In an interview at the beginning of the pandemic, the mayor of Bogotá mentioned how, despite not being among her functions, she had delivered 120,000 markets and made 262,000 transfers. “The problem is no longer the markets, because there are, the trouble is going to deliver them. And in terms of money transfers, the problem is not money, it is that some people are banked and others are not, they have to be found apple by apple ”. Although this effort could have meant a pause in the implementation of the Bogotá government plan, if aid was not delivered, the most vulnerable population would starve.
But how did these families live before the pandemic? Let’s say a little less worse. If COVID-19 has brought something good, it is the opportunity to rethink the social protection system. And is that if in the capital of a middle-income country and member of the OECD there are thousands of families starving after a few weeks of quarantine, something is not working well.
It has become clear that the meager support that the most vulnerable families receive through programs such as Familias en Acción does not make a significant difference and in no way opens up the possibility of social mobility. These conditional aid, in addition to running the risk of being politicized, represent an onerous administrative burden for the State. For the delivery of the incentive, the Government verifies the commitments made by each family six times a year, consulting with schools, IPS and registry offices. Not to mention the cost of implementing the VAT refund, in which at least four entities are involved nationwide. Definitely, as Castillo Peraza said, “bureaucracy is the art of turning the easy into difficult.”
Against this background, I propose that we return to the idea of universal basic income (UBI). The IBU, in its broadest sense, would seek to guarantee the entire population a minimum income regardless of their conditions. In a narrower sense, it would only apply to the most vulnerable. Rather than reducing inequality —which is not entirely negative—, the UBI seeks to generate minimum conditions of survival for all, guaranteed by the State. In contrast to the current onerous social programs, the IBU would entail a single monthly payment without further conditions or supervision by the Government.
In addition to guaranteeing a dignified life for the most vulnerable – which in itself is reason enough – the UBI has other positive implications. People could negotiate better working conditions and the toughest jobs would pay better. The most common criticism of the UBI is the same that has been made for decades of the welfare state: if people receive money from the state, what motivation do they have to study and work? Well the world has changed. For those who have their basic needs covered, income takes a back seat. The workforce of the future is looking for a space where it can exercise its passions and innovate. But, above all, it seeks the possibility of positively impacting the lives of others and their environment.
Advances in technology, data science and artificial intelligence will lead to the automation of many jobs in the future and the IBU would ensure the dignified survival of the future unemployed. Let’s not panic, the evolution of technology can lead to an increase in the quality of life for everyone, but that will only be possible if the IBU stops being a utopia and becomes a reality. Finally, the UBI would help stabilize the economy during periods of recession, guaranteeing a minimum consumption capacity. Sound familiar?
– .
