For those who have an interest in Basic Income, here is the final (improved) version of the talk I gave in Wellington, NZealand on March 26/98 to the annual meeting of the Universal Basic Income NZ group. Feel free to quote, post, etc., to arouse interest in the BI concept. (Please delete the earlier draft). The conference was excellent and I am much impressed with the energy and effective planning of the people involved. I'm looking forward to the Basic Income European Network (BIEN) conference in Amsterdam in September, and hope that we in Canada and the US can get effective BI advocacy groups started so that we can link with the growing number of groups worldwide. Sally Lerner New Zealand UBI Conference March 26-28/98: Keynote/Public Address BASIC INCOME: Sowing the Seeds, Ensuring the Harvest Sally Lerner, Faculty of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Introduction I am very honoured that Ian Ritchie invited me to be your keynote speaker, especially since Ian has done such a fine job himself of laying the UBI cards on the table. You can't say it better than he did at a conference on unemployment in 1996: "The provision of health services, educational opportunities, housing support for the least well off and the provision of other public services I call the social contract--what we have in return for our taxes...The inclusion of a universal basic income, the cash component of the social wage, is the key piece in the jigsaw..giving the measure of security required for people to feel they have real choices." And so that they can become truly creative. Ian then called for wide public discussion of "what the collective components of the operation of our society should be", and of how to finance them. That discussion is happening now--in New Zealand and Australia, in Canada, in Brazil, in Britain and Ireland, in numerous countries in Europe. It's an evolving discussion, constantly raising questions, addressing uncertainties, proposing innovations. It's an open debate, not a closed church--many different voices are heard supporting and testing different views of a basic-income society and versions of a BI program--BI for whom, how much, how unconditional, how can we afford it, how can it become politically acceptable? At a December 1996 OECD 'Forum for the Future', "a universal citizen's income" was identified as one of four innovative approaches to finding "the balance between economic flexibility and societal cohesion" (OECD 1997). The OECD's consideration of the concept is compelling evidence that fundamental changes in the nature of work, driven by the twin engines of economic globalization and rapid technological change, require serious attention. It is imperative that decision makers be pressed into discussions of alternative ways of ensuring basic economic security for all citizens of the rapidly-industrializing world. Like Ian Ritchie and others, I believe that a politically sustainable BI must be embedded in a certain kind of societal soil, a broad kind of social contract, and that's one thing I want to talk about tonight, in the context of how to create public support for a universal basic income and how to provide the societal supports that ensure positive outcomes from it. The UBI is about power and freedom. Just as domination of some by others is as old as human history, so too is the desire to control one's own life and work. The UBI represents an important step forward in that quest for "real freedom"--but it is a step that frightens many people. One the one hand, because the UBI threatens existing power structures, those who benefit from the status quo--and also have influential political and media links--are strongly motivated to denigrate and defeat any serious consideration of providing income without requiring employment. But many ordinary people also find freedom frightening. At this moment in history, UBI is necessary, it is just and it can be liberating. Our challenge is to make the case for why it is necessary and just, while reducing people's fear of freedom by giving substance to visions of a better quality of life. More about fear of freedom later. Background I want first to examine briefly the context for public discussion of the concept of basic income in its many variations--citizen's income, social wage, participation income. I won't dwell on the nature of the fundamental economic and technological changes that are occuring globally, because these have been extensively documented and discussed. (See, for example, Duffy,Glenday and Pupo 1997; Wolman and Colamosca 1997; Greider 1997; Reid 1996; Korten 1995; Rifkin 1995; Simai 1995; Barnet and Cavanagh 1994;aronowitz and Difazio 1994; Freeman and Soete 1994; Lerner 1994; lipietz 1992; Reich 1992.) Over the past two decades, policy makers in New Zealand, Britain and Canada have moved from 'European-style' social democratic initiatives that supported investment in community well-being--and the universality that made this politically acceptable--toward increasing infatuation with the 'tougher' U.S. stance. The