The origins of what we today know as the Universal Basic Income (UBI) date back to the early sixteenth century. Since this time different streams of thought have emerged from all sectors of the globe creating a large pool of ideas relating to the implementation and funding of a UBI or partial UBI. The name has changed over this time to suit the different perspectives including notions such as social wage accounting, the citizen's income, social dividends, existence income and the universal grant. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of these developments, paying particular regard to developments within New Zealand, since the beginning of the nineteen eighties.

The earliest records of UBI date back to 1526 when the first detailed proposal of a guaranteed minimum income scheme was developed. This scheme was presented to the Mayor of Bruges by Juan Luis Vives (CIRG Newsletter, no 20, 1994). Few details are recorded anywhere about the actual scheme, yet this formed part of the foundation stones for UBI.

Agrarian Justice was the next piece of work which drew attention to the concept of a universal basic income. Written by Thomas Paine in 1796, the document was seen as the first plea for a "genuinely unconditional grant". Presented to the French Directoire, the main focus behind Paine's work was the idea that the world and its natural resources belong to no one and that everyone has an equal right to them (CIRG Newsletter, no 20, 1994).

The concept of a UBI also received attention at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The Speenhamland system, as it was known, locked the working class into a state of poverty and dependence. Ideas were at this time generated to save the poor from demise through a subsistence income devised by local magistrates and funded by the ratepayer. However the system proved unsuccessful as the free-market bid down wages and the ratepayers found themselves subsidising "rapacious" employers (Te Amokura, 1995). Also, towards the end of the century, utopians and socialists such as Fourier, Cobbett and Godwin were developing their own versions of a universal payment to all citizens (Watts, 1996).

It was during World War One that Major Clifford Douglas proposed a system of social credit which has become part of an important aspect of the basic income. His concern was highlighted by how outputs of the productive capacity could be consumed after the war. In this he considered that the productive capacity of industry would outweigh the population's spending power to consume it all. He therefore argued that the value of currency was not encompassed within economic circles such as banks, rather it lay within the capacity of the people (Walter, 1989)

The actual idea of a Basic Income within Great Britain did not develop until much later than other parts of the world, with the first published proposal of such a scheme originating in the nineteen twenties. This proposal included the concept of a universal benefit which varied according to national productivity and reasoned that higher production would result from a bonus from increases in national output (BIRG Newsletter, no 20, 1994). This idea was used to complement Major Douglas's ideas of Social Credit.

It was during the 1930s that the idea of social credit was developed further. Oskar Lange promoted the idea, as a direct distribution among citizens of profits accruing to state-owned enterprises under socialism (Walter, 1989). In his original proposal the dividend was to be proportional to a person's wage and very different from the initial ideas of a basic income (Walter, 1989). Professor James Mead was also advocating a form of social or national dividend during the same period (Robertson, 1994).

These initial developments set the stage for what is now seen to be the cornerstone of the Universal Basic Income. In 1942, the Beveridge Plan was produced, forming the basis of the British Social Welfare system and its intervention strategies. The plan assumed that society would be able to provide full employment. As a result of this Lady Juliet Rhys-Williams, an independent economist, privately published what she termed a "social dividend alternative to the Beveridge Report". This social dividend was to be paid to every man, woman and child in the country, avoiding the discriminatory nature of the Beveridge plan. Lady Rhys-Williams argued that this was the only way to prevent poverty without undermining either personal effort or the dignity of women. In her proposal she stated that the social dividend would be offered conditional on recipients being in paid employment, seeking it, or keeping house.(Walter, 1989) This proposal would have provided women with an independent income, so that housewives could have an income in addition to that of their husband.

After this proposal it seems that the interest in UBI subsided, until 1962. At this time Milton and Rose Freedman in "Capitalism and Freedom" voiced their support for a negative income tax scheme similar in concept to the citizens income (Robertson, 1994).

