertainty about labour supply responses, and in particular about the potential for counter-balancing inward migration, makes the overall impact of a basic income scheme on the labour market very difficult to assess. A fall in labour supply is more likely than an increase and a fall in the skilled composition of the labour force is also likely. (ESRI, Phase II p.71).

Growth and Competitiveness

Assessing the broader impact of a basic income scheme on growth and competitiveness is even more difficult. The basic income proposal involves factors tending to increase both the supply of and demand for low wage, low skilled labour and to reduce the supply of and demand for higher skilled, higher paid labour. Thus, even if total employment were to remain constant, productivity and output might then be expected to be somewhat less than under conventional tax options. If this were the outcome, it could have implications, inter alia, for the tax rate necessary to fund the basic income model.

It has been argued that basic income could improve growth by promoting a more flexible labour market, a more stable macro-economic environment and by generating a fairer distribution of income. However, the negative effect on growth resulting from an increase in the marginal rate of direct taxation is judged by the ESRI to be the most significant channel of influence, with the most likely outcome being that aggregate employment would fall or remain constant, while average productivity and output would be less than under conventional options.

Summary

It is clear from the work that has been carried out that the introduction of the basic income system as outlined would require a single tax rate on all personal income of around 47.7% (or somewhat lower in 2001) on the basis of a static analysis. If the dynamic effects summarised below resulted in a decline in labour supply, productivity and output, a higher tax rate would, however, be necessary.

This system would have a substantial impact on the distribution of income in Ireland in that, compared with conventional options, it would on average.

• Improve the incomes of 70% of households in the bottom four income deciles while 16% would gain more under conventional options.
• Raise more than half of those who would be below the 40% poverty line under conventional options above this poverty line.

On the basis of this analysis, these impacts would be achieved without any resources additional to those available to the conventional options.

There is a considerable element of uncertainty in predicting the dynamic impact of Basic Income. However, there is a risk that basic income would reduce the high rate of economic growth which is forecast to continue for the next few years. This arises because of the possibility that aggregate employment would be lower than under conventional options or remain constant while average productivity and output would be lower than under conventional options as a result of:

• some withdrawal of labour from the labour force, especially married women with children
• less willingness to work additional hours
• increased immigration of lower skilled workers and emigration of higher skilled persons, resulting in lower employment, productivity and output.

It was not the role of the Steering Group to reach a conclusion or make recommendations about Basic Income. As the studies show, Basic Income would have complex effects, in terms of the initial redistribution, the consequent behavioural changes, and their economic impact. The studies represent a significant move forward in our understanding of these complex issues, and the interplay between considerations of equity and efficiency to which they give rise.

Basic Income in Ireland 2002

Basic Income in Ireland

Dr Sean Healy CORI Justice Commission Ireland Liege, January 5th, 2002

What is Basic Income?

In our understanding, basic income is defined as an income paid unconditionally to everyone on an individual basis, without any means test or work requirement. In a basic income system every person would receive a weekly tax-free payment from the Exchequer and all other personal income is taxed, usually at a single rate. For a person who is unemployed, the basic income payment would replace income from social welfare/social security. For a person who is employed, the basic income payment would replace the tax-free allowance or tax-credit in the income tax system.

Why a Basic Income?

There has been a wide range of arguments provided to support the introduction of a basic income system. Among these are:

• Liberty and equality,
• Efficiency and community,
• Common ownership of the earth.
• Equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress,
• Flexibility of the labour market
• The dignity of the poor,
• The fight against unemployment and inhumane working conditions,
• The need to reverse the desertification of the countryside
• Interregional inequalities,
• The viability of co-operatives.
• The promotion of adult education,
• Autonomy from bosses, husbands and bureaucrats

All of these reasons, and more, have been invoked in favour of introducing a basic income system.

Early Empirical Work on Basic Income in Ireland

In the late 1970s, the National Economic and Social Council (Ireland's Government-appointed think-tank which includes representatives of social partners, government appointees and key civil servants) commissioned a report on how personal income tax and transfers might be integrated. This report examined three broad options, one of which was basic income. Subsequently, the report generated very little discussion about basic income. However, it did provide the basis for a wide-ranging debate about tax reform that culminated in the establishment of the Commission on Taxation.

The First Report of the Commission on Taxation (1982) contained a cursory examination of basic income that it rejected, mainly on cost grounds. Similarly, the Commission on Social Welfare (1986), quoting the Report of the Commission on Taxation, rejected basic income on cost grounds, but also because basic income might represent a detour from the priority objective, according to the Commission, of increasing social welfare rates to adequate levels.

This failure to analyse basic income on any serious level is difficult to justify, even if it is understandable given the focus of both of these reports and the contexts in which they were produced. However, for many years afterwards these two reports were quoted, by those opposed to analysing a basic income approach, as sufficient reason for rejecting basic income. By such cursory analysis and casual dismissal is policy often made!

From 1987 onwards

From 1987 onwards there have been two approaches to studying basic income in Ireland. The first approach preserved key elements of the existing tax and spending systems . The second approach substituted basic income for the existing tax and welfare systems and some other government spending .

The models developed by Honohan and Callan were similar. Each adult of working age would receive an untaxed payment equivalent to that paid as unemployment assistance (in the social elfare system); this was seen as a "full basic income". Elderly people would receive somewhat higher payments and children would receive smaller amounts. All social welfare payments would be discontinued. Existing 'discretionary' tax reliefs (such as mortgage interest, employee pension contributions, etc.) would be retained. All government spending programmes would also be retained.

Both authors found that a very high tax rate would be required to fund this type of proposal. Tax rates in excess of 65% would be required on all personal incomes. It was suggested that such a high tax rate could act as a disincentive to people taking up employment. In addition, Callan found that the income distribution effect of this proposal was not advantageous for significant numbers of low-income households. Honohan and Callan concluded that these models of basic income should be rejected.

A series of official reports in 1996 reviewed the findings of Callan, notably the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Forfas and the Expert Group on the Integration of the Tax and Social Welfare Systems . These reports endorsed Callan's conclusion that this model of basic income was not viable.

The CORI approach (Version One)

CORI Justice Commission agreed with the Honohan and Callan assessment that this model of basic income was not viable in the Irish context. CORI, however, wanted to achieve the main enefits of basic income, while reducing the cost, so that the tax rate (including social insurance contributions) required would be no more than 50% - which was lower than the top combined income tax and social insurance rate in Ireland in the mid-1990s.

Sean Ward had followed this approach in his 1994 study . The main characteristics of this alternative approach were:

• A 'full' basic income for older people and for children
• A substantial 'partial' basic income for adults of working age. This would be topped up to the level of unemployment assistance for people who were unemployed.
• The abolition of all discretionary tax relief.
• A range of public expenditures would no longer be required.
• Employers' social insurance contributions would be abolished.
• Government support for industry would be reduced.
• This new model had several advantages over the current systems. According to Ward it:
• Provided more equity, both horizontal and vertical.
• Improved incentives to recruit labour and seek work.
• Provided greater simplicity and certainty.

CORI Justice Commission adapted and developed this approach. CORI proposed a number of variations on how it might be implemented in practice. A set of principles for evaluating these roposals against the status quo position were outlined and applied.

One of the most significant aspects in this period was the fact that the various Government studies already referred to gave this particular approach very little consideration. Neither the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment nor Forfas gave the proposal any consideration. The Expert Working Group on the Integration of the Tax and Social Welfare Systems considered the CORI proposal. Its work, however, was seriously flawed methodologically.

The CORI Approach (Version Two)

The two major objections consistently being put forward as the basis for rejecting basic income were that it would (a) result in tax rates that were too high and (b) there was no practical way of mplementing such a system. The last few years have produced changed contexts on both of these objections.

The economic growth in Ireland in recent years has substantially reduced the tax rate necessary to fund a 'full' basic income for everyone in Ireland. As a result of this CORI developed its original proposals. Instead of having a substantial 'partial' basic income for adults of working age it was possible to pay everyone a full basic income. From 1997 onwards all CORI proposals were for he introduction of a 'full' basic income. In the interest of clarity, I refer to this as the CORI approach, version two.

At the same time CORI commissioned research to look at how it's proposals for basic income could be implemented. Charles Clark and John Healy did this work. They came up with a ecommendation on how to proceed to implementation of a full basic income system for all, over a three-year period.

Of equal importance was the issue of financing a basic income system. For years there had been arguments about the actual tax rate required to finance a basic income system. During that period CORI had sought mechanisms that would produce agreement on this issue. Government refused to study the topic or to provide the funding for such a study to be conducted independently. However, a solution was to be found in 1997.

