Book Presentation: Welfare for Markets. A Global History of Basic Income

Summary

The video script discusses the evolution of social policy and welfare, focusing on the rise of basic income and cash transfers as solutions to poverty. It highlights the shift from collective, state-led development to market-based, individualized approaches, reflecting broader political and cultural changes. The speakers argue that this transition signifies a crisis in politics and collective decision-making, as needs and desires are increasingly met through cash disbursements rather than communal deliberation and allocation of resources.

Takeaways

• 📖 The book 'Fair Shot: Rethinking Equality and How We Earn' explores the concept of basic income and its role in a changing economic landscape.
• 🤔 The idea of basic income unites unlikely political allies, from right-wing economist Charles Murray to far-left figures, showing its cross-spectrum appeal.
• 🌍 The concept of basic income is not an ancient idea but a 20th-century proposal, largely a product of the post-industrial age.
• 🚀 The rise of basic income is tied to the decreasing ability of agricultural and industrial sectors to absorb labor, leading to unemployment issues.
• 💡 Cash transfers, including basic income, are seen as a market-friendly alternative to traditional welfare policies that aim to remove parts of economic life from the market.
• 🛫 The success of programs like GiveDirectly in Kenya and the expansion of cash transfer programs in Latin America and southern Africa have popularized the idea of cash transfers.
• 🌐 The global shift towards cash transfers reflects a broader evolution in our relationship with work and the role of the state in development.
• 🔄 The triumph of cash transfers and basic income indicates a crisis in politics and a move away from collective decision-making on social needs.
• 📉 The narrative of development has shifted from a focus on industrialization and structural change to addressing poverty through cash floors and individual choice.
• 💸 The market has become an anthropological tool, influencing political culture and offering an alternative to traditional politics, as seen in the enthusiasm for basic income.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the book discussed in the transcript?

The main theme of the book is the exploration of the concept of basic income and its role in the shifting landscape of social policy and welfare, as well as its impact on political culture.

How did Chris Hughes' experience with the Facebook fortune influence his views on poverty alleviation?

Chris Hughes' experience with the Facebook fortune led him to seek a way to use his money to make a lasting impact on global poverty. His disillusionment with top-down expert-driven solutions led him to embrace the idea of directly giving cash to the poor as a means of empowering them to make their own decisions.

What is the 'sandwich method' presentation style mentioned in the transcript?

The 'sandwich method' refers to a presentation structure where the speaker begins and ends the talk, with another presenter taking the middle part. In this case, the speaker talks for 15-20 minutes, followed by Danielle, and then concludes with another 15-20 minutes of speaking.

What was the role of Jeffrey Sachs in the global poverty discourse?

Jeffrey Sachs was a leading ideologue of 'shock therapy' in the 1990s and 2000s. He authored a bestseller, 'The End of Poverty,' and was involved in a high-profile project in an African village, which ultimately had underwhelming results and led him to acknowledge the failure of his approach.

How does the book challenge the mythological view of basic income?

The book challenges the mythological view by debunking the idea that basic income is an age-old concept with precedence in ancient Greece, early modern England, and other historical periods. Instead, it posits that basic income is a 20th-century proposal, a product of the post-industrial age, and not a continuous proposal throughout history.

What is the significance of the shift from decommodified forms of welfare to cash transfers?

The shift signifies a change in the vision of social policy from one centered around提供免费或低成本的社会服务 to one based on cash transfers that empower individuals to make their own consumption and investment decisions in the market.

How did the concept of basic income gain traction across the political spectrum?

The concept of basic income gained traction across the political spectrum due to its appeal as a simple, market-oriented strategy that could be supported by both left-leaning and right-leaning figures, each for their own reasons, such as reducing poverty, promoting individual freedom, or reducing the size of the welfare state.

What is the historical context in which basic income became a prominent proposal?

Basic income became a prominent proposal in the post-industrial age, particularly in the 20th century, when traditional welfare models struggled to address the challenges of unemployment and poverty in a changing economic landscape.

How does the book address the role of the state in development and poverty alleviation?

The book discusses the transition from state-led development theories to a focus on cash transfers as a means of addressing poverty. It highlights the shift from collective state-based solutions to more individualized market-based approaches, reflecting a broader change in political culture.

What is the significance of the rise of cash transfers in the context of the global South?

The rise of cash transfers in the global South signifies a shift in development strategies, moving away from state-led development models to market-friendly alternatives that provide direct financial assistance to individuals, reflecting a crisis in state development theories and a redefinition of development priorities.

How does the book relate the popularity of basic income to broader societal changes?

The book suggests that the growing enthusiasm for basic income and cash transfers reflects a crisis in politics and a shift towards individualized, market-based solutions for welfare and development. It indicates a move away from collective decision-making and a decline in the ability to politicize needs and define social aims together.

Outlines

00:00

📖 Introduction and Background of Basic Income

The speaker begins by expressing gratitude for the invitation and introduces the topic of basic income. They discuss the structure of the presentation, which includes a book they co-authored about the global history of basic income and related themes. The introduction also includes an anecdote about Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder, and his journey from disillusionment with traditional poverty alleviation methods to becoming a proponent of direct cash transfers. The speaker emphasizes the book's aim to explore the diverse coalition supporting basic income and to understand the shift from 20th-century decommodified welfare to cash transfers.

