Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) Affects Labour Supply? A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. How the Use of Instruments Similar to UBI Affects Employment
2.1. Effects of Conditional (CCT) and Unconditional (UCT) Cash Transfers on Employment
- -
- These transfers are not universal. Being reserved for the “poor”, it causes what has come to be called the “poverty trap” (or “unemployment trap” when it comes to unemployment-related benefits), since in practice they have a “tax” (benefit reduction rate), in addition to transportation costs and other expenses necessary to get to work very close to 100% and even higher. This would not happen with UBI. Although it can also help to get out of those traps through cash that covers the expenses to go to work: Clothing, transportation, etc. [30].
- -
- High administrative cost and bureaucratic trap: More than 50% of potential beneficiaries do not request it, due to lack of awareness, inability to process the paperwork, or to avoid stigmatisation [31], which would not happen with the implementation of UBI [32]. Furthermore, the inclusion and exclusion errors are very high [33].
- -
- Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) are usually aimed at groups that are not in a position to work (transfers per child in some countries, old-age or disability pensions), expressly seeking that these groups (especially children) do not have to work to survive.
2.2. Effects of Lottery Winners and Crowdfunding on Employment
2.3. Results of Surveys Carried Out on the Topic
3. Methodologies Used in the Analysis of the Effects of UBI on Employment
3.1. Methodologies Used in Cases of Partial UBI Experiences
- (a)
- Alaska
- (b)
- Iran
- (c)
- Cherokee Nation
3.2. Methodologies Used in Field Experiments
3.2.1. Developed Countries
- (a)
- Finland
- (b)
- Ontario (Canada)
3.2.2. Developing Countries
- (a)
- Kenya (2018–today)
- (b)
- India (June 2011–November 2012)
- (c)
- Namibia (2008–2009)
3.3. Methodologies Used in the Laboratory Experiments
3.4. Methodologies Used in the Simulations
- (a)
- The most prominent is to try to refine traditional models and theories to better reflect reality [72]. Currently, the most widely used labour supply models for this purpose are a combination of the Random Utility Maximization (RUM) model, which use absolute comparisons of the non-marginal utility and Random Utility-Random Opportunities (RURO) models [94]. Others include: Discrete Choice (DC) and Stochastic Dynamic Programming (SDP) models.
- (b)
- (c)
- Introduce models of multi-agent simulation, Agent Bases Simulation (ABS). These models allow us to go beyond the pure parametric decision of rational individuals by solving a trade-off based on given and fixed preferences, to fully incorporate social interaction and its effects on behaviour [100] (p. 5). The suitability of this type of simulators for the analysis of the possible impact on human behaviour of a UBI and the complexity of the results it produces can be read in detail in the simulation work of González, Noguera, and de Wispeleare [101].
- (d)
- Long-term panel data can be used for an analysis of what would happen in the long-term job offer, in relation to education decisions and job choice. Other proposals discuss the application of Community Operational Research, although we do not know of any examples in this regard.
- (e)
- Finally, other simulation studies apply the game theory [102]. The authors’ question is whether the implementation of a UBI can empty the job market by differentiating heterogeneous actors (hard-working, hard-working conditional, lazy, and conditional lazy).
4. Results
4.1. Results of Partial UBI Experiences
- (a)
- Alaska
- (b)
- Iran
- (c)
- Cherokee Nation
4.2. Results of Field Experiments
- (a)
- Finland
- (b)
- Ontario (Canada)
- (c)
- Kenya (2018–today)
- (d)
- India (June 2011–November 2012)
- (e)
- Namibia
4.3. Results of Laboratory Experiments
4.4. Microsimulation Results
- (a)
- Australia
- (b)
- Germany
- (c)
- Italy
- (d)
- United Kingdom
- (e)
- European Union
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Considered (Yes or No) | Reason for Exclusion | Studies Considered | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
EXPERIENCES | ||||
Alaska | YES | - | [46,47,48,49,50,106,107] | |
Iran | YES | - | [51] | |
Cherokee Nation | YES | - | [53,108,109] | |
Mongolia | NO | 4 | ||
Qatar | NO | 4 | ||
Kuwait | NO | 4 | ||
UAE | NO | 4 | ||
Macao (China) | NO | 4 | ||
East Timor | NO | 5 | ||
FIELD EXPERIMENTS | ||||
Developed countries | USA 70′ (four cases) | NO | 1, 6 | |
Manitoba (Canada) | NO | 6 | ||
Finland | YES | - | [63,64] | |
Ontario (Canada) | YES | - | [65] | |
Stockton (USA) | NO | 3 | ||
Oakland (USA) | NO | 5 | ||
Utrecht (Netherlands) | NO | 3, 4, 5 | ||
Barcelona (Spain) | NO | 3, 4, 5 | ||
Scotland (UK) | NO | 5 | ||
Sweden | NO | 5 | ||
Slovakia | NO | 5 | ||
Korea | NO | 1, 5 | ||
Developing countries | Kenya | YES | - | [110] |
India | YES | - | [29,75,76,111,112] | |
Namibia | YES | - | [77,78] | |
Uganda | NO | 1 | ||
Brazil | NO | 1 | ||
Mexico City | NO | 1 | ||
Zimbabwe | NO | 1, 4 | ||
LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS | ||||
Haigner et al. (2012) | YES | - | [89] | |
Kawagoes (2019) (three cases) | YES | - | [90] | |
Delsen (2019), Chapter 7 | No | 4 | ||
SIMULATIONS | ||||
Australia | YES | [103,115] | ||
Germany | YES | [116,117,118,119] | ||
Italia | YES | [121,122] | ||
UK | YES | [123,124,125] | ||
France | NO | 1 | ||
Spain | NO | 1, 4 | ||
Austria | NO | |||
Sweden | NO | 7 | ||
Netherlands | NO | |||
European Union | YES | [126,127] | ||
Finland | NO | |||
Quebec (Canada) | NO | 1 | ||
Colombia | NO | 4 | ||
Ecuador | YES | [129] | ||
Reason for exclusion: | ||||
(1) Cases with instrument away from UBI: CCT, UCT, lottery, crowdfunding, opinion polls (2) Cases with non-working-age populations: Children or the elderly | ||||
(3) Cases not significant by size or scientific rigor | ||||
(4) The effect on employment is not analysed | ||||
(5) It is still undeployed or in process with no results | ||||
(6) Old cases | ||||
(7) Theoretical or declarative exercise |
Appendix B. Protocol for the Systematic Review of the Article Entitled: “Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implementation of a UBI Affects the Labour Supply? A Systematic Review”
- 1.
