Citizen’s Basic Income in Brazil: From Bolsa Família to Pilot Experiments, with an Appendix: From Local to National: Mexico City and Basic Income, by Pablo Yanes

Abstract

Silva and Lima discuss the Bolsa Família, a national targeted income transfer programme, intended as a first step towards a ‘Citizenship Basic Income’ (defined as a Basic Income sufficient for basic needs). They also describe pilot experiments in four municipalities across Brazil. They conclude that some of the characteristics of the experiments conflict with the definition of Basic Income, and that the experiments are limited, both in the size of the populations covered, and in the monetary value of the benefits. In the appendix, Yanes describes the implementation of an unconditional pension in Mexico, first in Mexico City, and now nationwide; and he recounts debates in the Mexico City Council that nearly resulted in a Basic Income appearing in the city’s constitution.

Appendix: From Local to National—Mexico City and Basic Income

By Pablo Yanes

The Basic Income proposal has conquered a space within the public arena and within Mexican public discourse. Its presence in this space is part of a trajectory that, even if not linear and without setbacks, is clearly ascendant and seems to have reached a point of no return. In Mexico, one can be for or against Basic Income: but the idea can no longer be ignored or disregarded within public discourse. This process is the result of two decades of hard work. Even though essayist Gabriel Zaid had proposed the creation ofauniversal cash transfer equivalent to what we now call Basic Income in his book, Unproductive Progress (El Progreso Improductivo) during the 1970s, it was not until the beginning of this century that the Basic Income proposal began to be discussed in a growing and systematic fashion in Mexico. In this regard, the experiences of local governments and of the Constitution of Mexico City have been crucial.

In 2000, contrary to the dominant social policy tendencies in Mexico and Latin America, the Mexico City government (then the government of Mexico City, Federal District) headed by Andrés Manuel López Obrador (now President of Mexico, 2018–2024), created and implemented an unconditional and universalpensionfor all persons aged seventy years or more who resided in Mexico City, under the principles of universality, individuality, perpetuity, and unconditionality. A law establishing this pension as a demandable right was enacted three years later. Establishing resources for it within the city budget became mandatory. The law was amended a few years later in order to expand the rightholders to all persons aged sixty-eight years or older. In this way, the universal senior citizen’s pension’s cycle went from a programme, to a right, and later to an expansion in the rightholding population. From the standpoint of creating public policies with a human rights focus it possessed the attributes of universality, equality, non-discrimination, progressiveness, non-regressiveness, and demandability. Given that it was created and implemented during the peak and generalisation of targeted cash transfers in Latin America, the universal senior citizen’s pension of Mexico City was extremely innovative, a breath of fresh air in the debates around social policy. Other programmes implemented around the same time which also followed a similar ethos were Renta Dignidad in Bolivia and, partially, Asignación Universal por Hijo in Argentina.

Strictly speaking, the universal senior citizen’s pension in Mexico City is not a Basic Income because it does not cover the entire population. However, it closely mirrors Basic Income conceptually and philosophically since it is individual, not means tested, unconditional, and for life. Because of this, when Basic Income is discussed in Mexico, the references are not just theoretical, conceptual or abstract, but rather they reference a particular experience which is well known, liked, and valued by society. The existence of an unconditionaluniversalpension in Mexico is an excellent and potent starting point for the understanding of, and empathy for, the proposal of Basic Income, for everyone from a broad spectrum of social sectors.

It is no coincidence then that the most important public discussion around Basic Income in Mexico was held precisely within the context of the creation and approval of the first Constitution of Mexico City (2017–2018). One of the richest and most intense debates that occurred during the Constitutive Assembly was, precisely, the one regarding Basic Income. In its original version, the proposal in the Constitution of Mexico City read as follows:

Every person has a right to a standard of living that is adequate for them and their family, as well as a continued improvement of their conditions of existence. The right to a Basic Income is guaranteed, with priority for people in situations of poverty and those who cannot fulfill their material needs by their own means, as well as priority attention groups. (Mexico City2017)

The recognition of Basic Income as a right—even though initially what would have been implemented would have been a means-tested but otherwise unconditional income for the poor, rather than an unconditional income for everyone—was submitted to a vote by the Assembly and garnered 57% of the vote, a clear majority, but not the 66% majority required by the Assembly rules. This led to a new round of negotiations, just as or even more intense than the original debates. Finally, after several long days, and because of the prospect of not obtaining a two thirds majority, the following wording was agreed upon:

Article 9. Dignified Life. 2. Every person is entitled to a minimum vital figure to ensure a dignified life by the terms of this Constitution.

This very relevant discussion was held just a few months before the start of the presidential election of 2018 which was eventually won by Andrés Manuel López Obrador with a large majority of the vote (53%). Within the context of the 2018 election, the three candidates from the participating parties made proposals that involved the expansion of cash transfers towards the population (again, a counterpoint to the dominant trends in Latin America). López Obrador, the election winner, proposed expanding the senior citizen’s pension to a national scale, and establishing scholarships for students and aid for people with disabilities. Ricardo Anaya (distant second place) made the Basic Income proposal his own but never turned it into the guiding axis of his campaign and failed to gather the required momentum (he was also criticised for the proposal, as his party had just opposed the Basic Income proposal in the Constitution of Mexico City, and his proposal was not considered original but rather a copy of previous proposals made by legislators from other parties). Finally, José Antonio Meade (distant third place) made a proposal to double the amount of the existing senior citizen’s pension and to incorporate an additional two million families into the conditional cash transfer programme Prospera.

What will now happen, as repeatedly stated by López Obrador, is that the universal senior citizen’s pension, which began at the turn of the century in Mexico City, will be expanded to the rest of the country, and will become a national entity. It is not, strictly speaking, a Basic Income, but it could very well be a step in that direction. It is not for the entire population, but it is Basic Income for all senior citizens. A bounded Basic Income but still a Basic Income in its fundamental aspects.

From local to national, walking in a spiral, the debates around Basic Income in Mexico are sure to continue and to deepen in the coming years.