U.S. model has favoured targeted social spending, yet has widened the gap between rich and poor while holding down official unemployment figures by proliferating low-wage McJobs and prison sentences. See if any of this sounds familiar to you here in New Zealand. Where this model prevails, middle and low-income families have been losing ground, and more jobs are part-time, low-paid and precarious. The rich grow wealthier, a few obscenely so, while insecurity and anxiety about employment prevails among the rest of the population. Re-engineering, downsizing, 'rightsizing' in all their versions create increasing numbers of underemployed, insecurely employed and unemployed (Reid 1996; The National Forum on Family Security 1993). While youth unemployment is publicly discussed as the most urgent problem, in Canada "for every unemployed young person under 30, there are now almost two unemployed older workers" (Foot, 1997). While there is still strong public resistance in Canada to abandoning the vulnerable and less fortunate in society, there has been an unrelenting effort to 'manufacture consent' for substantial reductions in a wide range of provincial and federal social expenditures. Politicians promote training as the ultimate panacea for unemployment and poverty. They refuse to question whether there will be jobs for all who want and need them. While upgrading basic literacy, numeracy and computer skills can be viewed with more favour than specific training for jobs that may never materialize, there are concerns about raising the hopes for employment of those in training programs without some certainty that secure, adequately-waged jobs will be available for them. No one can say what those 'good' jobs might be, since it's forecast that only about 20 per cent of North Americans will be needed for highly paid "symbolic-analyst" positions. More recently, the spread of 'elite' knowledge skills around the globe calls into question the job and pay security of even that sector (Wolman and Colamosca 1997). Low-skilled repetitive production work that stays in North America and other developed countries will gradually be automated, leaving a large number of those in the labour force with the option of low-paid "person-to-person" service jobs in the health care, tourism, and hospitality sectors (Reich 1992). The possibility of a future that even slightly resembles these scenarios suggests the need for immediate innovative planning if social cohesion in such countries as New Zealand and Canada is to be maintained. Looking for Answers Despite the fundamental changes in the nature of work, there is great reluctance, on the part of the general public as well as among bureaucrats and politicians, to examine scenarios and options for the future other than 'full employment' as it has traditionally been conceived. Yet, contradicting this as a goal is the constant call from the private sector for 'labour flexibility', which translates to 'just-in-time' contingent and part-time workers whose lower wages and minimal or no benefits make them less costly. How can these visions of work be reconciled? Answers currently on offer veer from reducing job demand to increasing job supply. Some spread-the-work advocates promote a 32-hour work week ( e.g. O'Hara 1993) and more worker control. Others quietly promote the idea that 'someone' should be at home with the kids. Business interests advocate reduced payroll taxes, while some government decision makers talk of legislated overtime reduction and other ways of creating stronger employment demand. But there is no serious discussion of a near-future with far too few secure, adequately-waged jobs for those who seek them, and much of what we use and consume provided by smart machines. Neither the dangers nor the opportunities of these new realities are being seriously addressed. While employed people are working longer hours than ever before, it is not clear how many new jobs would be created by reduction of overtime work or even of the standard work week by as much as 10 hours. The wide range of policy proposals and pilot projects that have focused on reduction of individual work time as one way to address a diminishing supply of traditional paid jobs suggest that what could be most effective in this respect is an innovative mix of shorter work weeks, job sharing, and sabbatical leaves, earlier retirement from full-time employment and replacing job-related taxes with resource-use taxes (Merry, 1997; Gorz 1985; Reid 1986). Many analysts see this working only in conjunction with some form of assured basic income program. Giving workers more control over their jobs might in some circumstances be a positive move toward better distribution of paid work. Studies suggest that jobs which allow individuals to exercise discretion over their work activities lead to enhanced well-being and mental health (Warr and Wall 1975) and make better use of people's talents, education and acquired skills (Livingstone 1997). Perhaps workers with effective control over their working lives in regionally-based firms might