Exploring different methods to evaluate the impact of basic income interventions: a systematic review

Abstract

Background Persistent income inequality, the increase in precarious employment, the inadequacy of many welfare systems, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have increased interest in Basic Income (BI) interventions. Ensuring that social interventions, such as BI, are evaluated appropriately is key to ensuring their overall effectiveness. This systematic review therefore aims to report on available methods and domains of assessment, which have been used to evaluate BI interventions. These findings will assist in informing future program and research development and implementation. Methods Studies were identified through systematic searches of the indexed and grey literature (Databases included: Scopus, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest databases, EBSCOhost Research Databases, and PsycINFO), hand-searching reference lists of included studies, and recommendations from experts. Citations were independently reviewed by two study team members. We included studies that reported on methods used to evaluate the impact of BI, incorporated primary data from an observational or experimental study, or were a protocol for a future BI study. We extracted information on the BI intervention, context and evaluation method. Results 86 eligible articles reported on 10 distinct BI interventions from the last six decades. Workforce participation was the most common outcome of interest among BI evaluations in the 1960–1980 era. During the 2000s, studies of BI expanded to include outcomes related to health, educational attainment, housing and other key facets of life impacted by individuals’ income. Many BI interventions were tested in randomized controlled trials with data collected through surveys at multiple time points. Conclusions Over the last two decades, the assessment of the impact of BI interventions has evolved to include a wide array of outcomes. This shift in evaluation outcomes reflects the current hypothesis that investing in BI can result in lower spending on health and social care. Methods of evaluation ranged but emphasized the use of randomization, surveys, and existing data sources (i.e., administrative data). Our findings can inform future BI intervention studies and interventions by providing an overview of how previous BI interventions have been evaluated and commenting on the effectiveness of these methods. Registration This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42016051218).

PROTOCOL: Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty‐related outcomes in high‐income countries: A systematic review

“…This review will focus on studies that investigate GBI programs and initiatives implemented in developed high‐income countries. The search strategy proposed for this review builds on those used in previous reviews on GBI (Gibson, 2020; Pinto, 2021). Searches using both keywords and database‐specific controlled vocabulary will be conducted in relevant databases, and complementary searches will be done to identify additional studies as well as pertinent gray literature.…”

“…Effects on poverty were assessed using two measures which are based on income alone: the poverty headcount and the squared poverty gap. Gibson et al (Gibson, 2020) conducted a scoping review of interventions similar to basic income in upper‐middle‐income and high‐income countries, which examined health outcomes. One qualitative study was included that reported increased food security. Günther (Günther, 2020) reviewed 60 articles as part of a Master's thesis on basic income schemes and experiments globally to evaluate income and employment elasticities. Gupta et al (Gupta, 2021) conducted a review of basic income experiments globally and examined the effect of mitigating income poverty on mental health. Pinto et al (Pinto, 2021) conducted a systematic review that identified 86 articles on 10 basic income interventions implemented globally to examine the various methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. Yang et al (Yang, 2021) reviewed 152 pieces of literature on basic income theories and empirical cases (15 studies globally) to analyze the relationship between conceptual definitions of basic income and how interventions have been implemented.…”

“…Pinto et al (Pinto, 2021) conducted a systematic review that identified 86 articles on 10 basic income interventions implemented globally to examine the various methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions.…”

Health inequity in pandemic anxiety about COVID-19 infection and socioeconomic consequences in Japan: A structural equation modeling approach

“…The potential of the effect of these emergency financial schemes, targeting both individuals and enterprises, on quality of life, mental health, and suicide prevention was also discussed in Japanese studies, as a possible important mitigating factor ( Ikeda et al, 2021 ; Tanaka & Okamoto, 2021 ). In consideration of mid- and long-term socioeconomic consequences of the pandemic, such financial and social support schemes beyond short-term emergency schemes should be strengthened widely, as these measures are recommended and shown to be effective ( Hensher, 2020 ; Pinto et al, 2021 ; Tsai et al, 2021 ).…”

Short-term impacts of Universal Basic Income on population mental health inequalities in the UK: A microsimulation modelling study

“…While historically much evaluative research on UBI has tended to focus on its potential impacts on workforce participation, over the last 2 decades there has been a shift to include a broader range of outcomes, including health [ 22 ]. Two recent reviews of interventions similar to UBI suggest they may be beneficial for mental health and well-being [ 23 , 24 ].…”