Government-appointed Working Group on Basic Income

In Ireland, since 1987 Government has negotiated with employers, trade unions and farming organisations to develop three-year national plans. In 1996 an additional pillar of social partners was added to this partnership structure representing the voluntary and community sector. CORI Justice Commission is one of the organisations which is recognised as a full social partner as part of this pillar. In the course of the negotiations for the new programme called Partnership 2000 (covering 1997 - 9), CORI was successful in getting agreement from the other social partners and vernment to include a section on Basic Income which reads as follows

"Further independent appraisal of the concept of introducing a Basic Income for all citizens will be undertaken, taking into account the work of the ESRI, CORI and the Expert Group on the ntegration of Tax and Social Welfare and international research. A broadly based steering group will oversee the study".

A working group was established to implement this commitment, CORI was part of this working group. The working group decided to divide its work into two phases. Phase 1, examines the tax rate needed to fund Basic Income and the distributional implications of introducing Basic Income with this tax rate. Phase 2 looks at the dynamic effects of the proposal, including its effects on employment, effects on economic growth, short and long-term budgetary implications and the gender dimensions of all of these. These studies have been completed and published by Government along with the working group's report.

The ESRI study done for the Working Group found that a Basic Income system would have a substantial impact on the distribution of income in Ireland in that, compared with the present tax ndwelfare system it would:

• Improve the incomes of 70% of households in the bottom four deciles (i.e. the four tenths of the population with lowest incomes) and
• Raise half of the individuals that would be below the 40% poverty line under 'conventional' options above this poverty line.
• According to the Report, these impacts would be achieved without any resources additional to those available to 'conventional' options.

The Working Group's Report also found that the tax rate (including PRSI replacement) required to finance Basic Income, based on January 1999 estimates, would be 47%. Since then the economy has grown significantly and the revised rate, based on Revenue Commissioners estimates of the tax base, is 42.7%.CORI Justice Commission welcomed the Final Report of the Working Group on Basic Income. In particular it welcomed the fact that the Report vindicates CORI Justice Commission's claims that a Basic Income system would have a far more positive impact on reducing poverty than the present tax and welfare systems. According to the CORI Justice Commission, this report shows hat a Basic Income system would be far more effective at tackling poverty and should form part of a comprehensive strategy to totally eliminate income poverty in the years immediately ahead.

Commenting on the losers identified in the Report, CORI Justice Commission pointed out two key issues that need to be borne in mind:

• Over a three-year implementation period of a Basic Income system all the 'losers' would be better off than they are at present. They would simply not gain as much under Basic Income as they would under the present system.
• The losers in the bottom four deciles identified in the Report can be easily targeted and compensated through the Social Solidarity Fund that forms part of the Basic Income structure.

On the macro-economic aspects CORI Justice Commission pointed out that the Report itself acknowledges that the findings were very tentative, speculative and hard to quantify. However, it elcomed the Report's conclusion that a basic income system could encourage some people to move from the unofficial economy into regular employment.

For CORI Justice Commission the critical test of any tax and welfare system is its impact on people with lower incomes. While many poor people have benefited from developments of recent years, especially through growth in employment, the fact remains that the gap between poor people and the rest of society has been widened over the past decade and a half.The choice between a Basic Income system and 'conventional' tax/welfare options is a trade off between greater equity and a risk of lower economic growth versus less equity and less risk to igher economic growth. At a time when so much concern is expressed about the country's growth rate being unsustainable, the argument in favour of introducing a Basic Income system is further strengthened.

The Issue of Tax Credits

The most recent national agreement, entitled The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000-2002), contains a commitment to establish a working group to look at the viability of making tax credits refundable. This working group, of which CORI Justice Commission is a member, is nearing completion of its work. Its report should be published in 2002.

The pressure to make tax credits refundable is growing in Ireland as more than one third of those who are in paid employment are outside the tax net and, consequently, do not benefit from tax reductions in the Government's annual Budget.

The move to a tax credits system was completed in Ireland in the past year. The introduction of a refundable tax credit system would take this process a step further and would produce a situation where every person in the country had the right to some form of payment from the State. Viewed from an age-based perspective it would mean that

• Child Benefit was paid for every child.
• Refundable tax credits were available for every adult up to the age of 65.
• An Old Age Pension was paid to every adult over 65.

Towards a Green Paper

In the build up to the 1997 Irish general election CORI canvassed all political parties to include a commitment on Basic Income within their election manifestos. The incoming Government (Fianna Fail / Progressive Democrats coalition) made a commitment to introduce a Green Paper on Basic Income within two years. This was a further breakthrough as it ensured that the work being done on Basic Income would be considered within the official policy making process of Government and the results of that consideration would be published for public consideration.

The normal procedure in Ireland is that a Green Paper is followed by a discussion which, in turn, is followed by a White Paper outlining what Government proposes to do which then forms the basis for a Bill which goes before the Oireachtas (both houses of Parliament). Because of the late completion of the working group's studies, publication of the Green Paper was delayed. According to Ireland's Taoiseach (Prime Minister) it is now scheduled for publication in January 2002.

Conclusion

Basic income has been around for almost 25 years in Ireland. In the 1970s it was not addressed seriously. From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s it was dismissed in official reports as unworkable and/or too costly and/or less important than tackling tax reform or social welfare inadequacy. We have seen that these assessments were made on the basis of very little evidence.

More recently the Report of the Working Group on Basic Income, and its accompanying studies, show that basic income could be financed in the Irish context. CORI's work on implementation mechanisms has shown that a basic income system could be implemented in practice. It is clear that the model proposed by CORI Justice Commission (i.e. a full basic income for all) can be implemented in practice and can be financed without resorting to a too-high level of taxation.

The next phase of this process will see the publication of the Government's Green Paper on Basic Income later this month. Later this year the Working Group on Refundable Tax Credits is expected to publish its report. Both of these documents should lead to a much more informed public debate on the issue of basic income in Ireland. With an election due in Ireland in the first half of 2002 it will be interesting to monitor developments.

REFERENCES

Callan, Tim, Cathal O'Donoghue and Ciaran O'Neill (1994), Analysis of Basic Income Schemes for Ireland, Dublin: ESRI.

Clark, Charles M. A. and John Healy (1997), Pathways to a Basic Income. Dublin; CORI.

CORI (1994), Tackling Poverty, Unemployment and Exclusion: A Moment of Great Opportunity, Dublin: CORI.

CORI (1995), Ireland for All, Dublin: CORI.

CORI, (1996) Planning for Progress, Dublin: CORI.

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (1996), Growing and Sharing our Employment: Strategy Paper on the Labour Market, Dublin: Stationery Office.

Dowling, Brendan (1977), Integrated Approaches to Personal Income Taxes and Transfers, Dublin: NESC.

First Report of the Commission on Taxation (1982), Dublin: Stationery Office.

Forfas (1996), Shaping our Future, Dublin: Forfas.

Healy, Sean (1996), "Response to the Report of the Expert Group on the Integration of the Tax and Social Welfare Systems", Presentation to the Foundation for Fiscal Studies seminar, July.

Healy, Sean and Brigid Reynolds (1994), "Arguing for an Adequate Income Guarantee" in Brigid Reynolds and Sean Healy (eds), Towards an Adequate Income Guarantee for All, Dublin, CORI.

Healy, Sean and Brigid Reynolds (1995), "An Adequate Income Guarantee for All" in Brigid Reynolds and Sean Healy (eds) An Adequate Income Guarantee for All, Dublin: CORI.

Healy, Sean and Brigid Reynolds, eds. (1998) Social Policy in Ireland - Principles, Practice and Problems, Dublin: Oaktree Press.

Honohan, Patrick, (1987), "A Radical Reform of Social Welfare and Income Tax Evaluated", Administration, Vol. 35, No. 1.

Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness (1996), Dublin: Stationery Office.

Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000), Dublin: Stationery Office.

Report of the Working Group on Basic Income (2001), Dublin: Department of the Taoiseach.

Report of the Working Group on the Integration of the Tax and Social Welfare Systems (1996), Dublin: Stationery Office.

Van Parijs, Philippe (1992), "Competing Justifications of Basic Income" in Arguingg for Basic Income, London: Verso.

Ward, Sean (1994), "A Basic Income System for Ireland" in Brigid Reynolds and Sean Healy (eds) Towards an Adequate Income for All, Dublin: CORI.

