UK: Steven Davies reviews Rutger Bregman’s “Utopia for Realists”

UK: Steven Davies reviews Rutger Bregman’s “Utopia for Realists”

by | Dec 24, 2017 | News, Research

In the three years since its initial publication, Rutger Bregman’s Utopia for Realists has helped spur a global conversation on universal basic income (UBI). The book has become an international bestseller, garnering praise from intellectual heavyweights and propelling its author to the TED stage this past April. However, Stephen Davies, education director at the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), remains skeptical of many of the young Dutch journalist’s ideas. He makes his case in the most recent edition of the Journal of Economic Affairs.

“Rutger Bregman’s book is both interesting and irritating,” declares Davies in the opening line of his review. To clarify, he quickly notes that it is interesting “not so much because of its particular content…but because it gives us an insight into what may turn out to be a development of both intellectual and political importance” (p. 442). Such an off hand rejection of a book advocating basic income from the education director of a think tank advocating free market capitalism may be unsurprising to some, but Davies’ response is actually not as inevitable as it may seem. Historically, UBI has found supporters on both sides of the political divide.

Davies distinguishes between two types of arguments Bregman makes for basic income. The first considers UBI to be a pragmatic solution to the shortcomings of the current social welfare system. The second considers it to be a necessary means of radically transforming the existing social order. While Davies may be more sympathetic to the second line of reasoning, he spends most of his time critiquing the first.

Steven Davies. Credit to: The London School of Economics and Political Science

Steven Davies. Credit to: The London School of Economics and Political Science

In Utopia, Bregman draws on a wealth of research to highlight deficiencies in the means-tested benefit programs that constitute the welfare states of most developed societies. He notes that many of these programs create negative incentives, keeping beneficiaries locked in a poverty trap. Even worse, financial instability can result in a scarcity mindset, making it even harder for poor people to make responsible financial decisions. According to Bregman, unconditional cash transfer programs (UCTs) have proven to be the most successful remedy to this vicious cycle of poverty and dependence. In support of this view, Bregman offers additional in-depth analyses of related programs, including Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan, negative income taxes, and the Speenhamland system.

Davies acknowledges the implications of this body of research. He writes, “Much of the evidence presented by Bregman is indeed very striking and should encourage us simply to trust people more and have greater confidence in their judgment and their knowledge” (p. 447). However, he is far more hesitant to interpret these results as evidence for universal basic income.

Davies notes that many of the policies Bregman touches on are in fact means-tested in one way or another, and may therefore be more analogous to standard welfare programs than basic income. Additionally, Davies argues that many of the UCT programs discussed in Utopia for Realists have not been around long enough to show lasting impacts, and he calls for more research to determine the specific amounts at which UCTs can begin to induce behavioral change. Yet, even more worrisome for Davies is the “bold assumption that there is no meaningful distinction between single lump-sum payments and continuing income stream” (p. 448). He notes that while individual cash transfers may bring sudden and liberating benefits, similar effects of ongoing basic income payments may become muted over time.

According to Davies, all of this “reveals confusion over what a UBI is thought of as being – is it a way of establishing a floor or minimum that is guaranteed to all or is it a redistributive mechanism designed to narrow income differentials?” (p. 449). This confusion motivates Davies’ second critique of Bregman’s argument for universal basic income as a response to the widening global wealth gap. While basic income programs may go a long way in ensuring no one lives in a state of absolute poverty, Davies writes that “it is not clear how a UBI by itself will do anything to reduce relative poverty or inequality” (p. 449). In fact, he notes it may even make the problem of inequality worse if UBI programs seek to replace other means-tested benefits.

However, while Davies takes issue with many of Bregman’s pragmatic arguments, he seems much more sympathetic to the idealistic aspects of his account. As automation increases and “bullshit jobs” proliferate, Davies grants Bregman his assumption that UBI could become a useful tool to decouple meaningful activity from paid work. He writes, “This is clearly the vision that truly inspires Bregman, the utopia of his book’s title, and he would have done better to stick to this rather than muddy the waters by conflating it with more limited and pragmatic discussions of a guaranteed income in a society where wage labor is still widespread and predominant” (p. 456).

While he may be unmoved by Utopia for Realists, Davies clearly recognizes the significance of the political and intellectual movements it represents. The book’s international success seems to reflect a growing anxiety about stagnation of big ideas in the face of an increasingly unsatisfying status quo. Davies concludes, “What we are starting to see is an attempt to work out what a non-capitalist or, more accurately, a post-capitalist political economy would look like” (p. 457).

Davies review appears in the most recent edition of the Journal for Economic Affairs.

SPAIN: XVII Simposium of Red Renta Básica

SPAIN: XVII Simposium of Red Renta Básica

by | Nov 16, 2017 | News

Íñigo Errejón, at the 7th Basic Income Simposium.

 

On the 2nd of November 2017, the city of Zaragoza (Spain) welcomed the 17th Basic Income Simposium, organized by Red Renta Básica (the Basic Income Network affiliate in Spain), which lasted for three days.

In the first day, during the afternoon, the documentary “In the same boat” (trailer here) was screened, followed by interventions by David Casassas (Social Theory professor at the University of Barcelona and member of Red Renta Básica), who explained the normative and technical aspects of basic income, Txema Sánchez (member of Red Renta Básica and the Nulla Política Sina Éthica collective) and Rudy Gnutti (“In the same boat” film director), who claims there is no Left nor Right basic income.

On the second day, the meeting started with a roundtable on how to finance a basic income. This was moderated by Fernando Rivares (from the Zaragosa municipality) and debated by Jordi Arcarons (PhD in Applied Economics at the University of Barcelona), Lluís Torrens (Director of Social Rights Planning and Innovation of the Barcelona municipality), alongside Raúl Burrillo and Jorge Bielsa Callau (Economy professor at the University of Zaragosa). Although it has been shown that a basic income can be financed for the Spanish reality, the financing problem has been a widely debated issue. In the afternoon, Pablo Yanes (CEPAL research coordinator in Mexico) presented his take on what has been developing as the basic income inclusion in the Mexico City Constitution.

