Category: Blog

A NYC Scout Troop Provides Homeless Girls A Place Of Their Own

The 28 members of Girl Scout Troop 6000, and its two co-leaders, live in a shelter in Queens, N.Y. The troop that Giselle Burgess started is the first specifically for girls who are homeless.

(Image credit: Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images)

Universal Basic Income Is About Trust and Decency

Implementing a universal basic income is key to ending poverty, says policy scholar and political theorist Jurgen De Wispelaere. While providing a basic income can modernize welfare programs, contain costs and reduce bureaucracy, on a philosophical level the campaign for a basic income is about trusting people to know better than the state what is good for their lives.

Author Jurgen De Wispelaere speaks at the Bien Congress 2014 in Montreal, Canada, June 28, 2014. (Photo: BICN / RCRG Basic Income Canada Network; Edited: LW / TO)

As one of the world’s leading scientific experts on universal basic income (UBI), Jurgen De Wispelaere has written books and numerous articles on UBI, in addition to having edited several volumes on the topic. He is currently a political economy research fellow at the Independent Social Research Foundation and a policy research fellow at the Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath. He was previously a visiting research fellow at the University of Tampere, where he was a consultant on the research team preparing Finland’s current national basic income experiment.

In this interview, De Wispelaere outlines the most important aspects of UBI — its feasibility, what we can learn from previous experiments, why the right implementation is so important and how UBI touches our basic philosophy of human nature. De Wispelaere’s core argument is that the best reason for pursuing the UBI agenda is ending poverty.

Kristian Haug: Why do you think universal basic income is the key to ending poverty?

Jurgen De Wispelaere: Universal basic income is necessary for the most vulnerable. In developed welfare societies, these are often the people who are squeezed at the margin of the labor market: those who move in and out of jobs, who experience unemployment, illness, stress and economic insecurity. A big part of the basic income movement says that we need to move away from “the poverty agenda” and talk about the broader impacts. I don’t agree with that. I think basic income is essentially about poverty and rethinking the way we treat poor people in our society. Because poor people’s main problem is a lack of money, and basic income is ultimately about money — that is where UBI is going to do a lot of work.

Basic income helps to solve poverty and social exclusion. In societies where unemployment is still a major source of poverty and social exclusion, it helps with getting people into jobs. Why? Because a lot of these people are literally trapped in poverty, unemployment and bureaucracy traps. The idea is that UBI can fix that. For instance, the Finnish government doesn’t see basic income as a “radical” political innovation, but as a simple way to fix an overly complicated and expensive welfare state. What they are really interested in is cost containment, modernizing the welfare state, reducing bureaucracy and a better system for activating individuals.

To get a clear impression of the problems with current welfare policy, you only need to see the movie I, Daniel Blake. It’s not just a great movie; for me, it’s the very reason we need UBI. The movie tells the story of a guy who falls in between systems and literally gets crushed to death by it. That is the reality, not only in the UK [where the movie plays out] where you see more and more people queuing up for food banks and losing their housing — homelessness has gone up and too many people can barely feed themselves, let alone their children — but in many other countries as well.

You are an adherent of UBI, but also critical of the utopian UBI adherents — for instance, the Dutch intellectual and historian Rutger Bregman — and you describe your stance on UBI as a “realistic stance.” What does that mean?

When we discuss UBI as an idea, we talk about freedom, unconditionality, decency and related moral and political principles. And we’re against people who say that poor people are lazy, need to be controlled and need strict conditions to be eligible for social support. When we are talking about philosophy, you can be abstract and talk about the big ideas, but today, we have also arrived at the point where we have to talk about policy and implementation. We have to be concrete. We need more evidence and practical knowledge of how UBI works.

