While it is discussed if a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) should be introduced in rich post-industrial countries, BIG would be an effective way to fight against poverty and hunger in the Third world:
For example, BIG would be a good approach in African countries with the highest level of poverty in the world; at the same time Africa is one of two regions, where poverty in the last 25 years barely decreased (the second region is South Asia). This means misery, hunger, maternal mortality, inequality in the society because of gender, income and invalidity – all that are still unsolved questions. In the economic review for Africa 2005 of the UN economic commission the number of poor, who live less than one Dollar per day, halved from 1980-2003 in the world – from 40% to 20%. But in Africa the part of poor even increased – from 45% to 46%. The information of the last review of the UN Social Economic Board about the economic and social situation in Africa from 5th Mai 2009 is not encouraging. According to the latest evaluation, the number of people, who live under conditions of extreme poverty (with application of the new international poverty level of 1,25 US$ per day), almost doubled in countries in the south of the Sahara from 200 mln people in 1981 to 380 mln in 2005 (Chen and Ravallion, 2008). Unemployment is higher in groups, which are in a contrary situation – this includes women (9,1%), young (13,7%) and physically disabled (International Labour Organization, 2008).
Considering the fact, that each year 30 Billion Euro development assistance flow to Africa to simulate economy, social programs and medical care, some thought-provoking questions arise: maybe it’s impossible to help African countries? Maybe it is impossible to exterminate poverty there? From 40 countries of the Third world, which are heavily indebted at the IMF, 33 are in Africa. It is estimated, that Africa can reach the level of modern developed countries with its growth rate of today in about 100-120 years.
Despite the help African countries sink into poverty. But it is possible to help these countries by changing the strategy of help. 30 Billion Euro, which run through a long and briar path of numerous welfare and help organizations, plus governmental institutions often. do not reach its target addressed groups to the full extent, but reach pockets and accounts of the bureaucratic machinery. Is it possible to avoid this bureaucratic procedures somehow, so that those people are helped in a simpler scheme: Money to the needy?
A trial in Namibia
So we get to the idea of BIG, which is paid direct to each resident on individual basis without the necessity to work. Some critics of BIG ask, if the poor and illiterate population would drink away the presented money and wouldn’t work. BIG wouldn’t make it possible for the poor Africans by a monthly moderate payment to sit at home and doing nothing. Furthermore it is a relative low help to satisfy the basic needs of a human, which guarantee its material existence (food, clothes, shoes, medical care, a roof). At the same time BIG includes the question about under nutrition and hunger of children and adults. This means, BIG doesn’t influence the motivation to work of people. Furthermore it stimulates people to work and to change their life to a better one, because the material basic needs are covered. People are feed from the degeneracy to give up their moral values because of hunger and misery. BIG makes it possible for the poor, to pay their bills in time, to enable education for their children and to start their own small private businesses.
There is a examined evidence. On 1st January 2008 a two-year project started in a small, impoverished village near the capital Widhuk of Namibia, which is coordinated by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Republic Namibia. The project is mainly financed by donations and the idea for the trial came up in Europe. The 920 citizens of Otjivero, which were registered in July 2007 as permanent citizens of the village, get a monthly Basic Income of 100 Namibia Dollar (about 8,50 Euro). This income is paid to all except pensioners, because they get a pension from the state. 100 Namibia Dollar are a very small sum, because the level of poverty in Namibia lies at the border to live (hunger) with 152 Namibia Dollar per head and the border of critical poverty is 220 Namibia Dollar. Who earns less than 316 Namibia Dollar per month is officially poor.
The results were after one year very positive. The level of poverty of the population at the border of hunger decreased from 76% to 37%. The under nutrition of children declined from 42% to 10%. The level of occupation raised from 44% to 55% and the income for paid work increased from 118 to 152 Namibia Dollar. This visible evidence shows, that BIG can increase the economy of a country. It seams, that 8,50 Euro are peanuts for European countries, but for the poor African population it is seed money to start their own business. For example it is possible to buy enough flour from this money to open a bakery. The statistic shows, that the occupation with small business increased as well as the solidarity of the villagers. The conditions of HIV-infected got better. In hospitals the number of patients increased, who cure their diseases, which weren’t noticed by the population in former times. In the first half of the year the number of school enrolment increased to 90% and the level of criminals decreased from 28 to 11 cases. The level of alcoholism didn’t change among the population.
If BIG can solve so many problems and is able to change the economic situation of a country (decrease hunger, increase the educational level of the population, relieve inequality of the income distribution, concentrate the population to the domestic market etc.), why not implement a BIG-scheme on a national level?
The organizers of the project have no doubts, that there would be a problem from a financial point of view, because Namibia has one of the highest per capita income in Africa. Namibia has domestically rich natural resources – first of all diamonds, but also copper, uranium, gold, silver, pewter, zinc, lead, sol, natural gas etc. Anyhow money is unequally distributed. If BIG is introduced on a national level is not an economic, but solely a politic question.
