Opinion
Gary Becker, Shantay you stay
February is considered to be the ‘LGBT History Month’ and so its aim is to give visibility to the history of the LGBT community, which has often been ignored by mainstream society. The amount of economic research that could give an insight on the conditions of queer people in history has been scarce in the beginnings, since most investigations have been carried out in the past few years. Besides addressing the issues of a potential wealth gap or wage discrimination, economics can also raise awareness on LGBT discrimination in our everyday life.
Could we draw any conclusions on LGBT discrimination by running an elementary econometric model which could potentially analyse a gap in the relationship between the set of skills of contestants in different reality shows – LGBT-themed and non-LGBT – and their corresponding social media presence? Let’s analyse the multiple necessary skills to be an influencer and the number of Instagram followers between the cast of RuPaul Drag’s Race and the participants of another reality show with no queer visibility in the same streaming service, for example, the show Too Hot To Handle which became popular last April. Drag Queens, compared to the cast from Too Hot To Handle, are required to have at least some advanced skills in sewing, dancing, makeup art, acting and singing plus all of the necessary communication skills to make it funny and engaging. On the other hand, the contestants of Too Hot To Handle were required to follow the Aristotelian morality, apparently still inherent in Western culture, in which they had to repress their human passions and instincts by not having sexual relationships until a meaningful relationship was made with another person.
Running up some calculations the average increase of followers for every contestant in the latest season of RuPaul Drag’s Race is 249.7K while for the cast of Too Hot To Handle was 468.6K ten months ago, when the reality show was aired. These numbers are helpless unless we add a more serious amount of data and other required variables. Nonetheless, even though we cannot draw any serious conclusions, this example is insightful in two different ways. Firstly, it can be proved to a wider audience the scope that quantitative research – often used as a tool by economists – has to address any amount of social issues that our imagination can think of. And secondly if it seems that, in this case, it is required for drag queens to have a higher set of skills to gain an additional follower in social media, we can start now to ask ourselves to what extent we can find this discriminatory pattern in traditional labour markets also.
Do LGBT people need a higher set of skills to earn an additional pound? And to even get access to a job? Have living standards increased at the same rate for LGBT individuals than for the rest of the people throughout history? Economics can help us to give a response to this set of questions but more specifically, Gary S. Becker developed a model to explain labour discrimination for black employees in the US that is helpful to explain these potential discriminatory patterns for the queer community in labour markets.
Gary Becker’s taste-based model is useful to explain the reason behind wage discrimination. In this case, homophobia, biphobia, or transphobia is added up to the wage rate as the discrimination coefficient which represents a disutility for employers. Looking for a utility-maximisation production outcome, if the wage rate of LGBT workers – including the discrimination coefficient – is higher than the wage rate of gender-normative individuals, the amount of hired gender-normative workers is higher. In a state of a discriminatory labour market, LGBT workers will have to overcome these patterns by either being more productive at a given wage or, consistently, accepting a lower wage rate for the same productivity level.
This case can easily be found in reality as recent reports show that there is a significant proportion of employees that suffer from emotional distress and mental health issues due to discrimination in the workplace. In this case, LGBT employees are required cope with this type of discrimination while keeping the mandatory level of productivity which entails a higher effort. Additionally, for countries that do not cover a public mental healthcare programme, discrimination within the workplace implies a costly condition for the queer community which may result in a lower real disposable income since acquiring some sort of psychological help to overcome discrimination becomes necessary in order to keep a good mental health condition. It is also worth noting that this kind of discrimination affects women in a deeper extent since research shows poverty rates could drop dramatically for all couple types that include at least one woman.
Now, what happens if the wage rate from LGBT workers is lower than the wage rate of gender-normative workers? In this case firms will, analogically hire more LGBT employees. This is also very likely to happen, a situation that yields a segregated workforce which, according to Becker, is caused by the existence of this discriminatory taste and also, as it would be Pareto-improving for minority workers to work in their own businesses and correspondingly for majority workers, since the cost of distaste would be removed. In this scenario, LGBT employers would hire LGBT workers, and sell to LGBT customers, etc. Though, the fact that gender-conforming individuals may have more complementary nonhuman resources per capita would lead to this type of segregated economy to have lower wages for LGBT workers than the potential wages that a discriminatory – and not segregated – workforce would have for them. This situation would make it more likely for LGBT individuals to work under discriminatory but not segregated conditions, as long as it is allowed for them.
