Written by: Mônica Dallari and Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy
After the article “A Critical Poverty Eradication Experiment in Kenya”, published in the last issue of the BIEN News Flash, we now offer this complement with the interviews of the beneficiaries of the UBI in the rural villages of Kenya.
Stimulus to work
Richard O., 43, is a father of nine children. The couple and the eldest son, aged 18, receive a basic income. Richard paid school fees for his children to study and bought goats, $150 and $200 USD each. He also bought a cow for $250, which provides milk for the family. Now he wants a bull, which costs $300. Richard says basic income has encouraged him to work harder: “when there is opportunity, ambition grows”, he explains. “The benefit has created the possibility for people to dream of a better life.” Richard is dreaming.
Jane M. feels stronger now with basic income because she has the power to decide how the best use of her benefit. She and her husband have the same power in the negotiations. She felt very good to gain independence. Jane says that the basic income comes along with the responsibility of making the best use of resources, for being unconditional. As a seamstress, she receives $0.50 a day. She participates in a group of 10 women in the village who help each other. Once a month, they all get together and deliver $10 to one of them. By relay, one of the beneficiaries gets $100 each. Jane waits her turn, she wants to invest in her own business.
Edson O.N. was happy for all the villages receiving Universal Basic Income (UBI), not just selected ones. Married, now 31 years old with two children, when he does not have occasional jobs in the field, he helps his wife sell used clothes in popular markets and gets $1. He lives in a house with a mud wall and a straw roof in his father’s terrain. He is raising money to acquire his own land and build a home for his family. He estimates that will need $1,000. The steel roof tiles, for the capture of rainwater, alone cost $210.
Reduction of domestic violence
Kennedy A.A. realized that violence and stress within families have greatly reduced with the introduction of the UBI. He is the elder of the village, a joint judge and chief of the community, not necessarily the eldest. He is often called in neighbors’ quarrels and family disputes. He is married at 43 years old with three daughters. He says: “when there is money, conflicts decrease. Men do not come back home angry and frustrated. The benefit brought peace to the families. Children, who grew humiliated in old and torn clothes, began to wear decent clothes. Access to food and medicines has improved. Everyone starts to know the feeling of well-being.”
No piper water
Nilton is 12 years old and Elvis is six years old. They are brothers and were carrying for the second time in the day buckets of water. The houses in the village don’t have sewage or piper water. In Kenya, 37 percent of the population do not have access to drinking water. Nilton and Elvis are responsible for getting water for the family. They walk about 400 meters to the reservoir. Nilton carries two buckets of 10 liters and Elvis two of 5 liters. When it rains, those who can take advantage of rainwater with the use of gutters in the steel roof, a privilege for only a few families.
Mary A. is illiterate. In the village, only 8 percent of the villagers know how to read and write. In Kenya, illiteracy reaches 22 percent of the population, but the prospect is that literacy will improve with the introduction of UBI. Now, no child leaves school. They all have food when they return home. In the village, no one else sleeps hungry. With three grandchildren in elementary education, Mary helps pay a teacher hired by the community. Since few teachers are offered by the government, parents get together to pay more teachers.
Aggrey O., 56, raises five children alone. Everyone studies. The money was primarily used to pay the high school of the two older children. Annuities can range from $300 to $550. As a farmer, Aggrey earns $1.50 a day. When the yield from his garden is very good, he can earn up to $3 a day. For him, life has improved a lot with basic income. To live it is necessary to have prosperity. He wants to send his children to university. He says that Felix, the youngest at eight years old, is very clever. “Why do I desire to send the children to university? The same way you left Brazil and are here for having studied, I also want my children to go to Brazil because they studied.”
Jane A., 76, is a widow and lives with her sister. She spends the money on medicine. Lack of sanitation causes many diseases. According to data from “Doctors Without Borders,” in 2016 there were 216 million cases of malaria in the world, with 445,000 deaths. Sub-Saharan Africa is responsible for 90 percent of the cases. Malaria is the leading cause of death in Kenya, followed by tuberculosis, a consequence of the HIV virus, which affects 1.5 percent of the population. Violence against women is one of the main causes of the spread of HIV.