On a second roundtable, moderated by Violeta Barba (Aragón Congress president), Daniel Raventós (PhD in Economic Sciences and president of Red Renta Básica), Íñigo Errejón (PhD in Political Science and Congressman for Unidos Podemos political party), Amparo Bella (historian, feminist and Congresswoman at Aragón by the Podemos political party) and Pedro Santisteve (from the Zaragosa municipality) debated around the bold theme “unconditional basic income”. At this moment, Santisteve approaches basic income from a constitutional right perspective. According to him, these rights shall be “locked” inside the constitution, so they cannot be tramped with by any one government. Amparo Bella then introduced basic income under a feminist perspective. This way, basic income shall value all kinds of labour, stressing that work is much more than a job. In his turn, Íñigo defended the upgrade of the welfare state, where basic income shall be the backbone of the needed constitutional reform. Finally, Raventós has pointed out that knowing about the basic income proposal is a crucial step towards supporting it, and that no one can really be free unless he or she has their material needs met.

On the last day, in the morning, the last roundtable took place. This was named “30 years of minimum income: the alternative, basic income”. The discussion then circulated around the failure to eradicate poverty through these (conditional) minimum income schemes, and around the possible alternatives. The debate was moderated by Luisa Broto (from the Zaragosa municipality Social Services) and had the presentations of Mari Carmen Mesa (Spokeswoman to Aragón Social Workers union), Sonia García (CCOO Social Action Secretary) and Julen Bollain (Euskadi Congressman and Red Renta Básica member). Mar Carmen started by showing reservations about the implementation of the basic income scheme in the short term. In the same vein, Sonia García rejected basic income in favour of a (conditional) minimum income scheme (of 430 €/month) which has been presented to the Spanish Congress by CCOO and UGT. However, Bollain argued that in fact conditional minimum income schemes have failed all around the world in the last few decades. He claimed that none of such schemes ever eradicated poverty, but still introduced unnecessary stigma, bureaucracy and administrative costs. He thinks that society must overcome these targeted, conditional policies and fight for the universal, unconditional rights that basic income represents.

 

More information at:

Jullen Bollain, “El XVII simposio de la Red Renta Básica: ¿punto de inflexión? [The 17th Red Renta Básica Simposium: an inflection point?]”, Red Renta Básica, November 12th 2017

Report from the Cash Conference

Report from the Cash Conference

by | Nov 6, 2017 | News

On Thursday, October 19th, activists, social justice advocates, economists, futurists, venture capitalists, writers, community organizers and politicians gathered at the Old Mint in San Francisco – a symbolically poetic building – to talk about Cash. Organized by the Economic Security Project, the goal of the conference was to “reimagine what an economy built on the well-being of everyone could look like.”

Cara Rose DeFabio and Sandhya Anantharaman were the MC’s for the day, introducing each segment, panel or presentation, showcasing a range of thoughts around how cash transfers can shape society. See the full schedule here.

The conference embraced a range of reasons why giving cash through a Universal Basic Income is an appealing concept. Most segments were in a panel format with experts in their field, moderated by one of their own. This allowed participants to see the differences in thinking across the movement as well as its broad appeal, regardless of what brought these thinkers into to the movement. The first panel was a discussion on automation’s effect on the work force, and how UBI could provide economic security during retraining, between jobs, or to supplement part time work. Another panel, with representatives from three different venture funds, discussed how a UBI might encourage entrepreneurship, while a third  panel talked through historical and current systemic racist and sexist policies and practices, and how a combination of a UBI plus a wealth tax to help fund it could course correct extreme inequality.

A general acceptance for the benefit of cash transfers seemed to be the most basic common denominator. The audience was educated on the results of past cash transfer and basic income experiments, as well as updates on current experiments. You can view   a high level video of some of the outcomes of these experiments here.

Mayor Tubbs of Stockton talked about his plans for a UBI in his city. Elizabeth Rhodes also gave an update on the Oakland Y-Combinator project. Then Joe Huston, CFO of Give Directly spoke to the effectiveness of cash transfers and positive outcomes in their work in Kenya and Uganda. He announced that Give Directly is now involved in its first US based project, where they are giving debit cards with $1500 directly to victims of Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area. He noted the work that still must be done changing perceptions around what people will do when they are given cash unconditionally, joking that employers don’t say, “I would like to give this employee their bonus, but I’m worried they might drink it away,”  yet this is somehow common thinking that needs to be changed based on research results.

Aisha Nyandoro, CEO of Springboard to Opportunity spoke about where the current Welfare system in the US fails. She illustrated the challenges that families living in poverty in Mississippi have piecing together welfare benefits from the government – housing voucher, electricity voucher, and food stamps. The system creates poverty traps and the benefits don’t cover many of the real needs these families have, but cash would. Cash would also limit interaction with the system and remove the feeling of being judged, as well as  the stigmas around welfare.

Damareo Cooper, Director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative shared his personal story also highlighting how the current welfare system and prison system fails children and young people, making a convincing case for switching to cash. Almaz Zelleke, professor of Political Science at NYU Shanghai, went further, explaining why a UBI must be paid as cash and not a negative income tax.

Throughout the day, however, there seemed to be a lack of consensus on aspects surrounding  universality and unconditionality of a cash transfer policy. The range of standpoints could be seen clearly in a panel with Hawaii State Representative Chris Lee and Alaska State Senator Bill Wielechowski, as well as Joseph Sanberg, the founder of Golden State Opportunity Foundation. Bill educated the audience on the Alaska permanent fund. On the aspect of Universality and Unconditionality he said, “Universality is critical. If the policy was needs-based it would diminish it. The fund is framed as each resident’s ownership of shared resources. This is something that Alaskans share together.”

