The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most translated and celebrated documents in the world, marking its 70th anniversary this year. But relatively few people are aware of the significance of its 25th Article, which proclaims the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living—including food, housing, healthcare, social services and basic financial security.[1] As our campaign group Share The World’s Resources (STWR) has long proposed, it is high time that activists for global justice reclaim the vision that is spelled out in those few simple sentences. For in order to implement Article 25 into a set of binding, enforceable obligations through domestic and international laws, the implications are potentially revolutionary.

To appreciate the truth of this assertion, it is necessary to outline some brief history. Since the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, the United Nations never promised to do anything more than “promote” and “encourage respect for” human rights, without explicit legal force. The Universal Declaration may form part of so-called binding customary international law, laying out a value-based framework that can be used to exert moral pressure on governments who violate any of its articles. But in the past 70 years, no government has seriously attempted to adapt its behaviour in line with the Declaration’s far-reaching requirements.

An International Bill of Human Rights was eventually agreed by the General Assembly in 1966,[2] which comprised the Universal Declaration and its two main “implementing” treaties—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The latter Covenant elaborated in greater detail the economic and social rights previously laid out in the Universal Declaration (as largely reflected in Articles 22 to 26, especially Article 25), and it was intended to form the basis of a binding legal obligation under international law. Still, both Covenants lacked any serious enforcement machinery, and were ratified by States parties under the sole proviso that they would submit periodic reports on steps taken and “progress achieved”.[3]

Marginalising economic and social rights

While civil and political rights have enjoyed an increasing degree of implementation throughout the world (albeit partially and fitfully), the historical record on economic and social rights is far less sanguine. This is forcefully illustrated by the UN’s current Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston. In his first report submitted to the Human Rights Council, he argues that economic and social rights are marginalised in most contexts, without proper legal recognition and accountability mechanisms in place.[4] Indeed, he even questions the extent to which States treat them as human rights at all, and not just desirable long-term goals.

Despite the widespread constitutional recognition of economic and social rights, as well as an abundant scholarship on their fundamental importance, they nevertheless “remain largely invisible in the law of and institutions of the great majority of States”, according to Alston. Even many of the States that enjoy the world’s highest living standards have disregarded proposals to recognise these rights in legislative or constitutional form.[5]

Most of all, the United States has persistently rejected the idea that economic and social rights are full-fledged human rights,[6] in the sense of “rights” that might be amenable to any method of enforcement. Some of its past administrations have notoriously even challenged the “soft law” status of the ICESCR treaty, regardless that it was signed (yet not ratified) by Jimmy Carter in 1977.[7] Although the United States has ratified other treaties that clearly recognise economic and social rights,[8] it is the only developed country to insist that, in effect, its government has no obligation to safeguard the rights of citizens to jobs, housing, education and an adequate standard of living.

In their defence, governments may point out the historical progress made in reducing extreme poverty across the world, which has generally been achieved without adopting a strategy based on the full recognition of economic and social rights. But the extent to which these rights remain unmet for millions of people today is unconscionable from any kind of moral perspective. Consider that more than 60 percent of the world population struggles to live on less than $5 per day, an amount which the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has considered the minimum daily income which could reasonably be regarded as fulfilling the right to “a standard of living adequate for… health and well-being” (as stipulated in Article 25).[9]

The International Labour Organisation of the United Nations also estimates that only 27 percent of people worldwide have access to comprehensive social security systems, notwithstanding the fact that virtually every government recognises the fundamental right to social security, as also enshrined in Article 25.[10] The fact that many thousands of people continue to die each day from poverty-related causes,[11]while the number of chronically undernourished people increases once again,[12] is an affront to the very idea that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living. Also in the most affluent nations, of course, millions of people have limited access to essential services and social protection, and vast numbers of families are homeless or seeking emergency food assistance.

Such facts demonstrate how far we have strayed from realising the modest aspiration expressed in Article 25. Gross inequalities of wealth and power are seemingly built into the structures and operations of the world economy, which gives the least priority and concern to the world’s majority poor. Its design is determined in international negotiations which are dominated by rich industrialised nations, who ensure that the major beneficiaries of global economic growth are the powerful corporate and elite interests that they basically function on behalf of.[13] Consequently, the number of billionaires continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, with combined annual increases in wealth that would be enough to end extreme poverty many times over.[14]

The duty of States to respect and support the achievement of socioeconomic rights outside of their borders may be anchored in international law, but the most influential multilateral organisations are not challenged to adhere to these agreed norms and standards. A rich literature examines the impact on less developed countries of this virtual system of global economic governance,[15] as principally upheld by the Bretton Woods Institutions, the World Trade Organisation and the Group of 7 nations. For example, most countries of the global South have been pressured to service their debt burdens by making structural adjustments at the expense of the most disadvantaged segments of society. Through such policies as privatisation, deregulation of markets and cutbacks in social services, the harsh conditionalities of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s lending programmes have widely hindered the ability of State’s to fulfil their human rights obligations.[16]

At the same time, many of the thousands of bilateral international treaties and free trade agreements of recent decades are incompatible with basic human rights standards in some fundamental respects.[17] In particular, the current international investment system creates rights to multinational corporations to challenge the legal and policy decisions of governments through “investor-state dispute settlement”,[18]even when those decisions are taken to meet social needs and pursue sustainable development objectives, such as reducing inequality.

Formidable obstacles

All of this points to the formidable political obstacles to implementing Article 25 through an enforceable system of international law that can offset the damaging social effects of deregulated, market-led globalisation. The challenge is well recognised by civil society groups that advocate for a new direction in economic policymaking, beginning with a reversal of the austerity measures that are now expected to affect nearly 80 percent of the global population within a couple of years.[19]

Rendering Article 25 into a truly “indivisible”, “inalienable” and “universal” human right therefore means, for example, reforming unfair tax policies that undermine the capacity of countries to invest in universal social protection systems.[20] It means rolling back the wave of commercialisation that is increasingly entering the health sector and other essential public services, with extremely negative consequences for human wellbeing.[21] And it means regulatory oversight to hold the out-of-control finance sector to account,[22] and domestic legislative action in support of a living wage and labour rights, as well as fair and progressive tax systems.

It also means, in short, a redistribution of wealth, power and income on an unprecedented scale within every society, in contradistinction to the prevailing economic ideology of our time—an ideology that falsely views economic and social rights as inimical to “wealth creation”, “economic growth” and “international competitiveness”.

But the scale of that redistribution must extend beyond national borders alone, considering the reality that developing nations are unable to fulfil the socioeconomic rights of their citizens without greater access to wealth and resources. That depends on substantial coordination and assistance from the international community, which must come in the form of bilateral aid that is no longer disbursed on the basis of geo-strategic considerations, or with a preference for privatisation and “free market” models of development.[23] At present, low-income countries are able to devote, at most, only 15 percent of gross domestic product towards meeting the basic needs of their citizenry.[24] Yet donor governments are far from helping to bridge the gap in public finances through more effective aid, despite the agreed global target of achieving “zero” extreme poverty by 2030.[25]

This only serves to underline the enormous political implications of achieving Article 25. For it is clear that rich countries prefer to extract wealth from the global South, rather than share their wealth in any meaningful way through a redistribution of resources. Yet we know the resources are available, if government priorities are fundamentally reoriented towards safeguarding the minimal guarantees of Article 25 for all peoples everywhere.[26]

To be sure, just a fraction of the amount spent on a recent US arms deal with Saudi Arabia, estimated at over $110 billion, would be enough to lift everyone above the extreme poverty line as defined by the World Bank.[27] And if concerted action was taken by the international community to phase out tax havens and prevent tax dodging by large corporations, then developing countries could recover trillions of dollars each year for human rights protection and spending on public services.[28] Achieving Article 25, therefore, is not about merely upscaling aid as a form of charity; it is about the kind of structural transformations that are necessary for everyone to enjoy dignified lives in more equal societies with economic justice.

Towards a people’s strategy

The most radical article of the Universal Declaration, in this respect, is not only Article 25 but also Article 28, which refers to the necessary arrangements of the “social and international order” wherein all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration “can be fully realised”. In other words, it is impossible to achieve a more social regulation of the world economy without dramatic adjustments in the relations between States and regions, which also needs to be reflected in more democratic structures of global governance.

For how can States implement a new global social contract, rooted in a respect for socioeconomic rights and the imperative role of international law, unless normative considerations of justice and human rights are given precedence over strategic alignments in foreign policy affairs?[29] And how can global public goods be made equitably accessible to all citizens of the world, unless the United Nations is significantly reformed and empowered to fulfil its original mandate?

As spelled out in the preamble of its Charter, the UN was always intended “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” However, its role in that regard has been severely curtailed by the Permanent Five and other major powers, who mainly use the United Nations as a “vehicle for the aggregation of national interests”, while constantly preventing significant reform within the Organisation.[30]

Its role in global economic governance was purposefully weakened from the outset; all the important financial and trade negotiations take place outside the UN system. And as we have seen, the policy priorities of the Bretton Woods Institutions and World Trade Organisation have grown increasingly distinct from the basic human values of the UN’s economic and social programs.[31] At the same time, the UN’s ability to hold States accountable for human rights and international law standards is severely limited by a lack of financial independence, with a budget too small to enable it to be truly effective.[32]

These are just some of the reasons why the human rights of Article 25, however simply worded and unassuming, hold the potential to revolutionise the unfair structures and rules of our unequal world. Because if those rights are vociferously advocated by enough of the world’s people, there is no gainsaying the political transformations that will unfold. That is why STWR calls on global activists to jointly herald Article 25 through massive and continual demonstrations in all countries, as set out in our flagship publication.[33]

At the least, it behoves us to contemplate the urgent necessity of achieving Article 25 as the highest international priority, which is a responsibility that obviously cannot be left to individual governments. The UN Charter famously invokes “We the Peoples”, but it is now up to us to resurrect the UN’s foundational ideal to promote social progress and better standards of life for everyone in the world. It is high time we seized upon Article 25 and reclaimed its stipulations as “a law of the will of the people”,[34] until governments finally begin to take seriously the full realisation of their pledge set forth in the Universal Declaration.