Briefing on Basic Income 2002

BRIEFING ON BASIC INCOME

Prepared by CORI Justice Commission, October 4, 2002

The CORI Justice Commission has argued, for a long time, that the present tax and social welfare systems should be integrated and reformed to make them more appropriate for the changing world of the 21st century. To this end the Justice Commission has argued for the introduction of a basic income system.

A basic income is an income that is unconditionally granted to every person on an individual basis. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that avoids many of the negative side effects inherent in social welfare payments. A basic income differs from other forms of income support in that:

• it is paid to individuals rather than households
• it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources
• it is paid without conditions. It does not require the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered one
• it is always tax-free.

As CORI Justice Commission has designed it a Basic Income system would replace social welfare. It would guarantee an income above the poverty line for everyone. It would not be means tested. There would be no 'signing on' and no restrictions or conditions. In practice a basic income recognises the right of every person to a share of the resources of society.

There is real danger that the plight of large numbers of people excluded from the benefits of the modern economy will be ignored. Images of rising tides lifting all boats are often offered as Governments, policy makers and commentators assure society that prosperity for all is just around the corner. Likewise, the claim is often made that a job is the best poverty fighter and consequently all priority must be given to getting everyone a paid job. These images and claims are no substitute for concrete policies to ensure all are included. Twenty first century society needs a radical approach to ensure the inclusion of all people in the benefits of present economic growth and development. Basic income is such an approach.

The Basic Income system aims to guarantee an income above the poverty line for everyone. Just as important, it ensures that looking for a paid job and earning an income, or increasing one's income while in employment, is always worth pursuing, because for every pound earned the person will retain a large part. It thus removes the many poverty traps and unemployment traps that may be in the present system.

Women and men get equal payments in a basic income system. Consequently, the Basic Income system promotes gender equality since it treats every person equally.

Ten reasons to introduce basic income

• It is work and employment friendly
• It eliminates poverty traps and unemployment traps
• It promotes equity and ensures that everyone receives at least the poverty level of income
• It spreads the burden of taxation more equitably
• It treats men and women equally
• It is simple and transparent
• It is efficient in labour-market terms
• It rewards types of work in the social economy that the market economy often ignores, e.g. household work, child-rearing, etc
• It facilitates further education and training in the labour force
• It faces up to the changes in the global economy

It is a system that is altogether more guaranteed, rewarding, simple and transparent than the present tax and welfare systems. It is far more employment friendly than the present system. It also respects other forms of work besides paid employment. This is crucial in a world where other forms of work need to be recognised and respected. It is also very important in a world where paid employment cannot be permanently guaranteed for everyone seeking it.

Basic Income also lifts people out of poverty and the dreadful dependency mode of survival. In doing this it also restores their self-esteem and broadens their horizons. Poor people, however, are not the only ones who should welcome a Basic Income system. Employers, for example, should welcome it because its introduction would mean they would not be in competition with the social welfare system. Since employees would not lose their Basic Income when taking a job, there would always be an incentive to take up employment.

It should also be pointed out, finally, that a Basic Income system is achievable. Studies done for a range of countries in Europe and beyond have identified how such a system could be put in place and how it could be financed. A series of studies undertaken as part of the Partnership 2000 national agreement, and funded by the Irish Government, have produced interesting results. These studies have shown that a Basic Income system would improve the incomes of 70% of households in the bottom four deciles (i.e. the four tenths of the population with lowest incomes). They have also shown that a Basic Income system would raise half of the individuals that would be below the 40% poverty line under 'conventional' options above this poverty line. This is a highly desirable outcome of income distribution policy.

Basic Income system would create a platform for good work. It would benefit both paid employment as well as other forms of meaningful work. It would also have a substantial impact on reducing income poverty. The present tax and welfare systems were designed for a different era. They have done very well in addressing major problems of the second half of the twentieth century. The world, however, is changing radically. A new system is required for the twenty first century. Basic Income is such a system.

Work for All: Why and How in a World of Rapid Change

Work for All: Why and How in a World of Rapid Change by Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds

Download Pdf

Work for all - key points for Ireland

These are key points for Ireland contained in the paper 'Work for All: Why and How in a World of Rapid Change - Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds, September 14, 2001

Sharing Limited Resources And A Change Of Course 2003

Sharing Limited Resources And A Change Of Course Download Pdf

22nd October 2003

James Robertson spoke from the following text in the session on this topic at the XXIX Annual Conference of the Pio Manzu International Research Centre in Rimini, Italy on 18-20 October, 2003. The overall theme of the conference was “THE ECONOMICS OF THE NOBLE PATH: FRATERNAL RIGHTS, THE CONVIVIAL SOCIETY, FAIR SHARES FOR ALL”. The conference was dedicated to the “essential figures of Ernst Schumacher and Ivan Illich, amidst many of their present-day heirs”.

For his “remarkable contribution to the promotion of a new economics grounded in social and spiritual values” James was one of a number of speakers from around the world who were invited to speak at the conference and presented with gold medals.

Further information about the Pio Manzu Centre, the conference and the award winners is in Appendix I immediately after the paper. The text of the Citation for James’ award, which was signed by Mikhail Gorbachev, is at Appendix II. Finally, the Endnotes contain information supporting the paper.

THE ROLE OF MONEY AND FINANCE Changing a Central Part of the Problem into a Central Part of the Solution

1. INTRODUCTION

Thank you for inviting me to this conference. I am honoured, and I am delighted you have dedicated it to E.F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich. I knew both of them personally, and I was one of many people who got great stimulus and support from their work in the 1970s.

Schumacher Circle organisations are now doing valuable work around the world. But we have to recognise that Schumacher’s ideas – and Illich’s insights into the systematically disabling nature of today’s institutions and professions - have hardly begun to influence mainstream agendas. The course of world development is still based on what Illich saw as the erosion of “the conditions necessary for a convivial life” and what Schumacher called the “onward stampede”.

Why is this? Was their thinking lacking in some important respect? Or have we failed to act on it?

Both Illich and Schumacher were criticised for not dealing with political and institutional aspects of change. I remember Illich responding that his task was to explain what was wrong; it was for others to take the necessary action. For him the ideas were pre-eminent. Schumacher’s view that “the task of our generation is one of metaphysical reconstruction” underlined that his priority too was to redefine the meaning of central ideas - like work. It is true – and important – that he set up the Intermediate Technology Development Group, and personally supported the Scott Bader “common ownership” company and the Soil Association. He saw these as “lifeboat institutions” - examples of reconstructed ideas in action in the spheres of technology, business and farming. But for him, like Illich, systematic institutional reconstruction to support metaphysical reconstruction, was not a personal priority.

It doesn’t make much sense to criticise Illich and Schumacher for this. Nobody can do everything. Both men knew themselves well enough to know how best to use their time and energies. We need to ask ourselves:

• why have we, who share their vision of a more people-centred and ecological world, failed to adapt the institutions of society to it? and
• what should we do about that now?

In this paper, taking government and the money system as a case study, I shall try to outline a possible answer to that question.

2. THE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND MONEY

Established institutions embody dominant ideas, and transmit them as norms of desired behaviour. For example, today’s economic institutions embody the idea that work means a job with an employer and that normal people should work that way. But, as pioneer systems thinkers in the 1970s like Stafford Beer pointed out, institutions are dynamic systems programmed for survival. So they act as barriers to change, obstructing the conversion of new ideas from thinkers like Illich and Schumacher into new norms of behaviour for most people. In that respect established institutions in society correspond to what business consultants used to call the “soggy middle layer” – conservative middle managements obstructing communication between forward-looking leaders who recognise the need for change and bright younger people eager to bring it in.

The money system has a particular significance. The way it works rewards some activities and penalises others - at personal, local, national and global levels, in every sector of economy and society. In a monetised world this is the principal way of allocating resources. Money is the scoring system for the game of economic life, alongside the rules provided by laws and other legal instruments. The nature of any game and how it is played reflects what the scoring system rewards and penalises.

The reconstruction of today’s money system is now urgent. More and more people are experiencing it as perverse - in terms of economic efficiency, social justice, environmental sustainability, and physical and spiritual health. They see it as responsible:

• for the systematic transfer of wealth from poor people and countries to rich ones,
• for the money-must-grow imperative that compels people to make money in socially and environmentally damaging ways,
• for the diversion of economic effort and enterprise towards making money out of money, and away from providing useful goods and services,
• for its systematic bias in favour of the people, organisations and nations who should be managing it on behalf of us all, and
• for eroding the credibility of political democracy after 200 years of progress.

All this fuels opposition to globalisation in its present form.