have different ideas than multi-nationals' managers and shareholders about how paid work could be shared among the greatest number (Morrison 1991). What we need now are studies of how technological change might be handled in organizations with different types of worker control over job re-design, and over decisions about job security and long-term planning Environmental constraints will increasingly have to be factored into the new realities. Large public or private sector employment-creation projects often involve construction, mining, and similar activities that create jobs at the cost of negative, often massive, environmental impacts. While some projects, such as rebuilding infrastructure, can address real societal needs, initiatives are often undertaken for political reasons and with little or no long-term vision, as when wider highways or costly energy facilities are seen as desirable job-creation schemes, while the employment potential of alternative transportation and energy conservation options is ignored (Renner, 1991). In the last analysis, if there are not going to be enough secure, full-time, adequately-waged jobs in the future, both justice and societal interest dictate that we not continue to penalize and stigmatize people who cannot find such positions, or who cannot cobble together a living by holding two or three sub-standard jobs or contingent serial contracts. All people should have the means to live decently, and beyond that it is in the societal interest that everyone be able and motivated to participate fully and positively in community life. The economic costs to society of long-term unemployment, as well as the damage to individual mental health and to family and community functioning are well-understood--substance abuse, family breakdown, mental health problems, even suicide (e.g. Newman 1993). Basic Income: the Necessary Foundation How can we best look after our interests in this post-industrial era of new technologies and a globalizing economy? Most people sincerely believe that the only path to a bright future lies in trying to return to a time of traditional 'full employment'. They argue that the private sector will create jobs if more tax breaks and other incentives appear, that the public sector could become the employer of last resort, that a 32-hour work week would spread existing employment around, that well-designed training can deliver skilled workers, and that a more entrepreneurial culture would spawn myriad small businesses to create countless new jobs for them. Undoubtedly there is some truth in each of these claims. But there are also difficulties with each in terms of implementation, long-term effectiveness, or political acceptability. None of these societal strategies--alone or even in combination-- can be considered fully adequate to deal with the problems associated with massive long-term structural unemployment (Ekins 1986; Robertson 1989). Neither can a traditional short-term social safety net that was designed for a full-employment society. There is really no turning back to older welfare-state models, as tempting as that may be. To reduce human suffering, avoid probable unpleasant socio-political consequences, protect the environment and provide a new framework for all people to contribute positively to societal well-being, policy makers must, sooner rather than later, in consultation with an informed public, begin to design and implement feasible alternative approaches to distributing work, income, goods and services. At the very least, from a self-interested perspective, this will be required to maintain social stability and a healthy consumer economy. The essence of the new realities is that while wealth continues to be created, there is less need for people's labour in manufacturing and many services--and when human labour is needed, increasingly it can be found in low-wage countries. It is time to consider how to de-couple income from traditional 'jobs' that are not there for everyone. The extent to which, and how rapidly, many forms of waged work will be phased out is still controversial. Certainly it is difficult for most people to envision a society and, eventually, a world where relatively few workers can provide all needed goods and services. Yet there are clear signs that such a world is taking shape, and responses are being formulated in other societies. In his most recent work, one respected French analyst, Andre Gorz (1985, 1997) advocates "the universal and unconditional allocation of a basic income [sufficient to live on] that can be topped up by labour income [as] the best lever to distribute as widely as possible both paid and unpaid activities" (1997:140-141). Or listen to Claus Offe, professor of social policy at Berlin's Humboldt University and long-time proponent of 'citizens' income': "As long as most wage earners contribute to the production of wealth, the problem of distributing wealth is solved by each individual's employment contract and the family support and social security arrangements tied to it. Once this ceases to be the