This case of segregated workforce is a clear example of the current situation that transgender individuals face when trying to access the formal labour market. According to a study published by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), 15% of transgender people face unemployment in the US. It is worth mentioning that this is an abysmal unemployment rate since it is three times higher than the national one. In other countries like the UK, data from the National LGBT Survey Summary Report suggests that 35% of trans women and 43% of trans men did not have a paid job in the 12 months preceding the survey. With such a high unemployment rate for trans individuals, particularly trans women have been segregated into sex labour. Key findings from the ‘Meaningful Work’ report carried out by the NCTE, suggest that 10.8% of the respondents reported having participated in sex work. This rate is specifically high among black respondents whose rate of sex trade participation is 39.9%. The amount of data that shows that transgender individuals face these discriminatory patterns within the labour markets is large, and yet it has not been even mentioned as an economic issue in economics education whatsoever. Even worse, it has not even been approached as an economic issue by policymakers in most governments.
As a final remark, the aim of this article is to prove how, even in countries where LGBT rights are recognised, the community is still in a situation of an economic disadvantage with respect to gender-conforming individuals as they have a higher probability to fall into poverty, especially when it comes to transgender people. Moreover, it is also worth noting how most of the economics curriculums have avoided addressing this issue, resulting in a lack of serious political intent that economics should have as a social science and, as a diverse discipline. In clear terms, the fact that a model in labor economics which was used to analyse the situation of black workers in the US is useful to also examine how LGBT workers face discriminatory conditions in labor markets, and additionally, how economic inequality can strengthen discrimination and segregation in some communities are topics that urgently need to be studied in economics in a major way.
“Darling, I don’t have a job. I’m on welfare. I have no intentions of getting a job as long as this country discriminates against homosexuals.”
(Marsha P. Johnson)
Written by Diego Pablo Sanchez
Bibliography
Autor, D. H. (2003). Lecture Note: The Economics of Discrimination – Theory. Massachusetts: MIT.
Badgett, M. V., & Schneebaum, A. (2015). The Impact of Wage Equality on Sexual Orientation Poverty Gaps. The Williams Institute.
Carperter, C., & Gonzales, G. (2020, February 13). Transgender Americans are more likely to be unemployed and poor. The Conversation.
Fitzgerald, E., Elspeth Patterson, S., Hickey, D., Biko, C., & Tobin, H. J. (2015). Meaningful Work. National Center for Transgender Equality.
Government Equalities Office. (2019). National LGBT Survey: Summary report. Government Equalities Office.
Make The Road New York. (2010). Transgender Need Not Apply: A Report on Gender Identity Job Discrimination. New York.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 674-697.
Reder, M. W. (1958). Reviewed Work: The Economics of Discrimination by Gary S. Becker. The American Economic Review, 495-500.
Baby Bonds
In this series we will be publishing short pieces that pertain to our campaign goal of diversity in economics. In this piece, we address the work of Darrick Hamilton and William Darity Jr. on reducing the racial wealth gap that is still prevalent in the United States. Have a read of this short piece, and if you’re interested in finding out more you can find the full articles below.
Addressing the racial wealth gap that prevails in the United States requires innovative policies. Darrick Hamilton and William Darity Jr. observe a pattern of direct and indirect intergenerational wealth transfers which illustrates that racial wealth disparities not only persist, but deepen over time. Hamilton and Darity Jr. propose what has been coined ‘baby bonds’, government policy that provides every child with a publicly funded trust account from birth. They propose that the size of the endowment ought to be proportional to the relative poverty of the family, with the poorest families receiving $50,000 for their children to access when they turn 18, and funding decreasing proportionally with family wealth.
Hamilton and Darity Jr. argue that this would help address the impacts of intergenerational racial inequality, by providing every child with a trust account sufficient in size that would enable them to invest in themselves and their future, regardless of their parent’s financial status. Providing the poorest families with such an endowment, would reduce the incidence of poor families turning to aggressive short-term loans when they are in need of income support. Additionally, the endowment may enable families to send their children to better schools or to college, enabling them to afford a better education.
Naomi Zewde evaluates the baby bond proposal in a 2020 study, demonstrating that there is evidence the policy has the potential to make genuine progress in reducing the racial wealth inequality in the United States. Zewde comments on the efficacy of the proposal, in that whilst it would not fundamentally restructure the distribution of wealth, it has the potential to marginally compress the wealth distribution towards the middle rather than towards the top. Zewde argues in favour of baby bonds for the reason that race neutral endowments would have far reaching impacts on improving systemic racial inequalities through the mechanism of reducing wealth disparities.
