<html>
<body>
<b>BIEN - Basic Income Earth Network - NEWSFLASH 39, May 2006<br>
</b><a href="http://www.basicincome.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.basicincome.org<br>
</a>The <i>Basic Income Earth Network</i> was founded in 1986 as the
Basic Income European Network. It expanded its scope from Europe to the
Earth in 2004. It serves as a link between individuals and groups
committed to or interested in basic income, and fosters informed
discussion on this topic throughout the world.<br><br>
The present NewsFlash has been prepared with the help of Jurgen De
Wispelaere, David Casassas, Katrin Mohr, Paul Nollen, Paulo Ricci, Al
Sheahen, Ingrid van Niekerk, and Philippe Van Parijs.<br>
<a href="http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/BIEN/Newsletter_ProvisionalFile/CopyrightInformation">
Information about copyright<br>
</a>_____<br><br>
<b>CONTENTS<br><br>
1. Editorial: John Kenneth Galbraith dies at 98<br><br>
2. BIEN 11th CONGRESS: 2-4 November 2006, Cape Town (SA)<br><br>
3. First issue of Basic Income Studies<br><br>
4. Events<br>
</b>*LONDON (UK), 19 April 2006: The Citizen's Stake at IPPR<br>
*BUENOS AIRES (AR), 13 May 2006: Meeting on basic income <br>
*FRANKFURT AM MAIN (DE), 19 July 2006: Basic Income and the crisis of the
wage economy<br>
*STOCKHOLM (SE), 19 August 2006: Conference of the Green Party on basic
income<br><br>
<b>5. Glimpses of national debates<br>
</b>*CONGO: NEW POLITICAL PARTY ADVOCATES BASIC INCOME<br>
*NAMIBIA: GOVERNMENT REJECTS BASIC INCOME PROPOSAL BY REFFERING TO THE
BIBLE<br>
*UNITED STATES: FIRST-EVER BASIC INCOME BILL IN HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES<br><br>
<b>6. Publications<br>
</b>*English<br>
*French<br>
*German<br><br>
<b>7. New Links<br>
</b>*SOCIAL CURRENCY<br>
*A FRENCH BASIC INCOME?<br>
*A FRENCH LIVING WAGE?<br>
*BASIC INCOME FOR AUSTRALIA<br>
*STRUGGLES FOR BASIC INCOME<br><br>
<b>8. About the Basic Income Earth Network<br>
</b>_____<br><br>
<b>1. EDITORIAL<br><br>
</b><i>John Kenneth Galbraith, one the most influential economists of the
20th century, died on April 29, 2006. Born in Ontario (CA) on October 15,
1908, he was a prominent supporter of basic income. Here is an abstract
of BIEN's Newsletter 33 (Autumn 1999):<br><br>
</i><u>JK GALBRAITH: THREE DECADES OF SUPPORT FOR BASIC INCOME<br>
</u>In the address he gave on the occasion of his being awarded an
honorary degree from the LSE (and reproduced in the Guardian, 29.06.1999
and in the Toronto Globe and Mail, 06.07.1999), John Kenneth Galbraith,
the 90-year old critical economist and Harvard professor, started off
with some thoughts on the ambivalence of work and closed with "two
pieces of the unfinished business of the century and millennium that have
high visibility and urgency". One is the massive stock of nuclear
weapons. The other is the very large number of the very poor even in the
richest of countries. "The answer or part of the answer is rather
clear: everybody should be guaranteed a decent basic income. A rich
country such as the US can well afford to keep everybody out of poverty.
Some, it will be said, will seize upon the income and won't work. So it
is now with more limited welfare, as it is called. Let us accept some
resort to leisure by the poor as well as by the rich."<br>
Galbraith cannot be said to lack consistency. In a little-known essay
published over thirty years earlier ("The Starvation of the
Cities" [1966], reprinted in "<i>A View from the
Stands</i>"), he stated:<br>
"There is no single cure for poverty, but we should not, in our
sophistication, be afraid of the obvious. [...] So far, my
approach to the problem of poverty has been strongly traditional: we
should help them to help themselves. That is good, whereas merely
to help them has always been considered bad. Now I venture to think
the time has come to re-examine these good Calvinist tenets, which fit so
well with our idea of what saves money. We need to consider the one
prompt and effective solution for poverty, which is to provide everyone
with a minimum income. The arguments against this proposal are
numerous, but most of them are excuses for not thinking about a solution,
even one that is so exceedingly plausible. It would, it is said,
destroy incentives. Yet we now have a welfare system that could not
be better designed to destroy incentive if we wanted it that way.
We give the needy income, and we take away that income if the recipient
gets even the poorest job. Thus we tax the marginal income of the
welfare recipient at rates of 100 percent or more. A minimum
income, it is said, would keep people out of the labor market. But we do
not want all the people with inadequate income to work. In 1964, of
the 14.8 million children classified by the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare as poor, nearly a third were in families headed by
a woman. And three fifths of the children in families headed by
women were so classified. Most of those women should not be
working. Idleness, we agree, is demoralizing. But even here
there is a question: Why is leisure so uniformly bad for the poor and so
uniformly good for the exceptionally well-to-do? We can easily
afford an income floor. It would cost about $20 billion to bring everyone
up to what the Department of HEW considers a reasonable minimum.
