Pictured: Kenyan village to receive GiveDirectly’s guaranteed basic income Source: Nichole Sibecki for NPR
GiveDirectly offers to give every adult in a Kenyan village a guaranteed basic income of 27,258 Kenyan Shillings- or 264 US dollars- per year for the next 12 years without any conditions. Providing unconditional cash transfers directly to people has proven to increase economic outcomes and psychological well-being.
GiveDirectly, a US-based nonprofit, is challenging the traditional structure of international aid by shifting the power dynamics between donors and people who receive aid. In our current structure, donors decide what people receive since most aid provided by governments, nonprofits and individuals is given as an in-kind donation. Instead, the purpose of GiveDirectly’s donation structure is to trust the expertise of people experiencing poverty to choose how best to spend the money. GiveDirectly will be measuring the long-term outcomes.
According to the first part in an NPR series on emerging aid models to redress global poverty, GiveDirectly will provide every adult in a village in Kenya a guaranteed basic income of 2,271.50 Kenyan shillings per month, or 22 US dollars for the next 12 years. Typically, adults live on less than 206.50 Kenyan Shillings per day, or 2 US dollars. For two-parent households, this donation boosts their monthly income by 50 percent. The money is wired to a bank account connected to each villager’s phone. Some families have used this additional income to better support household nutrition and education outcomes for children. The US-based nonprofit plans to expand the guaranteed income to 200 villages in Fall 2017 and assess the long-term impacts by comparing the outcomes with 100 villages that do not receive the payments.
Already, a study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics discovered how, in Kenya, unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) have a significant impact on economic outcomes and psychological well-being in communities. UCTs contribute to local economic development by increasing consumption rates. They also improve social and emotional development in communities that heavily rely on social networks for supports and services that may otherwise be inaccessible.
Research from Canada’s Mowat Centre also shows that providing money with no strings attached can help support social entrepreneurs that may be experiencing financial hardship to get their ventures off the ground. For example, one Kenyan family that is a beneficiary of GiveDirectly’s donation, is focused on investing in an entrepreneurial venture to grow a forest of eucalyptus trees and sell the fuel from the plants. Profits from the family’s venture would be used to fund high school tuition for four children as an investment in breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty.
In contrast to GiveDirectly’s aid model, Zambia’s government is choosing to filter who receives aid and under what conditions. Originally, a government program gave families in a rural west Zambian village 164, 628.31 Zambian Kwacha, or 18 US dollars, every other month for the past five years. The program proved to be successful: families used this additional support to invest in creating multiple business ventures to multiply their capital. To help aid these business ventures, the usage of related software can make this a lot easier, and with advancements in technology, businesses are able to conduct remotely accessing Sage software services so they are always on point with what they require. The government has therefore decided to scale up the program to increase the population receiving this cash aid. Simultaneously, the government has decided to limit the cash transfer to exclude people such as those who initially received the money in the pilot program: two-parent households, people who are employed, and people who are able-bodied. Instead, Zambia will provide aid only to single-parent households, people with disabilities, seniors, and people who are unable to work. This limitation on providing aid based on who is deemed eligible is what GiveDirectly is challenging.
GiveDirectly’s guaranteed income in Kenya is increasing access for all with the goal of improving health outcomes and building towards financial security. It can be particularly valuable for people with disabilities who often experience job discrimination and barriers to financial self-sufficiency. For them, this monthly influx of cash provides a foundation for independence. People with disabilities often struggle to afford medication and rely on financial support from other family members to sustain themselves. This additional monthly income will help to mitigate the costs of medication and basic necessities for everyone.
Grassroots savings clubs in low-income communities are another asset to consider when measuring the long-term impacts of GiveDirectly’s guaranteed income. Some people do not have access to banks or struggle to save money when it is easily accessible from an electronic savings account. Savings clubs are typically groups of 10-15 community members who collectively pool their resources each month. The total amount is then provided to a different individual from the savings club to look after for a month. This community-based savings account relies on faith in the community members to manage the money for everyone else. Some villagers have noted how critical this social bonding is to allow them to maintain their savings since they know the community is depending on them to effectively manage their budget. Researchers have found in case studies around the world, from Bangladesh to Central/South America and West Africa, that savings club serve as a common element of the economic infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods.
Giving cash directly to children and families, with no strings attached is being shown to improve the quality of life in a number of communities, particularly in boosting economic, health, and education outcomes. As more organizations begin measuring the long-term impacts of unconditional cash transfers and basic incomes, we will continue to gain evidence on whether these are viable solutions to deeply entrenched social issues like global poverty.
Basic income is an issue which raises strong feelings on both sides of the debate; but can we really rely on untested assumptions? This is the question addressed by Michael Faye in an article published on LinkedIn.
Faye is the CEO and co-founder of Segovia, a technology company which works to make charitable payments safer and more effective. He is also chief executive and co-founder of the charity GiveDirectly, which is presenting conducting research into the effects of basic income in developing nations.