On the other side of the issue, Joseph Sanberg said, “The social contract is work and you will be able to have economic security.” He tied work requirements to the right to economic security and his efforts have been focused on California Earned Income Tax Credits.

Chris Lee from Hawaii seemed to be working out his state’s position on the issue, noting that for their Earned Income Tax Credits they have expanded the definition of work, looking at where people are spending their hours – for example, caregiving. He did note that his task force is looking at a universal benefit across all economic classes.

Aisha Nyandoro cited  the work she does as evidence that work requirements are difficult and policy makers are out of touch on the issue.  She invited any policy makers that wanted to get in touch to call her. Anne Price, President of Insight Center for Community Economic Development,  explained how racism and sexism shaped current welfare policy around judging who is deserving and who is undeserving. She noted that it is degrading to be on the receiving end of morality, and shared her vision for dignity for all: universal benefits – working or not.

How to pay for it was touched on by some, with ideas ranging from a wealth tax to combat inequality, to a shared patrimony dividends, like Alaska, or some combination of these revenues.  

Other highlights of the day included a session by Jane McGonigal from the Institute for the future, and A Frank Conversation about Money with Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook and Co-Chair of the hosting Economic Security Project. Jane coached the audience on how to create empathy for our future selves and envision a future with Universal Basic Income.  Anna Sale from “Death, Sex, and Money” interviewed Chris Hughes about his thoughts and feelings around his own fortune and why he supports Universal Basic Income.

The organizing team is clearly very competent and professional, as the entire conference ran very smoothly from check in, AV, lunch, and seating. All details were thought out  and executed well. Participants had many opportunities to make connections and discuss the themes.

All in all, this was a very important gathering for the movement.

 

CHINA: UNDP holds basic income roundtable in Beijing

CHINA: UNDP holds basic income roundtable in Beijing

by | Oct 30, 2017 | News

In a sign of the major progress Universal Basic Income (UBI) has made in Asia, the United Nations Development Program in Beijing hosted a roundtable discussion on basic income last week. Professors from China’s most influential universities spoke at the roundtable about the potential for a basic income pilot program in China.

Patrick Haverman is the UNDP Deputy Country Director for China. Haverman said he wants to work with academia and government to determine if basic income experiments in different areas of China are feasible.

“With the Sustainable Development Goals firmly focused on the need to ‘leave no one behind’, careful consideration of a wide variety of responses will be essential,” Haverman said during his opening remarks. ”It is very important that we can foster collaborative discussions around potential options to address poverty and inequality into the future, and the role of UBI should not be overlooked.”

The roundtable also discussed the benefits and likely challenges of implementing a Universal Basic Income in China. A large topic was how UBI could improve on the dibao system, which is China’s means-tested unconditional cash transfer program. Dibao currently has issues with targeting the subsidies toward people in poverty, which many participants at the roundtable noted UBI’s universality could potentially alleviate.

Shi Li, a professor at Beijing Normal University, said Chinese people in poverty receive the dibao because of poor targeting. In his research, Li and other researchers found that nearly 88 percent of poor residents in China do not receive dibao stipends. Remarkably, administrative costs of means-testing were three times more than the actual transferred amount.

The large size and economic disparities across the mainland mean it may be difficult to implement a national UBI that is not adjusted based on residence, others noted.

The event was co-hosted by the International Labour Organization, which presented on the potential disruption of automation on employment during the roundtable. Haverman said an advantage in China is that smartphone penetration is high and many businesses now accept digital payments. This means it may be most efficient to send basic incomes to digital wallets.

“Almost everyone has a phone, so if we find a pilot zone I think we should take a look at it,” Haverman said.

Furui Cheng an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law’s Business School, said the China Basic Income/Social Dividend Research Network is working with UNDP to plan the next steps for a pilot program in China.

Cheng said they are looking to work with local governments and raise money from technology companies.

“Basic income is the probable alternative for the future global social security system, which is facing unprecedent challenges now,” Cheng said. 

“We shall learn the experiences of global existing basic income experiments as much as possible, and we welcome any suggestions from any supporters,” she said.

Zhiyuan Cui, a professor at Tsinghua University, has written how China could emulate the Alaska Permanent Fund to implement UBI. Cui explained that Jay Hammond, the Alaskan governor who created the Permanent Fund, said he often felt “closer to Beijing than Washington DC.”

Yang Tuan of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said the size of China means it would be a good place “to come up with many types of experiments” for basic income.Tuan, who supported the implementation of dibao when she was working for China’s social security system, said the economic dynamics of China have changed since dibao started.

“(In the past) I have been against western mechanisms of social security,” she said. “But today I think the context of China is different.”

According to Haverman, the UNDP is planning to release up to three more working papers, addressing topics such as financing UBI in China, as well as its effect on work hours.

 

To see UNDP China’s press release, go here.

To see the original UNDP China working paper, go here.

To inquire about the UNDP project contact Cheng Furui: cfr1978@163.com

Overview of Current Basic Income Related Experiments (October 2017)

Overview of Current Basic Income Related Experiments (October 2017)

by | Oct 19, 2017 | News

Existing and Upcoming BI-Related Experiments

By Kate McFarland

Last updated: October 15, 2017 

 

It seems that 2017 has been a watershed year for the global basic income movement, as multiple governments and private research groups have independently conceived and launched experimental trials of basic income (and closely related policies). Several new experiments in North America and Europe represent the first such experiments in the developed world since the 1970s (when a negative income tax was tested in several cities in the United States and Canada), and the largest basic income trial ever designed is about to take place in Kenya.

At the same time, rumors of other experiments have appeared only to be revealed to have been premature, and sloppy and superficial media reports have obfuscated differences in the design and motivation of these disparate studies. This article reviews the latest information (as of October 2017) on the experiments that actually are being conducted (or well along the path) [1] [2].

