인도에서 진행 중인 기본소득 실험 프로젝트

[최광은]

Basic Income News: "Two pilot schemes in India"
 

현재 인도에서 진행되고 있는 흥미로운 기본소득 실험 프로젝트에 관한 소식입니다. 한참을 기다렸던 소식이기도 합니다. 현재 인도 마디아 프라데시(Madhya Pradesh) 주의 여러 마을에서 진행되고 있는 실험 프로젝트는 <모두에게 기본소득을>(박종철출판사, 2011) 추천사에서 가이 스탠딩 교수가 이미 언급한 바 있습니다. 저는 작년 여름 가이 스탠딩으로부터 그 프로젝트가 진행되고 있다는 이야기를 들었는데, 자세한 사항은 나중에 알려주겠다고 하더군요. 그 이유를 이제야 알게 된 셈입니다.

델리(Delhi) 주의 실험 프로젝트 진행 과정은 심지어 프로젝트를 추진하는 팀에 대한 위협까지 가해지는 드라마틱한 요소마저 있었군요. 다행히 불상사는 없었나 봅니다. 다행입니다. 델리 주지사는 실험 프로젝트를 하나 더 해보자고 요청했네요.

한편, 마디아 프라데시 주의 실험은 이런저런 논란을 피할 순 없을 것 같습니다. 총 20개의 연구대상 마을을 정해 8개의 마을 주민들에게는 기본소득을 지급하고 나머지 12개의 마을 주민들에게는 기본소득을 지급하지 않고 비교 연구를 하고 있으니까요. 이른바 'Randomised Control Trial(RCT)'을 응용한 연구입니다.

이는 얼마전에 발표된 미국의 'Medicaid' 지원 관련 연구의 대상 선정 과정과 유사한 형태의 문제를 갖고 있습니다. 최근 미국 오리건 주에서 보험 지원을 신청한 가난한 사람 90,000명 가운데 10,000명을 무작위로 뽑아서 지원을 한 적이 있는데, 물론 이 지원을 받았던 사람과 그렇지 못했던 사람 사이에는 나중에 건강 상태에서 현격한 차이가 났죠. 그 후에 재원이 좀 더 마련된 덕분에 당시 추첨에서 떨어진 80,000명에게도 보험 지원이 이뤄졌다는 것이 그나마 다행입니다.

인도의 실험 또한 14세 미만에게는 100루피, 14세 이상에게는 200루피, 즉 (최저생계비가 아닌) 최저생존비의 40% 수준밖에 되지 않는 적은 금액이긴 하나 나미비아의 기본소득 실험 프로젝트와 같은 일정한 효과가 예상됩니다. 반면, 이를 받지 못한 대상 마을 주민들은 상대적 박탈의 효과가 예상되죠. 긍정적 효과를 모두가 누리기 위해서는 기본소득이 하루빨리 전국적으로 시행되는 길 말고는 없겠습니다. 그 날이 빨리 오기를 기대합니다.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPINION: Two pilot schemes in India

From BIEN by Guy Standing ⋅ August 1, 2011
http://binews.org/2011/08/opinion-two-pilot-schemes-in-india/

India might  seem an infertile ground for basic income. For decades, social policy has been about the bureaucratic raj, through which subsidised items have been supposedly supplied directly to ‘the poor’, mainly through ration shops, and where subsidies in general have become deeply ingrained in the society, accounting for over 5% of GDP. However, within the past two years an extraordinary change has occurred. Suddenly, the whole of the political establishment is talking about the desirability or otherwise of “cash transfers” instead of subsidies.

The timing of this new political prominence is fortuitous, since we had been planning a pilot cash transfer scheme since 2008, effectively a basic income pilot, albeit called a ‘universal, unconditional, individual cash transfer’. It had its origins in a seminar in Ahmedabad at the headquarters of the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) of India, where I laid out the principles of a basic income and reviewed the arguments for universalism against selectivity and targeting, and unconditionality against conditionality. Initially, there was some resistance to the idea that each man and each woman should receive the cash transfer independently. SEWA leaders were inclined to push for it to be paid to women only. To their credit, they eventually agreed that it should be paid to men and women independently, with the children’s cash being given to the mother or principal child-carer. Initially too, some argued for conditionality, but in a subsequent meeting representatives from local SEWA branches came out vehemently against conditionality. This was wonderful.

It took a year to raise funds, during which time a team of researchers and SEWA leaders was formed to plan the work. It was decided to operationalise the pilot in villages in Madhya Pradesh. But as we were planning, another opportunity came up to operate a second smaller pilot in a district of Delhi. This was instigated and supported by the Delhi Government, and the design reflected that. The Delhi pilot involved giving households a ‘choice’ between continuing with the existing PDS ration scheme, based on what are called the BPL (Below Poverty Line) cards that the poor are supposed to possess, and taking a monthly cash transfer instead. Many opted for the cash.

Shortly after this small pilot was launched, local opposition was mobilised, with a street campaign based on a claim that we wished to take away food and other essentials from the poor, currently provided to some people through the BPL cards. This misrepresentation led to riots directed at our team and pressure being put on those residents who had opted to take the basic income cash to revert to the rations. The ration shop owners were involved in this, although the action was led by a so-called Right to Food group.

