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

Andrew D Pinto, Melissa Perri, Cheryl L Pedersen, Tatiana Aratangy, Ayu Pinky Hapsari, Stephen W Hwang, Andrew D Pinto, Melissa Perri, Cheryl L Pedersen, Tatiana Aratangy, Ayu Pinky Hapsari, Stephen W Hwang

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).

Keywords: Basic income; Equity.; Health; Income inequality; Methodology; Social determinants of health.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection Process of Articles
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of Studies Assessing Different BI Experiments a. a The total number of studies exceeded 86 because several studies included data from more than one BI experiment
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Number of Citations Evaluating Specific Domains from 1961-2020a. a This figure includes five studies that evaluated impact of BI on two domains and were counted twice as a result. The count in this figure also excludes one study that did not assess a specific domain of outcome

References

    1. Niessen LW, Mohan D, Akuoku JK, Mirelman AJ, Ahmed S, Peters DH, et al. Tackling socioeconomic inequalities and non-communicable diseases in low-income and middle-income countries under the Sustainable Development agenda. Lancet. 2018;391:2036–82 [cited 2020 Dec 30]. Available from: .
    1. Pickett KE, Wilkinson RG. Income inequality and health: A causal review. Vol. 128, Social Science and Medicine. Elsevier Ltd. 2015. pp. 316–326.
    1. Lin KH, Tomaskovic-Devey D. Financialization and U.S. income inequality. Am J Sociol. 2013;118(5):1284–1329. doi: 10.1086/669499.
    1. Fletcher DR. Welfare reform, Jobcentre plus and the street-level bureaucracy: towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups? Soc Policy Soc. 2011;10(4):445–458. doi: 10.1017/S1474746411000200.
    1. Albeda W. The dream of a humane capitalism. Maandschr Econ. 1999;63(6):406–26.
    1. Pelton LH. Welfare Discrimination and Child Welfare. Ohio State Law J. 1999;60 [cited 2020 Jun 9]. Available from: .
    1. Ruckert A, Huynh C, Labonté R. Reducing health inequities: is universal basic income the way forward? J Public Health (Bangkok) 2018;40(1):3–7. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdx006.
    1. Painter A. A universal basic income: the answer to poverty, insecurity, and health inequality? BMJ. 2016;355(December):1–2.
    1. Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Basic income pilot: public survey. 2016 [cited 2017 Jan 4]. Available from:
    1. Forget EL. The Town with No Poverty: the health effects of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment. Can Public Policy. 2011;37(3):283–305.
    1. Forget EL, Marando D, Surman T, Urban MC. Pilot lessons: how to design a basic income pilot project for Ontario. 2016.
    1. Standing G. From cash transfers to basic income: an unfolding Indian agenda. Indian J Labour Econ. 2014;57(1):111–138.
    1. Navarro V. What we mean by social determinants of health. Glob Health Promot. 2009;16(1):5–16. doi: 10.1177/1757975908100746.
    1. Muntaner C, Salazar RMG, Rueda S, Armada F. Challenging the neoliberal trend. Can J Public Heal. 2006;97(6):I19–I24. doi: 10.1007/BF03405240.
    1. Harvey D. A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.
    1. Dermont C, Weisstanner D. Automation and the future of the welfare state: basic income as a response to technological change? Polit Res Exch. 2020;2(1):1757387. doi: 10.1080/2474736X.2020.1757387.
    1. Celentano D. Automation, Labour Justice, and Equality. Ethics Soc Welf. 2019;13(1):33–50. doi: 10.1080/17496535.2018.1512141.
    1. Shah M, Sachdeva M, Dodiuk-Gad RP. COVID-19 and racial disparities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(1):e35. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.046.
    1. Dyer O. Covid-19: Africa records over 10 000 cases as lockdowns take hold. BMJ. 2020;369(March):m1439. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1439.
    1. Usher K, Bhullar N, Jackson D. Life in the pandemic: social isolation and mental health. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(15–16):2756–2757. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15290.
    1. Slater A. The economic cost of coronavirus lockdowns Economist [Internet]. [cited 2020 Dec 31]. Available from:
    1. Gounder R. Economic vulnerabilities and livelihoods: impact of COVID-19 in Fiji and Vanuatu. Oceania. 2020;90(Suppl. 1): 107–13.