The federal government of Finland is currently conducting an experiment of the effects of a basic income on unemployed citizens, which began in January 2017 and will conclude in December 2018. Prior to the launch of the Finnish experiment, the provincial government of Ontario had already announced its plans to test a type of unconditional income guarantee; at the time of this writing, it is currently enrolling participants in three areas of the province, who will receive an income guarantee for up to three years. In the Netherlands, another instigator of the recent interest in basic income experiments, municipal-level experiments have faced setbacks and changes in the quest to meet compliance with federal law; however, as of October, several cities have now launched experiments with the removal of conditions on social assistance benefits. The city of Barcelona has launched an experiment testing several potential reforms of its anti-poverty programs, including new social programs as well as unconditional cash payments. Proposals to test basic income at the municipal level have also lately gained considerable political support in Scotland.

In addition, two US-based non-profit organizations have completed pilot studies, and are preparing to launch privately funded basic income experiments on a large scale. After the Kenyan elections, the charity GiveDirectly plans to initiate a 12-year randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the effects of universal basic income on villages in rural Kenya. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley’s Y Combinator Research has completed a feasibility study in Oakland, California, and is now finalizing the design of an RCT that is to involved 3,000 participants in two US states. (Edit: A privately funded trial in Stockton, California–announced around the same time this article was published–may soon join the list. However, the project is in its early planning stages, and few details have yet been determined.)     

 


1. Finland’s “Perustulokokeilu” (Basic Income Experiment)

Status: Launched on January 1, 2017; in progress until December 2018.

Official website: https://www.kela.fi/web/en/basic-income-experiment-2017-2018

In October 2015, the federal government of Finland formed a working group to research the design and implementation of a nationwide basic income experiment, described as a means to “find ways to reshape the social security system in response to changes in the labor market”.

One prevailing concern with existing systems of social security was the steep rate at which benefits are clawed back when beneficiaries receive a job, which has been hypothesized to discourage job-seeking. Additionally, those who gain employment on a short-term basis need to reapply for benefits after their position ends, often resulting in a gap in financial support. The latter has become a particular concern due to the increase in precarious work, such as temporary and contract positions (see, e.g., Marjukka Turunen’s presentation to Kela). Thus, the idea of unconditional basic income gained attention as a possible means to remove practical and psychological barriers that might currently deter unemployed Finns from looking for work.     

“Finland!” CC BY 2.0 Dave_S.

After reviewing several design suggestions proposed by Kela, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, the government settled on the program that was launched on January 1, 2017. The experimental group consists of 2,000 persons, who were randomly selected from Finns between the ages of 25 and 58 who had been receiving unemployment benefits from Kela in November 2016. (The remainder of the sample population, totaling around 175,000 individuals nationwide, constitutes the control group.)

These 2,000 participants are receiving unconditional monthly cash payments of €560 (about 590 USD), an amount insufficient to meet basic living expenses, but approximately equal to that provided by Finland’s existing programs of unemployment assistance.

In contrast to those who continue to receive Kela’s existing unemployment benefits, participants in the basic income pilot are not required to demonstrate that they are seeking employment, nor are they required to accept jobs offered to them, and those who do obtain work will continue to receive the full benefit.   

The first payouts to experimental participants were distributed on January 9, 2016, and payments will continue through the end of the trial in December 2018. To avoid selection bias, participation was mandated for those chosen, and exit from the experiment is prohibited. However, the experiment has been designed to ensure that no participants will be placed in a worse financial position than they would have experienced under their previous benefits.

Labor supply effects are the main outcome of interest: the experiment will assess whether the final unemployment rates differ significantly between those individuals receiving the basic income and those receiving traditional employment benefits. Kela has also stated plans to examine difference in expenditure on medication, health care usage, and income variation.

To avoid observer effects, Kela aims to minimize interaction with experimental subjects during the duration of the trial, and will conduct no surveys or interviews of subjects until the experiment has concluded. Most analysis will be based on registry data that can be obtained without direct interaction with participants. No results of the experiment will be released prior to 2019, after the period of data collection has concluded. (Rumors of early results demonstrating a decrease in stress level were, in fact, based on a single anecdote voluntarily divulged to media.)

While many basic income supporters and “BI-curious” individuals have praised Finland’s initiative launching the first nationwide experiment of a basic income program, many activists have also expressed disappointment with the final design of the experiment, questioning its ability to produce useful results and even whether it should be called a “basic income” at all [3]. Particularly controversial have been the decisions to test only a “partial” basic income (i.e. an amount insufficient to meet basic living expenses), limit the target population to those who had previously been receiving unemployment benefits, and focus primarily on labor supply effects.

Research director Olli Kangas has recommended expansion of the experiment in future years in order to test different models of a basic income or broaden the target population. This, however, will depend on budgetary decisions of the federal government.


2. Ontario’s Basic Income (Guaranteed Minimum Income) Pilot

Status: Officially announced in April 2017; currently enrolling participants.

Official website: www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot

Before describing Ontario’s “Basic Income Pilot” (as the study is officially called) on BIEN’s website, a word about terminology is in order: in the Canadian context, the term ‘basic income’ is commonly used in a more expansive manner than the definition adopted by BIEN to refer to programs that guarantee minimum income, with no type of work requirement, for all members of society without any type of work conditions. This is more expansive that BIEN’s definition in that it omits the conditions that policy must provide payments to individuals (rather than households) and in an amount not dependent on additional earned income.

For example, Canadian writers and policymakers often use ‘basic income’ to refer to programs in which cash payments are not distributed universally, such as  a negative income tax or top-up of low incomes. (In common Canadian terminology, the word ‘demogrant’ is used equivalently to BIEN’s use of ‘basic income’, and to refer to a sub-type of the programs that most Canadians call ‘basic income’.)

