2018/05/05

Basic income - Wikipedia



Basic income - Wikipedia



Basic income
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is about a system of unconditional income to every citizen. For the specific form financed on the profits of publicly owned enterprises, see social dividend. For social welfare based on means tests, see Guaranteed minimum income.
Not to be confused with living wage or minimum wage.

On 4 October 2013, Swiss activists from Generation Grundeinkommen organized a performance in Bern in which roughly 8 million coins, one coin representing one person out of Switzerland's population, were dumped on a public square. This was done in celebration of the successful collection of more than 125,000 signatures, forcing the government to hold a referendum on whether or not to incorporate the concept of basic income in the Federal constitution. The measure did not pass, with 76.9% voting against basic income.[1]

A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, citizen's income, unconditional basic income, universal basic income (UBI), basic living stipend (BLS) or universal demogrant) is typically described as a new kind of welfare program in which all citizens (or permanent residents) of a country receive a regular, livable and unconditional sum of money, from the government. From that follows, among other things, that there is no state requirement to work or to look for work in such a society. The payment is also, in such a pure basic income, totally independent of any other income.[2][3][4]An unconditional income that is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (at or above the poverty line), is called full basic income, while if it is less than that amount, it is called partial. Basic income can be implemented nationally, regionally or locally. Some welfare systems are related to basic income but have certain conditions. For example, Bolsa Família in Brasil is restricted to poor families and the children are obligated to attend school.[5] A related welfare system is negative income tax. Like basic income, it guarantees everyone (where everyone can mean, for example, all adult citizens of a country) a certain amount of regular income. But unlike a basic income with the same amount for all negative tax means that the amount is gradually reduced with higher labor income.



Contents [hide]
1History
2Perspectives in the basic income debate
2.1Transparency and administrative efficiency
2.2Poverty reduction
2.3Freedom
2.4Gender equality
2.5Arguments from different ideologies
2.6Employment
2.7Bad behavior
2.8Wage slavery and alienation
2.9Economic growth
2.10Automation
2.11Economic critique
2.12Basic income as a part of a post-capitalistic economic system
3National debates
3.1Germany
3.2India
4General ideas about the funding
4.1Reducing or removing of the current welfare systems
4.2Income tax
4.3Tax on consumption (VAT)
4.4Other taxes
4.5Monetary reform
4.6Reduction of medical costs
4.7Taxing the data giants
5More specific funding proposals
5.1United States
5.2Scott Santens, basic income activist
6Existing basic income and related systems
7Prominent advocates
8Petitions, polls and referendums
9See also
10References
11Further reading
12External links


History[edit]
See also: Basic income around the world

The idea of a state-run basic income dates back to the late 18th century when English radical Thomas Spence and American revolutionary Thomas Paine both declared their support for a welfare system in which all citizens were guaranteed a certain income. In the 19th century and until the 1960s the debate on basic income was limited, but in the 1960s and 1970s the United States and Canada conducted several experiments with negative income taxation, a related welfare system. From the 1980s and onwards the debate in Europe took off more broadly and since then it has expanded to many countries around the world. A few countries have implemented large-scale welfare systems that are related to basic income, such as the Permanent Fund in Alaska and Bolsa Família in Brasil. From 2008 and onwards there has also been several experiments with basic income and related systems. Especially in countries with an existing welfare state a part of the funding assumably comes from replacing the current welfare arrangements, or a part of it, such as different grants for unemployed people. Apart from that there are several ideas and proposals regarding the rest of the financing, as well as different ideas about the level and other aspects.

The idea of an unconditional basic income, given to all citizens in a state (or all adult citizens), was first presented near the middle of the 19th century. But long before that there were ideas of a so-called minimum income, the idea of a one-off grant and the idea of a social insurance (which still is a key feature of all modern welfare states, with insurances for and against unemployment, sickness, parenthood, accidents, old age and so forth).[citation needed]

The minimum income, the idea to eradicate poverty by targeting the poor, is in contradiction with basic income given "to all", but nevertheless share some underlying ideas about the state's or the city's welfare responsibilities towards its citizens. Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492–1540), for example, proposed that the municipal government should be responsible for securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents, "not on grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity". However, to be entitled to poor relief the person’s poverty must not, he argued, be undeserved, but he or she must "deserve the help he or she gets by proving his or her willingness to work."[6]

The first to develop the idea of a social insurance was Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794). After playing a prominent role in the French Revolution, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. While in prison, he wrote the Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain (published posthumously by his widow in 1795), whose last chapter described his vision of a social insurance and how it could reduce inequality, insecurity and poverty. Condorcet mentioned, very briefly, the idea of a benefit to all children old enough to start working by themselves and to start up a family of their own. He is not known to have said or written anything else on this proposal, but his close friend and fellow member of the Convention Thomas Paine (1737–1809) developed the idea much further, a couple of years after Condorcet’s death.

The first social movement for basic income developed around 1920 in the United Kingdom. Its proponents included Bertrand Russell, Dennis Milner (with wife) and Clifford H. Douglas.
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) argued for a new social model that combined the advantages of socialism and anarchism, and that basic income should be a vital component in that new society.
Dennis Milner, a Quaker and a Labour Party member, published jointly with his wife Mabel, a short pamphlet entitled “Scheme for a State Bonus” (1918). There they argued for the "introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom". They considered it a moral right for everyone to have the means to subsistence, and thus it should not be conditional on work or willingness to work.
Clifford H. Douglas was an engineer who became concerned that most British citizens could not afford to buy the goods that were produced, despite the rising productivity in British industry. His solution to this paradox was a new social system called "social credit", a combination of monetary reform and basic income.

In 1944 and 1945, the Beveridge Committee, led by the British economist William Beveridge, developed a proposal for a comprehensive new welfare system of social insurance and selective grants. Committee member Lady Rhys-Williams argued for basic income. She was also the first to develop the negative income tax model.[7][8]

In the 1960s and 1970s, there were welfare debates in United States and Canada which included basic income. Six pilot projects were also conducted with negative income tax. Then US president Richard Nixon once even proposed a negative income tax in a bill to the US Congress. But the Congress eventually only approved a guaranteed income for the elderly and the disabled, not for all citizens.[9]

In the late 1970s and the 1980s, basic income was more or less forgotten in the United States, but on the other hand it started to gain some attraction in Europe. Basic Income European Network, later renamed to Basic Income Earth Network, was founded in 1986 and started to arrange international conferences every two years. From the 1980s, some people outside party politics and universities took interest. In West Germany, groups of unemployed people took a stance for the reform.[10]

From 2005–2010 and onwards, basic income again became a hot topic in many countries. Basic income is nowaday discussed from a variety of perspectives. But not least in the context of ongoing automation and robotisation, often with the argument that these trends will mean less paid work in the future, which in turn would create a need for a new welfare model. Several countries are planning for local or regional experiments with basic income and/or related welfare systems. The experiments in India, Finland and Canada, for example, have received international media attention. There have also been several polls about basic income, investigating the public support for the idea in different countries, and in 2016 a basic income proposal was rejected in Switzerland by 76.9% of the voters in a national referendum.
Perspectives in the basic income debate[edit]
Transparency and administrative efficiency[edit]

Basic income is potentially a much simpler and more transparent welfare system than existing in the welfare states today.[11] Instead of separate welfare programs (including unemployment insurance, child support, pensions, disability, housing support) it could be one income, or it could be a basic payment that welfare programs could add to.[12] This could require less paperwork and bureaucracy to check eligibility. The lack of means test or similar bureaucracy would allow for saving on social welfare, which could be put towards the grant. The Basic Income Earth Network(BIEN) claims that basic income costs less than current means-tested social welfare benefits, and has proposed an implementation that it claims to be financially viable.[13][14]

However, other proponents argue for adding basic income to existing welfare grants, rather than replacing them.
Poverty reduction[edit]

Advocates of basic income often argue that it has a potential to reduce or even eradicate poverty.[15]
Freedom[edit]

Philippe Van Parijs

Philippe Van Parijs has argued that basic income at the highest sustainable level is needed to support real freedom, or the freedom to do whatever one "might want to do".[16] By this, Van Parijs means that all people should be free to use the resources of the Earth and the "external assets" people make out of them to do whatever they want. Money is like an access ticket to use those resources, and so to make people equally free to do what they want with world assets, the government should give each individual as many such access tickets as possible—that is, the highest sustainable basic income.

Karl Widerquist and others have proposed a theory of freedom in which basic income is needed to protect the power to refuse work.[17] The theory goes like this:

If some other group of people controls resources necessary to an individual's survival, that individual has no reasonable choice other than to do whatever the resource-controlling group demands. Before the establishment of governments and landlords, individuals had direct access to the resources they needed to survive. But today, resources necessary to the production of food, shelter, and clothing have been privatized in such a way that some have gotten a share and others have not. Therefore, this argument goes, the owners of those resources owe compensation back to non-owners, sufficient at least for them to purchase the resources or goods necessary to sustain their basic needs. This redistribution must be unconditional because people can consider themselves free only if they are not forced to spend all their time doing the bidding of others simply to provide basic necessities to themselves and their families.[18] Under this argument, personal, political, and religious freedom are worth little without the power to say no. In this view, basic income provides an economic freedom, which—combined with political freedom, freedom of belief, and personal freedom—establish each individual's status as a free person.
Gender equality[edit]

The Scottish economist Ailsa McKay argued that basic income is a way to promote gender equality.[19][20] She noted in 2001 that "social policy reform should take account of all gender inequalities and not just those relating to the traditional labor market" and that "the citizens' basic income model can be a tool for promoting gender-neutral social citizenship rights."[19]
Arguments from different ideologies[edit]
Georgist views: Geolibertarians seek to synthesize propertarian libertarianism and a geoist (or Georgist) philosophy of land as unowned commons or equally owned by all people, citing the classical economic distinction between unimproved land and private property. The rental value of land is produced by the labors of the community and, as such, rightly belongs to the community at large and not solely to the landholder. A land value tax (LVT) is levied as an annual fee for exclusive access to a section of earth, which is collected and redistributed to the community either through public goods, such as public security or a court system, or in the form of a basic guaranteed income called a citizen's dividend. Geolibertarians view the LVT as a single tax to replace all other methods of taxation, which are deemed unjust violations of the non-aggression principle.
Right-wing views: Support for basic income has been expressed by several people associated with right-wing political views. While adherents of such views generally favor minimization or abolition of the public provision of welfare services, some have cited basic income as a viable strategy to reduce the amount of bureaucratic administration that is prevalent in many contemporary welfare systems. Others have contended that it could also act as a form of compensation for fiat currencyinflation.[21][22][23]
Feminist views: Feminists' views on the basic income can be loosely divided into two opposing views: one view which supports basic income, seeing it as a way of guaranteeing a minimum financial independence for women, and recognizing women's unpaid work in the home; and another view which opposes basic income, seeing it as having the potential to discourage women from participating in the workforce, and to reinforce traditional gender roles of women belonging in the private area and men in the public area.[24][25]
Employment[edit]

One argument against basic income is that if people have free and unconditional money, they will "get lazy" and not work as much as before.[26][27][28] Less work means less tax revenue, argue critics, and hence less money for the state and cities to fund public projects. If there is a disincentive to employment because of basic income, it is however expected that the magnitude of such a disincentive would depend on how generous the basic income were to be.

