| |
|
|
[Print-friendly version]
A variety of contemporary academic papers on topics pertinent to Universal Basic
Income may be accessed and downloaded from this page.
- Harriss, Ian and Robbins, Bill. (2007) From Harvester to Work Choices. A paper presented at 10th Annual Labour History Conference - Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Melbourne 4-6 July 2007.
- Atkinson, A. B. (2000). The
Case for a Participation Income in Goodin, Robert E. and Mitchell,
Deborah, Thefoundations of the welfare state volume I, Cheltenham, Glos:
Edward Elgar Publishing Inc, pp.459-462.
Library Note: This portion is part of a larger pager range: Pp 109 - 118;
221 - 258 and 459 - 462 +
- Boston, J. and St John, S. (1999). Targeting
Versus Universality: Social Assistance for All or Just for the Poor in
Boston, J; Danziel, P and St John, S (eds), Redesigning the welfare state
in New Zealand, Auckland: Oxford University, pp.93-113.
- Tomlinson, John (2006) "The self made man: admiring his creator": Basic Income beats targeted welfare New Community Quarterly,4 (4), Summer 2006,pp. 52-55, http://www.borderlands.org.au/ncq/
- Tomlinson, John (2007) "Australia: Basic Income and Decency" New Community Quarterly, 5 (1), Autumn 2007, pp.33-41, http://www.borderlands.org.au/ncq/
- ‘There but for the Grace
of Wealth Go I’, John Tomlinson, 1997
Dependency as well as implying looking to another person or institution for
support also means ‘subordination or subjection; (for example) the dependence
of the church upon the state’ (Delbridge, et al 1987 p. 476).
- 'Income
Support in An Open Economy: Basic Income Revisited' 10 Proceedings
papers from the 1995 Basic Income Seminar published by the
Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS) and Good Shepherd Youth and Family
Services. In order of appearance, the authors are Sue Jackson, Michael
Raper, Peter Baldwin, Rob Watts, Belinda Probert, Bettina Cass, Peter Saunders,
Jocelyn Pixley, John Tomlinson and David Knoop.
- 'How Dare We' John
Tomlinson. Paper presented at the 10th National Conference on Unemployment
the 5th Path to Full Employment Conference and the 10th National Conference
on Unemployment, December 2003 at CofFEE, The Centre of Full Employment and
Equity, The University of Newcastle, NSW. Australia.
- ‘One Basic Way to mitigate
the effects of Unemployment’
7th National Conference on Unemployment University of Western Sydney December
2000
Because most people excluded from the labour market for lengthy periods have
few other ways of obtaining income, the structure and style of implementing
the system of income support substantially determines the standard of living
and degree of security experienced by low-income earners.
Governments throughout the English speaking western world have imposed means
testing, targeted benefits, activity testing and 'mutual obligation' regimes
to discourage those without paid work from becoming 'dependent' on the State.
These governments are determined to limit the amount of income support so
as discourage people remaining on benefits.
Ministers often claim they are determined to encourage people to find alternative
to ‘living on welfare’ in order to prevent ‘dependency’
(Newman 1999).The Australian Government has worked hard to try and ensure
there is a financial benefit obtained by people being employed compared with
receiving unemployment benefits. These features constitute the less eligibility
principle.
- Unemployment
welfare: The underpinning ethics justifying Australia’s enforced categorical
Mutual Obligation system compared with those for a Basic Income.
Simon Schooneveldt, Centre for Social Change Research, Queensland University
of Technology. Paper presented at the CofFEE Centre of Full Employment and
Equity Conference: The Full Employment Imperative, 5th Path to
Full Employment and 10th National Conference on Unemployment, 10 –
12 December 2003. The University of Newcastle, NSW. Australia.
Abstract Australia’s unemployment levels continue
to remain high enough to cause widespread social hardship. Casual, part
time workers and other ‘working poor’ now represent the majority
of Australian employees. Australia’s categorical or targeted and enforced
Mutual Obligation system for unemployed welfare recipients is based upon
ideology that has been popularly accepted as ethical, due to the use of
a metaphor of ‘giving something back in return’. This paper
examines the ethical underpinnings used to support and promote Australia’s
targeted Mutual Obligation system for unemployed welfare recipients, and
compares and contrasts those with the ethical underpinnings put forward
by proponents for an unconditional Basic Income.
-
Poverty Reduction and Welfare Provision for Single Parents in Aotearoa/ New Zealand and the United States: A Comparative Analysis (2007) Christine Todd. University of Auckland .Paper for USBIG Conference (Feb 2007)
- Tomlinson, John (1998) The
war on poverty. Published in Anarchist Age Monthly Review No
80. July
- Why
Australian Workers and Unions Should Support Basic Income
John Tomlinson, with assistance from Penny Harrington and Simon Schooneveldt
The journey to a full iniversal Basic Income is essentially the search
for the answer to just one question: "How do we best meet the income
support needs of all those who find they are without the capacity to provide
for themselves?" This paper will try to answer that question.
- From
Basic Wage to Basic Income: Work, Unemployment and Justice A
paper presented by John Tomlinson at the 5th Path to Full Employment Conference
and the 10th National Conference on Unemployment, December 2003 at CofFEE,
The Centre of Full Employment and Equity, The University of Newcastle, NSW.
Australia.
- MEDIATING
WELFARE ETHICS: SELECTIVITY OR UNIVERSALISM? Simon Schooneveldt. Centre
for Social Change Research, Queensland University of Technology. Key Words:
Welfare; Selectivity; Universalism; Ethics; Basic Income; Mutual Obligation;
Income Support. ABSTRACT:
Some of the underpinning ideologies that drive Australia’s selective
income support system are explored by examining the ethical justifications
used to support targeted welfare systems, which are driven by concepts such
as Mutual Obligation. Such justifications for selectivity are contrasted with
the ethical justifications that are used to promote the concept of Universalism
for income support, a concept that has been attracting increasing attention
in social science circles internationally.
Allan McDonald has issued a July
2005 Oasis Australian newsletter on IR changes which also looks at income
security for those not working: OASIS-Australia Organisation Advocating
Support Income Studies in Australia Convener: Allan McDonald 28 Prince St
Urangan Qld. 4655
email: allanmcd@keypoint.com.au
Tel: 07 4128 9971
Newsletter July 2005: The implications of the proposed changes to industrial
relations legislation
announced by the Australian Federal Government have prompted this revival
of the OASIS-Australia Newsletter. This response introduces two concepts
which I believe provide the basis for a new approach, and a new prespective
to the proposed changes. The present debate must continue. Is there a place
for the ideas put forward in this newsletter? I will appreciate your comments.
- Allan MC Donald Continues his 2005 series of papers on the current and controversial
Australian Industrial Relations Reform Legislation with an Oasis-Australia
Newsletter for August,
with a futher edition in October,
November and three in January 2006: January
4th, January
11th and January
14th with more to follow. See the Oasis
Australia Page under About Biga
- Keith
Rankin’s homepage
Keith Rankin has compiled a series of papers and refereed academic publications
on Basic Income on his web page within the UBINZ website. (Universal Basic
Income New Zealand).
|