Forum Grundeinkommen Offenes Forum zum Thema "Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen" * 14.05.2005: Die Administration dieses FORUMs wird ab heute von den Nutzern dieses FORUMs gestaltet. Siehe dazu im FORUM Beitrag in "Infos zur Nutzung des FORUMs". *
Dieses FORUM dient der Diskussion von Ideen zum BEDINGUNGSLOSEN GRUNDEINKOMMEN. Es war zuerst ein FORUM des "Netzwerk Grundeinkommen", Näheres: http://Grundeinkommen.INFO. Die Sprecher+..Innen des Netzwerkes betreiben seit April 05 eine eigene Mailingliste, Näheres: http://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/debatte-grundeinkommen.
* Die Nutzer dieses FORUMS haben sich trotzdem mit Mehrheit für die Beibehaltung dieses FORUMs ausgesprochen, das weiterhin wohl auch hauptsächlich das weitere Vorgehen von http://Grundeinkommen.INFO begleiten wird. * Das FORUM ist z.Zt. versuchsweise ÖFFENTLICH geschaltet. Es kann also JEDEr Beiträge lesen, die Dateien ansehen und auch downloaden. Die Dateien sind auch verlinkbar. Wer mitschreiben will, muss sich anmelden, auch mit Pseudonym. Die Berechtigung muss bestätigt werden. Bitte die Frage "Warum..." beantworten. *
Von: Karl Widerquist [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. August 2004 03:32 An: Karl Widerquist Betreff: USBIG NEWSLETTER VOL. 5, NO. 28, JULY-AUGUST 2004
USBIG NEWSLETTER VOL. 5, NO. 28, JULY-AUGUST 2004
This is the Newsletter of the USBIG Network (http://www.usbig.net ), which promotes the discussion of the basic income guarantee (BIG) in the United States--a policy that would unconditionally guarantee a subsistence-level income for everyone. If you would like to be added to or removed from this list please email: [email protected].
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. THE FIRST 29 MEMBERS OF THE USBIG <> NETWORK
2. FOURTH ANNUAL USBIG CONGRESS <>
3. U.S. GREEN PARTY ENDORSES BIG <>
4. BABY BOND BILL INTRODUCED IN THE <> U.S. CONGRESS
5. A BIG NETWORK GETS OFF THE GROUND <> IN GERMANY
6. CITIZENS LOBBYING GROUP DISCUSSES <> BIG
7. UPCOMMING EVENTS <>
8. NEW DISCUSSION PAPERS <>
9. NEW PUBLICATION <>
10. NEW LINKS <>
11. LINKS AND OTHER INFO <>
1. THE FIRST 29 MEMBERS OF THE USBIG NETWORK
The USBIG Network created an official membership in June 2004. The decision to create USBIG’s first official membership was made at the third annual congress in Washington, DC last February. Membership in the USBIG Network is free and open to anyone who shares its goals. You can become a member of USBIG by going to the website (http://www.usbig.net ), click on membership, and follow the instructions. The first 29 members of USBIG are 1. Karl Widerquist, Cassopolis, MI, 2. Eri Noguchi, New York, NY, 3. Fred Block, Davis California, 4. Michael A. Lewis, New York, NY, 5. Steve Shafarman, Washington, DC, 6. Brian Steensland, Bloomington, IN, 7. Al Sheahen, Van Nuys, CA, 8. Robert Harris, Roosevelt Island, NY, 9. Philippe Van Parijs, Brussels, Belgium, 10. Stanley Aronowitz, New York, NY, 11. Carole Pateman, Los Angeles, CA, 12. Frances Fox Piven, New York, NY, 13. Eduardo Suplicy, Sao Paolo, Brazil, 14. J. Philip Wogaman, Washington, DC, 15. Chirs LaPlante, Blacksburg, VA, 16. John Marangos, Fort Collins, CO, 17. Fransisco Sales, Carretera Mexico City, DF, Mexico, 18. Manuel Henriques, Lisbon, Portugal, 19. Amelia Buaghman, Williams, AZ, 20. Robert F. Clark, Alexandria, VA, 21. Jason Burke Murphy, Saint Louis, MO, 22. Joel Handler, Los Angeles, CA, 23. Glen C. Cain, Madison, WI, 24. Timothy Roscoe Carter, San Fransisco, CA, 25. John Bollman, Bay City, MI, 26. George McGuire, Brooklyn, NY, 27. Adrian Kuziminski, Fly Creek, NY, 28. Hyun-Mook Lim, Seoul, Korea, 29. Kelly D. Pinkham, Kansas City, MO, Michael Murray, Clive, IA.