- Title: Protocol for the Systematic Review of the Article Entitled: “Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implantation of a UBI Affects the Labour Supply? A Systematic Review”. This protocol is not an update.
- 2.
- This protocol has not been registered given the lack of records for economic studies. To our knowledge, there is only the PROSPERO registry (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) that only admits reviews that have to do with health, albeit in a broad way.
- 3.
- a. The authors of this protocol are the same as those of the corresponding article: MAPB, MJAC, MTAP, and CSL, under the direction and responsibility of MAPB. Their emails and institutional affiliation are: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], respectively. Their professional affiliation is the University of Huelva (Spain).b. The contribution of each of the authors is: MAPB elaboration, revision, and improvement of this protocol; MJAC, MTAP, and CSL revision, discussion, and improvement.
- 4.
- This protocol does not contain amendments. If we need to amend this protocol, we will give you the date of each amendment, describe the change, and provide justification in this section. Changes will not be incorporated into the protocol.
- 5.
- This protocol, similar to the systematic review for which it will serve, does not have funding or sponsorship, beyond the institutional link of the authors to the University of Huelva (Spain). This institution does not have any role in this paper.
- 6.
- The fundamental reason for conducting this systematic review. Although the implementation of a UBI is associated with the reduction of inequality and poverty more effectively and efficiently than with other instruments, in addition to other beneficial aspects for the population, such as the improvement of physical and mental health, self-esteem, etc., one of the most common criticisms that occurs is that its implementation can cause a reduction in the labour supply. This is what the traditional economic theory and some public opinions supposedly say. In relation to the traditional economic theory, specifically the neoclassical theory, it does not seem certain that it is forceful in this sense, rather it says that it is possible that this effect occurs in some cases, depending on the combination of income and substitution effects. In addition, in relation to the public opinion, they do not fail to reflect the so-called “common knowledge” that we should verify scientifically, especially from the empirical point of view given the theoretical ambiguity, since it could reflect stereotypes far from reality.For this reason, a systematic review of the empirical evidence is proposed. In the preliminary explorations, we have not found clear evidence that shows a reduction in the labour supply, which forces us to be more precise and careful in order to clarify the whole question at once, defining if the answer is clear or if it is necessary to continue carrying out more scientific research to clarify it. That is the reason for preparing this systematic review with a key question: Is there really clear empirical evidence that the implementation of a UBI significantly reduces the labour supply?The question and with it the answer, is not trivial, given that a considerable decrease in the labour supply would make its application unsustainable despite its positive effects in reducing poverty, inequality, or improving physical and psychological health of the most disadvantaged population. On the contrary, an increase in the labour supply, the absence of a significant result, or a small reduction, especially in some cases (children, the elderly, the sick, etc.) may be one more argument in favour of its implementation. Even more so in the current context, with the 4th Industrial Revolution which could reduce labour demand.Different systematic reviews have been prepared for other similar instruments such as Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) and Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT), which provide us with evidence of interest for this study and we will summarize succinctly in the document as if it were a systematic meta-review. However, for the UBI it is much more complex, due to the lack of complete experiences on it and experimentation has its limitations.
- 7.
- Objectives. The objective, therefore, of this systematic review is to empirically evaluate whether the implementation of a UBI has the effect of significantly reducing the labour supply and, if so, under what circumstances and under which implementation design. The chosen question, therefore, is: Is there empirical evidence on how the implantation of a UBI affects the labour supply? To achieve our objective, we outline below the specifications that we will take into account. We follow the recommendations of the PRISMA methodology, specifically the PICOS specifications. In this case:The population included (or participants) is the potentially active population in general, which is the population that can work, from any country or group of countries worldwide. We exclude children (children who are not of legal working age), the population which is considered too old to continue working (in most countries over 65), and people with disabilities incapacitated for work. These groups may have people who are working, but it is not usual or desirable. In these cases, the results in relation to a decrease in the labour supply in that population due to the implementation of a UBI, will be considered a positive or functional result. We do include primary or secondary workers, unemployed and inactive, formal and informal, according to studies, unpaid work (reproductive, voluntary, unpaid internships), or for any other reason, of legal and habitual working age. The population will be considered from an individual point of view. However, it will be grouped to better capture the results by age (youth, adults, seniors), gender (male and female), income (high, medium, low), type of work (primary or secondary paid, unpaid care), training, volunteers or unpaid internships, informal work, precarious, unemployed, not working or looking for a job, disabled person who can work), type of household (single, couples, with children, single parent, etc.). The countries and regions of the world to which the studies refer to will also be taken into account if this implies differences: Developed countries, EU, OECD countries; little or medium developed countries: Latin America, Asia, Africa.Intervention: The intervention to implement a UBI is considered, according to the definition of Van Parijs (2004): Rent paid by the community to all its members individually, universally, unconditionally, periodically, and permanently. Some also consider that it must be a minimum amount sufficient to be able to allow each individual to live with dignity. However, given the difficulty of studying real experiences and experiments of this instrument, we will consider cases of pseudoUBI or instruments that, although not quite UBI as previously defined, contribute aspects of interest to the study. These instruments are: Income from oil profits or other raw materials, normally low and unstable, Negative Income Taxes (NIT): It is a similar instrument, but with problems given that the money is paid ex-post and not ex-ante, although financially it costs the same. Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) or Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) that have been widely implemented since the 90s of the 20th century, and also widely evaluated, will be taken into account to the extent that they provide relevant information and will be elaborated separately. We will also consider lottery winners, crowdfunding, and opinion polls separately.Comparison: We will consider the comparison with populations that do not receive this intervention (UBI), and also comparisons between different instruments that implemented UBI/CCT, UBI/UCT, UBI/NIT. We also include comparisons between different UBI application parameters, specifically: Amount, taxes, and tax rate necessary for its implementation, as well as measures that it would replace.Results: The results must be specific, in the sense that they must first and foremost be quantified and contextualized. How does it affect the labour supply? Considerable or slight increase, considerable or slight decrease; significant or not; for what type of population, place and date, specific type of intervention, methodology used; can these results be generalized and also determine the validity of these results?Design of the study: Several methodologies have been considered in the studies selected for this systematic review grouped as follows: Experiences (UBI, NIT, partial UBI), field and laboratory experiments (especially recent UBI and NIT ones), simulations, specifically static behavioural microsimulation. We will also consider the following in case it provides any relevant information: Game theory, other simulations, such as general equilibrium simulations. There are some questions to consider in relation to the methodologies used to view the empirical results in relation to the UBI. In principle, as a 100% UBI has not been implemented anywhere, an ex-post experience evaluation is not possible. For this reason, we accommodate pseudoUBI realities, which we will analyse in this study. In relation to field experimentation, it is also difficult to think that it is possible with this instrument since it includes several aspects that cannot be experienced in principle: As is the case of universality and permanence. Furthermore, it is difficult to see the long-term effects. In relation to laboratory experimentation, there are few and very limited examples, but they will be taken into account in this paper. Finally, problems also arise in relation to simulation. Static microsimulation is of great interest and has been widely used in recent decades for the ex-ante evaluation of public policies considered for implementation, normally static arithmetic simulation is used. However, for the question before us, static or dynamic behavioural microsimulation is necessary, that is less developed and that implies including theoretical assumptions for the estimation, as a first step, of parameters that can then be used to determine that behaviour by applying it to the chosen theory. This is the case here: We need to estimate the elasticity of the labour supply and then simulate the behaviour of the said labour supply. For all the above reasons, the answer to the question is not immediate. Other methods such as game theory or general equilibrium simulation exacerbate this problem. For this reason, here we will not only do a systematic review of empirical studies, but also of methods applied to carry out these empirical studies with the critical analysis of the efficacy and limitations that they pose.
- 8.
- Eligibility criteria. We will consider all empirical studies related to the question, published in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed to define their scientific quality. Therefore, in the first screening, we will discard all studies that have not been subjected to peer evaluation, with some exceptions such as documents from international reference organizations. We especially consider recent studies, conducted in the last two decades (2000–2020). The specific methodologies selected are: Empirical scientific analysis of data resulting from experiences, field experiments, laboratory experiments, and simulations. The English language has been considered as a reference, although complementary searches have also been made in other languages, specifically in Spanish with the same keywords. They are not considered non-empirical, merely declarative or opinion studies, nor those that do not use a scientific method of analysis that clearly identifies their specifications and results.
- 9.
- Sources of information. We consider the 140 databases of publications that the University of Huelva collects in its Columbus-UHU publications metabase, which groups all the important ones (see the complete list at https://guiasbuh.uhu.es/az.php). Other sources from previous searches, the bibliography from other studies and systematic reviews, Google Scholar, the grey literature from international reference organizations (WB, OECD, ILO, ECLAC, IMF, NN, UU) will also be taken into account. To guarantee the literature saturation, we will explore the reference lists of included studies or relevant reviews identified through searching (“cascading search”). We will also search the authors’ personal files to ensure that all the relevant material has been captured. Finally, we will distribute a bibliography of the articles included to the systematic review team, and the entire search procedure will be reviewed by them to avoid the risk of search bias.
- 10.
- Search strategy. The first exploratory search of individual keywords will be done, specifically, UBI in regard to economics, “basic income”, “labour supply”, “labor supply”. Second, we will look for combinations close to the systematic review question: UBI and “labour/labor supply”, “basic income” and “labour/labor supply” in the bibliographic database Columbus-UHU in English and Spanish. Possible systematic reviews will also be searched for in different corresponding databases. More specific searches will be carried out by the methodology used: Experience, laboratory and field experiments, and simulations. Subsequently, these searches will be carried out in Google Scholar following the same guidelines. The search will be updated towards the end of the review, after being validated to ensure that a high proportion of eligible studies are found by any indexed medium and are current.
- 11.
- Record of studies
- Data management. The studies are recorded on an excel spreadsheet shared by the study authors. It specifies all the bibliographic data and the necessary elements to define their eligibility. The CMO chain (context-mechanism-outcome) is also collected in a comprehensive table that allows us to finally collect the entire process in a PRISMA flow diagram. Duplications will be taken into account to be eliminated. Given the volume, nature, and complexity of the data involved, we have not considered it necessary to use a specific systematic review application such as RevMan from the Cochrane Collaboration or more complex ones, for example, the web-based systematic review software, including Distiller Systematic Review (DSR), EPPI-Reviewer, or Trialstat SRS.
- Selection process. Review authors will independently review titles and abstracts collected by the search based on the inclusion criteria. We will obtain full reports of all titles that appear to meet the inclusion criteria or where there is some uncertainty. We will seek additional information from the study authors when necessary to resolve questions about eligibility. We will resolve the disagreement through discussion. We will record the reasons for excluding studies.
- Data collection process. Data extraction will be carried out by two independent authors to avoid the risk of bias, and discrepancies will be resolved by discussing them. An excel template will be used for data collection and synthesis. Since no data meta-analysis will be performed, this process and that of the next two processes will be less complex.
- 12.
- Data elements. The data to be collected from the results of each study will be summarized in a table with all the detailed information that will be published in the corresponding study appendix. Identification data of the works: Complete bibliographic data, place to which the study refers, years, population involved, specific intervention applied, application design, control population, results obtained, and summarized. Data from the results of the studies: A sheet will be prepared with the disaggregated information on the results of each study for each experience, experiment, or country of the corresponding simulation. In order to be able to compare the results of different studies for the same situation analysed.
- 13.
- Results and prioritization. The results that we are going to record are related to the effects on participation (extension) and the number of hours worked (intensity) in employment. More specifically, we are interested in knowing if it has increased, decreased, or remained the same, with what intensity, and to know if the result is significant. All this for each population group and according to the design of the intervention. Additionally, the rest of the results of the analysed studies will be taken into account in a summarized way: Effect on poverty and inequality, health, well-being, personal autonomy, etc., but especially, the additional results on working conditions and entrepreneurship. It will specify whether the results are at the individual, household, or aggregate level.
