User talk:AugustRJ/sandbox

Clare's copyedit suggestions
The emancipatory value argument

Guy Standing has argued, based on SEWA's 2010-2013 Madhya Pradesh basic income pilot, that the emancipatory value of basic income exceeds its monetary value where money itself is a scarce commodity.[1] The emancipatory value is, according to Standing, greater because basic income has effects on the economic security of the receivers that goes beyond the increase in their income. He identifies three explanations for such effects: (i) While the basic income was used to reduce debt, it was also used to accumulate savings to be used in the case of sickness or other emergencies. In SEWA's basic income pilot the propensity to save was significantly higher among those who received the basic income. (ii) The basic income reduced the level and severity of indebtedness beyond the monetary value of the basic income by giving household access to credit on better terms. For example, it decreased the dependency on expensive loans from an oligopolistic money lending class by enabling friends and relatives to offer loans to each other. Moreover, the basic income provided incentives for moneylenders to offer lower interest rates and aided households in avoiding taking on new loans. (iii) On a community level, basic income may induce entrepreneurial efforts by reducing the consequences of failure. This may, in the long run, be beneficial for the economic security of a village as a whole. (iv) Basic income increased the resilience to economic shocks by enabling collective responses to individual hazards. (v) Furthermore, basic income functions as a secure source of revenue in times of economic insecurity.

Advantages compared to schemes such as the Indian Public Distribution System Guy Standing argues that contrary to IPDS, a basic income does not limit the choice of the recipient to a set of subsidized goods. Moreover, IPDS entails a higher cost associated with the distribution of goods which must be stored and transported by a branch of the government. This is particularly costly due to the decentralized nature of the ration shops currently characterizing Indian rural life. Standing also points to certain costs related to shortcomings of the current scheme. For instance, the provision of subsidized grain is in some cases uncertain, potentially putting families under the burden of debt, and women must in some cases spend hours singling out good grains from bad. These are, according to Standing, costs that a basic income, with its more decentralized structure, may reduce or avoid.

--Ctalwalker (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)