Australia's disabling income support system : tracing the history of the Australian disability income support system 1908 to 2007 : disablism, citizenship and the basic income proposal

The present study examined the historical basis of the Australian disability income support system from 1908 to 2007. Although designed as a safety net for people with a disability, the disability income support system within Australia has been highly targeted. The original eligibility criteria of "permanently incapacitated for work", medical criteria and later "partially capacitated for work" potentially contained ideological inferences that permeated across the time period. This represents an important area for study given the potential consequence for disability income support to marginalise people with a disability. Social policy and disability policy theorists, including Saunders (2007, Social Policy Research Centre [SPRC]) and Gibilisco (2003) have provided valuable insight into some of the effects of disability policy and poverty. Yet while these theorists argued for some form of income support they did not propose a specific form of income security for further exploration. Few studies have undertaken a comprehensive review of the history of disability income support within the Australian context. This thesis sought to redress these gaps by examining disability income support policy within Australia. The research design consisted of an in-depth critical historical-comparative policy analysis methodology. The use of critical historical-comparative policy analysis allowed the researcher to trace the construction of disability within the Australian disability income support policy across four major historical epochs. A framework was developed specifically to guide analysis of the data. The critical discourse analysis method helped to understand the underlying ideological dimensions that led to the predominance of one particular approach over another. Given this, the research purpose of the study centred on: i. Tracing the history of the Australian disability income support system. ii. Examining the historical patterns and ideological assumptions over time. iii. Exploring the historical patterns and ideological assumptions underpinning an alternative model (Basic Income) and the extent to which each model promotes the social citizenship of people with a disability. The research commitment to a social-relational ontology and the quest for social change centred on the idea that "there has to be a better way" in the provision of disability income support. This theme of searching for an alternative reality in disability income support policy resonated throughout the thesis. This thesis found that the Australian disability income support system is disabling in nature and generates categories of disability on the basis of ableness. From the study, ableness became a condition for citizenship. This study acknowledged that, in reality, income support provision reflects only one aspect of the disabling nature of society which requires redressing. Although there are inherent tensions in any redistributive strategy, the Basic Income model potentially provides an alternative to the Australian disability income support system, given its grounding in social citizenship. The thesis findings have implications for academics, policy-makers and practitioners in terms of developing better ways to understand disability constructs in disability income support policy. The thesis also makes a contribution in terms of promoting income support policies based on the rights of all people, not just a few.

Basic Income Grant in Namibia, a Viewpoint on the Proposal and on the Work of the BIG Coalition

This thesis studies the basic income grant proposal in Namibia. The proposal suggests a monthly grant of N$100 (approximately 10€) to all those Namibian citizens who do not receive the state pension. This thesis concentrates on the Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition and on its work. The formation and transformation of the coalition during the time period between 2003 and 2009 is analyzed with the help of data collected during two field work periods in 2008 and 2009. The data includes interviews, newspaper articles, observations and other background material. The analysis of this material is mainly conducted from organizational viewpoint. The final part of the thesis applies the results to the theory of Mosse, whose propositions about policy and practice will be discussed in relation to the basic income grant pilot project. The thesis argues that social legitimacy has been a vital resource for the work of the BIG Coalition and it has sought for it in various ways. The concept of social legitimacy originates from the resource dependence perspective of Pfeffer and Salancik, who propose that organizations are dependent on their environments, and on the resources provided by the surrounding environment. This thesis studies the concept of social legitimacy in the context of resource dependence theory. Social legitimacy is analyzed in the relations between the coalition and its environment, in the formation of the coalition, in the responses towards criticism, and finally in relation to the propositions concerning policy and practice. The work of the coalition in the pilot project will be analyzed through the propositions of Mosse concerning policy and practice. The results will describe and analyze key events in the formation of the BIG Coalition from the South African proposal until the end of the basic income pilot project. This BIG pilot project conducted in 2008-2009 is one of the most well-known activities of the coalition. The clashes between the coalition and its environment will be analyzed through four case studies. It will be shown that the project has been conducted in order to gain more legitimacy to the basic income grant proposal. The conclusion questions the legitimacy of the BIG Coalition as a research and development organization, and requests for more transparent research on the basic income proposal in Namibia.

Cost and benefits of the Universal Basic Income implementation in Navarra

The Basic Income has been defined as a relatively small income that the public Administration unconditionally provides to all its members as a citizenship right. Its principal objective consists on guaranteeing the entire population with an income enough to satisfy living basic needs, but it could have other positive effects such as a more equally income redistribution or tax fraud fighting, as well as some drawbacks, like the labor supply disincentives. In this essay we present the argument in favor and against this policy and ultimately define how it could be financed according to the actual tax and social benefits’ system in Navarra. The research also approaches the main economic implications of the proposal, both in terms of static income redistribution and discusses other relevant dynamic uncertainties.

Le revenu de citoyenneté : entre émancipation et assujettissement. L'exemple du Basic Income Grant en Namibie.