References:
Darity, W. and Hamilton, D. (2012). ‘Bold policies for economic justice’, The Review of Black Political Economy, 39(1), pp.79-85.
Zewde, N. (2020). ‘Universal Baby Bonds Reduce Black-White Wealth Inequality, Progressively Raise Net Worth of All Young Adults’, The Review of Black Political Economy, 47(1), pp.3-19.
Why is Economics Still so White?
Diversity is fundamental in every discipline. Showcasing the work of a diverse range of academics encourages students to critically engage with the theories that they are taught. Diversity in the curriculum expands the scope of learning beyond the mainstream, introducing students to a pluralism of thought. However, the University of Manchester economics department continues to deliver undergraduates with an economics education that provides little diversity of perspective or authorship. The teaching of core module streams such as Microeconomics and Macroeconomics continues to be accompanied by textbooks that provide a singular perspective. Students are not often encouraged by lecturers to explore further literature through reading lists, and when they are, the resources are not representative of the full range of economic thought and authorship. The Post-Crash Economics Society (PCES) is campaigning to change this. We want our economics education to reflect the world around us. We would like to read texts by a multitude of authors, from different backgrounds, with different perspectives. Our economics education is lacking in dimension. A greater emphasis on diversity is simply the starting point.
Diversity involves factors such as ethnicity, race, gender and faith and strives to be inclusive to all peoples. These factors are important within the discipline of economics as they play a role in determining lived experiences, which in turn help shape perspective. Differences in perspective through greater diversity impacts economics education in several ways. Firstly, diversity entails a greater representation of academics from all backgrounds. Whether this be within the department or in the literature, it is essential for students to be exposed to the multitude of identities that economists embody. Secondly, learning from a more diverse foundation allows students to encounter a more holistic account of economics. This also involves introducing heterodox perspectives that counter mainstream economic theory. Finally, diversity necessitates addressing the colonial history of economic thought, and challenges the discipline’s Eurocentricity. By acknowledging the Eurocentricity of economics this can reveal the applicability of theory to real world problems, as certain privileged perspectives that underpin economics may not be relevant to addressing current economic issues.
Economics in its beginnings was a discipline dominated by white men, with the foundations of economics rooted in a Western view of the world. However, little has changed in terms of inclusivity since the discipline’s inception, and this stereotype is still prevalent within economics. For example, in the most prestigious award that an economist can receive, the Nobel Memorial Prize, of the eighty one winners, only two were women and one was a black man. Whilst the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) boasts ethnic diversity among academics to be increasing over time in the UK, the share of ethnic minority academic economists has increased from 19% in the period 2012-2013 to 24% in the period 2018-2019, there are still broad differences in representation across different ethnic groups, with Black individuals still under-represented relative to their share of the UK population (Advani et al., 2020). Further, in the UK only about 15.5% of academic economists in permanent posts are women (BBC, 2017).
Greater diversity in economics is essential for a number of reasons. The representation of marginalised groups broadens the scope of alternative perspectives in economics, which can have impacts on the variety of academic research and policy recommendations. This allows for ignored, overlooked areas of study to be considered more deeply and brought to the forefront of the field of economics. With a majority of mainstream economists being white men, their identity feeds into the assumptions they build which are often partial and lead to discriminating outcomes. For example, women in economics are more likely to account for issues such as the exclusion of unpaid caregiving and domestic work from GDP (see Folbre, 2012). This kind of research has strong implications when counting the true cost of unpaid female labour which can help instruct policy makers about future policy options.
Moreover, the prioritisation of mainstream economic theory works to uphold a Eurocentric understanding of economics which prevents students from gaining a holistic understanding of the discipline. The prominence of Eurocentrism in mainstream economics excludes diversity in practice – scholars, knowledge and theories from the Global South and the East are not provided with a platform to share their differing perspectives. This exclusion in turn leads to the reproduction of Eurocentric knowledge and prevents diversity in representation which further disincentives the pursuit and sharing of knowledge to those who have become sidelined by an unwelcoming discipline.