One constructive response has been the spread of “alternative” and “complementary” monetary and financial innovations. These unofficial initiatives will become more important, as people and businesses look for new ways of using their money. But today I shall concentrate on mainstream money -

• the existing ways in which states handle it on behalf of their peoples,
• the perverse outcomes of those, and
• the changes that are needed.

Some Background Points and Principles

1) The 20th century showed that a centralised socialist economy cannot work efficiently, justly or ecologically. On the other hand, the idea of a free market economy based on objective prices is a fantasy. In developed countries today taxation takes a third of the total value of the economy (GDP) out of some activities, and public spending puts it back into others. The taxes add to the cost of what is taxed and the public spending reduces the cost of what it supports. This affects relative prices all through the economy. So the price structure of any economy is bound to be skewed in favour of some things and against others. The proverbial ‘level playing field’ is a mirage.

2) So the framework provided by the state institutions that deal with money must be designed to encourage ways of using money that serve, not damage, the interests of citizens now and in the future. Within such a framework:

a) the market economy, freely responding to money values, would tend to deliver outcomes which combine economic efficiency with social justice and environmental care;
b) the government would be able to let the market economy operate more freely, with less intervention, than most economies today; and
c) citizens, who wished to do so, would find it easier than now to reduce their need for goods and services bought from the market economy, and also therefore to reduce the amount of money they need to earn by working as employees.

3) The state’s new role towards the market and the citizen should thus be to decolonise and empower. Whether to call this a basically capitalist or basically socialist approach is a matter of personal choice. It will aim to integrate economic efficiency with economic justice. So you could call it both capitalist and socialist or neither, whichever you prefer.

4) Milton Friedman’s teaching that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (TANSTAAFL) is false. Starting with the enclosure of the common land, modern economies have given massive free lunches to powerful individuals, organisations - and also nations. I shall say more about this and list some of today’s common resources shortly. Their value should be shared as a source of public revenue, in place of the economically, socially and environmentally damaging taxes we have now.

5) This will involve a shift from the idea of redistribution to the idea of predistribution. Whereas redistributive taxes aim to correct the outcomes of economic activity, predistributive taxes and charges will share the value of essential inputs to economic activity. Whereas redistribution is dependency-reinforcing, predistribution will be empowering. It will correct an underlying cause of economic injustice, inequality, exclusion and poverty.

6) In a globalised world economy, we need to evolve institutions of governance embodying those five principles at supranational and subnational levels, as well as national level.

What changes do these background points and principles imply - first nationally, and then internationally?

3. PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES – for the Financial and Monetary Functions of the State

The essential financial and monetary functions of the state are:

1. collecting public revenue;
2. organising public spending programmes; and
3. ensuring that the money supply (i.e. the supply of official currency - euros, dollars, pounds, etc) is put into circulation, and works fairly and efficiently. How these functions are carried out heavily influences the economic activities and outcomes that characterise a society.

Collecting National Public Revenue

(a) Problems and Perversities of the Present Tax System

Pressures to reduce existing taxes are growing stronger.

• In a competitive global economy, the mobility of capital and highly qualified people will continue to press governments to reduce taxes on incomes, profits and capital.
• In ageing societies, opposition will grow to taxing fewer people of working age on the fruits of their efforts in order to support growing numbers of what economists call "economically inactive" people.
• Internet trading will make it more difficult for governments to collect customs duties, value added tax and other taxes and levies on sales. The internet will also make it easier to shift earnings and profits to low-tax regimes.
• Tax havens were estimated to hold $6 trillion worldwide as long ago as 1998, resulting in massive tax losses to national governments, criminal money laundering and economic distortion. The way to deal with this will probably be to shift taxation away from things like incomes, profits, capital, and value added that can migrate to tax havens and on to things like land which cannot migrate.

These growing pressures on the existing tax base reinforce the economic, social and environmental arguments for taxing “bads”, not “goods”.

Existing tax structures all round the world are, in fact, absurdly perverse.

• They fall heavily on employment and rewards for work and enterprise, and lightly on the use of common resources. So they encourage all-round inefficiency of resource use - over-use of natural resources (including energy and the environment's capacity to absorb pollution), and under-employment and under-development of human resources.
• Today’s taxes are also unfair and illogical. They penalise value added - the positive contributions people make to society. They fail to penalise value subtracted; they don’t make people and businesses pay for the value of the common resources they use or monopolise, thereby preventing other people from using them.
• The present tax system makes it easy for rich people and businesses to escape, or at least minimise, their tax obligations, because they can afford to use tax havens, family trusts, and a range of other devices set up by expensive bankers, lawyers and accountants.

(b) Sharing the Value of Common Resources

A new approach is clearly needed, based on collecting the value of common resources as public revenue for the benefit of all citizens.

Common resources are resources whose value is due to Nature and to the activities and demands of society as a whole, and not to the efforts or skill of individual people or organisations. Land is an obvious example. The value of a particular land-site, excluding the value of what has been built on it, is almost wholly determined by the activities and plans of society around it. For example, when the route of the London Underground Jubilee line was published, properties along the route jumped in value. Access to them was going to be much improved. So, as a result of a public policy decision, the owners of the properties received a £13bn windfall financial gain. They had done nothing for it; they had paid nothing for it; they had been given a very large free lunch. In 1994, based on 1990 values, I calculated that the absence of a site-value tax on land was costing UK taxpayers £50bn to £90bn a year in lost public revenue.

By contrast, the auction three years ago of twenty-year licences to use the radio spectrum for the third generation of mobile phones raised £22.5bn for the UK government. The governments of Germany, France and Italy also raised very significant sums from that common resource.

Important common resources include:

• land (its site value)
• energy (its unextracted value)
• the environment’s capacity to absorb pollution and waste
• the use of limited space (e.g for road traffic, airport landing slots)
• water - for extraction and use, and for waterborne traffic
• the electro-magnetic (including radio) spectrum
• the value created by issuing new money - on which I shall say more.

The annual value of these is very great. Collecting it as public revenue would remove the need for many damaging existing taxes.

(c) Creating New Money

Those who create and put money into circulation profit by the value of the money minus the cost of producing it.

In a democratic age one would expect money, created in offical currencies as part of a national or supranational money supply backed by governments, to be created by professionally independent central monetary authorities (like the European Central Bank) and given to governments or international government agencies to spend into circulation on public purposes.

But that is far from what happens now. In the UK, for example, less than 5% of today's national money supply is created debt-free by the Bank of England and the Royal Mint as banknotes and coins. Over 95% is created by commercial banks out of thin air as profit-making loans to their customers. J.K. Galbraith commented, “The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” UK commercial banks make over £20 billion a year in interest from this arrangement, while UK taxpayers benefit from less than £3 billion a year in public revenue from the issue of banknotes and coins.

Estimated additional public revenue of about £45bn a year could be collected in the UK,

• if the commercial banks were prohibited from creating new money,
• and if the Bank of England took on responsibility for creating it,
• and if the Bank of England gave the money debt-free to the government to spend into circulation.

(Corresponding estimates of potential extra public revenue are: Eurozone ?160bn; USA $114bn; Japan Y17trillion.)

This reform would improve the sharing of resources in many ways. To take one example, a debt-free money supply would help to reduce the costs of economic transactions and the levels of public and private debt. These are now at least partly due to the fact that almost all the money we use has been created as interest-bearing debt which has to be repaid.

Some opponents of reform claim that money in current bank accounts isn’t really money, it’s only credit. But official monetary statistics and monetary policy-makers recognise that it constitutes the main part of the money supply. In fact, recognising it as money exactly reflects what happened in the 19th century when paper banknotes, and not just gold coins, were recognised to be money and commercial banks were no longer allowed to create money by issuing them. The Bank of England’’s banknotes may still say "I promise to pay... ". But that is just a historical survival. Everyone knows that banknotes now are not just credit notes. They are cash.

Today electronic money in current bank accounts is money immediately available to be spent, just as banknotes are. The continuing creation of this state-backed money for private-sector profit is a glaring anachronism.

National Public Spending

So much for national public revenue. Reconstruction of public spending is also necessary. The following points are important.

First, $1.5 to $2 trillion a year is estimated to be spent worldwide on perverse subsidies which encourage economically, socially and environmentally damaging activities. These include the subsidies from rich-country governments to their food and agricultural sectors. Combined with tariffs against imported food, these devastate those sectors in poorer countries - and expose the hypocrisy of rich-country support for free trade. This led to the recent breakdown of the world trade talks at Cancun. But there are many other examples of perverse subsidies. Systematic national and international measures are needed to identify them and cut them out.