There have been some studies around the employment levels during the experiments with basic income and negative income tax, and similar systems. In the negative income tax-experiments in United States in the 1970s, for example, there were a five percent decline in the hours worked. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for the main earner. It was also a higher reduction in hours working when the benefit was higher. The participants in these experiments, however, knew that the experiment was limited in time.[27] In the Mincome experiment in rural Dauphin, Manitoba, also in the 1970s, there were also a slight reduction in hours worked during the experiment. However, the only two groups who worked significantly less were new mothers and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.[29] Under Mincome, "the reduction of work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women."[30]

Another study that contradicted such decline in work incentive was a pilot project implemented in 2008 and 2009 in the Namibian village of Omitara; the assessment of the project after its conclusion found that economic activity actually increased, particularly through the launch of small businesses, and reinforcement of the local market by increasing households' buying power.[31] However, the residents of Omitara were described as suffering "dehumanising levels of poverty" before the introduction of the pilot, and as such the project's relevance to potential implementations in developed economies is unknown.[32]

James Meade states that a return to full employment can only be achieved if, among other things, workers offer their services at a low enough price that the required wage for unskilled labor would be too low to generate a socially desirable distribution of income. He therefore concludes that a "citizen's income" is necessary to achieve full employment without suffering stagnant or negative growth in wages.[33]

If there is a disincentive to employment because of basic income, it is however expected that the magnitude of such a disincentive would depend on how generous the basic income were to be. Some campaigners in Switzerland have suggested a level that would only just be liveable, arguing that people would want to supplement it.[34]

Tim Worstall, a writer, blogger and Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute,[35] has argued that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because such schemes typically cause people to lose benefits at around the same rate that their income rises (a form of welfare trap where the marginal tax rate is 100 percent). He has asserted that this particular disincentive is not a property shared by basic income, as the rate of increase is positive at all incomes.[36]
Bad behavior[edit]

There are concerns that some people will spend their basic income on alcohol and drugs.[18][37] However, studies of the impact of direct cash transfer programs provide evidence to the contrary. A 2014 World Bank review of 30 scientific studies concludes that "concerns about the use of cash transfers for alcohol and tobacco consumption are unfounded".[38]
Wage slavery and alienation[edit]

Fox Piven argues that an income guarantee would benefit all workers by liberating them from the anxiety that results from the "tyranny of wage slavery" and provide opportunities for people to pursue different occupations and develop untapped potentials for creativity.[39] Gorz saw basic income as a necessary adaptation to the increasing automation of work, but also a way to overcome the alienation in work and life and to increase the amount of leisure time.[40]
Economic growth[edit]

Some proponents have argued that basic income can increase economic growthbecause it would sustain people while they invest in education to get interesting and well-paid jobs.[41][18] However, there is also a discussion of basic income within the degrowth movement, which argues against economic growth.[42]
Automation[edit]

The debates about basic income and automation are closely linked. For example, Mark Zuckerberg argues that automation will take away many jobs in coming years, and that basic income is especially needed because of that. Concerns about automation have prompted many in the high-technology industry to argue for basic income as an implication of their business models.

Many technologists believe that automation (among other things) is creating technological unemployment. Journalist Nathan Schneider first highlighted the turn of the "tech elite" to these ideas with an article in Vice magazine, which cited Marc Andreessen, Sam Altman, Peter Diamandis, and others.[43][44][45] Some studies about automation and jobs validate these concerns. The US White House, in a report to the US Congress, estimated that a worker earning less than $20 an hour in 2010 will eventually lose their job to a machine with 83% probability. Even workers earning as much as $40 an hour faced a probability of 31%.[44] With a rising unemployment rate, poor communities will become more impoverished worldwide. Proponents of universal basic income argue that it could solve many world problems like high work stress, and provide more opportunities and efficient and effective work. This claim is supported by some studies. In a study in Dauphin, Manitoba, only 13% of labor decreased from a much higher expected number.[46] In a study in several Indian villages, basic income in the region raised the education rate of young people by 25%.[47]

Besides technological unemployment, some tech-industry experts worry that automation will destabilize the labor market or increase economic inequality. One is example, Chris Hughes, co-founder of both Facebook and Economic Security Project. Automation has been happening for hundreds of years; it has not permanently reduced the employment rate but has constantly caused employment instability. It displaces workers who spend their lives learning skills that become outmoded and forces them into unskilled labor. Paul Vallée, a Canadian tech-entrepreneur and CEO of Pythian, argues that automation is at least as likely to increase poverty and reduce social mobility than it is to create ever-increasing unemployment rate. At the 2016 North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress in Winnipeg, Vallée examined slavery as a historical example of a period in which capital (African slaves) could do the same things that human labor (poor whites) could do. He found that slavery did not cause massive unemployment among poor whites, but instead increased economic inequality and lowered social mobility.[48]
Economic critique[edit]

Daron Acemoglu, Professor in economics at MIT, has expressed doubts about basic income with the following statement: "Current US status quo is horrible. A more efficient and generous social safety net is needed. But UBI is expensive and not generous enough."[49] Eric Maskin has stated that "a minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare".[50]
Basic income as a part of a post-capitalistic economic system[edit]

Erik Olin Wright, 2013.

Harry Shutt proposed basic income and other measures to make all or most enterprises collective rather than private. These measures would create a post-capitalist economic system.[51]

Erik Olin Wright characterizes basic income as a project for reforming capitalism into an economic system by empowering labor in relation to capital, granting labor greater bargaining power with employers in labor markets, which can gradually de-commodify labor by decoupling work from income. This would allow for an expansion in scope of the "social economy", by granting citizens greater means to pursue activities (such as the pursuit of art) that do not yield strong financial returns.[52]

James Meade advocated for a social dividend scheme to be funded by publicly owned productive assets.[53]Russell argued for a basic income alongside public ownership as a means to shorten the average working day and achieve full employment.[54]

Economists and sociologists have advocated for a form of basic income as a way to distribute economic profits of publicly owned enterprises to benefit the entire population (also referred to as a social dividend), where the basic income payment represents the return to each citizen on the capital owned by society. These systems would be directly financed from returns on publicly owned assets and are featured as major components of many models of market socialism.[55]

Guy Standing has proposed financing a social dividend from a democratically-accountable sovereign wealth fund built up primarily from the proceeds of a levy on rentier income derived from ownership or control of assets - physical, financial and intellectual.[56][57]

Herman Daly, considered as one of the founders of ecologism, argued primarily for a zero growth economy within the ecological limits of the planet. But to have such a green and sustainable economy, including basic economic welfare and security to all people, he wrote a lot about the need for structural reforms of the capitalistic system, including basic income, monetary reform, land value tax, trade reforms and higher eco-taxes (taxes on pollution and CO2). For him, basic income was thus part of a larger structural change of the economic system, towards a more green and sustainable system.
National debates[edit]
Germany[edit]

A commission of the German parliament discussed basic income in 2013 and concluded that it is "unrealizable" because:
it would cause a significant decrease in the motivation to work among citizens, with unpredictable consequences for the national economy
it would require a complete restructuring of the taxation, social insurance and pension systems, which will cost a significant amount of money
the current system of social help in Germany is regarded as more effective because it is more personalized: the amount of help provided depends on the financial situation of the recipient; for some socially vulnerable groups, the basic income could be insufficient
it would cause a vast increase in immigration
it would cause a rise in the shadow economy
the corresponding rise of taxes would cause more inequality: higher taxes would cause higher prices of everyday products, harming the finances of poor people
no viable way to finance basic income in Germany was found[58][59]
India[edit]

India has been considering basic income in India. On January 31, 2017, the Economic Survey of India included a 40-page chapter on UBI that outlined the 3 components of the proposed program: 1) universality, 2) unconditionality, 3) agency. The UBI proposal in India is framed with the intent of providing every citizen "a basic income to cover their needs," which is encompassed by the "universality" component. "Unconditionality" points to the accessibility of all to the basic income, without any means tests. The third component, "agency," refers to the lens through which the Indian government views the poor. According to the Survey, by treating the poor as agents rather than subjects, UBI "liberates citizens from paternalistic and clientelistic relationships with the state."
General ideas about the funding[edit]


This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: it just neeeds cleanup... Please help improve this section if you can. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)


The affordability of a basic income proposal relies on many factors, such as the costs of any public services it replaces, required tax increases, and less tangible auxiliary effects on government revenue or spending (for example a successful basic income scheme may reduce crime, thereby reducing required expenditure on policing and justice).[citation needed]
Reducing or removing of the current welfare systems[edit]

Basic income would substitute to a wide range of existing social welfare programmes, tax rebates, state subsidies and work activation spendings. All or a lot of those budgets (including administrative costs) could, at least in theory, be reallocated to finance basic income.[citation needed]
Income tax[edit]

Although basic income is paid to everyone universally, people whose earnings are above the mean income are net contributors to the basic income scheme, mainly through an income tax. In practice this means that the net cost of basic income is much lower than the raw cost calculated as a sum of monthly payments to the whole population.[citation needed] A 2012 affordability study in the Republic of Ireland by Social Justice Ireland found that basic income would be affordable with a 45% income tax rate. This would lead to an improvement in income for the majority of the population.[60] Charles M. A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a basic income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the basic income) with a flat income tax of 39%.[61]
Tax on consumption (VAT)[edit]
Other taxes[edit]

Other taxes that have been mentioned to finance basic income include tax on capital, carbon tax and financial transaction tax.
Monetary reform[edit]

C.H. Douglas, an early British proponent of basic income and monetary reform.

Major C.H. Douglas argued in the 1920s and 1930s for a political philosophy called Social Credit. Central in this philosophy was a combination of basic income and monetary reform. In the 1990s and onwards, his ideas has been reintroduced by some authors. Among them Michael Rowbotham in The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery and Destructive Economics (1998)[62] and Richard C. Cook in We Hold These Truths: the Hope of Monetary Reform (2008).

There are also economists and political scientists who have argued for the combination of basic income and monetary reform with inspiration from the original Chicago plan and the 100% money proposals from the 1930s. Among them Joseph Huber and James Robertson.

In the 2010s there have also been proposals about a different kind of "quantitative easing". British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, for example, has talked about a “People’s QE”, in which the Bank of England would channel money directly to the government, which then would use it to stimulate the economy through different projects. Another model was suggested by a group of economists in an article in Financial Times. They proposed that quantitative easing money from ECB should be given directly to citizens of the eurozone countries, instead of to the banks but also instead of giving it to the government. Economist Milton Friedman once called that kind of payments “helicopter money”.[63]

The monetary reformist Ellen Brown thinks the same. In an article named "How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation" she notes that if the entire welfare budget were split among the country’s 50 million adults, each of them would get £5,160 a year. That, however, is not enough to cover for basic survival in a modern economy - she says. To pay for the rest one could either increase other taxes and/or reduce other programs, or one could go for "quantitative easing". The main objection to "any form of quantitative easing in which new money gets into the real economy", she explains, is that it would cause hyperinflation. But the quantitative easing in the form of money from central banks to the British economy via the banks, $3.7 trillion according to Brown, has not increased inflation so far. She also thinks that the velocity of money would change with quantitative easing directly to the people, and that this would reduce any tendences to inflation.[64]

Contemporary political parties that include both basic income and monetary reform in their political platform include: New Economics Party (New Zealand)[65] and Enhet(Sweden).
Reduction of medical costs[edit]

The Canadian Medical Association passed a motion in 2015 which clearly signed the organisations support for basic income, and for basic income trials in Canada.[66]

Paul Mason, a British journalist, has stated that universal basic income would probably reduce the high medical costs associated with diseases of poverty. The stress, diseases like high blood pressure, type II diabetes etc. would according to Mason probably become less common.[67]
Taxing the data giants[edit]

The Guardian has speculated and vaguely suggested, in an Editorial published in September 2017, that basic income could be financed by taxing data giants like Google and Facebook. The editorial writes: "Mrs Clinton tried, and failed, to make the numbers work by looking at spectrum levies. But if data is the new oil, why not tax the Googles of this world for the use of customers’ data? These could capitalise a fund that makes annual payouts. Citizens could then see they had collectively traded their privacy for something more tangible than tweets. Tech firms might squeal. But one of the fund’s biggest contributors would be Facebook – its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, backs UBI as an idea. He, and others, could now do so with their cash."[68]
More specific funding proposals[edit]
United States[edit]
Scott Santens, basic income activist[edit]

Scott Santens, an American basic income activist has suggested a yearly basic income of $13,266 ($1,105/mo) per adult citizen and $4,598 ($383/mo) per citizen under 18 in the United States. He proposes among other things the following reforms to achieve this:[69]
Food and nutrition assistance programs ($108 billion) and temporary assistance for needy families ($17 billion) is removed.
Likewise the following are also replaced with basic income: The earned income credit ($73 billion), the child tax credit ($56 billion), home ownership tax expenditures ($340 billion), married filing jointly preferential tax treatment ($70 billion), the tax break on pensions ($160 billion), fossil fuel subsidies ($33 billion), and treating capital gains differently than ordinary income ($160 billion).
A carbon tax starting at $50/ton with annual increases of $15/ton. That would, according to his calculations, add $150 billion to the basic income fund the first year, and thereafter grow annually. In five years it could grow enough to provide everyone with a basic income at about $100 per month.
A financial transaction tax starting at 0.34% (based on a microsimulation by Urban-Brookings). It would raise an estimated $75 billion.
Seigniorage reform, or monetary reform, by which he means public money creation instead of money creation through bank loans. Such a reform could according to Santens annually contribute with about $2.22 trillion to basic income.
Land-value tax (LVT)
Existing basic income and related systems[edit]
Main article: Basic income pilots
See also: Basic income around the world

Omitara, one of the two poor villages in Namibia where a local basic income was tested in 2008–2009.

