KUBOTA Hiroyuki (HEM 21) Why Basic Income looks so Expensive ? Considering the scale merit of...

KUBOTA Hiroyuki (HEM 21)

Why Basic Income looks so Expensive ?

Considering the scale merit of households and the caring costs


KUBOTA, Hiroyuki

• From Osaka, Japan• Working as a researcher at Hyogo

Earthquake Memorial Research Institute• Basic Income Japan Network (BIJN)• Majoring Sociology on Family,

– esp. collective and cooperative lifestyles within/out families

– such as, house sharing in Japan and Squatting activity in Amsterdam, etc.


1. Primary question

• Why BI looks so expensive, compared to other social welfare policies?– Is BI really expensive? It is considered so. – But, BI is making the very modest and humble

claim that the minimal income to fulfill basic needs should be guaranteed for all

– One cannot say “financially impossible” to BI policy without denying all other just social policies


1. Primary question

• So, you can answer to my question…– Because BI is the only JUST policy, while

other social policies somehow abandon the poor

• Or, you can also answer…– Because BI treat us as individuals-basis, while

other social policies somehow treat us as family-/ household-basis

• But, we can address this question in depth from the perspective of family sociology…


2. Aim and Perspectives

• To consider the reason BI looks so expensive…– in order to analyze the quasi-expensiveness

of BI and its feasibility,– by separating the “household-basis or

individual-basis” discussion into the two different discussions concerning…

– 1) the social costs of caring– 2) the scale merit of collective households


3. Two possible answers

• BI looks expensive because…– 1) BI counts “social costs of caring” directly,

which is usually treated indirectly , sometimes underestimated, or just ignored in worse?

– 2) BI is disinterested in the “scale merits” of the collective households, which is usually utilized both within families and household-based social policies?

• In other words, they are two phases of Rigidly individualistic nature of BI


3-1. Social costs of caring

• Martha A. Fineman: feminist legal theorist– argues human dependency and its care

should be the primary concerns of the government, against individualization process of family laws and policies during American ’80-’90.

– Caring the dependent is the most fundamental human conditions, which costs should be fairly distributed among the society.

– “Autonomy Myth”(2004)


3-1. Social costs of caring

• Martha A. Fineman: feminist legal theorist– Caring costs have long been the family matters in

modern societies, which means individuals are driven to marriage and family, namely forced to raise their own kids with their own costs.

– These family norms clearly seem to be oppressive and unjustifiable now, but they have guaranteed the generational reciprocity of non-monetary caring costs.

• Does BI liquidize and make these cost visible ?


3-2. Scale merit of the collective households

• Gary Becker: neo-liberal economist– analyzes family as a “factory”, in which

individuals produce their utility/satisfaction in cooperation.

– Illustrates the Scale merit of joint-household, even if not a family household, compared to single person household.

– “Treatise of Family”([1981]1991)

• How should BI treat this economic efficiency within collective households?


4. Comparisons between simulated BI models

• 1) Three kinds of BI policies with different individual amount of monthly BI– $400/m ($100/w)– $800/m ($200/w)– $1200/m ($300/w)

• 2) Total amount of BI within households– Individual BI amount multiplied by the number of the

household members

• 3) Equivalent BI– Total amount of BI divided by the square rooted

number of the household members



• 4) Four types of households…– A. Single household– B. Mother with a kid household■– C. Couple with no kid household– D. Couple with a kid household ■– E. Couple with two kids household ■– F. Couple with four kids household ■– G. Four adult shared household– H. Six adult shared household


　

A.　Single　person

B.　mother　with　a　kid　

C.　Couple　with　no　kids

D.　Couple　with　a　kid

Total　 Equiv.　 Total　 Equiv.　 Total　 Equiv.　 Total　 Equiv.　

BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI

$400/m 400 400 800 560 800 560 1200 690

$800/m 800 800 1600 1130 1600 1130 2400 1390

$1200/m　 1200 1200 2400 1700 2400 1700 3600 2080

　

　

　 E.　Couple　with　two　kids

F.　Couple　with　four　kids

G.　Four-adult　Shared　　

H.　Six-adult　shared

Total　 Equiv.　 Total　 Equiv.　 Total　 Equiv.　 Total　 Equiv.　

BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI

$400/m 1600 800 2400 980 1600 800 2400 980

$800/m　 3200 1600 4800 1960 3200 1600 4800 1960

$1200/m 4800 2400 7200 2940 4800 2400 7200 2940



• Key comparisons– 1) Caring and non-caring households with the

same number of household members• B and C, E and G, F and H

– 2) Scale merit of the bigger household• $400 BI within four adults shared household (case

G) shows double equivalent BI amount than $800 BI within single person household

– 3) Scale merit of collective caring• See D and F



• Of cause it was quite a rough simulations and comparisons, without considerations on housing policies or social insurances, etc.

• But, it clearly shows the proper amount of BI cannot be calculated without considering the social costs of caring and the scale merit of collective housholds


5. Discussion (1)

• Social costs of caring…– BI covering human basic needs is

disinterested in the costs of caring including the reproduction of next generation.

– Which means, the just evaluation of caring costs and its social distribution do require additional system besides BI.

– But temporarily, BI helps those who cares the dependent to survive and have a voice


5. Discussion (2)

• scale merit of collective households…– The problem is what degree of collectivity or

what kind of individual should be standardized in calculating proper BI amount.

– Of cause not a modern family, but “individual” cannot be the answer, either…

– If so, there can be two kinds of idealization of individuals…


5. Discussion (3)

• Individualistic individual model – which demands relatively big amount of BI,

guaranteeing each individual to live alone if they want

• Collectivistic Individual model– which demands relatively small amount of BI,

forcing each individual somehow to help each other within/out families


6. Conclusion

• Why Basic Income looks so Expensive ?– 1) BI does not count social costs of caring

fully enough, but does count more than other social policies.

– 2) BI is actually disinterested in the collectivity of people’s lifestyles. But in a narrow sense, adopting the individualistic individual model is the chief reason of expensiveness.


6. Conclusion

• It can be an option to adopt collectivistic individual model and to support variety of collective lifestyles other than families, because…– it can signify the sense of community and

democracy in non-familial collective lifestyles – it can relativize hetero-sexual modern family

norms– It can increase feasibility of BI, by reducing its

budget


Obrigado!

[email protected]

KUBOTA Hiroyuki (HEM 21) Why Basic Income looks so Expensive ? Considering the scale merit of...

Documents

Transcript of KUBOTA Hiroyuki (HEM 21) Why Basic Income looks so Expensive ? Considering the scale merit of...