Polygamy and the Marriage Law
Ruth O., 34, is the second wife of a bigamy husband. She has three daughters and takes care of five orphans: a nephew and four children from her husband’s first wife, who died in 2011. As the wives get along well, which is rare in these situations, Ruth decided to raise the children when their mother passed away. Frequently in cases of polygamy, wives live in separate houses with their children, but they share the same family terrain. The relations are not easy, the treatments are differentiated, a lot of rivalry arises between the children and the women. The first wife has certain privileges and rights, for being the only relationship officially recognized. There is no law regulating the registration of other polygamous relations.
Although the 2010 Constitution does not provide for polygamy, in 2014 the Matrimonial Law was approved by the National Assembly and the Senate, and sanctioned by the president, which legalized marriage as a “monogamous or polygamous union” between men and women. The women’s claim to allow the first wife to be consulted about the convenience of her husband having a second wife was rejected by deputies of the situation and the opposition. Polygamy is valid only for men.
Victor O., 24, has a son. He lives in his mother’s house along with five brothers. He is an electrician, he repairs cell phones, radios, and electrical materials, but he has no work. Victor stopped his studies in seventh grade. Victor regrets he has no tools to perform the repairs, which ends up restricting the work a lot. He has no offer of service, so he goes from house to house. He can do three or four services a month and earns about $4 a month.
Cemetery at home
Mary S., 48, has seven children and is the second wife of polygamous husband Joseph S.O., who died in 2010 and is buried in the family backyard. In the same terrain are the houses of the two wives. According to custom, the cemetery is reserved only for those who have no family. In fact, it is the solution to bury people who die at home without any kind of medical care. In 2017, according to data from the Kenyan government, of the 190,000 deaths, 100,000 occurred in hospitals and 90,000 in the residences.
Written by: Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy and Mônica Dallari
This January, we discovered an extraordinary pioneer effort towards poverty eradication in poor rural villages in Kenya: the transfer of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Through the initiative of GiveDirectly, an institution created by four graduates of Harvard University and MIT, Silicon Valley institutions and other organizations contributed to the formation of a US$30 million fund to benefit about 20,000 Kenyans in the most important and thorough study about UBI in history. In the visits to rural villages in the Kisumu and Siaya areas, reports were unanimous in stating that with UBI contributed to a significant improvement in the quality of life of all the beneficiaries.
Lula da Silva on the far left; Eduardo Suplicy on the far right
Upon learning that GiveDirectly was carrying out this experiment in Kenya, we decided to write a letter to them, in which I (Eduardo) introduced myself as the author of the Brazilian Law 10.835 / 2004, which establishes the implementation, in stages, the UBI for all people in Brazil, including foreigners residing here for five years or more. As honorary co-chair of BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network), I said I would like to know about the experiment. This request was accepted by Caroline Teti, GiveDirectly’s external relations director in Nairobi.
Eduardo Suplicy visits Grameen Bank with Muhammad Yunus, in Dhaka Bangladesh. July 2007
How the UBI program works
GiveDirectly´s office in Nairobi. January 2019
As soon as we arrived in Nairobi, we met with her and started a dialogue with the coordinator of a team of 34 people who work in the call center. The call center is responsible for the quarterly contacts with each one of the 21,000 adult beneficiaries of the UBI experiment. In 2016, GiveDirectly started the pilot to provide a UBI payment in Kisumu, Siaya and Bomet counties. More than 630,000 people in these counties live below the poverty line, defined by the Kenyan government as less than US$15 a month per household member, in rural areas, and $28 a month per household member in urban areas.
For the execution of the experiment, 295 villages (14,474 residences) were randomly selected, divided into four groups:
- Control Group: 100 villages that do not receive payments;
- Long-Term UBI: 44 villages in which adults (over 18 years old) receive sufficient income for basic needs, about US$0.75 per day, or $22 per month for 12 years;
- Short Term UBI: 80 villages where adults receive sufficient income for basic needs, about $0.75 per day or $22 per month for 2 years;
- Lump Sum UBI (or UBI Cash Payment): In 71 villages, families receive UBI in the fixed amount of US$1,000 divided into two payments of $500.
The transfers are made through M-Pesa, a mobile money service created in 2007 by Safaricom, a Vodafone telephone company in Kenya. The platform enables financial transactions that are safe, fast and cheap through a cell phone, such as deposits, transfers, and savings. The platform does not need a bank account.
View of the National Park at Nairobi. January 2019
Small retailers in rural villages across the country were trained and became agents of M-Pesa services. Beneficiaries can withdraw money or shop at accredited establishments in all villages in Kenya. Those who did not have cell phones were able to purchase a low-cost GiveDirectly device. Today, 80 percent of the country’s adult population has a cell phone.