Image credit: riacale, flickr creative commons

The post As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns 70, it’s time to resurrect its vision of global sharing and justice appeared first on P2P Foundation.

“Journey to Earthland” is a recently released book by the Great Transition Initiative (GTI), a worldwide network of activist scholars with a unique purpose—to advance “a vision and praxis for global transformation”. Few civil society organisations have such a broad focus on transformational strategies towards a new global social-ecological system, as condensed and overviewed in this latest publication by GTI’s director, Paul Raskin. The short and accessible book presents a majestic overview of our historic juncture and expounds the urgent need for systemic change, with a hopeful vision of a flourishing civilisation that has long inspired Share The World’s Resources (STWR) in our complementary proposals for peaceful mass civic engagement.

The phrase ‘Earthland’ adopted by Raskin relates to the Planetary Phase of civilisation that GTI conceptualise as the coming era, in which humanity embraces its increasing interdependence through a new ethos of global solidarity and a transformed political community of cooperative nations. With the first part of the book summarising the evolving phases in human history since the earliest dawn of man, the Planetary Phase is finally “born of systemic crisis”, requiring a corresponding systemic response that can shape an inclusive and sustainable future for all.

Earthland is the idealised outcome of this great transition, brought to life in the final part of the book where three archetypal regions are explored: Agoria (with its market emphasis and socialised economy, or ‘Sweden Supreme’), Ecodemia (distinguished by its economic democracy and collectivist ethos), and Arcadia (accentuating self-reliant economies and a ‘small-is-beautiful’ enthusiasm). Raskin argues that such a compelling vision of “One World, Many Places” may seem remote, but should not be dismissed out-of-hand—just as the idea of sovereign nations may have once seemed an implausible dream.

Central to the book’s thesis is the question of collective action, and the need for a “vast cultural and political arising” that can bring this new world into being. The rationale for a new form of global citizens movement is made throughout the book, drawing upon much of the analysis and propositions in GTI’s canon. It is the missing actor on the world stage, an overarching systemic movement that includes all the many struggles for peace, justice and sustainability, yet remains united under a broad umbrella of common concerns and universal values. Raskin and the GTI make a convincing case that such a movement may be our only hope of avoiding a “Fortress World” or “Barberisation” future, as long as a movement for a great transition can fill the vacuum in political leadership and lay the foundations for a “post-growth material era”, and a true “global demos” or “planetary democracy”.

From STWR’s perspective, the book hits all the right notes in sketching out a more equal and vibrant civilisation that exists within planetary boundaries. It envisages a new paradigm in which economies are a means for attaining social and environmental ends, not an end in themselves; in which economic equity is the prerequisite in a shift towards post-consumerist societies, while poverty elimination is “a galvanising priority”; and in which continued economic growth is equally shared both within and between regions, until Global North-South disparities have vanished.

In the imagined social dimensions of Earthland, we also find a more leisured society where everyone is guaranteed a basic income, and where the pursuit of money has given way to non-market endeavours that enable genuine “sharing economies” and the art of living to flourish. Raskin even outlines the new modes of trade and global governance for a Commonwealth of Earthland, including world bodies that marshal “solidarity funds” to needy areas, thus ensuring a truly communitarian and interdependent economy.

What’s most interesting about ‘Journey to Earthland’ is its almost spiritual exhortations for a shared planetary civilisation, often expressed in eloquent passages that variously define the need for an enlarged sense of human identity that extends beyond national boundaries. “Interdependence in the objective realm of political economy cultivates, in the subjective realm of human consciousness, an understanding of people and planet as a single community,” the author writes. Similarly, he states: “This augmented solidarity is the correlative in consciousness of the interdependence in the external world.”

The author also depicts the “three-fold way of transition” in diagrammatic form, illuminating the need for a fundamental change in human consciousness (the “ontological” and “normative” realms), as well as in the social model (or “institutional” realm). Stressing the “longing for wholeness” that distinguishes the values of a Great Transition, he also cites the origin of these universal values that remain the sine qua non of human life: “All along, the tangible political and cultural expressions of the Great Transition were rooted in a parallel transition underway in the intangible realm of the human heart.”

The real question, however, is how a global citizens movement can actually emerge in these socially polarised times, when even the prospect of uniting Western societies to welcome refugees is a forlorn challenge. Raskin provides a cogent theoretical perspective on how a mass movement can be galvanized, built on cultural or “normative solidarity” and a sense of “emotive unity”. Emphasis is placed on the need for proactive organising strategies, as well as an “integrated strategic and intellectual framework” that can connect the full spectrum of global issues. The times cry out, writes Raskin, for large-scale campaigns with the explicit purpose of catalysing a transformative social movement along these lines. But still we await a truly international effort of this nature to emerge, while most single-issue movements are increasingly entrenched in local or regional struggles as the trends of inequality, conflict and environmental degradation generally worsen.

This is where STWR’s advocacy position departs from the GTI, despite fundamentally agreeing with their broad analysis and vision for a consciousness shift towards a Planetary Phase of civilisation. To be sure, the greatest hope for the future rests with new solidarities being forged on the global stage, with the welfare of the collective whole being prioritised above the welfare of any one particular group, class or nation. But what does this actually mean in the present moment, when discrepancies in global living standards are so extreme that millions of people are currently at risk from dying of hunger or other poverty-related causes, while 8 billionaires own more wealth than the poorest half of the world? Furthermore, is it realistic to expect the 4.3 billion people who subsist on less than $5-a-day to join a global citizens movement, if their basic socioeconomic rights are not at the forefront of any such planetary endeavour?

From this immediate perspective of a starkly divided world, the answer for how to catalyse a united voice of ordinary people may be unexpected in the end. For perhaps what’s missing from most Western-led campaigning initiatives and protest actions is not the right intellectual strategy, but a sufficient focus on the hardships and suffering experienced by the very poorest citizens within the world population. Perhaps the spark that will initiate an unprecedented demonstration of global unity is not to be found in the human mind at all, but in the simple attributes of the human heart—as Raskin himself appears to intuitively recognise. He writes: “As connectivity globalizes in the external world, so might empathy globalise in the human heart.” The question that remains is: how can that collective empathy be initially catalysed, and on what basis—given the fact that tens of thousands of people are needlessly dying each day without sufficient help from governments or the public-at-large?

This is the starting point for STWR’s understanding of how to unify citizens of the richest and poorest nations on a common platform, based on the awareness of an international humanitarian emergency that our mainstream Western culture tends to largely ignore. Hence our proposal for enormous, continuous and truly global demonstrations that call upon the United Nations to guarantee Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—for adequate food, housing, healthcare and social security for all—until governments finally commit to an emergency redistribution programme in line with the Brandt Commission proposals in 1980.

As STWR’s founder Mohammed Mesbahi has explicated in a different kind of political treatise titled ‘Heralding Article 25: A people’s strategy for world transformation’, such unprecedented protests across the world may be the last chance we have of influencing governments to redistribute resources and restructure the global economy. It may also be the only hope for initiating a global citizens movement, bringing together millions of people for a shared planetary cause—and ultimately paving the way for all the social, economic and political transformations that are inspiringly promoted by the GTI.

Further resources:

• www.greattransition.org
• Journey to Earthland: The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization, by Paul Raskin
• Reflections on Journey to Earthland by diverse global thinkers, November 2016
• The Widening Circle: Campaign for Advancing a Global Citizens Movement
• Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead, by Paul Raskin et al, April 2002

Photo by amydykstra

The post Initiating a Global Citizens Movement for the Great Transition appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The following article is an edited version of a talk given at the World Basic Income conference held in Salford, UK, in February 2017.

At STWR, we’ve long advocated the importance of sharing in relation to the world’s most pressing problems, from spiralling inequality and global conflict to the sustainability crisis. Yet of all the many groups today that reflect this growing ‘call for sharing’[1] – including the commons movement, the degrowth movement, the social and solidarity economy movement, and the global justice movement in all its diversity – it is the basic income movement that seems to be making the most simple and direct case for collectively sharing the Earth’s wealth. If the land, natural resources, and even our ideas that become ‘intellectual property’ are, in fact, all part of society’s collective treasure, then it is reasonable to argue that every person, merely by being born, is entitled to a share of it. Indeed some of the most compelling arguments for a universal basic income guarantee are about freedom and solidarity: the sense that another world is possible in which our economic system is based on trust and mutual aid, enabling everyone to share in the rewards of technology.[2]

Unfortunately, there is little hope that the full implementation of a basic income – sufficiently high enough to meet all people’s needs without the obligation to work – is going to be achieved in the present context of financial austerity and so-called neoliberal capitalism. As long as present trends continue with the marketisation and gradual deterioration of public services in most countries, any successes achieved in introducing a nation-wide basic income scheme are likely to come at the cost of comprehensive social programs that benefit the majority.[3] This means that any strategy to achieve a UBI has to be part of a transformative project, one that aims to delink work from income and redirect productive capacity towards creating real value for society, while at the same time “switching off the neoliberal privatisation machine” and bringing about a “controlled dissolution of market forces”, as the journalist Paul Mason has argued.[4]

So the question is how to build the huge broad-base of popular support that will be needed to influence public policy in this direction, and there are a number of interesting proposals that suggest a way forward.[5] However, where STWR begins is not with the question of how we, in modern consumerist societies, can ultimately enjoy the freedom and leisure of a post-growth society that equitably shares its machine-produced wealth. Rather, the first question is how the very poorest people in the world, those who lack the basic necessities for a dignified life, can immediately benefit from such redistributive policies.