One practical concern that is often not acknowledged is that a modest UBI — not a huge amount of money, but a modest “floor” — is going to interact with other programs that will remain in place. People often say basic income is simple. True, giving each citizen a regular unconditional cash grant sounds like a simple idea, but it turns out not to be that simple to implement. You need to think very carefully about how basic income is going to interact with unemployment benefits — which may have to go — but then there is also earnings-related unemployment insurance, which stays in place. How does basic income interact with housing benefits, how do you fit a UBI with disability assistance, how is it going to affect the tax system or pension rights, etc.? None of these considerations are meant as a criticism of UBI as such; it is just a criticism of those who think UBI is simple, and that it’s not going to present any practical problems. We need to think hard about implementation.

Advocates typically respond that UBI can work through banks, but not everyone has a bank account.

In many countries — for instance, the UK or the US — it is not even clear how you would do the actual payment, because there exist a significant [number] of people who are excluded from the banking system. If the idea of UBI is that it is universal, it has to capture everyone, and in the first place, the most vulnerable. Advocates typically respond that UBI can work through banks, but not everyone has a bank account. Or they argue we can make it work through the postal system, but the homeless have neither a bank account nor a home address. In this case, you would need an actual list of all recipients — in effect a list of each eligible citizen or resident in the country, which perhaps surprisingly is not available in all jurisdictions. In other words, we need to be very specific in every context about how we can effectively implement UBI.

Being a scholar who has studied this subject, do you favor a specific model of UBI?

I think you need to look at what is feasible. Feasibility here refers both to the capacity of the institutions to deliver and to the political debate. For instance, people often discuss how high a basic income would have to be to be adequate. I don’t look at it that way. I look at what is the highest feasible basic income we could have and then ask a separate question: Is pushing for this basic income worth the political effort? Obviously, not every level of UBI is worth a major political investment. Feasibility and desirability are two separate debates that always have to be matched up with each other.

Here is another important aspect: People often think of UBI as parachuting a lot of money into the economy. That is not necessarily the case. In the Finnish context, for example, for many recipients of the experimental basic income, a partial income of €560 is replacing several social assistance programs. So, a large number of people wouldn’t necessarily be better off in strict monetary terms. They just get their money in a different way. But — and this is crucial — they do get that money unconditionally. It is not just about whether or not you have more cash with a basic income, but also about how you get your cash. Under what conditions do you receive income support and what restrictions do they put on your opportunities and choices in life?

What do the existing experiments with UBI teach us?

I’m regularly asked whether we expect major health benefits from introducing a basic income, in line with the 8.4 percent reduction in hospitalization in the Mincome experiment in Dauphin (Canada). My answer to that question is: We don’t know. We can only experiment and see. I’m often skeptical of the conclusions we draw from experiments, because they were conducted under very different conditions, especially where the policy and institutional context was different. This also goes for the Mincome experiment in Dauphin, which happened a long time ago.

The reason why we should experiment with UBI all around the world is because institutions matter, politics matters and the policy background matters. You need to test out UBI because each country is very different. The same experiment in Finland may give different results in Denmark, even though both countries are considered part of the same Nordic welfare state model. My point is the following: If what you care about is the evidence, then we need to be careful about simply saying that “we have evidence from somewhere around the world.” I don’t buy that.

Evidence is very localized, and adherents of the UBI often focus too much on the role of experiments in producing evidence. There is other important stuff we do when we conduct a basic income experiment. We don’t just look at the behavioral aspects. We should also examine at least three other equally important aspects.

First of all, implementation. The interesting thing about experimenting is that it actually allows you to put a basic income in place on a small scale. This allows you to see where some of the practical problems arise. This is extremely important. You want to see which parts of the scheme work and which parts don’t. It is like stress-testing a new car model: You can design it as much as you want on paper; you still have to implement it to fully understand how well it functions.

Second, it’s all about politics: At the moment, politicians are interested in basic income, but no one is interested in immediately putting it in place. Experiments can be seen as the compromise of politicians who are interested in the basic income idea, but who are, at the same time, risk averse and not keen to simply push for the policy. If there were any country where the majority of politicians were really convinced about the importance of basic income, that country would already have an UBI. So, experiments are the best we are going to get under current circumstances. The question is not whether we should do trials — we should! The question is how we can make sure that the planned experiment is the best possible version we can achieve.