05:01

🌐 The Emergence of Cash Transfers and Basic Income

This paragraph delves into the rise of cash transfers as a form of social policy, contrasting them with traditional welfare services. It highlights the work of Jeffrey Sachs and his shift from shock therapy to anti-poverty efforts, as well as the founding of GiveDirectly, an organization promoting direct cash transfers. The speaker discusses the political spectrum's unlikely support for basic income and explores the historical context of cash transfers, challenging the myth of basic income as an age-old idea. They argue that basic income is a 20th-century proposal, deeply rooted in the post-industrial age and the challenges of labor absorption in different economic sectors.

10:02

🕰️ Historical and Economic Context of Basic Income

The speaker continues by historicizing the concept of basic income, debunking the myth that it has ancient origins. They emphasize that basic income is a product of the 20th century, particularly the post-industrial era, and discuss the economic conditions that led to its consideration. The paragraph outlines the evolution of social policy from decommodified welfare to cash transfers and the role of labor absorption in shaping these policies. The speaker also touches on the racial aspects of basic income proposals in the United States and sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the topic in the following paragraphs.

15:03

💰 The Cash Transfer Revolution and Its Implications

In this paragraph, the speaker discusses the cash transfer revolution, starting with the progressa program in Mexico and its influence on other countries. They highlight the success of conditional cash transfer programs like Brazil's Bolsa Familia and the widespread adoption of cash transfers in southern Africa. The speaker reflects on the increasing reliance on cash transfers for welfare and the appeal of basic income as a solution to global poverty. They also mention the support from international institutions like the UN and the IMF for cash transfers and basic income, emphasizing the transformation in development economics and the shift towards market-friendly alternatives to traditional welfare.

20:06

🌍 Global South and the Shift in Development Economics

The speaker examines the shift in development economics, particularly in the Global South, from a focus on industrialization to poverty alleviation. They discuss the historical context of development theories and the changing priorities of international organizations like the World Bank. The paragraph highlights the critique of inequalities at the international level and the evolution of poverty as a separate topic from global trade relations. The speaker also touches on the impact of structural adjustment plans and the rise of cash transfers as a response to the failures of state-led development theories, emphasizing the crisis in development economics and the need for a new social contract.

25:07

📉 The Crisis of Politics and the Rise of Cash Transfers

The speaker concludes by discussing the broader implications of the rise of cash transfers and basic income, suggesting a crisis in politics as a human activity. They argue that the shift from collective social aims to individualized needs and desires reflects a profound change in the philosophy of welfare and society. The speaker highlights the decline in the ability to collectively define and politicize needs, and the delegation of this question to private investment. They emphasize the importance of collective deliberation on societal needs and the potential crisis of politics that the popularity of cash transfers and basic income may signal.

Keywords

💡Basic Income

Basic Income refers to a regular, unconditional payment given to all individuals in a society, regardless of their employment status or income level. It is a form of social policy aimed at reducing poverty and providing a financial safety net. In the video, basic income is discussed as a solution to global poverty and as a reflection of broader shifts in political culture and social policy.

💡Cash Transfers

Cash transfers are financial aids provided directly to individuals or households, often as part of social welfare programs. They differ from traditional welfare in that they do not require the recipient to use the funds in specific ways. In the video, cash transfers are presented as a contrast to decommodified welfare and as a response to the challenges of poverty in a globalized, market-driven economy.

💡Global Poverty

Global poverty refers to the condition of individuals or communities living in extreme deprivation, lacking basic necessities such as food, clean water, and shelter. It is a complex issue influenced by economic, political, and social factors. The video discusses global poverty in the context of exploring solutions like basic income and cash transfers.

💡Market Sovereignty

Market sovereignty is the idea that markets are the primary or even the only legitimate mechanism for organizing economic and social life. It suggests that market forces should dictate the distribution of resources and the satisfaction of needs, rather than collective political decisions. In the video, market sovereignty is critiqued as a shift away from collective political action and towards individualized solutions.

💡De-commodified Welfare

De-commodified welfare refers to social policies that remove certain goods or services from the market, making them available to individuals regardless of their ability to pay. This approach contrasts with cash transfers, which involve the use of money in market transactions. De-commodified welfare is often associated with the provision of public services like healthcare, education, and public transportation at little or no cost.

💡Social Policy

Social policy refers to government policies and programs designed to address social issues and improve the well-being of citizens. It encompasses a wide range of interventions, from direct financial assistance to the provision of public services. In the video, social policy is discussed in the context of its evolution from decommodified welfare to cash transfers and basic income.

💡Political Culture

Political culture refers to the attitudes, beliefs, and values that a society holds regarding its political system and political participation. It influences how citizens engage with their government and the collective decisions that are made. The video suggests that the rise of basic income and cash transfers reflects a change in political culture, moving towards individualism and market-based solutions.

💡Collective Action

Collective action refers to the process by which individuals come together to work as a group to achieve common goals. It is a fundamental aspect of politics and social change. The video discusses the decline of collective action in favor of individualized solutions like cash transfers and basic income.

💡Global South

The term 'Global South' refers to countries in the Southern Hemisphere, which are often characterized by their developing or emerging economies and their historical experience of colonialism. The video discusses the role of cash transfers and basic income in the Global South as part of a broader narrative on development and poverty alleviation strategies.

💡Structural Adjustment

Structural adjustment refers to economic policies implemented by international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. These policies often involve austerity measures, deregulation, and market liberalization. The video discusses how structural adjustment plans in the 1980s led to shifts in social policy, including the rise of cash transfers as a response to the resulting economic challenges.

Highlights

The introduction of the book 'Welfare for Markets' which chronicles the global history of basic income and related themes.

