Reason - The Indestructible Idea of the Basic Income
Jesse Walker
This article is a survey of the scholarly and activist history of the idea of a "basic income", the provision of money without conditions. It has quite a history, going back to the 16th century and being supported on both sides of what we might consider the Right and the Left. Some are concerned with rising automation, others with-- seemingly paradoxically-- undoing government bureaucracy.
The article goes through the history of the idea, starting with Thomas More (to reduce crime) but really getting a full-throated backing by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Agrarian Justice. The idea there was that natural, uncultivated land was common property, therefore landowners should provide "ground-rent" as a matter of "justice, and not charity". The article contrasts this basic income proposal with what the landowners of Speenhamland did in 1795: they provided universal bread to all the poor within the village. The practice caught on in other parishes and lasted roughly 40 years, until it was declared a failure by a royal commission concomitant to a new poor law that required the poor to work if they wanted relief.
Many different supporting thinkers and politicians since then are mentioned, culminating on it being 'in the air' in the 1960s. The adoption from different quarters was assisted by an alternative understanding, one that resolved the apparent paradox of government-supplied basic income and small government: it isn't "basic income" but instead a share of society's resources, redistributed equally. Or, perhaps, it isn't "basic income" but instead a tax-rebate for being poor: Friedman's term for unconditional money for the poor was expressed in his "negative income tax". The negative income tax version of basic income made it to Nixon, who supported it because it would "get rid of social workers". The bill failed because it was a hodge-podge of compromises in the early 1970s.
Other city-oriented attempts in the late 60s and 70s did have a relatively modest affect on workloads (10% less work) and some positive health effects, but the programs got a reputation for making women independent and raising divorce rates. These conclusions were later disputed, but it was enough to kill most of the American programs. Other countries, notably Iran, which did universal basic income after it revoked many state subsidies on basic goods, are also surveyed.
The alternate understanding of a dividend for a share of the state's resources enjoyed more success, and Alaska's oil checks is the prime example. Native Americans also distribute dividend checks to their tribes as well for their gambling operations.
Another place where basic income is employed is in the aid-giving community, where wealthy first-world donors give to needy individuals either with some conditions, or even unconditionally. GiveDirectly has even established different experiments in giving to each member of the community, over short or long periods of time, or in a lump-sum fashion, to measure what the effects might be.
The article concludes with a discussion of the various current ideas and support from various places, and the apparent resurgence of convergence. Finally, there is a set of incremental policy prescriptions.