The third aspect relates to philosophy: What is the view of human nature underlying a particular policy? Do you fundamentally trust people to play by the rules and contribute to society or not? Do you believe people want to work or that they are fundamentally lazy? In many cases, evidence alone can’t solve these issues. It’s a philosophical and moral argument that has to be fought and won. In the Netherlands, where experiments are also being planned, they deliberately don’t call [them] “universal basic income experiments,” but instead refer to them as “experiments in trust.” At the philosophical level, that is basically what UBI is all about.

One of the major challenges to the feasibility of UBI is the social contract on which the welfare states are founded. As a citizen, you’re morally obliged to work and to contribute. If you get fired or sick, the social safety net catches you — or so we’re told. But if you choose not to work, you’re a “morally bad” person. The critique of UBI now claims that it’s not only wrong to pay people unconditionally in the first place, but also that people will choose not to work. Is this critique reasonable?

Two assumptions go wrong here. First, the assumption that poor people don’t want to work. The assumption is that as soon as we give people free money, they will all turn into Homer Simpsons. [Are] there going to be some people like that? Of course — they already exist. But do we think that the whole range of people to which basic income applies all are going to turn into Homer Simpsons? I think that view is just implausible. And none of the evidence we find supports such a strong position. Quite the contrary, what the evidence supports is that in many cases, it is the very rules we put in place that prevent people from doing things — it prevents them from volunteering, from engaging in all kinds of socially valuable activities, because these actions happen not to be on the list of approved activities. I just don’t buy the assumption that people on welfare are, by definition, lazy.

Basic income is not only about trust, but also decency and not pushing individuals further into misery.

The second assumption that goes wrong is related to the previous. As I said before, the assumption seems to be that we really can’t trust people to govern their own lives, to make their own decisions. People need guidance and conditionality, it is said. I think we should take a more relaxed attitude and adopt a position of trust. Trusting people to know much better than the state what is good for their lives and then enabling them to do that. Basic income is not only about trust, but also decency and not pushing individuals further into misery. We see that the activation system in the current welfare state produces anxiety, confusion, illness and stress due to the so-called social contract.

The moment you acknowledge that a stable society is more than a well-functioning labor market, then you appreciate that people can contribute in ways that don’t necessarily involve a job.

It’s not that the social contract of the welfare state isn’t important. It is, and I understand why people insist on that. But we also need to accept what we’ve known for a long time, namely that a social contract involves a lot of activities that are valuable but not part of the labor market. Child care and volunteering, for instance, which are not properly counted in formal statistics. The moment you accept this and acknowledge that a stable society is more than a well-functioning labor market, then you appreciate that people can contribute in ways that don’t necessarily involve a job. Broadening the agenda of what counts as “participation” is a critical part of the basic income agenda.

Many adherents of UBI put forward the “atomization argument,” claiming that the speed of technological advances will render too many jobless. Is this the right diagnosis of the future?

I’m a bit uncomfortable about this part of the debate, because this very argument has almost completely taken over the discussion. Only a few years ago, we were talking a lot about the care agenda and how basic income would revalue women’s labor, household and care work. Now, it is all about the robots and no one seems to be interested in the care or gender equality agenda anymore.

Another scary part, which I’m very worried about, is that it seems like a lot of tech guys imagine a scenario where the top of the society — the super-rich elite — don’t need a basic income, but the rest of the unemployed society does. It is a bit of a caricature, but what they are effectively proposing is a very polarized, divided society. They talk about basic income as a necessary part of the solution, but don’t mention other important social and economic struggles between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” For me, basic income may be necessary, but it’s certainly not enough. Elon Musk and others can say that basic income is inevitable, but I want to see a lot more than just those easy statements. From a progressive perspective, there are other important struggles to be fought as well, including the redistribution of wealth and ownership.

We can take it a step further. In my view, we don’t need this automation argument to argue for basic income. To mention I, Daniel Blake again, this movie shows that we need a basic income now, not a decade or two down the line. We already have many good reasons for introducing a basic income. The bottom line is that the most vulnerable individuals and groups need economic security as soon as possible.