River in Lindsay, Ontario, CC BY 2.0 RichardBH

This clarification is important given that, in fact, Ontario’s experiment employs cash transfers that depend in their amount on both income and household status. Specifically, single participants will receive a guaranteed annual income of 16,989 CAD (€11,340), while couples will receive a minimum of 24,027 CAD (€16,038) per year (amounts pegged to 75% of the Low Income Measure or LIM, where the LIM is roughly 50% of area median income).

Moreover, the above amounts are the maximum payments; that is, they are the amounts that would be paid out to individuals and couples with no external income source. The amount of the benefit will be reduced by the amount of 50% of any earned income (e.g. if a single individual in the study receives 20,000 CAD per year in earned income, she will receive an additional 6,989 CAD per year through the pilot program, or 16,989 CAD less 10,000 CAD). This entails, for example, that single individuals will not receive any payment through program if their annual earned income rises above 48,054 CAD.

Additionally, only Ontarians with an annual income below a certain level (34,000 CAD for single individuals or 48,000 CAD for couples) are eligible to participate in the experiment. (In contrast to the experiments in Finland, the Netherlands, and Barcelona, the target population is not restricted to current welfare recipients; it is, however, restricted to the low-income population.)

Although the amount of the cash supplement depends on income and household status, it does not depend on employment status, participation in job-seeking activities, training, or any other prescribed activity, or proof of an inability to work (although individuals with disabilities can receive an additional amount of up to 500 CAD per month).

Compared to the Finnish government, the government of Ontario is less focused on employment effects in particular, and more interested in the ability of a guaranteed income program to reduce poverty, food insecurity, and mental and physical health problems caused or exacerbated by low or unstable income. This is one reason that, in the context of the Ontario experiment, it may be less significant that the cash benefit is clawed back with earned income; researchers and policymakers are less focused, if at all, on reducing or removing the “benefits cliff”. Meanwhile, poverty–the prevailing concern to Ontario–is not an issue motivating the trial in Finland.

Thunder Bay lighthouse, CC BY-NC 2.0 C Hanchey

Since June 2017, the Ontario government has been enrolling participants from the three regions chosen as sites for the experiment: the Hamilton, Brantford, and Brant County region, Thunder Bay and surrounding area, and the city of Lindsay.

Residents of these regions have been randomly selected to receive application packages, and are eligible to enroll if they are between the ages of 18 and 64 with income below the levels mentioned above. Unlike the situation in Finland, participation is voluntary, and participants may opt out of the experiment at any time.

At the time of this writing, 400 participants have been enrolled from Hamilton and Thunder Bay areas. The government intends to enroll at total of 2,000 participants from these two regions, in addition to 2,000 from Lindsay (where enrollment will begin later in the year).

Participants will be regularly surveyed about topics such as their health, employment, and housing situation. Those assigned to the control group will receive no cash benefit but will be administered the same surveys. A third-party research group will evaluate outcomes in a variety of areas, including food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, and employment and labor market participation.

The experiment will continue for three years after its launch, with payments distributed on a monthly basis, and results are expected to be reported to the public in 2020.


3. Dutch Social Assistance Experiments

Status: Two-year experiments have been launched in four cities in October 2017, after meeting compliance with federal legislation; a fifth will follow in December (Nijmegen), and two cities (Amsterdam and Utrecht) are discussing revisions necessary for legal compliance.

In contrast to the cases in Finland and Ontario, in which the national and provincial governments (respectively) have called for and overseen the implementation of the trial programs, social assistance experiments in the Netherlands have developed “from the bottom up”: municipal leaders and university researchers in several Dutch cities planned experiments to test the replacement of the nation’s “workfare” benefits with unconditional cash assistance, and sought permission to carry out these experiments under the auspices of the Participation Act.

This national law, passed in 2015, tightened conditions on the receipt of welfare benefits, with the goal of promoting reintegration into the labor market. For example, individuals are commonly required to complete five job applications per week, attend group meetings, and participate in training activities in order to continue to receive their benefits. However, the law also granted municipalities the opportunity to implement new forms of social assistance on a trial basis for up to two years–subject to certain constraints (to be discussed below). Hence, the Participation Act might be said to have provided both the impetus to experiment with basic income (as an alternative to its workfare-based to benefits) as well as the license to do. As will be seen, however, the conditions of this legislation have also effectively precluded the ability of researchers to test a truly unconditional and non-means-tested basic income.

The Dutch municipal experiments, like the Finnish experiment, were motivated in large part by concern about the ability of existing welfare programs to incentivize work. However, while the Finnish experiment focuses on the role of monetary incentives (e.g. the ability to retain cash benefits after taking a job), the Dutch experiments have also stressed individuals’ intrinsic motivation to work. For example, drawing upon work in behavioral economics, Utrecht University economists Loek Groot and Timo Verlaat have argued that coercing individuals to work, as in the case of the nation’s “workfare” programs, can undermine their intrinsic motivation to perform fulfilling work and make productive contributions to society.

Thus, although the Dutch municipal experiments are designed to investigate the effect of removing financial disincentives to work (reducing the withdrawal rate on means-tested benefits), as described below, the most discussed experimental intervention has been the removal of coercive reintegration requirements on welfare recipients.    

Nijmegen train, CC BY 2.0 Rob Dammers

Researchers at the Universities of Groningen, Tilburg, and Utrecht initially proposed to test a policy close to a basic income. However, research teams experienced setbacks in 2016 and 2017, as interaction with the national Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment made clear that the terms of compliance with the Participation Act would prohibit experimentation with a truly unconditional benefit.

For example, if an experiment involves the removal of work reintegration requirements on benefits, the Ministry mandates that municipal officials survey test subjects after six and twelve months to verify that they have made adequate effort to find employment: if any participants are determined not to have made adequate job-seeking efforts during this time, they are subject to dismissal from the experiment. The Ministry has also required that any experiment including a treatment group with relaxed conditions on the receipt of benefits also must include a treatment group with stricter conditions (such as more intense reintegration activities). Finally, the Participation Act caps the amount of earned income that participants are permitted to retain on top of their social assistance benefits at €199 per month, meaning that a completely non-withdrawable (non-means-tested) benefit cannot be tested.