This year PCES’s campaign focus is on increasing diversity in the economics curriculum. We have been working towards this end in a number of ways. Firstly, we produced a programme, ‘Black Economists you Should Know’ ,over the summer that brought attention to several key figures in economics with Black heritage, who have been underappreciated within the wider field. This programme sought to shine some light on the extensive work of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds. Following this, we co-hosted a decolonising economics workshop with the Diversifying Economics Network. We discussed the importance of breaking down Eurocentric narratives in the curriculum and how we might go about diversifying current economics curriculum. The attendees were prompted to discuss the legacy of colonialism in economics and discuss the implications on the state of economics today. Discussion also involved considering ways that the curriculum could be reformed in order to take into account marginalised voices.
Additionally, we are producing alternative reading lists as course companions for various economics modules, in order to supplement current reading recommendations. We have seen a severe lack of variety within required readings, in that they are predominantly written by mainstream economists with little diversity of authorship. Our reading lists are compiled with literature on a wide range of heterodox economic theory from a diverse range of authors. These can be used to compliment economics student’s study, and also used by students from other disciplines to expand their knowledge of different economic schools of thought. Further, we would like to commission an inquiry into diversity across the Economics department at Manchester, which will highlight the proportion of female and ethnic-minority academics employed by the University . This will help students at the University see how well the department upholds multiculturalism, and whether it reflects the commitment to a diverse working environment. Such an inquiry will hopefully show the department that there is a need to improve representation of minority groups within the teaching staff.
We would like to encourage several changes that would promote diversity in the economics department and curriculum. Firstly, we believe that the department, especially lecturers, should review existing reading lists and ensure that these are representative of the various ethnic groups in the population. Additionally, we recommend the introduction of a history of economic thought module. We believe that a history of economic thought module that not only spoke on past economists, but also examined the political conditions that facilitated the conception of their theories would help students recognise the context of economic theory and decolonise their own understanding of economics education.
Recognising the need for greater diversity in economics is merely a starting point. Students ought to receive an education that is reflective of the world around them, taught by academics of all backgrounds, on theories from all schools of thought and in a way that evaluates critically the origins of mainstream theory. We are campaigning to see this change manifest in the University of Manchester’s economics curriculum and department. It is not sufficient to continue with past rhetorics: change is necessary, and greater diversity is essential to this change.
Written by Ella Warren and Zenab Malik
To find out more about diversity in economics please check out these societies and pages:
Diversifying Economics Network: @diversifyecon on instagram, see: https://d-econ.org/mission/ for their mission statement
Institute for New Economic Thinking
https://www.ineteconomics.org/
Exploring Economics
https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/
Rethinking Economics: @rethinkecon on instagram
/http://www.rethinkeconomics.org/
The Black Economists Network: @theblackecon_ on instagram
References
Folbre, N. (2012). Valuing Domestic Product. Available at: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/valuing-domestic-product/ (Accessed: 3 December 2020).
Advani, A., Sen, S., Warwick, R. (2020). Ethnic diversity in UK economics. Available at: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15133 (Accessed: 3 December 2020).
Gittleson, K. (2017). Where are all the women in economics?. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41571333 (Accessed: 2 December 2020).
The Macroeconomics of Uncertainty and Coronavirus: Why Models Fail
Despite the surreal lives we have been leading for the past few months, one thing is certain: this is an interesting time to be an economist. People have endless questions about what is happening in the economy and what follows, and it is the aim of economists and their models to answer such queries. However, macroeconomic models are simplifications of reality, and as such their predictions and conclusions are often inaccurate The pandemic has only served to highlight this fact, but why exactly are neoclassical models unfit to determine the impact of coronavirus on the economy?
The COVID-19 outbreak has impacted the global economy through many channels, but I will focus on one: uncertainty. Uncertainty is an inherent part of economics, and many models have dealt with its implications in the wake of past disturbances. According to macroeconomic theory, in the wake of uncertainty, households choose to increase their savings and decrease consumption and investment. Due to the decrease in consumption, businesses make fewer profits and are more likely to close, introduce a hiring freeze, and lay-off workers. As such, unemployment increases, and output decreases. Prices adjust to the new reality of the labour market, and there is temporary deflation (Leduc and Liu, March 2020).
However, the effects of COVID-19 are not so straight-forward. The shock does not fit the simplistic concept of a “demand-side shock”, as it also affects suppliers: businesses closing or temporarily changing the delivery of their services signifies a further decrease in output through channels not mentioned in models.