The automation argument is often coupled with the idea that robots will end up doing all the hard, dirty or dangerous work; and that is great because it frees up time for us humans to live a more free and creative life. But we need to keep in mind that not everyone is an artist or belongs to the creative class. We often claim that basic income would free up all this time for all these creative people. Some think this is what their life should be about, which is great, but we should be careful not to impose this kind of life on everybody. A lot of people still believe — rightly or wrongly — that a good life requires having access to a secure and stable job. For these people, basic income is valuable in combination with the continued access to decent jobs, not as a replacement. After all, it would be rather ironic if we end up arguing that basic income is about freedom while also telling a large part of our society how they should live their lives.

Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

West Virginia City to Settle Lawsuit Over Homeless Eviction

Officials in West Virginia’s capital city plan to settle a lawsuit brought after the city’s mayor chose to remove a group of homeless people from an encampment.

George Monbiot: We Need a New Political Story of Empathy and Sharing to Replace Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is just a self-serving racket antithetical to human nature, says George Monbiot, author of Out of the Wreckage. But those of us who want a generous and inclusive society need to come up with new and compelling stories to seed the politics we desire and counter the stories neoliberals have been feeding us.

The idea that human nature is inherently competitive and individualistic isn’t just harmful, argues George Monbiot in his new book. It’s also contradicted by psychology, neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis provides a compelling argument for how we can reorganize our world for the better from the bottom up. Order it today by donating to Truthout!

George Monbiot. (Photo: Verso Books)George Monbiot ardently believes in the “politics of belonging.” In this interview with Truthout, he explains the argument put forward in his book Out of the Wreckage: Humans are altruistic, but we need a new story of empathy and shared development to overcome the propaganda of the neoliberal story.

Mark Karlin: You begin your book with the importance of the stories we accept as our personal narratives as members of society. How did we end up with the neoliberal story prevailing?

George Monbiot: Starting with the formation by Friedrich Hayek and others of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947, the neoliberals, with sponsorship from some very rich backers, built a kind of international network. They set up think tanks, sponsored and captured academic departments, brought journalists and editors into their meetings, and managed to insert advisers into key political departments. They knew that, when Keynesian social democracy was broadly accepted by parties across the political spectrum, that they had no chance of immediate success. But they were patient. Across the course of 30 years, they built their networks, refined their arguments, and brought more and more people into their orbit. They knew that when an economic or political crisis came along, they would be ready to go. As Milton Friedman remarked, “When the time came that you had to change … there was an alternative ready there to be picked up.”

Every generation or so, political stories need to be refreshed or replaced.

But most importantly, they had something which their opponents did not: a new story. Every generation or so, political stories need to be refreshed or replaced, partly because the politics they seed runs out of steam or becomes corrupted or weakened by attacks, partly because people become bored and complacent. This is the grand mistake that those of us who want a generous and inclusive politics have made: We have failed to produce a new, well-developed political story since John Maynard Keynes wrote his General Theory in 1936. Our failure to do so is a formula for eventual collapse.

Neoliberalism is, at heart, a self-serving racket: an elaborate theory that serves as an excuse for the very rich to release themselves from the constraints of democracy: tax, regulation, decent pay and conditions for their workers, care for the living world and all the other decencies we owe to each other. But the reason it caught on is that it was framed within the classic political narrative structure that has worked again and again throughout history, that I call the “Restoration Story.” This goes as follows:

Disorder afflicts the land, caused by powerful and nefarious forces working against the interests of humanity. The hero — who might be one person or a group of people — revolts against this disorder, fights the nefarious forces, overcomes them despite great odds and restores order.

This is a fundamental metanarrative, to which we are innately attuned. They fit their politics around this structure, and told their story with panache and persuasive power. The reason we are stuck with neoliberalism — despite its manifest failures, particularly the financial crash of 2008 — is that its opponents have produced no new, coherent Restoration Story of their own. The best they have to offer is a microwaved version of the

The violent and destructive behavior of the few is more salient in our minds than the altruistic and cooperative behavior of the many.

