Basic income experiments around the world

Basic income experiments around the world are trials and natural experiments that give people regular cash with few or no conditions, then measure what happens to work, health, debt, and wellbeing. Since the late 1960s, governments, researchers, tribal nations, and nonprofits have tested versions of the idea in North America, Africa, Asia, and Europe. Most were pilots for a limited group and a limited time, so they inform the debate about income support without settling it. This page summarizes major studies, common findings, limits, and delivery models. It is informational only and is not financial advice or a political endorsement.

Summary table

Place	Years	Who received	Amount	Design	Main findings
Manitoba, Canada (Mincome)	1974 to 1979	Families in Winnipeg and the town of Dauphin	Income guarantee	Field experiment with a saturation site in Dauphin	Lower hospitalization in Dauphin, especially for mental health and injuries
United States (negative income tax)	1968 to 1982	Low income families in four experiments	Guarantees tied to the poverty line	Randomized field experiments	Modest reductions in hours worked
Alaska, United States	1982 to present	All eligible residents	Annual dividend, varies by year	Permanent dividend from a state fund	No effect on employment; part time work rose 1.8 points
Eastern Band of Cherokee, North Carolina	1996 onward	Tribal members	Share of casino profits, paid twice a year	Natural experiment within a long-term child study	Fewer behavioral symptoms in children whose families left poverty
Otjivero-Omitara, Namibia	2008 to 2009, later bridging payments	All residents of the settlement	N$100 per person per month	Community-wide pilot	Results reported by the organizers; see text
Madhya Pradesh, India	About 12 to 17 months, final survey 2012	Over 6,000 individuals in villages	200 rupees per adult and 100 per child, later 300 and 150	Village-level trial with control villages	Better child nutrition and school attendance
Kenya (GiveDirectly)	2018 onward	Adults in about 200 villages	22.50 US dollars per month, or a 500 dollar lump sum	Randomized, three arms plus control	More enterprise and earnings; no drop in work
Finland	2017 to 2018	2,000 unemployed people aged 25 to 58	560 euros per month	National randomized trial	No first-year employment effect; better wellbeing
Stockton, California	2019 to 2021	125 residents	500 dollars per month for 24 months	Randomized demonstration	Less income volatility, better mental health
Illinois and Texas (OpenResearch)	2020 to 2023	1,000 recipients, 2,000 controls	1,000 dollars per month (controls 50)	Randomized controlled trial	Small drop in work, short-lived stress relief, more spending
Germany (Mein Grundeinkommen pilot)	Three years	122 people, 1,580 controls	1,200 euros per month	Randomized study with DIW Berlin	Recipients kept working; better mental health
Ontario, Canada	2017 to 2018	4,000 participants in three regions	Monthly payments	Planned three-year pilot, cancelled early	Ended before a full evaluation

Experiments

Mincome in Manitoba

Mincome ran in Manitoba between 1974 and 1979 with families in Winnipeg and the rural town of Dauphin. Dauphin was a saturation site, meaning every eligible family in town could take part. The project ended with no final report. Decades later, economist Evelyn Forget used health administration records and found a decline in hospitalization in Dauphin, especially for admissions related to mental health and to accidents and injuries.

Negative income tax experiments in the United States

Between 1968 and 1982, the US government sponsored four large income maintenance experiments, starting in New Jersey with 1,357 families and ending with the Seattle and Denver experiment. Their main purpose was to measure how much a guaranteed income would reduce paid work. Reductions were real but modest; summaries describe husbands reducing work by about two weeks of full-time employment per year, with larger reductions for wives and youth.

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend

Since 1982, Alaska residents have received a yearly dividend from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a state savings fund built from oil revenue. Damon Jones and Ioana Marinescu found that the dividend had no effect on overall employment and raised part-time work by 1.8 percentage points. They suggest that extra local spending may support jobs.

Eastern Band of Cherokee casino dividend

In 1996 a casino opened on the reservation of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and every tribal member began receiving a share of the profits. E. Jane Costello and colleagues were already following 1,420 rural children in the Great Smoky Mountains Study. About 14 percent of families moved out of poverty. Within four years, behavioral symptoms among children in those families fell to the level of never-poor children. Anxiety and depression symptoms did not change.

Otjivero basic income grant in Namibia

A coalition of churches, unions, and civil society groups started a basic income grant in the Otjivero-Omitara settlement in 2008. Every resident received 100 Namibian dollars per month without conditions. The pilot ran from 2008 to 2009, followed by smaller bridging payments, and payments resumed in 2014. The organizers reported gains in nutrition, schooling, and small business, but those claims come from the project team and lack an independent control group.

Madhya Pradesh pilot in India

The Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA) and UNICEF ran two pilots in Madhya Pradesh, a general pilot and a tribal pilot. Over 6,000 people received small monthly payments for between a year and 17 months, compared against control villages. Researchers reported improvements in child nutrition, including for girls, and in school attendance.