In this article, Faye argues that we must wait for genuine scientific evidence before making any sweeping statements about the pros or cons of basic income, and gives a brief overview of a 12-year study on basic income which is shortly to be launched by GiveDirectly.
Joe Huston, the CFO of GiveDirectly, speaks with the UBI Podcast about the largest basic income trial in history.
The trial is in its earliest stage and will expand later, giving entire communities a basic income in Kenya.
A 12-year basic income will be provided to 40 villages, 80 villages will receive basic income for 2 years. A lump-sum payment will be given to 80 villages. There will be 100 villages that will act as control groups.
One interesting takeaway is that Huston said they are already seeing some “spillover benefits.”
“I expect there will be spillover benefits. We kicked off in one pilot village, and already the surrounding villages have mentioned people are buying more services and goods,” Huston said.
When discussing pilot programs, the environmental impact of basic income is often overlooked. Huston said that GiveDirectly does not take a position on this, but he said developed countries should take the lead on the environment.
“My personal view is for these environmental goals you’d want to solve through other means, international treaties or the developed world stepping up, verses trying to slow down development of very very poor areas,” he said.
As the research begins to come out about basic income, Huston said he hopes it can inform the debate about how to best form the social safety net.
“I think evidence from the UBI study showing those who are just poor but receive money and put that toward investment that have big life-changing effects, I think that could change how social protection is done in those countries,” Huston said.
Previously, even after cash-transfer pilots end, Huston said that they continue to see positive effects.
“GiveDirectly’s first study measured effects up to a year after payments stopped…and you still saw pretty strong effects on earnings, assets, food security, reduction in stress levels,” Huston said.
Stress was measured through looking at cortisol levels, which saw significant declines after cash-transfers were administered, Huston said.
Once the 12-year study ends, Huston said he expects they will continue to follow up with these villages to see if there are permanent effects of basic income on these areas.
“We have the potential to end extreme poverty globally, many countries have the potential to end whatever they consider their national poverty line. And that potential…is extraordinarily exciting. It is a huge opportunity for our generation,” Huston said.
“Then the question is, ‘why wouldn’t we test this?'”
Village women. Credit to: Andrew Renneisen for The New York Times
GiveDirectly, a New York-based nonprofit, which activity has been covered in Basic Income News before, has initiated a pilot program in a rural village in Western Kenya, this past October. The organization recently published an internal analysis of the pilot program, in a first attempt to process the results of a GiveDirectly basic income project. The results will set the tone for future programs and influence basic income policy making moving forward.
The Pilot Program
The cash transfers are made via mobile phone to the village residents. Each of the 95 participants received 2,280 shillings (about US$22) every month to save or spend however they see fit. Participants are all guaranteed this income for the next 12 years. Before GiveDirectly began the payments, many people in the village were living on less than US$0.75 a day; afterwards, no one was. GiveDirectly’s analysis claimed that “for 45% of the village’s residents, the first month’s basic income payment was the largest amount of money they’d ever had.”
The Results
The organization recently published the qualitative results of the first study of the pilot program. The research was conducted through follow-up call center-based phone surveys, as well as small focus group conversations. The survey asked about the biggest difference the money has made in their lives. Some of their answers are below:
“I will be getting transfers that will enable me to pay medical bills for my condition and also buy other things. Since I went for checkup after receiving the transfer, my health situation has improved and I am able to go about my business without much stress.” Grace, 68.
“Since I have been able to improve on my business, I have gotten income to help me meet my daily expenses and also buy enough food for my children.” Diana, 33.
“The biggest difference in my daily life is that I can have 3 meals in a day.” Dorcus, 87.
The survey also asked how the money was spent.
“I spent the entire transfer received from GiveDirectly to purchase a fishing net and a floater.” Erick, 40.
“I spent the money received from GiveDirectly to buy clean water, food, soap, and used most of the amount to pay school fees.” Fredrick, 70.
“I spent most of the money I received from GiveDirectly on buying a goat since I want to buy livestock. I also bought food for my household.” Patrick, 38.
“I spent the money received from GiveDirectly to purchase food and kept most of the transfer as savings.” Milka, 44.
Do recipients of basic income stop working? This question has been at the center of the basic income debate despite much of the evidence indicating that recipients don’t stop working, and don’t spend money on alcohol. Here are some of their responses:
“I feel I need to work harder and engage in other income-generating activities to get more money.” Samson, 70.
Yes, receiving the payments has changed my feeling towards work since I really want to finish my driving course and immediately look for employment.” Fredrick Odhiambo Awino, 28.
“I will not be working since I am old and sickly. I will just wait for the transfers.” Jael, 73.
“I will still continue with my small business and charcoal burning since the family needs the extra income to enable us to meet all our expenses without borrowing from relatives each time.” Norah, 30.
Villagers. Photo: Credit Andrew Renneisen for The New York Times
Another survey question asked about how the money will affect recipients’ decisions or attitudes around entrepreneurship or other risk taking, like migrating to look for work. GiveDirectly stated that “So far, seven recipients have indicated that they had plans to or had left the village to look for some form of work. On entrepreneurship, some recipients plan to use the cash transfers to expand existing businesses or start new ones, while others think they haven’t received enough money to start anything meaningful.”