During the 70s the idea of the UBI reached the attention of Australia when a Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (Jackson, 1995) recommended the introduction of a form of guaranteed minimum income. This proposal was followed up by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence which began a family centre project which was aimed at providing the members of 60 poor families with access to a variety of resources, the most important being a granted minimum income for three years. The guarantee came in the form of a supplement to raise their weekly income to a predetermined level of adequacy which was roughly equivalent to the minimum wage (Jackson, 1995). This idea drew little national attention in Australia until Henderson gave the idea currency by calling it the Guaranteed Minimum Income and proposing a system along these lines (as cited in Watts, 1995).

It was during this period, 1972, that the idea of a form of UBI drew attention from Heath's Conservative Government in Britain. They put forward a tax credit scheme, which would have replaced tax allowances for employees earning more than 8 pounds a week and also covered some social security beneficiaries. In this proposal, personal tax allowances were to be replaced by tax credits which were cashable in certain circumstances where they exceeded any tax liability. What this equated to was a Basic Income of sorts for a significant proportion of the population. Unfortunately the Heath government was not re-elected for the next term in government and thereby the policy did not eventuate (Walter, 1989).

In 1975, the Values Party of New Zealand considered a dependent carer's wage policy and two versions of guaranteed minimum income and negative tax policies, one universal and one targeted; as part of their policy (Marshall ,1996). This party was the first political party within New Zealand to include such notions within their political agendas.

At this time Lady Rhys-Williams' son Brandon was a Member of Parliament. In the tradition of his mother he showed an interest in the UBI scheme. He had his assistant Hermione Parker work out costings for various basic income options. These were then presented to a parliamentary committee in 1983. The committee, in its final summing up, made strong recommendations that the government undertake a feasibility study of Basic Income and tax credit schemes. Again this recommendation was not recognised by the government and hence was ignored.

J. P. Kuiper, a Professor of social medicine, was in 1975, concerned about the alienation of work, and began to think in terms of disconnecting labour and income; highlighting the possible aspects of a basic income in his research to shorten the working week.

In other overseas developments during the seventies, an American by the name of McGovern developed the concept of a "Demogrant' (as cited in Watts, 1993). Within this he drew similarities between entitlement and the rights of a democracy.

The Netherlands had also been developing their own form of Basic Income debate during the 1970s. The UBI was not linked with socio-economic problems. Emphasis was placed on the positive effects that the unlinking of work and income was expected to have on the humanisation of work. The Dutch argument however shifted at the beginning of the eighties after a proposal by the Agricultural and Food Workers Union became prominent. The Basic Income was then seen to increase workers' independence, contributing to a fairer distribution of work and income. It was also deemed to weaken the dominance of paid work and encouraged a revaluation and redistribution of paid and unpaid work thereby improving the quality of paid work and promoting the emancipation of claimants and women. (van Berkel, 1994).

In 1983 the UBI started to draw documented support from a greater number around the world. Keith Roberts published an article in the UK highlighting a Basic Income as the answer to unemployment. His reports provided a detailed outline and summaries of a Basic Income proposal and were seen to provide an important benchmark for planners (Grocott, 1985). Roberts later produced an article providing further detail of his plan stating that the Basic Income would be enough to live on in a modest way and would also fulfil most of the functions of the welfare state, entailing special provisions for the sick, handicapped and disabled (Roberts, 1983).

As a response to Roberts article the Values Party in New Zealand recommended this scheme as policy, however voicing their concern that research would need to be undertaken into the cost of the scheme prior to its implementation (Marshall, 1996).

In the same light Michael Earle, in 1983 in the UK, commented on the "number of anomalies and the growing complexities in our social security system of welfare benefits" which were seen to be similar to developments within New Zealand. Earle proposed a basic living income as the answer. This income would be common to all groups and was seen to be a socially just solution which would help to simplify the administrative complexities and to make the system more intelligible to the consumer and the public at large. This proposal Earle stated could be funded from the existing supply of current welfare resources and would enable all beneficiaries to receive a standard living allowance (Earle, 1983).