- 14.
- Risk of bias in individual studies. The risk of bias will be carefully analysed throughout the procedure. Only individual, peer-reviewed studies will be chosen, using proven scientific methods, which will provide quantitative results. The risk of bias analysis will be carried out at both the study and results level. Limitations and additional caution will be taken into account with results of experiences and experiments that have not been published, published in grey literature, or not sufficiently evaluated. The risk of publication bias does not appear to be significant in this case. However, it will still be monitored for other biases.
- 15.
- Data synthesis. Does not apply since it is not a meta-analysis of data.
- 16.
- Meta-bias(es). Does not apply since it is not a meta-analysis of data.
- 17.
- Confidence in the accumulated evidence. It will depend on the evaluation of the risk of bias detected and the robustness or not of the results of the studies. In addition, the proximity or not of the studies to the evaluated intervention will be taken into account, given the difficulty of evaluating complete UBI experiences. It will also depend on the more or less appropriate analysis methods according to the corresponding analysis. In principle, we will differentiate between insignificant and no effect, with slight, medium, and significant effects of reduction or increase in intensive and extensive labour supply. All this will give us an idea of the strength of the evidence.
Appendix C. Summary of the Procedure Used in the Systematic Search and Screening. Bias Analysis
- Search for combined terms: UBI and “labour/labor supply”, “Basic income” and “labour/labor supply”, and their diverse related terms. Moreover, in Spanish. The same searches were also carried out on Google Scholar.
- Searches on the specific methodologies used in this type of work and their applications to the question of this study: Simulation, microsimulation, experiences, experiments, field and laboratory studies, etc.
- Search for grey literature from specific official bodies and other grey bibliographies: WB, OECD, ILO, CEPAL, IMF, NN, UU.
- Additional studies that come from previous searches, reviews of the bibliographies used in other studies, and the bibliography of the selected articles have been considered. Moreover, from specialized journals and databases: Basic Income Studies, Euromod, Journal of Economic Literature. The experience of this group of researchers has helped make the systematic search exhaustive, it is unlikely that any relevant scientific work is missing.
- Additional search for other similar instruments: NIT, CCT, UCT, etc.
- 1.
- We began by differentiating between instruments that are UBI and others that are not, even if they are related or similar, in order to exclude them. This is the case with Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) and Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT). We have also collected studies on other instruments that are not as similar such as lotteries, crowdfunding, and surveys. We have grouped the bibliography related to these excluded instruments and, given that their similar characteristics can give us information relevant to our purpose, compiled a summary of all the papers on these widely studied instruments, with reviews that group them in relation to their effects on employment. In other words, we have carried out a kind of systematic meta-review that provides very relevant information, which is why it is summarized in Section 2 of the article.
- 2.
- Then, we selected the methodologies used in these analyses using a systematic search. A selection and classification of the specific methodologies used in the empirical analysis of the UBI/employment relationship was carried out. For this, we have grouped the methodologies into four groups: Traditional applied to pseudoUBI experiences, RCT and saturation methods applied to field experiments, laboratory experiments with their specific methodologies and, finally, simulations of various types, in particular microsimulation (see Section 3 of the article).
- 3.
- Based on this classification, the cases that we are going to consider were selected. For this, the following inclusion criteria were used:
- (a)
- Cases in which a UBI or very similar instruments have been implemented (partial UBI, NIT). We exclude CCT, UCT, lotteries, crowdfunding, and surveys, although we have addressed them in a separate section (Section 2). We also exclude other instruments such as guaranteed basic income, minimum income, guaranteed wages, etc.
- (b)
- Cases that have been carried out and completed. We exclude proposals that were never implemented and unfinished cases, except for duly justified exceptions.
- (c)
- Cases for which one of the selected methodologies has been systematically applied. We do not consider theoretical or declarative exercises or cases of little significance due to size or scientific rigour.
- (d)
- Cases for which the effect on employment has been specifically studied.
- (e)
- Recent cases. Only those carried out and analysed in the last two decades are considered (2000–2020).
- 4.
- Finally, we selected the studies that analyse the chosen cases according to the applied methodology. A total of 87 papers were preselected, which were eventually reduced to 38, once the aforementioned criteria were applied for the selection of cases, now for the selection of studies.
References and Notes
- Banerjee, A.V.; Duflo, E. Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty; Public Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Mullainathan, S.; Shafir, E. Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much; Henry Holt and Company: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, R.P.; Ashford, R.; Ashford, N.A.; Arango-Quiroga, J. Universal Basic Income and Inclusive Capitalism: Consequences for Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lo Valero, R.; Aguirre, J. El sistema de Speenhamland, el ingreso ciudadano y la ‘retórica de la reacción’. Revista Historia América 2010, 143, 117–143. [Google Scholar]
- Widerquist, K. A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Researchers, Policymakers, and Citizens; Palgrave: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- PRISMA. It Is a Methodology Widely Used in the So-Called “Experimental” Sciences, Less in the Social Sciences. There Are Other Methodologies, as Is the Case of the Campbell Collaboration, Founded in 2000, Twinned with the Cochrane Collaboration, Which Was Founded in 1993, or the EPPI-Centre of the Same Year, but We Have Chosen to Use the Most Widespread and Tested. Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (accessed on 10 February 2020).
- The World Bank identified that in 2018, 552 million people in undeveloped countries have cash transfer from their governments, in Latin America generally conditional and in Africa normally unconditional. But it only covers a weight of 9% of the total population. See Ivaschenko, O.; Rodríguez Alas, C.P.; Novikova, M.; Romero Robayo, C.; Bowen, T.V.; Zhu, L. The State of Social Safety Nets 2018; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/427871521040513398/The-state-of-social-safety-nets-2018 (accessed on 21 July 2020).
- De Paz-Báñez, M.A.; Sánchez-López, C.; Aceytuno, M.T. The effect of Universal Basic Income on employment: Does reality contradict economic theory? Forthcoming.