2. FOURTH ANNUAL USBIG CONGRESS
The Fourth Congress of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network: The Right to Economic Security will be held in conjunction with the Eastern Economics Association Annual Meeting in New York City at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers in Midtown Manhattan, Friday March 4 to Sunday March 6, 2005. The Congress is co-sponsored by the Citizen Policies Institute. Featured Speakers include Philippe Van Parijs, Wade Rathke, Fred Block, Frances Fox Piven, Eduardo Suplicy, and Irwin Garfinkel. The Congress will consist of three days of discussion of all aspects of the basic income guarantee and of poverty and inequality. The call for papers and registration instructions are on the USBIG website (http://www.usbig.net ). The deadline for presentation proposals is November 7, 2004.
3. U.S. GREEN PARTY ENDORSES BIG
On July 25th, 2004 at the Green Party National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Steve Shafarman, of the Citizen Policies Institute and a member of the USBIG Committee, conducted the workshop, “Green Economics: The Basic Income Guarantee and How to Pay for It." Fifty participants at the workshop learned about the Universal Basic Income, which has been endorsed by Green Parties from around the world. They considered ways to pay for it by shifting taxes from work and onto fossil fuels, minerals, land, and other rents. Later at the convention (June 25-27), the party adopted a new platform including the plank: “We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen’s income, or Citizen Dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high.”
4. BABY BOND BILL INTRODUCED IN THE U.S. CONGRESS
Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Representatives Pat Kennedy (D-RI), Harold Ford (D-TN) and Tom Petri (R-WI) introduced the Americans Savings for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education Act (The ASPIRE Act) on July 22, 2004. Similar to Britain’s “baby bond,” this bill would provide every child, at birth, a small savings account that can be used to build assets. It is essentially a one-time basic income. The accounts would be endowed with an initial $500 contribution. Children living in households below the national median income will be eligible for a supplemental contribution of up to $500. Children in households earning up the national median income will be eligible to receive a dollar-for-dollar match on the first $500 contributed to their accounts each year. After-tax contributions of up to $1000 a year could be made by parents, grandparents, the child or friends. The account itself would remain tax-free. Accounts are redeemable beginning at age 18, and restricted to use for education, home ownership, or retirement. If passed the accounts are to be administered by the Treasury Department with cost estimated at $3.25 billion the first year and $37.5 billion over 10 years. The bill’s sponsors estimate that an account holder, by the age of 18, could have an account worth at least $20,000.
Meredith Dodson, director of domestic campaigns with RESULTS (a grassroots citizens’ lobby) praised the bill, saying, “Providing asset-building opportunities to all Americans is a critical part of ending hunger and poverty in the United States. The KIDS accounts that are created in the ASPIRE Act are one of these strategic and effective solutions that bring politicians from across the political spectrum together to change the lives of millions of low-income families. This legislation will ultimately enable millions of Americans to live the American Dream.”
5. A BIG NETWORK GETS OFF THE GROUND IN GERMANY
Over 50 persons from different universities, political parties, trade unions and associations converged on the 9th of July 2004 to Berlin's Wissenschaftzentrum, where BIEN's 2000 Congress was held, in order to found the “Netzwerk Grundeinkommen", Germany's Basic Income Network. The founding members identified four criteria to distinguish an unconditional Basic Income from other proposals of social reform, and thereby define the network's constitutive idea: it should provide enough to live on; it should not be household-based but strictly individual; it should not be conditional upon a needs test; and it should entail no duty to perform paid work. The "Netzwerk Grundeinkommen" does not advocate a specific model for financing a Basic Income but focuses on those four criteria. A basic income is therefore meant to secure social inclusion through the provision of an adequate income. Entitlement to it is independent of any claim to support from spouses, parents and adult children. While insensitive to variation in needs, a Basic Income scheme should of course fit into a reformed system of taxes and contributions. Finally, the right to a basic income should not be linked to an obligation to work, but rather empower a new pluralism of work and activity.