case and this supposedly 'normal' condition...has disappeared for good, the problem of distribution can be solved only by establishing specific economic rights that all citizens grant each other as a component of their citizenship. The central idea of a 'citizens' income' consists in the right to sufficient income not conditional upon gainful employment..." (1996) There is good and useful work that needs doing in our communities. We should begin a reasoned discussion of the rationale for and ways to provide a basic income as a right to all citizens, so that people can get on with this work. Whether this BI would be unconditional or conditioned on people's engagement in work involving needed activities for the community, the environment and the general social good (Giarini 1997)--or designed in any one of the myriad other ways that are being discussed--must be the subject of public consultation and decision (e.g., Merry 1997; Murray 1997; Macarov 1996; Goudzwaard and de Lange 1994; Hirst 1994; Van Parijs 1992; Robertson 1992; Walter 1989; Kitchen 1986; Wolfson 1986). Deciding how to finance a basic income will be a central component of public debate about the concept. The question has been considered in a number of countries as well as here, and current ideas focus on a range of possibilities: savings from collapsing most of the social service bureaucracy, a 'Tobin tax' on currency speculation (ul Haq et al, 1996), a very small 'bit tax' on all electronic transactions (Cordell and Ide, 1997), a variety of changes to income and corporate taxes, user-pay charges on use of non-renewable resources. It is hard to imagine that the ingenious armies of economists and accountants will fail to come up with a feasible means, once the desired end result is specified. The Irish are showing the way with a recently-completed set of financing plans for a national basic income (Clark and Healy 1997). It's time for policy makers across the globe to address the issue and to evaluate national models such as the one Lowell Manning will be presenting here tomorrow night. A well-conceived, viable basic income program can serve as the foundation upon which to build a more human, and humane, way of life. While entrepreneurs will still flourish, everyone can share what waged work there is with full basic economic security, free to devote more energy to family concerns, community service, learning and self-development. In time, as people begin to lead more balanced lives, societal values will adjust to recognize the value of these varied activities and accord recognition appropriately for the many kinds of 'good work' that income security permits. Growing a Better Future Finally, I want to explicitly examine two stages in the cultivation of a hardy and sustainable Universal Basic Income -- and I think they are relevant for most of the countries where it is being discussed: First, there is the preparation of the soil for the successful germination and establishment of Basic Income as an idea that is 'right' and whose time has come --among enough voters to make it politically viable; and second, there is the ongoing nurturing, pruning and problem solving that will be required to keep a Basic Income program healthy and humanly productive. How best might a positive, non-regressive version of basic income be introduced into the existing socio-economic and ideological mainstream in New Zealand or Canada, France or Ireland? In preparing the soil, I believe the greatest challenge is winning minds and hearts to the idea of Basic Income, initially by twigging people's sense of justice in the context of the injustices and absurdities of the status quo. As Professor Jane Kelsey of the University of Auckland puts it in her excellent book, Economic Fundamentalism : "By 1995, after a decade of radical structural change, New Zealand had become a highly unstable and polarised society. Its underskilled, under-employed, low wage, low inflation, high exchange rate, export-driven society was totally exposed to international economic forces. The victims of the market were forced to depend on a shrinking welfare safety net or private charity. What were once basic priorities--collective responsibility, redistribution of resources and power, social stability, democratic participation and the belief that human beings were entitled to live and work in security and dignity--seemed to have been left behind" (1995:350) This same statement, with minor changes, could be made today about Canada. We too were told that "there is no alternative", that we had to reduce government deficits, the same phrases drummed over and over by the obedient media. We too were denied democratic participation in decisions such as signing the North American Free Trade Agreement. This is what I mean by the injustices and absurdities of the status quo. Because, as Jane Kelsey and many of us argue, there are alternatives The next challenge, then, is to articulate clearly and compellingly the major arguments and rationales for seriously considering the introduction of a Basic Income