Despite such setbacks and constraints, however, several municipalities have designed–and are beginning to launch–experiments that meet the conditions of the Participation Act.

On July 3, 2017, the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment granted permission to four municipal-level social assistance experiments–in Groningen (with the neighboring village of Ten Boer), Wageningen, Tilburg, and Deventer. An application from Nijmegen was also approved shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, discussions are ongoing in Amsterdam, where the city has so far refused to adopt the stricter conditions required by the Participation Act, and Utrecht, where an application to experiment was approved conditionally on revising a city law to meet compliance with the act (to be decided in December).

Deventer, CC BY-NC 2.0 Jens-Olaf Walter

In each of the two-year experiments, participants will be (or have been) randomly selected from a pool of current social assistance beneficiaries, and assigned either to a control group or to one of several treatment groups.

As in Ontario’s experiment, but in contrast to Finland’s, participation is voluntary for those selected.

The experiments in Tilburg and Wageningen include three treatment groups: (1) a group with the removal of reintegration requirements, such as job application quotas and participation in training programs, on welfare benefits; (2) a group with a more intensive form of reintegration service for welfare recipients (as per the requirements of the Participation Act); (3) a group permitted to keep additional income earned on top of welfare benefits (subjects in this group may retain 50% of additional earned income, up to the mandated maximum of €199 per month, for the duration of the two-year experiment; under current policy, welfare beneficiaries are permitted to keep only 25% of additional income, and only for up to six months).

The Groningen / Ten Boer experiment includes a fourth treatment group, in which participants are permitted to choose to join any one of the three preceding groups.

The Nijmegen experiment, in contrast, will combine features of above treatment groups into two group. In one group, reintegration requirements will be removed; in the other, more intensive reintegration requirements will be implemented, but subjects will be allowed more autonomy and discretion in selecting reintegration activities (e.g. volunteer work, help obtain full-time work, or assistance for entrepreneurship). In both, subjects will be able to retain of 50% of additional income (up to the €199 maximum).

Researchers plan to examine outcomes such as health, stress level, subjective well-being, financial well-being (such as amount of debt), education, employment (including part-time and temporary employment), and participation in social and cultural life.

The experiments in Tilburg, Wageningen, and Deventer began at the start of October 2017, with Groningen / Ten Boer to follow at the end of the month. Nijmegen plans to launch its experiment in December.  


4. Barcelona’s B-MINCOME

Status: Launched in October 2017

Official website: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/bmincome/

Launched in October 2017, Barcelona’s B-MINCOME experiment is exploring several potential solutions to address poverty and social exclusion. The experiment is being conducted in Besòs area, the city’s poorest region, and, as in the above experiments, the target population consists of low-income individuals and households. As in the Finnish experiment and Dutch municipal experiments, participants are drawn from current recipients of social assistance benefits (in this case, Barcelona’s Municipal Social Services). Once again, although the program is thereby not a test of a truly “universal” benefit, this restriction is sensible in the context of the experiment, the main objective of which is to test the effectiveness of alternative anti-poverty programs.

“Panorama sobre el Besòs” CC BY-SA 2.0 Jordi Domènech i Arnau

A stratified random sample of 2,000 households was selected for the experiment, with 1,000 households assigned to the control group, and the other 1,000 assigned (at random) to one of ten treatment groups. (As in the Ontarian and Dutch experiments, but in contrast to the Finnish experiment, participation in the experiment was made voluntary for the selected households.)

All of the treatment groups will receive cash income supplements (called “Municipal Inclusion Support” or, in the Spanish acronym, “SMI”), but differ according to whether the SMI is accompanied by an additional social program and whether the SMI is means-tested. In general, the amount of the SMI will depend upon household composition and financial status, and is expected to range from €100 to €1,676 per month per household. A total of 550 households in the experiment will be assigned to participate in one of these four social programs, including an occupation and education program, a social and cooperative economy program, a guaranteed housing program, and a community participation program. The remaining 450 households will receive the SMI without any associated programs. Within this group, the receipt of the SMI is not conditional on work, willingness to work, or willingness to participate in any other type of program. Furthermore, for some of these 450 households, the SMI will not be means-tested.

Hence, although B-MINCOME is not only a test of basic income–it is also a test of the effectiveness of the additional social programs–it includes a trial of basic income. This is not coincidental: the project team contains several members of BIEN’s Spanish affiliate, Red Renta Básica, and consulted with representatives from Finland, Ontario, and Utrecht who have been involved with the design of the experiments in their respective regions (not to mention that its name refers to Manitoba’s well-known experiment with unconditional income guarantee, in the form of a negative income tax, in the 1970s).

To examine the impact of the cash transfers (SMI) and social program on poverty and social exclusion, researchers will examine a number of outcome variables, including labor market participation, food security, housing security, energy access, economic situation, education participation and attainment, community networks and participation, and health, happiness, and well-being. They will additionally investigate the question of whether the SMI reduces the administrative and bureaucratic responsibilities of social workers.

B-MINCOME is being administered by the Barcelona City Council, with consultation from five research organizations (the Young Foundation, the Institute of Governance and Public Policy at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, the Catalan Institution for Evaluation of Public Policies, and NOVACT-International Institute for Non-Violent Action), and was awarded financial support by Urban Innovative Actions, an initiative of the European Commission formed to support projects investigating “innovative and creative solutions” in urban areas.

The leading political party in the City Council, the left-wing Barcelona en Comú, has expressed interest in implementing a municipal cash transfer program if results of the experiment prove favorable.


5. GiveDirectly’s Basic Income Experiment in Kenya

Status: Full experiment (consisting of 300 rural villages) planned to launch after the Kenyan election on October 26, 2017; pilot study running in one village since October 2016. [Update: Official launch occurred in November 2017.]