The new "Netzwerk Grundeinkommen" expressed its commitment to fostering an open debate about the introduction of a Basic Income in Germany that will involve political decision-makers, economic and social organizations, trade unions and other social movements. It intends to do so in close connection with the Basic Income European Network (BIEN). The founding meeting appointed a board of five people: Ronald Blaschke, Katja Kipping, Michael Opielka, Wolfram Otto, and Birgit Zenker. The board established a homepage and a mail-forum under http://www.grundeinkommen.de/. The next meeting of the "Netzwerk Grundeinkommen" will take place in December 2004 in Berlin. A first congress is being planned for 2005. For further information: [email protected].
-From BIEN
6. CITIZENS LOBBYING GROUP DISCUSSES BIG
RESULTS, the citizens lobbying group that successfully helped push for the introduction of the ASPIRE Act, has sponsored a series of discussions under the theme "Blazing the Trail to 2015" on bold strategies to meet their objective of ending hunger and poverty in America by 2015. On June 12, 2004, Al Sheahen, author of Guaranteed Income: The Right to Economic Security and a member of the USBIG Committee, presented BIG to an audience of 70 members of RESULTS as part of this series.
7. UPCOMING EVENTS
-From BIEN
TENTH CONGRESS OF THE BASIC INCOME EUROPEAN NETWORK: The Right to a Basic Income: Egalitarian Democracy
Barcelona, Spain, September 19-20, 2004
This Congress will be the largest basic income conference yet. It will include BIEN's 10th General Assembly meeting, which will discuss the expansion of BIEN. The full program of the congress and many other details can be found on BIEN's web site: http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/BIEN/Resources/Congress2004.htm. For any further information relating to the congress, contact David Casassas .
PARIS (FR), 24 June 2004: LE DIVIDENDE UNIVERSEL
A one-day conference on basic income was organized at the French Parliament. It was the most conspicuous public event on basic income in France so far. Participants included scholars, members of the French Parliament, and activists from inside and outside France. Speakers discussed the labeling of the proposal, its effects and its political and economic feasibility. One of the participating French MPs discussed the possibility of a basic income experiment in one of the French overseas territories. For more info go to: http://www.dividendeuniversel.org or email [email protected].
ROSKILDE (DK), 27-28 August 2004: WORKSHOP "BASIC INCOME AND NEGATIVE INCOME TAX" was chaired by BIEN life member Erik Christensen within the framework of a European conference on "The Future of the European Welfare States: social, political and economic perspectives". Keynote speakers include Gøsta Esping Andersen, James Galbraith, Riccardo Petrella and Jørgen Goul Andersen
BARCELONA (ES), 17 September 2004: FOURTH SYMPOSIUM OF THE RED RENTA BASICA. As a prologue to BIEN's 10th Congress, Spain's basic income network, which is also actively involved in the organisation of the Congress, will hold its fourth annual meeting. Three detailed studies about how a basic income could be financed in Spain will be presented and discussed. The programme is available on http://www.nodo50.org/redrentabasica/index.php. For further information: "Daniel Raventos" [email protected].
8. NEW DISCUSSION PAPERS
The USBIG Discussion Paper Series posts papers related to the Basic Income Guarantee and the state of poverty and inequality. Seven new discussion papers are listed below. The full texts are available by going to http://www.usbig.net and clicking on “discussion papers.” (NOTE: The website will by updated to include these papers by September 10.)
No. 87: Basic Income and Migration Policy: A Moral Dilemma?, July 2004
Michael Howard
ABSTRACT: Because a global basic income is not likely to be attainable in the near future, advocates of basic income need to focus on the case for a national basic income (NBI). There is likely to be a tension between a generous NBI and another policy favored by many egalitarians, relatively open borders, and more open borders are to be expected from further economic integration. While the case for tightening borders is rather weak, and the effort to reduce immigration at the border can be counterproductive, some restriction can be justified as politically reasonable in order not to strain the commitment of citizens to egalitarian principles by making the poorest citizens significantly worse off. At the same time, the claims of global justice need to be acknowledged, and wealthier states put on a path toward egalitarian justice on a global scale.