This is a third less than the amount by which personal income rose last
year. It is not so much more than we will spend during the next
fiscal year to restore freedom, democracy and religious liberty, as these
are defined by the experts, in Vietnam. And there is no antidote for
poverty that is quite so certain in its effects as the provision of
income."<br><br>
<i>BIEN's Executive Committee<br><br>
</i><b>2. BIEN 11th CONGRESS: 2-4 November 2006, Cape Town (SA)<br><br>
</b>The Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI) is hosting the ELEVENTH
BIEN CONGRESS on 2-4 November 2006 at the University of Cape Town in Cape
Town, South Africa. All information and forms are available on the
website: <a href="http://www.epri.org.za/">www.epri.org.za</a> (also
accessible via www.basicincome.org). <b>Please forward any questions to:
</b><a href="mailto:infobien@epri.org.za">infobien@epri.org.za</a><br><br>
<b>3. FIRST ISSUE OF BASIC INCOME STUDIES<br><br>
</b>The Editors of <i>Basic Income Studies</i> (BIS), the new
international academic journal for basic income research, are pleased to
announce the imminent publication of their inaugural issue. BIS, volume
1, issue 1 will be published in June 2006 at
<a href="http://www.bepress.com/bis">www.bepress.com/bis</a>, with the
following contributions:<br><br>
Research Articles:<br>
*Joel Handler and Amanda Sheela Babcock, “The Failure of Workfare:
Another Reason for a Basic Income Guarantee”<br>
*Michael Howard, “Basic Income and Migration Policy: A Moral
Dilemma?”<br>
*Yannick Vanderborght, “Why Trade Unions Oppose Basic Income”<br>
<br>
Retrospective: “A Capitalist Road to Communism – Twenty Years After”<br>
*reprint of Robert van der Veen and Philippe Van Parijs, “A Capitalist
Road to Communism”, with<br>
*a new set of comments by G.A. Cohen, Andrew Williams, Doris Schroeder,
Catriona McKinnon, Harry F. Dahms, and Erik Olin Wright, and<br>
*two new replies by Robert van der Veen and Philippe Van Parijs.<br>
<br>
Book Reviews:<br>
*Richard Caputo reviews “John Cunliffe and Guido Erreygers, The Origins
of Universal Grants”<br>
*Alexandra Couto reviews “Tony Fitzpatrick and Michael Cahill,
Environment and Welfare: Towards a Green Social Policy”<br>
*Colin Farelly reviews “Brian Barry, Why Social Justice Matters”<br>
*Cristian Pérez Muñoz reviews “Guy Standing, Beyond the New Paternalism:
Basic Security as Equality”<br>
<br>
BIS is constantly on the look-out for research articles and book reviews.
Please get in touch with the editors at
<a href="mailto:bis-editor@bepress.com">bis-editors@bepress.com</a> or
the book review editor at
<a href="mailto:bis-book@bepress.com">bis-bookreviews@bepress.com</a>
if you are interested in contributing.<br><br>
BIS is published by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress), sponsored by
Red Renta Basica (RRB) and supported by BIEN and USBIG.<br><br>
<b>4. EVENTS<br><br>
</b>*<u>LONDON (UK)</u>, 19 April 2006: The Citizen's Stake at IPPR<br>
On April 19, 2006, the <i>Institute for Public Policy Research</i> (ippr)
and <i>The Children's Mutual </i>organized a Conference on <i>Citizens
Stake: Exploring the future of universal asset policies</i>. This event
examined asset-based welfare in connection with a wide range of issues,
from tax policy to childcare. Key questions that this event asked
included: How far can an asset-based approach replace existing welfare
provision? Can asset-based policies be paid for from taxing "common
assets", inheritance, or land value? How and should the state
promote the responsible use of universal capital grant schemes? How can
and should the state promote the responsible use of universal capital
grants? How might asset-based welfare improve the work-life balance and
support carers? The main speakers were: Nick Pearce, Director, Institute
for Public Policy Research; Sue Regan, Chief Executive, Resolution
Foundation; Dr Stuart White, Tutorial Fellow in Politics, Jesus College,
University of Oxford; David White, Chief Executive, The Children's
Mutual.<br>
For further information: Ruth Eldridge r.eldridge@ippr.org<br><br>
<b>*</b><u>BUENOS AIRES</u><b> </b>(AR), 13 May 2006: Meeting on basic
income <br>
The Red Argentina de Ingreso Ciudadano (REDAIC, Argentine Basic Income
Network) held its second Annual Meeting on May 13th. It was an open
meeting to discuss key issues regarding the Basic Income debate in
Argentina. The meeting was in three parts: a presentation, a round table
and an open discussion. The first part consisted of a presentation by
Rubén Lo Vuolo to explain what REDAIC is. The round table developed the
topics Ingreso Ciudadano, Trabajo y Movimientos Sociales (Basic Income,
Employment and Social Movements) with the participation of Pablo Bergel
from REDAIC, Joaquín from the Movimiento Teresa Rodríguez and Tomás Raffo
from CTA (Argentinean Workers Central). Most of the meeting consisted of
an open discussion about Basic Income in Argentina, its possibilities and
its difficulties; the fight for a Basic Income and the fight for
employment; Basic Income as a step towards social change and Basic Income
in the context of other social movements such as gender or environmental
movements. The main conclusions from the meeting's debates will soon be