GiveDirectly long-term study in Kenya

GiveDirectly and researchers assigned about 200 Kenyan villages to a 12-year basic income, a 2-year basic income, a one-time lump sum, or a control group, beginning in 2018. Two-year results showed that recipients invested, started businesses, and earned more, without working less or drinking more. The lump sum and the long-term guarantee outperformed the short-term version.

Finland 2017 to 2018

Finland's social insurance institution, Kela, paid 2,000 unemployed people aged 25 to 58 a monthly 560 euros, unconditionally and without means testing. In the first year, employment was no better or worse than in the control group. Recipients reported fewer stress symptoms, fewer health problems, and more confidence in the future.

Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration

The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) launched in February 2019 and gave 125 randomly selected residents 500 dollars a month for 24 months. Its first-year findings report reduced month-to-month income volatility, less depression and anxiety, and movement into full-time work.

OpenResearch unconditional cash study

OpenResearch gave 1,000 low-income adults in Illinois and Texas 1,000 dollars a month for three years, from 2020 to 2023, while 2,000 controls received 50 dollars. Results released in 2024 showed a 4.2 point drop in labor market participation and 1 to 2 fewer work hours per week. Stress and food insecurity improved strongly but briefly, and health care use rose. Spending rose by at least 300 dollars a month, and credit scores improved, but net worth barely changed.

Mein Grundeinkommen pilot in Germany

The donation-funded pilot, run with the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), paid 122 people 1,200 euros per month for three years and compared them with 1,580 people who received nothing. The project reports that recipients kept working and showed better satisfaction and mental health.

Ontario basic income pilot

Ontario launched a planned three-year, 150 million Canadian dollar pilot in 2017 with 4,000 participants in three regions. A newly elected provincial government cancelled it in 2018, so no full evaluation was completed.

Common findings

Across very different places, several patterns repeat. Large drops in work have not appeared; effects range from none (Alaska, Finland in year one, Kenya) to modest reductions (US negative income tax trials, OpenResearch). Mental wellbeing and stress usually improve, although OpenResearch found the gains faded after the first year. Children often benefit, as seen in Cherokee and Madhya Pradesh. Fears about spending on alcohol have not been supported in Kenya.

Limits and open questions

Most pilots paid only a sample of people rather than everyone, so they cannot show what happens when a whole economy receives cash, including possible effects on prices and inflation. Many ran for two or three years, and people may act differently when they know payments will end. Funding is the largest open question: a pilot paid by donors or a research budget says little about the taxes, fund returns, or program cuts a permanent scheme would need. Some results come from organizers rather than independent evaluators, and some studies overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic and its relief payments.

Delivery models

The evidence above came through several delivery channels, and each has tradeoffs.

• Government checks. Finland and Ontario used public agencies. This approach can reach large populations but depends on budgets and changes of government, as the Ontario cancellation showed.
• Dividends from shared funds. Alaska and the Cherokee casino share returns from a common asset. Payments track fund performance and can be durable, but they require a large asset.
• Nonprofit-run programs. GiveDirectly, SEED, OpenResearch, and Mein Grundeinkommen were funded by donors and run by nonprofits. They allow rigorous testing but are limited in scale.
• Credit union or nonprofit networks. One idea, still largely untested, is a semi-private basic income delivered through networks of credit unions or community nonprofits, perhaps funded by a mix of public grants, donations, and member pools. The Madhya Pradesh pilot gave a small hint, since payments for some women went into a SEWA cooperative account. Supporters see local trust, financial coaching, and low fees; open questions include coverage gaps, fairness between regions, and stable funding.

What the evidence means for everyday life

Studies suggest that small, reliable cash mainly buys breathing room. Stockton recipients saw steadier monthly income, and Finnish recipients reported less financial stress. Predictable money can help a person spend time searching for a better job or start a small business, as in Kenya. Effects on debt are mixed: OpenResearch recipients gained credit score points but took on more debt, so net worth hardly moved. Health effects appear first in stress and food security, while physical health markers may not change within a few years. For households, the lesson is that predictability matters as much as size.

Discussion questions, essay ideas, and learning related AI prompt ideas

Discussion questions

• Why might a 12-year guarantee change behavior more than a 2-year payment of the same monthly size?
• What can a pilot that pays a sample of people tell us, and what can it not tell us, about a universal program?
• How should researchers weigh results reported by organizers against independent evaluations?

Essay ideas

• Compare the Alaska dividend and the Finland experiment as two different ways to deliver regular cash.
• Assess what Mincome hospital records suggest about income security and health.
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of delivering basic income through credit unions or nonprofit networks.

Learning related AI prompt ideas

• Explain the difference between a negative income tax and a universal basic income using simple numbers.
• Summarize the design of the Kenya basic income study and why it uses several treatment groups.
• List the main ways a basic income could be funded and the tradeoffs of each.

See also

• Income
• Strategies for negligible engineered misery
• Collaborative learning economy for humans and agents
• Opportunity engineering
• Areas of research and study to develop