The Permanent Fund of Alaska in the United States provides a kind of basic income, based on the oil and gas revenues of the state, to (nearly) all state residents. During her 2016 presidential campaign, former U.S. Secretary of StateHillary Clinton, along with her husband, considered including a policy similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund called "Alaska for America" as part of their platform after reading Peter Barnes book on the subject With Liberty and Dividends for All. Ultimately, the Clintons decided not to, with Hillary stating in her 2016 election memoir What Happened, "Unfortunately, we couldn't make the numbers work."[70] However, in retrospect Clinton also said, "I wonder now whether we should have thrown caution to the wind and embraced 'Alaska for America' as a long-term goal and figured out the details later", considering that former Republican U.S. Treasury Secretaries James Baker and Henry Paulson have also proposed a similar nationwide policy.[71][72]

Bolsa Família is a big social welfare program in Brazil that provides money to many poor families in the country. The system is related to basic income, but also has some differences.

There are also several smaller experiments, which have been labeled as "basic income pilots". The best known are:
Experiments with negative income tax in United States and Canada in the 1960s and 1970s.
A town in Manitoba, Canada, experimented with Mincome, a basic guaranteed income in the 1970s.[73]
The Basic Income Grant (BIG) in Namibia, launched in 2008 and ended in 2009.[74]
An independent pilot implemented in São Paulo, Brazil.[75]
Several villages in India participated in basic income trial,[76] while the government has proposed a guaranteed basic income for all citizens.[77]
The GiveDirectly experiment in Nairobi, Kenya, which is the biggest and longest basic income pilot as of 2017.[78]
The city of Utrecht in the Netherlands launched an experiment in early 2017 that is testing different rates of aid.[77]
In Canada, the Ontario provincial government launched a three-year basic income pilot in the cities of Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay in July 2017.[79][80] Initial reports indicated difficulties in finding and receiving applications from eligible individuals and households,[81] and as of November 2017, the Ontarian government was still seeking more applicants.[82]
The Finnish government implemented a two-year pilot in January 2017 involving 2,000 subjects.[83]
Eight, a nonprofit organisation, launched a project in a village in Fort Portal, Uganda, in January 2017, providing income for 56 adults and 88 children through mobile money.[84]
Prominent advocates[edit]
Main article: List of advocates of basic income
Petitions, polls and referendums[edit]
2008: an official petition for basic income was started in Germany by Susanne Wiest.[85] The petition was accepted and Susanne Wiest was invited for a hearing at the German parliament's Commission of Petitions. After the hearing, the petition was closed as "unrealizable".[58]
2015: a citizen's initiative in Spain received 185,000 signatures, short of the required amount for the proposal to be discussed in parliament.[86]
2016: The world's first universal basic income referendum in Switzerland on 5 June 2016 was rejected with a 76.9 percent majority.[1][87] Also in 2016 a poll showed that 58 percent of the European people are aware of basic income and 65 percent would vote in favor of the idea.[88]
2017: POLITICO/Morning Consult asked 1994 Americans about their opinions on several political issues. One of the questions were about the respondants attitudes towards a national basic income in the United States. 43 percent either ‘strongly supported’ or ‘somewhat supported’ the idea.[89]
See also[edit]

Automation and the Future of Jobs
Basic income around the world
Basic income pilots
Cash transfers
Citizen's dividend
Economic, social and cultural rights
Equality of outcome
FairTax: Monthly tax rebate
Geolibertarianism
GiveDirectly
Global basic income
Guaranteed minimum income
Involuntary unemployment
Left-libertarianism
List of basic income models
Living wage
Mincome
Minimum wage
Negative income tax
New Cuban Economy
Old Age Security
Quatinga Velho
Post-scarcity economy
Redistribution of income and wealth
Refusal of work
Right to adequate standard of living
Social dividend
Social safety net
Speenhamland system
The Triple Revolution
Unemployment benefits
Universal Credit
Welfare capitalism
Working time
Work–life balance
References[edit]