available on
<a href="http://www.ingresociudadano.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.ingresociudadano.org</a>.<br><br>
*<u>FRANKFURT AM MAIN (DE)</u>, 19 July 2006: Basic Income and the crisis
of the wage economy<br>
A big conference on basic income at the University Frankfurt Am Main,
with the following speakers: Philippe Van Parijs (Louvain & Harvard),
Claus Offe (Berlin), Ulrich Oevermann (Frankfurt), Georg Vobruba
(Leipzig), and businessman Götz Werner (Karlsruhe).<br>
For further information:
<a href="http://www.bedingungsloses-grundeinkommen.de/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bedingungsloses-grundeinkommen.de/<br><br>
</a>*<u>STOCKHOLM (SE)</u>, 19 August 2006: Conference of the Green Party
on basic income<br>
The Green Party of Sweden is organizing a major seminar on basic income
in Stockholm on August 19th, by initiative of Euro MP Carl
Schlyter. <br>
For further information: Valter Mutt, assistant to Carl Schlyter, MEP
(Green), valter.mutt@mp.se<br><br>
<b>5. GLIMPSES OF NATIONAL DEBATES<br><br>
</b>*<u>CONGO</u>: NEW POLITICAL PARTY ADVOCATES BASIC INCOME<br><br>
The "Parti Réformateur Pour le Congo" (PRPC), a small
Kinshasa-based political party, has signed an agreement with the Belgian
political movement Vivant, led by businessman and BIEN Life-member Roland
Duchâtelet. Now officially called PRPC-Vivant, this party has designed a
platform which includes the proposal of introducing a modest basic income
in Congo. In the implementation stage, the level of this so-called
"Revenu de Base" should be established at EUR200 yearly
(100.000 Congolese Franks).<br>
For further information:
<a href="http://www.vivant.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.vivant.org<br><br>
</a>*<u>NAMIBIA:</u> GOVERNMENT REJECTS BASIC INCOME PROPOSAL BY
REFFERING TO THE BIBLE<br><br>
On May 22, 2006, the daily "The Namibian" (Windhoek) reported
on previous discussions between the Namibian Basic Income Grant (BIG)
Coalition and the Prime Minister. "The Namibian" reported that
Bishop <font face="arial" size=2>Zephania Kameeta, representing the
coalition, </font>took issue with Prime Minister Nahas Angula's use of
the biblical verse "in the sweat of your face shall you eat
bread" (Genesis 3:19), as justification for not accepting the BIG
idea.<br><br>
"Where are the Ramatex workers from Katutura or the people on the
DRC dump (site) going to work with sweat on their face for their bread?
Where are they going to get the modest resources from the start to take
their economic life into their own hands?" he asked, referring to
the Malaysian-owned textile factory's threats of leaving Namibia, and a
report on the same news broadcast of people living on the DRC dumpsite in
Swakopmund, searching for food amongst medical waste dumped there.<br>
"Namibians are not lazy to work with sweat on their face," he
continued. "The question is rather, when are we prepared to change
the structural injustices of the economy by giving resources to the
people directly instead of giving them to exploitative foreign investors
building and dumping sweatshops?" He reminded media practitioners
present that the idea for a BIG was in fact formed by Government's own
tax consortium, the Namtax Commission.<br>
Namtax said in 2002 that "following an extensive review of the
relevant literature and an analysis of possible alternative strategies,
we found that by far the best method of addressing poverty and inequality
would be a universal income grant."<br><br>
For this reason, Kameeta said Government's response that such a grant
would make no economic sense stood in contrast to the findings of Namtax
and the BIG Coalition. Government said implementing the BIG could only
become a reality if either the coalition raised a fraction of the funds
needed, or if Government abolished the many social grants it already has
in place. These include social pensions, war veterans' grants, foster
parents' allowances, places-of-safety allowances and housing grants.<br>
Kameeta said the coalition rejected this idea of re-prioritising funds
from the poor, as special needs would still exist despite the
introduction of BIG. The coalition said other ways of funding the idea
could be considered, for example through value-added tax (VAT) and donor
funding.<br><br>
*<u>UNITED STATES</u>: FIRST-EVER BASIC INCOME BILL IN HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES<br><br>
The first-ever Basic Income Guarantee Bill was introduced in the U.S.
House of Representatives by Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA) on May 2,
2006.<br>
It is numbered HR 5257, and can be found at
<a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2006_record&page=E688&position=all" eudora="autourl">
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2006_record&page=E688&position=all<br>
<br>
</a>The bill would transform the standard income tax deduction into a
standard tax credit of US$2000 per adult and US$1000 per child. For the
first time, it would give a "refundable tax credit" to everyone
who filed an income tax return, even if the person had no income. The
current "Earned Income Tax Credit" (EITC) provides a small
refundable tax credit, but only to those who have some earned income.