Official website: www.givedirectly.org/basic-income.

GiveDirectly, a US-based charitable organization, has been providing unconditional cash transfers to poor residents of Kenya and Uganda since 2009, when it was founded by a team of economists who had become interested in the hypothesis that cash transfers are the most effective means to combat extreme poverty. Since this time, its practice of delivering cash grants directly to those in need has proven efficient and effective, earning the organization recognition as one of GiveWell’s top charities.  

In 2016, GiveDirectly announced a new ambition: the first long-term and large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of universal basic income. The experiment will provide unconditional cash transfers to the residents of 120 villages, comprising more than 16,000 people in total, with some receiving payments for up to 12 years. This makes the experiment the largest of its type, in terms of the number of individuals who will receive assistance, as well as the longest in duration [4]. The cost of the experiment will amount to $3o million, most of which has been now raised by private donors.  

Rural Kenya, CC BY-NC 2.0 ViktorDobai

In contrast to all experiments taking place in developed nations, GiveDirectly’s experiment examines the impact of programs that are indeed universal–that is, in which the unconditional cash transfers are distributed to all individuals residing in the villages where the program will be implemented [5]. 

Indeed, the experiment is designed as an RCT in which villages (not individuals or households) are the experimental units: 300 villages in rural Kenya will be randomly assigned to either the control group (comprising 100 villages), in which no cash transfers are given to any residents, or one of three treatment groups, in which all residents receive some form of unconditional cash transfer. In the first treatment group (comprising 40 villages), residents will receive cash payments of about 23 USD (€21)–roughly half of the average income in rural Kenya–every month for 12 years. In the second treatment group (80 villages), residents will receive monthly cash payments of the same amount, but only for two years. In the third treatment group, residents will receive a single lump-sum payment equal in amount to the two-year basic income (that is, about 276 USD).

As GiveDirectly explains on its website, “Comparing the first and second groups of villages will shed light on how important the guarantee of future transfers is for outcomes today (e.g. taking a risk like starting a business). The comparison between the second and third groups will let us understand how breaking up a given amount of money affects its impact.”

The organization further indicates that it will investigate outcomes including the following: “economic status (income, assets, standard of living), time use (work, education, leisure, community involvement), risk-taking (migrating, starting businesses), gender relations (especially female empowerment), [and] aspirations and outlook on life.”

GiveDirectly had initially planned to launch the experiment in September 2017, but has postponed the launch to after the Kenyan elections on October 26.

An initial pilot study commenced in one village in October 2016, in which all 95 residents now receive monthly unconditional cash payments, which will continue in this village for 12 years. This preliminary study is intended to help experiments fine-tune the implementation of the full experiment, and is not itself to be included in the analysis of the full experiment. Because of this, GiveDirectly is making public much of its data that is collects from the pilot village (e.g. responses to a survey of participants). (It will not, however, publicize data as it is collected from villages that are part of the experiment.)

GiveDirectly expects to publish its first results one or two years after the experiment’s commencement.


6. Y Combinator’s plans for a United States experiment

Status: Completed feasibility study in Oakland; issued draft of research plan for randomized experiment (3,000 participants in total) in two US states.

Official website: https://basicincome.ycr.org/

In January 2016, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sam Altman (president of the start-up incubator Y Combinator) announced his intention to fund a test of basic income in the United States. Like many tech entrepreneurs, Altman cited concerns about job loss due to automation in explaining his interest in basic income: “I’m fairly confident that at some point in the future, as technology continues to eliminate traditional jobs and massive new wealth gets created, we’re going to see some version of this at a national scale.” The experiment is now the main project of the non-profit arm of Altman’s company, YC Research.

Since the initial announcement, YC Research has hired social work and political science PhD Elizabeth Rhodes as Research Director and assembled a team of expert advisors. This research team has designed and implemented a feasibility study in Oakland, California [6], and is now working to finalize the design of its full-scale experiment.

CC BY-SA 2.0 Bill So

According to a project proposal released in September 2017, Y Combinator has decided to design the experiment as a randomized controlled trial, with a target population of low-income young adults–specifically, adults aged 21 to 40 whose incomes fall below the area median–in two US states. (Researchers will employ a stratified sample to ensure adequate representation across race, gender, and income categories.)

On the tentative design, researchers will select a total of 3,000 participants, of which 1,000 will be randomly assigned to the treatment group–whose  members will receive unconditional cash payments of 1,000 USD per month–and the remaining 2,000 to the control group. (Individuals in the control group will provide the same type of feedback and data to researchers but receive only a much smaller cash payment, tentatively set at 50 USD per month, for their participation.) As currently planned, some individuals will receive the cash payments for three years, others for five.

Y Combinator emphasizes that its interest is a “holistic approach to understanding the individual-level effects of basic income”, in contrast to many past and present experiments which have focused on the labor market impacts of unconditional cash payments (such as Finland’s experiment and the negative income tax experiments conducted in the US in the 1970s). Among these individual-level effects, the research group is particularly interested in time use, mental and physical health, subjective well-being, financial health, decision making and attitudes toward risk, as well as  political and social attitudes. Furthermore, although individual-level effects will be the focus of the experiment, researchers also hope to examine spillover effects on recipients’ families, friends, and communities.  

While the research group has not finalized its choice of data sources and collection methods (see its project proposal for a discussion of possibilities currently under discussion), it plans to combine quantitative analysis with regular surveys and interviews. However, according to Rhodes, receipt of the cash payments will not be contingent on participation in surveys and interviews; payments will continue for the duration of the experiments even if recipients do not respond to requests for data and information.  

To conduct the experiment, YC Research has partnered with the Center on Poverty and Inequality (CPI) at Stanford University. The research has been approved by Stanford’s Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects. YC Research is also in the process of working with state and local governments to coordinate mechanisms for distributing payments without affecting recipients’ future eligibility for existing government benefits.

