A Defence of the Basic Income of Citizenship(1)

In a recent edition of Expansión (15 June), the cover, the editorial and three or four additional pages were devoted to basic income of citizenship (BI). This coincided with the bill presented by ERC (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya: a pro-independence, leftist and republican party) and ICV (Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds: an eco-socialist and leftist organisation), both in the tripartite Government of Catalonia, proposing the implementation of a BI for all citizens in the Kingdom of Spain. Most of the articles trumpeted the evils that, like biblical plagues, would descend on us if BI were introduced. Mr Calzada, who, at least, had the courage to reveal himself as a political extremist determined to eradicate whatever is left of the European Welfare State, seems to be so scared of possible democratic parliamentary support for BI that he does not even use the conditional but rather the future tense: BI “will give” – rather than “would give”—“free rein to hated and envy”, etc. Whether future or conditional, what is true is that these authors are most liberal with their barrage of invective in angustiis attempting to discredit BI: “irrationality”, “food for indolence”, “shock to the basic structures of the country”, failure of the “culture of effort and personal improvement”, “perversion of any idea of justice”, “capital mistakes”, “new religious faith”, “freedom-killing proposal”. Needless to say, they are careful not to mention that among the “faithful of the BI church” there is more than one Nobel Prize-winning economist.

Some of the Expansión columnists had previously written against BI. Mr Linde, for example, predicted disdainfully not long ago, with the clear-headedness and equanimity that he displays at least in this terrain, that “no political party … has contemplated proposing this subsidy, not even as a long term objective” (Revista de Libros, n. 50, 2001). Yet, not just one but the three political parties forming the majority in the Spanish and Catalan parliaments have already initiated serious study as a prelude to the legal process of introducing BI. Indes irae, Mr. Linde!

The resort to insult – sometimes maladroit – appealing to fears and half truths, to suppositions that are paraded as “evidence”, and the attribution of hidden intentions to the opponent are old (but not very clever) ruses that can only bear fruit if the aim is to distract from the reasoning of those who differ, but in no way do they demonstrate deficiencies in their argument. They may, perhaps– but only in this case – convince the already converted who, before understanding anything about it, have already decided that they are against BI.

All the objections to BI appearing in the pages of this newspaper were actually formulated more than two decades ago, when the proposal was first discussed in academic circles. A visit to the Basic Income Earth Network (www.basicincome.org) or Red Renta Básica web pages (www.redrentabasica.org) is enough to find hundreds of documents from the most diverse authors (not all necessarily enthusiastic about BI), which would surely be useful to those who are truly interested in an academically serious discussion, without any of the parti pris style of yellow press journalism. The interested visitor would find, for example – mere example – that the crude objections, according to which BI “would maintain – or will maintain! – lazy people”, or that with it “nobody will work”, or “reciprocity is destroyed”, have all been addressed and, at least in the more refined versions, meticulously debated throughout the last twenty years.

The objection that “people would not work with a BI” seems to have a special quality: once launched, it is taken as self-evident. This is a mistake which, albeit obvious, is serious. We know that in our societies overtime work is commonplace and, by definition represents extra hours over and above those specified for the working day. Neither is it any secret that some of the biggest banks and companies offer (as they say) early retirement to people of just over fifty and in perfect physical and mental health. And we also know that many of these people, with some limitations imposed by the law, take on other jobs shortly after their early retirement. In other words, we have overtime work performed by people who already have a salary, and there are people who start working again immediately after early retirement (in all cases, with retirement benefits that are significantly superior to those appearing in the different BI proposals). Nonetheless, the assumption still persists that, with a BI, “nobody would work”. A strange way of understanding the matter. Is it not closer to prejudice than reasoning? Moreover, studies presented at the last BIEN congress (September, 2004) which followed up, for over a year, people in the EU that had received a salary-for-life prize (a much more generous amount than the BI proposed in the studies I shall mention below), have shown that few of them left their jobs; and those who did took jobs that were more compatible with their preferences or abilities. With a BI people would stop working? The evidence makes this look like bigotry.

A BI can be financed without earth-shattering consequences. A few weeks ago, two studies on BI funding, undertaken by members of the Red Renta Básica (Barcelona), appeared. The studies are different because BIEN holds in high esteem a plurality of perspectives because the aim of the exercise is to analyse, debate and, when necessary, rectify. One of the studies is La Renta Básica de ciudadanía (Icaria, 2004), written by R. Pinilla. The other, by J. Arcarons, À. Boso, J. A. Noguera and myself (La Renda Bàsica de Ciutadania. Una proposta viable per a Catalunya. Mediterrànea, 2005), shows how income tax reforms would permit a BI of 5.400 euros per year for adults and 2.700 for minors. Since the sample of 210,000 income tax declarations was taken in Catalonia, the results only apply to this territory, but the study can be generalised by using a database representing all of Spain. Presentations of both studies can be found at www.redrentabasica.org.

Are these definitive studies? They are certainly not that, but they do show that the best remedy against prejudice is detailed and meticulous empirical analysis. As the philosopher Daniel Dennett writes, “Science is not just a matter of making mistakes, but of making them in public”. The BI proposal has two conceptually different parts: one scientific and one political. The latter is a social option and I have made mine as other people have made theirs. But the former, the scientific option, means that a proposal like BI cannot be swept away with second-rate arguments, let alone in the form of an editorial. BI has excellent, mediocre and plain bad supporters, the same types that we find among its critics. Technically speaking, at least, it would be a good thing to heed only the well-founded arguments. Then, in the political domain, each individual can opt for his or her preference – which, in the end, boils down to siding with one of two groups: the rich and the poor.

Note:

(1) Article published in the Spanish daily Expansión (specialising in economic news), 20 June 2005.

Translators: Sandra González and Julie Wark

Expansión, 20 June 2005