Article by Jurgen De Wispelaere, Joe Chrisp, and Leticia Morales in Global Policy
Abstract: This short paper reflects on the key lessons we can learn from the political debate around and policy experimentation with (emergency) basic income schemes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the pandemic crisis initially seems to have opened up a policy window for introducing a basic income as a crisis instrument, theoretical arguments and empirical observations strongly suggest the reliance of some basic income advocates on crisis events, such as the pandemic, to push forward their policy ideas involves wishful thinking rather than political reality. A feasible roadmap towards introducing basic income requires the hard work of raising public awareness, constructing broad constituencies, and building robust political coalitions rather than waiting for the next crisis to come around the corner.
“Universal Basic Income (UBI) policies have the potential to promote a wide range of public health objectives by providing those who qualify with direct cash payments. One overlooked mechanism of particular importance to health researchers is the possibility that guaranteed income might increase consultation of primary and preventive care (e.g., annual doctors’ visits; regular vaccination against infectious disease) by providing people with both the time and monetary resources to do so, thereby improving general health.
This study assesses the effects of an exogenous shock to Alaska’s UBI payments to all state residents: a 2022 decision to reclassify dividend “energy relief” provisions as non-taxable (thereby increasing payments by approximately $2,000 inflation-adjusted dollars). It estimates quasi- experimental treatment effects (in 2022 vs. 2021) via mixed linear probability models that compare pre/post policy change in primary care seeking behavior in Alaska vs. the US adult population; controlling for respondent-level fixed effects and state-level random effects. Data were collected in 2021-2022, and analyzed in 2024.”
In July 2024, the National Bureau of Economic Research issued a report from the researchers on an income-transfer project conducted in Illinois and Texas. It has generated global attention, with some commentators saying it undermines the case for basic income, others that it supports the case for it.
This note is a critique of the project, and one point should be made very firmly at the outset: This experiment was not a test of basic income. Anybody claiming otherwise is either unfamiliar with the concept of basic income or is being disingenuous.
To be fair on the researchers, the title of their main report refers to a ‘guaranteed income’, not a basic income. But as far as I can see none of the researchers has rebutted the interpretation by critics. Moreover, as this writer knows, having been involved in the initial discussions of the project in Stanford University, the initial researchers knew they could not do a proper basic income pilot.
The results of one of the biggest basic income experiments ever came out in July 2024, and as usual, the nuances of the findings are lost among the voices of those loudly proclaiming basic income doesn’t work. This one is the three-year pilot of Sam Altman’s that provided $1,000 a month to 1,000 people in Texas and Illinois and compared that group to a control group of 2,000 people who got $50 a month. Every participant was between the ages of 21 and 40. In this article, I will explain the nuances and how the results of this pilot provide some new info but mostly replicate the findings of previous experiments going back to the 1970s and only further demonstrate that what’s at stake here is real freedom and the perceived danger it poses to those who benefit from the widespread lack of that freedom.
“A monthly payment of $750 to $1,000 would allow thousands of the city’s homeless people to find informal housing, living in boarding homes, in shared apartments and with family and friends, according to a policy brief by four prominent Los Angeles academics.”
To read the full Los Angeles Times article by Doug Smith, click here.
Photo: Armando Geneyro Note: The use of the term Basic Income in this article does not conform to BIEN’s definition.
Denver Basic Income Project (DBIP) has released the results its Year One quantitative and quantitative findings. What the research has discovered supports what DBIP always believed – that guaranteed income gives families and individuals financial tools, and a cushion to cover their most basic needs per their circumstances. DBIP’s research shows:
You can review the Year One Research Report Executive Summary for an in-depth look at the research design, cost analysis due to reductions in public service utilization, and notable findings from both the quantitative and qualitative reports. You can read the full reports on the research page of DBIP’s website.
Given that Denver annually spends over $40,000 on shelter and medical costs per person experiencing homelessness and is also dealing with the humanitarian and fiscal crisis of people arriving from the borders, cost-effective programs like this are extremely valuable. As the first and largest project of its kind studying the impact of guaranteed income on homelessness, the research and results of the Denver Basic Income Project have the potential to be replicated and scaled across the U.S. The Year One report is a monumental milestone for the Denver Basic Income Project, and we would not be here without the support of the community and our generous funders, including the City and County of Denver, The Colorado Trust, the Denver Foundation, and the Wend Collective.
