#universal basic services

From an economic perspective, privatisation has been both a triumph and a disaster, depending on which end of the telescope you are viewing it from. Research highlights that in the 25 years following privatisation, water bills have risen by 40 percent in real terms for essentially the same service. Since the rail industry was privatised, some rail fares have increased by more than 200 percent in real terms, while season tickets have increased between 55 and 80 percent. And speaking of public transport, deregulation of bus services outside of London has seen fares increase by 35 percent and services butchered, creating a social disaster in places. At the same time, the various former nationalised industries have paid out at least £193 billion in dividends to shareholders, with the privatised water companies paying out £83 billion alone. And on top of all this, food prices roughly doubled between 1990 and 2020, and continue to outstrip inflation — food producers are not immune to increased energy costs and the like — while wages, in real terms, have largely been stagnant for the best part of 20 years. Put simply, life’s basics have become eye-wateringly expensive while at the same time, people’s pay has flatlined. And when you have a service-based, consumerist economy that depends on people having disposable income, this presents a huge problem and is an often overlooked factor in the decline of our high streets and town centres. It is no surprise that people search out cheap stuff on the internet, and the use of apps like Vinted continue to grow. Sometimes, big ideas are needed to solve big problems. And what we’re talking about with the cost of living crisis is a big problem. So what is the big idea to address it? While there has been talk about universal basic income — and it should come as no surprise that some of the tech bros have embraced the idea — you wonder if the scale of the challenge would make universal basic income unaffordable, while to some, the concept may come across as feeling a little undignified. Of course, putting money into people’s pockets is no bad thing. But there is another way, there is an alternative: make life’s basics more affordable and more efficient, in the form of universal basic services.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: THE GERMAN MODEL

"In Germany, their system resembles the American model, where you have private health insurance companies competing with each other for customers. The main difference is, unlike in America where we have 27.5 million uninsured people, Germany’s system has managed to cover 100% of its citizens. While medical bankruptcies are common occurrences in America, medical bankruptcies are non-existent in Germany."

Ending mass human deprivation and providing good lives for the whole world's population can be accomplished while at the same time achieving ecological objectives. This is demonstrated by a new study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and the London School of Economics and Political Science, recently published in World Development Perspectives. About 80% of humanity cannot access necessary goods and services and lives below the threshold for "decent living." Some narratives claim that addressing this problem will require massive economic growth on a global scale, multiplying existing output many times over, which would exacerbate climate change and ecological breakdown. The authors of the new study dispute this claim and argue that human development does not require such a dangerous approach. Reviewing recent empirical research, they find that ending mass deprivation and provisioning decent living standards for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments. This would ensure that everyone in the world has access to nutritious food, modern housing, high-quality health care, education, electricity, induction stoves, sanitation systems, clothing, washing machines, refrigerators, heating/cooling systems, computers, mobile phones, internet, and transport, and could also include universal access to recreational facilities, theaters, and other public goods. The authors argue that, to achieve such a future, strategies for development should not pursue capitalist growth and increased aggregate production as such but should rather increase the specific forms of production that are necessary to improve capabilities and meet human needs at a high standard, while ensuring universal access to key goods and services through public provisioning and decommodification. In the Global South, this requires using industrial policy to increase economic sovereignty, develop industrial capacity, and organize production around human well-being. At the same time, in high-income countries, less-necessary production (of things like mansions, SUVs, private jets and fast fashion) must be scaled down to enable faster decarbonization and to help bring resource use back within planetary boundaries, as degrowth scholarship holds.

Capitalism is highly inefficient from an ecological perspective, and we know from empirical studies that it is possible to have a much more efficient economy that delivers high levels of wellbeing with much lower levels of total production. In fact, it is possible to provide good lives for 8.5 billion people on this planet with much less energy and resources than we presently use, if that was the objective of production. Universal public services are key to such a future. I mean not only healthcare and education, but also affordable housing, childcare, recreation facilities, clean energy, internet and nutritious food. This approach ensures that the most important goods and services are always produced in sufficient quantities, and available to everyone. The claim that there is ‘no money’ for universal services is totally wrong. Money simply represents productive capacity in the economy – real resources and labour that can be used to produce things. And we know that in the UK there is massive productive capacity. The problem is that it is misdirected. The key is to reallocate it. This can be done by using credit policy to reduce investment in damaging and unnecessary sectors, thus liberating resources to be redirected elsewhere. Then you use public finance to directly mobilise necessary production – for example, renewable energy and public services. With this approach we can rapidly solve our social and ecological problems, and maintain price stability at the same time.

A new study highlights growing public support in the United States for eco-social policies designed to address the interconnected ecological and social crises of our time. The research, led by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and the London School of Economics (LSE), evaluated public support for four key innovative eco-social proposals: reducing working hours (as low as 28 hours per week), downscaling fossil fuel production, providing universal basic services, and limiting advertising for high-emission goods. The study, published in the journal Ecological Economics, also examined how individual consumption-reduction or "sufficiency" behaviors—such as adopting plant-based diets, avoiding flights, walking, or prioritizing sustainable transport like cycling—influence support for these policies. Additionally, it explored the impact of framing these proposals within a broader agenda of societal transformation (e.g., degrowth, although without using the term). Among the most notable findings, the study reveals that, on average, participants preferred these eco-social policies over existing ones. Annual caps on fossil fuel extraction and the provision of universal health care were particularly well-received. Furthermore, individuals who were more engaged in sufficiency behaviors were more likely to support ecological policies, showing stronger support for fossil fuel restrictions, while support for socially oriented measures, such as reduced working hours and universal health care, was less pervasive and depended on other factors.

[...]

Policymakers continue to ignore increasing calls for dismantling the fossil fuel industry from scientists and civil society organizations, and instead are in favor of supporting "green growth." These findings suggest that the U.S. electorate is open to policy agendas that reduce dependence on fossil fuels (e.g., through limits) while improving citizens' quality of life. Notable examples include universal health care as a human right, accessible to everyone, regardless of employment or socioeconomic status, and reduced working hours as a tool for promoting well-being. These agendas move beyond growth-based objectives to achieve eco-social goals. The study's authors suggest that transition plans for polluting industries could hold broad appeal. "Eco-social policy agendas can protect workers and support them in seeking new jobs that benefit society without harming the planet," says Dallas O'Dell, a researcher at ICTA-UAB and first author of the study. However, the study cautions that when promoting individual sufficiency behaviors, it is essential to consider citizens' privilege levels, as these could influence support for broader social policies. "Encouraging reduced individual consumption among those with less privilege could lead to rejection of broader policies, particularly those of a social nature," O'Dell adds.