This is a perspective that STWR has in common with the World Basic Income organisation, who propose to give all citizens $10 a month alongside any existing public services, which could at least provide a survival-level income to ensure no-one dies from poverty.[6] There’s a common-sense appeal to this idea, as it’s obvious that a continued reliance on GDP growth within the existing global economic framework, coupled with insufficient donations of international aid, is not a viable route to ending poverty in every country by 2030, or at any other date.[7]

But is it a viable prospect to create a direct mechanism for transferring a social dividend of some variety to all the world’s people in the immediate term? There are certainly many innovative proposals for how to fund such a global scheme, from global taxes on currency transactions, CO2 emissions and other common resources, to the idea of a fair worldwide distribution of tradeable pollution rights.[8] Theoretically, there’s no reason why governments could not create an international model of economic sharing that distributes a proportion of global resource rents to all citizens, providing a truly universal basic income as well as an indispensable source of finance for underfunded global governance bodies, such as the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.[9]

The problem, of course, is that we’re still nowhere near to achieving the level of international consensus and intergovernmental cooperation that would be needed to actuate these ideas. We’ve now seen the difficulty involved in implementing even a European-wide Financial Transaction Tax, let alone the prospect of building some kind of global welfare state, or a world public revenue based on sharing the value of co-owned resources.[10] The state of Alaska is still the only political unit to have introduced a genuine basic income scheme across an entire society, and even if a worldwide basic income could one day be achieved, it is more likely to come as a supplement to a basic income already funded at a national or regional level. And even then, it will only come if a large number of more localised projects first prove that a universal scheme is politically feasible, and implementation difficulties can be overcome.[11]

The various pilot projects in developing countries like Namibia and India have shown the transformative potential of such schemes[12] – but still millions of people are left out and fail to receive adequate government assistance for their essential needs. The UN’s International Labour Organisation estimates that the majority of people in the world continue to lack a comprehensive set of social protection guarantees – more than 70 percent of the global population.[13] Indeed contrary to the ‘good news’ narrative that is propagated by the World Bank, there are in fact more than 4 billion people who live in conditions of poverty today, if we use a more realistic international poverty line of around $5 a day.[14] Global hunger figures are also inaccurate and probably vastly underestimated, and could include upwards of 2 billion people.[15] Unbelievably, around 17 million people continue to die each year as a consequence of extreme poverty and inadequate welfare provision, equivalent to around 46,000 people each day.[16]

Suffice to say that most of these people cannot wait in the vain hope that a universal basic income will deliver them from destitution any time soon. The dire reality of life-threatening poverty can only be described as a global emergency, and it is high time that governments and civil society treated it accordingly. Yet not since the Brandt Report in 1980 has there been a high-level intergovernmental proposal for an emergency programme of humanitarian relief to prevent extreme deprivation and avoidable poverty-related deaths, regardless of where it occurs in the world.[17] As Willy Brandt envisioned, such a programme needs to be agreed through the United Nations and implemented in the shortest possible timeframe, requiring an unprecedented mobilisation of international agencies and massive transfers of resources to the world’s poorest regions, over and above existing aid budgets.[18]

This is clearly not about to happen in the midst of a global economic downturn and refugee crisis that is polarising our societies, and it may never happen unless there is an extraordinary show of public support that can persuade governments to reorder their priorities on behalf of the marginalised poor. For this reason, at STWR we believe that our foremost concern should not only be to promote the necessary pro-poor and redistributive policy changes that are urgently needed in the world. More importantly, we also need to bring about a compassionate awareness among the wider public of the dire reality of extreme poverty, as well as a huge level of civic engagement around this critical issue.

Our flagship publication titled Heralding Article 25 by STWR’s founder, Mohammed Mesbahi, examines this dilemma from many angles, and proposes a simple strategy for transforming the world through a unified call for sharing global resources.[19] The book makes an impassioned case for huge, continuous and worldwide demonstrations that mobilise around the long-agreed human rights of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – for adequate food, housing, healthcare and social security for all – until governments are impelled to organise an emergency programme of resource redistribution through the United Nations.

It requires a careful reading of the book’s rationale to appreciate the remarkable possibilities of heralding Article 25, although it’s important to state that the case it makes is not only a moral one, but also strategic. Because if we can envision enormous, endless protests in every country that peacefully amass for the cause of ending absolute poverty wherever it exists, then it’s possible to foresee the kind of changes that would ensue in international relations. Over time, it is through the necessary reforms to the global economic architecture that many other causes long upheld by progressive campaigners may finally become viable: closing down tax havens, diverting military expenditures, abolishing the unjust debts owed by developing countries, rolling back the tide of secretive free trade agreements, putting an end to structural adjustment programmes across the Global South… and so on. In other words, only after an immense release of empathic concern towards the plight of the world’s forgotten and impoverished millions, can we anticipate the declaration of human solidarity that is necessary to roll out universal basic income schemes across the world, and so much more.

Many questions remain as to how we can realise such a persistent expression of mass goodwill through global demonstrations, and the above perspective only provides a brief overview of our advocacy position at STWR. None of this is to suggest that the idea of a universal basic income does not hold potential to build a ‘counter-hegemonic strategy’ based on a new vision of a world that shares its wealth more equitably, enabling everyone to live freer and more creative lives. However, what many of these inspiring visions fail to account for is the importance of a crucial and yet absent actor on the world stage – namely a united voice of ordinary people, fused and directed towards the suffering of the very poorest members of the human family. This is what Mohammed Mesbahi describes as the “missing part” in global activism and new economic thinking, and without an overarching populist demand for a fairer sharing of resources on the global level, it will arguably be impossible to bring about the large-scale transformations of society that progressives movements are everywhere fighting for.

Put simply, the vision of granting every human being an equal right to share in the benefits of technological progress is noble and extremely encouraging. But we’re putting the cart before the horse if we expect that vision to be fulfilled in every country, before we have yet realised a massive global outpouring of goodwill towards the urgent cause of abolishing hunger and malnutrition through the elimination of absolute poverty.

Image credit: stevendepolo, flickr creative commons

– See more at: http://www.sharing.org/information-centre/articles/path-achieving-truly-universal-basic-income?dm_i=M4P,4R7BE,IM0884,HUSGH,1#sthash.5qfenhZJ.dpuf

The post The path to achieving a truly universal basic income appeared first on P2P Foundation.

For many years now, STWR has made the case for a massive mobilisation of civil society around the issue of life-threatening poverty and hunger. Our basic advocacy position as an organisation could not be simpler: that the urgent need for world rehabilitation must begin with a united people’s voice that speaks on behalf of the least advantaged, giving the highest priority to the prevention of extreme human deprivation in every country. We submit that only through a universal demand for a fairer sharing of global resources can we begin to see a gradual reversal of disastrous current trends, even in terms of regional conflicts and environmental degradation. Yet this will require millions upon millions of ordinary people out on the streets in constant, peaceful demonstrations that are focused on the need for governments to redistribute essential resources to the most marginalised people of the world.

Ending hunger and poverty-related suffering is obviously not enough to shift the world onto a just and sustainable course, but – as we have reiterated in dozens of publications – we cannot underestimate the knock-on effects of this unprecedented show of global solidarity. Simple as the vision is, however, it may appear as if society is moving ever further away from such an appeal to our common humanity and compassion. With the rise of fascist parties in Europe, the recent election of a billionaire demagogue as president of the United States, and a widespread populist reaction against welcoming the growing multitudes of refugees and poor immigrants, what hope do we have of realising a truly global movement of ordinary citizens that is motivated by the acute suffering of others?

There may be high-profile media coverage about the proliferating humanitarian crises in Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and elsewhere, but we still barely hear about the hidden crisis of chronic hunger and malnutrition that afflicts up to 2.5 billion people, and leads to thousands of needless deaths every day. While committed NGOs and UN agencies work ceaselessly to ameliorate the worst effects of this shameless human catastrophe, we can only conclude that the lack of media attention given to its true scale is indicative of the lack of interest, the lack of concern or the sheer complacency of the public at large.

We can advocate for globally redistributive policies for as long as we like, but we will never see a complete turnaround in governmental priorities without this critical new actor on the world stage: a colossal movement of massed goodwill based on a single platform of universally shared concerns. That is why, at the centre of STWR’s proposals, is the call for activists and engaged citizens the world over to uphold Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as their protest slogan, goal and vision in the time ahead. As expounded in our flagship publication, a ceaseless call for implementing Article 25 is the ‘path of least resistance’ towards uniting citizens of both rich and poor societies, thereby impelling governments to redistribute resources and restructure the global economy. It is also the surest path towards reclaiming the United Nations as an organisation that belongs to ‘we the people’, potentially leading to a major democratisation of the UN system if governments are compelled to implement the principle of sharing into world affairs.

Yet there is no hope of realising a consummate vision of universal rights and global equality without another critical factor, one that is seldom acknowledged by progressive political thinkers—namely, the engagement of the heart. STWR’s founder, Mohammed Mesbahi, has written a pioneering series of studies that revolve around this core theme, in which he articulates the need for a new kind of global activism that is no longer oriented ‘against’ the system or any ‘ism’, but is instead motivated by an inclusive call for economic sharing that can mobilise countless ordinary citizens across diverse continents with a common cause. It is futile to become ‘anti’ any belief or ideology, he argues, such as to go against capitalism; it is time to put capitalism in its right place and redistribute the world’s resources to where they are most needed.