No. 88: Freedom as the Power to Say No, July 2004
Karl Widerquist
ABSTRACT: The word freedom is commonly used in two different ways: as a continuum of allowances (the stop light reduces Bob’s freedom) and in a status sense (Bob’s release from prison gave him his freedom). This article is concerned with the status sense of freedom: the distinction between the status of a free individual (“freedom”) and the lack of that status (“unfreedom”). A free person has the power to make or to refuse social interaction with other willing people. This definition is not meant to designate absolute or complete freedom but the difference between a person who is essentially free to live her own life and a person who is not, such as a prisoner, a slave, or a subject of a totalitarian state. That is, in short, “freedom as effective control self-ownership,” “freedom as the power to say no,” or “freedom as independence.” This distinction is not all there is to freedom, liberty, or social justice, but it is a critically important concern for social justice. This article makes five basic points: First, a person is free if she has control over her own life: “Effective control self-ownership” (ECSO). That is, her interactions with others are both voluntary and unforced. Second, interaction is unforced when all parties are able to decline interaction: ECSO freedom entails the power to say no. Third, the power to say no requires an acceptable default option: ECSO freedom requires independence. Fourth, for most people, freedom as independence is largely satisfied by freedom from specific interference by others. Fifth, ECSO freedom is important to social justice because the absence of unnecessary force is a good in its own right, because it ensures that interaction is actually voluntary, and because it helps to make sure that interaction is mutually beneficial, fair, and reasonable.
No. 89: The Citizen’s Dividend: Sharing the Wealth of the Commons, July 2004
Jeff Smith
ABSTRACT: All of us, on this planet of abundance, are entitled to a fair share of society's surplus, to an extra income apart from our labor and capital. In a sane world, we’d all get a regular dividend from the commonwealth, from the profits without production, from what economists call “rent” for land and resources and government-granted privileges. It’d be like Alaska's oil dividend, but writ large. Merely demanding this Citizens Dividend elevates our self-esteem. And once we win it, we divert revenues from the pockets of the few now engorging upon these socially-generated values, to the pockets of everyone, those who actually create the values of nature and society. How much commonwealth is out there? Who has it now? How do we retrieve it? What's already being accomplished? And what can we each do now?
No. 90: BI as a “Medium”? An “Un-Ethical” Approach to the BI Debate, August 2004
Manfred Füllsack
ABSTRACT: Globalization has made the confrontation and contradiction of viewpoints and perceptions an everyday experience. On these premises, to argue BI via classical ethical principles like social justice, equality, or “Real Freedom” could become a demanding venture. Could it be more adequate to modern conditions to regard the intrinsic dynamics of modern labour and its remuneration as diverging, and to analyze the potential of BI on this ground in terms of a “medium” able to bridge some consequences of modern differentiation? The paper shall try to demonstrate this “un-ethical” approach to BI in regard to some aspects of modern knowledge procession (“brainwork”) and its intrinsic tendencies to diverge from its economical as well as legal possibilities to remunerate it.
No. 91: In Defense of Lazy: An Argument for Less Work, More Community, August 2004
Eri Noguchi and Michael A. Lewis
ABSTRACT: In recent years, in both Europe and the United States, there has been increasing interest in the basic income (Lewis, 1998; Van Parijs, 1995; and Widerquist, 1999). This policy, if implemented, could assume many different forms but the common feature of them all is that they would stipulate that government grant a universal minimum income one would not have to sell her labor to receive. The lack of a requirement to supply labor to receive the grant is a key concern of critics and some of those sympathetic to the basic income (Phelps, 1997). The concern is that without a work requirement the basic income would lead to a huge decrease in the supply of labor and, consequently, a decline in our standard of living. Proponents of a basic income, having been put on the defensive, are forced to explain why, even with such a policy in place, the vast majority of individuals would still work. We address this concern about the impact of the basic income on labor supply in a different way. We agree that a basic income is likely to reduce labor supply and, thereby, increase leisure. But we don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. This paper focuses on the possible benefits of increased leisure. Specifically, we think a basic income might lead to greater civic participation and, consequently, various positive externalities. Any analysis of the effects of the basic income that only focuses on the negative consequences of an increase in leisure is incomplete because these effects might be outweighed by the more positive ones we intend to emphasize.