Anecdote about Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, grappling with how to effectively use his fortune to combat global poverty.

The shift in global poverty alleviation strategies from expert-driven solutions to empowering the poor through direct cash transfers.

The founding of GiveDirectly, an organization promoting direct cash transfers to tackle poverty worldwide, and its significant funding from major tech companies.

The book's exploration of the paradoxical support for basic income from diverse political figures, including right-wing economist Charles Murray and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis.

The historical context of basic income as a 20th-century proposal, challenging the mythological view of its ancient origins.

The evolution of social policy from decommodified forms of welfare to cash transfers, reflecting a broader societal shift.

The role of basic income as an indicator of broader societal shifts regarding work, the state, and economic sectors' ability to absorb labor.

The crisis in state development theories and the rise of cash transfers as a market-friendly alternative to traditional welfare policies.

The transformation of development economics and the increasing focus on poverty alleviation as a distinct field.

The impact of structural adjustment plans on Latin America and the subsequent shift towards cash transfer programs like Mexico's Progresa and Brazil's Bolsa Familia.

The global spread of cash transfer programs, including in southern Africa, and the recognition from international institutions like the UN and World Bank.

The critique of market-based reforms and the rise of cash transfers as a complement to neoliberal policies, as described by anthropologist James Ferguson.

The changing conception of development from a collective, state-led effort to a more market-based, individualized approach.

The decline of politics and collective decision-making in defining societal needs, and the increasing reliance on cash transfers to address individual needs.

The potential crisis of politics and social citizenship in the context of the growing popularity of basic income and cash transfers.

The book's argument that the rise of cash transfers reflects a broader crisis in modern political culture and the individualization of needs and desires.

