1. THE CITIZEN”S INCOME TRUST.
The Basic Income Research Group, BIRG, was set up informally in 1984. At the first international conference on Basic Income at Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, in 1986, we helped to set up the Basic Income European Network, BIEN, (which in 2004 became the Basic Income Earth Network). In 1989, BIRG became a charity, (No. 328198), with legal concessions. Between 1991 and 2001, we received generous support from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Foundation. The JRCT encouraged us to change our name to The Citizen’s Income Trust in 1992. We were enabled to hire 2 part-time members of staff and rent small offices in London, to continue to produce our BIRG/CI Bulletin, to organise seminars and conferences, set up a website, and submit evidence to government consultations, among other things. We also hosted the 1994 BIEN congress in London.
In 2001, our funding from JRCT came to an end, our director resigned, and sadly our chair, Evelyn McEwen died. Since then, we have continued with a lower profile and minimal funding, but still managed to maintain our website (www.citizensincome.org), produce three issues of the Citizen’s Income Newsletter each year (available on our website), and respond to queries from academics, civil servants and members of the public. In addition, we have managed to finance one or two small projects each year. In 2004, we conducted a questionnaire survey of Members of Parliament, and in 2006 of the House of Lords, about their views on the reform of social security benefits. In 2006 we conducted a student essay competition and in 2008 produced a 2-sided A3 poster in 2008, with ‘Landmarks in Social Welfare, 1900 to 2008’ on one side, and an introduction to CI on the other, free to students. This year we organised a CI seminar series in 4 university departments.
2. One of our roles has been to help to define a CI or BI, (we use the terms interchangeably). A CI is an instrument, not an objective in itself, and can appeal to a wide variety of people. Depending with what other instruments it is coupled, it can give rise to a wide variety of societies. It is advisable to state the objectives that a particular CI scheme is being designed to meet, and to monitor each proposal against the achievement of its declared objectives.
We define a CI scheme as follows:
In addition,
There has always been some debate about the level of the CI. Should it be a selective, complicated, needs-based benefit, or should it be a Social Dividend paying the same amount to all, regardless of need? A generous SD scheme could meet most people’s needs. In practice, most proposals are hybrid systems, rather than pure CI schemes. Since 1977, the UK government has distributed a modest Child Benefit, (a CI for children), which has been very successful and effective. Recently the UK government has set up a scheme, placing a capital grant of £250 in a child trust fund for each child at birth.
3. In 1984, we were regarded as hopeless idealists. Now, we are listened to, and CI has to be taken seriously in debates about welfare reform, even if it is then pushed onto the back burner. Its political feasibility continues to be a major hurdle. Three recent events have raised small hopes. In 2008, minimum income standards for 13 different household configurations were published, (www.minimumoncomestandard.org), giving us benchmarks about the levels of BI required in the UK. In 2009, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, London: Allen Lane (Penguin), indicates how more equality benefits all members of society. Thirdly, the privately-funded experiment in Namibia is providing evidence that a CI can help to regenerate local economies.
7 August 2009
