PUB - Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld

Organizations in various countries have launched large-scale randomized field experiments to evaluate the empirical effects of basic income. Surprisingly, scholars have paid only scarce attention to the way basic income experiments are actually run. To address this shortcoming, I present three case studies of basic income experiments in the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. I ask: Why do experiments' designs only remotely resemble the 'paradigmatic' model of basic income they are in fact interested in - universal, unconditional, individual payments, no means tests, and no work requirements? Interviewed researchers identify three types of constraints that prevent basic income experiments from successfully testing basic income - politics, money, and the law - which I explain through the mechanism of 'boundary work' between science and politics. I conclude by cautioning against overstated expectations about the policy impact of both current and future basic income experiments.