It is also necessary to realise that we cannot make the world a better place, writes Mesbahi, without first looking after the most vulnerable people; and that means demanding from our governments an emergency relief programme to urgently prevent life-threatening conditions of deprivation across the world. Mesbahi makes it clear that a peaceful uprising of the public towards these ends is the very first stage in a process of world reconstruction, and it is the youth who can lead this formidable cause by following the simple instructions that are embedded within his continuing works. Activists in the United States, for example, would do well to heed and broadly disseminate the directives given in ‘Rise Up America, Rise Up!’, where a strategic case is made for reviving the Occupy movement through around-the-clock demonstrations that surround the UN headquarters in New York with a concerted focus on Article 25. Never before have we witnessed vast numbers of people in the streets calling for the abolition of extreme poverty in this manner, as expressed in ceaseless actions of solidarity that invite other nations to follow the same course of action.

However utopian this proposition may sound, it assumes nothing more than redirecting public attention towards immediate human need, which is far from an attempt to satisfy some vague or idealistic theory of world revolution. The only kind of revolution we need in the present context of widespread penury amidst plenty, of declining aid budgets amidst the escalation of human suffering, of economic austerity amidst increasingly concentrated wealth… is a psychological revolution that is defined by the common sense of an engaged heart. That again is the subject that preoccupies Mesbahi’s writings, and we would all do well to ponder what it means for us personally in our everyday lives, especially at this time of celebration and profligate consumerism at Christmas. For what does it mean to celebrate Christmas with love and goodwill when millions of men, women and children in poverty-stricken regions are deprived of the basic necessities of life, let alone the luxury of a Christmas banquet? As Mesbahi writes in ‘Christmas, the system and I’;

“In light of all the suffering and critical problems in the world, what better way to celebrate Christmas this year than to go out in the streets and peacefully demonstrate for an end to poverty and injustice. To say: no more cutting of trees! No more buying extravagant presents! And then to raise our voices for all the world’s people to be fed, cared for and nourished. Wouldn’t that be the best Christmas we have ever known, considering the fact that thousands of people are dying each day from poverty-related causes? Because then we would not only express our loyalty and affection for our own family and friends, but we would also stand in loving unity with the entire world. If Jesus were walking among us today, perhaps that is what He would call on us to do.”

This is the essential message that STWR will continue to spread in 2017 by whatever means we can, through our website and online networks, and in conferences and other fora. As the world situation continues to deteriorate, and as the reactions of love and hate continue to polarise our societies, the responsibility of people of goodwill to uphold the case for sharing has never been greater. Everywhere there is evidence that a new awareness is growing by the day, embracing the necessity of sharing as a last response to our culminating crises. Thus it may not be long until the rich world population finally joins forces with the poor, and together forges an enormous public opinion in favour of sharing the world’s resources.

The post The case for sharing and hope in 2017 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Following the first ever United Nations Summit on Refugees and Migrants last week, many civil society organisations and concerned citizens are taking stock of our government’s collective response to this unprecedented global crisis. The UN Summit was two years in the making, and gave a rare opportunity for world leaders to step up their commitments to help refugees, as well as draw up a blueprint for a more effective international plan of action. Central to these negotiations was the need to share responsibility for dealing with the crisis more equitably among member states, which was one of the key principles reaffirmed in the outcome document. Yet there is little promise for the world’s 21 million refugees that wealthy nations will be genuinely sharing—and not further shirking—their responsibilities to fulfil these vulnerable people’s basic rights.

Before the summit convened, it was already clear that rich governments would not be placing the needs of refugees and migrants above their narrow national self-interest. Rights groups widely criticised the watered-down agreement adopted by the UN General Assembly, particularly a commitment to resettle 10 percent of the global refugee population annually (itself inadequate) that was later dropped from the negotiation text. Another omission was the hoped-for Global Compact on Responsibility Sharing for Refugees, which was intended to be one of the summit’s main outcomes. Instead, any chance of a global solution is deferred for another 2 years of negotiations. What remains is a long list of general and vague commitments, without any kind of binding mechanism or targets decided for responsibility sharing between nations. More concrete pledges were made at a separate Leaders’ Summit on Refugees, convened by President Obama with 50 other nations, who together promised to take in significantly more refugees this year and increase funding by $4.5bn. But even these promises lack a guarantee, and may be reneged upon by the United States in its next administration.

So where is the hope that the situation can improve while 34,000 people are forced to flee their homes each day due to conflict and persecution, many of them continuing to die in an attempt to reach safety? The shocking trends show no sign of abating, largely driven by violent conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa that Western powers have had a substantial role in causing or exacerbating. Yet the responses we are seeing from governments are often far from the fundamental principles set down in international refugee law, as reaffirmed at the UN Summit. Europe is currently building more walls than during the height of the Cold War; billions of euros are being spent on deterrence measures and reactionary cooperation agreements that are having limited impact on the number of overall arrivals. Our own country, the UK, is admitting only a tiny proportion of Syrian refugees, while shamefully diverting part of the aid budget to control immigration from Africa. The new UK government’s position is that those fleeing war zones should remain in the first safe country they reach—effectively arguing that the refugee crisis is somebody else’s problem.

It is not enough to question where is the hope, for where is the morality, the kindness, the basic compassion? In this era of growing polarisation, fear and prejudice, there are many ordinary citizens who stand in solidarity with refugees as they are forced from their homelands, stepping in with volunteering and rescue efforts where governments have failed. STWR joined 30,000 others as part of the “refugees welcome” march in London on the weekend prior to the UN Summit, calling on the British government to settle more refugees and provide safe, legal routes to asylum. The numbers of people gathered were considerably less than last year when 100,000 marched, thought to be the biggest national show of support for refugees in living memory. But among a population of 64 million, such a one-off event was never going to be enough to compel the UK government to accept its fair share of refugees, and play its part in forging strong multilateral action.

The same situation pertains in other wealthy nations, where the majority of citizens turn a blind eye to the senseless suffering of those less fortunate than themselves. It has to be remembered that while 65 million people have been displaced by war or persecution, there are millions of others living in extreme poverty who do not have the economic means to seek refuge abroad, which may cost thousands of dollars to pay the fees of illegal human smugglers. What about the many millions of people who do not have enough food to eat on a daily basis, or the 22,000 children who die each day due to conditions of poverty? The global refugee crisis is the tip of the iceberg, compared to this wider tragedy of inequality and injustice that is seldom mentioned in news reports across the Western media. Yet even the problem of internally displaced persons—those who flee their homes but do not cross national borders, totalling around 45 million people—was ignored by the UN Summit. We are left to wonder at the fate of the billions of other people who live without adequate means for survival worldwide, so long as the lack of compassion in global policymaking is sustained by a generalised public indifference.

Much has been made of the basic unfairness in how responsibility is shared between nations for ameliorating the refugee crisis, whereby only 14% of refugees are being hosted in the wealthiest parts of the world. According to analysis from Oxfam, more than half of refugees have been hosted by just 6 countries and territories that account for less than 2 percent of the global economy. But is this a surprise when we consider the lack of sharing that defines the planet as a whole, and the longstanding inequalities in living standards that divide the richest countries from the majority poor overseas? As Oxfam comment in their report “I Ask the World to Empathise”, the men and woman seeking a safer future have faced intense hardship, and will invariably have relied on the kindness and solidarity of strangers along their journeys, who may have shared their scarce resources with them. In contrast, most of the governments of affluent nations are failing to share their resources in the same spirit of common humanity.

The real question is the kind of sharing that is needed to deal with the root causes of this unmitigated crisis, when the international response continues to be woefully inadequate. A coordinated multilateral plan of action based on the concept of responsibility sharing is the barest minimum that should be expected, in accordance with the capacity and wealth of each country. A massive upscaling of support is also required for the low- and middle-income countries who are hosting the most displaced people, so that response efforts can go beyond humanitarian aid to include help for livelihoods and education. All of these demands are entirely possible and realistic, if the right resources are directed at the problem.

However, addressing the root causes of an economic order that constantly produces the drivers of mass human displacement—entrenched poverty, endless wars and worsening climate change—will demand a level of global economic sharing that is unlike anything we have seen since the foundation of the United Nations, before we can realistically envisage a better world without borders, xenophobia or racism. The fact that our governments have even failed to agree a new refugee protection system based on genuine sharing in any form, only serves to underline the obvious reality: that the true burden of responsibility lies ever more heavily on the shoulders of ordinary people of goodwill.

Adam Parsons is the editor at Share The World’s Resources.

Photo credit: streets.life

The post Standing in solidarity for a humanity without borders appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Few debates highlight the many complex issues around how governments should share a nation’s wealth and resources as much as the current discourse on basic income. Also referred to as a citizen’s income, the policy generally refers to the unconditional and universal payment of a regular sum of money to a country’s residents, usually as a replacement for a range of existing state benefits such as pensions, child allowances, tax credits and unemployment payments. Unlike many other policies that challenge the status quo, the scheme commands substantial support across the political spectrum – from progressives who hope it can reduce inequality and improve social justice, to neoliberals seeking to further diminish the role of the state in delivering a full range of welfare services. The idea also has a long historical precedent, with Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mills, Martin Luther King and Milton Friedman featuring among the numerous prominent figures who have supported the idea, in one form or another, since the late 1800s.[1]

More recently, financial and economic circumstances such as mounting unemployment rates, social and economic insecurity and unprecedented levels of inequality, have pushed the proposal back up the political agenda. A Swiss campaign for a citizen’s income gained enough support in 2013 to trigger a forthcoming referendum on instituting the policy, which could result in every citizen receiving the equivalent of $34,000 dollars every year. By January 2014, over 285,000 people had signed the European Citizens Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income, which sparked a much needed public debate on the pros and cons of the policy. With the UK’s Green Party also supporting the measure (despite concerns around how it could be funded) it’s clear that the conversation about how to implement and finance such a scheme is set to expand considerably in the years ahead.

