Photo: Pekka Sipola/EPA
Finland is experimenting with a guaranteed income.
Recently I posted about a guaranteed-income pilot program in Kenya that MIT’s rigorously data-driven Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) will be evaluating over the next few years.
Now I see that Finland is testing the concept, too.
Aditya Chakrabortty wrote about Finland’s experiment last month at the Guardian. “In a speck of a village deep in the Finnish countryside, a man gets money for free. Each month, almost €560 [about $660] is dropped into his bank account, with no strings attached. The cash is his to use as he wants. Who is his benefactor? The Helsinki government.”
Juha Järvinen “is a human lab rat in an experiment that could help to shape the future of the west. Last Christmas, Järvinen was selected by the state as one of 2,000 unemployed people for a trial of universal basic income [UBI]. …
“Finland is the first European country to launch a major dry run. It is not the purists’ UBI – which would give everyone, even billionaires, a monthly sum. Nor will Finland publish any results until the two-year pilot is over at the end of 2018. …
“Ask Järvinen what difference money for nothing has made to his life, and you are marched over to his workshop. Inside is film-making equipment, a blackboard on which is scrawled plans for an artists’ version of Airbnb, and an entire little room where he makes shaman drums that sell for up to €900. All this while helping to bring up six children. All those free euros have driven him to work harder than ever.”
Even more than the money, the freedom from the country’s welfare bureaucracy is key.
“In Finland, €560 is less than a fifth of average private-sector income. … [Järvinen’s] liberation came in the lack of conditions attached to the money. If they so wish, Finns on UBI can bank the cash and do nothing else. But, in Järvinen’s case at least, the sum has removed the fear of utter destitution, freeing him to do work he finds meaningful. …
“Social affairs minister Pirkko Mattila … seems genuinely bemused that there could be any political resistance to handing poor people some money to sit at home. ‘I personally believe that in Finland citizens really want to work,’ she says.”
More at the Guardian, here.
Suzanne's Mom's Blog 
Reblogged this on davidbuchalter and commented:
Certainly an interesting alternative to benefits that incentivize not working and penalize working. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard students who want to work more say, “I can’t get that job, or I’ll lose my benefits.” They want to work, but the system punishes them. This program, on the other hand, interests me because there are no strings attached. An intriguing experiment, at the least.
Thanks for reblogging. When I worked at the Fed, a colleague suggested this option and I thought it would never be accepted. Now I read about it everywhere — even in “Fast Company,” of all things. https://www.fastcompany.com/40482312/can-basic-income-plus-the-blockchain-build-a-new-economic-system
I am glad countries are experimenting with this idea. I heard folks speak on the radio recently about this idea, and a person spoke very eloquently about the pride and satisfaction most human beings experience from working and from contributing in some way to their community — and how challenging it might be for folks who are getting financial assistance to experience that kind of satisfaction. But the Finnish guy in this article certainly seems to be very motivated to create and contribute…Hurrah!
The article showed how in Finland, welfare recipients not in the pilot program have many restrictions on how they are allowed to spend their time — in addition to being loaded down with time-wasting appointments and paperwork. If the state is paying money anyway, why not try a way that frees people up?
I like that the approach removes fear. Fear seems to get in the way of so much we could do . . .
I don’t see anything like this being accepted in the United States in my lifetime, but I like the idea of giving some basic assistance to everyone, even those who don’t need it. Perhaps that would make it more palatable to certain sectors. Well-off charitable types (like Warren Buffett or the businessmen who tried to collect money for the poor from Scrooge) might designate theirs for worthy causes.
I think it would be accepted but not through a government run program. A privately owned and funded organization would have to do this and operate solely for the benefit of humanity. There is a company that has done this on an international scale, I’m running a series of posts about it in the coming weeks
Will look for ti.