    1. Employment and Social Development of Canada. Government of Canada announces plan to help support Canadians through the next phase of the recovery - [Internet]. [cited 2020 Dec 31]. Available from:
    1. Treasury T. COVID-19 economic response measures [Internet]. [cited 2020 Dec 31]. Available from:
    1. Johnson AF, Roberto KJ. The COVID-19 pandemic: time for a universal basic income? 2020.
    1. Ståhl C, MacEachen E. Universal Basic income as a policy response to COVID-19 and precarious employment: potential impacts on rehabilitation and return-to-work. J Occup Rehab. Springer. 2020:1–4 [cited 2020 Dec 31]. 10.1007/s10926-020-09923-w.
    1. Gibson M, Hearty W, Craig P. Potential effects of universal basic income: a scoping review of evidence on impacts and study characteristics. Lancet. 2018;392:S36.
    1. Aboudi R, Thon D, Zheng M. Designing a basic income system with a social welfare function. J Public Econ Theory. 2014;16(4):546–568. doi: 10.1111/jpet.12074.
    1. Fitzpatrick T, Rosella LC, Calzavara A, Petch J, Pinto AD, Manson H, Goel V, Wodchis WP. Looking beyond income and education: socioeconomic status gradients among future high-cost users of health care. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(2):161–171. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.018.
    1. Rosella LC, Fitzpatrick T, Wodchis WP, Calzavara A, Manson H, Goel V. High-cost health care users in Ontario, Canada: Demographic, socioeconomic, and health status characteristics. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):532. Available from: .
    1. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation. Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. 10.1186/s12939-021-01479-2.
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Trends in Income-Related Health Inequalities in Canada. 2015;1692(November):1998–2011.
    1. Green D, Kesselman JR, Tedds L. Consideration for basic income as a Covid-19 response. Sch Public Policy Publ. 2020;13(11):1–15. doi: 10.11575/sppp.v13i0.70353.
    1. Mourão L, de Jesus AM. Bolsa família (Family Grant) programme: An analysis of Brazilian income transfer programme. F Actions Sci Rep. 2012;4(Special Issue 4):43–49.
    1. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Critical Appraisal Tools. [cited 2021 Apr 2]. Available from:
    1. Haushofer J, Shapiro J. Household Response to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Cash Transfer Program in Kenya. 2013.
    1. Nicholson W, Wright SR. Participants’ understanding of the treatment in policy experimentation. Eval Q. 1977;1(2):245–268. doi: 10.1177/0193841X7700100202.
    1. Robins PK. A Guaranteed annual income: evidence from a social experiment. New York: Academic Press; 1980. [cited 2020 Jun 10]. Available from:
    1. Wright S. Work response to income maintenance: economic, sociological, and cultural perspectives. Soc Forces. 1975;53(4):562. doi: 10.2307/2576471.
    1. Haarmann C, Haarmann D, Jauch H, Shindondola-Mote H, Nattrass N, Samson M, et al. “Towards a basic income grant for all”: Basic income grant pilot project assessment report. Windhoek: Basic Income Grant Coalition; 2008.
    1. Haarmann C, Haarmann D, Jauch H, Shindondola-Mote H, Nattrass N, van Niekerk I, et al. Making the difference! The BIG in Namibia Basic Income Grant Pilot Project. 2009.
    1. Jones D, Marinescu I. The labour market impacts of universal and permanent cash transfers: evidence from the Alaksa permanent fund [Internet]. Working Paper 24312, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. Cambridge; 2018. Available from: . Accessed 16 June 2020.
    1. Moffitt RA. The negative income tax and the evolution of U.S. welfare policy. J Econ Perspective. 2003;17(3):119-40.
    1. Connor J, Rodgers A, Priest P. Randomised studies of income supplementation: a lost opportunity to assess health outcomes. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1999;53(11):725–730. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.11.725.
    1. Beck S, Pulkki-Brannstrom AM, San SM. Basic income - healthy outcome? Effects on health of an Indian basic income pilot project: a cluster randomised trial. J Dev Eff. 2015;7(1):111–126. doi: 10.1080/19439342.2014.974200.
    1. Skidmore F. Availability of data from the graduated work incentive experiment. J Hum Resour. 1974;9(2):265–278. doi: 10.2307/144976.
    1. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Rural Income Maintenance Experiment [Internet]. Vol. 3, Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1978.
    1. Bawden DL. Income maintenance and the rural poor: an experimental approach. Am J Agric Econ. 1970;52(3):438–441. doi: 10.2307/1237396.
