Universal basic income pilots
Universal basic income pilots are smaller-scale preliminary experiments which are carried out on selected members of the relevant population to assess the feasibility, costs and effects of the full-scale implementation of universal basic income, or the related concept of negative income tax, including partial universal basic income and similar programs. The following list provides an overview of the most famous universal basic income pilots, including projects which have not been launched yet but have been already approved by the respective political bodies or for the negotiations are in process.
North America
Pilots in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s
Beginning in the end of 1960s, there were four universal basic income experiments conducted in the United States, all in the form of NITs. As Alicia H. Munnell, who was examining the experiments in Indiana, Seattle and Denver explains, a moderate reduction in work effort has been found by the American economist Gary Burtless. Munnell also mentions that the money people had received was not squandered on frivolous products such as drugs and luxury goods. In addition, there has been an increase in school attendance. However Jodie Allen remarked that work disincentive effects were large enough to suggest that as much as 50 to 60 percent of the transfers paid to two-parent families under NIT might go to replace lost earnings. No noticeable improvements to health and the overall well-being were discovered and the effect on home-ownership rates was found to be negligible as well.| Experiment Title | The New Jersey Graduated Work Incentive Experiment | The Rural Income-Maintenance Experiment | The Seattle/Denver Income-Maintenance Experiments | The Gary, Indiana Experiment |
| Site | New Jersey & Pennsylvania | Iowa & North Carolina | Seattle & Denver | Gary, Indiana |
| Duration | 1968–1972 3 years | 1970–1972 3 years | 1970–1980 3 years ；5 years ；20 years | 1971–1974 3 years |
| Sample Size； initial | 1216 | 809 | 4800 | 1799 |
| Type of Families Enrolled | Two-parent household | Two-parent household Single-parent household, prime age Two or Single-parent household over 59 | Two-parent household Single-parent household | Two-parent household Single-parent household |
| Racial Composition | Black White Hispanic | Black White | Black White Chicano | Black |
| Target Population | Total family income not exceeding 150% of the poverty level | Total family income not exceeding 150% of the poverty level | Single-parent household earning less than $11,000 Two-parent household earning less than $13,000 | Black families with at least one child under the age of 18, and family income not exceeding 240% of the poverty level |
| Primary intervention | Negative income tax | Negative income tax | Negative income tax | Negative income tax |
| Cost '' | $7,800,000 | $6,100,000 | $77,500,000 | $20,300,000 |
| Outcomes of interest | Reduction in work effort Lifestyle changes | Work behavior Health, school, and other effects on poor children; Savings and consumption behavior | Effects on labor supply Marital stability; and Other lifestyle changes | Employment Schooling Infant mortality and morbidity Educational achievement Housing consumption |
| Range of Guarantee | 50%；75%；100%；125% | 50%；75%；100% | 92%；116%；135% | 77%；101% |
| Range of Tax rates | 30%；50%；70% | 30%；50%；70% | 50%；70%； %； % | 40%；60% |
Mincome in Manitoba
A similar field experiment of the Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income, known as Mincome, took place in Dauphin, Manitoba between 1974 and 1979. According to a research into the effects of Mincome on population health, conducted by a University of Manitoba researcher Evelyn Forget in 2011, the experiment has resulted in significant reduction in hospitalization, specifically in case of mental health diagnoses. Among all the people, only two key groups were found to be discouraged from working by the Mincome project – new mothers and teenaged boys, who, instead of entering the workforce at an early age, decided to study until grade 12, increasing the proportion of students who graduate high school.Native American casinos and tribal profit sharing
A longitudinal study of 1,420 low income children in rural North Carolina designed to observe their mental condition had the unintended result of also measuring the effect of an unconditional cash transfer on a subset of this group. The Great Smoky Mountains Study of Youth has found that a quarter of the families belonging to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians have experienced a surge in annual income due to a newly built casino as during this study, a portion of profits of this casino were unconditionally distributed to all tribal members on a semi-annual basis. Key findings of this study include lower instances of behavioural and emotional disorders among the children and improved relationship between children and their parents, as well as reduction in parental alcohol consumption.Y Combinator
In May 2016, Y Combinator, an American company with the aim of providing seed funding for start-up companies, announced that its non-profit arm YC Research would perform a five-year unconditional basic income study, which resembles the experiments carried out in the 1960s and 1970s, in Oakland, California.The project was delayed by institutional review board approval at Stanford University and the University of Michigan, and work with governments to ensure recipients would not lose benefits they were already receiving. The project gave six people from Oakland $1500 per month in an initial feasibility study. Instead of the previous plan of giving 100 families $1,500 per month, by mid-2018 YC Research was hoping to get 30 to 40 people from Oakland to participate in a $50 per month trial to refine the logistics of distribution and retention of the $50 per month control group. It was planning to run three- and five-year trials in two states, not including Oakland, involving 1,000 participants randomly assigned to $1,500 per month and 2,000 randomly assigned to the $50 per month control group. The full study is expected to cost $60 million, and YC Research is waiting for fundraising to complete before starting the study.
Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project
In Ontario, three-year basic income projects were launched in three regions from late spring to fall 2017. The participants of the project were randomly selected among resident of the regions aged 18–64, who were living on low income. The purpose of the experiment was to tackle poverty, providing people with income security while, at the same time, not discouraging them from entering the labour force. Furthermore, as poverty is believed to be one of the biggest determinants of health, the project is believed to improve health condition, which could, in turn, reduce health-care costs for the government. The pilot project was cancelled on July 31, 2018 by the newly elected Progressive Conservative government under Ontario Premier Doug Ford, with his Minister of Children, Community and Social Services Lisa MacLeod stating simply it was 'unsustainable' without citing data.Payments to participants continued until March 2019.
Stockton, California
In a pilot project in Stockton, California which began in February 2019, 125 residents of the city who were living at or below the median income line were given $500 monthly stipends, distributed through the mail in the form of debit cards, for eight months. Stockton, California is a city in the heart of the San Joaquin valley and the pilot program flourished from the support of the then-mayor, Micheal Tubbs. His efforts founded a non-profit organization that helped provide the monthly income. Income came from private funds or donations. The Universal Basic income pilot project has also been referenced as the SEED project or the GI project. The project aimed to help improve the prominent poverty problem in Stockton. Results evaluated in October found that most participants had been using their stipends to buy groceries and pay their bills. Around 43% of participants had a full or part-time job, and only 2% were unemployed and not actively seeking work.Critics suggest that basic income could remove the incentive to work. While this study did not find any evidence of that, one researcher noted that the two-year length of this study is not likely to be representative of continuous basic income, because when people know that income is temporary, they are unlikely to quit their jobs, although they might if basic income was permanent. Whether or not the incentive to work diminished during these times, there was a positive psychological effect on individuals based on how they felt in having a guaranteed income each month. The project aimed towards improving the community's well-being. However, the project was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic one year into the project, which altered how much people were able to stretch their income. Covid-19 impacted people financially, due to reduction in jobs and presence of a recession. There was a heightened need in more income based on the circumstances, which the basic income project was able to provide.