The Bolsa Família Case E-Book

Thiago Monteiro de Souza

• Herausgeber: Editora Dialética
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 173

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

The theory of the Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) has been debated for centuries. However, one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the UBI is lack of empirical testing. Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs that resemble the UBI, to a certain degree, as is the case of the Bolsa Família (BF), have also been implemented. This project is internationally considered as an example of success in combating historical poverty and inequality in Brazil. Observing what lessons may be learned from the Brazilian experience, the present work thus aims to analyze the Bolsa Família program so that contributions to current UBI studies may also be considered. To achieve this end, based on the theoretical foundations of the UBI, some central topics are addressed, namely: (i) Freedom, (ii) Labor, (iii) Politics and (iv) Feminism. Subsequently, the present study focuses on the Bolsa Família experience, narrating the genesis of the program, as well as its implementation and evolution over the years, which makes it possible to look into how the Brazilian socioeconomic indexes have been affected since the creation of this Income Transfer policy. Without intending to be an end in itself, the present work aims to engage and encourage the debate on setting up a functional and improved UBI project.

Leseprobe

In honor of Wanda and Regina

SUMÁRIO

Capa

Folha de Rosto

Créditos

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE UNCONDITIONAL BASIC INCOME DISCUSSION:

2.1. UNCONDITIONAL BASIC INCOME: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

2.2. FREEDOM

2.3. LABOR

2.4. POLITICS

2.5. FEMINISM

2.6. ALREADY EXISTING UBI PROGRAMS AND EXPERIMENTS

3. THE BOLSA FAMÍLIA PROGRAM

3.1. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

3.2. EFFECTS OF THE BOLSA FAMÍLIA POLICY

3.3. TWO SPECIFIC INSTANCES

3.4. THE EVOLUTION OF THE POLICY

3.5. CRITICISMS ABOUT THE POLICY

4. AN ANALYSIS OF THE BOLSA FAMÍLIA FROM THE BASIC INCOME PERSPECTIVE

4.1. BOLSA FAMÍLIA, UBI AND FREEDOM

4.2. BOLSA FAMÍLIA, UBI AND LABOR

4.3. BOLSA FAMILIA, UBI AND POLITICS

4.4. BOLSA FAMÍLIA, UBI AND FEMINISM

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS: PUBLIC SERVICING AS THE BASIC INCOME SUPPORTING POLICY?

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Landmarks

Cover

Title-page

Copyright-page

Table of Contents

Bibliography

1. INTRODUCTION

La utopía está en el horizonte. Camino dos pasos, ella se aleja dos pasos y el horizonte se corre diez pasos más allá.

¿Entonces para que sirve la utopía? Para eso, sirve para caminar.

(Utopia is on the horizon. I walk two steps, it moves two steps further and the horizon runs ten steps further away. So, what’s the point of utopia? The point is this: to keep walking.)

Fernando Birri, apud Eduardo Galeano. Las Palabras Andantes

(Walking Words), 1993.

The Unconditional Basic Income (hereinafter UBI) has been the subject of social, political, economic discussions for more than a hundred years, as noted by Bertrand Russel (1918, apud. Widerquist et al., 2013) and Milton Friedman (1968). Some scholars, however, have given it much more attention over the last few decades (Van Parijs, 2000, 2004, 2013; Vanderborght, 2013; Meade, 2013; Esping-Andersen, 2001; Mckinnon, 2003; Suplicy, 2003, 2006). Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as noted by Guy Standing (2020), this topic has gained new strength in the context of global politics. The author (ibid.) points out to the urgent need to make a basic income a reality in order to build a healthier and less fragile society from the socioeconomic perspective. According to Standing, a Basic Income to all would be a significant step towards it.

Nonetheless, when the literature related to the UBI is reviewed, one of the main problems is the lack of concrete examples that can help its debate and thus improve it. In the studies on UBI (Standing, 2008), one thing that is often done is the analyses of policies that promote Conditional Cash Transfer. However, these Conditional Cash Transfer policies, albeit more common around the globe and consequently easier to be analyzed, are not universal as in the UBI proposal. The Bolsa Família program in Brazil is one of these oft quoted policies whose granting of the benefit, where applicable, depends on compliance with the following conditions: prenatal exam, nutritional monitoring, health monitoring and school attendance of 85% (eighty-five percent)1.