At face value, the idea of receiving an unconditional lump sum of money from the state each week, month or year presents a fair and inclusive solution to the financial constraints many people face in a consumerist society – especially at a time when unemployment and inequality are on the rise. In addition, a basic income could give people the freedom to work fewer hours if they choose, while streamlining inefficient and complicated tax and benefits systems. In response to an escalating environmental crises that extends far beyond the popular discourse on global warming, the measure has also been proposed alongside other policies to pave the way towards a ‘steady state economy’ that is not predicated on endless growth.[2]

However, it is not at all clear whether a state administered citizen’s income would ultimately help or hinder the creation of truly sharing societies, in which ‘freedom from want’ can be achieved within a redistributive economic framework that reinforces the social ties that bind people and communities together. As discussed below, the policy could ultimately play into the hands of those whose idea of individual freedom includes minimising government programs and further deregulating markets, which would ultimately work against the ethic and practice of sharing. There are also important questions around how to fund a basic income that should be explored more fully, especially if the scheme is to be beneficial to citizens in developing countries or even implemented on an international scale to help end world poverty or protect the global commons.

Questioning the political context

A convincing case for an unconditional basic income has long been put forward on the basis of personal liberties and freedoms. As outlined in various international agreements, access to food, shelter, healthcare and a decent standard of living is a basic human right, together with economic security during retirement or when unable to work.[3] Since the state is the primary guarantor of these rights, it is reasonable to propose that an unconditional income is a viable route to securing these fundamental entitlements and achieving a degree of social security. In line with this perspective, Professor Guy Standing argues that basic security for all as an unconditional right is fundamental to securing personal freedom, especially at a time when a new ‘precariat’ class of disaffiliated migrants and temporary workers suffer from systemic insecurity across the globe – largely as a consequence of economic globalisation.[4]

This idea that a basic income can increase freedom by enabling people to work less and devote themselves to more creative pursuits or unpaid work in the ‘core economy’ has a common sense appeal, particularly when job insecurity is on the rise and people are increasingly questioning how to balance their work-life commitments. In his book Sacred Economics, Charles Eisenstein sets out a convincing case for creating the conditions in which people can pursue work that doesn’t necessarily generate a return, as this will give us the freedom to act on the desire to give freely without financial incentives.[5] Philippe Van Parijs takes a similar perspective on basic income as a route to freedom, arguing that in order to be truly free, people need to have access to the means needed for “doing what they might want to do”.[6] These are convincing philosophical arguments that add further credence to the premise that a citizen’s income would promote equality and social integration, as everyone would receive an equal level of state benefits regardless of their personal circumstances.

However, there are several reasons why the issues of rights, freedom and equality need to be considered from a broader perspective, especially by those who are troubled by the encroachment of neoliberal ideology in policymaking. For example, the New Economics Foundation emphasise a key ideological difference between benefit systems based on social insurance and the provision of a guaranteed basic income for all. As they explain, a basic income is “an individualised measure, not a collective one, focusing resources on providing everyone with an income at all times rather than on pooled risk-sharing mechanisms which provide help for everyone when they need it. This may reduce people’s capacity to act together, by encouraging them to provide for themselves with their income rather than promoting social solidarity, collectively funded services, and shared solutions.”[7]

Given the huge costs associated with providing citizens with an unconditional state income, we should also be concerned that the scheme could compete for funding with other government funded services, such as healthcare, education, childcare support and social housing. Together, comprehensive welfare services such as these ensure that certain basic needs can be universally met without having to rely on commercial alternatives. Rather than implementing new basic income schemes, the aim should perhaps be to scale up social protection along the lines of a proposal by Barbara Bergmann, who recommends that a universal basic income is only considered after a well-funded ‘Swedish-style’ welfare state has first been established. This would include, for example, far more generous allowances for children, pensioners, the unemployed, and those with a disability, or even more generous work leave policies and free university education.[8]

Under the current trajectory of public policy in which welfare services are being subjected to increasing waves of neoliberal reforms, there is clearly a risk that existing mechanisms of redistribution and social solidarity could be severely undermined if replaced by a basic income. Introducing the scheme during a period when welfare services are being dismantled by economic austerity could mean that individuals would be left to pay for essential services at market rates instead, which could of course fluctuate substantially over time and weaken the monetary value of the basic income. Although this approach might appeal to those who favour freedom and personal choice, the individualistic nature of a citizen’s income is also the reason why many free marketeers favour the measure as an alternative to state funded social services. For these reasons, it is prudent to be wary of any attempt to implement the scheme within a political context characterised by laissez-faire capitalism.

The coming era of leisure

In 1930, John Maynard Keynes famously posited that standards of living would be between four and eight times higher in a hundred years’ time, and that people would need to work a mere 15 hours a weeks.[9] Although Keynes’ era of leisure is still a pipedream for most people despite the tremendous improvements in living standards he rightly predicted, there is evidence to suggest that formal working hours will have to be dramatically reduced in the years ahead. The reductions in wages that would follow such a dramatic shift in employment patterns provides a pragmatic case for the state to provide a supplementary unearned income to all citizens. There can be little doubt that patterns of work are already going through a dramatic transformation: robotic automation, digitalisation, the internet and other technological developments are responsible for significantly reducing the availability of jobs. Much of what is produced is now shared for free – including software, journalism, film, information and music. Although corporate profits are at an all-time high, demand for labour is falling and wages as a share of GDP have been in decline for the past three decades in the UK and the US. People are also living longer and retiring later, while part-time or temporary work, insecure casual contracts, and self-employment are increasingly the norm for those who find themselves precariously underemployed.

As people in developed countries adjust to an economic reality in which there is much less available work, reducing the length of the formal working week might be unavoidable. Since it is unlikely that wages would increase proportionately as we work less, an additional form of income could be necessary in order to prevent millions more people falling below the poverty line. A citizen’s income would also acknowledge and help sustain the indispensable unpaid work that currently takes place in the core economy, including raising children and caring for the elderly, maintaining community relationships and support networks, as well as the various voluntary services provided by individuals and civil society organisations. Paying a basic income to facilitate a shift towards fewer formal working hours or to support the core economy would strengthen interpersonal sharing and reciprocity within communities, and it could mean that people would no longer be forced to do menial or difficult jobs that they would otherwise undertake reluctantly for fear of survival.

Of all the arguments for a universal income scheme, this one is perhaps the most convincing – especially since there is evidence to suggest that working less and sharing available work more equitably across society would have a range of additional benefits, such as reducing levels of consumption and markedly improving quality of life.[10] However, the overall impact that the policy could have on the labour market is far from clear cut. For example, there is the claim that a citizen’s income could be a disincentive for workers, which might be especially problematic in relation to necessary but menial tasks that workers would avoid if they had an alternative source of income.

Putting aside these disputed concerns, the main impact of a citizen’s income on jobs would be to deregulate employment laws. In other words, employers would have little obligation to pay a living wage if governments are already supplementing incomes, and workers would be more prepared to leave their jobs as unemployment would no longer be such a concern for them. Francine Mestrum convincingly argues that the policy would effectively shift labour costs that are currently borne by companies to society as a whole. A basic income could therefore become a subsidy to employers who would no longer feel obliged to pay decent wages or provide adequate benefits to their employees.[11] As such, it is possible that a citizen’s income could be particularly problematic in developing countries that are working towards enhancing working conditions and employment rights.

Streamlining the benefits system

The most practical reason for introducing a citizen’s income is to overhaul and simplify complex means tested benefit systems that are failing their targeted claimants. According to a number of basic income proposals, a new agency could not only provide a standardised benefit but also coordinate a simplified income tax system in order to help recoup costs associated with the scheme. In the UK, for example, a single weekly payment could replace child allowances and the state pension, while eliminating the need for various tax allowances, credits and reliefs. The aim would be to integrate the tax and benefits system and treat everybody in the same way rather than have different rules for claimants and tax payers.[12]

Apart from the obvious financial savings that streamlining the benefit systems would generate, a single universal payment to all citizens would address a range of issues that currently plague welfare services across the world. These include abolishing complex administrative procedures associated with testing the eligibility of claimants, as well as preventing the ‘benefit trap’. Means testing is also widely regarded as a demeaning and socially divisive process that can leave claimants feeling stigmatised or branded as scroungers or even cheats. Many people aren’t even aware of their entitlement to benefits, or they can be confused by the eligibility rules and put off by the possibility of receiving increasingly harsh ‘benefit sanctions’. With almost a third of people not claiming the state payments they are entitled to in the UK alone (amounting to around £10 billion of unclaimed aid a year), it is fair to conclude that means testing is simply not providing the economic security it was designed to deliver.[13]

Despite these unequivocal arguments for redesigning and simplifying state benefits, the big hurdle for implementing a citizen’s income is the problem of cost as the scheme appears unaffordable when translated into concrete figures. The income would need to be high enough to ensure that those who are no longer able to claim most other state benefits could survive above the national poverty line, and this same amount of money would need to be provided to every citizen regardless of their financial circumstances. Even though this would be a huge financial commitment for cash-strapped governments, the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust have detailed how a basic income scheme can be designed to be ‘revenue and cost neutral’, even though they recently conceded that an unacceptable proportion of poor households would lose out under their proposal.[14] Research suggests that even a revised scheme that reduces any negative impacts would not be sufficient by itself to keep households above the relative income poverty line.[15] Although such a scheme might be more politically palatable, it would also defeat the objective of simplifying the benefits system as a number of means tested allowances would still be necessary.

The great tax shift

Unless alternative means are found to fund a basic income, a truly comprehensive scheme for sharing a nation’s financial resources is likely to remain unaffordable, while a less costly version may not provide a worthwhile alternative to existing benefits. But if funding is the primary issue, why not link the policy to wider reforms for how governments raise public revenue? Campaigners in countries across the world have long advocated for numerous ways in which states could raise huge quantities of additional income for urgent social and environmental purposes, such as implementing higher taxes on extreme wealth and very high incomes, closing tax havens, ending corporate tax avoidance or implementing a financial transaction tax. Alternatively, governments could divert a percentage of their colossal military budgets, or withdraw a proportion of the vast subsidies currently paid to agribusiness and the fossil fuel industry.[16] Similarly, new levies on environmental ‘bads’, such as pollution or waste disposal, could help raise revenues while providing a disincentive to ecologically destructive activities.