No specific launch date has been set for the experiment, as YC Research is still gathering feedback on its project proposal. However, at a plenary lecture at the 2017 BIEN Congress, Rhodes indicated that the research group hopes to commence the trial in early 2018.


7. Scotland’s plans for local experiments

Status: Government support pledged; preliminary reports in progress.

In November 2016, the Councils of Fife and Glasgow committed to investigate the feasibility of municipal-level basic income experiments. An important step forward occurred in February 2017, when the Glasgow City Council passed as a resolution to convene workshops on the financial, administrative, and constitutional feasibility of an experiment, partnering with the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), a British think tank responsible for a highly regarded report on potential for a basic income in the UK (“Creative Citizen, Creative State”).  

Fife and Glasgow were later joined in their interest by North Ayrshire and Edinburgh.

In September 2017, the Scottish government announced its commitment to provide funding and support for basic income experiments in the four municipalities (see the RSA’s announcement), and RSA Scotland is now working with the government to prepare an initial report on the possibilities for an experiment in Glasgow.

No design decisions or prospective launch dates have yet been announced.

In general, the RSA and local authorities are attracted to basic income as a potential means to address poverty, precarious employment, economic insecurity, and the changing nature of work.

Scottish Highlands, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Peter Coughlan

 

Notes 
[1] The coverage of the present article is limited to projects that qualify as experiments in a social scientific sense. Thus, it does not include several projects that are sometimes listed–incorrectly–as “experiments” of basic income. Missing, for example, are lottery programs like Mein Grundeinkommen, as well as any pilot studies that lack a control group, such as the ReCitivas Institute’s pilot in Quatinga Velho and Eight’s two-year pilot study in Uganda (see “Some thoughts on basic income ‘experiments’” by Michael A Lewis).

Programs and policies such as Iran’s fuel subsidy reform and Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend are occasionally misconstrued in sentences like “Iran and Alaska have tested basic income”. These programs are also not experiments in the scientific sense, and thus omitted from inclusion in this article.


[2] Of course, no experiment can fully test the effects of a basic income, which, by definition, would guarantee cash stipends to all individuals in a community, and it would guarantee this support for life. Experiments, in contrast, are bound by their nature to be non-universal (since there must be a control group) and limited in duration. Furthermore, it is likely that additional changes to the taxation of benefit system, which are not captured in the experiments, would accompany the introduction of a basic income.

(In a forthcoming article, I will argue that, in the case of my own interest in basic income as a possible stimulus to long-term cultural change, the above facts preclude limited trials from having the capacity to produce usefully informative results.)


[3] According to many definitions, including those adopted by some of BIEN’s affiliates (although not BIEN itself), a “basic income” is a recurring payment sufficient to meet basic living expenses. On these definitions, it is indeed inaccurate to call describe the Finnish experiment a “basic income experiment” given €560 per month falls below average minimum monthly living expenses in Finland (although it might plausibly be called, as Kela sometimes more precisely describes it, a “partial basic income experiment”).

One may also raise concern regarding the universality of the program–or, rather, the lack thereof–given that a sample of adult recipients of unemployment benefits is clearly not representative of all Finns, and no “true” basic income (on any definition) would not be restricted only to the unemployed. One might alternatively say, however, that the Finnish experiment is indeed a test of a (partial) basic income, albeit one using a non-representative sample.


[4] In 2016, the Brazilian non-profit institute ReCivitas initiated a project, Basic Income Startup, which promises a “lifetime basic income” of 40 Reais (about 10 USD) per month to members of the village Quatinga Velho. The project targets volunteer recipients in areas where 40 Reais per month makes a significant impact on quality of life.

ReCivitas’s Basic Income Startup, however, is not an experiment (although occasionally miscategorized as one). Indeed, project founders have stated that they are already convinced that basic income is effective; their goal is not to test but to implement it.


[5] Previous trials of basic income and related policies have used saturation sites. Notably, Manitoba’s MINCOME experiments of the 1970s, which tested a type of minimum income guarantee in the form of a negative income tax, featured a saturation site in the town of the Dauphin.

The basic income experiment in Madhya Pradesh was also a saturation studym in which all members of the nine villages in the experimental group received monthly unconditional cash transfers (equal about one quarter of the median income in the state).


[6] Contrary to some misconceptions, the Oakland project was not itself an experiment. Its purpose was merely to test and fine-tune the mechanisms for conducting the experiment–such as the selection of participants, disbursement of funds, and collection of data–not to analyze the effects of unconditional cash transfers on recipients. The latter will be the goal of the project described in a newly released research proposal, and which has yet to be finalized and launched.


Addendum on Stockton, California (October 20, 2017)

Only a few days after this updated article was published, Michael Tubbs, Mayor of Stockton, California, announced his intention to carry out a pilot of basic income or guaranteed income in his city, the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED).

The project will be privately funded, and has already received a $1 million SEED grant (if you will) from the Economic Security Project, a two-year initiative launched in December 2016 to fund basic income related projects in the United States.

At present, however, few details have been announced or decided.

According to its website, the project is “in the very early stages of development”.

Regarding the current state of the project, the site notes:

We will kick off the demonstration with a six-nine month design period that will prioritize community engagement and feedback. In that time period, we’ll identify research and storytelling partners […]. We will identify research priorities that complement existing research on unconditional cash transfers in the United States and invest in storytelling that honestly and authentically uplifts the experiences of recipients.

Thus, based on publicly available information, it is presently unclear when the project planned in Stockton will be launched, as well as what form it will take–including whether or not it will be an experiment (note the above emphasis on “storytelling” rather than comparison of data collected from control and treatment groups).

Basic Income News reporters will follow up with the conveners of the Stockton project, and provide more thorough, comprehensive and up-to-date information in a future stand-alone news article.

Reviewed by Heidi Karow

“Lab stuff” photo: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Rawbert|K|Photo