As of July 2011, the Delhi pilot has been maintained, thanks in part to behind-the-scenes support of the local government and to the courage of local SEWA members. There is even evidence that more residents are wishing to shift to the basic income. We are in the midst of the second round of a monitoring-and-eval‎uation survey of the impact of the basic transfers. And there has been a request from the Delhi Chief Minister to conduct a second pilot in another area.

Meanwhile, the pace of political debate has been rapid. There has been a press furore, with prominent critics, such as Jean Dreze, claiming those pushing for cash transfers are wishing to dismantle the social state. I have responded to that in several newspaper articles and interviews, and in mid-July addressed the National Advisory Committee responsible for advising the Congress Party leadership, and thus the Government, on social protection policy. I have also given several presentations to UN organisations, including a long seminar that was teleconferenced in seven cities of India.

Meanwhile, the bigger pilot in Madhya Pradesh has moved ahead. We have been doing everything possible to maintain a low profile, which is one reason for my reluctance to present a description to BIEN members. Some of those who oppose cash transfers refuse to accept the legitimacy of pilot tests, and want to disrupt them.

Anyhow, although we certainly do not want any publicity about where the pilot is being conducted, the essence of the methodology and objectives are worth noting, partly because they might be relevant for pilots in other countries.

First, we decided to conduct a variant of a randomised control trial (RCT), in which all residents in 8 villages were to be provided with the basic cash transfer while all residents in 12 similar villages were not. Note that the full randomista model would provide the “treatment” (i.e., cash transfer) to a sample of households selected at random from within each village, to be compared with similar households not provided with the “treatment”. In the case of cash transfers that would be fraught with practical and moral drawbacks. So, we opted to provide the cash transfer to every individual in 8 villages and to none in the 12 ‘control’ villages.

Partly for pragmatic reasons, or funding constraints, and partly because the amount represented about 40% of bare subsistence, the pilot opted to provide each adult with 200 Rupees a month and each child under the age of 14 100 Rupees a month. Again because of funding constraints, it was decided to run the pilot for 12 months, although we had initially planned to do so for 24 months.

In accordance with a long-advocated theoretical position, we designed the experiment with one innovative feature. My perspective – shared by many within BIEN – is that a basic income would work better if combined with existence of ‘basic Voice’, i.e, a collective body able to represent the interests of the vulnerable. After all, particularly in low-income areas, a person with cash is vulnerable to losing it to more powerful individuals or groups unless there is a body able to represent and defend their entitlements.

With this in mind, it was decided to design the RCT experiment so as to compare the outcomes in places where there was no Voice body with those where there was such a body. Fortunately, we had a good way of doing this. For SEWA is operational and embedded in some of the villages and not others. So, from a sampling frame of all ‘SEWA villages’ and a sampling frame of all ‘non-SEWA’ villages in the district selected, we drew a sample of four SEWA and four non-SEWA villages in which the basic cash transfer would be paid.

Once the design principles had been worked out, the first practical phase was the drawing up of a full listing of all households in the 20 villages, not an easy or speedy process. That done, we conducted a comprehensive baseline survey of all households, and launched the cash transfer in the following month. But while that was going on, one further obstacle had to be overcome. It was desirable to control for ‘financial inclusion’, by universalising the way by which individuals received the cash transfer and by ensuring everybody had a bank account. This is a major issue in India today. The majority of the population are ‘unbanked’.

Rolling out bank accounts has been ongoing, with a record of when they were opened being kept for all individuals. For the first two months, the cash transfers were made by direct transfer, with teams from the project going to each village on a designated day. The process has been time-consuming but fortunately without incident. We hope to switch to paying through bank accounts shortly.

While a baseline household and individual survey was conducted, a Community Survey was also conducted to obtain macro-level data. Both the baseline and community surveys will be repeated, with modifications to suit the new period, six months after the start of the pilot, defined as the time of the first cash transfer. These will be called the midline surveys. Then, six months after that the endline surveys will be conducted.

Before the pilot was launched, we drew up a list of hypotheses associated with basic income or cash transfers, all of which are familiar to members of BIEN. We will be testing each of those, and hope to produce a public report and a series of technical papers over the next 18 months.

During that time, we expect the public and political debates in India to evolve dramatically. It is unlikely that the project team will stay out of those debates, even if it wished to do so. The Government has set up an official committee to review basic subsidies and two Food Security Bills are currently the focus of political attention. Numerous economists and other social scientists have taken up positions for or against cash transfers, and no day goes by without at least one newspaper article adding to the debate.

All that can be wished at this stage is that reason will triumph over emotion, and that dispassionate analysis can lead to better social policy. The importance cannot be over-stated. After all, there are more people in India – over 300 million – who are in absolute poverty than in any other country of the world. If a basic income could be part of the way to cut that number drastically, that would be a wonderful contribution. But we must keep our feet on the ground as we grind out the difficult fieldwork and analysis before us.