For those living in cities, especially in high-rise apartments, wouldn’t it be nice to grow your own organic vegetables, herbs, or even plants?  Using hydroponics (without soil) and aeroponic (fine mist) growing technology in smaller personalized units make this possible. AeroGarden markets a $150 unit that lets you harvest herbs in two-three weeks with hardly any effort and water.  Of course, cheaper and do-it-yourself kits are available.  Kitchen wastes and even paper can be turned into compost by using more modern and easy to use auto-composting bins such as the NatureMill, which is still a bit pricey at $400.

What would happen if every child had a computer, even the poorest of the poor, and could connect to the Internet?  What would the possibilities be for economic productivity, education, and personal/community growth?  The One Laptop Per Child is an ambitious initiative to develop a $100 laptop that will be attractive, energy efficient, durable, and Internet-capable.  Some organizations, such as Asiatotal.net are teaming up with sponsors, and aim to give brand new units for free to the poor.  Computers can connect through the internet cheaply through a grid of “self-healing nodes” and can be solar-powered as proposed by the Green Wi-Fi group.  According to GrameenPhone founder and MIT entrepreneur guru Iqbal Qadir, information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as computers, the Internet, and telephones enable the poor and vulnerable in three ways:  connect the village to the world, create business opportunities, and generate a culture of entrepreneurship.  GrameenPhone, in ten years, has garnered 10 million subscribers. For Qadir “connectivity is productivity”.  Of course, functional but old computers can still be used and can even connect to the Internet using open source software and other recycled equipment.

Another critical issue is the lack of water supply infrastructure in poverty-stricken rural areas.  Without funds for a municipal wide system, households need to provide for their own potable water supply.  Communal deepwells with pumps may be located quite a distance from the home.  One innovative way of transporting water is through a hand-driven pump such as the $90 Lehmans hand-powered transfer pump, which can transfer 25-30 gallons per minute.  For community-wide projects, a firm helped design and install the AquaMeter™ system, which they claim is the “world’s first solar powered, pre-paid municipal water distribution system in Ronda, Cebu, the Philippines.”   Rainwater harvesting, water impoundment, and water pumping can be powered by the sun’s energy.  The technology has been used worldwide, including in Tawi-Tawi, Philippines and can be made affordable. 

The other side of supplying water is conserving it.  One piece of equipment that needs improvement is the urinal.  Why flush it with potable water, when you can go waterless?  Improvements in materials, biodegradable cleansers, no moving parts, and savings of 1.5-3 gallons per flush are some of the clear benefits of waterless urinals.  Plus, it’s safer because, in the absence of flushing, microbes, bacteria, and viruses cannot thrive in the dry areas.  Check out the Waterless  and Waterless Urinals websites. 

The World Bank  reports that 1.1 billion people live on $1 a day, while 2.7 billion live on $2 a day.  Obviously, this doesn’t leave much for basic needs, one of which is transportation.  In depressed rural areas, public transport is sporadic and costly.  Bad roads exacerbate the difficulties.  Bicycles can help fill in this gap.  Manufacturing them can also be a source of livelihood.   WorldBike is one example of NGOs working on making the bicycle not only a means of transport but also a tool for economic productivity. 

For those in urban areas, bikes, if more portable, can encourage the use of mass transit systems.  A light, foldable bike makes this possible.   Some of these bikes do exist, such as the expensive Brompton Folding Bicycle (over $600).  Other folding bike models are half the price according to Larry Lagarde of RideTHISbike.com. 

Solar power is one feasible technology applicable to areas with many sunny days as the American Southwest and much of Asia including the Philippines.  It has many applications from backpacks with photovoltaic cells to recharge your various gadgets to solar electric bikes.  One very important and needed application of solar energy is in refrigeration especially of vaccines and medicines for rural, powerless, and disaster-afflicted areas.   The SolarChill is designed to be “environmentally sound, battery free, technologically reliable, affordable and multi-source powered” and is expected to cost from $1500-2000.  They are looking for manufacturers. 

As solar power generation scales up, I was fascinated to stumble upon one company that actually commits to sell to American households solar power at a fixed and guaranteed price.  Citizenrē now has over a thousand customers and will be attractive to those seeking a more sustainable lifestyle that, at the very least, is carbon-neutral. For those planning to build their dream home with wood as part of the construction material, you may want to explore wood plastic composites (WPC) that use wood wastes and plastic.  JER Environtech, established by Fil-Canadians, developed this alternative panel boards and raw material composite that have better mechanical properties, are cost-effective, environment friendly, and non-toxic.  They have joint venture companies or manufacturing plants in Canada, the United States, Philippines, Malaysia, and the UAE.  It looks like a good stock investment and is listed on the Toronto Venture Exchange (TSX.V) under “JER”.