Second, support for a basic income (or Citizen’s Income) continues to grow, especially in Europe but in other countries too. It would be paid to all citizens as of right, out of public revenue. It would include state pensions and child allowances, it would replace many other existing social benefits, and it would eliminate almost all tax allowances, tax reliefs and tax credits. It would recognise that, in a society of responsible citizens, some of the public revenue arising from the value of common resources should be shared directly among them. Politicians and government officials now pay huge sums in contracts and subsidies to private-sector business and finance to provide public services. Much of that public money could be distributed directly to citizens to spend for themselves in a market economy responsive to their needs – and also to make it easier for them to develop paid or unpaid work of their own, if they wished to reduce their dependence on earnings as employees.

4. THE GLOBAL DIMENSION

The development of international institutions for dealing with world public revenue, public spending, and monetary management should be based similarly on sharing the value of common resources.

In 1995 the Commission on Global Governance recognised the need for global taxation “to service the needs of the global neighbourhood”. It proposed making nations pay for use of global commons, including:

• ocean fishing, sea-bed mining, sea lanes, flight lanes, outer space, and the electro-magnetic spectrum; and for
• activities that pollute and damage the global environment, or cause hazards beyond national boundaries, such as emissions of CO2 and CFCs, oil spills, and dumping wastes at sea.

The Commission also recognised the urgent need for international monetary reform in a globalised world economy.

Since then there has been growing criticism of the present international monetary system based on the 'dollar hegemony' of the United States. Here are two examples from recent reports, one from Asia and one from Ireland.

1. "The dollar is a global monetary instrument that the United States, and only the United States, can produce. .... World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy.
2. The rest of the world pays a total annual subsidy (or 'tribute'!) to the US of at least $400bn a year for using the dollar as the main global currency. A Pentagon analyst has justified this as payment to the US for keeping world order. Others see it as a means by which the richest country in the world compels poorer ones to pay for its unsustainable consumption of global resources.

A genuine international currency, issued by a world monetary authority, is clearly needed as an alternative to the US dollar (and other 'reserve currencies' like the yen, the euro and the pound). Issuing it would give a source of revenue to the world community, just as national monetary reform would do for national communities. It would also help to prevent national governments manipulating the value of their currencies in order to distort the terms of international trade in their own favour.

Revenue from global taxes and global money creation would then provide stable sources of finance for global expenditures, including international peace-keeping programmes. Some of the revenue could also be distributed to all nations according to population size, reflecting the right of every person in the world to a global “citizen's income" based on fair shares of the value of global resources.

This approach:

• would encourage environmentally sustainable development worldwide;
• it would generate a much needed source of revenue for the United Nations;
• it would provide substantial financial transfers to developing countries by right and without strings, as payments for the rich countries’ disproportionate use of world resources;
• it would help to liberate developing countries from dependence on grants and loans from institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which the rich countries now dominate;
• it would help to solve the problem of Third World debt;
• it would recognise the shared status of all people as citizens of the world; and
• by helping to reduce the spreading sense of injustice in a globalised world, it would contribute to global security.

5. IN CONCLUSION

Support for all the reforms I have mentioned has been growing. But up to now it has been fragmented. Different people have promoted each on its own merits, and different interests have opposed each because, by itself, it would disadvantage them. These reform proposals now need to be developed as integrated parts of a bigger project, to reconstruct the role of money in world society.

I hope that this suggests the nature and the scale of the challenge for all our institutions. The ancient Greek poet Archilochus said: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing”. Our institutionalised society today has too much of the fox. It splits our ways of life and thought into separate specialisms, careers, academic disciplines, professions, and departments of government. Above all, it doesn’t know how to reintegrate politics and economics and science with ethics.

That is why, in these critical breakthrough years, the initial drive for worldwide institutional reconstruction is coming from active citizens and citizen groups. But, if we are to change course successfully to what Schumacher called “the one and only direction of development that would give sense and meaning to our life on Earth”, a bolder and more constructive response must come from leading people in all the established institutions and professions.

APPENDIX I

The Pio Manzu Centre, XXIX Annual Conference, 2003

“The Pio Manzù International Research Centre, a non-governmental organization of the United Nations and UNIDO, has been operating since 1969 as an institute for the in-depth study of the main economic and scientific aspects of the relationship between man and his environment.

The Centre's primary objective is to design and conduct global investigations into specific issues, drawing upon a broad range of expertise which it seeks to make available to those in the public, private and non-profit sectors whose task it is to devise prompt, effective action strategies.

The main aims of the Pio Manzù Centre are thus to act as:

• a promoter of specific research projects, through the implementation of forms of synergistic collaboration between researchers of different cultural and professional backgrounds
• a link between the world of research and the practical socio-political decision makers, providing a forum for a free and frank exchange of views and expertise on both sides.

Founded in 1969 by a group of avant-garde scholars, the Pio Manzù Centre has set up its own network of specialists, a pool of researchers operating in Bologna, London, Darmstadt, Frankfurt, Boston and Moscow.

As a non-profit-making organization, the efforts of the Centre today are mainly targeted at making a major contribution towards the up-to-date, functional study of the interactions between technological and industrial development and its impact on the human and cultural environment.

Over the years, the Centre has designed and conducted studies of major innovative significance in the fields of scientific and technological research.

From this penchant for cultural exchanges and confrontation stems the true mission of the Pio Manzù Centre which, through the constant quest for common interdisciplinary languages across a whole range of spheres of interest, seeks above all to establish the centrality of man, both in terms of his creative and spiritual capabilities and in the setting of a meaningful relationship with nature and the environment.

The Pio Manzù Centre thus offers public and private decision-making centres a complex, well-differentiated framework of collaboration and integration, much appreciated by a highly authoritative international clientele.

Every year, the work of analysis and design conducted by the Centre's own research staff with invaluable contributions from scholars and researchers from numerous academic institutions is presented in the context of the Pio Manzù International Conference.

This prestigious conference, which is held every year in Rimini in October, marks the culmination of the Centre's collaborative research effort and offers an opportunity for joint reflection on the changes taking place in the global context and on the prospects of mankind.”

The theme of the XXIX Annual Conference in October, 2003 was “The economics of the noble path: fraternal rights, the convivial society, fair shares for all”. The conference was dedicated to the “essential figures of Ernst Schumacher and Ivan Illich, amidst many of their present-day heirs”. Its four Workshop sessions were on “Sharing limited resources and a change of course”; “Assets and hardships: proposals for the invention of a fraternal sharing of benefits”; “Water or oil? The assets of living nature are not up for sale”; and “Surviving and being truly human”. The proceedings will be published by the Pio Manzu Centre in due course.

Gold medals were presented to the following, nominated by the Pio Manzu Centre’s International Scientific Committee (President: Mikhail Gorbachev):
Samir Amin, Franco Abruzzo, Zygmunt Bauman, Lester Brown, Ernesto Cardenal, Diego Della Valle, Emma Nicholson, Martha Nussbaum, Corrado Passera, James Robertson, Dominick Salvatore, Enzo Tiezzi, Mario Vargas Llosa, Giancarlo Elia Valori, Derek Walcott, Jean Zeigler, and posthumously the late Sergio Vieira De Mello.

The Pio Manzu Centre’s address is:
Via Budrio 35, I-47826 Verucchio/Rimini, Italy
tel.: (+39) 0541678139 - 0541670220
fax: (+39) 0541670172
e-mail:

info@piomanzu.com

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Internet: http://www.piomanzu.com

APPENDIX II

[Citation]

Gold Medal of the Pio Manzu Centre

Awarded by the International Scientific Committee of the Pio Manzu Centre to James Robertson
After working as an aide to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on his “Wind of Change” African tour in 1960, and as a director of interbank research, James Robertson came to see that “decolonising” today’s overpowerful institutions must be part of the transition to a democratic, environmentally benign post-modern world.

Taking a clear-cut stance on issues involving moral choice, his books as an independent writer and lecturer – including “The Sane Alternative”, a landmark study for the “new economics” movement – have supported practicable measures to promote economic justice, such as monetary reform and a shift of taxation on to the use of land and other resources. He was a prominent founder of The Other Economic Summit (TOES) and the New Economics Foundation in the mid-1980s.

The Pio Manzu Centre pays homage to this ‘reasonable revolutionary’ and singles him out as an outstanding example of a modern thinker at the service of society.

