Universal Basic Income (UBI)

‘Universal Basic Income’ (UBI) or otherwise known as the ‘Citizens Basic Income’ (CBI).

UBI or CBI is an unconditional, regular cash income paid to all individuals, with no required work. This development theory is to give people opportunities to self-determination

There are several different countries who have tested and researched this development theory, and have suggested a multitude of different ways to fund the programs. However, researchers more often than not describe a reallocation of funding, which may previously have been allocated to a arguably less-efficient development project.

The research and implementation of the UBI or CBI in LDC presents both positive and negative outcomes for closing the gap of inequality, addressing poverty reduction policies and, most importantly, the collections of people involved. As mentioned by Banerjee, Niehaus and Suri (2019) the discussion around the positive and negative effects of the UBI comes down to one simple question: “…asking whether we should be trying to raise the incomes of the poor…”.

The negative effects of implementing the UBI in LDC, as discussed by  Banerjee, Niehaus and Suri (2019) include; that it is an unlikely cost-effective way to achieve any particular, narrow policy goal, and conservatives’ stances that giving people money risks making them lazy. Banerjee, Niehaus and Suri (2019) present a conclusion from the Iran’s universal cash transfer scheme in 2011, that the transfers reduced the labor supply of the poor. The other negative aspect of implementing the UBI in LDC suggests that it is not a directed response to policy makers concerns, as it is hard to narrow down the policies in which it works towards and addresses.

Positive effects of implementing the UBI and CBI in LDC were outlined by both Matarazzo Suplicy (2007) & Banerjee, Niehaus and Suri (2019). A selection of the positive affects discussed by Matarazzo Suplicy (2007) included; increase access to education, health and entrepreneurship, closing the gap of the “extremely unequal” income distribution, reducing unemployment and poverty traps by ending economic dependency, removing the incentive for workers to not register with employers, supporting human dignity and freedom of virtue, and the elimination of bureaucracy and stigma between people receiving the CBI. Matarazzo Suplicy (2007) stated that the implementation of the CBI caused an “…inalienable right to participate in the nation’s wealth.”.

The positive affects discovered by Banerjee, Niehaus and Suris’ (2019) research saw an increase in financial inclusion, housing and sanitation, nutrition and diet, health, education, income and assets.

It is evident through both articles that positive outcomes are abundant.

In conclusion, the research concerning the implementation of the UBI in LDC offers that it indeed may be difficult to implement globally. However, in presenting this argument it explored the positive outcomes already found for those groups who have been granted a UBI or CBI in the past, which I think is the most beneficial outcome of this research so far. Therefore, I learnt that there are certainly negative and positive impacts in the implementation of the UBI or CBI in LDC, however, in the studies discussed, the number of positive outcomes certainly outweighed the negative.

 

References:

Banerjee A, Niehaus P & Suri T 2019, ‘Universal Basic Income in the Developing World’, Annual Review of Economics, vol. 11, pp. 1-23.

Matarazzo Suplicy, E 2007, ‘Basic Income and Employment in Brazil’, Basic Income Studies, vol. 2,  no. 1.

 

How do humans interact with the environment through indoor pot plants?

A neoliberal capitalist perception of ‘wilderness’ influences how we relate to the environment, as it is perceived to exist merely for human control and exploitation. This may make the reader think of mines, or other physical representations of human exploiting and controlling nature, but I think this also describes our way of segregating the environment into designated areas for it to be ‘wild’ and of its own entity. For example, National Parks.

Humans’ cultural perceptions decide which species of flora or fauna are endangered and worth controlling to preserve, and which species of flora or fauna are ‘alien’, or ‘invasive’ and ‘require mass killing’ to control numbers. An example of this is the Cane Toad, it is culturally normal to discuss ways of killing the cane toad, and possibly more efficient ways of killing more cane toads. It’s important to recognise this is a cultural construction.

I think that the way society understands the environment today is interestingly controlled. With all the discussion of climate change and environmental degradation due to development, we as a society rush towards attempting to ‘control’ or ‘protect’ the environment. Which is great, I’m a millennial, lets save the rainforests and stop coral bleaching, am I right? However I’d like to explore how we understand this control of nature in our personal, middle-class, Australian and suburban lives?

Attempts to ‘control’ and ‘protect’ the environment and be seen through national parks, parks in suburbs, gardening or pot plants. Society today sees the environment as a sacred and vulnerable source of life.

This sacred and vulnerable source of life ‘needs our protection and control’ and if we put a beautiful piece of this environment into a pot plant, water it, and control its growth, and treat it as a religious shrine in our modern day homes, we may be able to reap the benefits.

I recognise this is a critical way of viewing what seems to be a simple, decorative indoor plant, and as I write this as I reflect on all the indoor plants in my house. I find this interesting as they are perceived to connect you to the ‘wild environment’ and to ‘natural’ beauty. However, it’s a controlled, illusion that the pot plant is in tune with nature and connects the owner to nature. This is because the very essence of a pot plant is that it is living within a boundary, controlled by me, unable to be the wild self that it is. It relies on me watering it and putting it in the sun. It is totally dependent. ‘Wilderness’ and the ‘environment’ is not dependant, the definition of ‘wild’ does not include someone watering it and putting it in the sun on weekends.

