Basic Income Experiment Research Articles

Why Do We Run Basic Income Experiments? From Empirical Evidence to Collective Debate

Abstract There are two major possible responses to the question: what (if anything) can justify a basic income experiment? An experiment might be justified either because it gathers positive empirical evidence supporting rolling out a basic income, or because it justifies the moral desirability of such a measure. This paper critically explores both responses, the “empirical” and “ethical claim” in light of the Barcelona B-MINCOME pilot, alongside other similar experiments. We sustained that although the empirical claim is necessary, there seems to be sufficient data to easily predict that all future experiments are to gather positive results too. Consequently, we argue that experiments are particularly well-equipped to foster debates on the work ethics and on the ethical dimension of social policies and welfare regimes in general.

What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? Balancing Costs and Benefits in Terms of Justice

Abstract The central thesis of this essay is that basic income experiments are justified if their expected benefits in terms of justice exceed their expected costs in terms of justice. The benefits are a function of basic income’s effect on the level of justice attained in the context in which it is implemented, and the experiment’s impact on future policy-making. The costs comprise the sacrifices made as a result of the experiment’s interventional character, as well as the study’s opportunity costs. In light of the proposed standard of justification for basic income experiments, the factors that play a role in it, and the way these interact with one another, this essay provides some practical recommendations for researchers hoping to conduct such an experiment.

Do We Need Basic Income Experiments?

Abstract In this article ‘Basic Income’, ‘Basic Income scheme’, ‘experiment’ and ‘pilot project’ will be defined, and Basic Income pilot projects in Namibia and India will be distinguished from Minimum Income Guarantee experiments in the USA and Canada and the ambiguous pilot project in Finland. The conditions for running a genuine Basic Income pilot project in a country with a more developed economy will then be outlined, and microsimulation will be found to be the only reliable method for testing a Basic Income scheme for financial feasibility. The conclusion will be drawn that microsimulation can provide many of the results that a pilot project would deliver, but that pilot projects of financially feasible Basic Income schemes might still be useful to test dynamic macroeconomic and labour market effects.

Basic Income Experiments: Expanding the Debate on UBI and Reciprocity

Abstract The paper highlights the need to discuss the norm of reciprocity in the context of basic income experiments. Considering how the norm of reciprocity is an important objection to basic income, both at a normative level, but also in empirical discussions, a case is made for considering it in basic income experiments. The paper proposes several hypotheses on basic income and reciprocity and concludes with two distinct points: the first is focused on what in fact experiments could be telling us about behaviours that seem relevant to reciprocity, and how this could enhance our understanding of both basic income and the norm of reciprocity. The second point is a reflection on how our theoretical debate is shaped on ideal settings, whereas experiments take place in real-world conditions, hence non-ideal ones. This reflection might contribute to the need to reframe our theoretical account of the norm of reciprocity.

The revolution will not be randomized: Universal basic income, randomized controlled trials, and ‘evidence-based’ social policy

Organizations in various countries have launched large-scale randomized field experiments to evaluate the empirical effects of basic income. Surprisingly, scholars have paid only scarce attention to the way basic income experiments are actually run. To address this shortcoming, I present three case studies of basic income experiments in the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. I ask: Why do experiments’ designs only remotely resemble the ‘paradigmatic’ model of basic income they are in fact interested in – universal, unconditional, individual payments, no means tests, and no work requirements? Interviewed researchers identify three types of constraints that prevent basic income experiments from successfully testing basic income – politics, money, and the law – which I explain through the mechanism of ‘boundary work’ between science and politics. I conclude by cautioning against overstated expectations about the policy impact of both current and future basic income experiments.

Exit, voice and loyalty in the family: findings from a basic income experiment

AbstractThis article investigates how a basic income could transform families and gender power relations within them. We draw on Hirschman’s exit, voice and loyalty framework to argue that a basic income can offer a structural foundation for a radical shift towards more equitable family relations. This is because a basic income can support couples through economic uncertainty and reduce women’s structural vulnerability to economic dependency within marriages that strips them of exit and voice. We build our case on novel data from an understudied social experiment from the late 1970s called the Manitoba Basic Income Experiment, or Mincome. Using difference-in-difference regression with individual fixed-effects, we analyze three types of family outcomes: separation, bargaining power and marital conflict. We find that during Mincome unhappy couples became more likely to consider separation, but that separation overall did not increase. We also find that Mincome reduced marital conflict associated with financial stressors and that some measures of wives’ bargaining power increased. Taken together, our results speak in favor of the view that a basic income has the potential to foster more equitable family lives.

