Improving Wellbeing Is Good

At the Huffington Post Laura Paddison reports on the results of Finland’s experiment with a universal basic income (UBI):

Finland’s universal basic income test, which cost the government about $22.7 million, was designed and administered by the country’s social insurance agency, Kela. The experiment aimed to help the country assess how to respond to the changing nature of work and ― given its 8-percent unemployment rate at the time ― how to get people back into the labor market.

The trial ended in December. While final results won’t be available until 2020, preliminary results were revealed on Friday.

On employment, the country’s income register showed no significant effects for 2017, the first year of the trial.

The real benefits so far have come in terms of health and well being. The 2,000 participants were surveyed, along with a control group of 5,000. Compared with the control group, those taking part had “clearly fewer problems related to health, stress, mood and concentration,” said Minna Ylikännö, senior researcher at Kela. Results also showed people had more trust in their future and their ability to influence it.

“Constant stress and financial stress for the long term – it’s unbearable. And when we give money to people once a month they know what they are going to get,” said Ylikännö. “It was just €560 a month, but it gives you certainty, and certainty about the future is always a fundamental thing about well being.”

I would tentatively support a UBI experiment in the United States under certain conditions on the grounds that improving wellbeing is good. Among the conditions I would require are that it be closely modeled on the Finnish program. It should be a “carve out” program rather than a “pile on” meaning that it should replace other benefits rather than just adding to benefits. Individuals participating should be selected at random from the unemployed meaning that those unwilling to work would be excluded. Performance metrics should be defined in advance including measurements of the cost of administration and the program should be self-cancelling if it fails to achieve its pre-defined goals.

I also think that we should be prepared that the outcome of such a program would be quite different in the U. S. than in Finland. We also should take into account that the monthly stipend would need to be much higher here because of differences between our system and Finland’s. Finland is a tiny ethnically and culturally homogeneous country. The rate of alcohol abuse there is much higher than here but their rate of opiate abuse is enormously lower. I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar program here would end up being exponentially more expensive and result in an increased mortality rate among its beneficiaries.

But it might not. And that would be good to know.