Even though it is a commonly cited experience, yet there is not a study that thoroughly examines the Bolsa Família outcomes, which could better contribute to the UBI debate. Guy Standing (2008) does it from a more general perspective in his article How cash transfers promote the case for basic income. Nevertheless, the objective in the present work is to look into the specific case of the Bolsa Família, which is not done by Standing (ibid.). Therefore, by resorting to the Brazilian policy as a concrete instance with its respective benefits and short comings (Lavinas, 2018), it may be possible to better understand how the UBI theory may be put into practice more effectively. That is, when it comes to aspects such as how to stimulate work, how to promote gender equality, how not to stigmatize social minorities, the Bolsa Familia might be helpful for the UBI debate.

That is the reason why this study focuses on the Bolsa Família program in Brazil, one of the rarest UBI examples whose origins date back from 2001 with President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and that is still currently active after some developments by Luís Inácio Lula da Silva in the 2000’s. All the same, it is important to keep in mind that the Bolsa Família program is not a UBI program itself, but a Conditional Cash Transfer policy. In this specific Brazilian experience, only a part of the society is eligible for the aid, which is then basically given to poor families.

As a matter of fact, the Brazilian program has generated an intense debate within the Brazilian society, both media-wise (Mantovani, 2009) and academy-wise (Campello & Neri 2013; Ipea Soares, Sátyro, 2009)2 and has many significant outcomes to be discussed and analyzed from a UBI perspective. For example, Lavinas (2018) argues that the program was not successful in providing a real inclusion of the poor into Brazilian society. The author (ibid.) sees the aid as a way for the State to excuse itself from focusing on improvement of public services. On this note, this study will take arguments such as those into consideration in order to delve into what may be learned from the Bolsa Família experience and, therefore, be added to the current UBI discussion.

Besides, throughout this study, it is interesting to notice how the BF program was slowly solidified throughout the years and how the popular opinion reacted to the policy. A significant part of the population has taken it more negatively and pejoratively, which leads to discussions about its political feasibility (see Chapter 4, Sections 4.1 and 4.2).

In a preliminary stance, the Bolsa Família might seem to imply a significant motor in the struggle against poverty and inequality, as it will be observed in Chapter 3. Still, when analyzing the policy until 2018, it is important to notice its oscillations and how it responded to unstable economic periods. The best results of the BF program coincide with a good economic momentum of Brazil, which was not maintainable once the economic crisis struck the country (see Chapters 3 and 4). It may be argued that, in the case of the UBI, the cash transfer by itself would not probably achieve the status of a more equal society as suggested by the literature (see Chapter 2). As a matter of fact, a more organized range of public services is vital to achieve more equal and just socioeconomic levels.

The main objective of this work is, therefore, to review enough content concerning the UBI literature at the same time it leans over BF statistical analysis, so that one may learn from the BF experience and enhance the UBI debate. Arguments such as why the Bolsa Família was a success and if it achieved its main objectives are then considered. Moreover, the chances of the BF program being converted into a UBI in the long run, alongside possible improvements to be made in the Brazilian CCT, are discussed.

The present dissertation is thus organized into four main chapters besides this introduction: Chapter 2 is an overview on the Unconditional Basic Income literature; Chapter 3 presents and analyses (qualitatively and quantitatively) the Bolsa Família policy in Brazil; Chapter 4 examines the BF policy through the lenses of the UBI literature, so that, Chapter 5 may withdraw concluding remarks.

1 Law, N. (2004). 10.836 de 9 jan. 2004. (2004). Creates the Bolsa Família Program and further providences. Brasília, DF, 9.

2 The detailed bibliography is found in Chapter 6 – Bibliography.

2. THE UNCONDITIONAL BASIC INCOME DISCUSSION:

The solution to poverty is to abolish directly by a now widely discussed measure: the Guaranteed Income.

Martin Luther King Jr.,

Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Communism. (1967)

This chapter aims at reviewing the literature on the Unconditional Basic Income. In order to do that, it will be organized into four sections. The first section below takes into consideration the introductory elements of the UBI, focusing on what was likely to be the origin of the whole concept as well as on the more recent contributions in the academic and political context. In sequence, the remaining sections in this chapter discuss arguments regarding Freedom, Labor, Politics and Feminism through the lens of the UBI.

These four topics (Freedom, Labor Politics and Feminism) were selected due to the discussion of the Bolsa Família in this work (see Chapter 3). The outcomes of the Brazilian policy involve these four topics, which turn out to be fundamental to the objective of this dissertation, which is reflecting on the the Bolsa Família through the lens of the Unconditional Basic Income (see Chapter 4).

2.1. UNCONDITIONAL BASIC INCOME: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

The definition of the term Basic Income, as Van Parijs (2004) stated, is “an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis without means test or work requirement” (2004). The fundamental aspects are thus the following: unconditionality, individuality and universality, which means it is a financial aid given to every single person reardless of their economic situation.