No. 92: AIDS and the Disability Grant in South Africa: Further Reasons for Introducing a Basic Income Grant, August 2004
Nicoli Nattrass
ABSTRACT: This paper argues that a Basic Income Grant is a reasonable response to the multiple challenges posed by unemployment, poverty and AIDS in South Africa. Indeed, given that the disability grant is one of the ways that poor households are able to access social security for people of working age, the rollout of antiretroviral treatment poses unacceptable dilemmas for them. Antiretroviral treatment restores the health of people previously sick with AIDS, thus rendering them ineligible for the disability grant. They are thus faced with a stark choice between income and health. Those who try to maintain the grant by discontinuing their treatment long enough to get the grant reinstated, and then going back on to treatment, not only undermine their own health but also will contribute to the growth of resistant strains of the virus – thereby undermining the effectiveness (and raising the costs) of the antiretroviral rollout itself.
No. 93: A Proposal to Transform the Standard Deduction into a Refundable Tax Credit, August 2004
Al Sheahen and Karl Widerquist
ABSTRACT: This proposal discusses how to begin the phase-in of a basic income guarantee in the United States by transforming the standard income tax deduction into a refundable tax credit. This small reform would establish the principle of a universal payment, a necessary step toward a full-sized basic income guarantee.
No. 94: Class-Based Inequities in Civic Participation: Some Possible Reasons, One Possible Solution, August 2004
Michael A. Lewis and Eri Noguchi
In recent works, including Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone (2000) and Theda Skocpol’s Diminished Democracy (2003), scholars of civic engagement in the United States have called the alarm regarding the seeming increase of disengagement among Americans in civic affairs. There seem to be many reasons for this alarm. First, this disengagement is believed to be resulting in a decline in the competencies that individuals who are active in civic affairs supposedly develop, such as leadership skills, organizational skills, advocacy skills, and community building skills. Second, this disengagement is allegedly causing a decline in the sense of community and social capital that is thought to be afflicting American society. And third, it is thought to be weakening the effectiveness of American democracy to represent all Americans equally and to protect their interests irrespective of social class.
This paper will focus on this third cause for alarm, concentrating on four hypotheses. First, we predict that low-income persons are less likely to participate in civic social networks than high-income persons. Second, we predict a relationship between the level of civic engagement among low-income persons and the extent to which government policies represent their interests. Third, we predict that high-income persons allocate more money to civic networks that low-income persons do. Fourth, we hypothesize that, to the extent that the main “resource” low-income persons have had to contribute to civic affairs and the political process has been “disposable time” (as opposed to “disposable income”), it is the decline in their disposable time that has been the main culprit of their increasing disappearance from civic life. This paper will then conclude by proposing one possible policy that would give some “time” to low-income people, so that they might have more of an opportunity to participate directly in the various decisions and initiatives that affect their lives.
9. NEW PUBLICATIONS
Birdsall, Nancy and Subramanian, Arvind, “Saving Iraq From its Oil” Foreign Affairs Volume 83, Number 4 July/August 2004
Of all the pressing questions facing Iraq today, perhaps the most important in the long run is what to do with the country's oil. Vast wealth from natural resources can often be a curse, not a blessing, corrupting a nation's political and economic institutions and impeding the growth of democracy. There is only one way for Iraq to resist the oil curse: by handing over the proceeds directly to the Iraqi people. Nancy Birdsall is President of the Center for Global Development. Arvind Subramanian is a Division Chief at the International Monetary Fund.
