* By giving women their own income, their status is raised and they can also partake directly in economic life. It gives young mothers the option of staying at home to bring up their children, gives poor teens the possibility of studying to raise their skills or go on to university instead of vegetating flipping hamburgers
* It has positive social and psychological effects as demonstrated in all experiments from Namibia and India to Manitoba. Manitoba's Mincome resulted in a decrease in hospital visits by 8.5%. Fewer people went to the hospital with work-related injuries and there were fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. There were also far fewer mental health visits.
* By using nongovernmental organizations like SEWA, or tribal councils, to administer the distribution, local needs are directly addressed, and the grievances that give rise to terrorism are eliminated.
The guaranteed annual income for an Indian would be more like $180 than $18,000, but still a big outlay for cash-strapped central and state governments. As in India, proponents of GAI in Canada worry that short-sighted governments will cynically eye the program only in terms of reducing welfare expenditures. While some welfare programs will no longer be needed, the transition to a basic income based on cash transfers will have to be gradual, making sure higher prices for subsistence goods doesn't undo the whole purpose of the program.
The bottom line for both India and Canada is the same: to end poverty and promote an inclusive a healthy 'formal' economy based on social justice.
AHT(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