    1. Kaluzny RL. Changes in the consumption of housing services: the Gary experiment. J Hum Resour. 1979;14(4):496. doi: 10.2307/145320.
    1. Salkind NJ, Haskins R. Negative income tax: the impact on children from low-income families. J Fam Issues. 1982;3(2):165–180. doi: 10.1177/019251382003002003.
    1. Widerquist K. A failure to communicate: what (if anything) can we learn from the negative income tax experiments? J Socio Econ. 2005;34(1):49–81. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.050.
    1. Spiegelman RG, Yaeger KE. The Seattle and Denver income maintenance experiments: overview. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):463. doi: 10.2307/145397.
    1. SEWA BHARAT . A little more, how much it is … piloting basic income transfers in Madhya Pradesh, India. New Delhi. 2014.
    1. Kangas O, Jauhiainen S, Simanainen M, Ylikännö M. The Basic Income Experiment 2017–2018 in Finland: Preliminary Results. 2019.
    1. Calnitsky D. “More Normal than welfare”: the Mincome experiment, Stigma, and Community Experience. Canadian Sociological Association. 2016;53(1):26–71.
    1. Greenberg D, Halsey H. Systematic misreporting and effects of income maintenance experiments on work effort: evidence from the Seattle-Denver experiment. J Labor Econ. 1983;1(4):380–407. doi: 10.1086/298019.
    1. Metcalf BCE. Making Inferences from Controlled Income Maintenance Experiments. Am Econ Rev. 1973;63(3):478–83.
    1. Keeley MC. Migration as consumption: the impact of alternative negative income tax program. Res Popul Econ. 1980;2:401–32.
    1. Keeley MC. The effect of a negative income tax on migration. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):695–706. doi: 10.2307/145408.
    1. Heffernan J. Impact of a negative income tax on awareness of social services. Soc Work Res Abstr. 1977;13(2):17–23. doi: 10.1093/swra/13.2.17.
    1. Johnson WR. The effect of a negative income tax on risk-taking in the labor market. Econ Inq. 1980;18(3):395.
    1. Neuberg LG. Distorted transmission: a case study in the diffusion of social “scientific” research. Theory Soc. 1988;17(Jul 88):487–525.
    1. Kehrer BH, Wolin CM. Impact of income maintenance on low birth weight: evidence from the Gary experiment. J Hum Resour. 1979;14(4):434–462. doi: 10.2307/145316.
    1. Forget EL. New questions, new data, old interventions: the health effects of a guaranteed annual income. Prev Med (Baltim). 2013;57(6):925–8. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.05.029.
    1. Greenberg D, Moffitt R, Friedmann J. Underreporting and experimental effects on work effort: evidence from the Gary income maintenance experiment. Rev Econ Stat. 1981;63(4):581. doi: 10.2307/1935854.
    1. Maynard RA. The Effects of the Rural Income Maintenance Experiment on the School Performance of Children. Am Econ Rev. 1977;67:370–375.
    1. Murray MC, Pateman C. Basic income worldwide: horizons of reform [Internet]. International political economy series. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. p. 83–96.
    1. Burtless G, Greenberg D. Inappropriate comparisons as a basis for policy: two recent examples from the social experiments. J Public Policy. 1981;1(3):381–399. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X00001677.
    1. Bishop JH. Jobs, cash transfers and marital instability: a review and synthesis of the evidence. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(3):301–334. doi: 10.2307/145286.
    1. Groeneveld LP, Tuma NB, Hannan MT. The effects of negative income tax programs on marital dissolution. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):654–675. doi: 10.2307/145406.
    1. Moffitt RA. The negative income tax: would it discourage work? Mon Labor Rev. 1981;104:23–27.
    1. Cain GG, Wissoker DA. A Reanalyis of marital stability in the Seattle-Denver income-maintenance experiment. Am J Sociol. 1990;95(5):1235–1269. doi: 10.1086/229428.
    1. Baumol WJ. An overview of the results on consumption, health, and social behaviour. J Hum Resour. 1974;9(2):253–264.
    1. Ashenfelter O, Plant MW. Nonparametric estimates of the labor-supply effects of negative income tax programs. J Labor Econ. 1990;8(1):S396-S415.
    1. Moffitt RA, Kehrer KC. The effect of tax and transfer programs on labor supply: the evidence from the income maintenance experiments. Res Labor Econ. 2012;35:59–106. doi: 10.1108/S0147-9121(2012)0000035030.