This idea of Earle sparked further interest in UBI in New Zealand. In 1983 the Presbyterian Support Services in Christchurch publicly voiced their support of the principle of a basic income for all beneficiaries.

In 1984 they backed up this statement with a report which suggested a UBI be provided for every adult. This they deemed would require the revision of the entire system of welfare benefits (Grocott, 1984). Grocott highlighted the reasons that a UBI needed to be introduced to New Zealand, stating the present political and social conditions were key reasons for this. The UBI would replace existing welfare benefits and universal payments for adults, except invalids' benefits and other special allowances, such as accommodation. Under this proposal additional support would be provided for invalids, for needs such as treatment and aids.

Grocott further backed up his proposals with a submission to the "Budget 85 Task Force" with the help of others supporting the scheme within New Zealand. The submission showed a shift in New Zealand's attitudes to do with UBI. The Basic Income was now to be applied selectively on the basis of income, and to eventually become universal. It included a family financial support for child care as well as the additional supplements for invalids and special accommodation allowances. This proposal detailed the administration and distribution considerations of a UBI scheme and highlighted a co-operative approach between the Inland Revenue Department and the Department of Social Welfare as the answer. The Basic Income, family support and the determination of eligibility would be administered through IRD, with the benefits for invalids and accommodation to be administered through DSW (Grocott, 1985).

The Values Party of New Zealand in February 1984 published a couple of papers supporting UBI and at their annual conference chose to adopt the concept of UBI as "long-term policy, to be phased in as quickly as circumstances allowed" (Marshall ,1996). This they followed up with a paper submitted to the "Budget 85 Task Force" in New Zealand. This paper included a policy for the social dividend, which was to be paid as negative tax and would replace most Social Welfare benefits and rebates. The policy was to be paid for by a unified tax on incomes, which would be collected by a single agency which would then redistribute about 50% of national income.

While these developments were being undertaken in New Zealand the Basic Income Research Group (BIRG) was established in Great Britain in 1988 to research all aspects of reform along the lines of Basic Income.

At this time the Dutch and Canadian debates were also picking up steam. The Dutch had shifted twice more on their focus for UBI, initially including the introduction of a partial BI as part of a new system of social security and also highlighting the development of demarcation lines between various social projects advocating the introduction of a UBI, to a more market based philosophy of UBI. This saw Basic Income embedded in market-oriented social projects, which regarded UBI as an instrument in the "flexibilisation of labour markets and collective social projects" (van Berkel, 1994). At the same time, a proposal entitled "Safeguarding Social Security" was presented to the Dutch government (in CIRG Newsletter, no 20, 1994). This recommended a partial BI, which would be topped up by a general insurance against loss of earnings and a residual general assistance scheme with voluntary supplementary insurance encouraged (Walter, 1989). However this was turned down by the Dutch Government (BIRG Newsletter, no 15).

In Canada, the MacDonald Commission on the Canadian Economy came out very strongly in favour of a Universal Income Security Program. In 1985 the commission detailed a very complicated implementation programme for the scheme. It was dismissed as being too grandiose, so nothing ever eventuated (Walter, 1989).

1986 saw the Collectif Charles Fourier at the University of Louvain-la-Neuvre host the First International Conference on Basic Income. Over 70 delegates attended from over 14 European countries (Walter, 1989).

Back in New Zealand in 1987 Les Gilchrist and Michael Goldsmith made a submission to the Royal Commission on Social Policy. This detailed the reasons for a UBI and also suggested various types and means of implementing the UBI. Others also made submissions at the time, including Alison Marshall and Pat Shannon, however these were also dismissed being labelled as regressive (Marshall, 1996).

In 1988 the Basic Income European Network was set up, followed closely by the establishment of BIRG as a charity in 1989. (Robertson, 1994). These creating a new form of awareness of the concept of a basic income as magazines began to be published and circulated around the world. In the same year Hermione Parker published "Instead of the Dole" which detailed the costing proposals which she had researched and methods of implementation and usage.