This is what I seek to address in Out of the Wreckage, which learns from the success of neoliberalism and other movements which have used this narrative framing, and tells a whole new Restoration Story that I believe is appropriate for our times.

Implicit and explicit in your book is the contention that people are by nature altruistic and communal. Given the current triumph of the rugged individualism narratives in most developed and extracting nations, what evidence underlies your contention that we inherently are part of a belonging society?

Over the past 20 years or so, there has been a remarkable convergence of findings in neuroscience, psychology, anthropology and evolutionary biology. They all point to the fact that humankind, as an article in the journal Frontiers in Psychology puts it, is “spectacularly unusual when compared to other animals” in our degree of altruism. There’s a list of references to scientific papers on this subject in Out of the Wreckage.

We also have an astonishing capacity for empathy, and a tendency toward cooperation that is rivaled among mammals only by the naked mole rat. These tendencies are innate. We evolved in the African savannahs: a world of fangs and claws and horns and tusks. We survived despite being weaker and slower than both our potential predators and most of our prey. We did so through developing, to an extraordinary degree, a capacity for mutual aid. As it was essential to our survival, this urge to cooperate was hard-wired into our brains through natural selection.

We do not need to change human nature, we need to reveal it.

But the great tragedy we confront is that this extraordinary good nature has been hidden from us, partly by our own perceptions. We have an inherent tendency to look out for danger. The violent and destructive behavior of the few is more salient in our minds than the altruistic and cooperative behavior of the many.

Of course, in any nation, there are people who do not share the general tendency toward altruism and empathy…. Unfortunately, they are disproportionately represented at the top levels of government and business. The current US president is a good example. We see them, and the way they behave, and tell ourselves that this is what human beings are like. It is not. It is what 1 percent of human beings are like.

But the other reason for this tragedy of misperception is that we are immersed in a virulent ideology of extreme individualism and competition, which tells us, against all the scientific evidence, that our dominant characteristics are selfishness and greed, and that this is a good thing, as it stimulates enterprise, which produces wealth, which will somehow trickle down to enrich everyone. This is the central ideology of neoliberalism, which valorizes and centralizes our worst tendencies, and celebrates the inequality and domination that results. One of our principal tasks is to replace this false story with what the science tells us about who we really are. We do not need to change human nature, we need to reveal it.

What is the difference between provision of services by the state and the role of robust communities?

I do not want to dismiss the importance of state provision. It remains crucial. The character of a society is determined by whether or not the state provides good public services and a robust social safety net. When governments fail to defend their people in this way, insecurity and precarity rule, and society as a whole becomes harsher and more susceptible to fear, hatred and reaction. But we make a mistake if we imagine that we can leave everything to government alone.

The problem with relying only on government is that it contributes to alienation. The state delivers services from on high and tends to push people into silos to ensure they receive the right provision. Alongside other alienating forces, it can undermine social cohesion and the sense of belonging, if it is not balanced by community action. It can also leave us feeling dependent and highly vulnerable to budget cuts. In fact, many people now suffer the worst of both worlds: mutual aid and self-reliance were eroded by the necessity of state provision, but now that state provision is being withdrawn, leaving people with neither.

So, we need, in pursuit of the new vision I’m seeking to promote, what I call the “Politics of Belonging” to revive community life. There are two ways of doing so that interest me.

The first is the development of a rich participatory culture: community projects designed to bring in as many people as possible, some of which will require very little commitment or skill, which gradually proliferate into what practitioners call “thick networks.” There are some spectacular examples, like the movement in Rotterdam that began by turning a disused Turkish bath house into a public reading room, and ended up spawning 1,300 projects and community enterprises. Eventually, you reach a tipping point, at which community participation becomes the norm rather than the exception, and so many social enterprises, cooperatives and other community businesses are formed that they begin to comprise a major part of the local economy.

