Degrowth and unemployment: Guaranteed jobs?

Second International Degrowth Conference, Barcelona, 26-29 March, 2010,

by Blake AlcottPhD candidate, School of Earth and Environment,

University of Leedsblakeley@bluewin.chwww.blakealcott.org

best of times, worst of times

The Great Depression 1930s (unwanted degrowth):MASS UNEMPLOYMENT

1776 – 2008 economic BOOM:MASSIVE RISE in population and jobs

“Last year, as the banking crisis rapidly turned into a severe recession,the great worry was about how many millions would lose their jobs.” Guardian 18 March 2010 p 32

“After Obama’s health care victory,his focus will be on the economy, on jobs.” Channel 4 News, 22 March 2010

“Upbeat chancellor promises a budget for growth and jobs.” Guardian 24 March 2010 p 1

Therefore:Shrinkage causes unemployment.

TRUEFALSE x

But ultimately: Society, not the economy, determines how many people are out of work.

Yes, jobs temporarily disappear during recession,then re-appear.

We could guarantee jobs just as we guaranteeprimary schooling, garbage collection and non-starvation.

Distribution of work is political.

To what problem are guaranteed jobs a solution?

NOT poverty………………………………

Joblessness and low purchasing power are different.Against poverty we have the dole;

or the guaranteed income.

NOT ‘good’ neglected public jobs like caring for peopleand public space………………….

(But these goals might be compatible.)

Joblessness means psychological and social ill-being;it is a distinct problem on its own.

CONFLATION #1: INCOME & JOB

CONFLATION #2: JOB & PUBLIC WORKS

A Human Right?

“Everyone has the right to work,to free choice of employment,to just and favourable conditions of workand to protection against unemployment.”

“full and productive employment and decent work for all.”

Article 23.1 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948:

Millenium Goal #1 “End Poverty and Hunger” 2005:

NOTICE THE CONFLATIONS: ‘favourable’, ‘decent’

Real-world attempts• ‘communist’ bloc– East Germany, China– today in North Korea

• Maharashtra/India– Employment Guarantee Scheme 1965

• Argentina since 2002• Zürich– work market (‘part-wage’)– subsidized private sector jobs: as a right

One argument : It’s cheaper than welfare.

Again:wage level, material wealth,is a separate issue.The issue is only alleviationof the pain of not having a‘job’.

full-employment policies

economic growth

deficit spending

education, training

stop-gap programs

loans or subsidiesto become self-employed

falling wages (laissez-faire)

RIGHT to a job

shorten working-weekto 35 (France)

or 21 hours (nef)

indirect paths direct paths

These are the economic approach.

These are the political approach.

The political approach

society;political rules

the ‘economy’(of a given size)

jobs

a just distribution of jobs

debate in19th

century:man vs.

machine;Say & Marx (e.g.)

Rival policy: Guaranteed income

• purchasing power guaranteed• no requirement to do productive work• de facto already the case in some rich countries

fact is, joblessness is for many very painful• empty days• no sense of achievement• loss of prestige• guilt for mooching

at myGreenpeace actions: “What about our jobs?”

In ‘socially marketing’ itself, Degrowth needs the Guaranteed Job.

Rival (no) policy: FREEFALL

• Wages down, # jobs up• No barriers to self-employment• No guaranteed income– neither for everybody (system Friedman)– nor for the ‘poor’ only

• After unemployment insurance payments run out, it’s everybody for himself

degrowth®: equilibrium at lower-income but full-employment level

Rival policy: shorter ‘working life’• nef (New Economics Foundation) report Feb. 2010

– “the ill-being associated with unemployment”– advocates however a minimum wage, which increases

unemployment• France under Jospin 35-hour week

– What was the empirical result? (70,000 new ‘jobs’ in its first 5 years?) What happened to pay?

– Corine Maier’s book? In 2005 CBS said unemployment was ‘undented’, remaining above 10%.

• perhaps this is the wrong approach– Limits on overtime must accompany this.– Pressure to produce more per hour.Why such indirect approaches when Guaranteed Job

guarantees success?

Rival policy: ‘welfare-to-work’

• the alliterative British ‘welfare-to-work’ scheme; privatised, e.g. to Working Links, a private company SocietyGuardian 3 March 2010 p. 5

• subsidises job-seeking; companies get £1,500 per successfully-place jobseeker.

• in 10 years, 13,000 jobseekers/year were gotten jobs; profits: £1.6m, 33% of which went to an ‘in-house charity’

neo-liberal: the joblessness of some is a business opportunity

The suggestion• A good idea even in the best of times.• A good idea if we want support for wanted degrowth.• Treat full employment as a political issue, not an economic one.• Decouple jobs from growth.

Thank you for listening. Questions and objections.

Recession is actually good – if there is income fairness and no loss of jobs .

Literature• Alcott, Blake, 2009. At www.degrowth.ch > gerecht (in German)• Echeverri-Gent, John, 1988. Guaranteed employment in an Indian state: The

Maharastra experience. Asian Survey Vol. VIII (12): 1294-1310.• Jochimsen, Maren, & Ursula Knoblauch, 1997. Making the hidden visible: The

importance of caring activities and their principles for any economy. Ecological Economics 20 (2): 107-112.

• Mellor, Mary, 1997. Women, nature and the social construction of ‘economic man’. Ecological Economics 20 (2): 129-140.

• Mitchell, William F., 1998. The Buffer Stock Employment model and the NAIRU: The path to full employment. Journal of Economic Issues 32 (2): 547-555.

• nef (New Economics Foundation), 2010. 21 Hours. www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/21_Hours.pdf

• Sawyer, Malcolm, 2003. Employer of last resort: Could it deliver full employment and price stability? Journal of Economic Issues 37 (4): 881-907.

• Steensland, Brian, 2008. The Failed Welfare Revolution: America’s Struggle over Guaranteed Income Policy. Princeton U. Press, Princeton.

• Wray, L. Randall, 2007. The Employer of Last Resort programme: Could it work for developing countries? International Labour Office (ILO) Working Paper 2007/5, Geneva. http://www.cfeps.org/elm07-5.pdf

EGS Maharashtra/all of India

• 1984-85: 178,000,000 work days– = 10 days for each worker in ‘rural’ work force– = 300 days for 3.4% of ‘rural’ work force– 600,000 workers (= 4,000 Rupees each)

• for ‘public works’• 2.3 billion Rupees = • 7 departments involved; expanded India-wide 2005• “Employment becomes a political as well as an economic

issue, and the articulation of political demands becomes a means of securing a livelihood.” (Echeverri-Gent 1988 p 1304)

also: Argentinian programme

Are jobs good?• We are lazy, work is almost by definition

irksome, a matter of peine.• So why on earth should we guarantee jobs?• Good question.– depression– marital break-up– drinking alcohol– boredom

• In any case: Many want a ‘job’.