[signed]
Mikhail Gorbachev, President
Rimini, 19 October 2003

Endnotes

1 Schumacher Circle organisations in the UK include the Schumacher Society, Schumacher Book Service, Schumacher College, Centre for Alternative Technology, Intermediate Technology, Soil Association, New Economics Foundation, Resurgence Magazine, Green Books, and India Development Group. There are also a Schumacher Society and an Intermediate Technology in the USA. Schumacher Briefings Nos 1, 4, 5 and 9 all deal with questions about money and the sharing of resources – Schumacher Society, The Create Centre, B-Bond Warehouse, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1 6XN, England - www.schumacher.org.uk
The Right to Useful Unemployment, page 8.
I am grateful to Diana Schumacher for confirming that Schumacher used this phrase, and the variant “forward stampede”, in a number of lectures and talks.
It has been pointed out - by Peter Etherden in “The Schumacher Enigma”, Fourth World Review, 1999:93 - that the institutions dealing with money are a conspicuous example of this. Working with John Maynard Keynes and J.K. Galbraith after the second World War, Schumacher was seen as an up-and-coming authority on international finance and currency reform. So why in later life, in Small Is Beautiful and other books, did he say so little about how the present money system ties most people to unreconstructed ways of living and working and thinking?
For fuller background see:

• James Robertson, The New Economics of Sustainable Development: A briefing for policy-makers (written for the European Commission), published 1999 by: Kogan Page, London, Editions Apogee, Paris (as Changer d’Economie: ou la Nouvelle Economie du Developpement Durable ), and
  Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
• James Robertson,Transforming Economic Life: A Millennial Challenge, Schumacher Briefing No1, Green Books, 1998 - www.greenbooks.co.uk (Publication of the Russian edition was organised by Dr Tanya Roskoshnaya, Land and Public Welfare Foundation, St Petersburg, now with UN Habitat in Nairobi; and publication of the Japanese edition was organised by Dr Takashi Iwami, Japan Renaissance Institute .)

Stafford Beer, Designing Freedom, John Wiley, 1974, p.2.
The following two books provide good background.

• David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World (second edition), Kumarian Press and Berrett-Koehler publishers, 2001. Part IV is on “A Rogue Financial System”.
• Frances Hutchinson, Mary Mellor and Wendy Olsen in The Politics of Money: Towards Sustainability and Economic Democracy, Pluto Press, 2002, provide a constructive response.
  These include:
  • “complementary”, “parallel” and “community” currencies like LETSystems and time banks;
  • the development of “digital” payment systems in support of those and other currencies, using the internet, mobile phones etc;
  • local community financial enterprises like community development funds, community banks, credit unions and microcredit banks (eg Grameen Bank); and
  • the socially responsible and ethical use of private money, such as fair trading, and ethical and green consumption and investment.

I owe this thought to Joseph Huber, co-author of “Creating New Money” (see Note 20).

In technical terms, functions 1) and 2) comprise the fiscal functions of the state, and function 3) is the monetary function.

The state is also responsible for regulating private financial enterprises. Scandals in recent years (e.g. Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Merrill Lynch) have underlined the importance of this task. But it is not a topic that this paper is discussing.

See Tax Justice Network (www.taxjustice.net).

Sources of information on Land Value Taxation include:

• Fred Harrison, Centre for Land Policy Studies, 7 Kings Road, Teddington, TW11 0QB, England.
• Peter Gibb, Henry George Foundation, 58 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 5LA, UK, www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org
• Alanna Hartzok, Earth Rights Institute, Box 328, Scotland, PA, 17254, USA. www.earthrights.net
• Jeffery Smith, Geonomy Society, www.progress.org/geonomy

Don Riley,Taken for a Ride: Trains, Taxpayers and the Treasury, Centre for Land Policy Studies, 2001(see note 13).

10 James Robertson, Benefits and Taxes: A Radical Strategy, New Economics Foundation, 1994.

In “Manna from Heaven: Radio Rent Windfalls and the Tax Conversion Fund” in Geophilos 03(1), Spring 2003, from Centre for Land Policy Studies (see note 13), Fred Harrison celebrates the thinking of Nobel prize-winning economist William Vickrey as the origin of this auction, and points out that the socialisation of community-created rental values combined with the full privatisation of untaxed earned wages and savings could remove the ceiling artificially imposed on the capitalist economy by deadweight taxes.

A great deal of work has been done in recent years on energy and environmental taxation. Much of it points towards shifting the burden of taxes away from useful enterprise and employment on to the use of energy and the capacity of the environment to absorb pollution. For example, the EU carbon/energy tax proposal of the 1990s would have used revenue from taxes on fossil fuels to reduce taxes on employment. Valuable sources of information include:

• Paul Ekins, Head of Environment Group, Policy Studies Institute, 100 Park Village East,London NW1 3SR. www.psi.org.uk
• Green Budget News: European Newsletter on Environmental Fiscal Reform www.foes-ev.de
• Timothy O’Riordan (ed), Ecotaxation, Earthscan, 1997.
• Durning A. and Bauman Y, Tax Shift, Northwest Environment Watch, Seattle, 1998.
• Hamond, M.J. et al, Tax Waste, Not Work: How Changing What We Tax Can Lead To A Stronger Economy And A Cleaner Environment, Redefining Progress, San Francisco, 1997.

Useful sources include:

• Michael Rowbotham, The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive economics, Jon Carpenter Publishing, Oxfordshire, 1998,
• David Boyle, The Money Changers: currency reform from Aristotle to e-cash, Earthscan, 2002, and
• Bernard Lietaer, The Future of Money, Random House, 2000.

The creators of money can spend this profit into circulation, as medieval monarchs and local rulers spent the “seigniorage” from minting and issuing coins. Or they can give it away, as the Bank of England and the Royal Mint now give the UK government a proportion of the value of new banknotes and new coin. Or they can lend it at interest, as today’s commercial banks lend their customers money they have created for that purpose. Or they can lend it interest-free to finance public investment, as recent UK parliamentary motions have proposed the Bank of England should do.

For this and the following paragraphs see Joseph Huber and James Robertson, "Creating New Money: A monetary reform for the information age", New Economics Foundation, London, 2000 - www.neweconomics.org. (Prof. Dr. Joseph Huber is at the Institut für Soziologie, Martin-Luther-Universität, D - 06099 Halle, Germany.)

A fuller list of the benefits of monetary reform would include the following:

1. Existing taxation and government debt could be reduced, or public spending could be increased.
2. The value of a common resource - the national money supply - would become a source of public revenue rather than private profit. That would remove an economic injustice.
3. Withdrawing this hidden subsidy to the commercial banks would result in a freer market for money, a more competitive banking industry, and a more efficient economy.
4. A debt-free money supply would help to reduce the costs of economic transactions and the levels of public and private debt. These are now at least partly due to the fact that almost all the money we use has been created as interest-bearing debt which has to be repaid.
5. The economy would become more stable. Banks want to lend more and bank customers want to borrow more at the peaks of the business cycle and less in the troughs. When, as now, the money in circulation depends on how much the banks lend, the results are “pro-cyclical”. Booms and busts are automatically amplified.
6. Central banks would be better able to exert “anti-cyclical” monetary control if they themselves created the new money entering the economy. Controlling inflation indirectly, as now, by raising the costs of borrowing from banks, is itself inflationary - as well as damaging to many people and businesses.

Norman Myers, Perverse Subsidies: Tax $s Undercutting Our Economies and Environments Alike, IISD, Winnipeg, Canada, 1998.
Sources of information about basic income include:

• Basic Income European Network (BIEN), Prof. Philippe Van Parijs, Chaire Hoover d'éthique économique et sociale, Université catholique de Louvain, Place Montesquieu 3, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. e-mail:
  

  bien@basicincome.org

  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

• South African New Economics Foundation (SANE), Aart Roukens de Lange and Margaret Legum, web: www.sane.org.za, e-mail:
  

  sane@sane.org.za

  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

• CORI Justice Commission, Fr Sean Healy, Bloomfield Avenue, Dublin 4, Ireland, www.cori.ie/justice
• Citizen's Income Trust, Malcolm Torry, P.O. Box 26586, London SE3 7WY web: www.citizensincome.org, e-mail:
  

  info@citizensincome.org

  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

  
  A connected point is about spending the revenue from particular sources on specified purposes. The technical term for this is “hypothecation”.