- Fiszbein, A.; Schady, N. Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- GEI. Evidence and Lessons Learned from Impact Evaluations on Social Safety Nets; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Cecchini, S.; Madariaga, A. Programas de Transferencias Condicionadas: Balance de la Experiencia Reciente en América Latina y el Caribe; Cuadernos de la CEPAL No. 95, LC/G.2497-P; CEPAL: Santiago, Chile, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- CEPAL/ILO. Los programas de transferencias condicionadas y el mercado laboral. Coyuntura Laboral en América Latina y el Caribe 2014, 10, 34. [Google Scholar]
- ILO. Effects of Non-Contributory Social Transfers in Developing Countries: A Compendium; Working Paper International Labour Office (ILO); ILO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- De Hoop, J.; Furio, C.R. Cash Transfers and Child Labor. World Bank Res. Obs. 2014, 29, 202–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentilini, U.; Honorati, M.; Yemtsov, R. The State of Social Safety Nets; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, D.; Popova, A. Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods: A Review of Global Evidence; Policy Research Working Paper WPS6886; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Banerjee, A.V.; Hanna, R.; Kreindler, G.E.; Olken, B.A. Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs. World Bank Res. Obs. 2017, 32, 155–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoong, J.; Rabinovich, L.; Diepeveen, S. The Impact of Economic Resource Transfers to Women versus Men: A Systematic Review; Technical Report; EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bastagli, F.; Hagen-Zanker, J.; Harman, L.; Barca, V.; Sturge, G.; Schmidt, T.; Pellerano, L. Cash Transfers: What Does the Evidence Say? A Rigorous Review of Programme Impact and of the Role of Design and Implementation Features; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2016; Available online: https://www.odi.org/publications/10505-cash-transfers-whatdoes-evidence-say-rigorous-review-impacts-and-role-design-and-implementation (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Kassouf, A.L.; de Oliveira, P. Impact Evaluation of the Brazilian Non-Contributory Pension Program Benefício De Prestaçao Continuada (BPC) on Family Welfare. PEP Work. Pap. 2012, 12, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch, M.; Manacorda, M. Social Policies and Labor Market Outcomes in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Review of the Existing Evidence; CEP Occasional Paper No. 32; Centre for Economic Performance: London, UK, 2012; Available online: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/occasional/op032.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2019).
- Owusu-Addo, E.; Renzaho, A.M.N.; Smith, B.J. The Impact of Cash Transfers on Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. Health Policy Plan. 2018, 33, 675–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gilbert, R.; Murphy, N.; Stepka, A.; Barrett, M.; Worku, D. Would a Basic Income Guarantee reduce the motivation to work? An analysis of labor responses in 16 trial programs. Basic Income Stud. 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, S.; McKenzie, D.; Özler, B. The Effects of Cash Transfers on Adult Labor Market Outcomes. IZA J. Dev. Migr. 2018, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baird, S.; McIntosh, C.; Özler, B. When the Money Runs Out: Do Cash Transfers Have Sustained Effects on Human Capital Accumulation? J. Dev. Econ. 2019, 140, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gentilini, U.; Grosh, M.; Rigolini, J.; Yemtsov, R. Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32677 (accessed on 10 July 2020).
- Abramo, L.; Cecchini, S.; Morales, B. Programas Sociales, Superación de la Pobreza e Inclusión Laboral: Aprendizajes desde América Latina y el Caribe; Book of CEPAL No.155 (LC/PUB.2019/5-P); CEPAL: Santiago, Chile, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hoynes, H.W.; Schanzenbach, D. Safety Net Investments in Children; NBER Working Paper 24594; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; Available online: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24594 (accessed on 10 June 2020).
- Schjoedt, R. India’s Basic Income experiment. Pathw. Perspect. Int. Dev. 2016, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Dasgupta, P.; Ray, D. Inequality as a Determinant of Malnutrition and Unemployment: Theory. Econ. J. 1986, 96, 1011–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moffitt, R. An Economic Model of Welfare Stigma. Am. Econ. Rev. 1983, 73, 1023–1035. [Google Scholar]
- Kidd, S.; Athias, D. Hit and Miss: An Assessment of Targeting Effectiveness in Social Protection; Working Paper; Development Pathways and Church of Sweden: Nairobi, Kenya, March 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Banerjee, A.V.; Niehaus, P.; Suri, T. Universal Basic Income in the Developing World. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2019, 11, 959–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Imbens, G.; Rubin, D.; Sacerdote, B. Estimating the effect of unearned income on labor earnings, savings, and consumption: Evidence from a survey of lottery players. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 778–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marx, A.; Peeters, H. An unconditional basic income and labor supply: Results from a pilot study of lottery winners. J. Socio-Econ. 2008, 37, 1636–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, M.; Suetens, S.; van Ours, J.C. Labour Supply Effects of Winning a Lottery. Econ. J. 2018, 128, 1700–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avery, R.; Harpaz, I.; Liao, H. Work centrality and post-award work behavior of lottery winners. J. Psychol. 2004, 138, 404–420. [Google Scholar]
- Faraker, B.; Hedenus, A. Gambling windfall decisions: Lottery winners and employment behavior. UNLV Gaming Res. Rev. J. 2009, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Torry, M. (Ed.) The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income; Palgrave: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cesarini, D.; Lindqvist, E.; Notowidigdo, M.J.; Östling, R. The Effect of Wealth on Individual and Household Labor Supply: Evidence from Swedish Lotteries. Am. Econ. Rev. 2017, 107, 3917–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dalia Research. Available online: https://daliaresearch.com/blog-31-of-europeans-want-basic-income-as-soon-as-possible (accessed on 3 December 2018).
- In 2018, Duflo, Banerjee and Stantcheva surveyed 10,000 Americans with similar results (49% said that ‘many people’ would stop working if there was a UBI of USD 13,000 a year without conditions, but when asked if they would stop working, only 13% answered yes. This survey has not been published, but it is referred to by the authors). See Duflo, E.; Banerjee, A.V. Economic Incentives Don’t Always Do What We Want Them To. The New York Times. 26 October 2019. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opinion/sunday/duflo-banerjee-economic-incentives.html (accessed on 8 July 2020).
