Max Tallberg
Basic income is a central part of the vision presented by Global Visions for the future of the world. The distinctive feature of our model is that we believe that a basic income is a fundamental right for all citizens of the global world. This would guarantee the survival of all the people in the world and help everyone to live a good and dignified life, a life of their own.
What other changes then could a global basic income lead to? When it is granted, it would also be natural to introduce the idea of global citizenship. This would mean that all citizens of the world would be treated in the same way and that everyone would be given equal political status. Additionally, global basic income should be sufficiently consistent for all recipients. At the same time, this model would mean that the world would actually be organised according to the values of equality and justice. Basic income would also include freedom, as each recipient would be able to decide for themselves how to use that type of income. At the same time therefore, the model would combine equality and freedom—values that have usually been regarded to be difficult to combine.
A global basic income would also lead to a decrease and change in the form of the policies pursued on a global scale. By guaranteeing sufficiently equal financial support for all, politics would no longer solve the problems of inequality or the prioritisation of a particular group of people. Competition between countries also would be reduced. The central issues for politicians would mainly include to decide the right amount of basic income, and the definition of its regional variation. Left-wing politicians would probably like to increase the amount of basic income, while right-wingers would like to reduce it.
By guaranteeing equal forms of support to all the citizens of the world, the benefits of globalisation could also be more widely enjoyed. In this way, it could be accelerated and at the same time it could be ensured that everyone could enjoy its benefits equally. In such a world, it would also be decided together that any action that weakens the situation of an individual country should be implemented globally. This would be the only way to implement such measures, the positive impact of which on people’s well-being would be undeniable. Such measures include, for example, the fight against climate change, a reduction in the amount of work, higher taxation and possibly the preservation of the welfare state. Since an individual country cannot take these measures while maintaining its competitiveness, these reforms should be introduced in all the countries of the world.
In a world where globalisation would have reached its endpoint in this way, different decisions would also be viewed in a new way. For example, if we had decided together on the optimal degree of taxation and progressivity, the pursuit of a different tax base would achieve nothing. This would be a particularly important mechanism in the world state and in the world of the global citizen, and at the same time an advantage. In this way, the rules would at the same time be transparent, which would benefit all people, but also locked, which would ensure that they could not be circumvented. Transparency would mean that the best solution to each problem would be sought together, globally. Locked rules mean that the decision taken would be upheld. Thus for example, there would be only one legal and taxation system in the world, rather than one for each country. This would also apply to the fight against climate change and extinction. In addition, changes would only be made to the extent that they would affect and benefit the entire world. Such a convergence, combined with the absence of alternative solutions, would clarify both the world in general and economic thinking. In this way, the world would be both open and locked at the same time, and the two dimensions would work in synergy collectively to find the best overall solution. This could be called the globalisation of decisions.
Global basic income should therefore be equal in amount for all, in order to be morally justified. This idea could also be extended to the entire policy. It could be proposed that all public funds in the world and budgets earmarked for different sectors of society—such as subsidies for culture, sport, and healthcare—would be allocated in equal proportions worldwide. Thus, only the population and the level of development of the various regions would be considered. Greater sums of money would therefore be earmarked for densely populated areas, as well as for those which are still underdeveloped, so that each inhabitant would receive approximately the same amount of assistance as, for example, the inhabitants of sparsely populated rural areas. As an end result, all people would be supported in a sufficiently consistent way. If all forms of assistance were at the same level globally, the only question would be the impact of their volume on economic growth, employment, and inflation. This could be called basic income for different geographical areas. In this context, therefore, we could really begin to talk about the end of history and politics.
However, challenges could be related to what is perceived as a fair variation in the basic income between regions. If the variation were small enough, this approach could work; however, the principal form of support for an individual would be personal basic income, which would be sufficiently globally identical. In any case, the basic income allocated to the regions would in a new, radical, and actual way be both an equal and a fair model, so it would be easy to defend from a moral point of view. Even in such a situation, all citizens of the world would not feel the same resentment and envy towards each other or towards society, because everyone would be treated in the same way.
Another counterargument related to personal and regional basic income could be that they simplify politics and the world: they are not seen as a realistic, complex whole. One could argue that the situation in each country is so unique that it is not possible to influence the situation in the individual country sufficiently by distributing the same amount of money to everybody. This may be a relevant argument, but perhaps basic income could provide a sufficiently strong response, especially if it were at a sufficiently high level. We could also see a situation in which basic income, both personal and regional, is not the only form of assistance, but rather each region would also operate based on its own economy and tax revenue. However, a global basic income could lead to a situation where the world would be genuinely fair and equal, at least to a sufficient degree.
The third challenge for my model is that of incentives and solidarity. Would the more prosperous regions be prepared to accept that other regions would receive the same level of basic income? Would they be prepared to finance this to a greater extent than the less prosperous regions do? Perhaps the more prosperous regions would have the advantage of having a slightly higher basic income compared to the less prosperous. It is also clear that, at the same time, a new attitude of global solidarity would be required in order to have my model agreed. My model would guarantee that poorly performing regions and people would be supported whenever necessary. This would also mean that a more successful region would be supported when it would be worse off. This principle of reciprocity could help people to accept the model of global basic income. My model could also be more broadly acceptable if guaranteeing equal support and equal status for all, were intuitively workable and therefore also easily acceptable. I believe that this is the case.
Works cited:
Tallberg, Max 2022. A Citizen of a New Time: A Vision of a Better World. www.avisionofabetterworld.net.