In 1989-1990, the Green Party in New Zealand was formed, encompassing the Values Party, who had traditionally spoken out in favour of UBI. However under this new structure most of the Values Party's policies and ideas were dismissed, including in this any notion of the UBI (Marshall ,1996).

It was at this time that European discussion was seen to situate UBI within the larger question of the transition from capitalism to socialism moving it more towards a transition from capitalism to communism, thereby leaving out the socialist stage (Watt, 1993)

Samuel Britain, a respected financial and economic commentator in the UK, and Steven Webb, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies; argued that "Basic Incomes need to advance beyond their present state of intense preoccupation to a minority and enter into the main current of political and economic discussion" (as cited in Robertson, 1994). It was with these remarks that the UBI, in its many forms entered the twentieth century.

In September 1991, UBI reached the New Zealand academic arena of the nineties with a seminar entitled "Rethinking Welfare" held at Waikato University in Hamilton. The speakers included Bill Jordan from BIRG, Les Gilchrist, Michael Goldsmith, Keith Wignall and Alison Marshall.

September 1991, saw Alison Marshall in New Zealand highlight the relationship between Basic Income and progressive taxes: this relationship based on the assumption that for any income tax system with graduated tax rates which increase with income, there is another system with a flat marginal tax rate which allocates the same total income tax in a more progressive way (Marshall, 1991)

From this point on it seemed the well of information on UBI in New Zealand began to increase dramatically. Writers such as Keith Rankin and his social wage accounting theories, have begun to dominate the New Zealand debate. Theorists from both the left and right wings of politics have voiced support and their own ideas as to what and how the UBI should take shape within New Zealand.

Overseas, Michel Genet and Philippe Van Parijs suggest a Eurogrant to be introduced at the same time as a single European currency. Their proposal entails a small amount of income paid unconditionally to every adult to be financed by a uniform European Community wide tax on Energy.

More recently there has been seen to be a shift to separate the concepts of Citizens Income and the Universal Basic Income. This argument, spearheaded by David Purdy in 1994, has received a fair amount of support from people such as Michael Goldsmith (1996) and Celia Briar (1996). Both New Zealanders who have sought to clarify Purdy's arguments and bring them just a little closer to home.

1994 also saw Michael Goldsmith making a submission to the Prime Ministers Task Force on Unemployment. In this he detailed the concept of a UBI, highlighting a brief history of the scheme and promoting the benefits this might bring (Goldsmith, 1994). Other people also made submissions on UBI at this time including Sue Bradford, all highlighting the positive aspects of the scheme and what would be necessary to implement it.

The fourteenth of February 1995 saw for the first time since Brandon Rhys-Williams death in 1988 a Conservative Member of Parliament make a speech in the House of Commons advocating a Citizens Income (CI, no.21).

In New Zealand the Manawatu Working Party on the Universal basic Income was established leading to the formation of UBINZ in April of 1995. This provided a forum for the exchange of ideas. The development of technology has lead to homepages on the Internet, not only for BIEN but on a more local level here in NZ. New Zealand has also held its first national conference on UBI this year, which included papers from Keith Rankin, Michael Goldsmith, Celia Briar, Anne Else, Les Gilchrist, and others.

In 1996 Ian Ritchie, from NZ, had the chance to put forward his views on UBI at the Third National Conference on Unemployment in Australia, in this he supported the notion of UBI being one part of a larger plan, calling for a shorter week and a shift in attitudes associated with work.

In New Zealand the focus has now shifted towards placing an emphasis on the UBI within its context (Ritchie, 1996). Focusing on concepts like the social wage approach which includes costing of the scheme and the logistics behind getting the UBI implemented. Partial Basic Income is also being exposed as a step towards the total implementation of the scheme. The key aim being to inform people of the concept and to generate support within all sectors of society.

Links | | UBINZ | | GeoCities