Carter, Timothy Roscoe, “Needy Shouldn’t Have to Prove They’re Poor” San Francisco Daily Journal August 13, 2004
This article criticizes the welfare state for forcing the poor to prove they are deserving. It argues “[T]he nanny welfare state is flawed not only because of counter-productive results. Nor is it flawed simply because the belief that the poor are lazy is factually inaccurate. The philosophy upon which it rests is unjust.” The conditional welfare system assumes that wealth should go to those who create it, “But much of the wealth of our society was not earned by living people. Much of the wealth of our society is due to people claiming rights to the products of nature, such as land, water, air and minerals, that no one produced through their efforts. Much of the wealth of our society is based on the luck of inheritance. And much of the wealth of our society is the creation of society itself, through laws that create wholly fictional forms of property such as corporations.” He concludes, “A basic income for all, as a right of each citizen, would eliminate the humiliating derogation of the poor as they apply for aid. It would shrink the bureaucracies that manage their lives. It would eliminate the disincentives to individuals raising themselves out of poverty. It would allow mothers to stay home with nursing children. It would eliminate the resentment of the working and middle classes. And it would give the poor a stake in society and a stake in the future. A just society would not scrutinize the poor to determine which are deserving of the alms they receive. A just society would ensure that all citizens receive their equal share of the wealth created by society.” Timothy Roscoe Carter is a staff attorney at Bay Area Legal Aid, and a member of USBIG. He works at BayLegal's San Francisco regional office in the government benefits unit.
DE WISPELAERE, Jurgen and STIRTON, Lindsay. "The Many Faces of Universal Basic Income",
The Political Quarterly 75 (3), July-September 2004, 266-274.
As the debate on unconditional basic income, basic capital and cognate schemes matures, it has become necessary to rethink the idea of universalism in welfare policy. In this paper De Wispelaere (Lecturer in Equality Studies, University College Dublin) and Stirton (Lecturer in Law, University of East Anglia) argue that research should move beyond discussion of principles or ideal-type policy schemes, and get onto the details of concrete policy design and implementation. For the neglect of implementation issues risks impeding the political and administrative feasibility of universal basic income. To illustrate, the paper outlines seven dimensions along which concrete proposals vary, and suggests ways in which decisions on each dimension will determine the shape as well as the effects of the policy in practice.
-From BIEN
FITZPATRICK, Tony and CAHILL, Michael eds. Environment and Welfare: Towards a Green Social Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, xii+226p., ISBN 0 333 91984 X, £45. First editor's address:
Is there a specifically green approach to the welfare state? Most contributors to this volume believe that there is, and some argue that an unconditional basic income is a central part of it. One of them is the co-editor Tony Fitzpatrick (author of Freedom and Security. An Introduction to the Basic Income Debate, 1999), who devotes a whole chapter to a discussion of putative green pros and cons of basic income. Another is James Robertson (author of The New Economics of Sustainable Development, 1999), who argues for an ecotax-funded basic income.
-From BIEN
HANDLER, Joel F. Social Citizenship and Workfare in the United States and Western Europe. The Paradox of Inclusion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Law and Society), 2004, 317p. Author's address: . Publisher's website: http://www.cambridge.org
This essay by Joel F. Handler, professor at the UCLA Law School (Los Angeles) and life member of BIEN, compares workfare policies in the United States and "active labor policies" in Western Europe. Significant similarities appear between all programmes, especially in so far as most field-level practices serve to exclude those who are the least employable or lack qualifications that agencies favour. Among the alternatives to such schemes, Handler focuses on a basic income guarantee. "A basic income", he writes in his concluding chapter, "would bring in the socially excluded, it would restore the status of social citizenship".
-From BIEN
STANDING, Guy (ed.), Promoting Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America, London: Anthem Press (75-76 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8HA, UK, ), paperback, 601pp., ISBN: 1 84331 151 8 Price: £24.95. Editor's address: . Publisher's website: http://www.anthempress.com/
This massive volume consists in a broad selection of the papers presented during BIEN's ninth international congress (Geneva, 2002). Never before had such a large number of contributions to a BIEN congress been published together. With no less than 34 chapters, the book offers a comprehensive picture of the many topics discussed at both the plenary and parallel sessions as they relate to the more developed countries. Starting with a detailed introductory chapter by Guy Standing, director of the ILO's Programme on Socio-Economic Security and master-mind of the congress, it argues that there should be a guaranteed basic income as a citizenship right, paid to each individual, regardless of marital status, work status, age or sex. Some chapters argue that existing selective schemes for income protection are ineffectual, costly and misleading; other chapters present alternative rationales and philosophical justifications for moving towards a new form of universalism based on citizenship economic rights. The chapters are organised into five sections: "Basic Income as a Right" (with contributions by Anthony Atkinson, Raymond Plant, Claus Offe, Roswitha Pioch and Ron Dore), "Rationales for Basic Income" (with contributions by Rosamund Stock, Sibyl Schwarzenbach, Michael Howard, Michael Krätke, Torsten Meireis, Alan Dyer and Jørn Loftager, "Legitimizing Basic Income Politically" (with contributions by Steven Shafarman, Stefan Liebig and Steffen Mau, Daniel Raventós and David Casassas, Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn, José Noguera and Daniel Raventós, Jan Otto Andersson and Olli Kangas, Nanna Kildal and Stein Kuhnle, Sabine Stadler, Andrea Fumagalli, Pascale Vielle and Pierre Walthery), "Building Towards Basic Income" (with contributions by Theresa Funiciello, Michael Opielka, Erik Christensen, Christine le Clainche, Gianluca Busilacchi), and "National and Regional Initiatives" (with contributions by Luis Sanzo-González, Claude Gamel, Didier Balsan and Josiane Vero, Karl Widerquist, Simon Wigley, Scott Goldsmith, Joel Handler). The chapter by Scott Goldsmith, in the final section, gives an informative account of the only existing basic income scheme on earth, the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. But the whole volume gives a lively picture of the current state of discussion in many "Northern" countries, from the angle of several disciplines. It will be officially launched in Barcelona on the occasion of BIEN's tenth congress.