now--in New Zealand and Canada, let's say. These will be familiar to many of you. Rifkin (1995), Alperovitz (1994) and others see a UBI as a sharing of the increased productivity created by new technologies. The OECD highlights its suitability for maintaining a flexible labour force, encouraging enterprise, creativity and self-employment. A UBI would let paid and unpaid work to be shared more fairly and could open up employment for the low-skilled while giving them sufficient income to participate in society. A UBI would mean more real choice of jobs, and higher pay for the most unpleasant jobs in society. There would be work for all who want it, the poverty trap could be avoided, civil unrest prevented and consumer spending maintained among people most likely to contribute to local economies. Most urgently, at the moment, the idea of a basic income needs to be compellingly presented as a near-term necessity--in view of the fundamental changes in the nature and security of work--and as a rightful dividend for taxpayers' social investment in health, law and order, education, research and development, and infrastructure over many decades -- social investment that has made possible the current technology-based prosperity enjoyed by the private sector (Alperovitz 1994). If the idea of a BI is to take root, reasonable questions must be addressed. What about universality--a BI for every individual, including children and young people? This is extremely controversial and really separates supporters of BI from those who continue to believe that targetted help for the most disadvantaged is the way to continue. Many believe that universality would bolster political support for a BI and eliminate the poverty trap. And that if some people chose to live on that income and devote their time to a range of unpaid activities--well and good, since there are not enough paid jobs to go around anyway What about conditionality--should the BI require some type of socially-useful work in return? Again, this question sharply divides opinion. Many believe, and I am among them, that changing how we educate children and what we reward in our societies will gradually produce a citizenry that blends paid work, community service, parenting and self-development into a richer way of life than one based centrally on paid work. Others, of course, fear free riders and a deterioration of people into couch potatoes. Yet workfare--forcing people to work or to train--seems to have many problems, including downgrading volunteer activities and pushing employed people out of jobs. Universality and unconditionality need a great deal of public discussion to move beyond understandable knee-jerk reactions against the idea of a UBI. This is where it's important to understand fear of freedom as a product of socialization and habituation. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, most people have served the economy by learning--first at school, then on the job--to follow orders, stifle impulse, ask few questions, make no waves. Survival through adaptation is the human advantage. So people have come to need and depend on their job routines to give their lives form and--if not always meaning--at least some justification. Having no paid job--unemployment--means for most people shame, guilt, empty days, sometimes mental breakdown. So when we advocate a UBI, it's not only the few with vested interests in the wage-labour control system who oppose it, who predict a slide into degeneracy if people get 'something for nothing'. Polls have shown that a majority of the general population in a number of countries find themselves unable to accept the idea of a UBI. We need to understand why. The reasons are no doubt many and complex, including the feeling that 'others' would take unfair advantage of this as a 'free ride' as well as people's inability to imagine a less consumerist lifestyle. But I also suspect that many people cannot envision--and so are afraid of--a life where they would be much freer to decide what they would do with their time--where gender roles are more fluid, where more free time would allow more involvement with their children, with the community, with the many other activities that humans find challenging, intriguing and satisfying. In an influential 1941 book, Escape from Freedom , Erich Fromm examined people's overwhelming need for order, meaning and purpose in their lives. He saw the unemployment, humiliation and disorientation of the Germans after WWI as a key factor in their acceptance of Hitler's grandiose visions and brutal final solution--their escape into the seeming order and certainty of authoritarianism. It can be argued that without a UBI program embedded in a supportive civil society, the gradual disappearance of adequately-waged secure employment will inevitably be experienced as downward mobility and disgrace by those affected. What can follow is resentment, anger and the search for scapegoats--a breakdown of civil society. Of course, other needs that people meet through their employment are less dramatic, but equally