Anyone who earns zero is ineligible. Bill HR 5257 would change that. It
would also provide a tax cut for virtually everyone who earns less than
about $60,000 a year. <br>
Getting the Bill to this point has been a true team effort by the U.S.
Basic Income Guarantee Network USBIG. The
<a href="http://www.usbig.net/papers/093-Sheahan+Widerquist-STC.doc">
final 8-page proposal</a> was presented by Al Sheahen and Karl Widerquist
at the 2005 USBIG Conference (New York City).<br><br>
Below is Bob Filner's statement (from Congressional Record-Extension of
remarks, May 2, 2006).<br>
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the ``Tax Cut for the Rest of Us'' Act of 2006
(H.R. 5257) transforms the standard income tax deduction into a
``refundable'' standard tax credit. Doing so will not only simplify the
tax code, but put more money into the pockets of poor Americans. <br>
For 25 years, refundable tax credits--such as the Earned Income Tax
Credit and the ``additional child tax credit''--have proven to be simple,
effective ways to help the poor. <br>
The logical next step is to transform the standard deduction and personal
exemptions into a refundable standard tax credit (STC) of $2,000 for each
adult and $1,000 for each child. The STC will provide all the poor with a
small but badly needed tax credit, and give a tax cut to virtually
everyone who chooses not to itemize their deductions. <br>
Transforming the standard deduction into a refundable tax credit will not
eliminate poverty, but it will be an enormous benefit to the poor who
were completely overlooked by the Bush tax cuts. The poor pay sales
taxes, property taxes, and many other taxes, but because they do not pay
very much in income tax, they have little to gain from tax simplification
unless it includes something like the STC. <br>
Transforming the standard deduction into a standard tax credit will give
a tax cut to those who need it most. Now is the time to pass a ``Tax Cut
for the Rest of Us.''<br>
For further information, please write to Al Sheahen :
alsheahen@prodigy.net, or go to the
<a href="http://www.usbig.net/ataxcutforusall.html">USBIG
website</a>.<br><br>
<b>6. PUBLICATIONS<br><br>
*ENGLISH<br><br>
</b>GAMEL Claude, BALSAN Didier & VERO Josiane, "The impact of
basic income on the propensity to work : Theoretical issues and
microeconometric results", <i>Journal of Socio-Economics</i>, volume
35, Issue 3, June 2006, pp. 476-497. First author's address:
<a href="mailto:claude.gamel@univ-cezanne.fr"><font face="arial" size=2>
claude.gamel@univ-cezanne.fr</a></font> <br><br>
In France, there is much debate about "minimum social
benefits", and basic income is still perceived as too daring a
proposal, in particular because it is believed to encourage idleness. How
can we predict how individuals would use this unconditional income? As
regards low wage earners, we look first at the uncertainties surrounding
the economic theory as to the behavioural changes that this could induce.
This is followed by an econometric study of answers given in 2000 by a
panel of poorly qualified young adults who had recently become employed :
this indicates that the payment of a monthly allowance of
approximately 300 Euros would not result in a massive withdrawal from
work. Integration through employment means more than just receiving a
wage, and disconnecting work from income rarely encourages individuals to
"experiment" with other types of social integration. The first
version of this paper had been presented at BIEN 2002 Congress in Geneva,
and has been published in G. STANDING (ed.), <i>Promoting Income Security
as a Right: Europe and North America</i>, Londres, Anthem Press, 2004.
<br><br>
MATSAGANIS, Manos, O'DONOGHUE, Cathal, LEVY, Horacio & al. (2006),
"Reforming Family Transfers in Southern Europe: Is there a Role for
Universal Child Benefits?", <i>Social Policy and Society</i>, Volume
5, Issue 02, 2006, pp 189-197.<br><br>
The drive to reduce child poverty is of particular interest in southern
Europe, where public assistance to low-income families with children is
often meagre or not available at all. The paper examines the effect of
income transfers to families in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal using a
benefit-tax model. The distributional impact of actual programmes is
shown to be weak, hence the scope for reform great. As an illustration,
the European benefit-tax model EUROMOD is used to simulate universal
child benefits equivalent to those in Britain, Denmark and Sweden. The
anti-poverty effect of such benefits is found to be in proportion to
their fiscal cost. <br><br>
A key finding<b> </b>is that replacing current policies by universal
child benefits may not reduce the number of children in poverty by much,
and could even raise it. This can happen if current policy provides
relatively generous assistance to a large number of low-income families
(as in Italy, where family allowance is income tested and categorically
targeted). Is this surprising? In the first place, universal benefits
were never intended as the only ingredient of anti-poverty policy. The
case for universality rests on wider considerations: embodying social
citizenship, promoting individual autonomy, preventing poverty traps.
