Abstract
We agree with the other participants in this debate that an experimental approach makes a significant contribution to our understanding of universal basic income (UBI) schemes, as there is a limit to what we can learn from surveys, simulations or studying existing welfare policies that only marginally resemble a UBI. However, we differ from others advocating the use of experiments in terms of the specific design of a UBI experiment. In particular, we want to urge a note of caution against conducting large-scale social or field experiments (along the lines of the famous negative income tax (NIT) experiments carried out in the US and Canada in the 1970s) advanced in recent years by Loek Groot (2004; 2006), Rafael Pinilla (2006), and many others. We think there are two distinct, if related, reasons why one might take a sceptical attitude towards field experiments in this particular context. First, field
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