De la capacité d’une société à repenser ses liens sociaux, dépend son développement à la fois politique, social et économique. L’État peut, pour contribuer de manière déterminante à la production de sens, développer des outils, entre autres des mécanismes de redistribution, susceptibles d’assurer la solidarité et la cohésion sociale. L’enjeu est d’importance pour certains pays comme la Namibie, dont l'histoire est marquée par le colonialisme et l'apartheid ─desquels il s'est libéré il y a à peine plus de vingt ans─ et qui sont construits sur une logique de séparation inégalitaire des droits et des ressources. À partir de l'exemple du Basic Income Grant (BIG), projet-pilote de revenu citoyen garanti mis en place dans un village de la Namibie entre 2007 et 2009, ce mémoire propose d'explorer l'apport du concept d'empowerment dans ce projet en tant qu'outil de déconstruction de ces structures inégalitaires. Après avoir exposé différentes conceptions des notions de pauvreté, de richesse et de développement, nous aborderons la question du revenu citoyen garanti et de la place qu'il peut prendre dans différents systèmes de protection sociale. Puis, nous tenterons de mieux cerner le concept d'empowerment pour finalement arriver à répondre à notre principal questionnement: le projet BIG permet-il effectivement l'émancipation ou au contraire, fait-il en sorte de renforcer le sentiment de dépendance et d'impuissance vécu par la communauté isolée, vivant dans des conditions d'extrême précarité? Des entrevues ont pour ce faire été conduites auprès de 15 participants, soit des membres du village d'Otjivero, des intervenants engagés dans le regroupement d'acteurs de la société civile namibienne étant à la source de l'initiative, et des représentants gouvernementaux. L’analyse de ces résultats est présentée en dernière partie de travail.

Basic Income, Republican Freedom, and Effective Market Power

This article examines republican arguments for a basic income that turn on a right to exit the labour market. It gives criteria for the maintenance of republican freedom in markets, arguing that a right to exit or effective market power will guarantee republican freedom in markets. The article then considers whether a basic income is either sufficient or necessary to protect republican freedom both in labour markets and elsewhere. If a basic income is necessary to protect republican freedom in the labour market, I argue it is not sufficient to protect that freedom elsewhere. If citizens lack the means to maintain their republican freedom in the labour market, then there may be other spheres of life where they are vulnerable to subordination, whether or not they have a basic income. Some sociological evidence on cultural consumption patterns is presented.

A regional basic income: towards the eradication of extreme poverty in Central America

Incluye Bibliografía

Countering disablism: An alternative universal income support system based on egalitarianism

The long-term vision of economic security and social participation for people with a disability held by disability activists and policy-makers has not been realised on a global scale. This is despite the implementation of various poverty alleviation initiatives by international and national governments. Indeed within advanced Western liberal democracies, the inequalities and poverty gaps have widened rather than closed. This article is based on findings from a historical-comparative policy and discourse analysis of disability income support system in Australia and the Basic Income model. The findings suggest that a model such as Basic Income, grounded in principles of social citizenship, goes some way to maintaining an adequate level of subsistence for people with a disability. The article concludes by presenting some challenges and a commitment to transforming income support policy.

The trouble with income trusts

This paper sketches broadly the efficiency and equity effects of income trusts that make their use as a substitute for the direct holding of shares of a corporation problematic for tax policy purposes. The paper also considers the potential effectiveness of an equity recharacterization rule applicable to the high-yield junk debt that is the common feature of the basic income trust structure. The author suggests that this type of narrowly focused rule would be more target-efficient than other possible responses to income trusts, such as fundamental reform of the corporate income tax or the restrictions on the holding of trust units proposed in the 2004 budget. However, a principal difficulty in designing an equity recharacterization rule is ensuring that it applies equally to structures that realize the same effect as the basic income trust structure but do not use high-yield junk debt.
The author argues that income trusts are examples of tax-driven financial innovation in the sense that they replicate an existing set of securities and therefore have no nontax rationale. These securities are essentially redundant, and the innovative process of which they are a product does not constitute “genuine” financial innovation. This essential characteristic of income trusts distinguishes them from real estate investment trusts, which arguably do not present a tax policy problem (or at least not the same one). More particularly, income trust transactions are redundant in the sense that they do not complete capital markets by providing investors with a risk and return payoff profile that is otherwise unavailable. In the absence of any efficiency gains or desirable distributional effects associated with income trusts, the available tax benefit is the subject of a defensible government response intended to eliminate it. But without any clear evidence that income trusts are substituted generally for the corporate form, any response can defensibly be limited to a narrowly targeted one that introduces a “taxlaw friction” by shifting the debt-equity boundary that is the focus of the basic income trust structure. Because the precise dividing points along this boundary lack any obvious normative content, the suggested policy focus should be the development of a legislative response that redraws the debt-equity boundary in a manner that minimizes perceived efficiency losses otherwise associated with the use of income trusts.