While countless civil society campaigns continue to focus on these and other redistributive proposals, a number of even more radical approaches to reforming the way governments raise public revenue are also being more widely discussed by progressives. For example, may proponents of systemic tax reform argue that levies on earnings, employment and profits disproportionately impact those already on low incomes, while encouraging environmentally damaging activities, and penalising the contributions that people and companies make to society. Land value taxation is widely regarded as a logical and fairer alternative to existing methods of raising revenue and, like basic income, it has considerable support among both progressives and conservatives. In accordance with the need to dramatically reform both fiscal and benefit systems, James Robertson has proposed a new social compact in which land value taxation would play a central role in funding a citizen’s income.[17] Robertson’s proposal illustrates the possibility of funding a more comprehensive basic income scheme that would also enable governments to take decisive steps towards creating a more just and sustainable economy. Nonetheless, the political will to pursue these widely supported measures remains conspicuously absent, which points to the need for a more visible public debate about the various means governments can employ to pool and share a nation’s financial resources.

Social dividends from shared resources

In light of the inherent difficulties connected to reforming established tax and benefit systems, it is also worth considering alternative options for establishing a citizen’s income that could have much wider implications for creating a sharing society. Although this approach is rarely part of the popular discourse on implementing a basic income scheme, there are a growing number of proposals for instituting a ‘social dividend’ that is based firmly on the principle of sharing as it recognises that all citizens have a right to income from ‘natural property’, such as land and other resources that are either inherited or co-created by society. The idea can be traced back to the work of the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, who stated that “the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race”.[18] The notion that the earth is our common inheritance was also central to the ideas of the social theorist Henry George in the 19th century, and still maintains strong support among Georgists as well as commons theorists.[19]

As explained by Peter Barnes in his book ‘With Liberty and Dividends for All’, the majority of the wealth that is inherited or created together by society is captured and extracted by the rich rather than distributed fairly among citizens. Meanwhile, the damaging social and environmental costs of this process are largely borne by the public or the biosphere. The simple idea at the heart of most proposals for a social dividend is therefore to charge user fees on shared resources, which can then be distributed to all citizens as a basic right. Although an agency would initially be set up by governments to administer the program, it would operate independently of the private and public sector as a ‘commons trust’ that could conceivably manage a range of shared resources – from land, fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon storage, to the electromagnetic spectrum and intellectual property. According to a calculation by Barnes based only on a specific selection of shared assets, the programme could provide every American citizen with as much as $5,000 a year.[20]

Given the various problems associated with existing basic income schemes, not least of which is funding, issuing social dividends from user fees on shared resources could be a sensible alternative to the tax-funded benefit programs considered above. The social dividend approach would address a number of the concerns that drive proponents of a citizen’s income, such as providing a non-labour supplement to falling wages and incomes, or reducing social and economic exclusion. Moreover, sharing the value of co-owned resources in this way would not necessarily interfere with existing systems of welfare and social protection, which could still be reformed independently to address some of the failings highlighted previously.

Barnes also reminds us that while the idea of reforming tax systems remains problematic and contentious, distributing income from user fees appeals to both liberals and conservatives. The programme could be set up as a self-financing commons trust that operates outside of the public and private sector, and managing the fund would neither inflate nor deflate the size of government. Like taxes, user fees on ecologically damaging activities would also provide a disincentive to both producers and consumers, effectively internalising environmental costs into the price of products. Additionally, a social dividend would be an effective way to integrate the principle of sharing into the way nations govern the use of co-owned assets, as it gives form to the notion that natural resources should be managed in the interests of all people and future generations – which is clearly a prerequisite to creating a more equal and sustainable world in the 21st century.

From national to global dividends

Sharing the value of co-owned resources is not just a theoretical premise; the practice has long existed in Alaska where 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, bonuses and other payments received by the state are placed into a permanent fund that is currently worth over $53 billion.[21] The fund was initially set up by the government of Alaska in 1976 and is now managed on behalf of its citizens who receive an annual dividend from the income it generates, which amounted to $1,884 in 2014. Unsurprisingly, the fund is popular with residents and acts as a crucial economic stimulus, while being transparent and cost effective to manage. Moreover, in stark contrast to when the fund was first established, Alaska now has one of the lowest rates of inequality and relatively low levels of poverty compared to other US states. For these reasons, the Alaska Permanent Fund provides a unique example of the benefits of sharing resource dividends directly with citizens, and is regularly referred to by campaigners working on a wide range of progressive causes.

The Alaskan model also has important applications for low income countries, particularly those that struggle to reduce extreme poverty or are afflicted by the ‘resource curse’ – the paradox of countries being rich in mineral wealth but unable to achieve sustained economic development. For example, the economist Paul Segal argues that governments in developing countries should distribute rents due on their natural resources directly to all citizens as an unconditional cash transfer.[22] Such a program would provide incentives for people to register with the fiscal system, strengthen state capacity, help ameliorate the institutional causes of the resource curse, and reduce corruption. Sharing the value of resources in this way would be entirely in accordance with universally adopted human rights covenants which state that “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources”.[23] Most importantly, Segal highlights the considerable impact that a social dividend derived from resource rents could have on extreme levels of human deprivation. According to his calculations, this measure alone could halve global poverty if implemented internationally by all developing countries, and he concludes that the scheme “would be easier to implement than most existing social policies”.[24]

This same model could also be applied to fund basic income schemes in developed countries that have sizable reserves of oil, gas and other industrial minerals, such as the US. As Segal notes, prior to the systematic privatisations that characterised the 1980s, just such a proposal for ‘A People’s Stake in North Sea Oil’ was floated in the UK by Samuel Brittan and Barry Riley. More recently, economists have proposed similar models for a basic income funded by resource revenues for Nigeria, Iraq and Bolivia. According to a study by World Bank economists, a universal basic income in the form of a ‘direct dividend payment’ derived from just 10 percent of national oil revenues would be sufficient to close the poverty gap in Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, and could half the poverty gap in larger countries such as Mozambique and Nigeria. The report’s authors explain how it would also be possible for a proportion of these revenues to be used by governments to fund public goods, which could further help reduce poverty and enhance social welfare.[25]

The discourse on how to fairly distribute the value of a nation’s co-owned resources is critical, especially in relation to creating effective sharing societies without poverty or extreme inequality. But the process of deriving social dividends from shared resources need not be confined to the nation state, and could even be used to fulfil the entitlement of every human being to a fair share of the global commons. For example, Alanna Hartzok outlines how a Global Resource Agency could feasibly collect resource rents from the exploitation of shared resources such as ocean fisheries, the sea bed, the electromagnetic spectrum, and even outer space.[26] The resulting fund could be further bolstered through levies on activities that damage the commons, including carbon emissions and other forms of pollution to the oceans and atmosphere. In a globalised economy characterised by a vast array of economic processes that fall outside the jurisdiction of national territories, such a mechanism could clearly be an indispensable source of finance for underfunded global governance bodies such as the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. The finances raised could also support the provision of global public goods or help meet other international priorities such as providing disaster relief, ending hunger or mitigating climate change. Furthermore, this international model of economic sharing could also distribute a proportion of the revenues generated as a global citizen’s income based on an equal share of the value of global resources. Since rich countries are responsible for the vast majority of resource consumption and pollution, an international citizen’s income raised through user fees on the global commons could also amount to a sizable redistribution of wealth in favour of citizens in the Global South.[27]

Another international route to raising the finance needed to eradicate extreme poverty is suggested by Professor Thomas Pogge, who proposes that all human beings should be recognised as having an inalienable stake in the world’s natural resources and that they should therefore be entitled to a share of the value of any natural resource (such as crude oil) regardless of where it is extracted.[28] He calls this share a Global Resource Dividend (GRD) and proposes that it is fixed at 1% of gross world product, which currently comes to $780 billion per annum.[29] Pogge suggests that it would make sense to differentiate between natural resources by collecting larger shares for those that are most damaging to the environment (like coal). In this way, he argues that the GRD could help avert ecological harm while enabling the world’s poor to share in global economic growth and reduce their financial disadvantage. Pogge’s original proposal does not constitute a universal citizen’s income, as it selectively targets the dividend to provide those living in extreme poverty with up to $250 a year. According to his calculations, however, if the GRD was used to create a truly universal basic income “the poorer half would still get an income boost of over 20% on average … The income of the poorest quarter would go from currently 0.9% of gross world product to 1.15%, a tidy 28% raise.”[30] There can be little doubt that a global citizen’s income financed through resource dividends would have a transformative impact on those who live below the global poverty line, and could even be considered as an adjunct or alternative to conventional development assistance.

Expanding the public debate on basic income

If the ultimate intention of a citizen’s income is to secure the basic right of all people to live in dignity and fully develop their capabilities, it is clearly in relation to the very poorest in society (and across the world as a whole) that any form of basic income would be most beneficial. In this respect, the evidence suggests that a citizen’s income based on resource dividends presents an important systemic solution to poverty that has the potential to counterbalance the injustice of a global economic model in which wealth predominantly flows to the richest 1% of the world’s population. The policy also has significant ecological implications in relation to the emerging ‘degrowth’ debate on the impossibility of pursuing endless economic growth without irreversibly harming the environment.[31] In line with this perspective on the limits to growth, resource dividends for all could facilitate the necessary shift away from unsustainable patterns of production and consumerism, and stimulate a much needed public debate on the nature and purpose of work.