Transcripts

oh

yeah okay thank you thank you so much

for the invitation Dano for this U

Splendid introduction I think that might

be a good biography I might use for the

next occasion um So the plan is that

we'll do some kind of sandwich method

I'll speak for about 15 to 12 minutes

and then I'll hand over to Danielle who

will do the middle of the presentation

and then I'll finish off at the end and

I think we should end up at about 45 uh

so I'll give a general introduction then

Daniel will become more theme based and

then I'll give a general outro to this

uh wrecking

session so um as you can see here on the

board this is about a book which we

wrote in the last six to seven years it

took us a while to actually put together

what we wanted to say and it came out

last year in English as welfare for

markets so efficiently it's a global

history of basic income but it's not

that

strictly um how should I say restricted

to basic income as a theme it obviously

talks about a lot of other themes as

well and just to give you a general

sense of what we're actually trying to

do in the book I want to start with an

anecdote from uh 2007 in which one of

the co-founders of Facebook namely Chris

huse um was facing a certain problem so

Chris Hues who was one of the original

um donators to the capital of Facebook

actually retired from that company in

2007 and he was facing a particular

problem namely how was he going to put

his fortune to good use he didn't want

to live off his dividends but rather he

used to wanted to use his money to quote

change the world and like many others

before him and extreme poverty

internationally yet at the time he also

admitted and I'm quoting him here again

that he had no idea where he could put

that kind of money with the confidence

that it would make a lasting impact

and it's particularly striking for him

because on the topic of global poverty

he actually had a record of

disillusionment so in the late 1990s he

read a very popular book at the time

namely Jeffrey Sax's bestseller the end

of poverty and he even visited one of

the villages which was selected for a

policy pilot in 2005 with the support of

the United

Nations so at the time of course some

people might remember this Jeffrey saaks

who is now writing rather different

opinion pieces also so about war but he

already was the object of considerable

public

attention um you can see him here but he

was one of the leading ideologues of

what was called shock therapy in the

1990s and in the 2000s after he moved

out of that role he was repositioning

himself as an anti-poverty

profit and what we could see for example

is that he had a show in MTV called The

Diary uh sorry the Diary of Angelina

Jolie and Dr Jeffrey saxs in Africa and

there you could see him in in African

village and he said this Village is

going to end extreme

poverty now hu the co-founder of

Facebook was there and despite his

initial enthusiasm he actually Drew

quite a different conclusion about the

village in question he saw a school with

no pencils no soap no paper and

computers that had never been connected

to the internet and as he says in his

biography something felt off and Jeffrey

saxs and Angelina Jolie actually were to

acknowledge the same thing later so the

results of their Village experiment

which cost 120 million were actually

very

underwhelming um so their idea to

eliminate poverty in the village meant

that it had a positive impact on

maternal health care and on agricultural

output but its results on nutrition and

education were actually very vague and

most damningly there was no discernable

impact as a report put it on

consumption-based

poverty so it's very clear that the

special had failed and Jews who was

there at the time became convinced that

the world needed less expert driven

Solutions so if Global poverty was going

to be solved the experts needn't be in

charge what happened after 2007 after EV

the village is that it took use only a

few years to embrace a very simple but

radical idea to this problem namely

simply giving cash directly to the poor

so instead of sending Specialists and

express down there you would just send

money to them uh straight

away and he actually put this into

practice so in August 2012 us had joined

the board of an organization called give

directly which was to promote direct

trans transfers to tackle poverty

worldwide give directly was actually

founded in 2008 by four Harvard and MIT

graduates in economics and a startup

would soon draw money from very powerful

companies like Facebook itself Google

and promote the idea of a basic income

mainly Within United States

itself so while Jeffrey Sax's uh Quest

To End poverty was ending and he

admitted his failure give directly was

actually starting to send ,000 checks to

more than 20,000 randomly selected

recipients in about 200 Villages across

rural

Kenyon the way they did this is that

they wired the money directly through

mobile phones and it was given with no

strings attached so people simply

received the sum and could then decide

what they did with it

of course this was very different from

Sax's top-down approach in which you had

Specialists and experts determining how

the poverty problem was to be solved

locally and instead and I'm quoting use

again here the idea was to empower poor

households to make their own consumption

and investment decisions based on their

individual needs and

preferences us was of course Very taken

to the idea and in the book that you see

here fair shot rethinking equality and

how we earn which is part biography part

A ple for cash transfers um he actually

sets out this vision and he sells it as

a confidently liberal and Market

oriented strategy he had been looking

for all along elegant and improbable in

its

Simplicity now of course it's very hard

to describe someone like Chris huse as a

man of the left or someone who would

find himself in the company of more

far-left

figures one of the Striking things not

just about the story of cash transfers

but the story of basic income as such

which is just one form of cash transfers

as we see in the book is that it unites

a very unlikely Coalition across the

political spectrum and you have figures

far on the right such as the right-wing

Economist and Anthropologist Charles

Murray then you have the former Greek

Finance Minister Janis faru fakis you

have the American Anthropologist uh

David Graber who've all come out in

favor of something like a basic

income and a lot of students of the

basic income have often been puzzled by

this universality or the fact that so

many diverent voices find themselves

supporting the proposal and they often

find it difficult to

explain and the book in that sense is

not just an attempt to tell the story of

basic income which hasn't been told

before but also a way of explaining this

Paradox namely how come that figures who

come from different sides of the

political Spectrum both from the left

and the right have joined or at least

find themselves supporting the same

proposals

one of the first moves we make to

actually explain this UK commical

support for the uh proposal is that we

want to see the Ubi or the so-called

Universal basic income not as a

standalone policy but as belonging to a

specific family of policies that have

become particularly prominent in the

last 30 years that of course is the

family of so-called cash transfers which

give directly and Chris Hughes were also

so enthusiastic about in the African

context and if we look at at Cash

transfers as just one form of doing

social policy we immediately notice a

contrast between those transfers and

that other package of welfare um

policies we know from the 20th century

namely decommodified forms of welfare or

social forms of provision that actively

seek to remove parts of our economic

life from the market and so whether

we're talking about health care public

transit schooling this model relies on

the idea that the state or a collective

Institution should provide for these

services for free or at relatively low

cost and that there's no money involved

when you actually receive them so

there's a significant difference between

the idea that you can receive certain

Social Services for free or without

actually paying for them except for the