• An example was the EU proposal to spend revenue from fossil fuel energy taxes on reducing employment taxes.
• Road traffic congestion charges are expected to be more acceptable if the revenue is spent on improving public transport.
• An energy tax hits poor people relatively harder than rich people. That regressive effect can be reversed by distributing the revenue as “ecobonuses” to everyone in the area covered by the tax. (For examples see Ecological Tax Reform Even If Germany Has To Go It Alone, German Institute for Economic Research, Economic Bulletin, Vol.37, Gower, Aldershot, 1994; and E.U. von Weizsacker, Earth Politics, Zed Books,1994.) Such ecobonuses could contribute to a Citizen’s Income.

Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford University Press, 1995.

Another important contribution is Hazel Henderson, Beyond Globalization: Shaping a Sustainable Global Economy, Kumarian Press (for the New Economics Foundation), 1999.

Henry C K Liu , US Dollar Hegemony Has Got To Go, Asia Times Online Co Ltd, 2002.

Richard Douthwaite, Defense and the Dollar, 2002 and Feasta, Climate and Currency: Proposals for Global Monetary Reform, 2002, prepared for the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. Details of both from The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, 9 Lower Rathmines Road, Dublin 6, Republic of Ireland; e-mail:

feasta@anu.ie

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

; web: www.feasta.org

Two further quotations in similar vein are:

• "To build up reserves, poor countries have to borrow dollars from the US at interest rates as high as 18% and lend it back to the US in the form of Treasury Bonds at 3% interest." Romilly Greenhill and Ann Pettifor, The United States as a HIPC (heavily indebted prosperous country) - how the poor are financing the rich, New Economics Foundation, London, 2002; www.neweconomics.org
• “At the root of this new form of imperialism is the exploitation of governments by a single government, that of the United States via the central banks and multilateral control institutions of intergovernmental capital... [This] has turned the older form of imperialism into a super imperialism”. Michael Hudson, Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of World Domination, Pluto Press, 2003, pp23-24.

In a celebrated essay on “The Hedgehog and the Fox” in Russian Thinkers, 1978, the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin discussed Tolstoy as an example of the tension between the monist and pluralist visions of the world.

The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has found it difficult to achieve his proclaimed aim of “joined-up government”.

E.F. Schumacher, A guide for the perplexed, Jonathan Cape 1977, p. 147.

BIEN World Congress on Basic Income-Dublin, Ireland, 2008

Theme: Inequality and Development in a Globalised Economy - The Basic Income Option

All papers supplied to the organising committee have been uploaded and can be accessed by going to the particular speaker and clicking on the link(s) supplied. Some speakers have made their slide presentations available and others have also included other documents relevant to their presentation

Thursday, June 19th, 2008

9.15am - 5pm IRELAND DAY CONFERENCE 'MAKING CHOICES - CHOOSING FUTURES'
Part One: Making Choices - Choosing Futures

• A business perspective : Download Pdf
  Speaker: Danny McCoy, Director, Irish Business and Employers Confederation
• A trade union perspective : Download Pdf
  Speaker: David Begg, General Secretary, Irish Congress of Trade Unions
• An economist's perspective : Download Pdf
  Speaker: George Lee, Economics Editor, RTE
• A community and voluntary perspective : Download Pdf
  Speakers: Seán Healy and Brigid Reynolds, Directors, CORI Justice

Part Two: Securing an Adequate Income

• Basic Income in Ireland: surveying three decades : Download Pdf
  Speaker: Seán Ward, Public sector analyst
• What is an appropriate level of minimum income? : Download Pdf
  Speaker: Micheál L Collins, Department of Economics, Trinity College Dublin
• The Case for a Universal State Pension: Lessons from New Zealand for Ireland's Green Paper on Pensions : Download Pdf
  Speaker: Gerry Hughes, Pensions Policy Research Group, Trinity College Dublin

Meeting BIEN Ireland
Chairperson: John Baker

Friday, June 20th, 2008

9.30-11.00 PLENARY SESSION 1
Theme: Inequality and Development in a Globalised Economy - WHY Basic Income is a major part of the answer

1. Peter Townsend (LSE and Bristol University) Download Ppt
2. Carole Pateman (UCLA and Cardiff University) Download Document
3. Pablo Yanes (Social Development Secretariat of the Government of Mexico City) Download Document

11.30 - 1.00 PARALLEL SESSION 1
1a. Pensions and Basic Income
(i) Armando Barrientos (University of Manchester) Role of non-contributory pensions as a form of securing a basic income in developing countries
(ii) John Macnicol (London School of Economics) The politics of non-contributory pensions Download Document
(iii) Brian Nolan (University College Dublin) Providing Basic Income for Older Persons: What can be Learned from the Performance of the Irish Pension System?

1b. Global and Regional Issues
(i) Ian Gareth Orton (La Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa) Eliminating Child Labour: The Promise of Unconditional Cash Transfers Download Power point / Download Pdf
(ii) Heiner Michel (University of Frankfurt) Is a Global Basic Income a Remedy for Poverty? Download Pdf

1c. Gender and Care I: Should Feminists Embrace Basic Income? (Roundtable - open to all) Download Document
(i) John Baker (University College Dublin, Ireland)
(ii) Julieta Elgarte (Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina) Download Document
(iii) Anca Gheaus (Université Catholique de Lille, France) Download Document
(iv) Almaz Zelleke (The New School, New York, USA) Download Pdf
(v) Orla O'Connor (National Women's Council of Ireland)
(vi) Cathleen O'Neill (Kilbarrack Community Development, Dublin, Ireland)

1d. An Institutional Perspective on Basic Income I
(i) Louise Haagh (University of York) Basic Income, Labour Market and Occupational Freedom
(ii) Bill Jordan (University of Plymouth) Basic Income and Social Value Download Document
(iii) Rubén M. Lo Vuolo (Ciepp) Labour markets informality and welfare regimes in Latin America. Why Basic Income is better Download Pdf

1e. Social Justice and the Meaning of Life
(i) Michèle Billoré (France) Noospheric Ethical/Ecological Constitution for Mankind Document 1 / Document 2
(ii) Manuel Franzmann (Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität) An Unconditional Basic Income from the Perspective of the Sociology of Religion Download Pdf
(iii) Johannes Hanel (Germany) Basic Income and Social Jusitce Download Pdf

14.00 - 15.30 PARALLEL SESSION 2
2a. Routes to Basic Income I
(i) Francisco Jose Martinez Martinez (Universidad Nacional de Distancia, Madrid) Debate on Basic Income in the Spanish Parliament Download Document
(ii) Al Sheahan (USBIG) The Rise and Fall of a Basic Income Guarantee Bill in the U.S. Congress Download Document
(iii) Daniel Raventós (University of Barcelona) and Julie Wark How to Implement Universal Human Rights: the Monterrey Declaration

2b. Case Studies - Countries
(i) John Tomlinson (Queensland University of Technology) Timor Leste: Minimum Wages, Job Guarantees, Social Welfare Payments or Basic Income? Download Power Point / Download Document
(ii) Sergio Luiz de Moraes Pinto (São Paulo Municipality Government) Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants: Jointly Breaking the Long History of Endemic Poverty and Economic Inequality in Brazil Download Document

2c. Gender and Care II: Is Basic Income Good for Women?
(i) Áine Uí Ghiollagáin (la Fédération Européenne des Femmes Actives au Foyer) Basic income and caring: Why aren't all caregivers interested in basic income? Download Document / Download Power Point
(ii) Mary Murphy (NUI, Maynooth) and Orla O'Connor (National Women's Council of Ireland) Is basic income the answer to the feminist demand to individualise Irish social security? Download Document
(iii) Margot Young (University of British Columbia) Women, Work and Basic Income

2d. An Institutional Perspective on Basic Income II
(i) Lindsay Stirton (University of Manchester) Rethinking Universal Welfare and Administration
(ii) Jurgen De Wispelaere (Trinity College Dublin/University of Oxford) and José A. Noguera (Autonomous University of Barcelona) The Political Feasibility of Basic Income: Towards an Analytical Framework

2e. Theoretical Perspectives on Basic Income
(i) Ian Gareth Orton (La Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa) Why we Ought to Listen to Zygmunt Bauman. Download Pdf / Download Power Point
(ii) Andrea Fumagalli (University of Pavia) and Stefano Lucarelli (University of Bergamo) Basic Income and Counter-power in Cognitive Capitalism Download Power Point

16.00 - 17.30 PLENARY SESSION 2
Theme: HOW can a Basic Income system be operationalised and achieved (politically, institutionally and technically)?