^ Jump up to:a b "Vorlage Nr. 601 – Vorläufige amtliche Endergebnisse". admin.ch. Retrieved 28 July 2016.
Jump up^ "Improving Social Security in Canada Guaranteed Annual Income: A Supplementary Paper". Government of Canada. 1994. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
Jump up^ "History of Basic Income". Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN). Archived from the original on 21 June 2008.
Jump up^ Universal Basic Income: A Review Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Accessed 6 August 2017.
Jump up^ Mattei, Lauro; Sánchez-Ancochea, Diego (2011). "Bolsa Família, poverty and inequality: Political and economic effects in the short and long run". Global Social Policy: 1. Retrieved 12 February 2018.
Jump up^ History of Basic Income Basic Income Earth Network
Jump up^ Sloman, Peter (2015). Beveridge's rival: Juliet Rhys-Williams and the campaign for basic income, 1942-55 (PDF) (Report). New College, Oxford. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
Jump up^ Fitzpatrick, Tony (1999). Freedom and Security: an introduction to the basic income debate (1. publ. ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-312-22313-7.
Jump up^ "American President: Richard Milhous Nixon: Domestic Affairs". MillerCenter.org. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
Jump up^ Ronald Blaschke The basic income debate in Germany and some basic reflections(läst 13 December 2012)
Jump up^ Standing, Guy. "How Cash Transfers Promote the Case for Basic Income". Basic Income Studies. 3 (1). doi:10.2202/1932-0183.1106. ISSN 1932-0183.
Jump up^ G Standing, Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen (2017) ch 7. E McGaughey, 'Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income, and Economic Democracy' (2018) SSRN, part 4(2)
Jump up^ "BIEN: frequently asked questions". Basic Income Earth Network. Retrieved 24 July2013.
Jump up^ "Research". Basic Income Earth Network. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
Jump up^ Bregman, Rutger (6 March 2017). "Utopian thinking: the easy way to eradicate poverty – Rutger Bregman" – via www.theguardian.com.
Jump up^ "A Basic Income for All". bostonreview.net. Retrieved 2016-12-14.
Jump up^ "Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income - A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No - K. Widerquist - Palgrave Macmillan". Retrieved 24 April 2018.
^ Jump up to:a b c Sheahen, Allan. Basic Income Guarantee: Your Right to Economic Security. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Book. 29 March 2016.
^ Jump up to:a b McKay, Ailsa (2001). "Rethinking Work and Income Maintenance Policy: Promoting Gender Equality Through a Citizens' Basic Income". Feminist Economics. 7 (1): 97–118. doi:10.1080/13545700010022721.
Jump up^ McKay, Ailsa (2005). The Future of Social Security Policy: Women, Work and a Citizens Basic Income. Routledge. ISBN 9781134287185.
Jump up^ Dolan, Ed (27 January 2014). "A Universal Basic Income: Conservative, Progressive, and Libertarian Perspectives". EconoMonitor. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
Jump up^ Weisenthal, Joe (13 May 2013). "There's A Way To Give Everyone In America An Income That Conservatives And Liberals Can Both Love". Business Insider. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
Jump up^ Gordon, Noah (6 August 2014). "The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income". The Atlantic. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
Jump up^ Kaori Katada. "Basic Income and Feminism: in terms of "the gender division of labor"" (PDF).
Jump up^ Caitlin McLean (September 2015). "Beyond Care: Expanding the Feminist Debate on Universal Basic Income" (PDF). WiSE.
Jump up^ "urn:nbn:se:su:diva-7385: Just Distribution : Rawlsian Liberalism and the Politics of Basic Income". Diva-portal.org. Retrieved 16 February 2014.
^ Jump up to:a b Gilles Séguin. "Improving Social Security in Canada – Guaranteed Annual Income: A Supplementary Paper, Government of Canada, 1994". Canadiansocialresearch.net. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
Jump up^ The Need for Basic Income: An Interview with Philippe Van Parijs, Imprints, Vol. 1, No. 3 (March 1997). The interview was conducted by Christopher Bertram.
Jump up^ Belik, Vivian (5 September 2011). "A Town Without Poverty? Canada's only experiment in guaranteed income finally gets reckoning". Dominionpaper.ca. Retrieved 16 August2013.
Jump up^ A guaranteed annual income: From Mincome to the millennium (PDF) Derek Hum and Wayne Simpson
Jump up^ "Basic Income Grant Coalition: Pilot Project". BIG Coalition Namibia. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
Jump up^ "Otjivero residents to get bridging allowance as BIG pilot ends". Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 28 July 2016.
Jump up^ Meade, James Edward. Full Employment Regained?, Cambridge University Press, 1995, ISBN 0-521-55697-X
Jump up^ Wolf Chiappella. "Tim Harford — Article — A universal income is not such a silly idea". Tim Harford. Retrieved 28 July 2016.
Jump up^ "Fellows". Adam Smith Institute. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
Jump up^ Worstall, Tim (12 July 2013). "Forbes article". Forbes.
Jump up^ Koga, Kenya. "Pennies From Heaven." Economist 409.8859 (2013): 67–68. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 April 2016.
Jump up^ David K. Evans, Anna Popova (1 May 2014). "Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods: A Review of Global Evidence. Policy Research Working Paper 6886" (PDF). The World Bank. Office of the Chief Economist.: 36. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
Jump up^ Frances Goldin, Debby Smith, Michael Smith (2014). Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA.Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-230557-3 p. 132.
Jump up^ André Gorz, Pour un revenu inconditionnel suffisant, published in Transversales/Science-Culture (n° 3, 3e trimestre 2002) (in French)
Jump up^ Tanner, Michael. "The Pros and Cons of a Guaranteed National Income." Policy Analysis. CATO institute, 12 May 2015, Web. 2, 7 March 2016.
Jump up^ "Basic Income, sustainable consumption and the 'DeGrowth' movement | BIEN". BIEN. 2016-08-13. Retrieved 2016-12-14.
Jump up^ Schneider, Nathan (6 January 2015). "Why the Tech Elite Is Getting Behind Universal Basic Income". Vice.
^ Jump up to:a bhttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ERP_2016_Book_Complete%20JA.pdf whitehouse
Jump up^ Schneider, Nathan (6 January 2015). "Why the Tech Elite Is Getting Behind Universal Basic Income". Vice.
Jump up^ Forget, Evelyn L. (2011). "The Town With No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment". Canadian Public Policy. 37 (3): 283–305. doi:10.3138/cpp.37.3.283.
Jump up^ Roy, Abhishek. "Part 2 of SPI's Universal Basic Income Series". Sevenpillarsinstitute.org. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
Jump up^ "Paul Vallee, Basic Income, for publication". Google Docs. Retrieved 2017-05-28.
Jump up^ "Majority of Economists Surveyed Are against the Universal Basic Income". Retrieved 28 July 2016.
Jump up^ "Poll Results | IGM Forum". www.igmchicago.org. Retrieved 28 July 2016.
Jump up^ Shutt, Harry (15 March 2010). Beyond the Profits System: Possibilities for the Post-Capitalist Era. Zed Books. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-84813-417-1. a flat rate payment as of right to all resident citizens over the school leaving age, irrespective of means of employment status...it would in principle replace all existing social-security entitlements with the exception of child benefits.
Jump up^ Wright, Erik Olin. "Basic Income as a Socialist Project," paper presented at the annual US-BIG Congress, 4 – 6 March 2005 (University of Wisconsin, March 2005).
Jump up^ "Basic Income". Media Hell. Retrieved 9 December 2012.
Jump up^ Russell, Bertrand. Roads to Freedom. Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism, London: Unwin Books (1918), pp. 80–81 and 127
Jump up^ Marangos, John (2003). "Social Dividend versus Basic Income Guarantee in Market Socialism". International Journal of Political Economy. 34 (3). JSTOR 40470892.
Jump up^ Standing, Guy. "Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen, London: Penguin (2017) https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/304706/basic-income/. Retrieved 1 April2018. Missing or empty |title= (help)
Jump up^ Standing, Guy. "The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay", London: Bitback (2016) https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-corruption-of-capitalism. Retrieved 1 April 2018. Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Jump up to:a b "Deutscher Bundestag – Problematische Auswirkungen auf Arbeitsanreize" (in German). Bundestag.de. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
Jump up^ "Petitionen: Verwendung von Cookies nicht aktiviert" (PDF).
Jump up^ "Basic Income – Why and how in difficult economic times : Financing a BI in Ireland"(PDF). Social Justice Ireland. 14 September 2012.
Jump up^ Clarck, Charles M.A. "PROMOTING ECONOMIC EQUITY IN A 21 st CENTURY ECONOMY: THE BASIC INCOME SOLUTION" (PDF). USBIG.net. USBIG Discussion Paper. Retrieved 14 December 2016.
Jump up^ Matters of life and debt (Review of The Wealth of the World and the Poverty of Nationsby Daniel Cohen and The Grip of Death by Michael Rowbotham). Coates, Barry. The Times Literary Supplement (London, England), Friday, 21 April 2000; pg. 31; Issue 5064. (1495 words)
Jump up^ "Can the ECB create money for a universal basic income?". 15 February 2016. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
Jump up^ Brown, Ellen Ellen Brown: “How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation” CommonDreams.org. 2017
Jump up^ Deidre, Kent Combining resource (including land) taxes, monetary reform and basic income is the political challenge of our time
Jump up^ "Opinion - Basic income: just what the doctor ordered". Retrieved 24 April 2018.
Jump up^ Talks at Google (3 March 2016). "Paul Mason: 'PostCapitalism' – Talks at Google". Retrieved 28 July 2016 – via YouTube.
Jump up^ Editorial The Guardian view on universal basic income: tax data giants to pay for itThe Guardian. 15 September 2017.
Jump up^ How Traditional Welfare and Taxes Can Be Reformed to Support Universal Basic Income Futurism.com
Jump up^ Matthews, Dylan (September 12, 2017). "Hillary Clinton almost ran for president on a universal basic income". Vox. Retrieved March 11, 2018.
Jump up^ Clinton, Hillary (September 12, 2017). What Happened. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 238–239. ISBN 978-1-50117-556-5.
Jump up^ Baker III, James A.; Feldstein, Martin S.; Halstead, Ted; Mankiw, N. Gregory; Paulson Jr., Henry M.; Shultz, George P.; Stephenson, Thomas; Walton, Rob (February 2017). The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends (PDF) (Report). Climate Leadership Council. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
Jump up^ "Innovation series: Does the gig economy mean 'endless possibilities' or the death of jobs?". 8 October 2016.
Jump up^ Krahe, Dialika. "How a Basic Income Program Saved a Namibian Village". www.spiegel.de/. Spiegel Online. Retrieved 9 June 2017.
Jump up^ "BRAZIL: Basic Income in Quatinga Velho celebrates 3-years of operation | BIEN". Basicincome.org. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
Jump up^ "INDIA: Basic Income Pilot Project Finds Positive Results," Archived 9 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine. Basic Income News, BIEN (22 September 2012)
^ Jump up to:a b Tognini, Giacomo. "Universal Basic Income, 5 Experiments From Around The World". www.worldcrunch.com. WorldCrunch. Retrieved 10 June 2017.
Jump up^ Mathews, Dylan. "This Kenyan village is a laboratory for the biggest basic income experiment ever". Vox.com. Vox. Retrieved 10 June 2017.
Jump up^ "Ontario Basic Income Pilot". www.ontario.ca.
Jump up^ Monsebraaten, Laurie (April 24, 2017). "Ontario launches basic income pilot for 4,000 in Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Lindsay". Toronto Star. Star Media Group. Retrieved March 29, 2018.
Jump up^ Monsebraaten, Laurie (September 17, 2017). "Handing out money for free harder than it looks". Toronto Star. Star Media Group. Retrieved March 29, 2018.
Jump up^ "Ontario seeks more applicants for basic income pilot". CBC.ca. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. November 25, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2018.
Jump up^ Sodha, Sonia. "Is Finland's basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?". www.theguardian.com. The Guardian. Retrieved 10 June 2017.
Jump up^ eight.world
Jump up^ "Bundestag will Petition zum bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen ohne Diskussion abschließen › Piratenpartei Deutschland". Piratenpartei.de. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
Jump up^ "Spanish Popular initiative for basic income collects 185.000 signatures". Basicincome.org. 10 October 2015. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
Jump up^ Ben Schiller 02.05.16 7:00 AM (5 February 2016). "Switzerland Will Hold The World's First Universal Basic Income Referendum | Co.Exist | ideas + impact". Fastcoexist.com. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
Jump up^ "EU Survey: 64% of Europeans in Favour of Basic Income". Basicincome.org. 23 May 2016. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
Jump up^ "US: New POLITICO/Morning Consult poll finds that 43% of Americans are in favour of a UBI - Basic Income News". 5 October 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
Further reading[edit]
Colombino, U. (2015). "Five Crossroads on the Way to Basic Income: An Italian Tour". Italian Economic Journal. 1 (3): 353–389. doi:10.1007/s40797-015-0018-3.
Benjamin M. Friedman, "Born to Be Free" (review of Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy, Harvard University Press, 2017), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXIV, no. 15 (12 October 2017), pp. 39–41.
Marinescu, Ioana (February 2018). "No Strings Attached: The Behavioral Effects of U.S. Unconditional Cash Transfer Programs". NBER Working Paper No. 24337. doi:10.3386/w24337.
E McGaughey, 'Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income, and Economic Democracy' (2018) SSRN, part 4(2)
Karl Widerquist, Jose Noguera, Yannick Vanderborght, and Jurgen De Wispelaere (editors). Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013
Widerquist, Karl (ed.). Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee, (book series). Palgrave Macmillan.
Karl Widerquist. Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, March 2013. Early drafts of each chapter are available online for free at this link.
Ailsa McKay. The Future of Social Security Policy: Women, Work and a Citizens Basic Income, Routledge, 2005, ISBN 9781134287185.

2018/05/04

New First Three Years of Life | Book by Burton L. White | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster

New First Three Years of Life | Book by Burton L. White | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster











See image

New First Three Years of Life
Completely Revised and Updated
By Burton L. White

The most important guide to the early childhood development of infants and toddlers ever written, from expert Burton L. White.

First published in 1975, The First Three Years of Life became an instant classic. Based on Burton White's thirty-seven years of observation and research, this detailed guide to the month-by-month mental, physical, social, and emotional development of infants and toddlers has supported and guided hundreds of thousands of parents. Now completely revised and updated, it contains the most accurate information and advice available on raising and nurturing the very young child. White gives parents real-world-tested advice on:

* Creating a stimulating environment for your infant and toddler
* Using effective, age-appropriate discipline techniques
* How to handle sleep problems
* What toys you should (and should not) buy
* How to encourage healthy social development
* How and when to toilet-train

No parent who cares about a child's well-being can afford to be without this book.









CHOOSE A FORMAT:
Trade Paperback
Touchstone |
384 pages |
ISBN 9780684804194 |
August 1995
ADD TO CART
List Price $16.99 (price may vary by retailer)In Stock: Usually ships within 1 business day


BROWSE RELATED BOOKS

Family & Relationships > Infants & Toddlers
Family & Relationships > Parenting
Family & Relationships > General


BUY FROM ANOTHER RETAILER
Amazon
Barnes & Noble
Books-a-Million
IndieBound

PRAISE
The Detroit Free Press The most valuable guide to a child's development on the market.



READ AN EXCERPT
Chapter 1

Birth to Eight Months: Guidelines for Phases I to V

General Remarks

Why Separate the First Eight Months from the Balance of the First Three Years?

Reports from many parts of the world indicate that most children, even when raised under substandard conditions, do quite well educationally during their first eight months of life. Neither the child who will achieve superbly nor the one who will be seriously behind by the first grade seems to show any special qualities during the first year of life.

In our work we have found that rearing children well becomes much more difficult once they begin to crawl. Another way of expressing this thought is that during the first eight months of life doing what comes naturally usually leads to very good results, but it is rarely enough to ensure the best results for the balance of the first three years.

During the first eight months of life a baby's good development is largely ensured by nature. If parents do what comes naturally and provide a baby with generous amounts of love, attention, and physical care, nature will pretty much take care of the learning process. I do not mean to imply that it is impossible to do a bad job of child-rearing during this period; it is always possible, through stupidity or callousness, to do lasting harm to a child of any age, and especially during the first months of life. Nor do I mean to say that the "normal" course of development during the first eight months of life cannot be improved upon. But it appears that nature, almost as if in anticipation of the uncertainties that beset new parents, has done its best to make the first six to eight months as problem-free as possible. There are, however, two significant hazards during this period that can lead to trouble. They are middle ear disease that interferes with hearing, and the overdevelopment of the "demand cry." I shall deal with both issues at length.

Establishing Goals

If you are not clear about what you are trying to achieve, you have no way to determine whether or not you have succeeded. I have always found that spelling out goals and finding ways to assess to what degree they have been reached is the only starting point that makes sense.

What most parents want out of the early years is a well-developed child, along with a good deal of simple pleasure for both the child and themselves. They also want to avoid unhappiness, anxiety, and of course danger to the child. If optimal early development were incompatible with enjoyment for both the parents and the baby, it would be unfortunate. Happily, that is clearly not the case. Especially in the first months of life, the vast majority of child-rearing activities I'll recommend will lead to both an involved, happy baby and a more contented parent. By the later stages of infancy and toddlerhood, I have found that the well-developing baby is by far the most pleasant to live with and the happiest.

General goals, however, are simply not enough. After you have decided you want a well-developed, happy child, then what? How do you achieve that goal? Indeed, what does it mean? Let's look first at the goals for the first eight months of life.

We recommend that parents work toward three major goals during the first eight months of the baby's life:

1. Giving the infant a feeling of being loved and cared for.

2. Helping her develop specific skills.

3. Encouraging her interest in the world around her.

As we follow the developing child from Phase I through Phase IV, I will refer repeatedly to these basic aims. Let us examine them more closely.