Removing Welfare Traps: Employment Responses in the Finnish Basic Income Experiment

This paper provides evidence that replacing minimum unemployment benefts with a basic income of equal size has minor employment effects at best. We examine an experiment in Finland in which 2,000 beneft recipients were randomized to receive a monthly basic income. The experiment lowered participation tax rates by 23pp for full-time employment. Despite the considerable increase in work incentives, days in employment remained statistically unchanged in the frst year of the experiment. Moreover, even though all job search requirements were waived, participation in reemployment services remained high.

An exploratory study of basic income fidelity index

AbstractThere is growing interest in adopting basic income as a new social protection policy in many countries. South Korea is no exception. There have been heated discussions on the benefits and costs of adopting basic income as a universal income support program among policy makers and academics in South Korea. However, one of the problems in the discourse of basic income discussion in South Korea has been a lack of clear definition of basic income. In this study, we develop a basic income fidelity index (BIFI) that can be applied to basic income programs to show how fully a program fits to the basic income concept. Such an index can be useful in making the terminologies and concepts of basic income clearer. We test feasibility of BIFI by applying it to four different case examples of basic income; Alaska Permanent Fund, UK Child Trust Fund, Switzerland’s Basic Income Plan, and Finland’s Basic Income Experiment. We show BIFI can be a useful tool to differentiate various types of basic income. It can be also used to identify strengths and weaknesses of a basic income scheme.

Speaking to those who know it best: Does participation in an experiment explain citizens’ attitudes to basic income?

AbstractIn this study, we analyse the relationship of participation in the Finnish basic income (BI) experiment and people’s attitudes towards a BI. The experiment, implemented in 2017–2018, aimed to improve citizens’ employment and well-being by reducing the eligibility conditions of basic social benefits and by increasing monetary incentives to find employment. The data on attitudes come from responses to a survey carried out during the experiment. Identical questions were posed to the treatment (receiving the BI) and the control group of the experiment. The contributions of this paper are (1) an estimation of the relationship between participation and opinions on BI, (2) an analysis of the heterogeneity of the relationship and (3) an estimation of the relationship between participation and people’s ability to express their opinions on BI. Our findings indicate that participation in the experiment significantly explains people’s support for a BI and their ability to express opinions.

Experimenting with Wellbeing: Basic Income, Immaterial Labour and Changing Forms of Productivity

This article is concerned with the recent (2017–2018) basic income experiment in Finland. This experiment attracted global attention, not least because of its break from the conditionalities and sanctions associated with social security payments in workfare states. This article stresses, however, that it is critical to understand how the Finnish basic income experiment was part of a broader programme of government-led reform in Finland. As well as establishing the experiment as a preferred mode of policymaking, this programme contained a range of strategies aimed at restructuring labour supply. The article shows how the basic income experiment should be understood as a behavioural intervention designed to enhance the wellbeing of unemployed populations at a time when wellbeing is emerging as a value-producing capacity.

Policymaking through opposing ideas? Framing conditionality and unconditionality in Finnish parliamentary discourse

In the ideational branch of institutionalist literature, policy outcomes are often explained in terms of a single idea or a set of ideas prevailing over others. This article explores a unique case where the Finnish government simultaneously introduced policies grounded in the ideas of unconditionality – in the form of a basic income experiment – and conditionality, reinforced through reforms concerning unemployment benefits. The study focuses on the ways in which political actors, in their framing strategies, connected their arguments to cognitive paradigms and normative public sentiments located in the background of policy debates. Through a thematic analysis of documentary data, the study finds that the seemingly contradictory unconditional and conditional measures were made compatible by framing them in connection to the prevailing cognitive activation paradigm. However, the framing of stricter conditionality additionally made use of normative arguments, connecting to public sentiments on what may be considered appropriate.

Basic Income Experiments in the Netherlands?