Universal child benefits in particular are instruments of horizontal
redistribution, from single taxpayers to families with children. If
children are viewed as a partly public good, then shifting to society at
large some of the costs involved will enhance social welfare. This is not
to say that universal child benefits are irrelevant as anti-poverty
instruments. Where existing policies leave coverage gaps, as in the
countries examined here, such benefits will improve the position of
families at the bottom of the income scale (often ineligible for
assistance under current policies). Headcount poverty rates, concerned
with movements across the poverty line, cannot capture such improvement,
but other indicators can. Moreover, this contest of universal child
benefits vs. existing family transfers is less than fully fair due to
imperfect targeting. A 100% rate of benefit take up is assumed here – a
reasonable approximation of the real world with respect to universal
benefits, but not to means-tested ones. Allowing for imperfect targeting
would tilt the balance of the assessment firmly in favour of universal
child benefits. The same holds for other features associated with
universal programmes, such as lower administrative costs compared to
means-tested benefits etc. In any case, combining a universal (if low)
income base with targeted policies could be an effective way to reduce
child poverty in southern Europe at a reasonable cost to the tax payer.
But not if targeted policies remain categorical. A key element of an
inclusive social safety net, potentially open to all poor families
irrespective of their characteristics, is a guaranteed minimum income
scheme. Sadly, with the exception of Portugal, recent initiatives to that
purpose in southern Europe have been inconclusive.<br>
<font face="arial">Journal's website:<b>
</b></font>
<a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=SPS&volumeId=5&issueId=02">
<font face="arial" size=2>
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=SPS&volumeId=5&issueId=02</a>
<br><br>
</font>NEUBECK, Kenneth J. (2006), <i>When Welfare Disappears: The
Case for Economic Human Rights</i>, New York, Routledge, 2006, ISBN
0415947804 <br>
<br>
While welfare rolls have dramatically dropped across the United States
during the last decade, the high poverty for mothers and their children
has not. In fact many of new welfare reform initiatives pose increasingly
negative effects on poor children and youth. As these startling
statistics mount, federal and state governments continue to cut back on
the very services and funds on which impoverished families rely.<br>
This book offers a history of welfare, a portrayal of welfare recipients
and an understanding of the diverse characteristics of lone-mother-headed
families affected by welfare reform. Through detailed research, Kenneth
J. Neubeck offers a comparison of other industrialized nation's welfare
policies, and presents a new argument for curtailing the so-called
"end of welfare as we know it": the case for respecting
economic human rights.<br>
What the American civil rights movement was to the 1960s, the human
rights movement is in the 1990s and today. Just as many doctors have
campaigned to have health considered a human right, Kenneth J. Neubeck
suggests that people should be entitled to economic human rights. <i>When
Welfare Disappears</i> examines the important ways in which our
government has refused to recognize the rights of its most impoverished
and vulnerable citizens.<br>
The author devotes a full page (p145) to basic income as proposed by
Philippe Van Parijs, he mentions the existence of BIEN, and also
discusses Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan (FAP).<br><br>
TOMLINSON, John (2006), "Faint Praise for a Chimera: Selectivity
versus Universalism in Social Policy", <i>New Community Quarterly,
</i>volume 4, Issue 1, pp 54-60.<br><br>
This article investigates current Australian social policy directions by
looking beneath the stated intent of the Government’s programs. In recent
years, the Australian Federal Government has announced: the “work till
you drop” policy which is supposed to stave off the demographic tyranny
of an aging Australia; an expanded mutual obligation program which would,
in Minister Mal Brough’s (2001) words, “flush out dole bludgers”;
compelling single parents to work instead of staying home to look after
their children; slashing the Community Development Employment Program
(CDEP) combined with forcing young Aborigines to leave their remote
homelands to get training (Karvelas 2005); and plans to stamp out
‘malingerers’ from amongst the ranks of disability support
pensioners.<br>
The article interrogates the ideological, metaphorical, mythological and
the present-day aspects of this Government’s "social policy
chimera". It uses the insights gained to argue for a Basic Income
supplemented with a Job Guarantee.<br>
Journal's website:
<a href="http://www.borderlands.org.au/ncq/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.borderlands.org.au/ncq/<br>
</a>Author's address: j.tomlinson@qut.edu.au<br><br>
<b>*FRENCH<br><br>
</b>GAMEL Claude, BALSAN Didier & VERO Josiane (2005),
"L’incidence de l’allocation universelle sur la propension à
travailler - Enjeux théoriques et résultats microéconométriques",
<i>Economies et Sociétés</i>, série « Socio-économie du travail », AB, n°
26, 8/2005, août 2005, pp.1411-1441.<br>
First author's address:
<a href="mailto:claude.gamel@univ-cezanne.fr"><font face="arial" size=2>
claude.gamel@univ-cezanne.fr</a></font> <br><br>
In France, there is much debate about "minimum social
benefits", and basic income is still perceived as too daring a
proposal, in particular because it is believed to encourage idleness. How
can we predict how individuals would use this unconditional income? As
regards low wage earners, we look first at the uncertainties surrounding
the economic theory as to the behavioural changes that this could induce.