Giving Your Infant a Feeling of Being Loved and Cared For

During the first two years of life all children have a special need to form at least one strong attachment to an older person. Clearly, if a baby is to survive, let alone develop well, protection and nurturance must be available from the very beginning and for a long time thereafter.

During the first eight months of life, social development is comparatively simple. Erik Erikson, the famous personality theorist, called the primary social goal of this period the establishment of a sense of"trust." I believe the term is an appropriate one. No requirement of good child-rearing is more natural or more rewarding than the tending of your baby in a loving and attentive way in order to establish a feeling of being loved and cared for, or a sense of basic trust. Although there is little reason to think that an infant of eight months has more than a simple awareness of his mother, most students of human development agree that the basic foundation of a child's personality is being formed in his earliest interchanges with nurturing adults.

Helping Your Infant Develop Specific Skills

Few living creatures are as helpless as a newborn baby. At birth, an infant cannot think, use language, socialize with another human being, run, walk, or even deliberately move around. When on her back she can't lift her head; on her stomach she can barely lift her nose off the surface on which she is lying. The list of things she cannot do is almost as long as the complete list of human abilities.

What can a newborn infant do? A newborn infant has a small number of reflexlike sensorimotor abilities. When placed on his stomach he can lift his head high enough to avoid suffocation when left with his nose in the mattress. With a little over two pounds of strength in each hand, he will grasp small objects with them, but only if someone else elicits the behavior in the correct manner. He may glance at and track an object for a few seconds if the object is large enough (more than a few inches in each dimension), contrasts well with the background, is no closer to him than six to eight inches and no farther away than approximately twenty-four inches, and is moving through his line of sight at or near a speed of about one foot per second. As soon as the target stops moving, however, he'll lose interest in it. Moreover, he will behave this way only when he is awake, alert, and inactive, a condition that is likely to exist for only two or three minutes out of each waking hour during the first three weeks of life. In other circumstances you will see very few signs of interest in examining the outside world in those early days.

Newborns are also usually able to locate a small object touching them on or near the lips (rooting behavior), then grasp and suck it. They cry when they are uncomfortable. They blink when their eyes are touched or when they receive a puff of air. They respond with a knee jerk (the patellar response) when an appropriate stimulus is administered.

Of special interest is the baby's startle reflex, which can be a source of needless concern to parents. A newborn will often startle if she is lowered through space abruptly, if she hears a loud noise nearby, or at times even when the light goes on in a dim room. These startles are most likely to occur when the baby is in a quiet rather than an active state. More dramatic, however, is the spontaneous startle, which, as the name implies, needs no external stimulus. During deep sleep, characterized by regular breathing and little or no movement, normal newborns will startle as frequently as every two minutes. During sleep states when the infant is slightly more active, spontaneous startles occur, but less regularly and less frequently. The more activity, the fewer the startles. Both kinds of behavior usually disappear by the end of the third month of life.

From about six weeks of age, a baby becomes increasingly able to deal with the world. From this time on, development proceeds rapidly. By the age of eight months, she has acquired a good deal of control over her body. She can hold her head erect and steady quite easily. She can turn over at will, can sit unaided, and may even be able to crawl across a room. Ordinarily she cannot as yet pull herself to a standing posture, walk, or climb, but she is quite skillful at using her hands to reach for objects. About 99 of 100 babies have excellent, mature eyesight -- better than their fathers' if they are over forty-five years old. The infant can locate and discriminate sounds with admirable accuracy. Socially, she knows full well who her key people are and is likely to have become quite choosy about who picks her up and holds her close. As for intelligence, while she is a long way from being able to process or create ideas, she has acquired two important problem-solving skills: the ability to move an obstacle aside to get at something she wants to grasp, and even more important, the ability to use her cry to get someone to come to her.

This vigorous, extremely attractive young person has, in other words, acquired quite a number of basic skills.

Enjoyable and effective child-rearing during a baby, first eight months is more likely when you know the normal pattern of emerging skills and how to provide opportunities for your baby to use them. I should point out, however, that most of these skills will evolve without any special effort from you. Apparently they are so basic that, except under extraordinarily poor conditions, normal development is assured. A more important reason for encouraging their use involves the third major goal for these first eight months of life.

Encouraging Your Baby's Interest in the Outside World

Whether a child learns to reach for objects at three or four months rather than five or six is probably of no consequence. It has been my experience, however, that when very young infants are provided with an environment that offers them the opportunity to practice emerging skills, they become more interested in their environment, more alert and more cheerful. In fact, a basic principle of good child-rearing, especially during the first years, seems to be that you should design your child's world so that his day is rich with options for activities that relate to his rapidly shifting interests and abilities. To create this environment successfully, you need detailed and accurate information as to what those interests and abilities are as the child grows. You will find much of that information in this book.

To sum up, then, during the first eight months of life, a baby should be reared in such a manner that she comes to feel she is deeply loved, that she acquires all the basic skills that can be acquired during those first months, and that her inborn tendency to learn more about and to enjoy the world around her is deepened and broadened.

Copyright © 1985, 1990, 1995 by Burton L. White Associates, Inc.

The Myth of the First Three Years



The Myth of the First Three Years




CHAPTER ONE

The Myth of the First Three Years
A New Understanding of Early Brain Development and Lifelong Learning
By JOHN T. BRUER
Free Press

Read the Review



Through The Prism of the First Three Years

0ne afternoon in early fall of 1996, the phone on my desk rang. The call was from a journalist who was writing an article for a national parenting magazine. She was doing a story for her readers based on the then recently released Carnegie Corporation report Years of Promise. She told me that I was on the media list for the report — a list of interested or knowledgeable people, sent out in the report's press kit, who would be willing to speak to journalists. My name appeared on the list because for the previous decade I had been funding and writing about applications of modern psychology to education and school reform.

She asked me, "Based on neuroscience, what can we tell parents about choosing a preschool for their children?" When I answered, "Based on neuroscience, absolutely nothing," I heard a gasp on the other end of the line. The journalist politely suggested that I must have been living under a rock for the past four years. She told me that there was a wealth of new neuroscience out there that suggested otherwise.

I did not think I had been living under a rock. And I did not offer my answer casually. For the four previous years, along with almost everyone else, I had been hearing murmurs about how new breakthroughs in neuroscience — our new, emerging understanding of how the brain worked and developed — were about to revolutionize how we think about children, childcare, and parenting. I had read the occasional articles, features, and editorials that had been published in major American newspapers. The headlines did get one's attention: "To Shape a Life, We Must Begin Before a Child is 3," "Building a Better Brain: A Child's First Three Years Provide Parents Once-in-Lifetime Opportunity to Dramatically Increase Intelligence," and "Youngest Kids Need Help, U.S. Told: Federal Government Urged to Focus on Their 1st Three Years." The articles under the headlines said that new brain research could now tell us how and when to build better brains in our children. The first three years — the years from birth to 3 — we were told, are the critical years for building better brains.

In early 1996, I read Sharon Begley's February 19 Newsweek article, "Your Child's Brain." Although I was glad to see that brain science was getting cover-story attention, some of the claims and statements in the article, especially those offered by childcare advocates who were not brain scientists, seemed farfetched. But that is not unusual in popular articles about science and research.

In spring 1996, because I was on the media list, I saw an advance copy of the aforementioned Carnegie Corporation report, Years of Promise,which briefly touched on what the new brain science might mean for educational practice. The report's discussion of the brain science was so fleeting that I dismissed the neuroscience as rhetorical window dressing to increase interest in educational policy and reform. About that time, during a visit to the MacArthur Foundation, I read an editorial in the Chicago Tribune titled "The IQ Gap Begins at Birth for the Poor." In this piece, as in others I was now collecting in my file cabinet, the writer claimed that applying the new brain science offered "the quickest, kindest, most promising way to break" the cycle of poverty and ignorance among the nation's poor and to "raise the IQs of low-scoring children (who are disproportionately black)...."

However, the more I read, the more puzzled I became. For the previous eighteen years, at three private foundations, I had been following research and awarding grants in education, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience. All during that time, I was wondering when I would begin to see credible research that linked brain science with problems and issues in child development and education. I was puzzled because, despite what the headlines proclaimed and the articles stated, I had not yet seen any such research.

In late spring 1996, I had received an invitation to attend a July workshop in Denver, Colorado, sponsored by the Education Commission of the States and the Charles A. Dana Foundation. The workshop's title was "Bridging the Gap Between Neuroscience and Education." Based on the reputations of the sponsoring organizations, I thought that the workshop would offer an ideal opportunity for me to learn about the new brain research and its implications. Unfortunately, I had a scheduling conflict and could not go, but my colleague, Dr. Susan Fitzpatrick, a neuroscientist, attended in my place.

When she returned from Denver and briefed me about the meeting, I had expected to hear about new research linking brain development, child development, and education. Instead, she began her briefing with a one-word description of the workshop: "Bizarre." She told me, and my subsequent reading of the workshop report confirmed, that there was little neuroscience presented in Denver and certainly none that I had not previously known about. There were, however, Susan told me, wide-ranging policy discussions, bordering on the nonsensical, in which early childhood advocates appealed to what might be most charitably described as a "folk" understanding of brain development to support their favorite policy recommendations. Reflecting on the Denver meeting and its report, it seemed as if there was, in fact, no new brain science involved in the policy and media discussions of child development. What seemed to be happening was that selected pieces of rather old brain science were being used, and often misinterpreted, to support preexisting views about child development and early childhood policy.

Thus, my response to the journalist's call reflected my conviction, based on what I had read and heard up to that point, that there was no new brain science that could tell parents anything about choosing a preschool. Her call, however, did change how I thought about the issue. If claims about brain science were confined to rhetorical flourishes in policy documents like Years of Promise or to the editorial page of the Chicago Tribune, it was probably relatively harmless. It might even draw attention to some important issues that policymakers and newspaper readers might otherwise ignore. However, it struck me as a very different matter if people were taking the brain science seriously as a basis for policy and legislation and if parents were asking what the new brain science meant for raising their children and choosing schools. Following that call, I was no longer comfortable being merely puzzled or bemused about what I read in the newspapers. I wanted to understand what was going on and to consider more carefully what the brain science might actually mean for children, parents, and policy.




The White House Conference

My job as a foundation officer responsible for funding research in mind, brain, and education, plus some strategic letters from colleagues, earned me an invitation to the April 17, 1997, White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning: What New Research on the Brain Tells Us About Our Youngest Children. For those interested in children and education, the conference was an exciting development. It promised to focus the nation's interest, even if only for a few days, on science, children, and related, highly significant social issues. What better occasion could there be to understand the growing enthusiasm for what brain science meant for parenting and policy?

Mrs. Clinton opened the conference. She emphasized the significance of our new understanding of the brain. Brain science confirms what parents have instinctively known, "that the song a father sings to his child in the morning, or a story that a mother reads to her child before bed, help lay the foundation for a child's life, in turn, for our nation's future." Unlike fifteen years ago, when we thought babies' brains were virtually complete at birth, she told us, we now know brains are a work in progress. This means, Mrs. Clinton said, that everything we do with a child has some kind of potential physical influence on that rapidly forming brain. Children's earliest experiences determine how their brains are wired. The first three years are critically important because so much is happening in the baby's brain. "These experiences," Mrs. Clinton said, "can determine whether children will grow up to be peaceful or violent citizens, focused or undisciplined workers, attentive or detached parents themselves." She did caution that the early years are not the only years that matter and that brain science also tells us that some parts of the brain, in her words the "neurological circuitry for many emotions," remain a work in progress until children are at least 15 years old.