There are clearly many convincing arguments for how a citizen’s income based on resource rents could play a pivotal role in establishing a truly sharing society in which the fulfilment of people’s basic rights are not limited to their capacity to earn wages. However, it should also be apparent that any form of basic income or social dividend is not a panacea and should only be implemented as part of a comprehensive program of progressive reforms. As Share The World’s Resources emphasises, the objective of public policy should be to establish systemic forms of sharing that decentralise and devolve political power and embody the fundamental right of all people to a fair share of the wealth and resources that are created by nature or society as a whole.[32] Thus unless any basic income scheme is implemented as part of a broader policy agenda to address the structural causes of inequality and environmental crises, its longer term benefits would remain questionable.

Although there is growing support for social dividends funded by user fees, any call for reforming the way collective resources are managed is unlikely to gain political traction at a time when the institutions of central government increasingly embody market principles, and proposals for radically restructuring economic systems are still generally outside of mainstream political debates. Furthermore, it is difficult to overstate the power and influence that fossil fuel corporations could wield over policymakers who are considering setting aside a proportion of co-owned wealth for the benefit of citizens, especially in resource rich countries where user fees would have a negative impact on corporate profits.[33] Clearly, if resource dividend schemes are to be implemented more extensively, it would be necessary to challenge the neoliberal consensus that currently dominates public policy at the governmental level as well as in global institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

But despite the expected resistance from those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it is reasonable to assume that policies seeking to share the value of common pool resources would be extremely popular with voters, especially if they were more closely linked to existing calls for a citizen’s income. If the proposition also had more support from within civil society and among progressive parties, there is every chance that such policies could rapidly move up the political agenda. As the media continues to highlight basic income schemes with increasing frequency, there has never been a better time to broaden the public debate to include alternative ways to fund the proposal – particularly if this draws attention to systemic methods of supplementing personal incomes through policies based on redistributive justice and the principle of sharing.

The post From basic income to social dividend: sharing the value of common resources appeared first on P2P Foundation.

• STWR’s overview of the day’s discussions is available here.
• Read the World Goodwill newsletter where this transcript was originally published.

Why is there a need for sharing?

The reality is that we are in the midst of a global emergency. We have all heard the statistics: how the richest 1% of the world population will soon own as much as everybody else in terms of assets and wealth. There is essentially a growing level of inequality in the world, and going against the general understanding, there are actually more people living in poverty than ever before. The situation with climate change was in the news recently. We know that we have already exceeded the 1 degree increase in global average temperatures and we are on course for a 4 degrees increase by the end of the century. And there is an escalation of conflicts over scarce resources. So we need to find ways of globally sharing wealth and natural resources more equally and in a way that is cooperative and doesn’t lead to conflict.

What is the right way to structure the market: should it be through limited companies, or are there other models that are more able to share in an equitable fashion? Put in another way, will we have iPhones in paradise?

I think there is a problem when it comes to companies growing in size to the extent that they become the Apples of the world. I admit, I have an iPhone and I am pragmatic in that respect, we need what we need. But I think we need to be careful about this idea of abundance and recognise that it is not just necessarily a material abundance that we should be after but a spiritual abundance. Abundance for me is ensuring that everybody has access to what they need to survive and to live. We have to recognise that at the moment we are consuming natural resources 50% faster than the earth can replenish them. The planet is in ecological overshoot. So, if we really want abundance, we need sustainable abundance. We need to use resources within the finite carrying capacity of the planet.

What is the eco-economy model that will lead us further?

In a nutshell, it is an economy based on the principle of sharing, whereby we recognise that there is one planet worth of resources that we need to share and we distribute the resources in such a way that all people’s needs are met. There are many reports from ecological economists, and Oxfam has published a report referred to as ‘the Doughnut report’ that looks at planetary and social boundaries. We just need to bear in mind the reality of abundance. 75% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. That is not what they can spend in their own country, but what that $10 can buy in America. And there are 47,000 people who die every day because they don’t have access to the basics. So we need to temper this idea of abundance with the reality of the world situation.

I am sure many people have heard about the commons movement which proposes a third category of ownership. Everything that is essential to life would be shared, everything outside this could be publicly or privately owned. Do you see any hope of this happening and how?

Essentially I agree that the commons movement embodies an aspect of sharing, and there are many other examples that take a similar approach, whether we talk about the transition town movement or local currencies. The problem we have and the reason that things are getting worse is because even though there is a recognition that sharing is fundamentally who we are and therefore must be how we organise ourselves, the systems and institutions and policies which underpin the way that the economy works are all based on the old ways of self-interest. There is an idea of homo economicus, this idea that we are all self-interested, competitive, individualistic, utility maximisers. It is this idea that still informs policy making, not only within our country, but even global institutions. How does this emerging tendency towards sharing and commoning express itself in a world which is still underpinned by the fabric of national self-interest, competition and greed?

What keeps coming to me is community. It possibly falls within all of us to create that community of sharing. Do you believe that we will need to come out of this paradigm or is it individuals that will take the community and develop that within themselves? 

My short answer is that we need both. There is already this growing movement towards creating the alternative, and I already mentioned the transition towns, the commons movement, the sharing economy and the gift economy and everything else. This is great and very empowering for individuals and communities to connect with each other using new ways of organising. But it is not enough, it doesn’t change the system. We also need to reclaim democracy. We need to rethink how the world’s resources are redistributed, because there are massive political issues there, there are structural issues that need to be addressed. By us coming out of the system and creating the alternative, we are not going to address these structural political, social, economic issues at all levels of society and it is really important that we do both. Often we have people who are working for transformational change, structural change, justice etc. who aren’t engaged in creating the alternative and vice versa. We need to link both of these approaches.

I am all for sharing but how it is to be done matters. I have this company and I have this top job going for £100.000 and I will ask for applications and 27 applications come. Only one will get in, the other 26 will remain unemployed, so what do I do? In India they say you should renounce everything, sell everything. We have done a lot of experiments in society with sharing and welfare, with a lot of unintended consequences. What can we do differently about sharing so there aren’t any unintended consequences from sharing?

There is a massive shift globally towards not-for-profit models and co-operatives, where decision-making is more evenly distributed among stakeholders, and profits are shared more evenly amongst stakeholders too, they are not extracted by shareholders. These sort of models have been emerging for a very long time and there are 1 billion people globally who are now part of a co-operative. The second question around how do we share, there is literature here, you can go to our website, there are different ideas on how to establish systems that are broadly in line with the principle of sharing. Also, systems of welfare and social protection, there are problems with them, but essentially they are far better than not having them. They are very important in the developing world, where many countries are still lacking effective systems of welfare and social protection. So it is really important to strengthen and scale up these mechanisms within counties, and we need such systems in place globally as well. Exactly how we go about that is almost a secondary discussion, because at the moment we are moving in exactly the opposite direction. We need to demand something different and that is happening globally.

The point I am going to make is, to me the word share is a 2-way thing, somehow the sharing has to retain the self-respect of the person that is shared with to enable them to give something back to retain their self-respect. Your organisation hopefully enables us to move on from that muddle that is just donating.

This is not about charity, it is not about giving individually. In fact there is a lot of literature that suggests that charity is part of the problem, because it maintains the status quo. The issue is justice, sharing really means justice. Our focus is how to create a just and sustainable world. It is about creating the economic, social and political systems that systemically embody the principle of sharing.

Your founder wrote a report that focuses on how article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could be used, and this goes back to justice, as a touchstone for how you would establish systems of sharing. 

We are still exploring and developing this idea. The real question is how do we create change? We do need a global movement of citizens who are on the streets demanding change from their governments. There is evidence to suggest that the number of protests for social and economic justice have really escalated over the last decades, and we need people who are coming together with their heart open in the spirit of sharing, demanding common sense from their governments. Article 25 states that everybody has the right to the essentials of life. This is nowhere obvious in the world, in probably no country in the world. If we can’t even achieve that, what hope have we of addressing climate change? So this has got to be the starting point.

A lot of people talk about a coming global economic crash. How do you see something emerging from that to create a new economy?Also, someone mentioned humanity being at a turning point in terms of more people awakening to the Christ Consciousness. My question has to do with the concept of ownership and stewardship. How does your organisation bring the concept of stewardship into the concept of sharing?

I think that when we talk about ownership we think about my iPhone, but there are things that clearly need to be stewarded rather than owned by the nations of the world or local communities. That is what the commons is focused on. The stewardship of common resources is not about ownership; but that doesn’t mean that we can’t own our own table and chairs. That is a different level of ownership. When it comes to things that really matter in the world, stewardship is preferable over ownership. On the bigger question on how change happens, the manifestation of the Christ principle, the realisation that we are one humanity, we are heading there. It could be, sadly, that another global economic crisis, a big crash, could catalyse that process. If that does happen, then we either resurrect the old system and it happens again, or we work together democratically to hash out a new system based on different principles, and undoubtedly sharing has to be part of that discussion.

Three points, first, how about the new ways of sharing that we see that align with the law of least resistance, for example AirBnB, Uber for instance. Secondly, your view on mobile phones provoked me a little bit. Especially in Africa the mobile phones are a very strong driver of increased justice, and distribution of new technology such as access to micro loans and the penetration of access to mobile phones in many countries in Africa is up to 80%, they leapfrogged beyond many things to get there. The third point relates to your comments on stewardship. The place to start with sharing is knowledge and education. 

Firstly, sharing is absolutely very much part of what it means to be human: evidence from anthropological and behavioural sciences demonstrates that sharing and cooperation is hardwired into us from a very early age. From an evolutionary perspective we wouldn’t have been able to evolve as a species if we weren’t able to share. In terms of AirBnB and Uber, they call themselves sharing economies, I take some issue with that, they are essentially renting rather than sharing. Mobile phones, yes you are right, there is a difference between the pragmatic use of mobile phones where necessary as a way of helping development, and our throwing away our phones every few months for the latest model, that is a massive waste of resources. There is a better way of doing it.

Do you have any final comments? 