Abstract To many in the Netherlands it seems that basic income’s time has come, following the wide appeal of several municipal experiments. These random-control trial designs study the effects on employment, social participation, health and well-being of exempting social assistance claimants from the duties of seeking work and participating in training activities under the workfare-oriented Participation Act. In some treatment groups, claimants also retain a larger percentage of earnings, thereby reducing the poverty trap. These two design features resemble an unconditional basic income. I situate the experiments in the wider context of basic income and discuss their theoretical background and policy orientation. Under existing legal strictures, the experimental designs are too limited to judge the effects of replacing the conditional scheme of social assistance by an unconditional one. Yet these experiments point the way for future trials which can compare the effectiveness of basic income-oriented versus workfare-oriented treatments.

Historically-rooted universalism and basic income experiment in Finland

Historically-rooted universalism and basic income experiment in Finland

Universal Basic Income and the Problem of Information Asymmetry

This article focuses on economic analysis of the concept of universal basic income. This social assistance scheme is regarded as an alternative to traditional targeted, means-tested, social benefits. The paper elaborates on what distinguishes universal basic income from other forms of social benefits, and analyzes some of the most widespread arguments in its favor. A hypothetical implementation of basic income could not only generate social and economic gains, but would also inevitably be associated with certain costs. In particular, given that for some individuals with medium and high incomes basic income payments would in essence be a tax deduction, taxes would need to be raised in order to balance out the state budget. This would lead to additional administration costs. As demonstrated in the article, they should be interpreted as costs of reduction of information asymmetry, which inevitably arises in the relation between the state and recipients of social assistance. It is shown that the economic side of a number of key arguments for basic income boils down to the latter making it possible to reduce information asymmetry. These arguments include the assertions that universal basic income would make the welfare system simpler and more manageable, eliminate poverty traps and expand the freedom of choice among social benefit recipients. The information asymmetry approach is applied to the analysis of preliminary results of the basic income experiment conducted in Finland in 2017–2018. The paper provides evidence that basic income is only one of the many possible approaches to reducing information asymmetry in welfare systems.

A Policy Comet in Moominland? Basic Income in the Finnish Welfare State

Finland is widely considered a frontrunner in the European basic income debate, primarily because of the decision by Juha Sipilä’s centre-right coalition government to design and conduct the first national basic income experiment (2017–2018). The Finnish basic income experiment builds on several decades of public and policy debate around the merits and problems of basic income, with the framing of basic income over time changing to fit the shift of the Nordic welfare state to embrace the activation paradigm. Underlying this discursive layer, however, we find several discrete, relatively small and unintended institutional developments that have arguably aligned the design of Finnish unemployment security closer to a partial basic income scheme. While the latter may suggest Finland has important stepping stones in place, important stumbling blocks remain and the jury is very much out on whether Finland would be the first European country to fully institute a basic income.

The Finnish and Dutch basic income experiments: A methodological review

The Finnish and Dutch basic income experiments: A methodological review

The Bottom Line in a Basic Income Experiment

A basic income (BI) experiment is worth doing if it focuses on the right question. Some of the problems with the US negative income tax (NIT) experiments of the 1970s stemmed from a focus on the wrong question – focusing on the side effects rather the effects of the policy in question. A European BI experiment should focus on the question of policy effectiveness. The question of policy effectiveness should be formulated as follows: what policy (BI, the current system, or any other alternatives to be tested) produces the greatest increase in welfare for the poor (or the greatest decrease in poverty) per Euro of cost (both in terms of tax cost and efficiency loss)? Effectiveness is not the only important concern in assessing policy alternatives, but it is a critically important concern that anyone who is interested in the issue should consider. BI supporters argue – from theory – that BI is the most efficient and effective way to improve the welfare of the poor. A BI experiment can shed light on whether that theory is correct, and supporters and opponents alike agree that policy effectiveness is an important factor in determining the relative merits of policy alternatives. The US experiments tested NIT, which is no longer the focus of the guaranteed income debate. However, BI does not lend itself to easy testing as

Reasons for Launching a Basic Income Experiment

My first claim in support of launching a basic income (BI) experiment is that even if policy makers or the public are not at all interested in a BI and prefer a move to more workfare-oriented social security, it would still be advisable to conduct a BI experiment that would provide the benchmark or baseline against which the results of all workfare-oriented experiments can be evaluated. Why? The

A Piece of the Puzzle: A Comment on the Basic Income Experiment Debate

A Piece of the Puzzle: A Comment on the Basic Income Experiment Debate