Mrs. Clinton introduced the president, who outlined several initiatives that his administration was undertaking on behalf of mothers, families, and the nation's youngest citizens. The president in turn introduced the chairman for the morning session, Dr. David A. Hamburg, then president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. It was Hamburg who three years earlier had initially called attention to the "quiet crisis" afflicting young children, a crisis addressed in the Carnegie Corporation's report Starting Points. That report, in Hamburg's words, "focused on the strong evidence from research on brain and behavior development, indicating the long term effects of early experience." Starting Points, he said, also noted the wide gap between scientific research and public knowledge, between what we know and what we are doing with that knowledge. The White House Conference represented a major step in an attempt to close that gap.

Dr. Donald Cohen, director of the Yale Child Study Center, spoke next. The Yale Center has been a leader in the areas of early childhood research and education. Mrs. Clinton had worked with the Child Study Center while she was a law student at Yale. In his talk, Cohen also mentioned that, while at Yale, both he and Mrs. Clinton had been students of Sally Provence, one of the pioneers in the study of early childhood deprivation. He proceeded to speak about the effects of early experience on children's behavior and development, stressing parents' active role in brain development and the importance of social and emotional relations in child development: "When parents and caregivers take care of a child they're doing a lot more than just feeding or bathing or comforting. They're helping the child's brain to develop, shaping his temperament and teaching the child about the world." These early experiences are enduring because they lay down the pattern for all future development. The correct experiences enable the child to use "his intellectual potential to its limits." Although, he cautioned, we should never write children off, it can be difficult to change long-lasting, maladaptive patterns later in life.

Oddly, only one neuroscientist spoke at the White House Conference, Dr. Carla Shatz of the University of California at Berkeley. She spoke for eight minutes (as did most of the other experts). Drawing on her own studies of the visual system, she summarized what neuroscientists know about early brain development. She explained that there are two major periods in brain development. During the first period, which starts before birth, the brain's gross wiring is laid out under genetic control. It is as if the brain were laying out the major trunk lines of a telephone system. Then, also prior to birth, a second phase begins. Spontaneous brain activity — neural firing that is not caused by sensory stimulation — starts. One can think of it, she explained, as "autodialing" among telephones. This activity among the brain's neural cells begins to construct its fine wiring. Following birth, sensory experience takes the place of the spontaneous, automatic dialing to complete the wiring process. During the fine-wiring phase, the neural connections, or synapses, that are used become permanent and the others wither away. Neuroscientists believe, Shatz explained, that relying on neural activity for fine-tuning results in brains that are more complex and sensitive than if they were hard-wired at birth. This complexity and sensitivity has survival value. As Shatz said, "If after all, things were just hard-wired — if everything in the brain were just strictly programmed genetically by molecules that wired everything up, A to B, C to D, and so on — then we wouldn't be nearly as adaptable as we are as organisms."

She also summarized a classic piece of neuroscientific research that figures prominently in the early childhood literature. Adults who suffer from cataracts for extended periods, say five years, can have surgery to fix the damaged eye's optics. The surgery restores adults' vision. Yet, children born with cataracts, if operated on at age 5 years, remain blind in the afflicted eye. Five years of abnormal visual experience early in life has different and more serious consequences than five years of abnormal visual experience late in life. David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, who won the Nobel Prize in 1981, developed animal models, using cats and monkeys, in an attempt to figure out why adults and young children fare so differently following surgical treatment for cataracts. They found, among other things, that if kittens were deprived of visual input to one eye early in development, the kittens remained permanently blind in that eye. It is this research, Shatz said, that underscores the importance of early experience for brain development. Brain science tells us, she concluded, that there are "early periods of development, windows of opportunity or critical periods, as scientists call them, during which time experience is essential for brain wiring." Shatz's brilliant, highly accessible presentation was the only brain science presented at the White House Conference.

Dr. Patricia Kuhl, from the University of Washington, spoke about her work on infants' speech perception. Babies are born with the ability to discriminate the sounds found in all human languages, Kuhl told us. In her research, she has found that by six months of age infants have already focused on the particular sounds that their native language uses. Simply listening to adult speech alters infants' perceptual systems. This early perceptual learning makes the infant responsive to its linguistic environment but also renders the infant vulnerable, almost hostage, to that environment. She emphasized how important it is for parents to be sure that their infants can hear, see, and process stimuli present in the environment. She carefully noted that research cannot yet tell us how much talking it takes — thirty minutes a day or two hours a day — to support this kind of development and learning. She discouraged parents from trying to accelerate the normal course of language development: "We don't recommend flash cards to try to teach words to three-monthers." She advised doing what comes naturally: "Nature has provided a perfect fit between the parents' desire to communicate with the child and the child's ability to soak this information up." Kuhl's presentation marked the end of the scientific presentations at the conference.

The balance of the White House presentations addressed policy issues. All these presentations had a similar structure. If the experts mentioned brain science at all, and more than a few did not, it was early in their allotted eight minutes. They invoked the new brain science to give a prefatory, high-level justification for better prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care; family planning; welfare reform; parent education; and high-quality day care and early childhood education.

Toward the end of the afternoon session, Rob Reiner spoke in his capacity as founder of the Rob Reiner Foundation and mastermind of the I Am Your Child campaign. I Am Your Child is a national public education campaign on early child development. Reiner spoke for around forty minutes on his efforts to educate the public about the far-reaching implications of the new brain science. He described his role as creating the public will to get the country to change how we think and "to look through the prism of zero to three in terms of problem solving at every level of society." According to Reiner, "If we want to have a real significant impact, not only on children's success in school and later on in life, healthy relationships, but also an impact on reduction in crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, child abuse, welfare, homelessness, and a variety of other social ills, we are going to have to address the first three years of life. There is no getting around it. All roads lead to Rome."

At the day's end, I left the East Room and caught a cab to National Airport, no less puzzled about the relevance of brain science to early childhood than when I had arrived.

I remained puzzled because at the conference I heard numerous wide-ranging policy recommendations based on the new brain science. Yet, I had heard relatively little brain research, none of which I could comfortably describe as new, and none that provided a clear link between blind kittens and welfare reform. In fairness, and as David Hamburg had said, in a one-day conference only a limited and highly selected body of material could be presented. Nonetheless, as I rode to the airport, my initial impression was that the only substantive link between Carla Shatz's morning presentation and Reiner's afternoon talk had been lunch with Mrs. Clinton.

Could it be true, as Reiner suggested, that if we understood the new brain science and acted on it we could solve social problems ranging from infant mortality to unemployment to low intelligence to urban violence? Could it be true, as he said, that what we know about brain development during the first three years of life was "the key to problem solving at every level of society?"

Based on what I had heard at the conference, my answer to both questions was "Highly unlikely." There were too many gaping holes, breathtaking leaps of faith, and monumental extrapolations in the arguments the participants made in their attempt to link problems like teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, and homelessness with brain science.

Of course, one possibility was that a gifted, enthusiastic spokesman like Reiner might have used the occasion of a White House conference to get the message out forcefully and dramatically, engaging in a touch of hyperbole along the way.

Further post-White House reading suggested otherwise. Reiner's enthusiasm about the critical, wide-ranging implications of brain development during the first three years was not confined to his White House remarks. It was also the central message in his national awareness campaign. In launching I Am Your Child, Reiner said, "A child born today will be three years old as we enter the new millennium. We know that these years last forever — they directly impact the adult that the child will become. As a country, we need to focus attention on these critical years so that our children truly reach their potential and to ensure that they grow to be healthy adults."

On July 21, 1998, as the brain and early childhood message moved from the White House to levels of local government, Reiner addressed the National Association of Counties. He told them, "Whether or not a child becomes a toxic or non-toxic member of society is largely determined by what happens to the child in terms of his experiences with his parents and primary caregivers in those first three years."

Where did these ideas about brain and early childhood come from?




The Three Neurobiological Strands

Although Reiner is a superb spokesman for the campaign, neither the message nor the science that supposedly supports it is his creation. The source of the message and the science are two prominent policy documents, Starting Points andRethinking the Brain. On numerous occasions, Reiner has cited Starting Points as the document that substantiated many of his beliefs about early childhood and that provided the impetus for him to move forward with the I Am Your Child campaign.

Starting Points has a structure exactly like the White House Conference. The report's discussion of brain science is confined to only 2 pages that appear early in the 132-page report, in a section entitled "The Critical Importance of the First Three Years." These few paragraphs on the brain, which cite three research papers and an unpublished speech, serve as a short prelude to the more extensive presentation of social and behavioral science and the discussion of policy issues.

Rethinking the Brain, released in conjunction with the White House Conference, extends and elaborates the brain science assumed to be fundamental to a science of early childhood. Rethinking addresses a professional audience and attempts to explain how the new brain science establishes the critical importance of the early years of life. Rethinking was written to summarize the research that was to be the scientific foundation for I Am Your Child.

Three recurrent neuroscientific themes or strands run through these documents, as they do through most of the popular literature on the brain and early child development. These three strands pick out significant, but not particularly new, findings from the field of developmental neurobiology — the science of brain development — as the basis for rethinking the relation between brain science and child development.

First, brain scientists have known for over two decades that the brain grows and changes during the early months and years following birth. Over the past twenty-five years, in a variety of species, neuroscientists have observed that starting shortly before or after birth (depending on the species), the brain is the site of a fit of "biological exuberance." Infant brains produce trillions more synapses — the connections between nerve cells — than are found in mature, adult brains. AsRethinking put it, the 2-year-old's brain has about twice as many synapses as her pediatrician's. During this early developmental period, brain connections form at a rate that far exceeds the rate at which connections are lost. In humans, this fit of exuberance — the period when synapse formation outstrips synapse elimination — seems to be confined to the first three years of life. Rethinking appropriately cites the research of Pasko Rakic at Yale University and Peter Huttenlocher at the University of Chicago as evidence for this developmental phenomenon.

The second neurobiological strand is the one Carla Shatz spoke about at the White House Conference. Neuroscientists know that there are critical periods in brain development. There are times during which the brain requires certain kinds of stimulation if it is to develop normally. Critical periods, then, are time windows during development, when, given the right kinds of stimuli, normal brain circuitry develops. The wrong kind or total lack of stimulation during these periods results in abnormal brain development. Once the windows close, the opportunity to wire certain kinds of neural pathways, if not totally eliminated, diminishes substantially. The development of the visual system is everyone's favorite example of a critical period. The birth-to-3 literature cites the work of David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel and their blind kittens in discussions of critical periods.

The third neurobiological strand that figures prominently in the brain and early childhood literature is that of enriched, or complex, environments. Animal studies over the past four decades, mostly on rats, have found that animals raised in complex, enriched environments have more synapses in certain parts of their brains than animals raised under more austere conditions. The birth-to-3 literature extrapolates this rodent finding to human infants. Some of the best research on the effects of rearing conditions on rodent brains is that of William Greenough and his colleagues at the University of Illinois.

Brain and early childhood articles, including Starting Points and Rethinking the Brain, weave these three strands together to formulate an argument that the first three years of life are uniquely important for optimal brain development. This argument is intended to support Reiner's assertion about the fundamental importance of looking through the prism of birth to 3 if we are to understand and solve problems at every level of society.

Most simply stated, the argument is this: During the first three years of life in humans, there is a period of rapid synapse formation that connects nerve cells into functioning circuits. This time of rapid synapse formation is the critical period in brain development. Although the brain continues to develop after this time, it does so by losing or eliminating synapses, not by forming new ones. It is during this critical period when enriched environments and increased stimulation can have the greatest effect on brain development. Thus, the first three years provide policymakers, caregivers, and parents a unique, biologically delimited window of opportunity, during which the right experiences and early childhood programs can help children build better brains.