1. Moving to Basic Income - A left-wing political perspective : Speaker: Katja Kipping - Member of German Parliament, (The Left Party) Download Document
2. Moving to Basic Income - A right-wing political perspective : Speaker: Hugh D. Segal, - Senator in the Canadian Parliament, (Conservative Party) Download Document
3. Addressing the Institutional and Technical Challenges : Speaker: Charles M.A. Clark (St John's University, New York) Download Power Point

18.30 OFFICIAL EVENT
Official reception hosted by Mr John Gormley, TD, Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on behalf of the Irish Government at his offices: Custom House, Dublin City Centre.

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

9.30 - 11.00 PARALLEL SESSION 3
3a. Routes to Basic Income II
(i) Richard Lawson (Green Party England and Wales) Introducing Basic Income by the Back Door in a Recession Download Document
(ii) Gösta Melander (Swedish Senior Party) How a basic income may be achieved politically Download Document / Download Powerpoint / Download Powerpoint Appendix 2
(iii) Marc Meuris (Belgium) A Basic Income Allowance as a solution for the social unification of the EU Download Pdf / Download Power Point

3b. The Bolsa Familia in Brazil I
(i) Maria Ozanira da Silva e Silva (Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Brazil) The Bolsa Família Program and the Reduction of Poverty and Inequality in Brazil Download Document
(ii) Clóvis Roberto Zimmermann (Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros) The Citizenship Principle in Income Transfer Programs in Brazil Download Pdf

3c. Basic Income and the Environment
(i) Borja Barragué (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) Pigovian Taxes, Cap-and-Trade System, or Environmental Adders? A Green Financial Model for a Basic Income Download Document
(ii) Celia Kerstenetzky (Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro) and Lionello Punzo (Università di Siena) Sustainable tourism: basic income for poor communities Download Pdf
(iii) Erik Christensen (Aalborg University, Denmark) A Global Ecological Argument for a Basic Income Download Document

3d. Freedom and Reciprocity I: Basic Income and the Institutions of a Property-Owning Democracy
(i) Simon Birnbaum (University of Stockholm) Freedom, Reciprocity and the Ethos of Work
(ii) David Casassas (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) Freedom as Personal Independence: From the Claim for Reciprocity to the Struggle for Equity Among Peers
(iii) François Hudon (Université Catholique de Louvain) Basic Income and Property-Owning Democracy: Toward a Free and Equal Society

3e. Basic Income and Guaranteed Income in Canada
(i) Pat Evans (Carleton University, Ottawa) Challenging Income (In)security: Women and Precarious Employment Download Document
(ii) Luann Good Gingrich (York University, Ontario) Double jeopardy, social exclusion, and lone mothers in the market-state social field
(iii) Robert Arnold and Rob Rainer (National Anti-Poverty Organisation, Canada) Working Towards Guaranteed Adequate Income in Canada: the NAPO Initiative
(iv) James Mulvale (University of Regina, Canada) The Debate on Basic Income / Guaranteed Adequate Income in Canada: Perils and Possibilities Download Power Point / Online Documents (outside website)

11.30 - 12.15 CONFERENCE ADDRESSES
Peter Power T.D., Minister for Overseas Aid, Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland.
Rosani Cunha, National Secretary of Citizen's Income, Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger, Brazil.
Dr Jean Swanson-Jacobs, Deputy Minister Social Development, Republic of South Africa

12.15 - 13.45 PARALLEL SESSION 4
4a. Funding Basic Income I
(i) Francisco Javier Alonso Madrigal and José Luis Rey Pérez (University Pontificia Comillas of Madrid) What Type of Taxes Demands Basic Income? Download Pdf
(ii) Annie Miller (Citizens Income UK) Designing and Costing Simple Basic Income Schemes Download Document

4b. The Bolsa Familia in Brazil II: the Transition from BF to Basic Income
(i) Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy (Brazilian Federal Senate) The Transition from the Bolsa Família Program to the Citizen's Basic Income in Brazil Download Document

(ii) Carolina Raquel D. Mello Justo (Universidade Estadual de Campinas) Basic Income X Minimum Income:How the Political-Ideological Dispute has advanced in Brazilian Concrete Programs Download Pdf   Download Powerpoint

4c. The Debate in Europe
(i) Gianluca Busilacchi (University of Camerino, Italy) The different regimes of minimum income policies in the enlarged Europe Download Document
(ii) Sascha Liebermann (UBI, Germany) The German experience of bringing Basic Income into the National Debate Download Document
(iii) Eric Patry (University of St. Gallen, Switzerland) The Basic Income Debate in Switzerland: Experiences and Perspectives Download Pdf
(iv) Markku Ikkala (Jyväskylä University, Finland) Basic Income Discussion in Finland Download Document

4d. Freedom and Reciprocity II: The Case for Basic Income
(i) Karl Widerquist (University of Reading) Status Freedom
(ii) Almaz Zelleke (New School, New York) Reconsidering Independence: Foundations of a Feminist Theory of Distributive Justice Download Pdf
(iii) David Casassas (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) and Daniel Raventós (Universitat de Barcelona) Property and Freedom: Theses on the Republican Case for Basic Income

4e. Economic Security in Canada
(i) Ernie Lightman (University of Toronto) Towards Economic Security for New Immigrants: Beyond Workfare
(ii) Anita Vaillancourt (University of Northern British Columbia/University of Toronto) More than a Northern Living Allowance: Considerations and Strategies for Designing and Implementing Basic Income in Rural Northern Contexts
(iii) William Clegg (National Anti-Poverty Organisation, Canada) Basic Income-Greater Freedom of Choice Through Greater Economic Security of the Person in a Globalized Economy Download Document

14.00 - 14.30
Video Presentation by Eduardo Suplicy (Brazilian Federal Senator)
(All Welcome - running during lunch time in the main conference hall - Room a)

14.45 - 16.15 PARALLEL SESSION 5

5a. Funding Basic Income II
(i) Al Sheahen (USBIG) How the U.S. Can Afford a Poverty-Level Basic Income Guarantee Download Document
(ii) Jörg Drescher (Projekt Jovialismus) Economic view of model proposals for funding a basic income on the basis of the value creation of goods and services Download Pdf
(iii) Paul Segal (University of Oxford) The Resource Dividend: How to (Nearly) Eliminate Global Poverty using Resource Rents

5b. Approaches to Costing a Basic Income for Ireland (Roundtable - open to all)
(i) Micheal L Collins (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland)
(ii) Sean Healy (CORI Justice, Ireland)
(iii) Brigid Reynolds (CORI Justice, Ireland)
(iv) Sean Ward (Public Sector Analyst, Ireland)
(v) Charles M.A. Clark (St John's University, New York)

5c. Making Basic Income Happen
(i) Wim Van Lancker (University of Antwerp) Basic income, an alternative for neo-liberal pension reforms?
(ii) Steven Shafarman (Citizens Policies Institutes, USA) Basic Income and the 2008 Campaign in the United States Download Document

5d. Global Justice
(i) Michael W. Howard (University of Maine) Cosmopolitanism, Trade, and Global (or Regional) Transfers Download Document / Download PowerPpoint
(ii) Celia Kerstenetzky (Universidade Federal Fluminense) and Gary Dymski Download Document
(University of California) Global Basic Income and Financial Globalisation
(iii) Myron J. Frankman (McGill University) Justice, Sustainability and Progressive Taxation and Redistribution: The Case for a World-Wide Basic Income. Download Pdf / Download Power Point

5e. Basic Income in Changing Contexts
(i) Maria Oleynik (Ireland) Basic Income in a Changing Ireland Download Pdf
(iii) Alexander Varshavsky (Russian Academy of Sciences) Basic income and increasing income inequality in Russia Download Document
(iii) Emer O Siochru (Feasta, Ireland) Basic Income and Environmental Challenges

16.45 - 18.00 CLOSING PLENARY
Theme: Basic Income: The Way Forward
A roundtable with a number of short presentations from people reflecting on the main themes of the Congress and what they have heard followed by an open forum. The speakers:

1. The Way Forward - the political dimension: Speaker: Richard Caputo (Yeshiva University, New York) Download Pdf
2. Report from Developing World strand : Speaker: Lorna Gold (Programme Leader, Torcaire)
3. What's new? What's next?: Speaker: Philippe Van Parijs (Catholic University of Louvain and Harvard University)
4. "Reviving Egalitarianism in Full Freedom: Why Basic Income will define progressive politics": Speaker: Guy Standing (University of Bath and Monash University)

Open Forum
Thanks and Farewell

18.30 - 20.00 BIEN General Meeting - elections etc.
Montrose Hotel (across the road from the congress venue)

19.00 INFORMAL SOCIAL EVENT - Montrose Hotel (across the road from the congress venue)