From the visits to the beneficiaries of the Kenyan experiment of UBI, we can say that the improvement in the well-being of the people is very significant. This was what we were able to witness in all the residences we visited and in the dialogue with beneficiaries of UBI. Mothers and fathers spoke of the concern to prioritize the education of children and adolescents, ensuring attendance and completion of school. This became possible due to UBI, which even helped in the hiring of auxiliary teachers. In general, our respondents stated that they were better fed and had access to a greater variety of foods.
The benefit of the UBI resulted in people being able to work more intensely and productively, especially because they were able to acquire better working equipment, such as tools, motorcycles to transport people or make deliveries, livestock (goat and cattle) to supply meat and milk, fishing equipment to get more fish in the lake to sell them, land purchasing for vegetable and fruit trees planting. These activities directly increased their income. Some families have invested in systems to better capture rainwater or solar energy collectors in order to have electricity. Households purchased better furniture, such as mattresses, sofas, tables, chairs and small electrical appliances, such as a stereo or radio. Straw roofs have been replaced with steel that contains gutters.
Sunset at Lake Victoria. January 2019
It is important to note that we do not perceive any use of alcohol or other drugs. A study by Innovation Poverty Action1, IPA, corroborates our observation since there was no increase in spending on tobacco, alcohol or gambling. The impression we have goes in the opposite direction; behaviors based on solidarity and cooperation between individuals have been reinforced.
Perhaps most remarkable was the redefinition of gender roles. Because women also receive the benefit, we hear from them how they feel freer in deciding where to spend their money, and we record reports of how couples have come to the table on UBI payday to talk about the household budget. Households frequently organize groups to pool money for a larger purchase or to assume a higher value expenditure. In Kenya, polygamy is allowed. We sometimes see that the UBI contributed to greater solidarity between the wives of one husband, and even between his widows and children.
The agility and speed provided by the digital income transfer system were also fundamental. Each beneficiary is notified by SMS when the transfer is made, being able to make purchases in the M-Pesa accredited establishments, or if she prefers, to exchange the credit for money.
City of Kisumu. January 2019
Another important development was numerous reports demonstrating a noticeable decrease in violence against women and other criminal acts, such as theft in the villages. The direct income transfer done in this way has avoided incorrect procedures and corruption.
M-Pesa Agency. January 2019
For those who want to know more about this Universal Basic Income (UBI) experiment in Kenya and other countries, please access the website. The website provides testimonials from beneficiaries of the UBI collected by the people who work in the call center, available to everyone. You will have confirmed the positive impression of this remarkable pioneering experiment on Universal Basic Income. In addition, you will have the opportunity for this remarkable and important experiment. If you would like more information, write to email@example.com.
Call Center at the GiveDirectly´s Office. January 2019
Visiting Barack Obama’s Grandmother Sarah Obama
Eduardo Suplicy visits Mama Sarah Obama, in Kogelo. January 2019
On our last day in Kenya, we visited Mama Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s grandmother, at her farm in Kogelo, another rural village. At first, we would have only three minutes to be with her because of her age, 98 years, but we talked with Mama Sarah and Obama’s aunt, Marsat Oniango, for almost 30 minutes. Enthusiastic about the conversation, they assured me they would send President Obama a letter that I had with me, the same one I had handed to him on October 5, 2017, during a lecture in Sao Paulo.
I spoke of my enthusiasm when I watched on TV the homage Obama paid to South African President Nelson Mandela on his 100th birthday in the packed stadium of Johannesburg. In that speech, the former US president made an important statement, expressing concern about “artificial intelligence that is accelerating. Now we will have automobiles without drivers, more and more automated services, which will mean the need to provide work for all. We will have to be more imaginative because the impact of change will require us to rethink our political and social arrangements to protect the economic security and dignity that comes with work. It’s not just money that a job provides. It provides dignity, structure, a sense of place and purpose. And we will have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, such as universal income, review of working hours, how to train our young people in this new scenario, how to make each person an entrepreneur of some level.”
I concluded by expressing my certainty that this positive experiment in the Universal Basic Income in the country of Obama’s father and grandfather, whose graves we visited on the grounds of Mama Sarah’s house, will resonate very favorably throughout the world.