So what are pot plants? Are they are a halfway house for nature? Neither part of the human world, nor part of the natural ‘wild’? They are for human consumption, just like everything else under a neoliberal framework. They are a greenwashed, consumable item that when purchased adds to a ‘naturistic’, ‘greenthumb’, ‘wild’ and ‘eco-warrior’ ego.

But I’ll keep my indoor, controlled, capitalist plants, they can continue to be exploited by me. I like the way they look. I like the way they make me feel. I can live within my illusion of them connecting me to nature. I giggle to myself as I write this, knowing I will never look at a pot plant the same.

By seeking Fiddle Leaf tame the earth, we have taken upon ourselves the burden of tending and caring for the garden we have sought to make of it. We have become responsible for the earth, and must now accept the moral consequences of that fact. In caring for the earth and its creatures we must also learn to care for ourselves, because taming nature with respect and love means taming ourselves as well.

Cronon (1993: 19)

Pop Culture Christianity – By John Hundley

Is Hillsong Church a Society of Spectacle?

In 1967 French Marxist theorist and writer Guy Debord published The Society of Spectacle, a work which resonates more clearly now than ever before. In this text Debord describes a society driven purely by image and representation. The true nature of reality has been distorted by this image driven society where representation replaces genuine interaction and experience.

This phenomena can be observed in all levels of society from politics, to business, to entertainment. To compete with these institutions some religions have transformed themselves into a modern day spectacle fighting for our attention. Enter Hillsong. A Pentecostal megachurch located in Sydney that is now a worldwide spiritual superpower. Founded in 1983 by Frank Houston and now led by his son Brian Houston, Hillsong continues to redefine contemporary Christianity and provides a wealth of examples to explore the society of spectacle in a religious setting.

Hillsong has created a label for its music under the banner ‘Hillsong United’ and has released over 40 albums and sold more than 11 million copies worldwide. Marion Maddox states in her article Rise Up Princess Warriors that it doesn’t stop there, that the church continues to delve into the consumer market by offering goods and services such as DVDs, books, podcasts and televised services that are available in over 180 countries. John Connell, a University of Sydney professor specialising in social development, argues that such evangelical churches as this espouse a ‘privatisation of religion’. Clearly Jesus isn’t marketable enough when contained in the pages between Matthew and Revelations.

Wade and Hynes in their article Worshipping Bodies state that “For Hillsong, the ultimate products on offer (meaning and salvation) are themselves immaterial in nature. The challenge, then, is to attach these products to the immateriality of the Hillsong brand”

This is in turn is what leads to the society of spectacle that is visible in most mainstream franchise Pentecostalist church around the globe. The modern church setting is no longer a cold and dark space, instead it closely resembles a business or conference centre with a modern minimalist design and feel. The services follow a highly structured routine that begins with praise and worship songs played by the Hillsong band live with lyrics projected onto screens near the stage so everyone can join in. These songs are a complete turnaround from old style hymns and chants and instead could be classified as the pop/rock genre. The songs are simple, catchy and are accompanied by guitar and synth solos. The music is styled as such because as McIntyre states in her article Brand of Choice “At Hillsong, God is experienced through music and it is the medium through which one connects with God and the congregation”. There are lights, fog machines, artworks and stage props that wouldn’t look out of place at a music festival. The messages often feature as Maddox states “prominent references to personal self-transformation, motivation, self-belief, and prosperity” with only a small slathering of Bible verses to supplement. The message almost sound like a self-help seminar instead of regular teaching from the Bible.

These services as Wade and Hynes argue “rival in sensory stimulation any other contemporary form of entertainment”. Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan famously stated that the “medium is the message” and the message in this sense is thus… A spectacle is required to keep believers in attendance. The traditional service has become “experience orientated” Michelle McIntyre claims. In an effort to represent Christianity on modern terms, megachurches must now contend in the public sphere for the attention and loyalty of ‘consumers’, and consequently have to make church entertaining. The traditional meaning of church has been replaced with a new representation, one that emphasises the spectacle. Hillsong Church has spread around the globe and has ‘franchises’ in Los Angeles, Madrid, Berlin, Johannesburg, Singapore and even India. Tim Foster states that this can be called religious imperialism.

So why a pop culture Christianity?

If people are drawn to entertainment than clearly Hillsong is the most entertaining and accessible institution within the sphere of Christianity. Hillsong projects an image of a faith that is modern, creative, fun and unrestricted that makes it highly attractive to potential adherents. Church goers today do not want traditional hymns and a bible based message. They want loud rock style music with, concert style lighting and stage setting with a motivational speaker who preaches about the health and wealth gospel. The goal for the church may be genuine with a desire to see people come to Christ or much less meek and mild like turning over $100 million dollars a year whilst retaining a tax free status.

Nevertheless it is clear that Hillsong can be defined as a society of spectacle.

This piece is written by John Hundley ☺️