“There is a time I was selling maize, buying and selling but it collapsed but for now I know I will revive it because during that time we had a drought and so we consumed the maize.” Mixed gender focus group respondent.
“I want to start a small ‘omena’ (small fish) business.” Caroline, 28.
“I want to start a second-hand clothes selling business.” Millicent, 33.
“Personally, I desire to start a business but it’s not easy to start one here. For example, if we do the same business, it gets difficult to get customers. We have to fight for the few that are available. We are not able to do business in far places. If you start one you can only do it within the village next to your house. Getting the capital is also difficult but we would wish to start businesses.” Women’s focus group respondent.
Another question was whether recipients would pool some of their money toward shared projects like building a well or repairing roads. GiveDirectly’s analysis said, “when we first explained the program, one of the community leaders suggested this at the village meeting, and it’s obviously on people’s minds, but we haven’t yet seen any large projects launched as a result.” This question is especially salient because not everyone in the village is receiving the basic income grant. In a New York Times article about this pilot program, Annie Lowry noted that this has been a source of tension in the village: “by giving money to some but not all, the organization had unwittingly strained the social fabric of some of these tight-knit tribal communities.” However, community projects that benefit everyone could ease this tension. One of the focus group respondents indicated that such projects are certain in the future:
“We just started receiving this cash just the other day and after doing a few things with it in the house here, we can think of coming together as a village and we agree that we pool some cash together that we can use to do something, at the moment we have not started, but we will.”
GiveDirectly widely considers these results to be encouraging. It plans to continue fundraising to expand the number of recipients, and launch a full study later this year. This pilot is part of a larger plan in Kenya to offer similar unconditional transfers to people in 200 villages.
Omidyar Network, a “philanthropic investment firm” created by eBay founded Pierre Omidyar, announced on February 7 that it will donate up to $493,000 to the New York based charity organization GiveDirectly. The funds will be used to support GiveDirectly’s major basic income experiment in Kenya.
In the largest and longest-running basic income trial to date, GiveDirectly will provide unconditional cash transfers to the residents of 200 villages in rural Kenya (about 26,000 people in total). The residents of 40 of these villages (about 6,000 people) will receive monthly payments for 12 years. At about $0.75 per day, the amount of the basic income is roughly half of the average income in rural Kenya.
With the grant from the Omidyar Network, GiveDirectly is now just over $6 million shy of fully funding the full $30 million experiment, Communications Associate Max Chapnick tells Basic Income News. Chapnick says, “Since we announced our basic income experiment back in April we’ve seen an outpouring of support from thousands of donors across the world. We’re grateful for the latest grant from the Omidyar Network, whose substantial support will help poor families meet daily needs, while providing valuable data on basic income.”
Mike Kubzansky and Tracy Williams of the Omidyar Network explain the firm’s decision to donate in a blog post titled “Why We Invested: GiveDirectly.”
Citing a recent literature review of 15 years of research on direct cash transfers (“Cash transfers: what does the evidence say?”), Kubzansky and Williams extol the benefits of cash transfer programs in “alleviating poverty and empowering people”:
“[C]ash transfer programs can potentially help to address bigger issues facing our society, such as rising income volatility, lack of secure benefits, social instability, and the changing nature of work. Concerns around these themes have recently sparked growing attention to a particular form of cash transfer: the idea of universal basic income (UBI)—a transfer that would be regular, long-term, a meaningful amount, and available to everyone.”
Kubzansky and Williams also discuss the threat of automation and the rise of the “gig economy” as forces driving interest in UBI. They go on to note, however, that “no study to date has been conducted with sufficient size, rigor, timescale, or universality to truly test the impact of a full-fledged UBI program.”
It’s to help counter this latter deficit, the authors explain, that Omidyar Network has chosen to invest in GiveDirectly’s experiment — which they applaud for its scope, ambition, and rigor.
“Partnering with top economists (reviewed by their institutional review boards) at Princeton and MIT, GiveDirectly is ensuring the experiment is carried out with scientific rigor and responsibly, generating evidence to help answer critical questions on the impact of UBI.”
Kubzansky and Williams refrain from an all-out endorsement of UBI. Instead, they adopt a more cautious“wait and see” approach, stating, “While we don’t know what the right answer will be, or whether UBI will prove useful or feasible, this is an important first step on generating data, so that policymakers can make informed decisions.”
At the same time, though, the philanthropists are clearly willing to invest in empirical studies of its feasibility — even beyond the $493,000 donation to GiveDirectly. In concluding their blog post, Kubzansky and Williams state:
“GiveDirectly’s pilot in Kenya is geographically-specific and focuses more on the issues around poverty alleviation than questions about jobs displaced by technological change. As such, Omidyar Network will look to support additional studies on UBI to diversify the growing body of research across markets, conditions, and formats.”
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod and Dawn Howard
Photo: “Mothers with their children in Loiturerei village, Kenya” (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DFID)