Furthermore, it is difficult to quantify uncertainty and to separate the initial impact of a shock from the impact of uncertainty it induces in the long run. Measures used by macroeconomists are often simplistic and lead to dubious predictions. For example, in March, Leduc and Liu (2020) developed a model where they used only VIX (a measure of stock market volatility) as a scale of uncertainty and completely ignored the “supply-side” effects of coronavirus. They predicted that USA unemployment rate would increase by 1 pp in the space of 12 months due to COVID-19-related uncertainty, when in fact the rate increased from 3.5% in February to 14.7% in April (US Department of Labour, 2020).
Moreover, uncertainty models which successfully dealt with previous shocks are not helpful in the current situation, since the world has never faced anything like this before. Of course, there have been disruptive plagues which brought economies to a halt in the past. But these usually disproportionately affected developing economies, and the global economy was not as integrated as it presently is and thus national economic crises were not as “contagious” (Baldwin and Mauro, 2020). Additionally, the bewildering speed at which the pandemic hit nations caused trends to change almost overnight. Hence, historical data is unlikely to be an accurate predictor of the future effects of the pandemic.
One of the most interesting models so far was developed by Baker et al. (2020) this May, which relies on business-cycle theory. They used a more complex measurement of uncertainty than Leduc and Liu (2020) by considering not only stock market volatility, but also newspaper coverage, forecast disagreement among different entities, and business expectation surveys. They also isolated the impact of uncertainty from the first-moment shock.
However, even this model is imperfect and its predictions for GDP questionable. After all, it was based on data from past unexpected shocks such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks, even though – as discussed above – these significantly differ from the phenomenon we now face. Moreover, they did not include certain economic factors.
All in all, neoclassical models are unfit to measure the impacts of the uncertainty induced by the coronavirus outbreak, despite considerable efforts from economists all over the world. If you are curious about this topic, why not check out the interesting and commendable work economists are doing on coronavirus for yourself?
References
Baker, S., Bloom, N. and Terry, S. (2020). Using disasters to estimate the impact of uncertainty.
Baldwin, R. and Mauro, B. (2020). Economics in the time of COVID-19. VoxEU.
Leduc, S. and Liu, Z. (2020). The Uncertainty Channel of the Corona Virus. FRBSF Economic Letter, 2020 – 07.
US Department of Labor. (2020). The employment situation – April 2020. USDL-20-0815.
In recovery from the coronavirus, we must address the climate crisis – and that requires radical economics
The coronavirus has sent the global economy into hibernation, production has been halted and aeroplanes grounded. This has caused air pollution and global emissions to fall. Is the coronavirus ‘letting the planet breathe again?’, ’stopping global warming?’ and ‘preventing climate change?’. In short, no. Any fall in emissions or increase in air quality is a short term gain, with little cause for celebration considering the tragedy of the coronavirus. However, I believe the coronavirus can be an inflection point in fighting the climate crisis. Governments will determine the coronavirus’ impact on the environment as they start their economic recovery.
Modern history has shown that, in times of crisis, the state acts as jury, judge and executioner; presiding over the worth of workers, the value of industries and the survival of firms. The calls for financial help have started from businesses, big and small, from pubs to airlines, their fate will be passed into the hands of the state. It is now no longer a passive choice for governments not to take action to address the climate emergency, but an active choice. Business as usual has stopped, governments will now choose between supporting industries that destroy the planet and industries that protect it. With only 10 years left to prevent ‘irreversible damage from climate change’ governments must act now and use this crisis to avert the climate crisis.
Most western economies are currently in the crisis management stage, attempting to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus on the economy. This demands rapid action with instant effect. Such solutions are in short supply within neoclassical economic thought and thus governments have adopted radical, new ideas into the mainstream. In the wake of the financial crash, governments bailed out the banks, tearing pages out of the neoclassical economic playbook as they went, doing their best to avoid the free market forces that would’ve seen the banks collapse. Only weeks into the coronavirus hitting markets we are seeing again, that, as crisis strikes, the free market dies. States across the world are quickly intervening and giving state-aid that dwarfs that given to people and business post 2008: Millions of workers are being paid to do nothing, UK banks have been told it’s ‘completely unacceptable’ to deny businesses loans; even Trump and his administration are supporting a form of universal basic income, with an estimated cost of $1 trillion.
As governments move from crisis management to economic recovery, they must reflect upon our current economic systems. Recovery from the financial crash was based upon returning to the system that caused the crash – neoliberalism. Many western governments put the interests of business over the welfare of its citizens and the protection of the planet, this has even been acknowledged by the current UK PM, Boris Johsnon. In a press conference 2 weeks ago he explained, “This time it’s going to be different… remember what happened in 2008, people said we bailed out the banks and we didn’t look after the people who really suffered, but this time we will make sure we look after the people who really suffer the economic consequences of what we are asking them to do”. A return to neo-liberalism failed to reduce inequality and failed to address the climate emergency. As acknowledged by Johnson, governments now have the chance to right these wrongs; however, this demands states move past the neo-liberal project and into a future that can protect both people and planet. To create such a future requires a seismic shift in mainstream economics, the radical ideas entering politics this time round must not disappear.
A universal basic income should be the first item on the agenda: giving a guaranteed income to every adult in society that is enough to cover their basic needs. Coronavirus has led to millions of people’s work becoming volatile, with mass unemployment emerging globally and those in work having their hours cut or pay reduced, through no fault of their own. A universal basic income will give security to people and business alike; it will stabilise spending habits, giving business some certainty in challenging times and give workers of all stripes a safety net. But how will this help the planet? UBI breaks the link between work and consumption – no longer will workers have to contribute to production to meet their needs. Working less and consuming less will become pillars of a sustainable society. Our obsession with economic growth has fueled industries that prioritise quantity over quality, with fast fashion being the clearest example, and encouraged business to create products hard to repair, in the hope of consumers needlessly buying new replacements. Our current overconsumption is depleting the planet of its limited resources and is catapulting us towards climate breakdown.
As I mentioned previously, governments will have to provide business with aid, from bailouts to tax breaks, as they have done previously when crisis hits markets. For their response to tackle the economic destruction of the coronavirus and address the climate emergency, it should only be sustainable industries that are protected by the state – those that can move to become carbon neutral, if not carbon zero by 2030. The viability of this is increasing, coronavirus has crippled the fossil fuel industry, ‘the plunging demand for oil wrought by the coronavirus pandemic combined with a savage price war has left the fossil fuel industry broken and in survival mode, according to analysts’. This should give firms that operate with a minimal carbon footprint short term cost advantages as well as long term reliability as they do not rely on precarious fossil fuel prices and availability.
Energy is the most notable sector where action can and should be taken; it is both feasible and desirable for a mass transition to renewable energy. Transformative, sustainable infrastructure projects, should be at the core of tackling both unemployment and climate breakdown, during this economic recovery. But critics, of ambitious change within the energy sector, such as Donohue are quick to point out:
“There is no way this can be done without fundamentally changing the American way of life, choking off economic development, and putting large segments of the economy out of business.”
Thomas J. Donohue, President of the US Chamber of Commerce on ambitious carbon reduction
They are right, building a sustainable future out of a broken system will have casualties. Firms without the plans or ability to become carbon neutral within the next ten years should be allowed to collapse. For governments to prop up these companies, is for governments to pay for social, economic and political crises in the long term as a result of the climate breakdown they will contribute to. However, as mentioned, governments are already becoming more active in markets and the structure of economies is changing. Governments should use this newfound power to make this transition as smooth as possible, letting firms shut down slowly and ensuring their workers have the opportunity to enter new jobs in state funded, sustainable projects. That said, some forms of unemployment will be an inevitability in this transition; I believe this underlines the importance of a UBI. During the transition period of the restructure of economies there will be frictional unemployment; a UBI gives people the best chance to be fit and ready to go back to work as soon as they can.
The coronavirus has given us an unexpected insight into living though crisis. We must recognise that we will face similar, and in many cases worse, economic consequences as a result of the climate crisis. We need to think forward when designing the post-coronavirus economy, with halting climate breakdown at the forefront of our minds. Introducing a UBI, changing our attitude to consumption and investing in sustainable industries can only be the beginning of reimagining modern economics. Thankfully, there is no shortage of heterodox economic theory that outlines ways to fix our broken systems and recognises their incompatibility with avoiding the climate crisis. Now is the time for governments to embrace the radical, creating new economies with people and the planet at the core. Out of the tragedy of the coronavirus emerges an opportunity to avoid the worst of the climate crisis, we can’t afford not to grasp it.
Bibliography
Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm
Denying coronavirus loans ‘completely unacceptable’ banks told https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52126658
White House expresses support for immediate cash payments to Americans as part of coronavirus stimulus package https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/03/17/trump-coronavirus-st...
55 min 21sec into recording https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000gzg1/bbc-news-special-coronavi...
Will the coronavirus kill the oil industry and help save the climate? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/01/the-fossil-fuel-indu...