We need to consider how we can become involved in trying to create the alternative, and in demanding change from our governments. If Christ was in the world today, surely he too would be demanding justice for those people who currently don’t have access to the resources that we take for granted? There are 17 million people who die needlessly every year, and fortunately, there are millions of NGOs, civil society organisations and campaigns out there, providing anyone who wishes to serve with abundant opportunities.

Image credit: Pinterest

The post The invisible heart: sharing the world’s resources appeared first on P2P Foundation.

During an interview and discussion with the audience at the annual World Goodwill seminar in London, STWR highlighted the increasingly urgent need for concerned citizens to demand that governments enact the pressing structural reforms needed to address interconnected social, political and environmental crises.

On 14th November 2015, World Goodwill – a global network of citizens that seeks to stimulate awareness of major world problems and foster a universal spiritual perspective about humanity’s future – convened their annual seminar, which took place simultaneously in London, Geneva and New York. Separately at each venue, contributions were provided by a range of speakers from spiritual and business backgrounds as well as representatives from civil society organisations, including Share The World’s Resources (STWR) who participated at the London event.

A recurring point of discussion at all three venues was the ethic and practice of sharing, which was referred to by a number of speakers in relation to pressing social and economic concerns (such as sustainable development and the climate crisis), and also in terms of how embracing the principle of sharing is pivotal to our continued evolution and progress on Planet Earth.

Speaking in French during the Geneva seminar, Daniel Hersann argued that diametrically opposing world views are confronting each other at this critical moment in history: an emerging understanding based on group collaboration and sharing is challenging the predominant view that human beings are naturally exploitative, com­petitive and individualistic. He went on to suggest that the inequitable distribution of planetary resources cannot be resolved unless our willingness to share overpowers the pervasive desire for material accumulation that characterises the modern world.

Also speaking in Geneva, Thomas Bohrn noted that sharing is fundamental to physiological processes, particularly in relation to the distribution of oxygen and other nutrients that takes place at a cellular and atomic level. Bohrn questioned whether such elemental systems of sharing have been sufficiently recreated in the world around us, and concluded that economic systems are largely incompatible with the principle of sharing at present as they fail to freely distribute resources in the same way that nature always has.

At the seminar in London, STWR’s Rajesh Makwana (who’s contribution was in the form of an interview and discussion with the audience) responded to questions about the commons movement, the sharing economy and the role that not-for-profit enterprises can play in the ‘great transition’ that lies ahead. He also explained that systemic forms of sharing must be implemented on an international basis if governments are to finally end extreme poverty, noting that around 46,000 preventable deaths occur each day mainly because millions of people still cannot access to the essentials of life: nutritious food, clean water and basic healthcare.

Makwana also asserted that we are in the midst of what can only be described as a global emergency, adding that many millions more concerned citizens must therefore demand that governments enact the pressing structural reforms needed to address interconnected social, political and environmental crises. He also stressed the vital importance of heralding Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which is a proposition that is explored in detail in a study by STWR’s founder Mohammed Mesbahi.

The theme of sharing was further examined in a presentation by representatives of WYSE International, a voluntary organisation providing training opportunities for young people seeking to make a positive impact on world problems. Highlighting the urgent need to address pressing global crises such as the overconsumption of natural resources, WYSE’s Hilary Harvey emphasised the crucial role that education can play in this regard, especially at a time when half the world’s population is under the age of 35. Clarence Harvey drew attention to how people of goodwill are increasingly embracing core human values such as sharing and nobility, which he suggested are embodied in the idea of the Bodhisattva – the one whose heart is opened and whose mind is illumined.

Alluding to the confluence of global crises during the seminar in New York, Jimena Leiva Roesch of the International Peace Institute explained that the Sus­tainable Development Goals hold the potential to establish a new paradigm in international relations by integrating the social, economic and environmental aspects of development. According to Roesch, 2016 will be a pivotal year when the United Nations will have a historic opportunity to combine the sustainability and climate agendas and create a unified vision of human progress and environmental regeneration.

The seminars, which also included a number of meditations and presentations from other insightful speakers, provided an important contribution to the emerging discourse on the need for wealth, power and resources to be shared more equitably at across all levels of society – locally, nationally and globally. In particular, the combination of spiritual and civil society perspectives on this central issue was notable at a time when people everywhere are recognising the need to move beyond intellectual silos and unite on common platforms for transformative change.

STWR would like to thank World Goodwill for their kind invitation to participate in the London seminar. 

Photo credit: Esparta, flickr creative commons 

The post STWR at the World Goodwill seminar 2015: Rebuilding the shrine of human living appeared first on P2P Foundation.

With the release of a refreshingly pessimistic science-based documentary that connects human development with the global ecological crisis, there is even more reason for concerned citizens to take to the streets in unprecedented numbers to demand a radical shift in government priorities.

Has the international community left it too late to prevent runaway climate change and widespread ecological degradation? Does the typical citizen and career politician have the inclination to accept the severity of the ‘planetary emergency’, let alone make the lifestyle changes and policy decisions needed to address it? And can the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Paris really signal an end to the unregulated dumping of carbon emissions, or mark a shift away from the business-as-usual approach to economic development?

These are among the many troubling questions that emerge when watching a new documentary written and presented by one of the world’s foremost scientists, Professor Stephen Emmott. The film –  Ten Billion –  draws on a bewildering array of statistics to paint a grim picture of humanity’s future prospects on Planet Earth. As the title suggests, the narrative emphasises the overwhelmingly destructive impact that human ‘progress’ is having on the natural world, especially as the global population heads towards the ten billion mark at the end of this century. Given the ongoing failure to reduce population growth and curb ever-increasing levels of consumption, Professor Emmott argues that governments appear to be completely incapable of adopting a more sustainable socio-economic model, even in the face of an impending ecological catastrophe.

Notwithstanding its bleak message, this is a powerful and compelling documentary that can help raise much-needed awareness about the environmental dimensions of the planet’s interconnected crises. It’s therefore a film that (like many others) should be compulsory viewing at this critical juncture in human evolution. While the style of the documentary is reminiscent of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, the Professor’s presentation takes the form of a theatrical performance rather than a public lecture, and the director Peter Webber has made full use of cinematic special effects and graphical illustrations to add context and a genuine sense of drama to the final cut.

There is much in the film to commend, including the way that a wide range of complex and interrelated issues are considered through the lens of humanity’s endless appetite for material consumption. However, many environmentalists will (rightly) be perturbed by Professor Emmott’s brief but notable statement in support of nuclear energy as the only pragmatic short-term solution to the energy crisis. Others might berate him for suggesting that the fear of reaching ‘peak oil’ is unfounded: he makes the undeniable point that new and plentiful reserves of oil are being discovered regularly, and that there is little sign that oil companies will want to shift away from fossil fuel production in the foreseeable future.

A broader concern is that the film lacks a robust political analysis of the structural injustice and unequal power relations that are the true cause of our environmental and social ills. For example, central to any discussion about ecological overshoot must be the recognition that the richest 20% of the world’s population are responsible for 80% of all consumption. But there is little emphasis on how unfettered consumerism in industrialised countries poses the real ecological threat, and not population growth in the Global South. Nor is there any mention of the role that neoliberal capitalism or the ceaseless pursuit of economic growth and corporate profit plays in maintaining a highly unsustainable global economic system. And despite framing the crisis as a ‘planetary emergency’ only fleeting attention is paid to the reality of world poverty and life-threatening deprivation, which is a substantial oversight given that 4.2 billion people are struggling to survive on less than $5 a day and 17 million people die needlessly every year – mainly in developing countries.

As well as failing to explore these critical systemic issues, Professor Emmott offers no guidance for those who (having been moved by his presentation) might want to get actively involved in an environmental cause, and he purposefully avoids presenting a vision of how the ecological crisis should be addressed. On the contrary, he scorns the argument often put forward by so-called ‘rational optimists’ that we can “technologise” our way out of these problems; he dispels the notion that politicians and UN conferences are capable of implementing the policy changes that are now so urgent; and he suggests it is unlikely that the general public will ever be willing or able to change their consumption habits.

With no vision of hope or tangible solution offered at any point in his presentation, the audience is left somewhat bereft by the end of the documentary. Indeed, nothing sums up the film’s essential message better than the melodramatic remark that Professor Emmott uses to conclude his sweeping analysis: “I think we are f****d!”. Although this depressing assertion is perhaps appropriate in the context of a theatrical performance, many will find it unnecessarily negative, disempowering and hyperbolic – especially at a time when the majority of people have no appetite for ‘system change’, or are disinclined to demand such change having convinced themselves that ‘there is no alternative’ to their present way of life.

When pressed during the Q&A session after a preview screening of the film in London, Professor Emmott conceded that he didn’t understand why more people – especially young people – are not protesting relentlessly in the streets to demand radical reform. On this note, the Professor’s personal views are in line with those of Share The World’s Resources (STWR), who have consistently called for ordinary citizens to unite through widespread, continual and peaceful protests for sound environmental stewardship and an end to the iniquity of poverty in a world of plenty.

In light of the scale of the crises that Ten Billion brings to life, it is safe to assume that mass public protest is now the only option left to the many millions of people who yearn for a more just and sustainable future. As STWR’s Mohammed Mesbahi argues, “The real question we should ask ourselves is not why our governments are failing to save the world, but why are we failing to compel them to take appropriate action as our elected representatives?” With government leaders preparing to meet for the concluding round of UN climate talks in Paris, let’s hope that this uncompromising documentary does ultimately encourage more people to take to the streets in unprecedented numbers – even if it is out of sheer exasperation with a perilously outdated model of human development and economic progress.

The post Ten billion reasons to demand system change appeared first on P2P Foundation.

It’s high time UN agencies and the mainstream media acknowledge the true scale of global poverty and engage in a long overdue public debate on how ambitious and transformative the international development agenda really is.

The post #GlobalGoals? The truth about poverty and how to address it appeared first on P2P Foundation.