This is followed by an econometric study of answers given in 2000 by a
panel of poorly qualified young adults who had recently become employed :
this indicates that the payment of a monthly allowance of
approximately 300 Euros would not result in a massive withdrawal from
work. Integration through employment means more than just receiving a
wage, and disconnecting work from income rarely encourages individuals to
"experiment" with other types of social integration. The first
version of this paper had been presented at BIEN 2002 Congress in Geneva,
and has been published in G. STANDING (ed.), <i>Promoting Income Security
as a Right: Europe and North America</i>, Londres, Anthem Press, 2004.
<br><br>
WRIGHT Erik Olin (2006), "Le revenu inconditionnel: un pas vers le
socialisme?", <i>La Grande Relève</i>, issue 1063, March 2006,
pp.3-5.<br><br>
A summary of E.O. Wright's "The Basic Income Guarantee as a
Socialist Project", as presented during the 2005 Congress of USBIG
in New York City (March 2005).<br>
For further information:
<a href="http://economiedistributive.free.fr/" eudora="autourl">
http://economiedistributive.free.fr<br><br>
</a><b>*GERMAN<br><br>
</b>STRAUBHAAR, Thomas (2006), "Mindestsicherung statt
Mindestlohn", <i>Wirtschaftsdienst Zeitschrift für
Wirtschaftspolitik</i>, vol.86, issue 4, pp.210-211.<br><br>
In a short article for the monthly journal of the "Hamburgische
Weltwirtschaftsarchiv (HWWA)" – one of the most important economic
think tanks in Germany – its head, Thomas Straubhaar, advocates the
introduction of an unconditional basic income of 7.500 EUR per year for
every German citizen. The BI is to provide a minimum safety net and to be
paid without a means-test and obligation to work. In exchange, Straubhaar
wants to abolish all other social security systems and labour market
regulations as in his view they are economically inefficient and socially
unjust. While in this he is close to other neoliberal economists, the
unconditionality sets his basic income concept apart from other proposals
discussed in this spectrum. <br>
The paper can be downloaded at
<a href="http://www.hwwa.de/Forschung/Publikationen/Wirtschaftsdienst/2006/wd_docs2006/wd0604-straubhaar.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.hwwa.de/Forschung/Publikationen/Wirtschaftsdienst/2006/wd_docs2006/wd0604-straubhaar.pdf<br>
<br>
</a>VOBRUBA, Georg (2006), <i>Entkoppelung von Arbeit und Einkommen. Das
Grundeinkommen in der Arbeitsgesellschaft</i>, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 211
pp., ISBN: 3531149342 <br><br>
It is unnecessary to argue in favor for the decoupling of work and
income, for this process takes place anyway. But there is still a
remarkable deficit of understanding as well as regulating it. The book
aims at reducing these deficits. In order to do so it offers a
sociological theory of the labour market, stressing its peculiarities
compared <br>
to other markets, it analyses the improbability of full employment and
different historical and systematical aspects of a guaranteed basic
income. The book contains a collection of the authors' main contributions
to the debate on the end of full employment and a guaranteed basic income
over the last 25 years (partly published, partly <br>
unplublished material).<br><br>
<b>7. NEW LINKS<br><br>
</b>*<u>SOCIAL CURRENCY<br>
</u><font face="arial">In December 2005 EU leaders asked the European
Commission to propose a new system for financing the European Union in
2008. On this occasion a non-official website has been recently launched.
It is constructed around a proposal which was originally conceived as one
of the possible means to finance a Basic Income developed by Joseph Huber
and James Robertson. Altough there is currently no direct link with Basic
Income, it remains in accordance with the general principle that profits
from the use of common good, in this case the profit of the creation of
money, also called seignorage, belongs to all the people, in one way or
another. It is also a technical proposal that aims for more financial
stability and social justice. All members of the European
parlement have been contacted by the webmasters.<br>
For further information:
<a href="http://www.socialcurrency.be">www.socialcurrency.be</a><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2> <br>
</font><b>*</b><u>A FRENCH BASIC INCOME?<br>
</u>Starting from a strong critique of the so-called "Modèle social
français" (the French Social Model), BIEN Life-member Marc de
Basquiat has developed a model for the introduction of a basic income in
France. It can be downloaded via his website:
<a href="http://www.feodalite-sociale.com"><font face="arial" size=2>
www.feodalite-sociale.com</a> <br>
M. de Basquiat welcomes any suggestion or comment at:
</font>marc@de-basquiat.com <br><br>
*<u>A FRENCH LIVING WAGE?<br>
</u>Jean-Pierre Baron has designed a model called "Le Salaire de
Vie", which he sees as a form of a participation income. <br>
It is presented on
<a href="http://www.e-monsite.com/sdviste/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.e-monsite.com/sdviste/</a> <br><br>
*<u>BASIC INCOME FOR AUSTRALIA</u> by John Tomlinson<br>
Because a Basic Income is paid to all permanent residents, irrespective
of employment or any other social status, it is superior to the existing
targeted, means-tested income support system, Tomlinson argues in his
article for "Online Opinion"
(<a href="http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4419" eudora="autourl">
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4419</a>). It is more
efficient than Earned Income Tax Credit schemes, which penalise families
when their hours of employment drop below 20 hours per week. Because it
is paid up front rather than in inverse proportion to other earned
income, it is more streamlined than Negative Income Tax and Guaranteed
Minimum Income schemes. A Basic Income is a simple, easy-to-administer
scheme. A smart treasurer, Tomlinson concludes, would introduce this in
the 2007-8 Budget.<br>
Author's address: j.tomlinson@qut.edu.au<br><br>
*<u>STRUGGLES FOR BASIC INCOME</u> by Toru Yamamori<br>
On April 30th, 2006 at <font face="arial" size=2>Keynes Hall, King’s
College, Cambridge (UK), </font>BIEN Life-member Toru Yamamori has
presented a paper entitled "<i>Una sola multitudine</i>: Struggles
for Basic Income and the common logic that emerged from Italy, the UK and
Japan". It is now available on the web at:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/yamamoripaper2006.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/yamamoripaper2006.html<br>
</a><font size=2><b>Abstract</b>: "</font>All of us are guaranteed
to Basic Income without any condition!” This is the demand called by
various names: Basic Income / Renta Basica, Citizen’s Income / Reditto di
Cittadinanza / Guaranteed Income / Revenu Garanti / Revenu
D’Existence / Allocation Universelle, etc. Michel Hardt and Antonio Negri
describe this demand as one of three programmes of the multitude. This
paper is written as a response to the three following situations: <br>
First, critiques against Hardt and Negri do not understand this demand
properly. Second, while recent developments within academic literature
concerning this demand should be welcomed, the fact that one of roots of
the demand is radical grassroots’ movements in 1970s is usually ignored
with a few exceptions. Third, while experiences of <i>Lotta
Feminista</i>, <i>Autonomia Opereia</i> and other spontaneous movements
in Italy are recognized as an example of people making such demands among
participants of this conference, experiences outside of Italy are might
not recognised as such.<br>
The argument goes as follows: the author starts by introducing current
academic discourses on this demand (Section 2). This helps to point out
misunderstandings within the critiques against Hardt and Negri. Then the
argument by Hardt and Negri are introduced with a brief reference to
struggles in Italy in 1970’s (Section 3). Then some points of scepticism
concerning Basic Income are overviewed (Section 4). Is Basic Income the
cunning of Empire? It might be, so the context of the introduction of
Basic Income is crucial. Thus we can learn from the struggles for Basic
Income. The author looks at the experience in the U.K. (Section 5), and
in Japan (Section 6).<br><br>
<b>8. ABOUT THE BASIC INCOME EARTH NETWORK<br><br>
</b><i>Co-chair:<br>
</i>Eduardo SUPLICY, Federal Senator, Sao Paulo, Brazil<br>
Guy STANDING, Director of the Social and Economic Security Programme,
ILO, Geneva, Switzerland<br><br>
Further details about BIEN's Executive Committee and International Board
can be found <a href="http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/BIEN/BIEN/EC_temp.htm">on
our website</a>, as well as further details about the
<a href="http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/BIEN/BIEN/Recognized_Networks.htm">
Recognised National Networks</a>.<br><br>
<b>MEMBERSHIP<br><br>
</b>All life members of the Basic Income European Network, many of whom
were non-Europeans, have automatically become life members of the Basic
Income Earth Network.<br>
To join them, just send your name and address (postal and electronic) to
David Casassas <dcasassas@ub.edu> Secretary of BIEN, and
transfer EUR 100 to BIEN's account 001 2204356 10 at FORTIS BANK (IBAN:
BE41 0012 2043 5610), 10 Rond-Point Schuman, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium. An
acknowledgement will be sent upon receipt.<br>
