Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Vibhor Mathur
(University of Bath)
Nick Langridge (University of Bath)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Paper panel
- Stream:
- Labour, incomes and precarity in development
- Location:
- G51a
- Sessions:
- Friday 28 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
What role can a Universal Basic Income play in tackling the polycrisis? What are the synergies and conflicts between basic income and other services in imagining a more future-ready welfare architecture? This panel welcomes diverse and critical conversations on UBI's potential in development.
Long Abstract:
The profile of Universal Basic Income as a policy tool is rising steadily across the world, with multifold increase in the number of pilot projects (Stanford Basic Income Lab, 2023) and a growing number of government policies in that direction (eg. in Wales, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea etc.). These discussions are particularly loud as the polycrisis facing the world (wars, pandemics, ecological destruction, rising inequities, political polarisation etc.) are brutally highlighting the inadequacy of the current welfare systems and 'development' models. On the one hand lies the enthusiasm around the transformative and radical roots of a universal, unconditional basic income for all, and on the other lie concerns about its inadequacy as a tool for meaningful transformation, and as a band-aid in a capitalist system. Worse still, are fears of a neoliberal hijack, where a UBI is used as a substitute for other services and infrastructure in welfare. This panel aims to bring together conceptual innovations, empirical research and microsimulations from around the world that further understanding UBI's role in this world of polycrisis. Particularly, its effects or shortcomings in achieving different policy goals (eg. poverty, mental health, labour, gender, ecological sustainability etc.) and for different populations (eg. different geographies, demographics, people in different social, legal and economic conditions etc.). We particularly welcome research in the synergies and complementarity, or lack thereof, between a UBI and other services/policies that can help imagine a more robust, fit-for-purpose, future-ready and dignifying social policy architecture.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 28 June, 2024, -Filippo Grisolia (University of Antwerp) Sara Dewachter (Institute of Development Policy (IOB)) Nathalie Holvoet (University of Antwerp)
Paper short abstract:
This paper explores the impacts of a universal unconditional cash transfer – a basic income experiment –, handed out in a rural Ugandan village, on climate resilience and adaptation, and the extent to which these were mediated by CT effects on collective variables (e.g., social capital).
Paper long abstract:
Surprisingly little literature exists on how cash transfer (CT) programs affect climate adaptation, notwithstanding the severity of the ongoing climate emergence, and the overlap in aims between social protection and climate policy. In this sense, if social protection programs’ objective is to yield (long-run) transformative reductions in poverty and vulnerability, such goal cannot be achieved without enabling recipients to better tackle climate hazards. CTs can improve climate resilience through positively impacting its several dimensions, among which, it is postulated that the social component plays a key role. This paper analyses, through quasi-experimental difference-in-differences, the midline effects of a basic income pilot conducted in rural Uganda, on adaptation to climate change and collective-level outcomes – operationalized as social capital, agency and collective action. The main finding was that the program did spur the adoption of (both preventive and absorptive) coping mechanisms against shocks. Interestingly, not only ‘beneficial’ strategies – such as savings and credit – but also ‘mal-adaptation’ practices – like selling productive assets and withdrawing children from school – were increasingly employed. Causal Mediation Analysis suggested that the increasing utilization of beneficial mechanisms was driven by CT-led improvements in collective-level outcomes, whereas the latter did not significantly influence changes in the usage of adverse strategies.
Keetie Roelen (The Open University) Neil Howard (University of Bath) Jiniya Afroze (Terre des hommes) Giel Ton (Institute of Development Studies) Afrin Aktar (Terre des hommes)
Paper short abstract:
This paper presents findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of an innovative 'cash plus' intervention implemented at neighbourhood level in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It reflects on synergies between cash and community-based support, and - crucially - the benefits of universal and unconditional delivery.
Paper long abstract:
Social protection, and cash transfers especially, have been found to have many positive impacts on families' lives and are now widely recognised as a cornerstone of any prosperous, fair society. The CLARISSA Cash Plus intervention in Dhaka, Bangladesh is an innovative social protection scheme for tackling social ills. Combining community mobilisation, case work and cash transfers over a period of 27 months, it aimed to support people in a low-income neighbourhood in Dhaka to build their individual, family, and group capacities to meet their needs.
In contrast to most cash transfer or 'cash plus' interventions - but in keeping with key principles of Universal Basic Income - the scheme is universal and unconditional at neighbourhood level; all households are eligible for cash support and every individual can participate in complementary services.
In this paper, we explore the impact of the combined delivery of universal and unconditional cash and complementary community-based support on a range of individual and family outcomes. We present findings from a mixed-methods evaluation, showing that (i) community-based support can enhance the impact of cash and vice versa, (ii) universal delivery positively engages powerful community actors, and (iii) unconditional delivery enhances people's agency and capacities. These findings provide important insights for design of future interventions, emphasising the potential of combining support and doing so universally.
Bassam Yousif (Indiana State University) Omar El-Joumayle
Paper short abstract:
In some Middle East countries, including oil exporters, labor markets cannot be relied on to lift people out of poverty. In Iraq, labor markets for several reasons cannot be relied on to generate adequate employment. Hence the need to explore more direct ways of distributing oil rents.
Paper long abstract:
We explore whether it makes sense for Iraq to establish a basic income scheme. This research follows from earlier research where Yousif and El-Joumayle show how Iraq’s political settlement, established in 2003 following the invasion of Iraq, has not brought about a wider or more equitable distribution of rising oil rents, despite regular elections and expanded freedoms to openly lobby and appeal for a more egalitarian distribution of income. Nor has Iraq’s labor market been able to generate the requisite formal jobs to absorb new labor market entrants. Presently, Iraq’s social protection and income support mechanisms comprise the public distribution system (a basic rations program established after economic sanctions were imposed in 1990) and various proxy targeted income support schemes that the IMF has characterized as ‘fragmented and inefficient.’ The inadequacy of Iraq’s social safety net in part explains the severe competition and demands for public sector employment, which consecutive Iraqi government have been under pressure to increase. This raises questions about the adequacy of social safety nets and income support. We thus investigate whether it is sensible to implement a basic income to distribute oil rents in Iraq and discuss what such a scheme might look like.