Food bank | https://www.flickr.com/photos/staffslive/

Institute for Global Prosperity publish first report on Universal Basic Services

“Our economy is failing to deliver for so many people. Our research, presented in this paper, demonstrates unequivocally that money spent on providing basic services required by every citizen in the 21st century, dramatically reduces the cost of basic living for those on the lowest incomes.”

Published: Monday 16 October, 2017



At a time of austerity, it is sometimes difficult to remember that the UK is one of the richest countries on the planet. Rising homelessness and the use of foodbanks are just a couple of indicators that a portion of our society is being left behind.

In a move to rethink the country’s economic strategy, the Institute for Global Prosperity has published a paper that recommends an overhaul to conventional government policies.

The proposal concerns an affordable alternative to a ‘citizens’ income’, something the Institute has called “Universal Basic Services”. Pilot schemes for a basic income are advocated in other parts of the world including Canada, Kenya and Finland, but authors of the report say this is a more radical and progressive approach.

Citing the UK’s record number of people in poverty, Professor Henrietta Moore, Director of the Institute at UCL, says: “our economy is failing to deliver for so many people. Our research, presented in this paper, demonstrates unequivocally that money spent on providing basic services required by every citizen in the 21st century, dramatically reduces the cost of basic living for those on the lowest incomes.”

Recommendations from the report include free public transport, basic access to broadband and mobile phones, meal provisions and an expansion to social housing. Reforms would cost £42bn, paid for by changes to the Personal Allowance. At just 2.3% of the UK’s GDP, this makes the proposal fiscally neutral.

By comparison, if citizens were paid a Universal Basic Income at the current level of jobseekers allowance – £73.10 per week – it would cost approximately £250bn per year. This is around 13% of total GDP, or 31% of all current UK expenditure.

Those on the lowest incomes would benefit most from the changes, saving around £126 per week in costs if they were to access all the services provided. This is the basis for the proposals, providing a “social wage” by removing the need to pay for Universal Basic Services, rather than government distributing cash payments.

On top of saving money, experts say that the proposals will create “a more cohesive society”, bridging the gap of inequality and helping workers facing job insecurity due to automation. The report also says that these changes will preserve the incentive to work. Authors say reforms to economic policy will help place more services in the same bracket as the NHS, free at the point of use.

Sam Baylis

You can read the original post here

Share this article:




Recent Posts

Henrietta Moore: The new unitary authorities should be outriders for further devolution

Media

Read More

"We are being suffocated by fossil fuel emissions on a daily basis"

Commentary

Recent research shows that Lebanon could witness an increase of 1.2 to 3.2 degrees in temperatures in areas that are already very arid and suffer from water shortage. An increase in temperature and a decrease in precipitation will have particular impact on the electricity sector - a higher cooling demand in summer and increased consumption for electricity. Rising sea levels and water scarcity in Lebanon could lead to internal climate migration and mass displacement from rural to coastal regions affecting agricultural output, jobs and livelihoods. The economic situation in the cities that are already prone to poverty, illiteracy and unemployment could become worse.

Read More

Measuring the Good Life

Commentary

At the IGP we fundamentally believe that citizens and communities should be at the centre of efforts to reimagine prosperity and to define what matters to them for a good quality of life. We do not assume what matters; we ask people to tell us what matters to them.

Read More