idea that you receive a voucher or a

check which you then have to use on a

market to actually acquire that Cod that

is the main contrast we're trying to

explain namely how did our vision of

social policy shift from one that was

very much centered around these Social

Services to one which was mainly based

of cash transfers basic income we could

say is only the most generous an

ambitious version of all those cash

transfer

proposals now one of the second moves we

make in the book is also just to

historicize the idea of basic income

there's often a tendency which is quite

mythological which you can find in books

by the Dutch intellectual if you want to

call him an intellectual rman um and

other writers to see the basic income as

an age-old idea that actually has

precedence not only in the early modern

period but also in ancient Greece for

example and some of these mythologies

can be quite extravagant we travel back

to ancient Athens then we go to early

modern England with Thomas Moore then we

go into the 18th century with Thomas

Payne and all of them are actually seen

as proponents or Defenders of something

that resembles a basic income sometimes

we also go back to ancient Rome and the

B about The Agrarian law as it's called

but the idea is very much the notion of

an invent tradition as Eric hops bound

once called it which means that the

basic income is a continuous proposal

through time which only waits for its

realization in the 21st

century now what we tried to say in one

of the first chapters and I think it's

best if we now have a quick look at the

chapter outline yes so an anti mythology

which is actually chapter one is that we

try to debunk this transhistorical

vision of the basic income so whether

we're reading Thomas Moore or Thomas

Payne or even ancient Greek and Roman

writers it's actually really difficult

to see what they were defending as a

version of what we know as the basic

income partly because most of those

weren't paid in money um if they were

paid in money there were very strict

requirements attached to it and the

context in which they were embedded was

vastly different from anything we know

as basic income

today instead we want to see it square

ly as a 20th century proposal and as you

look at the outline of the chapters I

think you can see how the structure of

the book reflects this and the basic

income is a proposal that only comes

into its own in the 20th century and is

very much a product not just of the

industrial but mainly of the post

industrial

age and when we're talking about Milton

Friedman in the 1930s and 1940s that

gives you a good sense of where we see

the true birth of something like a

proper basic income namely a world which

is not just an industrial but is

actually on the verge of almost

de-industrializing at one

point and one economic coordinate which

is immensely important to us for

explaining when the basic income comes

about has to do with which economic

sector is capable of absorbing labor at

different points and so a world in which

most people are employed in agriculture

and in which there are so-called Malian

Cycles proposal is very hard to imagine

let alone defend once industrialization

actually takes takes off and factories

begin to absorb labor you already have

some ideas that tend towards a universal

basic income but they remain highly

marginal now what happens in the 1950s

and 1960s mainly in the United States

and this is something that Danielle will

talk about in his part is that you have

a world in which both the agricultural

sector and the industrial sector

increasingly find it very difficult to

absorb labor so both industry and

agriculture create an enormous problem

of unemployment

and to solve this problem the idea of a

basic income suddenly becomes a very

attractive way of solving a problem of

social policy that simply wasn't there

before and in the US this obviously took

on a specific racial version as well

because a lot of black workers in the

north were previously ejected from the

southern sharecropping economy and then

found their way to Northern factories in

which they're simply wasn't enough work

for them which they remained permanently

unemployed and then the idea of basic

income is the defended both from the

right and the left as a way of solving

that particular problem but I'm going to

stop here and hand over the middle part

of our sandwich structure to Danielle

and then I'll finish with another set of

remarks thanks um thank you very much

also for inviting us because you know

being a wrecking team is good because

it's less work and we do a book like

faster um but it's also two hotel rooms

uh to pay for so thank you very much for

inviting both of us uh which is always

good to to do this uh with when you know

a book comes out and be able to go

around and speak about it it's always a

fun thing to do so as as as we say about

the title of course the book is

not uh just about basic income but it's

really it's kind of a way to to speak

about the different set of topics and

the different set of shifts that

happened through the 20th century

um and how basic income in certain sense

is an indicator of those shifts how

traction for basic income allows us to

see broader Evolutions about our

relationship to work uh about the role

of the state and I want to focus on one

shift in particular that is specifically

about the question of the role of the

State uh in matters of development which

is the last part of the book and we'll

come back to some of other topics later

but I thought it was like the most um

not most interesting aspect but um it

gives kind of an interesting story also

coming from um the global South um and

so you it really this kind of extension

of castr from the experiments of basic

income in the global South especally

especially in southern Africa but also

in Latin America uh really comes at the

moment where statel development theories

of of development are in crisis and to

the point and this is something we

thought kind of interesting this is kind

of a book of jimes Ferguson which is an

anthropologist at Stanford so pretty

close to Silicon Valley and I mean there

is a basic incab it Standford so it is

kind of a big topic over there and the

title of the book as you may see is you

know self expat it explained by itself

give man fish uh so don't learn people

to actually fish you just should give

them money this is the way the best way

to do uh development and at the

beginning of the book he tolds an

anecdote where um they are you know

discussing about you know what can we do

I mean if all these projects I mean

Jeffrey sa project failed big state Le

development ideas of the post colonial

era um failed what should we actually do

to think about poverty uh and the answer

came from one of his colleague who said

they should we should just throw out of

helicopters um cash bags of cash and so

people can harvest the money and they do

whatever they want with it and this is

of course a very Milton Freedman

metaphor because milon fin talk about

you know helicopter money um the idea of

course today is that we you don't need

helicopters uh this is actually the

economist so the economist may this

cover with it we should just drop the

money and you know people can do

whatever they want with it of course

today we don't need um helicopters we

just need phones as Anon said um they

receive the money on their phones and

they can either withdraw it at certain

places or actually use it in different

ways so basically we can you know do

anti-poverty policies or development

policies like you buy um sneakers on

internet on your phone through Apple pay

Amazon so it's kind of also interesting

word for um Tech philanthropist to to be

in it because it's it's it's part of

their view of a word mediate by by U

apps and not through you know discussion

with the uh governments going through

State institution trying to discuss

about what we you bu buy a school or not

or Hospital uh and all this disappears

and you can just uh Direct Cash

through uh um infrastructure but give

directly which is the the the the

organization Anon mentioned that this is

the one actually that has been extremely

successful one of the biggest um NGO now

in development um recently so they they