- Van Parijs, P.; Vanderborght, Y. Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy; Harvard University Press: Harvard, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Delsen, L. (Ed.) Empirical Research on an Unconditional Basic Income in Europa; Springer Nature AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- For a fairly comprehensive compilation of experiences and field experiments on UBI. In Map of Universal Basic Income Experiments and Related Programs; Prepared in the Stanford University Basic Income Lab; 2020; Available online: https://basicincome.stanford.edu/experiments-map/ (accessed on 25 September 2020).
- Jones, D.; Marinescu, I. The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund; NBER Working Paper 24312; NBER: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Goldsmith, O.S. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: A Case Study in Implementation of a Basic Income Guarantee; Working Paper; Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Goldsmith, S. The Economic and Social Impacts of the Permanent Fund Dividend on Alaska. In Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining Its Suitability as a Model; Karl Widerquist, K., Howard, M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Chapter 4. [Google Scholar]
- Widerquist, K.; Howard, M. (Eds.) Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining Its Suitability as a Model; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Berman, M. Resource rents, universal basic income, and poverty among Alaska’s Indigenous peoples. World Dev. 2018, 106, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salehi-Isfahani, D.; Mostafavi-Dehzooei, M.H. Cash transfers and labor supply: Evidence from a large-scale program in Iran. J. Dev. Econ. 2018, 135, 349–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gauthier, S.; Tabatabai, T. How incentives matter? An illustration from the targeted subsidies reform in Iran. Soc. Choice Welf. 2019, 52, 97–125. Available online: https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/gauthierstephane/gauthier_tabatabai_iran_2018.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2020). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akee, R.; Copeland, W.E.; Keeler, G.; Angold, A.; Costello, E.J. Parents’ Incomes and Children’s Outcomes: A Quasi-Experiment Using Transfer Payments from Casino Profits. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2010, 2, 86–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Groot, L. Basic Income, Unemployment and Compensatory Justice; Springer Science+Business: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Marx, A. Basic Income and Empirical Research-A Lottery Financed Social Experiment: An Alternative Proposal for a Basic Income Social Experiment. Rutgets’ J. Law Urban Policy 2005, 2, 167–185. [Google Scholar]
- Noguera, J.A.; De Wispelaere, J. A Plea for the Use of Laboratory Experiments in Basic Income Research. Basic Income Stud. 2006, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forget, E. The Town with No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment. Can. Public Policy 2011, 37, 283–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munnell, A.H. Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview. In Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments. Proceedings of a Conference Held in September; Federal Reserve Bank of Boston: Boston, MA, USA, 1986; Available online: https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/events/economic-research-conference-series/lessons-from-the-income-maintenance-experiments.aspx (accessed on 28 September 2020).
- Widerquist, K. A failure to communicate: What (if anything) can we learn from the negative income tax experiments? J. Socio-Econ. 2005, 34, 49–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moffitt, R.A. The Labor Supply Response in the Gary Experiment. J. Hum. Resour. 1979, 14, 477–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kela. From Idea to Experiment: Report on Universal Basic Income Experiment in Finland; Kela Working Paper 106; Kela: Helsinki, Finland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kangas, O.; Simanainen, M.; Honkanen, P. Basic Income in the Finnish Context. Intereconomics 2017, 52, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kangas, O.; Jauhiainen, S.; Simanainen, M.; Ylikännö, M. (Eds.) The Basic Income Experiment 2017–2018 in Finland. Preliminary Results; Reports and Memorandums of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Helsinki, Finland, 2019.
- Kangas, O. Evaluation of the Finnish Basic Income Experiment; Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Helsinki, Finland, 2020.
- Ferdosi, M.; McDowell, T.; Lewchuk, W.; Ross, S. Southern Ontario’s Basic Income Experience; Hamilton Community Foundation: Hamilton, OH, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Forget, E.L.; Marando, D.; Urban, M.C.; Surman, T. Pilot Lessons: How to Design a Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario. In Mowat Research; Mowat Centre: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Segal, H. Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario. Discussion Paper Submitted to the Ontario Government. 2016. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/finding-better-way-basic-income-pilot-project-ontario (accessed on 28 July 2020).
- Young, C. Realising Basic Income Experiments in the UK: A Typology and Toolkit of Basic Income Design and Delivery; Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Community and Social Services. Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot: Studying the Impact of a Basic Income; Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018.
- Y Combinator Research. Basic Income Project Proposal; 32; Y Combinator Research: Oakland, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Seong, E. Seongnam youth dividend monitoring report: The survey results. In All That Seongnam Youth Dividend: Basic Income Coming to Near Us; Basic Income Youth Network and Institute for Green Transformation, Ed.; Basic Income Youth Network and Institute for Green Transformation: Seoul, Korea, 2016; pp. 12–37. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, G. The effects of Basic Income on labour supply. Korean Soc. Secur. Stud. 2018, 34, 193–218. [Google Scholar]
- Haushofer, J.; Shapiro, J. The Short-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. Q. J. Econ. 2016, 131, 1973–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haushofer, J.; Shapiro, J. Household Response to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Cash Transfer Program in Kenya; Working Paper; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; Available online: http://web.mit.edu/joha/www/publications/haushofer_shapiro_uct_2013.11.16.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2020).
