The Finnish government randomly selected 2,000 unemployed citizens aged 25 to 58 to receive 560 euros per month unconditionally from January 2017 through December 2018. A control group of people on unemployment benefits who were not selected was used for comparison.

The final results, released by Finland''s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2020, showed that in the second year of the experiment, recipients worked an average of 6 more days than the control group. Recipients also reported significantly better mental health, greater trust in institutions, and more confidence about their financial futures. The experiment showed that giving people unconditional cash did not cause them to stop looking for work.

GiveDirectly launched a $30 million randomized controlled trial across roughly 300 Kenyan villages starting in 2018. About 20,000 individuals received monthly payments, with some villages getting lump sums and others receiving guaranteed monthly payments for 12 years.

Results published in 2023 showed that monthly UBI recipients did not work less. Instead, recipients invested in livestock and small businesses, increased their earnings, and improved food security. During the COVID-19 pandemic, transfer recipients experienced better food security and physical and mental health than those who did not receive transfers. Lump-sum recipients showed especially strong results, opening more businesses and earning more from them.

The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) ran from February 2019 to January 2021, providing $500 per month in unconditional cash to 125 randomly selected residents. Independent researchers at the University of Tennessee and University of Pennsylvania tracked outcomes.

In the first year, full-time employment among recipients jumped from 28% to 40%, a 12-percentage-point gain. The control group saw only a 5-percentage-point increase over the same period. Recipients also experienced less income volatility, reduced depression and anxiety, and improved overall wellbeing. The cash freed people to take time for job searches, interviews, and training rather than scrambling between unstable gig work.

Every year since 1982, every Alaska resident has received an unconditional cash dividend from the Alaska Permanent Fund, typically ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per person. Economists Damon Jones (University of Chicago) and Ioana Marinescu (University of Pennsylvania) used 35 years of data and a method comparing Alaska to similar states.

Their findings, published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy in 2022, showed that the dividend had no negative effect on total employment. Part-time work increased by 1.8 percentage points (about 17%). The researchers found this is consistent with the cash stimulating local economic demand, since when people spend their dividends, businesses need more workers. The Alaska dividend also reduced poverty among Alaskans by 20% to 40%.

From 1974 to 1979, the Canadian and Manitoba governments ran a guaranteed annual income experiment in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, where every resident was eligible. Economist Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba later analyzed the data.

She found that working hours dropped only 1% for men, 3% for married women (mostly taking longer maternity leaves), and 5% for unmarried women. The vast majority of recipients kept working. Hospital visits dropped by 8.5% compared to the control group, with the biggest decreases in accidents, injuries, and mental health-related visits. More teenagers stayed in school through grade 12. These health improvements suggest that a basic income could partly pay for itself through reduced healthcare costs.

In 2017, researchers at the Roosevelt Institute used a well-established macroeconomic model to simulate three versions of a universal basic income over eight years. The largest version, $1,000 per month to every adult, was projected to expand the U.S. economy by 12.56% over the baseline after eight years if deficit-financed.

Even when funded through higher taxes on wealthier households, the same program still grew GDP by 2.62% over eight years. A smaller $500-per-month program was projected to grow GDP by 6.5% if deficit-financed. The core finding is that putting cash in people''s hands boosts consumer spending, which drives business revenue and job creation, creating a positive economic cycle.

Between 2011 and 2014, UNICEF funded a basic income pilot coordinated by the Self-Employed Women''s Association (SEWA) in nine villages in Madhya Pradesh, India. About 6,000 residents received modest monthly payments, roughly $3 per adult and $1.50 per child, later increased 50% for inflation.

Despite the small amounts, the results were striking. Almost twice as many recipient households that previously lacked a latrine built one compared to control villages. Fresh vegetable consumption increased by 888%. Chronic household debt dropped dramatically. Recipients did not reduce their work; instead, many used the financial security to invest in tools, livestock, or small improvements to their homes and farms.

In December 2018, IMF economists Maura Francese and Delphine Prady published a working paper analyzing UBI through simulations across different types of countries. The paper found that the fiscal cost of UBI depends heavily on design choices: coverage, generosity, and how it interacts with existing social programs.

In many countries, a significant portion of social spending already goes to programs riddled with targeting errors, meaning money goes to people who do not need it or misses people who do. The paper showed that replacing these inefficient, overlapping programs with a simpler universal payment could improve coverage of the poorest citizens without necessarily increasing total spending.

In 2020, researcher Rebecca Hasdell at Stanford University''s Basic Income Lab published a cross-synthesis examining 16 prior reviews covering UBI-type programs from around the world. This "umbrella review" looked at the totality of existing evidence rather than any single experiment.

The overall finding was that UBI-type programs help reduce poverty and increase economic security through savings, investment, and productive activity, with minimal negative impacts on labor market participation. The review also found positive effects on educational attainment and health outcomes across multiple studies. The common fear that free money would cause mass laziness is consistently contradicted by the evidence.