have been like spending like half a

billion over the last uh years in those

gas transfers uh experiment it's not

just a Silicon Valley so this is like

the tip of the iceberg I would say but

it's part of what development economies

since at least the 90s called the cash

transfer Revolution that took over uh

especially uh starting in Latin America

and then in southern Africa

and it's really following and this is

like let's say the context in which uh

the appeal for cash as a strategy for

development become more important it's

really following the last decade of the

the 80s so the structural adjustment

plans that were imposed um in uh in

Latin America in particular that many

developing countries opted or tried to

develop expand their cash transfer

apparatus to alate party until then the

idea was quite marginal uh and you

wouldn't find many developing econ

economists or agencies that would

actually recommend to use cash to

struggle against poverty I mean the main

focus was on growth for sure and

creating an environment for growth but

certainly not just giving money to the

poor that was kind of you know an idea

that was quite unpopular within

development ccle circles and now it's

like completely changed and this really

began to change with one program which

is the progressa program in Mexico um

and was launched in 1997 after nearly a

decade of economic Orthodoxy so a

structural adjustment plan was imposed

in Mexico uh following the Deb crisis

and uh an economist called Mexican

Economist called Santiago Levy designed

this to actually tackle poverty directly

so rather than going through complex

welfare schemes to you know price

controls and all these kind of older

versions of welfare we should just you

know expand the cash transfer apparatus

and send directly money to households

and the initiative soon became an

example for many countries that actually

went through similar shifts um in

because of course those plans of

structural adjustment were pretty harsh

in Latin America and so you have one

example that you might know which is

probably one of the most famous one is

Lou Las Bol Familia that became a n wi

Nationwide project uh with its

government in 20 2003 that which is

probably the largest gas transfer

program in the developing world so it

provides conditional monetary Aid to

more than 20 million families and help

out to cut poverty in Brazil by 60% so

it was also quite efficient in a certain

sense uh and is also and this is

interesting for us supported by the raft

and the light because bolsonaro actually

expanded B Familia so he actually tried

to Brand the you know rename it say

there was his own program but there is

like a consensus on the use of these

kind of those programs um as a as a

means to uh tackle uh poverty um but

southern Africa was even stronger so

over the last 20 years is more than

123 transfer programs that were made in

in southern Africa and the the most

important one the one was was maybe the

most significant was in South Africa so

after the fall of the apartate um while

in 1994 2.4 million household received

cash grants 20 years later more than

half of the country was covered by

monetary transfer so you can see the

evolution of um of cash transfer

different form of cash transfer in in

southern Africa of course we can discuss

about the fact that there are there not

all this is basic income so but and I

think we should probably have kind of a

discussion about that after but we are

interested in the book not only about

Basic G basic is a form of cash

transfers uh but what we see also over

the same period is like the the the

increasing Reliance Reliance on cash

transfers when it come to do welfare and

yes there is an appeal for basic income

and but it do doesn't always take the

form of basic income um and so today I

mean uh there is a month where you can

have some news about basic income

experiments in Namibia in Kenya in

Uganda so it's really spreading uh to

the point that most International

institutions certainly the United

Nations the even the IMF the World Bank

have praised or have at least published

you know studies saying that cash

transfer is definitely to consider and

basic income might be a solution to

those questions to the point that in 2

two three years ago at the annual Manion

Mandela lecture anony guz which is the

Secretary General of the UN said that we

needed I quote him a new social contract

for a new era and including I quote him

again the possibility of a universal

basic income as a solution for

eradicating Global poverty so if you

really would really want to understand

this kind of Triumph of basic income or

at least this idea that cash and just

giving cash might be the best solution

to alate Poverty um I think we we really

have to

uh uh not just check you know this this

this uh Silicon Valley types or the idea

that we made an experiment a randomized

control experiment Economist do a lot of

that um that is it's really something

that went along with a completely change

a transformation of how we actually

think about development and that narrow

the definition of development as a as a

commitment to supplying needs to

everyone within Market exchanges rather

than reducing uh the scope of the market

so it's only with the demise of that

view and I'm going to try to say a few

words about that that poverty per se

would acquire a new Fund centrality in

many development agencies so in a global

South that seemed increasingly unable to

direct investment socialize resources

the the development of this cash NEX was

provided like a market friendly

alternative to all the post-war

conceptions of welfare and to contrast a

bit these two visions I mean it's

interesting to see that at least at

least until the mid 70s most thinkers

granted scant importance to Poverty

reduction as such and as the development

Economist hun Chang noted before that

period in here I'm quoting him there was

a general consensus that development is

largely about the transformation of the

productive structure the poor Nations

cannot overcome the poverty and this is

like the Tanzanian president president

president Julius ner that is U speaking

in front of a a crowd in the US in 1977

um so the poor Nations cannot overcome

the poverty I quote without

industrialization so near position was

far from heterodox within postcolonial

Elites but the questions of poverty were

always embedded within a broader

microeconomic and institutional issues

related to the global division of labor

so we didn't had this Vision that

poverty was a separate topic from the

question either of how we you know

distribute labor globally but

also uh um from the the the broader

topic of industrialization in those

countries um so for most poon postc

Colonial Elites poverty alleviation was

then only a small fragment within this

Mosaic of industrial de development and

so this critique of inequalities at the

international level culminated the

development in the 60s of an agenda an

agenda aimed at the total overhaul of

the terms of economic trade an an

essential element of such action and

here I'm quoting a statement of

1964 uh at the United Nation Conference

of trade and development he says is that

International policies in the field of

trade and development should result in a

modified international division of labor

which is more relation and Equitable and

accompanied by the necessary adjustments

in the world production and trade and in

1974 there is something quite known now

the UN the UN General Assembly

resolution for the establishment of a

new international economic order uh

actually really made important claims

about not an anti-globalization agenda

but towards an alternative globalization

and more equal in terms of Trades and to

fully integrate the South into Global

Market so what really mattered for them

was not inequality between individuals

but inequality between countries and how

to reduce inequality between countries

and this obviously included implied a

certain Vision about industrialization

and about changing trade relationships

and by the end of the 70s and poverty is

a component of that it's not thought

about something separate you can only

think about poverty if you think about

those questions together and by the end

of the

