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
"Netzwerk Grundeinkommen", Näheres: http://Grundeinkommen.INFO .
Die Sprecher+..Innen des Netzwerkes betreiben seit April 05 eine eigene Mailingliste,
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.
Sie sind nicht eingeloggt.
LoginLogin Kostenlos anmeldenKostenlos anmelden
BeiträgeBeiträge SucheSuche HilfeHilfe
VotesUmfragen FilesDateien CalendarKalender BookmarksBookmarks

Anfang   zurück   weiter   Ende
Autor Beitrag
Michael Opielka

Beiträge: 101

New PostErstellt: 31.08.04, 04:20     Betreff: WG: USBIG NEWSLETTER VOL. 5, NO. 28, JULY-AUGUST 2004


Von: Karl Widerquist [mailto:[email protected]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. August 2004 03:32
An: Karl Widerquist


This is the Newsletter of the USBIG Network (
), 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].











10. NEW LINKS <>



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 (
), 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,


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 ( ).
The deadline for presentation proposals is November 7, 2004.


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.”


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

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.”


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 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


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.


-From BIEN

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: For any further
information relating to the congress, contact David Casassas


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: or
email [email protected].

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

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 For further
information: "Daniel Raventos" [email protected].


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 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

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.


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

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:

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


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:

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 , 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.


Jason Burke Murphy, Steve Shafarman, Al Sheahen, Mike Murray, Paul Nollen,
the USBIG Committee, and the BIEN Committee for help preparing 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: 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


-Karl Widerquist, coordinator, USBIG.

Lady Margaret Hall
Oxford, OX2 6QA, United Kingdom
TELEPHONE: from UK: 07747-846580, from US: 011-44-7747-846580
nach oben
Benutzerprofil anzeigen Private Nachricht an dieses Mitglied senden Website dieses Mitglieds aufrufen
Sortierung ändern:  
Anfang   zurück   weiter   Ende
Seite 1.517 von 1.808
Gehe zu:   

powered by - eigenes profi-forum kostenlos