These are but some of the alternative technologies that the country could use if made affordable and culturally appropriate.  That is the task of the Pinoy Innovator. 

Despite the challenges we face, the Philippines is number 17 in terms of human well-being and environmental impact.  The indicators are life expectancy (70.4 vs. reasonable ideal of 82 years), life satisfaction (6.4 vs. 8.2), and ecological footprint or use of natural resources (1.2 vs. 1.5), all of which account for the country’s  happy planet index (59.2 vs. 83.5).   Vanuatu was number 1.  The United States was in 150^th place.  Its life satisfaction (7.4) and life expectancy (77.4 years) were good, but its ecological footprint (9.5) and HPI (28.8) were horrible.  You can calculate your own HPI at www.happyplanetindex.org.

Lastly, in this age of recycling and re-use, it’s ok to recycle gifts, and be like what Elaine of Seinfeld called the re-gifter. :-)

I hope you and your family have the very best of Christmas. Don't forget the Christ in Christmas!

Hecky Villanueva

What’s wrong with a free lunch?

Nothing’s wrong according to Belgian economics professor Philippe Van Parijs in his 2001 book with the same title. Van Parijs or VP is one of the leading proponents of the Universal Basic Income (UBI) or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). Never heard of it? Don’t be ashamed; I haven’t till recently. The UBI is an income a government pays, at a uniform amount and in regular intervals, to each adult permanent resident, regardless of his/her economic status and whether s/he is willing to work or not (Van Parijs 2001:5). It is guaranteed because the government is required to pay each permanent resident this amount. It is basic because the amount is “something on which a person can safely count, a material foundation on which a life can firmly rest” (Van Parijs 2001:5-6). As defined, it can either fall short or exceed the amount needed to fulfill the “basic needs”. Why is a UBI desirable? VP lists the following main points below.

It is just. Social justice is equivalent to real freedom for all. Freedom is normally equated with enforceable property rights and personal liberties. What should be added to this is the means or resources to use these personal liberties. VP calls this the distribution of opportunity, which should be designed in such a way that those with the least opportunities be given real opportunities. Providing a UBI is one way.

It promotes real jobs and sustainable economic growth. VP notes that Europe and America’s economic difficulties are different in that in the former there is limited poverty and high unemployment, while in the latter, it has low unemployment and widespread poverty. Technology advances have been eliminating jobs. It would take massive economic growth to stabilize employment levels. However, this would severely impact the environment and labor benefits. What to do? The UBI, according to VP, subsidizes the employee. It allows the employee to accept a job at lower pay or not to work at all. It also allows him/her to bargain harder with the employer, take a break, re-train, become an entrepreneur or self-employed, or do social work. On the employer’s side they have the option to offer a lower wage for non-critical positions and to offer more to their important employees. It is a win-win solution.

It is gender sensitive. Women have taken a disproportionate amount of the household “caring” functions. They have also been discriminated in the workplace in terms of pay and career advancement. A UBI gives them more financial independence to take care of the household and family, or from an abusive husband and more bargaining power from a discriminatory company.

It is environment-friendly. Environmentalists, according to VP, face an obstinate foe in “productivism, the obsessive pursuit of economic growth” (Van Parijs 2001:20-21), which generates pollution, consumerism, and uses up scarce natural resources. Accelerated economic growth is justified on the grounds of reducing unemployment. VP notes that working class organizations have bought into this argument. The UBI addresses unemployment without promoting “productivism” and undermines this broad argument. It forces business and industry to rethink their business programs. For environmentalists, the UBI provides them with the volunteer manpower who can now afford to work on environmental programs.

What are the objections?

It costs too much. Not really if a wide range of existing welfare benefits are abolished, tax collection becomes more efficient, tax exemptions minimized, economic rents are collected (from natural resource exploitation and use of government land), and the government cuts back on pork barrel expenses. Note that the UBI does not necessarily need to meet the individual’s “basic needs”. That is the goal, but it isn’t required.

It distorts labor supply. This is a non-issue according to VP. The goal should be sustainable economic growth not an “overworked, hyperactive society” (Van Parijs 2001:23). A productive adult does not necessarily have to be earning a living. They could be taking care of their children, elderly relatives, or volunteering. All these improve human capital and reduce costs on peace and order, prisons (better socialized youth), hospitalization (healthier families and elderly relatives), and other social service expenses that could be handled by less-stressed families.

It is unethical and immoral to get something without working for it. This is the reciprocity issue and is the basis for Clinton’s workfare welfare reform. VP likens this to the Malibu surfer who would spend his/her time on the beach and not work. Again, the response would be so what? The other response is that the reciprocity issue takes a dim view of human nature and discounts the human drive to be a productive and useful member of society. Really, how long and how often can you surf in Malibu without getting bored, injured, or even sun-burned? The third is, the UBI is not really enough for one to live a life of luxury. It is only a basic income.