- Davala, S.; Jhabvala, R.; Mehta, S.K.; Standing, G. Basic Income: A Transformative Policy for India; Bloomsbury: London, UK; New Delhi, India, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Standing, G. Why Basic Income’s emancipatory value exceeds its monetary value. Basic Income Stud. 2015, 10, 193–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haarmann, C.; Haarmann, D.; Jauch, H.; Shindondola-Mote, H.; Nattrass, N.; Samson, M.; Standing, G. Towards a Basic Income Grant for All: Basic Income Pilot Project Assessment Report; Basic Income Grant Coalition and Namibia NGO Forum: Windhoek, Namibia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Haarmann, C.; Haarmann, D.; Jauch, H.; Shindondola-Mote, H.; Nattrass, N.; van Niekerk, I.; Samson, M. Making the Difference: The Big in Namibia: Basic Income Grant Pilot Project Assessment Report; Basic Income Grant Coalition: Windhoek, Namibia, 2009; Available online: www.bignam.org/Publications/BIG_Assessment_report_08b.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
- Osterkamp, R. The basic incomegrant pilot project in Namibia: A critical assessment. Basic Income Stud. 2013, 8, 71–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blattman, C.; Fiala, N.; Martinez, S. Employment Generation in Rural Africa: Mid-Term Results from an Experimental Evaluation of the Youth Opportunities Program in Northern Uganda; DIW Berlin Discussion Paper 1201; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Blattman, C.; Green, E.P.; Jamison, J.; Lehmann, M.C.; Annan, J. The Returns to Microenterprise Support among the Ultrapoor: A Field Experiment in Postwar Uganda. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2016, 8, 35–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murray, M.; Pateman, C. (Eds.) Basic Income Worldwide. Horizons of Reform; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- De Wispelaere, J.; Haagh, L. Introduction Basic Income in European Welfare States: Opportunities and Constraints. Soc. Policy Soc. 2019, 18, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haagh, L. The political economy of governance capacity and institutional change: The case of basic income security reform in european welfare states. Soc. Policy Soc. 2019, 18, 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, B. Authoritarianism and social policy. Soc. Policy Soc. 2020, 19, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, L.; Mushati, P.; Eaton, J.W.; Dumba, L.; Mavise, G.; Makoni, J.; Schumacher, C.; Crea, T.; Monasch, R.; Sherr, L.; et al. Effects of unconditional and conditional cash transfers on child health and development in Zimbabwe: A cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2013, 381, 1283–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Falk, A.; Heckman, J.J. Lab Experiments Are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences. Science 2009, 326, 535–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duffy, J. Macroeconomics: A Survey of Laboratory Research. In Handbook of Experimental Economics; Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E., Eds.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2016; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Haigner, S.; Höchtl, W.; Jenewein, S.; Schneider, F.G.; Wakolbinger, F. Keep on working: Unconditional basic income in the lab. Basic Income Stud. 2012, 7, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawagoe, T. Experimental and Game Theoretical Analyses of the Unconditional Basic Income. In Empirical Research on an Unconditional Basic Income in Europa; Delsen, L., Ed.; Springer Nature AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Figari, F.; Paulus, A.; Sutherland, H. Microsimulation and Policy Analysis; Institute for Social and Economic Research Working Paper 2014–2023; University of Essex: Colchester, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Rigolini, J.; Lustig, N.; Gentilini, U.; Monsalve, E.; Quan, S. Comparative Effects of Universal Basic Income: Emerging Issues and Estimates. In Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices; Gentilini, U., Grosh, M., Rigolini, J., Yemtsov, R., Eds.; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32677 (accessed on 10 July 2020).
- Ollinaho, O.I.; Arponen, V.P.J. Incomegetting and Environmental Degradation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaberge, R.; Colombino, U. Structural Labour Supply Models and Microsimulation; IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Discussion Paper Series No. 11562; Institute of Labor Economics: Bonn, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- IMF. Fiscal Monitor: Tacking Inequality; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nikiforos, M.; Steinbaum, M.; Zezza, G. Modeling the Macroeconomic Effects of a Universal Basic Income; The Roosevelt Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Spermann, A. Basic Income in Germany: Proposals for Randomised Controlled Trials Using Nudges. Basic Income Stud. 2017, 12, 271–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daruich, D.; Fernández, R. Universal Basic Income: A Dynamic Assessment; WP NBER 27351; NBER: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Jaimovich, N.; Saporta-Eksten, I.; Siu, H.; Yedid-Levi, Y. The Macroeconomics of Automation: Data, Theory, and Policy Analysis; Centre for Economic Policy Research: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=14362 (accessed on 14 July 2020).
- Noguera, J.A. Percepciones de justicia y conducta laboral. In Renta Básica de Ciudadanía en Tiempo de Crisis; Moreno, G., Barragué, B., Eds.; Universidad del País Vasco: Bilbao, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- González, S.; Noguera, J.A.; de Wispeleare, J. The Provision of a Basic Income as a Collective Action Problem. In Proceedings of the II Jornada de Sociología Analítica y Diseño Institucional, Barcelona, Spain, 3–4 November 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Tena-Sánchez, J.; Noguera, J.A. Renta Básica e incentivos laborales: Una aproximación desde la teoría de juegos. Revista de Ciencias Políticas 2016, 36, 563–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scutella, R. Moves to a Basic Income-Flat Tax System in Australia: Implications for the Distribution of Income and Supply of Labour; Working Paper 5/04; Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research: Melbourne, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Burtless, G. The work response to a guaranteed income: A survey of experimental evidence. Fed. Reserve Bank Boston Conf. Ser. Proc. 1986, 30, 22–59. [Google Scholar]
- Novella, R.; Ripani, L.; Cruces, G.; Alzúa, M.L. Conditional Cash Transfers, Female Bargaining Power and Parental Labour Supply. IDB Working Paper 368. 2012. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/af7d/e490c3d6243ea65a2335909d0e42ce8dfc7a.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2020).
- Feinberg, R.; Kuhn, D. Guaranteed Non-Labor Income and Labor Supply: The Effect of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bibler, A.; Guettabi, M.; Reimer, M. Short-Term Labor Responses to Unconditional Cash Transfers; Working Paper; Institute of Social and Economic Research: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Costello, E.J.; Erkanli, A.; Copeland, W.; Angold, A. Association of Family Income Supplements in Adolescence with Development of Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders in Adulthood among an American Indian Population. JAMA J. Am. Med Assoc. 2010, 303, 1954–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marinescu, I. No Strings Attached: The Behavioral Effects of U.S. Unconditional Cash Transfer Programs; Roosevelt Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Egger, D.; Haushofer, J.; Miguel, E.; Niehaus, P.; Walker, M. General Equilibrium Effects of Cash Transfers: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. Unpublished Working Paper. 2019. Available online: https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ (accessed on 3 April 2020).