genuine: needs for friendship, socializing, bolstering self-esteem and developing new skills. Even people who say they 'hate' their jobs often say they would miss the people they work with. In short, most of us have grown up in societies where our entire lives from childhood on through to retirement have largely been programmed for us by others. And we have been taught that this is fine, this is what life is, this is what security is. Most of us have come to depend on our working lives for both a livelihood and an identity. So it is not puzzling that people resist the idea of 'real freedom' that the UBI represents. My point here is that public rejection of the concept of a UBI cannot be successfully overcome unless we understand what social norms it violates and what fears it raises-- and respond directly to those fears. As Keith Rankin suggests, we need to present the UBI in a way that pushes debate toward these issues, and away from hte tired old opposition based on 'how to pay for it?' and 'it will create layabouts.' So in preparing the soil to grow support for a UBI, what is the needed societal mix of reassurance and challenge? Certainly secure access to adequate affordable food, housing, health care, education and recreation is key to people welcoming a UBI approach to meeting basic needs in the face of insecure and diminished paid employment opportunities. Equally important, people will need complete information about the options that UBI opens up to them--better parentling, community service, music and art schools, environmental projects, assisting teachers, the possibilities are nearly infinite--as well as the opportunity to participate in decisions about what investments in community life and well-being should be made. Before they will accept a UBI, people need reassurance that they, and others, would still be able to stay connected, engaged, rewarded, able to find meaning and self-esteem in a life that might not revolve around a 9 to 5 paid job. And they need to know that full-time employment would still be a standard option. How to deliver the messages, counter the mass media? It must begin with the youngest children in school. More of that in a moment. A second challenge is to ensure the harvest--that is, to create the long-term societal commitments that will be needed if a BI program is to promote the positive changes in the lives of people and their communities that we argue it will. In addition to access to health care, housing, education, and child care--all of which offer not only basic security but also worthwhile opportunities for community engagement--ensuring a positive BI harvest will require education for community engagement and self-development. Beginning in early childhood, this would emphasize 'doing and being' through useful work as well as the arts, music and other forms of expression. Teachers of the youngest children, and then of the older, would learn to encourage questioning, exploration, problem solving, community service, individual initiative and cooperative projects. With more varied daily life possible because of the BI, adults of all ages will gradually make engagement in useful and stimulating activities a family way of life. It is not too utopian to imagine that, with imaginative leadership, gardening, environmental protection, community clean-ups, service to seniors and myriad more active rather than passive activities will largely replace TV and video games as sources of enjoyment. Too, people less exhausted by the 'rat race' will have less need to 'veg out.' Those who choose to live simply with less income in a basic income society will find many models. The phenomenal success of the book, Your Money or Your Life (Dominguez and Robin, 1992) and other guides to 'voluntary simplicity' suggest that a substantial minority of people in affluent societies are ready for this change. Such current re-discoveries as co-housing, LETS-type barter operations, bicycling, community gardens, local computer access, recycling building material and clothes, and many more--all testify to the possibility of creating better living through less materialism and more sharing. Education has been key to this change--the idea of 'sustainable communities' has travelled and found advocates. With it has come the vision of more self-reliance--for people and their communities. More home-grown food and locally-produced products; more self-maintained health through prevention; more sports and entertainment involving local people rather than packaged for them; more community cooperation to put community capital to work to realize community goals. These are the ways in which we can ensure that a BI program will yield the healthy harvest --the good life--that we believe is everyone's right in our affluent societies. Then, perhaps, we can turn our thoughts to a fairer sharing of the earth's bounty with the rest of the world's people. References G. Alperovitz, "Distributing our technological inheritance", Technology Review, October 1994, 32-36 S. Aronowitz and W. DiFazio, The Jobless Future (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994). R. J. Barnet and J. Cavanagh, Global Dreams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994). L. Chancer, "Benefitting from pragmatic vision: the case for guaranteed income in principle" in S. Aronowitz and J. Cutler (eds.) Post-Work: the wages of cybernation (New York: Routledge, 1998) C. Clark and J. Healy, Pathways to a Basic Income (Milltown Park, Dublin: Conference of Religious of Ireland [CORI], 1997). A. Cordell and R. Ide, The New Wealth of Nations (Toronto: Between the Lines Press, 1997) J. Dominguez and V. Robin, Your Money or Your Life (New York: Viking Penguin, 1992) A. Duffy, D. Glenday and N. Pupo (eds.), Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, No Jobs: The Transformation of Work in the 21st Century (Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company, Canada, 1997) P. Ekins,The Living Economy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986) D. Foot, "Youth unemployment: a 'bust' priority". Globe and Mail, October 14, 1997 C. Freeman and L. Soete, Work for All or Mass Unemployment: Computerised Technical Change into the 21st Century (London: Pinter Publishers, 1994) E. Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960, c1941) O. Giarini, "Some considerations on the future of work: redefining productive work", in M. Simai (ed.),Global Employment: An International Investigation into the Future of Work, Vol. 1 (London:Zed Books and Tokyo:United Nations University Press, 1995) A. Gorz, Paths to Paradise: On the Liberation from Work (London: Pluto Press, 1985). _______, Miseres du present, richesse du possible (Paris:Galilee, 1997) B. Goudzwaard and H. de Lange, Beyond Poverty and Affluence:Towards a Canadian Economy of Care (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994) W. Greider, One World, Ready or Not (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1997) P. Hirst, Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1994) J. Kelsey, Economic Fundamentalism (London: Pluto Press, 1995) B. Kitchen, A Guaranteed Income: A New Look at an Old Idea (Toronto: The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 1986) D. C. Korten, When Corporations Rule the World (San Franciso,CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1995) S. Lerner, "The future of work in North America: good jobs, bad jobs, beyond jobs", Futures, March 1994, 26/2: 185-196 A. Lipietz, Towards a New Economic Order: Postfordism, Ecology and Democracy (Oxford,UK:Oxford University Press, 1992) D. Livingstone," The limits of human capital theory: expanding knowledge, informal learning and underemployment", Policy Options, July-August, 1997 D. Macarov, "The employment of new ends:planning for permanent unemployment" in A. Shostak (special ed.) Impacts of Changing Employment: If the Good Jobs Go Away , Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 544, March 1996:191-202 P. Merry, Why Work? (Edinburgh: Human Ecology Centre, 1997) M. L. Murray, "...And Economic Justice for All" (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1997) National Forum on Family Security, Family Security in Insecure Times (Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development, 1993) K. S. Newman, Declining Fortunes: The Withering of the American Dream (New York: Basic Books, 1993) OECD, Societal Cohesion and the Globalizing Economy (Paris: OECD, 1997) C. Offe, 'Full employment:asking the wrong question?' in The Rationality of the Welfare State, E. Eriksen and J. Loftager (eds.) (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996) B. O'Hara, Working Harder Isn't Working (Vancouver: New Star Press, 1993) R. Reich, The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for the 21st Century (New York: Knopf, 1992) A. Reid, Shakedown:How the New Economy is Changing Our Lives (Toronto:Doubleday Canada Ltd, 1996) F. Reid, "Combating unemployment through work time reductions", Canadian Public Policy, 1986, 12/2: 275-285 M. Renner, Jobs in a Sustainable Economy - Worldwatch Paper 104 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 1991) J. Rifkin, The End of Work (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1995). J. Robertson, Future Wealth: a New Economics for the 21st Century (London: Cassell Publishers Ltd., 1989) M. Simai (ed.),Global Employment: An International Investigation into the Future of Work, Vol. 1 (London:Zed Books and Tokyo:United Nations University Press, 1995) M.ul Haq, I. Kaul, I. Grunberg (eds.), The Tobin Tax: coping with financial volatility (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) P. Van Parijs, Arguing for Basic Income: Ethical Foundations for a Radical Reform (London: Verso Press, 1992) T. Walter, Basic Income: Freedom from Poverty, Freedom to Work (London: Marion Boyars, 1989) P. Warr and T. Wall, Work and Well-Being (Hammondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1975) M. Wolfson, "A guaranteed income", Policy Options , January 1986:36. W. Wolman and A. Colamosca, The Judas Economy (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1997)
