Basic Income, Disability Pensions and the Australian Political Economy

Envisioning Egalitarian Transformation, Funding and Sustainability

Jennifer Mays

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9783030323486
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030323493
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Economic Theory
• Index: Economics

Global developments in basic income have reinvigorated political debates on the necessity of progressing to universal basic income implementation. Basic income is a powerful strategy for addressing poverty gaps and growing inequality. This book provides new insights and strategies from an Australian political economy perspective to respond to implementation challenges and distributive justice. The book positions the disability dimension and disability pensions in relation to basic income to explore strategies for strengthening universal provisions. It illustrates the need for socially just conditions and adequate financing to underpin redistribution as a way of safeguarding the sustainability of basic income.

Part IPolitical Economy, Basic Income and Disability Conceptions

© The Author(s) 2020

J. MaysBasic Income, Disability Pensions and the Australian Political EconomyExploring the Basic Income Guaranteehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32349-3_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: Basic Income, Fit for Australia and the Fairness Test

Jennifer Mays¹

(1)

Kelvin Grove Campus, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia

Jennifer Mays

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

Introduction. Basic Income, Justice and ‘Fit’ for Australia

Basic income is a matter of social and distributive justice. Such a prelude into the book sets up from the outset the call for justice and fairness in responding to poverty for people who are disadvantaged, particularly people with disabilities. Such an egalitarian approach alludes to a welfare state and provision that is universal, progressive and sets the foundation for a socially just society. Economic, social and political security, equity and equality are critical requirements for transitioning to universal welfare and an egalitarian society. In the modern context, the political and economic climate is characterized by growing inequality and major labour market adjustments. The concern for growing inequity in income and wealth distribution and associated disadvantage has propelled debates on the necessity for an unconditional basic income and corresponding policies of robust universalism (Birnbaum, 2012; De Wispelaere, 2016; Morley & Ablett, 2016). Basic income is just that, an unconditional, regular cash payment to all people on an individual basis, without conditionality (means-testing or work activity requirements) (Van Parijs & Vanderborght, 2017).

Responding to broader structural impacts shaping basic income debates, centres on the concern for vulnerable groups in achieving a decent life. Of interest is considering the conditions towards implementing basic income and the relevance of the notions about the commons and collective benefit. The predominance of market and economic policies shaping capitalist society (i.e. capitalist economy based on the preeminence of the market and individuals) has been at the expense of ideals of collective solidarity and matters of collective benefit. These considerations compel us to critically reflect on the normative justifications and emerging questions concerning the nature of distributive justice, society and welfare arrangements. In drawing on Piketty (2014), such deeper level questioning explores ideas around “what public policies and institutions bring us closer to an ideal society?” (p. 574). In offering some guidance for exploring distributive justice and normative conditions, the question posed is crucial for examining the range of institutions and policies needed to achieve just provisions and society, and the type of universal provision best fit for Australia. This is one of the key aims of the book: exploring the arguments as to why Australia needs a universal basic income (and what type), what is involved in transitioning to a basic income and what changes will need to be made to structural arrangements to ensure sustainability over time. Such an examination helps position the fairness objective and assess the regime using the fairness test. In doing so, further exploration is undertaken to consider the basic income interaction with notions of the commons (such as how basic income fits with other programmes and what ethical and structural change is needed? What shared wealth looks like and how achieve?) (Jordan, 1992; Van Parijs & Vanderborght, 2017). General insights emerging from the exploration can be adopted, which in turn contribute to extending basic income debates. An exploration of these features and questions is necessary for developing strong claims to justify transformatory change and present credible arguments for implementing basic income. Before delving into the terminology and normative justifications, there needs to be a contextualization of the broader modern political context and political significance of such conceptual discussions. There is a sense of urgency to the task of deeper analysis and making claims to transform society and introduce universal provision of basic income. This is because of the impact of contemporary political global shocks and events (such as the Global Financial Crisis), endurance of dominant neoclassic economics and the intrusion of neoliberal orthodoxy on all aspects of life and society (Van Parijs & Vanderborght, 2017).

The broader social conditions demand a normative and coherent analytical response to the pressing social problems of our time. Theorists such as Piketty (2014) and Stiglitz (2013) highlight the growing concern for inequality in income and wealth distribution, which has reached unprecedented levels in contemporary times. Since the 1970s, Western governments and political leaders (such as the United Kingdom and Australia) have placed greater emphasis on policies underpinned by neoclassic economics and neoliberal orthodoxy to redress social problems (poverty and inequality). Exploring the historical, political and economic dynamics of income and wealth distribution in modern Western capitalist economies is crucial for making sense of the way inequality manifests to perpetuate unequal wage and capital distribution (Piketty, 2014). When vast concentrations of income and wealth (r>g) are held within the hands of a few dominant elites, the outcome if left unchecked over time, is a propensity towards greater gaps between rich and poor (r>g inequality equation) (Piketty, 2015).

Divergent forces have operated to produce a destabilizing effect on democracy (Hopkin, 2014; Piketty, 2014). Major structural shifts and forces of divergence (seen in the global financial crisis in 2008, attacks on democracy, decline of manufacturing and an emerging robot and gig economy) have produced greater levels of precarity and economic insecurity, higher levels of unemployment, financial meltdowns, environmental crisis and growing poverty and inequality (Amin, 2010). If there is unrestrained inequality and the inequality levels continue to grow at a rapid rate, the injustice of burgeoning inequality, poverty and disadvantage has dire consequences on the vast percentage of the population who do not share in the amassed wealth. The periods in history whereby there was a brief stabilization of inequality (between 1940 and 1970) due to government intervention and strengthening of welfare states illustrates the potential to achieve universal provision and a democratic, just society (Piketty, 2014). Since the 1980s, the contest for hegemonic power and control has played out in the context of capitalism in crisis (Amin, 2013; Piketty, 2015). The global and national experiences of economic stagnation, precarity through increased unemployment, underemployment or job insecurity, together with the erosion of wages, economic insecurity and pensions and benefits has created unparalleled challenges for those working to redress poverty and inequality. In conjunction with rising inequality, the neoliberal and neoclassic economic policies have done much to undermine democracy and ideas of universal welfare provision, with greater shifts away from the ideals of the collective good and conceptions of a socially just society (Goodin, 2000; White, 2013). If one of the goals of basic income is to address inequalities and structural poverty, then serious attention needs to be given to the historical dynamics of inequality, normative justifications and challenges emerging from neoclassical economics and neoliberal orthodoxy (Jordan, 1992; Standing, 2014). As Birnbaum (2012) points out, attending to the normative dimensions in basic income analyses, therefore, can be justified. This is particularly so given the propensity for overreliance on neoclassic economics perpetuating greater levels of material and social hardship, and traditional policy responses which separate groups based on need. Universal welfare and socially just provision are antithetical to modern Western developed countries’ dominant forms of welfare, including targeted mechanisms. If we continue to maintain a system that is failing and perpetuating greater crisis, hardship and precarity, then the consequences for those most vulnerable groups will be dire. In the ethical and moral sense, we will have failed in meeting the basic income objective of preserving and safeguarding the right of all to living a dignified life with a decent income that meets basic need and upholds social solidarity (Standing, 2014).

Inequality and poverty are persistent political and economic issues. The chal...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• Part I. Political Economy, Basic Income and Disability Conceptions
• Part II. Policy Synergy
• Part III. Policy Implementation
• Back Matter