- Sample
- 3,000 low-income adults
- Amount
- $1,000/month for 36 months
Randomised controlled trial. 1,000 people received $1,000/month against a control of 2,000 receiving $50/month, for three years. Run by OpenResearch, funded by Sam Altman.
Key finding
Labour force participation fell 2.0 percentage points and hours worked fell about 1.3–1.4 per week, with partners cutting hours by a comparable amount. Excluding the transfer itself, individual income fell roughly $1,500/year against control. At the same time spending rose $67/month on food, $52 on rent and $50 on transport, and parenting quality clearly improved.
What this study cannot show
This is the strongest high-quality evidence against UBI and it has to be faced: cash did reduce work. But it measures low-income people inside a small, time-limited programme. It cannot be extrapolated to a universal, permanent scheme, where labour-market equilibrium differs — see the Alaska and Iran entries.
Sources: NBER, The Employment Effects of a Guaranteed Income (Working Paper 32719) (2024)
· OpenResearch, Key Findings: Employment and Income (2024)
· OpenResearch, Unconditional Cash Transfers Lead to Clear Improvements in Parenting Quality (2025)
- Sample
- The entire state population, across decades
- Amount
- Roughly $1,000–2,000 per person per year, varying with fund returns
A real universal, permanent cash dividend paid from an oil sovereign wealth fund — unconditional, unmeans-tested, paid to every resident. Jones and Marinescu evaluated its labour-market impact using synthetic controls.
Key finding
No effect on aggregate employment; part-time work rose 1.8 percentage points (a 17% relative increase). Non-tradable sectors responded more positively than tradable ones, indicating the cash stimulated local demand — a general-equilibrium effect offsetting individual-level labour supply reductions.
What this study cannot show
The amount is small — under $170/month equivalent — far below any meaningful basic income. It shows a small universal permanent dividend does not wreck employment. It does not show that a liveable one would not.
Sources: American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund (2022)
· NBER, Working Paper 24312 (full text) (2018)
- Sample
- Over 70 million people nationwide
- Amount
- About 28% of median per-capita household income
National scale. In 2010 Iran replaced large energy subsidies with uniform cash transfers to over 70 million people, worth about 28% of median per-capita household income — the closest thing to a real universal basic income ever implemented.
Key finding
No evidence of reduced labour supply — neither hours nor participation was negatively affected. Women increased both hours and participation, self-employed men increased hours, and service-sector workers worked more. The only decline was among young people, who had weak labour-market attachment to begin with. Poverty and inequality fell in subsequent years.
What this study cannot show
Not randomised, so causal identification is weaker than an RCT. The cash also compensated for energy price rises, so households faced higher costs at the same time — not the same as a pure income gain. The institutional and economic setting differs sharply from high-income countries.
Sources: Journal of Development Economics, Cash transfers and labor supply: Evidence from a large-scale program in Iran (2018)
· Economic Research Forum, From energy subsidies to universal basic income: lessons from Iran (2017)
- Sample
- 2,000 unemployed people
- Amount
- €560/month for 24 months
Government-run randomised controlled trial. 2,000 people were randomly drawn from those receiving unemployment benefit in November 2016 and paid €560/month tax-free for two years, regardless of other income or job-seeking.
Key finding
Employment effects were small: recipients worked six days more than control (78 days on average, November 2017 to October 2018). But gains in mental wellbeing and perceived economic security were substantial — recipients reported higher life satisfaction, less mental strain, and a more positive view of their financial situation.
What this study cannot show
It went only to people already unemployed, so it says nothing about a universal scheme. Worse, Finland introduced a new unemployment "activation model" in 2018 that changed incentives for both groups mid-experiment, badly confounding the employment reading — a caveat the researchers stress themselves.