- Davala, S.; Jhabvala, R.; Standing, G.; Badgaiyan, N. Piloting Basic Income: A Legacy Study. Final Report; SEWA Bharat and INBI: New Delhi, India, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- SEWA Bharat. A Little More, How Much It Is … Piloting Basic Income Transfers in Madhya Pradesh, India; SEWA Bharat: New Delhi, India, 2014; Available online: http://sewabharat.org/resources/publicationsandreports/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Hoynes, H.W.; Rothstein, J. Universal Basic Income in the US and Advanced Countries. Annu. Rev. Econom. 2019, 11, 929–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothstein, J.; Von Wachter, T. Social Experiments in the Labor Market. In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments; Duflo, E., Banerjee, A.V., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 2, pp. 555–637. [Google Scholar]
- Creedy, J.; Dawkins, P. Comparing tax and transfer systems: How might incentive effects make a difference? Econ. Rec. 2002, 78, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommer, M. A Feasible Basic Income Scheme for Germany: Effects on Labor Supply, Poverty, and Income Inequality; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gilroy, B.M.; Heimann, A.; Schopf, M. Basic Income and Labour Supply: The German Case. Basic Income Stud. 2013, 8, 43–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horstschräer, J.; Clauss, M.; Schnabel, R. An Unconditional Basic Income in the Family Context: Labor Supply and Distributional Effects; Discussion Paper 10-091; ZEW Center for European Economic Research: Mannheim, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Colombo, G.; Schnabel, R.; Schubert, S. Basic Income Reform in Germany: A Microsimulation-AGE Analysis. Available online: https://www.aiel.it/page/old_paper/colombo.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2020).
- Colombino, U. Five Issues in the Design of Income Support Mechanisms: The Case of Italy; Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA): Bonn, Germany, 2011; Volume 6059. [Google Scholar]
- Colombino, U.; Narazari, E. Designing a Universal Basic Support Mechanism for Italy: An Exploratory Tour. Basic Income Stud. 2013, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Colombino, U. Five Crossroads on the Way to Basic Income. An Italian Tour. Ital. Econ. J. 2015, 1, 353–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martinelli, L. Exploring the Distributional and Work Incentive Effects of Plausible Illustrative Basic Income Schemes; IPR Working Paper; Institute for Policy Research: Bath, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Martinelli, L. The Fiscal and Distributional Implications of Alternative Universal Basic Income Schemes in the UK; IPR Report; Institute for Policy Research: Bath, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kalliomaa-Puha, L.; Tuovinen, A.K.; Kangas, O. The Basic Income Experiment in Finland. J. Soc. Secur. Law 2016, 23, 75–88. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, N.; Colombino, U. The case for NIT+FT in Europe. An Empirical Optimal Taxation Exercise. Econ. Model. 2018, 75, 38–69. [Google Scholar]
- Colombino, U.; Locatelli, M.; Narazani, E.; O’Donoghue, C. Alternative Basic Income Mechanisms: An Evaluation Exercise with a Microeconometric Model. Basic Income Stud. 2010, 5, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canova, L.; Piccoli, L.; Spadaro, A. An ex ante evaluation of the Revenu de Solidarité Active by micro–macro simulation techniques. IZA J. Eur. Labor Stud. 2015, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mideros, A.; O’Donoghue, C. The Effect of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Adult Labour Supply: A unitary discrete choice model for the case of Ecuador. Basic Income Stud. 2015, 10, 225–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jongen, E.; de Boer, H.W.; Dekker, P. MICSIM—A Behavioural Microsimulation Model for the Analysis of Tax-Benefit Reform in the Netherlands; CPB Background Document; CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–94. [Google Scholar]
- Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed.; Harper & Bros: New York, NY, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
- Pech, W.J. Behavioral Economics and The Basic Income Guarantee. Basic Income Stud. 2010, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagné, M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 331–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thomas, K. Intrinsic Motivation at Work: What Really Drives Employee Engagement, 2nd ed.; Barrett-Kohler Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- White, R. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychol. Rev. 1959, 66, 297–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pike, D.H. Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us; Riverhead Books: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kirk, J.; Wall, C. Work and Identity: Historical and Cultural Contexts; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Maestas, N. Back to work: Expectations and realizations of work after retirement. J. Hum. Resour. 2010, 45, 718–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simpson, W.; Stevens, H. The Impact of Converting Federal Non-Refundable Fax Credits into Refundable Credits; SPP Research Papers 8; The School of Public Policy: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Aceytuno, M.T.; de Paz-Báñez, M.A.; Sánchez-López, C. Assessing the impact of the implementation of Universal Basic Income on entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. Submitted for publication. Forthcoming.
- Yun, J.J.; Park, K.; Hahm, S.D.; Kim, D. Basic Income with High Open Innovation Dynamics: The Way to the Entrepreneurial State. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bidadanure, J.U. The Political Theory of Universal Basic Income. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2019, 22, 481–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graeber, D. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Standing, G. The Precariat. The New Dangerous Class; Bloomsbury: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Brynjolfsson, E.; McAfee, A. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies; W.W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Frey, C.B.; Osborne, M. Technological Change and New Work. Policy Network, 15 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Author, D.; Salmons, A. Does Productivity Growth Threaten Employment? In Proceedings of the Forum ECB, Sintra, Portugal, 19 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- We define systematic review protocol in this context as an explicit and planned scientific “roadmap” before its inception detailing the rational and planned methodological and analytical approach of the review. We have also followed BMJ 2015, 349, g7647. Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Protocols (accessed on 2 January 2015). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
de Paz-Báñez, M.A.; Asensio-Coto, M.J.; Sánchez-López, C.; Aceytuno, M.-T. Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) Affects Labour Supply? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229459
de Paz-Báñez MA, Asensio-Coto MJ, Sánchez-López C, Aceytuno M-T. Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) Affects Labour Supply? A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229459
Chicago/Turabian Stylede Paz-Báñez, Manuela A., María José Asensio-Coto, Celia Sánchez-López, and María-Teresa Aceytuno. 2020. "Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) Affects Labour Supply? A Systematic Review" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229459
APA Stylede Paz-Báñez, M. A., Asensio-Coto, M. J., Sánchez-López, C., & Aceytuno, M. -T. (2020). Is There Empirical Evidence on How the Implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) Affects Labour Supply? A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 12(22), 9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229459