Steps after the trip
Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy
Steel Roof to capture rainwater
The fact of having experienced a real immersion in the subject of Basic Income in such a short space of time and in two very different dimensions, that is, the theoretical academic approach of the conference in Cambridge and the opportunity to make field observations during our visits to Kenya, provoked a series of reflections, which made me desire to act.
The trip was made throughout the month of January 2019, coinciding with the inauguration and first month of the government of Jair Bolsonaro. The campaign of the victorious candidate in the 2018 election, his statements after confirmation of his election and the movements of the transition process between the Temer government and the new occupants of the Planalto indicate that the new government has an economic agenda that is based on intentions to resume growth and development of the country, generate jobs and guarantee some stability in public accounts. Despite the fact that I belong to the party that opposed the Bolsonaro candidacy, I believe that certain principles of equity, income distribution, and assistance to the most excluded are values of democracy that are not exclusive to this or that political aspect. So I decided that it was time to warn President Jair Bolsonaro, Minister of Economy Paulo Guedes and the Special Secretary of the Federal Revenue of Brazil Marcos Cintra Cavalcante de Albuquerque about the pertinence to take the steps towards the Citizenship Basic Income.
Philippe Van Parijs and Eduardo Suplicy at the University of Cambridge. January 14th, 2019
Soon after coming back to Brazil, I wrote a letter to these three government officials who had just taken their first steps and offered two copies of works that I believe are fundamental to understanding the concept of basic income: My book “Citizen’s Income: The Exit is Through the Door,” and “Basic Income – A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy” by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, which contains a foreword by myself.
In my argument, I stress the fact that Law 10.835 / 2004, which establishes the Citizen Basic Income, Universal and Unconditional, was approved by all the parties in both houses of the National Congress, including by the then deputy Jair Bolsonaro. I reminded the President “in case the President of the Republic wishes to comply with Article 3 of the Constitution on the fundamental objectives of the Republic of Brazil, in a manner compatible with what is expressed in its program of government, to guarantee a minimum income for all Brazilian families, as liberal thinkers like Milton Friedman argue, the most effective way to do so will be through the implementation of the Citizenship Basic Income, a concept that Friedman considered another way to apply the Negative Income Tax.”
Beneficiary receives credit by SMS. January 2019
In the letter, I also summarized some up-to-date information on the subject, such as the fact that today “more than 40 countries are debating, conducting experiments and considering the implementation of Unconditional Basic Income.” I briefly reported on the visit I had just made: “The results so far are highly promising, as I found out in person. Brazil would have all the conditions to carry out local experiments, as indeed has been the desire of several municipalities like Santo Antônio do Pinhal, Apiaí and Maricá. In the City Council of São Paulo, a Law Project of Mayor Fernando Haddad is in process, already approved in the Commissions of Constitution and Justice and Public Administration, to establish, in stages, UBI in cooperation with the state and federal governments.” Finally, I suggested that a Working Group, possibly coordinated by IPEA, to study the steps towards the Citizenship Basic Income. I stated that I had already spoken with both the Perseu Abramo Foundation of the Workers Party and the Fernando Henrique Cardoso Foundation, linked to the PSDB, who have already been willing to discuss basic income with the newly elected government.
The letter, as well as the volumes, were delivered to Marcos Cintra Cavalcante de Albuquerque, current Special Secretary of the Federal Revenue of Brazil, with whom I had a hearing on February 1, 2019. At the same time, I delivered a letter to the then president and future president of IPEA, Ernesto Lozardo, and Carlos Von Doellinger, detailing how this Working Group could be constituted and reporting my dialogue with former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso during the electoral process. “Given that a number of Presidential candidates were in agreement with this objective, we could very possibly meet the various economic teams of the various candidates to work on this subject.” Sérgio Fausto, the working coordinator of the FHC Foundation, suggested that this meeting should be held after the elections in the first half of 2019.
On the other hand, Márcio Pochmann, President of the Perseu Abramo Foundation, accepted the proposal to create a Working Group for this purpose, and two meetings of this group have already been held. I believe it will be common sense for IPEA to coordinate the efforts of these various institutions linked to the parties whose candidates have made proposals to do this.
It is up to the Government to take the suggested steps.
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)  .
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.
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 . 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.
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).
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.
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 . The cost of the experiment will amount to $3o million, most of which has been now raised by private donors.
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 .
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 , and is now working to finalize the design of its full-scale experiment.
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.
 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.
 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.)
 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.
 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.
 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).
 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