The Namibian Basic Income Grant Pilot

Haarmann, Claudia; Haarmann, Dirk; Nattrass, Nicoli

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23614-4_18

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main purposes of the pilot were to reduce poverty and improve social behaviours and the local economy. The intervention has been reported as having a large positive effect on the main outcomes as well as health outcomes [ 40 , 41 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Pinto

Perri

Pedersen³

et al. 2021

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four articles were simultaneously evaluated using checklists for RCTs and economic evaluations, given their adoption of both designs [ 36 – 39 ]. Checklist for case series was used to critically appraise 2 articles [ 40 , 41 ], and another article was assessed using the checklist for quasi-experimental studies [ 42 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pinto

Perri

Pedersen³

et al. 2021

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Theoretically, there may exist varieties of UBI within the five core parameters (individual benefits, paid to all, paid regularly, no means-test, no behavioural conditions), for example, with regard to payment level and funding mechanism, but the advocates of UBI also tend not to budge on any dimension. The orthodox definition may have validity for practical implementation in developing countries with no existing social security networks, for example, in India and Namibia (Davala 2019;Haarman et al 2019). That is not the case in any rich country struggling with caseloads of social assistance claimants.…”

Section: Basic Income As a Silver Bulletmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation Income

Hiilamo¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…What does capture public interest is pilot projects, particularly those close to home. While pilots in Namibia, India and Kenya have shown the advantages of Basic Income, including increases in economic activity, educational achievement, health indicators, and women's empowerment, it is the Finland experiment that has sparked interest in the UK [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][76][77][78][79].…”

Section: Pilot Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Research in the Basic Income Debate in the UK

Torry

2020

LSE Public Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Namibian Basic Income Grant Pilot

Cited by 17 publications

References 4 publications

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

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

Participation Income

The Role of Research in the Basic Income Debate in the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About