70s especially under the impedes of the

World Bank the issue of poverty was

gradually separated from those global

trade relations having in the bank was

obviously established in 1944 after the

B and woods conference and was quite

conservative when it came to um to loans

so it didn't actually give money to you

know anti-poverty agent as was just more

secure loans to do maybe infrastructure

roads um

Bridges but by the late 60s uh under the

leadership of one famous figure which is

Robert magnamar that actually went to

the bank after the Vietnam debel which

he was obviously part of um he really

wanted to reent the bank towards the

question of poverty alleviation so he is

really the one that focused the World

Bank uh on the top on on such topic and

in a very I would say moral tone they

picking the you know the poorest victims

like if they were victims of you know um

natural catastrophes not at all about

unequal trade relations this the topic

of course he didn't like very much he

really tried to reduce the political

character of the question of inequality

at the global scale especially

inequality between countries and slowly

promoting also an income base measure of

extreme poverty like the famous dollar a

day measure that only really came by the

80s so it's not magnamar but he is

really the first to actually promote

let's say our definitions of poverty

like being poor is a certain threshold

which only really become widespread by

the 70s so before that we don't really

have those measures I mean they exist

some people have been measuring have

been trying to do um free soers of

poverty at least uh since the late 19th

century um early 20th century but

they've really

become way more

Popular by the 70s with this kind of a

narrow definition of poverty where

poverty is depends on your position

within within the income distribution

rather than kind of a more broader

reflection about you know social

relations power relations uh uh in

society so this shift uh was obviously

not a concession so he definitely you

know thought that poverty was now

something that the World Bank should be

interested it but it was not a

concession to uh the newly independent

nations but but rather a way to

circumventing their demands for overh

hold of World Trade so was a way to put

aside a certain set of uh claims about

the terms of of trade and inequal

unequal balance in in in in trade and

edit Singh which was indian born

Cambridge development Economist who

actually became a close adviser to nier

in tanzia noted quite early uh how

poverty focus a poverty focused approach

discourage Industrial Development if in

theory there was no conflict between

poverty alleviation and a modernization

agenda sing nonetheless noted that the

former aquarium is concerned with

national priorities and the problems

poverty and income distribution within

countries and the latter relates to the

structure of the world economy and the

distribution of resources between

nations and unless poverty was I I quote

him again integral to an over all

development of uh plan uh development

plan of industrialization and structural

change in the country's economy he

concluded it would be unlikely to

succeed even on its own terms of course

this Association this idea of linking

the question of poverty to trade

relations and industrialization of

course never really realized um and if

the World Bank and magnamar did not

reject out of hand those ideals the

poverty discourse would slowly open the

path for the promotion of Market based

reforms that will radically break um

with uh the postar period and those

visions of uh the vment so poverty will

slowly be insulated from industrial

policy and the conditions of

international trade and more important

the empasis that would be put in

internal factors apart from the

structure of internal international

trade was strongly intensify in the

coming decade with the creation of the

structural adjustment loans in 1979 so

by the end of magnam tenure at the World

Bank um and so the bank would issue

loans on conditions that were quite

harsh and they have to implement those

measures to get the loans and they would

actually include especially in countries

in countries like Mexico that I was

talking just before um drastic Cuts in

public spending wage moderation

privatizing public assets dismantling

price controls and above all Liber

liberalizing trade and the result in

most of those countries was devastating

so per capita income failed real wages

collapsed by more than 40% and poverty

Skyrock uh from 23% to 38% in Mexico and

so that's why it was soon referred as

the famous L decade um for uh

development and most Latin America

countries would go through this um uh

shift and launches in a certain sense

neoliberalism um in the continent but of

course if those shifts increase poverty

then you need an alternative you need to

make it work in a certain sense and this

when in certain sense cash transfers

comes uh as an useful tool to do welfare

without compromising the whole Market

based reforms um so it is and actually I

actually have a quote from James

Ferguson that actually he's is a bit

more in favor of it but I I think he

describes it quite accurately and then

you can we can discuss whether we think

is a good thing or not but he says that

those is those countries will go through

what he called a selective a program of

selective privatization and

marketization uh combined with a

far-reaching expansion of programs of

direct distribution increasingly

decoupled from the issues of Labor and

Labor uh Supply so in that sense the

rise of gas transfers promoted by

Silicon Valley of course and many

agencies today uh didn't signal an

abandon abandonment of neoliberalism but

there certain way a way to make it work

or a complement to this you know turn to

the market that actually produce a lot

of inequality and then you have to find

a way to you know Al iate it without um

you know not relying on price on price

signals to allocate investment in your

society which is from the start the

problem of Milton fredman in the 30s so

he's really you know thinking about his

idea of basic income which is called the

negative income tax but in the context

of the new deal and he doesn't really

like everything is happening with the

new deal but he does you know feel that

yes poverty is a problem you know some

people actually can't find a way to

sustain themselves of the the most basic

level so we have to find a way to do

wealth

without the welfare state which is one

of the quotes of a Chicago Economist at

the time who says okay this is basically

the name for it welfare without the

welfare state um and so to

critics uh of This Global sou

anti-poverty ter

uh uh no I'm lost so poverty alleviation

in that sense and there I'm I'm quoting

again Haun Chang which is this economist

in development Economist in Cambridge

They promoted what they called

development without development which is

kind of nice uh you know name as fredman

thought about welfare without the

welfare state now we have de development

without development which is a vision of

welfare with individual betterment is

disconnected from the transformation of

the existing um productive structure so

TR struggling against poverty was

reduced to the aim of establishing a

global floor below which no one is

supposed to S yet yet in strong

opposition to the original dreams uh of

development post forward by postcolonial

thinkers so it's really our notion of

development that radically change and if

you look at um uh go Google andram I

don't know if you any of you have ever

used this tool which is horrible because

then when you start you just do

everything and you spend hours just

looking at words and you know trying to

look about a cultural Trends so if some

of you are actually doing uh interesting

in that interested in that is kind of

useful so it looks at the occurence of a

word into all the books that Google has

actually neriz so he has a lot of books

that um that are in the database and we

can see how much times a word appears

and of course if you if you look at this

I mean it doesn't say much but it's kind

of funny and useful to actually at least

confirm some of the things we thought um

you see that development economies has