<u>BIEN Life-members can become “B(I)ENEFACTORS”</u> by giving another
100 Euros or more to the Network. The funds collected will facilitate the
participation of promising BI advocates coming from developing countries
or from disadvantaged groups.<br><br>
<b>B(I)ENEFACTORS:<br>
</b>Joel Handler (US), Philippe Van Parijs (BE), Helmut Pelzer (DE), Guy
Standing (UK)<br><br>
<b>BIEN's Life Members:<br>
</b>James Meade (+), Gunnar Adler-Karlsson (SE), Maria Ozanira da Silva
(BR), Ronald Dore (UK), Alexander de Roo (NL), Edouard Dommen (CH),
Philippe Van Parijs (BE), P.J. Verberne (NL), Tony Walter (UK), Philippe
Grosjean (BE), Malcolm Torry (UK), Wouter van Ginneken (CH), Andrew
Williams (UK), Roland Duchâtelet (BE), Manfred Fuellsack (AT), Anne-Marie
Prieels (BE), Philippe Desguin (BE), Joel Handler (US), Sally Lerner
(CA), David Macarov (IL), Paul Metz (NL), Claus Offe (DE), Guy Standing
(UK), Hillel Steiner (UK), Werner Govaerts (BE), Robley George (US),
Yoland Bresson (FR), Richard Hauser (DE), Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy (BR),
Jan-Otto Andersson (FI), Ingrid Robeyns (UK), John Baker (IE), Rolf
Kuettel (CH), Michael Murray (US), Carlos Farinha Rodrigues (PT), Yann
Moulier Boutang (FR), Joachim Mitschke (DE), Rik van Berkel (NL),
François Blais (CA), Katrin Töns (DE), Almaz Zelleke (US), Gerard Degrez
(BE), Michael Opielka (DE), Lena Lavinas (BR), Julien Dubouchet (CH),
Jeanne Hrdina (CH), Joseph Huber (DE), Markku Ikkala (FI), Luis
Moreno (ES), Rafael Pinilla (ES), Graham Taylor (UK), W. Robert Needham
(CA), Tom Borsen Hansen (DK), Ian Murray (US), Peter Molgaard Nielsen
(DK), Fernanda Rodrigues (PT), Helmut Pelzer (DE), Rod Dobell (CA),
Walter Van Trier (BE), Loek Groot (NL), Andrea Fumagalli (IT), Bernard
Berteloot (FR), Jean-Pierre Mon (FR), Angelika Krebs (DE), Ahmet Insel
(FR), Alberto Barbeito (AR), Rubén Lo Vuolo (AR), Manos Matsaganis (GR),
Jose Iglesias Fernandez (ES), Daniel Eichler (DE), Cristovam Buarque
(BR), Michael Lewis (US), Clive Lord (UK), Jean Morier-Genoud (FR), Eri
Noguchi (US), Michael Samson (ZA), Ingrid van Niekerk (ZA), Karl
Widerquist (US), Al Sheahen (US), Christopher Balfour (UK), Jurgen De
Wispelaere (UK), Wolf-Dieter Just (DE), Zsuzsa Ferge (HU), Paul Friesen
(CA), Nicolas Bourgeon (FR), Marja A. Pijl (NL), Matthias Spielkamp (DE),
Frédéric Jourdin (FR), Daniel Raventós (ES), Andrés Hernández (CO), Guido
Erreygers (BE), Alain Tonnet (BE), Stephen C. Clark (US), Wolfgang
Mundstein (AT), Evert Voogd (NL), Frank Thompson (US), Lieselotte
Wohlgenannt (AT), Jose Luis Rey Pérez (ES), Jose Antonio Noguera (ES),
Esther Brunner (CH), Irv Garfinkel (US), Claude Macquet (BE), Bernard
Guibert (FR), Margit Appel (AT), Simo Aho (FI), Francisco Ramos Martin
(ES), Brigid Reynolds (IE), Sean Healy (IE), Maire Mullarney (IE),
Patrick Lovesse (CH), Jean-Paul Zoyem (FR), GianCarlo Moiso (IT), Martino
Rossi (CH), Pierre Herold (CH), Steven Shafarman (US), Leonardo Fernando
Cruz Basso (BR), Wolfgang Strenmann-Kuhn (DE), Anne Glenda Miller (UK),
Lowell Manning (NZ), Dimitris Ballas (GR), Gilberte Ferrière (BE), Louise
Haagh (DK), Michael Howard (US), Simon Wigley (TR), Erik Christensen
(DK), David Casassas (ES), Paul Nollen (BE), Vriend(inn)en Basisinkomen
(NL), Christophe Guené (BE), Alain Massot (CA), Marcel Bertrand Paradis
(CA), NN (Geneve, CH), Marc Vandenberghe (BE), Gianluca Busilacchi (IT),
Robert F. Clark (US), Theresa Funiciello (US), Al Boag & Sue Williams
(AU), Josef Meyer (BE), Alain Boyer (CH), Jos Janssen (NL), Collectif
Charles Fourier (+), Bruce Ackerman (US), Victor Lau (CA), Konstantinos
Geormas (GR), Pierre Feray (FR), Christian Brütsch (CH), Phil Harvey
(US), Toru Yamamori (JP), René Keersemaker (NL), Manuel Franzmann (DE),
Ovidio Carlos de Brito (BR), Bernard De Crum (NL), Katja Kipping (DE),
Jan Beaufort (DE), Christopher Mueller (DE), Bradley Nelson (US), Marc de
Basquiat (FR), James Robertson (UK), Infoxoa Rivista (IT), Eric Patry
(CH), Vianney Angles (FR), Isabel Ortiz (US) [162].<br><br>
BIEN's NewsFlash is mailed electronically every two months to over 1000
subscribers throughout the world.<br>
Requests for free subscription are to be sent to
bien@basicincome.org<br>
Items for inclusion or review in future NewsFlashes are to be sent to
Yannick Vanderborght, newsletter editor, UCL, Chaire Hoover, 3 Place
Montesquieu, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium,
<u>vanderborght@etes.ucl.ac.be<br>
</u><b>The items included in BIEN NewsFlashes are not protected by any
copyright.</b> They can be reproduced and translated at will. But if you
use them, please mention the existence and address of the Basic Income
Earth Network (including its web site www.basisincome.org) and the exact
references of the events or publications concerned. Thank you. </body>
</html>