Universal basic income is one of those ideas that sounds either obvious or dangerous depending on who you ask. The debate is usually more political than empirical. Over the past decade, however, a series of real-world pilots have given us actual evidence to work with, rather than models and projections.
This article looks at what the main pilots found, what they agreed on, and what they still cannot answer. If you want a broader introduction to the concept, start at mewebe.com/what-is-ubi.
What a pilot actually is
A UBI pilot is not the same as a national UBI scheme. A pilot gives a fixed number of people unconditional cash payments for a defined period, usually one to three years, and measures what changes.
This matters for interpreting results. Pilots cannot tell you what happens to labour markets or prices when everyone receives the payment simultaneously. They also tend to attract motivated participants, and people behave differently when they know the payments will stop. These are real limitations, and it is worth being clear about them upfront before looking at what the pilots actually measured.
Finland (2017 to 2018)
Finland's experiment is the most-cited UBI pilot in the world, partly because it was run by a government rather than a charity or a research foundation.
Two thousand unemployed adults aged 25 to 58 were randomly selected and given €560 per month unconditionally for two years. This replaced their previous unemployment benefit rather than adding to it. A control group of 173,000 people received standard unemployment support for comparison.
The results, published by KELA, Finland's Social Insurance Institution, showed meaningful improvements in wellbeing and mental health among recipients. Anxiety dropped. Confidence increased. Employment outcomes were modestly positive: recipients worked an average of 78 days during the second year, six more than the control group.
The headline finding was the opposite of what critics expected: unconditional income did not cause recipients to stop looking for work.
Stockton, California (2019 to 2021)
The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, known as SEED, ran from February 2019 to January 2021 in a mid-sized Californian city that had filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and still carried high unemployment and poverty rates when the pilot launched.
One hundred and twenty-five residents from census tracts at or below the city's median income were randomly selected and given $500 per month with no conditions attached. A comparison group of 200 residents was tracked alongside them.
Full-time employment rose from 28% to 40% among recipients over the first year of the pilot (February 2019 to February 2020), a 12 percentage-point gain; the comparison group rose by 5 points over the same period. Mental health outcomes improved markedly, with statistically significant reductions in anxiety and depression and measurable gains in emotional wellbeing, energy levels, and fatigue compared with the comparison group. Income volatility, the month-to-month fluctuation that makes it hard to plan or save, dropped substantially.
The Stockton data also challenged the assumption that unconditional cash would be spent on alcohol or other non-essentials. Spending records showed the largest categories were food, utilities, and goods for the household.
Kenya: GiveDirectly's long-run study
GiveDirectly's ongoing study in rural Kenya is the largest and longest-running UBI experiment to date, and it operates at a scale that makes the European and American pilots look modest.
The study covers thousands of households across Siaya County, with some recipients receiving payments over a twelve-year period. The research is longitudinal, meaning it tracks changes over time rather than just measuring outcomes at a single endpoint.
Early and mid-study findings from the evaluation, which covers 14,474 households across 295 villages (including a control group), have shown sustained improvements in asset ownership, business activity, and household consumption. Notably, GiveDirectly's wider research in the same region has found that positive effects appear to extend to households in the same villages who are not receiving payments directly, suggesting real spillover benefits in local economies. This is the general equilibrium effect that smaller pilots cannot capture.
The UK: Wales and Scotland
Closer to home, the picture is more limited.
Wales launched a pilot in 2022, but it was targeted specifically at care leavers turning 18 rather than a general population. More than 500 young people received a guaranteed income as they transitioned to independent living. The evidence from this group is useful but it does not reflect what a broader UBI scheme would look like.
Scotland commissioned a detailed feasibility study, led by four local councils and published in 2020. The conclusion was that a Scottish pilot was workable in principle but required UK Government cooperation, since the relevant benefits and tax powers are reserved to Westminster, as well as sustained funding and political commitment to proceed. As of the time of writing, no Scotland-wide pilot has launched.
What the pilots agree on
Across Finland, Stockton, and Kenya, three findings appear consistently enough to be taken seriously.
Unconditional income improves mental health and wellbeing. This is the most replicated result. Financial security, the knowledge that a floor exists, reduces anxiety even when the amount is modest.
It does not cause people to stop working. Employment outcomes in the pilots ranged from neutral to modestly positive. The fear that unconditional income kills the work incentive is not supported by the evidence from these studies.
People use the money responsibly. Spending data from Stockton and spending and asset data from Kenya consistently show spending on food, household goods, and productive activities rather than harmful consumption.
What pilots cannot answer
The evidence base has real gaps.
Pilots are time-limited. People make different decisions when they know payments will end in two years than they would under a permanent scheme. Employment effects might look different if the payments were guaranteed indefinitely.
Pilots affect a small population. When everyone in a city or country receives the payment simultaneously, labour market dynamics change. Wages might adjust. Prices might shift. No pilot can capture these macro-level effects because no pilot is large enough.
And pilots are always funded somehow, whether by government, philanthropy, or research budgets. The funding question, how a national UBI would be paid for sustainably, is entirely separate from whether the payments themselves produce good outcomes.
What MeWeBe is testing
MeWeBe is not a government programme and is not trying to replace state-funded UBI. The long-term aim is a private-sector route to sharing in startup success that sits alongside, rather than replaces, existing systems. That is a goal, not a promise.
The two approaches are compatible rather than competing. If pilots show that guaranteed income improves wellbeing, that evidence supports the case for more than one route to financial security, not just state-funded ones.
You can read more about how MeWeBe's community model works at mewebe.com/roadmap, or sign up to follow along as new startups launch on the platform.
FAQ
Is UBI the same as a basic income guarantee or minimum income?
Not quite. Universal basic income is paid to everyone regardless of income or employment status. A minimum income guarantee or basic income guarantee is means-tested, phasing out as income rises. Pilots use different designs; it is worth checking which model each study is actually testing.
Did any pilot show UBI making employment worse?
None of the pilots covered in this article showed a significant employment decrease. Finland, Stockton and Kenya all found neutral to modestly positive employment outcomes. Results across the wider body of research are more mixed; the evidence from these studies does not support the concern that unconditional income removes the incentive to work.
Are the UK pilots comparable to Finland or Stockton?
The Welsh care-leavers pilot is smaller in scope and targets a specific population, so comparisons are limited. The Scottish feasibility study was not a pilot at all, just a planning exercise. The Finland and Stockton studies are methodologically stronger for drawing general conclusions.
Does MeWeBe pay members a basic income?
Not in the UBI sense. The aim is for community members to receive distributions from a pool funded by a share of future profits pledged by the startups on the platform. MWB Coins have no cash value today; distributions are a goal, not a promise. This is a different structure from a guaranteed unconditional payment.