-From BIEN
VAN DER LINDEN, Bruno. "Active citizen's income, unconditional income and participation under imperfect competition : A welfare analysis", Oxford Economic Papers 56, 2004, 98-117. Author's address: [email protected].
Various types of (conditional and unconditional) basic income schemes are claimed to alleviate the allocative inefficiencies induced by unemployment insurance systems. This paper by Louvain labour economist Bruno Van der Linden develops a dynamic general equilibrium model of a unionised economy where participation in the labour market is endogenous and the budget of the State has to balance. It is shown that basic income schemes do reduce the equilibrium rate of unemployment. But the normative analysis suggests that only the active population, i.e. the workers and the involuntary unemployed, should be eligible to the basic income. Relative to the present situation, introducing a conditional basic income in this sense (an "active citizen's income") can be a Pareto-improving reform, i.e. a reform that leaves everyone at least as well off as before and at least one person better off. (Author's address: IRES, 3 Place Montesquieu, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, e-mail: [email protected].)
-From BIEN
10. NEW LINKS
AUSTRALIAN COALITION FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE (ACEJ) has an article in support of basic income on its website. The article by Brian Frost is entitled, “Basic Income: a Concept for Our Time.” It is on the web at: http://www.acej.info/issues.htm#INCOME
LAWSOMONOMY is the provision of a guaranteed line of credit rather than a guaranteed income. Every individual over 21 years of age would be allowed a certain amount of credit for investment purposes, without requirement of collateral. When the amount is drawn no more will be given until the earlier obligations have been met.
FOR LINKS TO DOZENS OF BIG WEBSITES AROUND THE WORLD, go to http://www.usbig.net , and click on "links." These links are to any website with information about BIG, but USBIG does not necessarily endorse their content or their agendas.
THANKS TO:
Jason Burke Murphy, Steve Shafarman, Al Sheahen, Mike Murray, Paul Nollen, the USBIG Committee, and the BIEN Committee for help preparing this newsletter.
THE U.S. BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE (USBIG) NETWORK, which publishes this newsletter, is dedicated to promoting the discussion of the basic income guarantee (BIG) in the United States. BIG is a generic name for any proposal to create a minimum income level, below which no citizen's income can fall. Information on BIG and USBIG can be found on the web at: http://www.usbig.net. If you know any BIG news; if you know anyone who would like to be added to this list; or if you would like to be removed from this list; please send me an email: [email protected].
As always, your comments on this newsletter and the USBIG website are gladly welcomed.
Thanks,
-Karl Widerquist, coordinator, USBIG.
=========================================================== KARL WIDERQUIST Lady Margaret Hall Oxford, OX2 6QA, United Kingdom TELEPHONE: from UK: 07747-846580, from US: 011-44-7747-846580 EMAIL: PERSONAL WEBSITE: http://www.widerquist.com/ USBIG WEBSITE: http://www.usbig.net/ ===========================================================
Login
Kostenlos anmelden
Beiträge
Suche
Hilfe
Dateien
Kalender
Bookmarks
