Basic Income in Australia and New Zealand

Jenni Mays is Course Coordinator (Human Services) and Lecturer in the School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Australia. She has extensive professional and academic experience working in the university, as well as in disability government, non-government, and community sectors, spanning over twenty years. Greg Marston is Professor of Social Policy in the School of Public Health and Social Work at Queensland University of Technology, Australia, and the coordinator for the Basic Income Guarantee Australia website. He has a longstanding interest in social policy and social justice, particularly in regard to income security, unemployment, social housing, refugee resettlement, comparative welfare states, and critical theory. The driving force behind the initial development of the Basic Income Guarantee Australia website, John Tomlinson is a recently retired Senior Lecturer from Queensland University of Technology, Australia. His researchinterests include income maintenance, basic income, unemployment, indigenous struggle, social policy, refugees, and critical theory building.

• Preface; Guy Standing1. Neoliberal Frontiers and Economic Insecurity: Is Basic Income a Solution?; Jenni Mays, Greg Marston, John TomlinsonPART I: REIMAGINING EQUITY AND EGALITARIANISM 2. Basic Income as Public Equity: The New Zealand Case; Keith Rankin3. Australian Basic Income: Efficiency and Equity; John Tomlinson4. 'Running on Empty': Australia's Neoliberal Social Security System, 1988-2015; Rob WattsPART II: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF BASIC INCOME 5. Can Older Citizens Lead the Way to a Universal Basic Income?; Susan St John6. Consumption Smoothing with Basic Income: The Role of Administrative Loans; Richard Deniss, Tom Swan7. Paying for a Basic Income; Charles Sampford PART III: BASIC INCOME'S POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC POLICY SYNERGY8. Greening the Australian Welfare State: Can Basic Income Play a Role?; Greg Marston9. Basic Income for Remote Indigenous Australia: Prospects for a Livelihoods Approach in Neoliberal Times; Jon Altman10.Disability, Citizenship, and Basic Income: Forging a New Alliance for a Non-Disabling Society; Jennifer Mays

General 1. The editors clearly explain that this volume is intended to fill a gap in the social policy literature by providing an overview of salient issues concerning the implementation of a Basic Income guarantee in Australia and New Zealand. The already exists a vast and growing literature on Basic Income but the institutional and policy contexts within which the analysis of this significant policy innovation usually takes place are confined to North America and Europe (although the Palgrave series in which this volume is included also comprises a volume on Japan and one on Latin America). At the same time, some of the themes and topics chosen by the editors (e.g., people with disabilities; climate change) are obviously relevant to debates going on in other parts of the world. In both respects, this appears to be a worthwhile project. Project 2.Does this proposal offer a useful and/or original contribution to the field? Is it addressing any new/emerging areas? Yes, see above. 3. Does it adequately engage with recent scholarship? Does it take existing scholarship forward? Yes, both in terms of the extant literature on BI in general, and in terms of the policy/political scenes in Australia and New Zealand. 4.What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? I have underlined some of the strengths of this project above already. I would add that it is reasonably interdisciplinary, with contributions from Social Work scholars, economists and other specialists in various aspects of social and environmental policy What I see as a weakness, however, concerns the somewhat narrow ideological overtones that permeates practically all the contributions. The Critical Theory perspective adopted by the authors give the volume a welcome coherence, and the thesis that BI a progressive reform in comparison to the status quo is certainly a defensible position. However, this orientation is objectionable on two counts. First, it might wrongly suggests to readers (e.g., undergraduate students) that BI is proposed and defended only by progressive reformers and scholars when in fact it has also been advanced and supported also by libertarians and free markets advocates (e.g., Charles Murray). In fact, the great advantage of BI is that there is a chance that it might generate a broad enough consensus to be adopted by various countries and political parties for very different but overlapping reasons. There are a variety of objections that can be raised against the BI but it is precisely the possibility of rallying supporters from diverse ideological camps that offers a chance to overcome these obstacles. And this brings me to my second and related objections, namely that if the intent of the editors is to promote the concept of BI in the hope that it could one day be implemented in Australia and/or New Zealand, it is counter-productive to describe this reform as being ideologically motivated only by a reaction to 'neoliberal' trends; there are actually free-markets advocates who could be convinced to add their support to such a reform and, thereby, increase its chance of becoming a reality. After all, the post-war welfare state became a solid institutions in most countries because it was grounded in a consensus that extended from moderate conservatives to social democrats. To find an alternative to it will also necessitate a broad ideological basis. On a more minor point, when Tomlinson in his table entitled 'The ideological schism' describes charity as synonymous with 'hate,' I would suggest that this is an inappropriate term, to say the least. Charity and philanthropy could more appropriately be said to rest on compassion and Smithian 'sympathy.' Even if indeed there are good reasons for arguing that 'handouts' are less satisfactory than the BI scheme, this polemical description is unwarranted. In fact BI could be a way to strengthen the voluntary sector and open new avenues for philanthropy. 5.Do you feel the author/editor is suitably qualified to produce a high quality book on this topic? In a word, yes. 6.If you are aware that the book is being considered for inclusion in a specific series, please comment on its suitability for that series. It obviously fits very well within the series 'Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee.' 7.Is this book likely to have interdisciplinary and/or international appeal? To some extent, yes. It can be used in public policy courses in a variety of departments or professional programs. 8.How does this proposal compare to the main competing titles in this area in terms of quality of writing and content? Favourably, although the editors might want to ensure that ideological biases are kept within reasonable limits (see above). Recommandation: I recommend that this project be accepted as is, but I would urge the editors to make clear that although Critical Theory/progressive arguments can easily be offered in defence of the BI guarantee, the concept itself is ideologically complex and has been supported by scholars and activists coming from different horizons, including left-libertarianism (and occasionally right-wing libertarianism), civic republicanism (on this point, see analyses offered by the Australian political philosopher - but now at Princeton U. - Philip Pettit), among other views. Inversely, objections have come from various camps, including progressives.