Lewis et.al (2005:2) also noted that “tough love” policies, e.g. workfare, while supposedly providing more incentive to work, have, in the neo-liberal era, encouraged employers to pay less than living wages. Further, they advise value-neutral economists to note that many Americans have made the value judgment that workers should earn living wages and employers not paying living wages are morally reprehensible. Hence, value-neutral economists should take this value judgment into account in their assessments and policy recommendations, e.g. how to achieve living wages. This view has been supported by recent philosophical literature, while psychological research and evolutionary game theory lend support to altruistic motives and action, as well as cooperative behavior, and refutes the fear that individuals will free ride (not work) with a UBI (Lewis et.al 2005:2-3).

Lastly, the reciprocity issue is fallacious because everyone who became successful did so because of a combination of one or the other of the following: family line, ties, and resources, government support (tax breaks, public education, incentives, etc.), help from friends or relatives, pure luck, utilization of natural resources or public land/resources. No one really is self-made. Hence, the UBI ensures that everyone gets a fair chance.

The idea and concept of the UBI is not new or radical. In the United States it has been proposed in one form or another as early as 1796 when Thomas Paine proposed his version in Agrarian Justice (Lewis et.al 2005). Personalities from the left and right have supported a UBI like John Kenneth Galbraith, Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon (the watered down “Family Assistance Plan”), George McGovern (the “demogrant” proposal), Martin Luther King, Huey Long, and Bertrand Russell, among others. James Tobin wrote the first academic article in 1967. Nobel winner Frederick Hayek mentioned it in 1944. They all saw it as a scientific and simplified solution to poverty, a logical alternative to the welfare state, and a key tool for promoting human liberty.

In 1982, Alaska and the United States for that matter, was the first to institute a UBI in the form the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). Throughout the years, the APF has provided each resident of Alaska annual dividends ranging from a low of $331 in 1984 to a high of $1964 in 2000. By an amendment of the constitution of Alaska, “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments." Thus, the APF market value currently stands at around $34Billion invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, and CDs. Alaska residents favor the APF dividend and it has worked to reduce poverty in the state. See http://www.apfc.org/index.cfm.

Brazil passed the “Citizens Basic Income” legislation in 2004 paving the way for gradual implementation of the UBI (IPA 2005). Senator Eduardo Matarrazo Suplicy, a key ally of Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, has pushed for a UBI since 1991 when he authored legislation for the negative income tax wherein each citizen would receive an income supplement of between 30-50% of the difference between his/her wage and $150. Brazil also experimented with the UBI in the education and health sectors, Bolsa-Escola and Bolsa-Alimentacao programs respectively (Suplicy 2001:249). With the new legislation, Suplicy estimates that 11.4 million families or 46 million citizens, representing one-fourth of Brazil’s population of 182 million will be enrolled in the UBI program in 2006.

Portugal has a 1997 law ensuring UBI or BIG. It is being implemented for the poorest of the poor with a “social contract provision”, e.g. work eventually to become finanically independent. Initial reports show conditional success; since the implementation is only partial (da Costa 2002).

The UBI is feasible in the G8 countries and there are many versions of this. Belgium, UK, and the Netherlands have tax codes that closely reflect BIG. Libertarians, capitalists, and leftists support UBI. Neo-liberals and many leftists do oppose UBI, basically on the reciprocity issue and incentive not to work fear.

What can be more radical than the UBI? Why haven’t the progressives worldwide pushed for this? Is it feasible globally? Why aren’t our politicians exploring UBI? With UBI, the hyperwage theory has another roadmap to implementation?

References:

Clark, Charles M.A.

2002 The Basic Income Guarantee: Ensuring Progress and Prosperity in the 21^st Century. The Lifey Press, Dublin, Ireland.

Groot, L.F.M.

2004 Basic Income, Unemployment, and Compensatory Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Van Parijs, Philippe

2001 t’s Wrong with a Free Lunch? Beacon Press, Boston.

Widerquist, Karl; Michael Anthony Lewis, and Steven Pressman

2005 The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., England.

Useful links:

Basic Income Earth Network: http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/BIEN/Index.html

The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network: http://www.usbig.net/

Global Income: http://www.globalincome.org/LinksEnglish.html

Livable Income for Everyone: http://www.livableincome.org/links.htm

Ireland BIG: http://www.cori.ie/justice/basic_income/index.htm

Brazil experience: http://www.brazilink.org/politicspapers/Suplicy_Columbia_2005.pdf

Portugal BIG: http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/bien/Files/Papers/2002BrutodaCosta.pdf