Enthusiasts for this argument will, no doubt, accuse me of vastly oversimplifying their position. And I have, a bit, although you can find a statement of the argument almost identical to the one above in Starting Smart: How Early Experiences Affect Brain Development, a document presented on the Ounce of Prevention Fund Web site. For now, I would respond to this charge by pointing out that in the following chapters we will examine the argument and its premises much more fully and carefully as we try to understand what neuroscience does say and what its implications might be for child development. I would also respond that, although the argument's champions might on occasion present more sophisticated, elaborated, and qualified versions, my simple, unvarnished statement captures the message that nonexpert parents, caregivers, and educators have taken away from the brain and early childhood literature.




The Promise of Brain-Based Policy, Education, and Parenting

For those who accept this three-stranded argument, looking through the prism of birth to 3 offers a vision no less global and far-reaching than the one Reiner articulated at the White House.

According to Starting Points, once we appreciate what brain science tells us about the critical importance of the first three years of life, it becomes evident that we should invest in better family planning, parenting education, and pre- and postnatal health services. We should guarantee high-quality childcare choices for all parents and use federal funds, if necessary, to assure that all parents have access to high-quality childcare. We should strengthen the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide several months, if not an entire year, of paid work leave for new mothers. We should improve salary and benefits for childcare workers, provide home-visiting services for first-time mothers, expand infant nutrition programs, take steps to reduce injuries to young children, and enact legislation to control firearms. Why? Because all of these things, and no doubt numerous others we could think of, have an impact on children's brains during the first three critical years.

If the first three years are so critically important, then as Time magazine reported, "There is an urgent need...for preschool programs to boost the brain power of youngsters born into impoverished rural and inner-city households." Why? Because, as some early childhood advocates argue, impoverished parents, preoccupied with the daily struggle to provide basic necessities for their children, may not have the resources, information, or time they need to provide stimulating experiences that foster brain growth. Following this argument, one solution would be more and better programs like Head Start.

Boosting brainpower in disadvantaged children was one of Head Start's primary, original objectives. A perennial criticism of Head Start has been that any cognitive gains its participants make, as measured by improved IQ scores, fade over the years and disappear. But, Head Start advocates argue, the new brain science offers a defense of the program and an explanation for why the early gains fade. Children enter Head Start at age 3, after the critical first three years of brain development are over. Thus, the Head Start experiences occur too late in life to fundamentally and permanently rewire children's brains. Therefore, the brain-based policy solution is to provide programs like Head Start for children during the first three critical years, when their brains can be fundamentally and permanently rewired. The science of early brain development, in this way, provides not only a ready defense of an existing program, but an argument for an expanded one. Congress no doubt considered this argument favorably when in 1994 they created Early Head Start as part of the Head Start reauthorization package. Early Head Start provides education and childcare on the Head Start model to children from birth to age 3.

Viewed through the prism of birth to 3, bad early childhood experiences — especially, it seems, among the nation's inner-city poor — cause permanent and detrimental brain changes. These brain-damaged individuals have a lifelong propensity for violence and criminal behavior. In Inside the Brain, science writer Ron Kotulak explained, "The first three years of a child's life are critically important to brain development. Unfortunately, for a growing number of children, the period from birth to age 3 has become a mental wasteland that can sustain only the gnarled roots of violent behavior. Society needs to focus on this period if it is to do something about the increasing rates of violent and criminal acts."

If we understood the new brain science, he goes on, we would also understand that children born to mothers without a high school education, 22 percent of all births in the United States, are at special risk. Kotulak explains why: "These women often do not know how to promote stimulation — talk, toys, physical activity — to their infants, which can lead to stunting of the brain during the crucial first three years of life."

An editorial in the Chicago Tribune expanded on the theme that too few synapses beget too few synapses: "In the first year, the communications network within the brain develops at a breathtaking pace. But if the neural synapses, the bridges of that communications network, aren't exercised, they wither. That withering impoverishes the mind and, ultimately, nourishes the cycle of poverty." Impoverished minds result in impoverished citizens. Too few synapses, and our unwillingness to do something about it, explain why our citizens have behavioral problems, fail in school, are unable to a hold a job, and tend to engage in violent behavior. Too few synapses in the parents — a result of their own impoverished childhoods — further diminishes the brainpower of their offspring.

To use brain science to solve social problems like these would, of course, require that we have state institutions to assure that all children receive what we believe to be optimal developmental experiences, where "we" refers to society, not necessarily to parents or families. Dr. Bruce Perry, a child psychiatrist at the Baylor College of Medicine, has been highly vocal in spelling out his view of what the new brain science means for breaking the cycle of violence. Perry observed that we could solve these social problems but that it would require us to "transform our culture." According to Perry, "We need to change our child rearing practices, we need to change the malignant and destructive view that children are the property of their biological parents. Human beings evolved not as individuals, but as communities....Children belong to the community, they are entrusted to parents." Needless to say, such a transformation would have far-reaching effects on our social, legal, and educational institutions. It would truly transform how we would think about families, children, and parents.

Looking through the prism of birth to 3 also has implications for formal education and school instruction. Frank Newman, president of the Education Commission of the States, said, "I don't think there is any question that these revelations [about early brain development] have a major impact on education policy and child rearing." Enriched school environments should help make the most of each child's mental capacities, but, echoing the Head Start argument, the new brain research indicates that formal schooling begins too late. "From the standpoint of brain development, children start school relatively late in life. Long before youngsters master the ABCs, their brains have passed many developmental milestones. Yet, education policy has not addressed how children learn before they arrive at school. Nor has policy focused on helping parents enrich the home environment so that their children will be ready to learn when they reach school age. New research in brain development suggests it is time to rethink many educational policies, including those related to early childhood and special education." As one widely circulated quotation put it, we have to act and act early because "by the time a child starts first grade, the most critical of his learning years are past."

Of course, we would expect that looking through the prism of birth to 3 would also have some far-reaching implications for parenting. Popular articles do offer advice to parents. What is surprising, though, is that when we move from the global level of Early Head Start and eradicating urban violence, to the level of how to raise Jack and/or Jill, the advice to parents seems far less dramatic and revolutionary. Often the brain-based advice offered to parents is oddly vague, contradictory, and what one might call "middle-class traditional."

What should parents do to build better brains? What matters most during those early years? Instead of specific advice and a few new insights, parents are told that everything matters in those early years — loving, holding, talking, reading, and exploring the environment. During the critical years, when experiences can permanently rewire the brain, we should engage children in culturally valued activities. Early, but not later, exposure to music, art, or chess can, parents are told, change the fine anatomy of the child's brain forever. Parents should make use of the windows of developmental opportunity nature has provided, applying a full-court developmental press every minute during the birth-to-3 developmental season. Failure to exert full-court pressure can have long-term consequences. Parents must begin to realize that "if they, or their baby sitter, or day care provider isn't speaking articulately to baby, SAT scores may be at stake." The implications are sufficiently dire to make most middle-class parents take notice. The advice provided is sufficiently vague to leave parents deeply uncertain and profoundly anxious about what they should do differently and about what does matter — other than everything -- during the early years.

Not only is the advice vague, but it is also contradictory. Brain-based parenting advice has the same character as the advice one gets from reading books on nutrition and diet that you can find in most airport bookstores. You want to live to be 100? You should have a glass of red wine every day, but avoid alcohol.

Here is one example sure to leave parents confused. The major theme in brain-based advice to parents is the importance of early stimulation during the critical years to facilitate optimal brain development. Those are the years during which parents, if they provide the right kind of stimulation, can build better brains. It is during those years that they and their baby-sitters can improve or damage future SAT scores. One would think that the science-based parenting advice surrounding such a central theme would be pretty clear-cut. It isn't.

Parents are sometimes told that it is time to throw out Dr. Benjamin Spock and his old advice to new parents, "Trust your common sense." Why? Because we now know that "for the majority of fathers and mothers, doing the things that maximize a child's potential is not intuitive." If so, parents need expert help. To fully exploit nature's windows of opportunity, an article in the Chicago Tribune cited this expert advice: "People often ask Dr. Harry Chugani how much mental stimulation a baby should receive. Chugani, a pediatric neurologist at Wayne State University in Detroit, said no precise answer can be given, but generally 'as much as you can.'"

On the other hand, parents are also told that although optimal stimulation is good, too muchstimulation is bad. The amount of talking, reading, and singing must be carefully matched to the child's developmental level, personality, and mood. According to child psychiatrist Stanley Greenspan, as quoted in Newsweek, "Only 20 to 30 percent of parents know how to do this instinctively." It's not just a matter of the more and the earlier the stimulation the better!

Yet other popular articles in Newsweek, Time, and Working Mother tell parents that the implications of brain science are not that radical and that the new discoveries reaffirm Dr. Spock's endorsement of common sense. Parents are told that science is, in fact, reaffirming what our parents and grandparents knew instinctively. In Sandra Blakeslee's New York Times article on the White House Conference, parents were told that although talking to babies is important, "the curriculum that most benefits babies is simply common sense."

Parent might well ask, "So, what is it I should do?" or "What's all the fuss about anyway?"

One place a bewildered parent might look for answers to these questions is the I Am Your Child Web site, the official site for the Reiner Foundation's national awareness campaign. The Web site and campaign are generously funded by fifteen major foundations and corporations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, the Carnegie Corporation, the Dana Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Heinz Foundation. If we were to find a clear, concise brain-based message for parents, we would expect to find it there.

Once at the Web site, under the heading "The First Years Last Forever," a parent would find five paragraphs on brain development, in which brain science is presented in a very general, but accurate, way a parent would read that an infant's brain has 100 billion nerve cells that grow and connect to form the circuits that control our senses, movement, and emotions. Early childhood experiences "help to determine brain structure, thus shaping the way people learn, think, and behave for the rest of their lives."

There is another section called "Brain Facts," which informs parents about early synapse formation, how experience shapes brain circuitry, and how critical periods or "prime times" occur during brain development. A parent would also read that the kind of care a child receives during these critical periods can effect development and that warm, responsive care is good for the brain.

I Am Your Child presents ten guidelines that parents can use to promote children's healthy development. Among these guidelines are: Be warm, loving, and responsive; talk, read, and sing to baby; use discipline to teach; be selective about TV watching; choose quality day care. There is nothing controversial on the list, but there is nothing on the list that would prompt the average parent to say, "Wow, I never heard that before!" Parents could find the same guiding principles in parenting books and advice columns published thirty years ago.

There are video clips on the Web site in which experts offer advice to parents. The experts include T. Berry Brazelton, Barbara Bowman, C. Everett Koop, and Bruce Perry. For the most part, these experts have substantial followings and deserved reputations in child development and public health, but none, with the possible exception of Perry, would consider himself or herself an expert in developmental neurobiology.

The site provides a list of links to other parenting Web sites and a bibliography of the parenting and child development literature that cites works published between 1980 and 1997. Among the authors are the "the usual suspects" — Brazelton, James Comer, Alvin Poussaint, Penelope Leach, to name a few. The I Am Your Child bibliography cites only one book on brain development, Kotulak's Inside the Brain.

If parents go to the site thinking that they will find new insights into parenting practices, derived from brain research, that will optimize brain, intellectual, and social development, they will be disappointed. After visiting the site and its associated links, many parents might still be wondering what all the fuss is about.

A parent who reads the I Am Your Child guidelines carefully, however, might notice that the guidelines emphasize the importance of a secure relationship, or secure attachment, between caregiver and child and what such a relationship means for a child's social and emotional development. This connection appears under the first guideline "Be warm, loving, and responsive" and links responsive care and secure relationships to research on attachment theory (a theory we will examine more closely in the next chapter). I Am Your Child states that research on attachment shows that children who receive warm and responsive care and who are securely attached to their caregivers cope with difficult times more easily when they are older. Securely attached infants are more likely to develop a healthy response to stressful situations, and this response is, the Web site suggests, the result of optimal early brain development. According to some attachment theorists, secure attachments are formed, or fail to form, during the first three years of life. This is why parents should provide warm, loving care, respond to baby's cues and clues, establish routines, establish a close tie to your child by talking, singing, and reading, and look for childcare that does all of the above.