Sources: Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Results of the basic income experiment: small employment effects, better perceived economic security and mental wellbeing (2020)
· Finnish Government, The Basic Income Experiment 2017–2018 in Finland: Preliminary Results (2019)
- Sample
- About 23,000 people across 295 villages
- Amount
- About $22.50/month ($0.75/day)
The world's largest and longest UBI study: about 23,000 people across 195 villages plus 100 control villages. Crucially it compares three delivery methods head to head — 12 years of monthly payments, 2 years of monthly payments, and a one-off $500 lump sum.
Key finding
People promised 12 years clearly outperformed those promised only two — the time horizon itself has an independent effect. Long and medium-term monthly transfers markedly improved day-to-day food security, while large one-off payments did more for long-term investment. The 12-year group used rotating savings clubs to convert monthly payments back into lump sums and invest in their businesses.
What this study cannot show
The amounts are tiny ($0.75/day) in an extremely poor rural setting, limiting read-across to rich countries. It also contains a finding UBI advocates should sit with: for long-term investment, lump sums beat monthly streams — which undercuts the standard monthly-payment form UBI usually takes.
Sources: GiveDirectly, Early findings from the world's largest UBI study (2023)
· Innovations for Poverty Action, The Effects of a Universal Basic Income in Kenya (2023)
- Sample
- 125 people (a very small sample)
- Amount
- $500/month for 24 months
Randomised controlled trial. 125 people were randomly selected from neighbourhoods at or below the city median household income and paid $500/month unconditionally for 24 months, with no work requirements.
Key finding
Full-time employment rose from 28% to 40% (+12 points) against a control group that rose from 32% to 37% (+5 points). Researchers attribute this to recipients being able to afford childcare, transport and interview clothes — precisely the costs that block job search.
What this study cannot show
With 125 people, statistical power is low and single results should not be over-read. It points the opposite way to the far larger OpenResearch study. The honest reading is that short-term cash can push different populations in different directions — not that one study "wins".
Sources: Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, Guaranteed Income Increases Employment, Improves Financial and Physical Health (2021)
· University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy & Practice, Guaranteed Income Increases Employment, Improves Financial and Physical Health (2021)
- Sample
- Several thousand households
- Amount
- Negative income tax at several guarantee levels
A US government negative income tax experiment, among the largest social science experiments of its era. SIME/DIME remains the single most cited piece of evidence against UBI.
Key finding
Clear labour supply reductions: husbands cut work by about 9% on average, wives by about 18%. Researchers estimated that 50–60% of transfers to two-parent families simply replaced earnings they would otherwise have made. Marital dissolution was also higher in the treatment group than in control.
What this study cannot show
The marital-dissolution finding was seriously undermined by a reanalysis from Cain and Wissoker and should no longer be cited as settled — though opponents still cite it. The labour-supply finding is more robust. Note too that a negative income tax phases out as income rises, giving it different work incentives from a flat UBI that does not.
Sources: US Department of Health & Human Services (ASPE), Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (1983)
· Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Focus: the income maintenance experiments, thirty years later (2005)
Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada
1974–1979
Mixed Quasi-experiment
- Sample
- An entire town
- Amount
- Guaranteed annual income, phasing out with earnings
The "town with no poverty" experiment: every resident of Dauphin was eligible for a guaranteed annual income. Because coverage was town-wide, it uniquely captured community-level effects rather than only individual ones.
Key finding
Using administrative health records, Forget found hospitalisations fell 8.5% during the experiment, concentrated in accidents/injuries and mental health, while high school completion rose among young men — boys who would have left school to work stayed on.
What this study cannot show
This much-cited result was challenged by a 2021 UBC reanalysis arguing the original control construction was flawed and the 8.5% figure may not hold. We keep the entry, but readers should know it is contested — any UBI site that gives you Forget without the reanalysis is citing selectively.
Sources: Canadian Public Policy / Evelyn Forget, The Town with No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment (2011)
· Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, A Reanalysis of 'The Town with No Poverty' (2021)
No experiments match. Try another filter.