It is complicated to pinpoint who, when or where to explain the genesis of the Basic Income idea. In fact, there are many different terms that refer to this concept: Guaranteed Income, Citizen’s Income, Social Dividend, Universal Grant are just some examples. One of the first main political philosophical figures to address the subject was Thomas Paine, during his studies in the XVIII century. In his works, the Englishman often discussed topics such as social justice and true democracy. He was of vital importance for the Illuminist Revolutions during that time period, both in the American and French contexts3. In his text entitled “Common Sense” (1976), Paine, while thoroughly criticizing the European authorities of his time on issues such as oppression, taxation and slavery, for example, he treats the government as a “necessary evil” whose primary goal should be to function on behalf of society or people as a whole.

Paine delves into this discussion, arguing that, when it comes to economy, the state should protect their citizens, especially those who are sick, disabled, old and young, which could be done by redistributing wealth and building a fairer taxation system as compared to the one that existed at the time. This aid from the state would grant each citizen socioeconomic stability, as they wouldn’t starve, and the young ones would have access to education. From this discussion, then, the Basic Income idea was born.

Further on, throughout the XIX and the XX centuries, more philosophers addressed the theme, such as Bertrand Russel, in his work “Proposed Roads to Freedom” (1918). The British Labor Party brought up the Basic Income idea to the party conferences during the post-World War One period, when, for the first time, the proposal gained strength as part of a relevant political movement.

However, only in the second half of the XX century, the UBI discussion became more relevant in the academic and political scenarios, especially in the United States and in Europe. That was the moment when scholars like Milton Friedman, Erich Fromm and Robert Theobald started to address the theme more thoroughly. It is interesting to notice how each author engages in the UBI discussion in his own personal way.

Friedman, for example, has a specific proposal that is different from the original Basic Income idea; it is called the Negative Income Tax (1969). The main difference from the original UBI idea is related to the non-universality aspect. The proposal by the American economist works by exempting citizens from taxes. The poorest the person, the greater their exemptions. If the citizen started earning more and more, the aid would diminish, until it reached a point where s/he would not be eligible for the benefit. After this cut-off point, s/he would just earn it according to her/his wage and pay regular taxes, with no exemption. This would be an alternative to the UBI proposal, which, as stated by Friedman (ibid.), has many flaws. Still, it is a perspective that enriches the discussion and, therefore, will be taken into consideration (Section 2.2) with more details in this dissertation.

The Sabatical Account is another example of UBI related proposal. Idealized by Claus Offe (1999), it would allow individuals to live from the benefit for a certain period of their life. It would act like a sort of insurance, based on which people would be able to leave the workforce temporarily for any reason, such as in case of unemployment, inability to find a good job, need to take care of a sick family member or a child, or even if it is just to take some time off work. Nevertheless, since this aid is temporary, the individual would eventually need to return to the labor force.

Two other UBI related proposals that are worth mentioning here are the Stakeholder Grant (2005) and the Participation Income (1996). The first proposal refers to a grant to be given to every citizen when s/he turns eighteen or twenty-one years old, so that every individual would have a “more equal” opportunity when starting his or her adult life. The main problem regarding this proposal is that individuals might burn the opportunity (the stake) away in a short period of time, and thus prevent the grant from fulfilling its main purpose, which would not happen if it were something offered on a regular basis. Since the Stakeholder Grant does not take into consideration the childhood of the individual, it may fail to provide them with “equal opportunity”. In other words, it is not just by giving out the grant that the problem of inequality will be sorted out. The Participation Income (1996) is based on the necessity of the individual to have an active role in society, which would include seeking a job, having a job, taking care of an infant or sick relative, participating in volunteer work, to name a few instances.

As far as politics is concerned, the Basic Income was more thoroughly discussed in the United States 1972 elections, when McGovern, the democrat candidate that opposed Nixon, had a detailed UBI proposal in his platform. In the end, Nixon won the election, and eventually also proposed a Basic Income program that almost came true, if it were not for the US Congress ban. The Dutch Labor Party also became involved with the UBI discussion during that time, though the proposal did not develop as it did in the US case.

In 1986, the Basic Income European Network was created in Louvain, during a conference in Belgium, organized by Philippe Van Parijs and a group of fellow academics. The purpose of the organization was to exchange information and data regarding the UBI subject in Europe. In 2004, since it drew worldwide attention, this organization had its name switched to Basic Income Earth Network.

Nowadays, it is possible to say that the UBI is intensely present within the political discussion of many countries across the globe. Basic Income has been officially addressed in the political scenario of countries such as the UK, the US, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Brazil, South Korea, Namibia, Nigeria, India, South Africa, and so on.4

More recently, as shown by Guy Standing (2020), the debate was once again sparkled in the political, mediatic and academic environment due to the Covid pandemic, which demonstrated how fragile the world economy is.

