Summary of a forthcoming book on Global Basic Income.

 

In this debate, held in November 2004, Suplicy and Ziegler discussed about "minimum income as a human right". One of the debate questions was:

"Can all the several kinds of minimum income projects be an indicative of how to work for a global basic income along with the UN?"

 

Article, published in ACME. Düvell advocates "a just and equal distribution of primary social goods among the world's population" and refers favourably to the proposal for a GBI (planet-wide citizen income) by Myron J. Frankman.

 

Article, published in Policy Options, August 2004. Contains a short positive reference to GBI:

"If the next worldwide frontier is a global basic income floor managed by a world opportunity fund ..."

 

Background paper for a conference of the Right Livelihood Award. Uexkull writes on the need for a new world order, including a GBI:

"A democratic global body would have the legitimacy to raise fees on uses (and abuses) of the global commons to fund specific projects (...) and develop a global basic income scheme ("earth bonus")."

 

In this paper, presented on18th October 2003 at the XXIXth Annual Conference of the Pio Manzu International Research Centre, Rimini, Italy, James Robertson advocates sharing the value of common resources. The revenue from global taxes on common resources, he continues to write, can be used, among other things, for a 'global citizen's income':

"Revenue from global taxes and global money creation would then provide stable sources of finance for global expenditures, including international peace-keeping programmes. Some of the revenue could also be distributed to all nations according to population size, reflecting the right of every person in the world to a global "citizen's income" based on fair shares of the value of global resources.

This approach:

• would encourage environmentally sustainable development worldwide;
• it would generate a much needed source of revenue for the United Nations;
• it would provide substantial financial transfers to developing countries by right and without strings, as payments for the rich countries' disproportionate use of world resources;
• it would help to liberate developing countries from dependence on grants and loans from institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which the rich countries now dominate;
• it would help to solve the problem of Third World debt;
• it would recognise the shared status of all people as citizens of the world; and
• by helping to reduce the spreading sense of injustice in a globalised world, it would contribute to global security."

(Page 14-15)

 

In this welcoming speech to the BIEN Congress, Somavia pleads for a "global basic income strategy" which could add

"an additional dollar a day to the incomes of the 1.2 billion people, a fifth of the world's population, who currently survive on only a dollar a day or less."

 

News message from Ode Magazine:

"Away with all the talk of sustainable development, down with all the money squandered on development aid. This was, in essence, the message of economics professor Meghnad Desaiof of the London School of Economics during a meeting of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). He provocatively proposed instead that Western aid agencies give all the poor people in the world one dollar a week. That would have a lot more impact, Desai believes, than the $50 billion U.S. in development aid spent each year.

Two recent initiatives in Mozambique appear to prove his point, no matter how impractical it is, reports Development and Change (April 2004), a publication of the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in the Netherlands. The first involved paying demobilized soldiers for two years with no strings attached, funded by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Research shows that the extra money was spent locally for basic supplies or to send their children to school.

The second initiative, financed by the American organization for development aid (USAID), gave $92 US to more than 100,000 families in the rural areas of Mozambique who were the victims of heavy flooding in 2000. The money was spent mainly to pay off outstanding debt and make home improvements.

Both programs gave local economies a much-needed boost. Administrative costs hovered between five and 10 percent, considerably less than the other development initiatives."

 

In this paper presented at the 10th Congress of BIEN, September 2004, Howard discusses the possibility of a Global Basic Income on pages 1-3. Although inclined to favour a GBI in principle, Howard assumes that a GBI will not be introduced for some years to come because:

"there are not yet institutions at a global (or regional) level suitable for collecting revenues and administering a basic income. Nor is there agreement at the global (or regional) level on an egalitarian principle of income distribution."

 

In this paper, presented in Stockholm - June 2003, Mølgaard Nielsen discusses the possibility of a GBI on page 15 and writes:

"... an idea like global basic income might work somewhat like Max Havelaar brand as you financially would supply poor people with a modest extra income, which would give them the possibility to slowly improve their own situation gradually and by this slowly stimulate the third world countries financial situations from the bottom."

Book presentation. Clark advocates in this book on global poverty a Global Basic Income of $365 a year. A short review of the book can be found in BIEN's NewsFlash of January 2005.