    1. Davala S, Jhabvala R, Mehta SK, Standing G. Basic income: a transformative policy in India. London: Bloomsbury; 2015.
    1. Rossi PH, Rosenbaum SW. First negative income tax experiment: a giant forward step. Free Inq Creat Sociol. 1983;11(2):121–128.
    1. Osterkamp R. The Basic income Grant pilot project in Namibia: a critical assessment. Basic Income Stud. 2013;8(1):71–91.
    1. Widerquist K. A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Researchers, Policymakers, and Citizens. 1st ed. A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Researchers, Policymakers, and Citizens. Palgrave Pivot. 2018.
    1. Calnitsky D. Basic Income and the Pitfalls of Randomization. Contexts. 2019;18(1):22–29. doi: 10.1177/1536504219830673.
    1. Gibson M, Hearty W, Craig P. Potential effects of universal basic income: a scoping review of evidence on impacts and study characteristics. Lancet. 2018;392:S36. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32083-X.
    1. Moffitt RA. The negative income tax: would it discourage work? Mon Labour Rev. 1981;104(4):23–7.
    1. Spiegelman RG, Yaeger K. Overview: the Seattle and Denver income maintenance experiments. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):463–479. doi: 10.2307/145397.
    1. Kershaw DN, Fair J. The New Jersey income-maintenance experiment. Watts H, Rees a, editors. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press; 1976.
    1. Dickinson K, Watts HW. The experimental panel data resources at the poverty institute data center. Am Econ Rev. 1975;65(2):263–269.
    1. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: It’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(SUPPL. 2):19–31. doi: 10.1177/00333549141291S206.
    1. Brodkin EZ, Kaufman A. Policy experiments and poverty politics. Soc Serv Rev. 2000;74(4):507–532. doi: 10.1086/516423.
    1. Burtless G. The work response to a guaranteed income: a survey of experimental evidence. Conf Ser, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. 1986;30:22–59.
    1. Burtless BG, Greenberg D. Inferences concerning labor supply behavior based on limited-duration experiments. Am Econ Rev. 1982;72(3):488–497.
    1. Burtless G, Hausman JA. The Effect of Taxation on Labor Supply: Evaluating the Gary Negative Income Tax Experiment. J Polit Econ. 1978;86(6):1103–30.
    1. Byrne DM. Some preliminary results of income-maintenance experiments. Nebraska J Econ Bus. 1973;12(4):23.
    1. Cain GG., Nicholson W, Mallar CD., Wooldridge J. The labour-supply response of married women, husband present. J Hum Resour. 1974;9(2):201–222.
    1. Arvin BM, Choudhry S. Negative income taxes and household transition dynamics: evidence from the Canadian Mincome experiment. Int J Appl Econ. 2001;9(3):255–84.
    1. Choudhry SA, Hum DPJ. Graduated work incentives and how they affect marital stability: the Canadian evidence. Appl Econ Lett. 1995;2(10):367–71. 10.1080/758518991.
    1. Curry WF. The use of field tests in the making of public policy: comparative case studies. West Virginia University. 1981.
    1. Elesh D, Lefcowitz MJ. The effects of the New Jersey Pennsylvania negative income tax experiment on health and health care utilization. J Health Soc Behav. 1977;18(4):391–405. doi: 10.2307/2955347.
    1. Forget EL. Abolishing poverty: the history and significance of the north American guaranteed annual income social experiments. Stor Del Pensiero Econ. 2010;1:5–31.
    1. Forget EL, Peden AD, Strobel SB. Cash transfers, basic income and community building. Soc Incl. 2013;1(2):84–91. doi: 10.17645/si.v1i2.113.
    1. Hollister RG. The Labor-Supply Response of the Family. J Hum Resour. 1974;9(2):223. doi: 10.2307/144974.
    1. Hum DP, Hum D, Choudhry S. Income, work and marital dissolution: Canadian experimental Evidence. J Comp Fam Stud. 1992;23(2):249–65. 10.3138/jcfs.23.2.249.
    1. Hum D, Simpson W. Income maintenance, work effort, and the Canadian Mincome experiment. Economic Council of Canada. 1991.
    1. Hum D, Simpson W. Economic response to a guaranteed annual income: Experience from Canada and the United States. J Labor Econ. 1993;11(1):S263-296.
    1. Huston AC. Effects of poverty on children. In: Balter L, Tamis-LeMonda CS, editors. Child psychology: a handbook of contemporary issues [internet] New York: Psychology Press; 1999. pp. 391–411.