The second is the reclamation of the commons, one of the four great sectors of the economy that we always forget. (Our debates tend to focus on only two: the state and the market, neglecting both the commons and the household). The commons [are] resources owned, managed and shared equally by a community. It has been relentlessly attacked by both state and market. I believe that the restoration of the commons is crucial for the restoration of community, democracy, a sense of belonging and the living world. It is the commons that makes sense of community. In the book, I give examples of what this means and how the restoration can take place.

What is the “single transferable vote system” and why is it important to writing a new story of belonging?

This is the simplest and most direct form of proportional representation. At the moment, we have, in countries such as the UK and the US, electoral systems that are designed to concentrate power and keep democratic aspirations in check. They ensure that some people’s votes count for more than others. In the UK, for example, our first-past-the-post electoral system creates two classes of voters: the majority, who live in constituencies in which power is unlikely to change hands, and can therefore be safely ignored, and a minority (reckoned at 800,000 out of 45 million electors) of floating voters in marginal constituencies, who must be courted and flattered and assuaged with all the resources at parties’ disposal.

Proportional representation means that the number of seats allocated to a party in a parliament or congress should reflect the number of votes cast. Of the various forms of proportional representation, I favor the single transferable vote because, while it is directly proportional, it also sustains a sense of local attachment. Voters choose their representatives by name from geographical constituencies. It possesses a crucial political quality: simplicity. Voters write numbers on the ballot paper beside the names of the candidates they favor, in order of preference. If their first choice of candidate already has sufficient votes, or has no chance of election, their vote is switched during the count to their second choice.

How would participatory budgeting work?

I think it would be better to ask: “How does it work?” It’s been working with great success in Brazil since 1989, and in other places more recently.

In the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, where it began, about 20 percent of the municipal budget — the portion devoted to infrastructure — is allocated by the people. The process begins with public meetings that are used to review the previous year’s budget and elect local representatives to the new budget council. Working with the people of their districts, these representatives agree [on] local priorities, which are then submitted to the budget council. The council weights the distribution of money according to local levels of poverty and lack of infrastructure. In Porto Alegre, around 50,000 people are typically involved in the development of a budget. Yes, 50,000. Never let anyone tell you that people aren’t ready for participatory democracy.

Brazilian cities with participatory budgets have experienced sharper declines in infant mortality and better health care and sanitation than those using traditional budgeting. The number of clinics, schools and nursery places in poor areas increases; water supply improves; rivers are cleaned up; poverty declines faster than elsewhere. The poor and their problems can no longer be ignored.

Local gangs and mafias lose their power, as people have other means of securing social protection. The exchange of favors and corrupt practices declines. The language of government changes, allowing anyone to understand the issues at stake and the means by which decisions are made. Good infrastructure comes to be seen by citizens as a right, rather than as a favor to be handed down from on high.

But exercising control over part of the municipal budget is not enough. We need to find ways to extend the process in two directions: to allow citizens to determine a greater portion of local budgets, and to introduce participatory budgeting at the state and national levels. This is initially difficult, but I believe there are various clever ways in which it can be done. It has to begin with the recruitment of sympathetic governments that are prepared to start experimenting with raising the scale of the model.

What is your answer to an individual who asks, “How do I begin to step into this new story of communal belonging?”

Truthout Progressive Pick

How can we create a new “politics of belonging” to radically reorganize our world?

Click here now to get the book!

I believe that the Big Organizing models developed by the Sanders campaign in the US and the Corbyn/Momentum campaign in the UK provide a thrilling template for how we can change politics at the national level. The technique is in its infancy, and its use in both campaigns was experimental. But in both cases, from a standing start and under highly inauspicious circumstances, these models gave the candidates a real chance of gaining power.

Since then, the techniques have been developed and refined, and it’s not going to be long before we see a series of spectacular wins by genuinely progressive candidates on the back of this model. But it can also be deployed, especially in conjunction with the very useful tactics developed by the Indivisible movement, in pursuit of specific campaigns. I feel we are only just beginning to see what proliferating networks of volunteers using digital technology as well as direct human contact can now achieve. If we get this right, it is my belief that we will become unstoppable.