From an experimental perspective, the Unconditional Basic Income still has a long way to go. There have been only a few experiences so as to support the UBI theories5. In Alaska, for example, there is a policy called the Alaska Permanent Fund6, which has been taking place for decades and has entitled each citizen a certain amount of money every year. It started in 1976 as a two-hundred-dollar benefit, and it has gone up to 1,600 dollars in 2019. This money comes from the sale of oil reserves extracted from Alaska soil. In other places, such as Finland and India, temporary UBI programs were also tested (Tsvirko, 2019).

Besides those instances, there were policies of Conditionate Cash Transfers (CCTs), which bare some similarity with the UBI proposal, since there is also an extra income provided. The main difference, as the name suggests, is that it is not a benefit given in a universal way. In other words, only some individuals are entitled to this aid, and they need to fulfill some requirements occasionally. One famous example of CCT is the Bolsa Família program, a Brazilian policy created in 2003 (see Chapter 3). This financial assistance implies the fulfillment of certain obligations (such as medical checkups and school attendance). Besides, it is given only to households that live under extreme poverty, and if the children in these households attend school regularly. These CCTs policies are commonly mentioned in UBI discussions. In the article entitled How Cash Transfers Promote the Case for Basic Income, Guy Standing (2003) analyses different CCTs, which will be vital within the scope of this work (see Section 2.4).

The Basic Income debate includes a series of subject matters that are analyzed in the book Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research (2013). Some examples, which bear great importance within this work, are personal freedom, social and economic justice, environmental sustainability and, as already mentioned, feminism. Therefore, in the following sections this study leans on each of those topics, which may be helpful when analyzing the Bolsa Família outcomes further on.

2.2. FREEDOM

As already stated in this chapter previously, one of the most heated discussions regarding the Unconditional Basic Income is related both to the economic freedom that people would gain and the imposition of taxes and duties especially on the richer social classes.

Erich Fromm (1966) analyzed the psychological aspects of the Guaranteed Income proposal. In a section of the book “The Guaranteed Income”, Fromm (ibid.) argued that every person is obligated to work in order to have access to and satisfy basic needs, such as alimentation, housing, entertainment, among others.

Throughout history, there has always been a certain scarcity of resources, which generated poverty and starvation (Fromm, 1966). However, during the twentieth century, some countries achieved economic abundance, so as the levels of poverty decreased in comparison to previous times. In this new society, Guaranteed Income would be affordable and would free men from labor necessity (ibid.).

Nonetheless, Fromm (1966) argues that society maintained, from the periods of scarcity, negative psychological traits, mainly such as selfishness and individuality. As a result of this “psychological lag”, as the German scientist states (ibid.), people are still holding on to these old traits, a kind of capitalist individuality (ibid.). He even uses the term homo consumens to refer to twentieth century humans who would never be satisfied with their main economic status; instead, they would insatiably desire for more and more individual abundance, which might be related to extreme consumerism.

Once those individuals managed to get rid of this selfish ambitious stigma and shared the resources in a healthier way, a mindset of social abundance could be achieved, allowing the implementation of the Guaranteed Income. That way, we would leave the pre-human civilization, hooked on survival, to enter a more human society. In this new reality, humankind would be able to focus on more philosophical issues, such as the meaning of life through understanding the world where we live.

However, to achieve that goal, the Guaranteed Income would not suffice. The sociological problem of the homo consumens would still be there, which would make a systematic transformation necessary to free humankind from this stage of consumerism, individuality, economic ambitiousness, and selfishness. After all, there is always financial competition among individuals in the mind of the homus consumens.

Fromm (1996) reaches the conclusion that another way to achieve the goals of the Guaranteed Income would be to build a society where the state pays a small amount of money that covers all basic human necessities, such as alimentation and housing, at the same time it offers quality public services, such as transportation and education. This would be crucial to shift society (especially western society, which is the one Fromm refers to) from the homus consumens stigma, which could not be dealt with only by means of the Guaranteed Income alone.

Therefore, Fromm (1966) sums up that the conception of freedom should not be the one inspired by the homus consumens, which is basically the right to property and its exploitation. In order to correct inequalities and truly integrate poor sectors of the society, freedom should be understood from an inclusive perspective. Once again, the Guaranteed Income provides the economic freedom, but does not free mankind from the “false scarcity stigma” (ibid). The Guaranteed Income should, indeed, come together with a profound psychological, philosophical, religious, and educational transformation (ibid.).