    1. Kangas O, Jauhiainen S, Simanainen M, Ylikännö M. The basic income experiment 2017–2018 in Finland: Preliminary results. [Internet]. Reports and memorandums of the ministry of social affairs and health. 2019. Available from: . ISBN:978–952–00-4035-2
    1. Keeley BMC, Robins PK, Spiegelman RG, West RW. The estimation of labor supply models using experimental data. Am Econ Rev. 1978;68(5):873–887.
    1. Keeley MC, Robins PK, Spiegelman RG, West RW. The labor-supply effects and costs of alternative negative income tax programs. J Hum Resour. 1978;13(1):3–36. doi: 10.2307/145299.
    1. Keeley M, Robins P. Work Incentives and the Negative Income Tax. Challenge. 1979;22(1):52–5 [cited 2020 Jun 10].
    1. Keeley MC. The effects of negative income tax programs on fertility. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):675–694. doi: 10.2307/145407.
    1. Keeley MC. The effects of experimental negative income tax programs on marital dissolution : evidence from the Seattle and Denver income maintenance experiments. Int Econ Rev (Philadelphia) 1987;28(1):241–257. doi: 10.2307/2526870.
    1. Kerachsky SH. Labor supply decisions of farm families. Am J Agric Econ. 1977;59(5):869–876. doi: 10.2307/1239851.
    1. Kershaw DN. A negative-income-tax experiment. Sci Am. 1972;227(4):19–25. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1072-19.
    1. Levine RA, Watts H, Hollister R, Williams W, O’Connor A, Widerquist K. The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. 2005. A Retrospective on the Negative Income Tax Experiments: Looking Back at the Most Innovative Field Studies in Social Policy; pp. 95–106.
    1. Maynard RA, Murnane RJ. The effects of the rural income maintenance experiment on the school performance of children. J Hum Resour. 1979;14(4):463–476. doi: 10.2307/145317.
    1. McDonald JF, Stephenson SP Jr. The effect of income maintenance on the school-enrollment and labor-supply decisions of teenagers. J Hum Resour. 1979;14(4):488.
    1. Moffitt RA. The labor supply response in the Gary Experiment. J Hum Resour. 1979;14(4):477.
    1. Munnell AH, Burtless G, Cain G. Lessons from the income maintenance experiments. In: Munnell AH, editor. Economic Research Conference Series 30 [Internet]. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and The Brookings Institute; 1987. p. 1–94.
    1. O’Connor JF, Madden JP. The negative income tax and the quality of dietary intake. J Hum Resour J Hum Resour. 1979;14(4):507–517. doi: 10.2307/145321.
    1. Robins PK. A comparison of the labor supply findings from the four negative income tax experiments. J Hum Resour. 1985;20(4):567–582. doi: 10.2307/145685.
    1. Robins PK, Tuma NB, Yaeger KE. The Seattle and Denver income maintenance experiments. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):545–573. doi: 10.2307/145401.
    1. Robins PK, West RW. Sample attrition and labor supply response in experimental panel data: a study of alternative correction procedures. J Bus Econ Stat. 1986;4(3):329–338.
    1. Ross HL. An experimental study of the negative income tax. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1970. Available from: .
    1. Standing G. Why Basic Income’s emancipatory value exceeds its monetary value. Basic Income Stud. 2015;10(2):193–223. doi: 10.1515/bis-2015-0021.
    1. Stephens M. Are there treatment duration differences in the Seattle and Denver income maintenance experiments? B E J Econom Anal Policy. 2007;7(1):1–41.
    1. Watts H. Graduated works incentives: an experiment in negative taxation. Am Econ Rev. 1969;59(2):463–472.
    1. Weiss Y, Hall A, Dong F. The Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Experiments: The Effect of Price and Income on Investment in Schooling. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):611.
    1. West RW. Effects on wage rates: an interim analysis. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):641. doi: 10.2307/145405.
    1. West RW. The effects on the labor supply of young nonheads. J Hum Resour. 1980;15(4):574. doi: 10.2307/145402.
    1. Widerquist K. What (if anything) can we learn from the Negative Income Tax experiments? In: Widerquist K, Noguera JA, Vanderborght Y, de Wispelaere J d, editors. Basic income: an anthology of contemporary research. Chichester: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company; 2013. p. 216–29.
    1. Wright SR, Wright JD. Income maintenance and work behavior. Soc Policy. 1975;6(2):24–32.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit