Tuesday, May 18, 2021




How Portugal Went From Far-Right Immunity to Fertile Ground for Populists

Filipe Honório
Henrique Vasconcelos
APRIL 2021

Progressive forces in Portugal find themselves fighting a war on two fronts: a resurgent far right has been making inroads into the country’s politics, while the long-standing monopoly on power held by the parties of the “big centre” has stifled the voices of any genuine opposition. In a society where the legacy of dictatorship and colonialism can still be felt, where racism remains rife, and ecological thinking has yet to take root, setting out a unifying political vision to take on these powerful rivals is far from simple.

In Portugal’s January 2021 presidential election, a far-right candidate managed to secure more than half a million votes to reach third place. That candidate was André Ventura, an MP and leader of Chega (translated as: “Enough”), a proto-fascist Portuguese party which became a member of the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy group in October 2019, just months after the party’s formation in April the same year.

Until 2019, Portugal was touted as seemingly immune to far-right populism in the political arena, in stark contrast to other parts of Europe. Several causes for this were suggested, ranging from the country’s large diaspora, and thus increased sensitivity to heterogeneous cultural backgrounds, to the not-so-distant memory of dictatorship, which would deter people from the colonialist isolationism that accompanied poverty and repression. Immigration was also considered to play a role, perceived as having a lesser impact than in other European countries and mostly originating from Portuguese-speaking countries, thereby allowing for easier integration. Together, these factors served as an explanation as to why a xenophobic nationalistic rhetoric would not resonate with the general electorate, as it would not be addressing any real fear among the population.
Paving the way for populism

The political centre (dubbed “centrão” in Portuguese political lingo, literally “big centre”), comprising the main centre-left and centre-right parties, has been in power since the Carnation Revolution of 1974 which marked the beginning of the country’s transition to democracy. During this time, it has consistently eroded the political environment and fuelled distrust of political parties and political intervention. Data collected since 1985 shows that no more than 26 per cent of the population feel a sense of trust towards political parties. Most citizens do not trust EU institutions or political actors either, despite a slight improvement since the external intervention of the troika (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) from 2011 to 2014. Moreover, in 2020 Portugal received its worst score since 2012 in the Corruption Perception Index compiled by the NGO Transparency International, putting the country below the EU average.

The centre-left Socialist Party (PS) and centre-right Social Democratic Party (PSD) – belonging respectively to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and European People’s Party (EPP) groupings in the European Parliament, despite the misleading names – have alternated in power since the establishment of democracy in Portugal. Their economic policies in terms of labour market flexibility and liberalisation as well as their failure to address corruption and human rights (such as access to housing or fighting systematic racism) have contributed to a politically alienated society. The growing dissatisfaction with the political elite has created fertile ground for emerging populist movements to take advantage of the weaknesses of the regime.

The results of January’s election alongside the success of Ventura take place in a context of parliamentary stagnation. The alternation in the government occurring since the 1980s between the PS and the PSD showed signs of faltering after the 2015 elections, when an innovative parliamentary coalition between the PS, which had come in second place, and the smaller Unitary Democratic Coalition (CDU) and Left Bloc (BE) parties, both left-wing and progressive, enabled a functioning PS-led government. But it returned in 2019, after the distancing of the coalition partners on the left. On the other hand, the failure of the traditional opposition parties during a PS government, the PSD and People’s Party (CDS), to provide an alternative boosted claims that the “system” was no longer fit for purpose. In a country that has for decades avoided dealing with structural racism and hotspots of xenophobia, such as hostility towards Roma communities, this political landscape ultimately paved the way for the breakthrough of a candidate from a one-man party who has no trouble campaigning with the likes of France’s Marine Le Pen and Italy’s Matteo Salvini, or endorsing Donald Trump and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro.


The growing dissatisfaction with the political elite has created fertile ground for emerging populist movements to take advantage of the weaknesses of the regime.

Ventura started his political career in the junior structures of PSD and ran for mayor in a city in the outskirts of Lisbon in 2017. His use of anti-Roma rhetoric in his campaign lost him the support of the CDS, but the PSD continued to back him, illustrating how racism and xenophobia are tacitly accepted in the dominant parties. Similar discrimination against Roma communities is observed among the ranks of the PS, ranging from its mayors to MEPs.

In the presidential election, the big centre candidates gathered 60 per cent of the votes, the traditional left just over 8 per cent, the populist extreme-right under 12 per cent, and other candidates another 6 per cent. Ana Gomes, a member of the Socialist Party and former MEP, endorsed by eco-socialist party LIVRE and the animal welfare party PAN, rose to almost 13 per cent. Gomes was unapologetically anti-corruption, fighting for minorities’ and workers’ rights as well as for a broader and serious involvement of Portuguese society in the European project. This shows there is still an urgent need for a progressive, green, and cosmopolitan agenda.

The future of Portuguese progressivism


The Portuguese left is still fundamentally shaped by the end of the dictatorship and the transition to a democratic regime. The PS and the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP, part of the CDU which supported the government in 2015 and is the oldest active political party in Portugal) were the main forces on the left until the end of the century, when smaller forces dating from the Revolution converged into the Left Bloc (BE, the other supporter of the 2015 government). The third way position chosen by PS, the orthodox Marxist-Leninist approach of PCP, and the Left Bloc’s inability to exert a progressive influence in the governing of the PS have prevented the much-needed transformative left agenda from gaining ground in Portugal.

Portuguese progressivism is currently found in citizens’ movements, associations, and small parties, but has yet to break free from the frozen landscape of parties in the political scene. The challenges at hand, however, call for an urgent democratic, ecological, and cosmopolitan agenda.

Portuguese progressivism is currently found in citizens’ movements, associations, and small parties, but has yet to break free from the frozen landscape of parties in the political scene.

The emergent proto-fascism present in political discourse exploits inequalities and injustices in society that are the by-product of a predominantly extractivist, colonialist, and sexist capitalist system. At the same time, the proto-fascist forces are funded and reinforced by this very same system that generates the ailments they promise to fight. Populist rhetoric appropriates anti-system thinking as its sheep’s clothing, connecting to those feeling left behind while remaining a wolf underneath. The progressive left must not ignore or play down the wolf’s strikes at freedom and democracy.
Facing up to Portugal’s colonialist past

Portuguese history cannot be looked at in isolation from colonialism, slavery, and racism. Racism persists, largely due to the “good coloniser” myth still taught in schools: the idea that Portuguese colonialism was beneficial to the colonised peoples. The extent of structural racism was revealed by the European Social Survey of 2018-2019, which found that 62 per cent of Portuguese people expressed agreement with at least one of the presented racist beliefs, with only 11 per cent disagreeing with every racist belief presented.

Some sectors and movements in Portuguese society have awakened to the fight against racism, largely through external influences such as the Black Lives Matter movement. There is now a clear and strong demand among the younger generations for Portuguese society to confront its colonialist and racist roots. This affects their voting preferences, and thus the progressive movement cannot afford to ignore these issues.

The dynamics and proposals of the traditional leftist parties are still clinging to a past that holds Portugal’s future hostage.

Those roots still cast their shadow in the form of inequalities in access to housing, employment or education. In particular, racism against the Roma community remains the most serious example of social exclusion, both legally (police forces in 1985 stated special surveillance over “nomad” people) and culturally.

The degradation of social cohesion is worsened by a system engineered to prioritise profit, to the detriment of social justice. In Portugal, it takes five generations for a poor family to reach the average income level. The inequality that allows the top 20 per cent to hold more than 70 per cent of the wealth while the bottom 20 per cent are left with 0.1 per cent is a major factor driving the lack of opportunities for current and future generations.

A necessary paradigm shift


On the environment front, despite the efforts of the last 15 years, Portugal still lacks a sound environmental strategy that allows for a green and just transition and the recovery of its natural heritage. Recent discussions around a climate law in Portugal demonstrate the lack of commitment on decarbonising the economy. Only now are such discussions being held at a parliamentary level and the parties’ proposals are vague and unclear about concrete goals. Even this will mean nothing if the government does not back the law’s funding and implementation, which is not expected to happen given the current government’s track record on environmental policy.

The fact that the building of a new airport in a protected area to serve Lisbon is still being discussed despite multiple criticisms demonstrates the nature of the Portuguese debate on environment and climate. This is regardless of favourable conditions in the country, such as the vast maritime zone or plentiful sunlight, for public policies that would lead a green transition while restructuring its economy and allowing for a development model that promotes social cohesion.


The challenges at hand call for an urgent democratic, ecological, and cosmopolitan agenda.

The progressive ecologist political alternative is not yet dominant among the Portuguese left, which is further delaying a much-needed transition. The parties of the traditional left are not prepared to fight the far right, nor do they offer a comprehensive alternative that addresses inequality, corruption, and the lack of social and environmental justice. Their dynamics and, consequently, their proposals are still clinging to a past that holds Portugal’s future hostage. Some sectors of the Left are still socially conservative or overly orthodox and do not commit themselves to a common agenda that makes it possible to respond to people’s needs while providing progressive transformation.

In a country with clusters of poverty and endemic precariousness, state support is easily turned into anti-poor, racist go-to speech by the far right. The fight for social, political, and economic freedom needs to be fought once again, now under the universalist values of social and environmental justice and equality. This freedom will only be meaningfully achieved when access to health, housing, and education – principles of the Portuguese Constitution – is available to everyone. This stance, in a clear rebuttal of the advancing proto-fascist agenda, requires progressive forces to adapt to new dynamics. Traditional parties’ inertia squanders the opportunity to seize the national agenda and risks leaving it for proto-fascist forces to encroach upon.

The big centre has also dominated the discourse around Europe, leaving the themes of European cooperation and integration contaminated by the main parties’ conduct. There is a risk that extreme right-wing populism will control this dynamic and take advantage of popular dissatisfaction with the big centre parties. The traditional sectors of the Left are characterised by a mild Euroscepticism, so progressivism takes a gamble when looking critically at European construction, especially at a time when Portugal presides over the Council of the European Union.
The silent Portuguese presidency of the EU

When Portugal took over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union at the beginning of 2021, the debate about Europe in the Portuguese media focussed on the nomination for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). This EU office has the power to investigate, prosecute, and bring to judgment crimes against the EU budget, such as fraud, corruption, or serious cross-border VAT fraud, which is of utmost importance given the amount of public funding granted by the European Commission as a response to the pandemic (notably the Recovery and Resilience Facility). The nomination of the Portuguese prosecutor was troubled from the beginning, as the government overrode the decision of the selection committee in charge of the process. Once again, the parties of the big centre arranged for the final decision on the nomination to be sanctioned by the Portuguese judiciary system’s institutions.

By doing so, the two biggest Portuguese political parties turned a European procedure into one subject to the entrenched national dynamics. It is not unreasonable to assume that both parties failed to foresee the implications of this blow to the EPPO’s integrity: with this precedent set, nothing will stop Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice party or Hungary’s Fidesz, for instance, from treating the European prosecutor’s nomination as a matter relating to the national judicial system and further undermining the EPPO.


The lack of a proper debate around Europe benefits the big centre, as it allows for the nationalisation of European successes and Europeanisation of national failures.

Above all, this issue represents the approach to European matters that is taken as the norm in Portugal: single, out-of-context cases that are viewed through the national lens and subject to the biases of national politics. The European Union is regarded as little more than a vehicle for funding some local economic development. This limiting perspective significantly hampers Portugal’s role and capacity to build the European project. The traditional Portuguese left alternates between this self-interested view and light Euroscepticism. The European Union and European democracy have enjoyed considerable popularity in Portugal, even during the troika period. As a result, the traditional leftist forces, and even the populist extreme right, have avoided overtly Eurosceptic discourse.

The lack of a proper debate around Europe benefits the big centre and is thus perpetuated by it, as it allows for the nationalisation of European successes and Europeanisation of national failures. This course of action, preferred by consecutive governments from PS and PSD, alienates the population from the process of creating a democratic EU.

The Conference on the Future of Europe, expected to promote dialogue between European citizens, is tied to the institutions, leaving citizens without a voice in the decision-making processes that will inevitably shape their lives [read more on the Conference on the Future of Europe]. The Portuguese EU Presidency thus far has been marked by similar failings: disconnected from citizens, without civil engagement, and with little reflection on the future. Instead of capitalising on the unique opportunity to strengthen connections with Europe, we see a chronic lack of ambition mixed with the loss of Portugal’s credibility caused by irregular procedures and opacity. Instead of restoring faith in continent-wide cooperation by highlighting its advantages, the way is being paved for the growth of extremism and a rebuttal of multilateralism. The future is not this way.

Progressive forces, particularly in Portugal, are now tasked with the difficult job of providing a political alternative to proto-fascist populism and reckoning with the colonialist past and racist present that help drive that populism. Simultaneously, they must respond to the social, pandemic, and environmental crises and address the concrete problems in people’s lives. Taking on these different areas of action will be hard, but it is possible.



How Greens in Government Are Tackling Homelessness

Samir Jeraj
APRIL 2021

From Helsinki to Brighton, Greens in local governments have been working to find lasting solutions to the persistent problem of homelessness, often drawing inspiration from pioneering policies from around the world and calling for a shift in understanding and response measures.
Green proposals have brought about significant progress at many different levels of government, yet the current climate threatens to set back these efforts. Although the onset of Covid-19 was an impetus to find solutions, many of the policies addressing homelessness during the pandemic are temporary and thus liable to be rolled back, while funding cuts imposed by recovery policies risk worsening the situation.

More than 700,000 people sleep rough across Europe on any given night, according to data from the European Parliament. This figure has risen by 70 per cent in the past decade, as rents in cities spiralled, social housing shrank, and governments grappled with the impact of the 2008 financial crash. Millions more live in temporary housing, informal shelters, and on couches and floors of friends, family, and acquaintances.

The profile of people who are homeless varies across Europe, and it is difficult to get a clear picture as there is no cross-EU data. However, a comparison of national data reveals that some groups are more at risk than others, and that picture is changing. Undocumented migrants, who do not have access to social protection are at high risk across Europe, and make up over half of rough sleepers in some cities in Europe, such as in the Spanish capital of Madrid. By contrast, in Portugal, of the 1386 homeless people supported by the NGO Assistência Médica Internacional (AMI), 79 per cent were born in the country. In Austria, there is growing concern about the impact of rising rents on “middle class” people in employment. In the UK, an increasing number of younger people under the age of 25 have become homeless. In Brussels, a count in 2016 revealed that of the 3386 people who were homeless in the city, 35 per cent were living on the streets, 25 per cent were in temporary accommodation, and 39 per cent were living in inadequate housing.

The coronavirus pandemic has given urgency to tackling of homelessness. Governments have taken unprecedented steps to protect the homeless against the risk of infection and death. In the UK, for example, the government briefly funded the “Everyone In” programme in March 2020 to bring rough sleepers into the hotels that had emptied. By contrast, rough sleepers in Brussels were issued “curfew passes” that allowed them to stay on the streets. In Paris, Doctors without Borders found that four in ten people who were in homeless hostels were testing positive for Covid-19, with rates as high as 94 per cent in one hostel.

“How can you stay at home if you don’t have a home?”

Progressive alliances for ambitious policies in Brighton

Over the past six years, several Green “waves” have swept through countries in western Europe and brought more Greens into power at the local, regional, and national levels. These new (and sometimes older) Green and Green-led administrations are having to deal with the growing homelessness as part of their policy agendas. To do so, they have often taken inspiration from innovative approaches to housing provision, while building up emergency hostel services, creating more social housing, and seeking to strengthen the rights of people who are most at risk of homelessness.

Brighton and Hove on the south coast of England have many of the problems faced by seaside towns, which have suffered from the loss of traditional industries and now have a lot of more low-paid seasonal tourism work. It has a long waiting list for social housing, hundreds of families in emergency housing, and rough sleepers on the streets. During the coronavirus pandemic, the council has worked hard to get rough sleepers off the streets as part of the “Everyone In” scheme. The local council has been led by a minority Green Party administration since last year, and housing and homelessness are one of their priorities.

David Gibson is the joint chair of the city’s housing committee. He explained that the administration is working at different levels: increasing the supply of council housing and expanding the “Housing First” provision. “Since we took over the council, we’ve produced as many additional council homes in a year than the previous administration produced in four years,” he explains.

Under the Greens, the council has accelerated its programme of buying up housing in Brighton to add to those it has commissioned, using a mix of loans and their own money to do this. “Part of the package is that we need to tackle the supply side,” Gibson added. It is a policy that they have been able to pursue even as the construction industry ground to a halt due to the pandemic.


Without increased funding from the central government and with the prospect of the ban on evictions in England being lifted the council will still find it challenging to house everyone.

As a minority administration, Gibson explained that the Greens work with councillors from the Labour Party on a joint housing and homelessness programme to pass the necessary policies and budgets, and on setting more ambitious goals.

The council has also bought several of the better buildings being used for temporary housing, with the aim of turning them into long-term housing in the future. They have recently bought a 38-flat scheme in Gibson’s ward, which means housing that would otherwise have been in the for-profit market is now being let through the council.

A “considerable success” for Gibson and the Green administration is the expansion of “Housing First” homes from 20 to 60, with more in the pipeline. Based on the approach pioneered in New York in the 1990s, Housing First emphasises getting people into stable housing and meeting their holistic needs for support such as mental health or addiction on an ongoing basis. This is a complete reversal of the prevailing thinking that people should have addressed these issues before they can access housing, which is near impossible when someone is living on the street or in insecure housing.

The expansion is fortuitous for Brighton and Hove, as many of the people being sheltered in hotels due to the pandemic are exactly the people for whom Housing First can help. However, without increased funding from the central government and with the prospect of the ban on evictions in England being lifted (the ban has now been extended until May), Gibson predicts the council will still find it challenging to house everyone in need. “There’s this problem in the long run that at the moment, without funding, we haven’t got a prospect of resolving.”
Bureaucratic barriers undermine Amsterdam’s local solutions

In Amsterdam, the Green-led administration is facing similar challenges with their central government, explains Marijn van der List who is the GroenLinks (Green Left) spokesperson on homelessness in the city. As the capital city, homelessness is particularly acute and the local government has had to respond to Covid-19. “It’s quite contradictory that we were told to ‘stay at home’ but how can you stay at home if you don’t have a home?” she observes. Locally, the lack of available housing causes blockages throughout the homelessness system, “you would like people to get a house as soon as possible to start their lives again or with a little bit of help, or step by step doing it on their own again, but there are no houses,” she explains.


Efforts by local governments are not being matched by policy change and support from the central government

At the national level, anti-immigrant policies passed by successive governments mean many undocumented people are homeless and cannot access services. Marijn first became involved in politics, resisting policies such as denying undocumented people the right to a shelter and a fair asylum system. “Cities were always providing shelter in some way to people without documents,” she explains. There is currently a national shelter programme running in five local governments, including Amsterdam, and the Green-led administration there has added funding to expand the shelter capacity. It provides 24-hour shelter for around 500 people together with support for their asylum cases. They are also working with other parties to look at a “city ID” card for residents of Amsterdam, including undocumented people, modelled on efforts in New York, Paris and other European cities to ensure some basic rights such as access to bank accounts and access to state buildings.

Van der List is frustrated that efforts by local governments are not being matched by policy change and support from the central government on the causes of homelessness and on funding for mental health services. “Sometimes I find it very hard to look at the numbers we spend on this system, where we try and help people once they hit the bottom, because if you’re ‘too well’ you’re not helped,” she says. Long waiting lists for housing and local connection rules on access make it more difficult for people who have had to move around a lot. The Dutch welfare system also discourages house-sharing by cutting benefits to people who share a home, including parents with adult children. These are policies developed at a national level that create challenges for local governments. “You can’t solve everything as a city,” says van der List.
Greens in Finland – leveraging power in government to shift policies

Finland is already a leader in reducing homelessness. In 1987, there were around 18,000 rough sleepers. Their strategies throughout the 1990s and early 2000s used the “staircase” approach where, in theory, a homeless person moves from street to shelter, to temporary housing, and eventually to permanent housing. However, the staircase approach failed to tackle long-term homelessness. In 2007, the government and municipalities like Helsinki embarked on their own Housing First policies: 1250 homes were built or made available in Finnish cities to people who were long-term homeless by converting existing shelters accompanied by intense support around their health and social welfare. In parallel, the government improved its efforts on prevention and continued to build more general needs social housing. By 2017 the number of people who were homeless was 6600 – it now stands at 4600. It is in stark contrast to other parts of Europe, such as the UK where there has been an increase of 141 per cent in the past ten years.

As part of the agreement with the five parties that form the government, the Finnish Greens negotiated including the target of halving homelessness by 2023 and eliminating it all together by 2027. The current minister for environment, climate and housing responsible for making this happen is Green MP Krista Mikkonen. The government has introduced a new Homelessness Cooperation Programme between the state, municipalities, service providers and NGOs. This program focuses on providing funding and support for municipal work on homelessness.

Alongside this, the government is steering through legislation to make housing counselling statutory. This would make it a requirement in every municipality and bring together services, enabling them to intervene to prevent evictions and negotiate issues such as rent debt.

In common with many countries, homelessness in Finland is concentrated in cities and particular in Helsinki, where housing costs have risen beyond people’s ability to pay. The Finnish Greens in Helsinki hold the vice-mayor positions on health and social care along with housing. They have worked to integrate different services to help people with multiple and complex needs such as homelessness, addiction and mental health, and are also proponents of “Housing First” as a principle in their housing policies. In contrast to the New York model of Housing First, tenants in Finland pay the rent entirely themselves (drawing on the benefits system) and the relatively well-funded health and social services mean there is less of a need for the large multi-agency support meetings used in the US.
Progress and prospects at the EU level

The issue of spiralling housing costs in cities is something Dutch GroenLinks MEP Kim Van Sparrentak has been working on in her role as rapporteur for the EU Parliament on access to decent and affordable housing for all. The rapporteur draws up a report which recommends new EU legislation to the parliament which is a key stage of the legislative process in the EU. Van Sparrentak’s housing report has taken a year to put together and covers a broad range of issues such as affordability, homelessness, discrimination, speculation, investment in public housing, and evictions.

The main recommendation of the report was creating an EU level target of eliminating homelessness by 2030, and the Greens/EFA group in the parliament are running a petition in support of this goal. However, Van Sparrentak believes that while governments stick to austerity policies, this will be difficult to achieve. “Homelessness is not a fact of life, it does not have to be considered as one,” she says, highlighting the success in Finland. “There are solutions that exist, if we dare to invest in them, and if we dare to take a different approach to social support.” She adds that there is a lot of support for tackling homelessness in the EU and that there are steps that can be taken to enable national and local governments to take action, and to tackle the root causes such as speculation.

The work builds on the European Pillar of Social Rights, adopted by the EU Commission in 2017. Principle 19 is about housing assistance and homelessness, and mandates the EU to work on the issue. The Commission published its action plan at the start of March, and while it does not go far enough, it is an important step. Alongside this are plans to launch a “collaboration platform” in June for EU states to work together and share information on homelessness. The EU can also play an important role in improving the quality and availability of data along with developing a common set of concepts and policy language for homelessness.

Van Sparrentak’s report also calls for all EU member states to have a homelessness strategy, with the EU providing coordination, and that the main solution is providing permanent secure housing – basically a roll-out of Housing First across Europe, the MEP explains. Intersectionality is another key part of the Green approach to homelessness, with specific attention being called for to meet the specific needs of groups such as LGBT youth and women, particularly as the range of people who are homeless has become more diverse. One area where the Commission could take stronger action, according to Van Sparrentak, is on the criminalisation of homelessness. In Hungary for example, sleeping rough is a criminal offence something which breaches EU law.

The big challenge, and where the EU could potentially have the most impact are the underlying causes of the rise in homelessness. Austerity policies mean there is now a 57-billion-euro gap in investment in affordable and social housing across Europe, this is happening alongside the privatisation of public housing and deregulation of private rented housing. “What you see is a lot of people falling between the cracks in the social housing market and the private rented market,” Van Sparrentak explains. They are neither able to access a dwindling social housing stock nor afford private rented housing. While national governments hold much of the power to tackle homelessness, the EU can play a role in it too by supporting national and local governments. EU fiscal rules currently focus heavily on balanced budgets and eliminating deficits, which does not allow for the level of investment needed in housing and other infrastructure. These rules, however, have essentially been suspended until 2023 due to the pandemic and could inspire a generous attitude towards investment to help EU economies recover.

On a broader level, the EU can help tackle housing speculation. Big institutional companies such as Blackstone have bought up housing and used the value of the homes and the stream of rental income to borrow and buy up more housing. What the arrangements mean in practice is that these companies can earn money from the resale, rental income, and borrowing against both of these through bonds. The EU can use its powers on banking and financial rules to have an impact, drawing from existing policies and ongoing research. “This is one of the big stories in what is driving up prices and is causing the housing crisis,” says Van Sparrentak. In 2019, the then UN Special Rapporteur on Housing and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights wrote to Blackstone outlining their concerns about the role of the company in the financialisation of housing. Blackstone robustly defended itself in response.

The scale of homelessness is likely to grow in cities and beyond as governments decide on how best to respond to the economic damage created by the pandemic. In the UK, the government has already signalled that it will likely embrace another set of austerity policies and cut public spending. This will undermine progress made by local governments to tackle homelessness through building social housing and Housing First-type policies. They will put future generations at a greater risk of becoming homeless. Greens can play a vital role in resisting these trends at a national and European level while making a difference locally where they have power.



Guaranteeing the Right to Decent Work

The job guarantee is an ambitious proposal that aims to ensure everyone in society has access to fairly waged, decent work.

Pavlina Tcherneva
Thomas Belaich
Ulysse Lojkine

MARCH 2021

The job guarantee is an ambitious proposal that aims to ensure everyone in society has access to fairly waged, decent work. Amid the upheaval caused by an economic recession that threatens widespread unemployment, solutions need to be found rapidly, and many proposals have been brought to the table, from universal basic income to more traditional stimulus measures. Pavlina Tcherneva, author of The Case for a Job Guarantee, explains why these alternatives are destined to fall short, and sets out why a job guarantee would benefit not just the unemployed but society as a whole, providing individuals with greater autonomy, empowering communities, and contributing to solutions to urgent problems such as the environmental and care crises.

Thomas Belaich and Ulysse Lojkine: Can you explain what a job guarantee is, and why there is a need for it?

Pavlina Tcherneva: The main aim of the job guarantee policy is to “democratise work” and empower individuals, both by giving them the opportunity to choose their work, but also by creating jobs whose goal isn’t to make a profit for a business.

Most jobs in our economies are created by the private sector and are increasingly precarious. The labour market has not given most people a stable standard of living and quality of life, and jobs are becoming harder to bear. So we need a new social contract, a new promise for individuals: if you are seeking work, you will be able to find a decent occupation with an adequate wage.

It isn’t just the private sector that can create jobs; the public sector remains completely overlooked in this regard. Many of the public dimensions of our social life are, in fact, poorly taken into account.

In our modern societies, it has become widely accepted that we should guarantee pension rights, however basic, healthcare provision — except in the United States, unfortunately —, and we know that a free minimum level of education increases the public good — as does guaranteed access to libraries, quality information, and so on. Work is the most important determinant of wellbeing, yet we only ever guarantee unemployment insurance, or sometimes just anti-poverty assistance, but really guaranteeing a decent job is much more empowering for life itself and has a much stronger and clearer effect than the patchwork of policies that we have. It’s a structural policy rather than an additional “measure for employment”.

The system that we’re proposing rests on three pillars. First, the job guarantee would be based on participative decision-making, starting from the principle that unemployed people and communities know what is right for them — so “bottom up”. Next, it would complete the social protection system by including the basic right to work. Lastly, it would be a better stabilisation policy than the different benefits surrounding work and unemployment, which is precisely the purpose of public service.


Work is the most important determinant of wellbeing, yet we only ever guarantee unemployment insurance, or sometimes just anti-poverty assistance….

There have been initiatives in the spirit of your model. Do you consider the Argentine scheme Jefes y Jefas, which ran between 2002 and 2007, and the Indian system started by the 2005 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act good examples of what you’re proposing?

Yes, these two programmes are completely in keeping with our proposals. In fact, the Jefes plan was developed from the job guarantee model that we had devised with colleagues from the University of Missouri.

Of course, neither of the programmes is universal — the beneficiaries of the Jefes plan are unemployed individuals with dependent children who are minors or disabled, while those of the Indian scheme are adults from poor rural households who volunteer for relatively unskilled tasks. Even so, they generally follow the model that I advocate, and they perfectly illustrate how a job guarantee could be implemented in developing countries by focusing on a country’s particular problems. For example, both programmes had significant beneficial effects for the poorest women, and the Indian programme created essential environmental jobs.

There are some policies that go in this direction in Europe, like in France with its Territoires zéro chômeurs (zero unemployed areas), and in a very different manner, Hungary’s public works scheme, which seems to have contributed to the sharp fall in unemployment under Viktor Orbán. What do you think about these European cases?

I’ve followed the this solution in France closely and, to my mind, it is a very good model for thinking about extending the programme nationally. On the other hand, Orbán’s policy is a workfare policy. It forces individuals to return to work to receive their benefits, a condition that applies regardless of their situation or the characteristics of the job.

The fundamental question is about the collective effort that we’re willing to make to ensure that those who need a job, a decent job, can benefit from a mechanism that guarantees one. There are two ways to do it, democratically or undemocratically; based on the consultation model, like in France, or on the workfare model, like in Hungary.

The confusion between these two policies stems from the fact that the job guarantee is often mistaken for an employment programme like any other, opening jobs to individuals, punitively or otherwise – you can always force people to work! But the job guarantee is not a workfare policy, it’s an addition to the safety net that’s already in place, or rather an overhaul of what social protection should take into account.

The aim is to rethink social protection, and to rethink it so that it guarantees more fundamental rights, of which work is one. Work has long been recognised as a fundamental human right, but we need to make more of an effort to guarantee it for all, voluntarily, with a bottom-up approach, which is the opposite of the coercive incentives and top-down approach of workfare policies.


The aim is to rethink social protection, and to rethink it so that it guarantees more fundamental rights, of which work is one.

Let’s look at the differences between the French and Hungarian experiments. In Hungary, this employment programme was put in place at the expense of social protection, particularly unemployment benefits. Furthermore, the tasks are not defined in the same way: mayors are in charge of the unemployed, whereas in France it’s the unemployed themselves who define their occupations. What do you think about this democratisation of “tasks” themselves?

People know what they need. In my work in Argentina, those who came up with their own projects were the most interesting: they knew precisely what families needed, they knew what would benefit young people quickest, and they knew precisely what the local situations were. In this respect, to use Graeber’s concept, they weren’t “bullshit jobs”. It wasn’t a case of building infrastructure in the middle of nowhere just to keep people busy. It was about responding effectively to the needs of the community.

That the people doing jobs have a say in defining them is at the very heart of the idea of democratising work. It’s not a question of a central administrator allocating work by consulting their roadmap but it needs to be led by the community in which that job is based.

The main message is that new occupations shouldn’t just be jobs, but a way to fill a void in public life. If a community is ravaged by unemployment, it’s not simply a matter of providing a certain number of “posts”; the creation of jobs should be used as an opportunity to consider the specific needs of each community — its elderly, its children, and so on — while giving power to the myriad local groups that try to address its challenges. The job guarantee would therefore prioritise care work.

There are numerous needs and problems, starting with the energy transition. In fact, the job guarantee would be very conducive to the transition. The most effective project in the United States’ New Deal was the rehabilitation and conservation of national parks, which we have inherited. The people who live in regions that have been flooded, burnt, or polluted are well aware of this need.

While the main goal of the job guarantee is to help job seekers, such an ambitious programme would also affect the employed. What effects would a job guarantee have on the labour market for the employed? Couldn’t we expect a reduction in the bargaining power of employees particularly among the least skilled?

Quite the opposite. Because we’re in a real unemployment paradigm, we accept massive levels of it, which makes us underestimate its effects on workers. The existence of unemployment creates and makes people accept a race to the bottom in the labour market. They lose their benefits, their protection and, little by little, the precariat gains ground, all because the existence of unemployment creates fierce competition for a small number of jobs. Employees are in a situation where they have to put up with their job, as precarious as it may be, for fear of not finding another. As the famous saying goes, nobody is safe until everyone is safe.

If we were to orchestrate a paradigm shift by asserting that all those who need a job should be offered one, the economy would work very differently. Of course, the most skilled won’t see their lives transformed, and a job guarantee wouldn’t change their lives much. But if I work in McDonald’s, I would gain more leverage. I have an option, an alternative. Then, if there’s harassment at work, I can say no and look for another job opportunity, which isn’t the case today.

Many would respond that you can do this with a universal basic income, because quitting a job doesn’t mean losing too much income, but the goal is to offer a job, because the market doesn’t create enough of them. Unlike UBI, the job guarantee doesn’t perpetuate the competition over jobs, and therefore raises the employment floor by providing a decent job and adequate income. Employers who take advantage of the threat of unemployment to keep workers’ wages low will have to at least match the standard of the job guarantee to continue to find labour. There’s the real effect for the employed. We’ve already seen this phenomenon in the United States, where raising a state’s minimum wage above the federal minimum has a ripple effect on wages in neighbouring states.

Fundamentally, ensuring full employment helps to systematically increase the bargaining power of the least skilled workers, of the most vulnerable, who are usually discarded by the labour market first, and included last.


Unlike UBI, the job guarantee doesn’t perpetuate the competition over jobs, and therefore raises the employment floor by providing a decent job and adequate income.

When looking at Europe, which has both national and EU-wide labour markets, what is the most relevant level for a job guarantee?

Ideally, we should be brave and ambitious from the outset, and think directly at the European level. Of course, there are major limitations in the Eurozone, the biggest being the lack of a European budget. But there are also things that we can build on: I’m thinking about the legal requirement for the European Commission to publish information on unemployment and social justice, and the European Union’s Youth Guarantee, which is implemented by national governments.

In the meantime, national governments can already act. For example, France spends billions on subsidies for companies but the impact on unemployment is quite modest. The government could use some of this spending to directly hire the unemployed, enhancing the effect on employment.

Obviously, national governments face budgetary constraints due to the Maastricht criteria. This prevents them from boosting employment as widely as the United States does on a regular basis in times of crisis, and it’s a real straitjacket for European states. However, they already spend a fair amount on unemployment insurance and fighting poverty, aimed particularly at people without work. With these costs deducted, job guarantee programmes wouldn’t be as expensive as people say they are.

Why opt for a job guarantee rather than more conventional Keynesian stimulus policies? After all, Europe saw full employment after the war without a job guarantee.

Even during the Keynesian era of the 1950s and 1960s, we didn’t exactly reach perfect full employment; there was still lots of poverty and unemployment, which we have had a tendency to underestimate. Above all, the share of long-term unemployment has been rising since the 1960s, which has contributed to the gradual rolling back of labour market protections. It’s the classic reserve army of labour, which holds the threat of unemployment over people’s heads and lowers job standards. We should aim to make it disappear.

As for Keynesian policies, they tend to only reduce joblessness among the most employable. They only affect the most skilled individuals who receive the best wages and who never experience unemployment. Even during the Keynesian era, this phenomenon of “last in, first out” persisted; those at the bottom of the income scale were also those who had the most precarious experience of work.

Keynes himself favoured – far more so than post-war Keynesians – public works in places where people were unemployed. It’s a message largely forgotten and boiled down to the idea that you simply have to flood the economy with cash to kickstart growth, despite growth itself being very unequal and contributing to financial instability and environmental destruction.

We have to adopt more surgical policies that directly target employment, understand the limits of growth, and create more sustainable bottom-up growth.

Another candidate in terms of progressive policies is universal basic income, which is attractive for many reasons — its simplicity, the fact that nobody allocates job tasks, nobody is responsible for job programmes, etc.

I think this attractiveness is very overrated. To say that this measure would be “universal” is a false promise. It’s actually the quickest way to get rid of hard-won safety nets and replace them. Many see this as a substitute for what’s left of social protection. What’s more, it does not create any jobs. Income is just one of the many reasons that push an individual to want to work. Helping people with a universal income will not give them a job. There will still be too few jobs for which people will have to keep fighting.

Once the job guarantee is in place, what should we expect in the medium term? Should we expect the guaranteed sector to first fill up and then spill over into the private sector?

The simplest answer is that it’s a counter-cyclical programme, simply because the private sector is cyclical. What we’re seeing in large-scale programmes like those in Argentina or India is that they take on huge numbers of new workers during crises. During upturns, people turn again to the private sector, and much more quickly than they would leave unemployment.

We’ve modelled our programme at the Levy Institute, and like all budgetary measures, there would be a counter-cyclical effect, and without any effect on inflation. For the United States, we found that the measure could increase inflation by a maximum of 0.74 per cent, an effect that rapidly falls to 0.09 per cent. It will therefore limit macroeconomic fluctuations, because in a situation of mass unemployment where the future is uncertain, unemployment lasts much longer than if the most vulnerable are offered a job, which allows economic activity to continue a bit better.

If you take the case of countries who experience full employment for long periods, like Sweden or Japan, you see that their economic activity is much more stable than in countries like France or the United States, where unemployment has fluctuated for decades. Employment is a stabilising force for economic activity in general.


An extended version of this interview first appeared in Le Grand Continent in French.




Transforming Work, Reimagining Education

The need to reorganise work can be justified both in social and ecological terms. Yet, such reorganisation wouldn’t be complete without questioning work’s dominance over other areas of life. 

Maria Albà Díaz
15 APRIL 2021

The need to reorganise work can be justified both in social and ecological terms. Yet, such reorganisation wouldn’t be complete without questioning work’s dominance over other areas of life. Education is a key part of this transformation, but it must be viewed as something that helps people develop and thrive throughout their lives, rather than merely adapting them to the constraints of a neoliberal job market. Transforming our conceptions of education and work in this way can reduce health inequalities, improve individual wellbeing, and mitigate the environmental impacts of a workaholic system.

Work remains one of capitalism’s most unhealthy obsessions. Rather than considering it a means to an end, working – and especially working hard – has become an end in itself. Working weeks of 40 hours or more remain a norm despite improvements in productivity and precarious wages keep workers absorbed by their jobs and unable to nourish other areas of their lives. Work’s dominance over other spheres of life has relegated education to the role of a fragile assistant. Educational programmes are mostly chosen based on the career paths they might open, and opportunities to go back to formal education after entering the workforce are limited, despite the social and health benefits that lifelong education provides.

A reorganisation of work should therefore not be limited to a revision of working hours and wages, as urgent as both these measures are. Work must be reshaped in a manner that overturns its long-standing dominance over education. Instead, policies for lifelong learning can create a positive interaction between work, leisure, and education. The basis for this proposal was sketched almost 40 years ago by sociologist Chris Phillipson in Capitalism and the Construction of Old Age. At a time when neoliberal policies have exacerbated precariousness, alienation, burnout, and chronic unemployment, rethinking work and education in tandem is more relevant than ever. The opportunity to transform work and reinvent the role that it plays in our lives is, at last, at hand. While work – care work, essential work– will never cease to exist, whether its presence will be suffocating or purposeful depends upon us.


Policies for lifelong learning can create a positive interaction between work, leisure, and education.
Harmful for humans and the planet

Work holds a privileged position in our society and our lives: our worth is often calculated based on the amount of work we can perform, and our identities have become intertwined with the job we hold or aspire to. Having a job with social value has turned into a privilege, while useless corporate positions offer better conditions than essential jobs. In a 2015 YouGov survey, 37 per cent of British workers indicated that their job made no meaningful contribution to the world. However, less than half of those respondents were looking for another one. The survey was based on a famous article by the anthropologist David Graeber, where he coined the term “bullshit jobs”: jobs so pointless, or even damaging, that even the people doing them believe that they should not exist.

And indeed, why do they exist? Not because they need to. Technological improvements and increases in productivity would allow for a significant reduction in the working week. Yet the 40-hour week has remained a reality in most European countries since the early 20th century. Why do we work virtually the same hours that an average British worker did almost 100 years ago? In Graeber’s words, “It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working.” The insidiousness of the work ethic and a system that relies on a precarious and overworked working class has led to the current situation. A situation where work, our way of satisfying our and others’ unmet needs and of contributing to the community, has turned into a socially pernicious reality.

If anything, the pandemic has exposed the unnecessary nature of much work and ways of working, revealing a system overflowing with redundant and unnecessary jobs. While this statement might be unpleasant to some, a natural reaction given how pervasive work has been in determining our identity and self-worth, realising that much of the work we perform is not essential is a finding that should be celebrated, recognising the new possibilities that reorganising work would open. The argument is not against non-essential activities that might still be valuable for society, such as artists, but against the obsession with keeping individuals occupied eight hours a day throughout their adult life regardless of the usefulness of what they are doing. The present situation, while disastrous in many ways, has allowed us to envision new ways of living and working, and these should not be forgotten once the pandemic subsides.

Reorganising work is thus an urgent matter if we want a more socially sustainable and just system, but also if we want a system that is not as ecologically damaging. According to a report published in 2019, reducing working hours would decrease carbon emissions and air pollution, and would thus be a crucial step in the path towards a carbon-neutral economy. Several proposals have already emerged to make such reduction a reality: the degrowth movement has included work-sharing and a 32-hour week as part of their policy proposals, and current debates focus on whether a shorter working day or a shorter working week would be more beneficial, taking ecofeminist arguments into account.


The present situation, while disastrous in many ways, has allowed us to envision new ways of living and working.

The present proposal suggests including lifelong education into this reorganisation, promoting a system where education and work would have complementary functions throughout a person’s life. Importantly, the idea would not be to redirect all of the time freed from work into formal education. This liberated time could be spent in many ways, from social reproduction to leisure, encouraging bouts of idleness and enjoyment that our rigid work paradigm has for so long repressed. This new system would then promote a positive interaction between three crucial elements: education, work, and leisure.
Why lifelong education?

The first, maybe naïve but essential reason for promoting lifelong learning involves the fostering of human capacities and aspirations of human flourishing. The central aim of continuing education should not be staying up to date with the most recent developments or gaining profitable skills to be more competitive on the job market. The most fundamental ambition should be to allow people to cultivate their interests, acquiring understanding, experience, and skills in disciplines and areas that excite and intrigue them. A world where education was valued for its own sake would expand human capacities and possibilities, allowing people to lean into their curiosity without having to ponder the market value of their interests.

Concern over the limited possibilities that a commodified education system offers should be a sufficient reason to promote a reorganisation of education, but there are many others. A central argument in favour of the promotion of lifelong learning concerns the social determinants of health: that is, the consequences that the economic and social contexts of an individual’s life have on their health. While the predominant biomedical model of health asserts that a person’s level of health depends mostly on their genetics and lifestyle, many social variables have a significant impact. In fact, the World Health Organization estimates that such non-medical factors can explain most health inequalities. These social variables include, amongst others, gender, housing, salary, neighbourhood of residence, parents’ social class, and most importantly for the present argument, level or years of education. Different studies have revealed the lasting impact of education over an individual’s lifespan, influencing variables such as morbidity, healthy life expectancy, and mortality. In more specific terms, this means that a person in the lowest education category, either in terms of years or level, is twice as likely to develop a long-term disability, between 10 and 15 per cent more likely to develop a limiting illness, and has a risk of developing dementia almost threefold that of someone in the highest category. Advocating for a system where education would play a more prominent role is thus not just an issue concerning ideals or aspirations, but a matter of commitment towards a more equal society.

To tackle both these issues, it is essential to promote lifelong education, not merely to strengthen the educational model as it is now. This current model dictates that formal learning is mostly reserved for young people, which is problematic in at least two ways. First, not everyone can afford to pursue an educational degree when they are young: educational attainment is highly influenced by the socioeconomic status of the family, with children born in less privileged families encountering many barriers to attend post-secondary education. Even when they do, their study choice might have more to do with job prospects than with personal interests. Second, even for those who have the opportunity to study at a young age, restricting formal education to such a limited time span fails to acknowledge the way humans evolve throughout their life, developing a wide array of interests that might not have been present when the person was considered young enough to study. A model that supports lifelong education is thus better suited to the way individuals evolve throughout their lives, and its promotion is essential, not only as a way of expanding human capacities but also as an attempt to curtail health inequalities.
Lifelong education: narrow view, limited impact

The concept of lifelong education is hardly a new idea. Both the political sphere and the corporate world recognise its importance and promote it through incentives and policy packages. The EU itself is involved in supporting lifelong learning: the European Council adopted the Renewed European Agenda for Adult Learning in 2011 and the EU is committed to goals such increasing the quality of and enhancing creativity and innovation at all levels of training.

This education agenda highlights the need to increase adult participation in both formal and non-formal education and sets out a number of strategies to achieve its objectives. The document acknowledges lifelong learning’s relevance for social cohesion and participation and some of the strategies outlined pursue laudable goals, like encouraging higher education institutions to embrace adult learners and developing learning provision for seniors. However, the overarching conception of lifelong learning remains within a neoliberal framing linked to competitiveness and employability, mostly focusing on the development of job-specific skills and the up-skilling of those affected by unemployment. The aim of restructuring education in a market-oriented manner is apparent in the intention to “develop mechanisms for ensuring that educational provision better reflects labour market needs”. This approach thus works against aspirations of human flourishing and the fostering of human capacities, considering education merely as a gear to oil in order to perfect the machinery of the market.

Framing aside, one can also cast doubt on the effectiveness of adult education policy in the EU. The EU committed to increasing adult participation in education from 10 per cent to 15 per cent between 2014 and 2020; however, by 2019 the rate had only reached 10.8 per cent. A potential reason for these poor results could be a limited diagnosis of the difficulties that individuals face when trying to pursue education during their adult life. Even though the document acknowledges some obstacles, such as an alleged lack of motivation, it remains mostly silent on other pressing constraints such as long working hours, prohibitive fees, and precarious wages, dynamics that keep workers hooked on their jobs, with no real opportunity to cultivate learning without sacrificing leisure in the process.
Blurring the boundaries between education and work

How to then reorganise work in a way that would overcome the flaws in the current system while at the same time strengthening access to education? This is where Phillipson’s idea becomes relevant: he envisions a situation where people would be able to enter and re-enter the workforce at different times in their career, alternating between periods of employment and periods of education and training. This situation would be facilitated by a variety of measures such as offering paid educational leave, facilities for sabbaticals, keeping educational fees at a minimum, encouraging the enrolment of adults in educational programmes, including childcare in educational facilities, and promoting more flexible work schedules. Education in this sense would not refer only to formal university education, but to all programmes of learning, including vocational training and non-formal education.


Maintaining a miserable workforce for the sake of economic growth is a goal we should drop in the transition towards a sustainable society.

Financing such an expansion of education would clearly need to sit alongside a broad rethinking of taxation and work, in line with other degrowth proposals. The setting of a maximum income would leave companies with a certain surplus benefit that they would not be able to distribute among the top management positions or shareholders: such wealth could be invested in lifelong education schemes for their employees instead. A universal basic income would allow adults to pursue educational programmes while still being able to pay the bills. A genuinely public education system would facilitate the reduction of fees, paving the way to a fairer and more inclusive access to education. Finally, policies of work-sharing could be complemented with the option to take educational leave or dedicate some of the liberated work hours to the pursuit of study programmes. In this way, employment levels could increase while average working hours would decrease to more socially sustainable levels.

Importantly, individuals would be encouraged to choose which skills and knowledge they would like to develop based on their personal interests, not necessarily on their current jobs. An accountant’s passion might be jewellery design; a baker could be a philosophy enthusiast; a homemaker might want to delve into audiovisual production; and an IT worker could have a vibrant interest in marine biology. Limiting the array of educational possibilities available to an individual based on the kind of job they perform would be a hindrance to ideals of human flourishing, maintaining a system where work functions as an all-encompassing force that prevails over other aspects of life. Moreover, maintaining such rigid boundaries would not be coherent with the reality of career fluctuation: in a 2019 survey around career change, half of the respondents reported having made a dramatic career shift. Among those who had not, 65 per cent declared having considered it either in the past or the present. When asked for the reasons behind their decision, most career changers (81 per cent) put it down to being unhappy in their previous job or sector. Maintaining a miserable workforce for the sake of economic growth is a goal we should drop in the transition towards a sustainable society. Encouraging individuals to cultivate their interests independently of whether it would make them more productive could be a first step towards it.

Phillipson’s proposal might be hard to picture, and may even be branded as a delusional aspiration by some; however, some of his ideas have already been implemented. Belgium provides one example: in 1985, it introduced regulations on paid educational leave. This law allows employees in the private sector to take paid leave in order to pursue a study programme of their choice. The legislation was celebrated for promoting the cultural right of workers, who can choose from a set of eligible courses, including philosophy, midwifery, and social work, without their decision having to be based on the programme’s suitability to their current job. Despite this law still presenting some limitations, such as the virtual exclusion of part-time workers, its existence serves as an inspiration and a reminder that work’s domination over other areas of life is not, and should not be, the norm. A proper reorganisation should be based on this understanding of work as just one of several realms of life; a life brimming with moments of connection, rest, labour, contemplation, education, and idleness.

5 Reasons for a European UBI

During the Covid-19 pandemic, governments in the European Union took steps to broaden and simplify social support. Unfortunately, many were still left behind. As we look towards rebuilding European society, one idea gaining attention is the concept of Universal Basic Income.

As we look towards rebuilding European society, Universal Basic Income could contribute to building a fairer EU.

As part of a follow-up to our 2020 project "Change of mindsets: Civil Society dialogue around UBI, Social Justice and Climate Impact", project partners have developed a video, with the aim of depicting in a clear and concise way, how a European Basic Income could benefit the EU as a whole, and Europeans in particular.

This video is available in English, French, Spanish, German and Polish.

Watch our YouTube playlist on UBI

APRIL 2021


During the Covid-19 pandemic, governments in the European Union took steps to broaden and simplify social support, which was crucial to protect our health system and avoid an explosion of poverty. Unfortunately, many were still left behind.
As we look towards rebuilding European society, one idea gaining attention is the concept of Universal Basic Income. Find out how it would benefit people and the European Union itself. This project is organised by the Green European Foundation with the support of the Federation of Young European Greens (FYEG), Nous Horitzonts Fundació, Transición Verde, FREDA-Die Akademie, Visio, Fundacja Strefa Zieleni, and with the financial support of the European Parliament to the Green European Foundation. The European Parliament is not responsible for the content of this video.



The virus and the asparagus - a European saga

2020, The virus and the asparagus - a European saga
26 Pages
In pandemic times, in a Europe locked up everywhere, the European Union and its neo-liberal Member States have pushed hundreds of thousands of superheroes to escape from the confinement of their homes, undertake perilous journeys in huddled planes and cars, cross borderlines, and land in labor camps where they have been sequestered in jam-packed containers and put to work in crowded fields to harvest and plant crops, paid a pittance, sunrise to sunset, ten hours a day, seven days a week. We tell the compelling saga of the Romanian seasonal workers in the German asparagus fields.




[Thou shalt] Honour the asparagus! : Romanian Agricultural Labour in Germany during the COVID-19 Season | Lefteast

39 Views5 Pages
Not even a pandemic should endanger the Germans’ asparagus consumption. Even if Romanian seasonal workers bear the health costs for it – or die.




The COVID 19 Crisis and the End of the Low skilled Worker – Spectre Journal

2020, Spectre Journal
128 Views8 Pages
In a pandemic, 'essential' laborers are working, but the labor market is dysfunctional