The importance and lifelong consequences of attachment form the central message of I Am Your Child. It is no accident that the site's page introducing advice for parents carries the banner "The First Years Last Forever" and that the final words of advice are "the first years truly last forever." This same message is implicit in Starting Points and developed in some detail in Rethinking the Brain. It is this theoretical viewpoint that is at the basis of Reiner's conviction that all roads lead to Rome and that we should view children and the world through the prism of the first three years. This is why, as Reiner told the county government representatives to applause, "justice begins in the high chair, not the electric chair."

However, a thoughtful parent reading the Web site might also notice something else. There are some general statements about brain development, followed by ten rather traditional parenting guidelines, guidelines that for the most part emphasize social and emotional development. But just what is the connection, for example, between the 100 billion nerve cells, developing healthy brain circuitry, and selective TV watching? Does someone know that Sesame Street is better for the brain than Rugrats or The Simpsons? Do we know that one hour of television is good for the brain, two hours bad, and no television whatever the best of all? The short answer: no.

I Am Your Child suggests that there is a connection between brain science and the parenting advice, but like Starting Points and the White House Conference, it is not all that clear or specific about what that connection is. There is talk about the brain, followed by some hand waving, followed by advice to parents. None of this instills much confidence in the claim that the new brain science is about to revolutionize parenting and childcare.




Further Grounds for Skepticism: What Neuroscientists Say

There are additional reasons why we should be skeptical about the benefits of viewing the world through the prism of the first three years. Neuroscientists, as opposed to early childhood advocates, have a somewhat different view concerning the possible implications of early synapse formation, critical periods, and enriched environments for early childhood.

According to the brain and early childhood literature, early stimulation somehow affects early synapse and brain circuit formation. It implies that parents and caretakers can influence this process and that we know in some detail what kinds of early experiences would result in the desired brain circuits and in optimal brain development.

Neuroscientists, even neuroscientists who have been involved in discussions of early brain development, have a different view. In a September 1992 Scientific American article, Carla Shatz noted that if we observe children's behavior, it is evident that children who are grossly neglected — left in their cribs for the first year of life — develop motor skills abnormally slowly. From this observation, it is reasonable to infer, she says, that children do require a normal environment for normal development. Children need normal tactile, linguistic, and visual stimulation to develop normally. However, she continues, "Based in part on such observations, some people favor enriched environments for young children, in the hopes of enhancing development. Yet current studies provide no clear evidence that such extra stimulation is helpful....Much research remains to be done before anyone can conclusively determine the types of sensory input that encourage the formation of particular neural connections in newborns." Apart from eliminating gross neglect, neuroscience cannot currently tell us much about whether we can, let alone how to, influence brain development during the early stage of exuberant synapse formation. If so, we should not be surprised that brain-based parenting advice is vague and contradictory.

The brain and early childhood literature suggests that the first three years of life is the critical period for brain development. It's a time when the young brain's learning power is almost limitless. As Hillary Clinton describes it, "The computer comes with so much memory capacity that for the first three years it can store more information than an army of humans could possibly input. By the end of three or four years, however, the pace of learning slows. The computer will continue to accept new information, but at a decreasing rate....But it is clear that by the time most children begin preschool, the architecture of the brain has essentially been constructed. From that time until adolescence, the brain remains a relatively eager learner with occasional 'growth spurts,' but it will never again attain the incredible pace of learning that occurs in the first few years." After this critical period, as Harvard child psychiatrist Felton Earls told Ron Kotulak, "A kind of irreversibility sets in. There is this shaping process that goes on early, and then at the end of this process, be that age 2, 3 or 4, you have essentially designed a brain that probably is not going to change very much more."

This interpretation of critical periods assumes that the brain learns best and is unusually plastic only during the early, superdense years. It also assumes that the experiences we have during those years are particularly powerful and have long-term, irreversible consequences.

Again, neuroscientists; see it a little differently. In a review on child development and neuroscience, Charles Nelson and Floyd Bloom deftly summarize our emerging understanding of how molecular and cellular events contribute to brain development. Most important, they also discuss some genuinely new findings in neuroscience — what happens in the brain when adults learn new motor skills and the rapidity with which the adult brain can reorganize after loss of sensory input from an amputated limb. The new findings Nelson and Bloom allude to suggest that the brain retains its ability to reorganize itself in response to experience or injury throughout life. They conclude, "...it may be useful to question the simplistic view that the brain becomes unbendable and increasingly difficult to modify beyond the first few years of life. Although clearly much of brain development occurs late in gestation through the first years of postnatal life, the brain is far from set in its trajectory, even at the completion of adolescence." If so, we should be wary of claims that parents have only a single, biologically delimited, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help their children build better brains.

Although not in a scientific journal, the neuroscientist Arnold Scheibel, who, with his wife Marian Diamond, has studied the effects of enriched environments on brain development, arrived at a similar conclusion. In an article he wrote on the implications of the new brain science for education, Scheibel expressed reservations about popular claims that the brain's ability to learn varies during development and that teaching should be keyed to those critical periods when the brain is most receptive. "Those who subscribe to this view," he wrote, "might be left with the feeling that if we miss a critical window of opportunity between ages 3 and 6, or between 8 and 10, we have failed in our responsibilities, and the students we have missed are destined for linguistic or cognitive mediocrity. But I believe this is an inaccurate conclusion drawn from improperly interpreted structural and functional data." Scheibel goes on to argue that the brain remains a "superbly attuned learning instrument for virtually all of life." If so, we should be wary of the claim that by the time a child starts first grade the most critical of his learning years are past.

Finally, the brain and early childhood literature tends to misinterpret the significance of research on the effects of enriched environments on brain development. The policy and popular articles assume that if early experiences during the critical period sculpt the brain for life, then rich, complex early experiences will sculpt rich, complex brains for life: "Research bears out that an enriched environment can boost the number of synapses that children form." Based on a conviction that the early years are the most crucial learning years, these articles argue that early enrichment is particularly powerful: "In an environment rich in all sorts of learning experiences, the growth of synapses — the connections between nerve cells in the brain that relay information — is more lush, and this complex circuitry enlarges brain capacity. Infants who are not held and touched, whose playfulness and curiosity are not encouraged, form fewer of these critical connections."

Neuroscientists who have done research on the effects of enriched environments on brain structure take a different view. In 1997, William Greenough, one of the most prominent researchers in this area, wrote a short piece for the APA Monitor, a publication of the American Psychological Association. He stated that despite the claims of children's education organizations and articles in the popular press on how early childhood experiences can enhance children's cognitive development between the ages of 0 and 3, the neuroscience used to support these claims is not new. Furthermore, he continued, careful examination of the evidence does not support a selective focus on the first three years. Experience plays a major role in brain development, but claims that it plays a more important role in the first three years than at other times need to be assessed carefully. He emphasizes that his own, oft-cited research on animals raised in complex environments indicates that the brain continues to be plastic — modifiable by experience — throughout later development and into adulthood. According to Greenough, the existing neuroscientific and behavioral evidence do not support an exclusive focus on birth to 3 to the relative exclusion of older age groups. If so, we should be wary of claims that the only, or the most important, time to provide enrichment is the early years.

At this early point in our exploration of brain science and child development, what these neuroscientists are saying should serve to heighten our skepticism about what we read in the papers and see on the Internet. Their comments should at least prompt us to take a more careful, critical look at brain science and the merits of viewing the world through the prism of the first three years. Of course, by themselves the neuroscientists' assertions bear no more weight than do those of the most fervent birth-to-3 brain advocate. However, the neuroscientists have reasons for saying what they do, reasons that derive from their weighing and consideration of the existing scientific evidence. So, rather than merely listing authorities and assertions pro and con, it is time that we look carefully at that evidence. After we review the evidence in the subsequent chapters, we will see that we do not have a revolutionary, brainbased action agenda for child development. What we have instead is the Myth of the First Three Years. And, looking through this mythical lens gives us a highly distorted view of children, parents, and early childhood policy.

Some might ask, "Why should we care whether what we have is a research-based agenda or a myth? We need better programs and policies for children and current programs are underfunded. Any argument that would lead to improved opportunities and outcomes for children is a good argument." One could take this position and many well-intentioned early childhood advocates do take this view. It's the hard-nosed but often realistic view that everyone knows that policy arguments are merely exercises in political rhetoric. Sophisticated citizens (usually those making the arguments) know this and the argument is intended only to sway the emotions of the unsophisticated. On this view, science, as such, and the evidence it might bring to a policy discussion, do not matter. Science is just another rhetorical tool that happens to elicit a strong emotional response in the public, like God, the sanctity of motherhood, the innocence of childhood, and the flag. Some might then say, "It's a myth and I know it. But by God, given what I want to do, it's a useful myth." If this is the stance we wish to take, then we should also admit that our arguments about what to do for children and families and why we should do it carry the same weight as the blustery, staged debates from the left and right that entertain us over dinner on Firing Line. On this view, although science and scientists might have a place at the policy-setting table, others at the table do not take the science seriously if it conflicts with their policy goals.

On the other hand, if we do take the science seriously, then we have to care if we are acting on a science-based agenda or a myth. What a science-based policy argument should do is add some evidence and factual basis, beyond our own biases, prejudices, and ideological tastes, for what the preferable policy might be. Science should inform us of what the optimal strategies might be to reach a policy objective. What the science can add to the policy debate are insights about the causes, mechanisms, and leverage points that we could most effectively exploit to reach our goal. If the science is wrong, misleading, or misinterpreted, then we are trying to achieve our policy, and parenting, goals by pushing the wrong, ineffective, or nonexistent buttons. We are wasting time and resources attempting to bring about change via causes, mechanisms, and leverage points that do not exist.

The brain and early childhood literature appeals to neuroscience to argue for the unique importance of the first three years of life. According to that literature, seeing the world through the prism of birth to 3 is the key to improving opportunities and outcomes for children, families, and the nation. If this view is accurate, then Early Head Start, removing children from violent inner-city neighborhoods, and applying a full-court developmental press are good ideas. But what if, as our current grounds for skepticism at least suggest, brain science does not support that key claim? We might want to find other and better reasons to invest $4 billion in Early Head Start or to consider other ways, using other leverage points, to expend that money to help young children. We might be reluctant to transform our culture and change our views about who children belong to. We might question the prudence of decreasing expenditures for adult education or special education on the grounds that a person's intellectual and emotional course is firmly set during the early years. We might be reluctant to tell parents to apply full-court pressure during the early years and to suggest to parents that early learning problems will leave their children at a permanent disadvantage.

Being critical of the Myth does not mean being critical of making the world better for children. It signals, instead, a commitment to look at the science of early brain development seriously in the hope that we can identify the most efficient leverage points with which to push parenting practices and early childhood policy in the desired direction.

Myths often have interesting histories. The Myth of the First Three Years is no exception. The Myth's popularity and its beguiling, intuitive appeal is rooted in our cultural beliefs about children and childhood, our fascination with the mind-brain, and our perennial need to find reassuring answers to troubling questions. That history is the subject of the next chapter.

After we review the Myth's history, we will examine each of the Myth's three biological strands, reviewing the science and the conclusions we can and cannot draw from this research for child development. In Chapter 3, we will explore what neuroscientists know about rapid synapse development in the early years of life. Chapter 4 discusses our current neurobiological understanding of critical periods and what critical periods mean for childcare and development. Chapter 5 presents the research on enriched environments and examines what it implies for early childhood education and lifelong learning. Based on this review of what we know about early childhood and brain development, Chapter 6 attempts to answer the question "What is a parent, or any of us who are interested in children, brain science, and policy, to do?"

(C) 1999 John Bruer All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-684-85184-9