completely not disappear but C certainly

is a field in crisis while poverty

alleviation has become this kind of huge

topic but in

in in in in this shift of course it's

not just that we are not interested in

one topic and in another is the whole

conception of uh development has

completely changed um and and just

conclude with a few words um about the

question what what does it mean more

generally um because State change that

has also to do and not only in the South

but also in our countries uh has a lot

to do with how societies Define their

needs meaning how we allocate

Investments this the whole question is

how to do it how to allocate it who

decides what is important what is not um

and so for post Colonial thinkers but

also for postwar social reformers in the

west needs were a political Affair so

the question of what we need what should

we investment invest in was something

that we should decide politically not

just something we should delegate it to

the market uh and so this shift in a

certain sense and this increasing

Reliance on cash uh has in a certain

sense go hand with hand with the decline

of or ability to Define social aims

collectively so this is what it's at

stake of course if Bic come because the

thing is also you know to recognize that

social aims are not to be defined

collectively that we we have to each one

decide whatever we want for ourselves so

it's our ability to politicize needs

that has been uh in Decline for some

this is great I mean Milton fman think

this is amazing um because he think that

you know we should favor Freedom of

Choice you should choose whatever you

want for yourself and the state

shouldn't do it but and there is a catch

what does it mean to choose for

ourselves what we want because what does

what we want come from uh and there is a

very famous phrase I have it somewhere

yes of Steve Jobs which I think it's an

excellent sociologist His Brilliant mind

in matters of you know critical theory

and he U famously said that you know

when he created the iPad I think that a

lot of time people don't know what they

want until you show it to them which

means yes needs is not something that is

just inside of us and then the market

responds to it the market also

constitute needs and so the whole

question of this um TR this you know

increasing Reliance of of cash as a way

to do welfare is also um means also the

delegation of the question of needs to

private investment and for them to

decide what are the needs that we're

going to develop in the future uh rather

than for us to collectively

decide what we find meaningful and what

we should do with our life yeah I don't

know I think it's over for

me

thank you so I'm just going to finish

off by actually repeating what Danielle

just said to show the centrality of the

point we're making here so the story

we've tried to tell is not just a story

of basic income or the crisis of an

older welfare state the crisis of an

older form of social policy but a way of

reading certain changes that go further

Beyond social policy into political

culture as well so it's just just about

a crisis of the welfare state but a

crisis of Politics as such whereas you

say you move from ideal of development

that's very much Collective and state L

to one that's more Market based and

individualized and how you can see a

similar development in Western Europe

now this contrast um is expressed very

um I say beautifully or at least

aesthetically in an anecdote that is

told from July

2019 uh and that comes from the state of

Alaska so since the 1970s Alaska

actually has a so-called oil dividend

they started drilling oil I think in

Alaska in the 60s and 70s and part part

of the oil Revenue they get with that

they actually pay out as a version of a

cash Grant to all of their citizens now

the amount of this cash ground thereby

is also very dependent on the oil market

so if oil prices are high obviously the

ground is much higher but then in July

2019 the governor of Alaska actually

announced very drastic cutbacks at the

state's Public University system so

Alaska has public universities which are

free but there was to be a massive

austerity drive to actually reduce

expenditure at those universities and at

the same time when he proposed this he

was choosing between those two visions

of social policy we spoke about so part

of the drive half of expenditure was to

be scrapped there were buildings that

were going to be sold off and many staff

members were going to be fired and of

course people protested to this decision

but the justifications of the cuts were

very specific Alaska wanted to maintain

its citizen dividend so the oil dividend

that it normally pays out and it could

not do so in an oil Market which was

falling and then the Alaskan policy

makers who wanted to implement aity also

defended the decision with a variant of

the argument we already saw with use

before who actually needed a public

university they said if every book had

become available on

Amazon so the idea is why would you fund

something like a public sector if you

can simply send individual cash grounds

to everyone and then they can

individually decide what kind of

intellectual resources they want to buy

now what we can see here of course is

not just a question of social policy but

the question of how Society collectively

defines its needs there is a decision to

actually get this together and say this

is the public university and this is the

kind of curriculum we want to offer and

then there's the idea here is a market

in which all kinds of resources are

available and here's a sum of money with

which you can use that so this shows not

just a crisis of politics but a crisis

of collectively deliberating on what our

needs are and how we politicize needs

namely maybe a synonym of just what we

call politics itself in many ways and we

really want to use the books to to

emphasize just how the rise of cash

transfers both in the global South but

also in the west and the popularity of

basic income actually reflects a crisis

of a form of doing politics that was

prominent in the 19th and the 20th

century and so what you see is an

individualization of the notion of needs

and desires um which is increasingly

solved through sending cash to people

rather than collectively deciding on how

we use our productive

resources and it shows a profound change

in the philosophy of welfare but also

society in which Politics as a human

activity is in very profound

crisis this is a very melancholy um

diagnosis in many ways but I think in

the late 90s there's a French thinker

Marcel G who already noticed this quite

well and he said that behind the rights

of basic inome there's a deeper shift in

modern political culture markets now

seem to be more than a system of

economic organization but they have

become something like an indispensable

anthropological tool thinkers both on

the left and the right as I said at the

beginning there are people on the left

who find themselves defending Ubi and

there are people on the right who do

so and in 1998 I'm going to quote G here

he said the late Century Revival of the

idea of the market has very little to do

with considerations of economic

efficiency rather he claims it follows a

reconsideration of the political status

of our actors itself it's a new form of

Market sovereignty which seems to offer

an alternative to any kind of Politics

as the British historian Eric hops bound

put it two years before he said to an

Italian journalist if consumers are able

to achieve their aims by exercising

their power of choice every day through

the purchase of goods or the indication

of their opinions to the mechanisms of

media consultation what exactly remains

of citizenship and specifically of

social citizenship is there still any

need to mobilize groups people for

political objectives end of quote and so

to conclude we think that on the left

and the right the growing enthusiasm for

cash transfers and basic income

particularly in the last 10 years

signals not just the crisis of the old

welfare state but a crisis of Politics

as a type of human activity and we think

that even in the very chaotic 2020s it

remains in question about how that

crisis will resolve and when exactly it

will end

thank you so much for your

attention