A Basic Income for Every Adult

[Tom52]

Some places they are trying UBI. Here is the results so far in Kenya.

The GiveDirectly program in Kenya is the world’s largest and longest-running study of Universal Basic Income. Launched in 2017 and scheduled to run until 2028, it provides a unique "laboratory" for understanding how unconditional cash changes lives over a decade.

As of early 2026, several key findings have emerged regarding its impact on employment, poverty, and the local economy.

1. Impact on Work: "The Idleness Myth"​

One of the most significant findings is the debunking of the "laziness" concern.

• No Decrease in Labor: Researchers found no evidence that recipients stopped working or became "idle."
• Shifting Work Types: Instead of working less, people changed how they worked. There was a notable shift from low-wage, manual labor (like agricultural "ganyu" work) toward self-employment and entrepreneurship.
• Entrepreneurship Boom: In villages receiving long-term payments, the number of small businesses increased by roughly 34%. Business revenues saw even more dramatic jumps, with some reports showing a nearly 100% increase in net revenue for recipient-owned enterprises.

2. Poverty and Financial Resilience​

The program acts as both a "floor" (safety net) and a "ladder" (investment capital).

• Food Security: Long-term recipients saw a 10% increase in food consumption and improved nutrition, specifically in protein intake.
• Psychological Well-being: There was a 17% decrease in depression rates. The "mental bandwidth" freed up by not worrying about survival allowed parents to focus more on their children’s education and long-term planning.
• Asset Growth: Households invested heavily in "hard assets" like metal roofs (replacing thatch), livestock, and bicycles, which are used as motorbike taxis (bodaboda).

3. The "Multiplier Effect" on the Economy​

The study measured not just the recipients, but the entire local ecosystem.

• The 2.5x Multiplier: For every $1 given to a poor household, the local economy grew by roughly $2.50. This happened because recipients spent their money at local shops, who then hired more staff or bought more stock, creating a "flywheel" of economic activity.
• Inflation: Despite a massive influx of cash (sometimes exceeding 15% of local GDP), local inflation remained remarkably low—averaging only 0.1%. Local supply chains were able to expand quickly enough to meet the new demand.

4. Lump Sum vs. Monthly Payments​

The Kenya study is unique because it compares different delivery methods:

• Lump Sums ($500 at once): Best for "escaping" poverty. These allowed people to make major investments (like buying a cow or a motorcycle) that immediately increased their earning potential.
• Monthly Payments ($22/month): Best for "stability." These were more effective at improving day-to-day nutrition and reducing the stress of seasonal income fluctuations.

You have to put things like this Kenyan universal Basic Income in a proper perspective. I did some Google searches and come up with the following:

How many people in Kenya receive UBI? Answer "more than 14,000 households"

What is average size of a household in Kenya? Answer "3.8 persons"

How much is the UBI paid to persons in Kenya? Answer is "$0.75 per day"

So, if my math is correct, and if I round up a bit, the calculation for the total UBI the Kenyan government pays out is roughly calculated as follows,

15,000 households x 4 persons per household x $0.75 paid per day per person x 365 days per year = $16,425,000 total expense to the Kenyan government to fund the UBI program.

Humm! Considering the USA gives Kenya well over $900,000,000 in aid per year, that seems like none of the UBI is being financed from the pockets of more affluent Kenyans or by taxes raised from Kenyan corporate taxes. Kenya has a total population of over 58,000,000.

I can draw several conclusions from my 10 minutes of online investigation.

1. A very small % of population receives UBI or about 0.103%
2. Kenyan total UBI payments are less than 1.8% of the foreign aide USA gives to Kenya each year
3. The UBI program seems to be more of a minimum nutrition subsistance program. I believe we already have welfare/SNAP that sounds similar to what Kenya calls Universal Basic Income. I realize there is no restriction on where their UBI is spent, but at $0.75 per day I bet it almost all goes for nutrition.

 

[Paco Dennis]

That is a very sharp breakdown. You’ve highlighted exactly why these "breakthrough" pilots can sometimes feel like a drop in the ocean when viewed through the lens of national budgets and international aid.

Your math and logic are largely correct, but there is one crucial distinction that changes the "perspective" of who is paying: the Kenyan government isn't paying for it.

Here is the context that rounds out your investigation:

1. It’s a Private Experiment, Not a Public Policy​

The program you researched is run by GiveDirectly, a U.S.-based non-profit. It is funded almost entirely by Silicon Valley billionaires (like Dustin Moskovitz) and private donors, not by Kenyan taxpayers or the Kenyan government.

• The Goal: It’s not meant to be a national welfare system yet; it’s a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). They are spending that ~$16M–$30M to create a "proof of concept" to show governments (including the U.S. and Kenya) that direct cash might be more effective than traditional "in-kind" aid (like sending bags of grain or providing specific training).

2. The Scale Discrepancy​

You are 100% right that 0.1% of the population is a tiny fraction.

• Why so small? Because it's a study, they need a "control group." They deliberately pick a few hundred villages to receive money and leave others nearby with nothing so they can compare the results.
• The "Welfare" Comparison: You mentioned SNAP/Welfare. In the U.S., SNAP is highly restricted (food only). The Kenyan experiment is testing the "Unconditional" part. They want to see: if you give a person $0.75 with zero rules, do they buy alcohol and stop working, or do they fix their roof and start a business? (So far, the data suggests the latter).

3. The "Aid vs. Cash" Argument​

Your point about the $900M in U.S. aid is actually the exact argument GiveDirectly makes.

• Their stance is: "The U.S. is already sending $900M. Much of that gets eaten up by shipping costs, American contractors, and bureaucratic overhead. Why not just 'zap' that $900M directly to the 58 million Kenyans via their phones?"
• If you took just half of that $900M annual aid and distributed it, you could theoretically give every single Kenyan living in extreme poverty a significant boost without increasing the budget by a single cent.

4. Is $0.75/day just "Nutrition"?​

To us, $0.75 is a candy bar. In rural Kenya, where many live on less than $2.00 a day, $0.75 represents a 30-40% increase in daily income.

• The "Ladder" Effect: While a lot goes to food, the most interesting finding of the study is that it doesn't all go to food. People "pool" their $0.75 with neighbors to buy a shared water pump or use the steady income to get a loan for a motorcycle (taxi). It turns "survival money" into "investment capital."

Summary​

Your skepticism is well-placed: this is not a national UBI. It is a privately funded test-case. The real question the study is trying to answer is: “If the U.S. and other donors are going to spend billions anyway, is giving it directly to the people more effective than the current system?”

 

[Irishdude]

No European country has UBI at present. There has been a lot of debate and some have run trial programs. Switzerland voted the idea down in a 2016 referendum. Finland's 2018 trial was deemed a failure.

In the US, we don't have universal healthcare and college costs a fortune. I think we should target those problems first. Besides we are paying close to a trillion dollars a year in interest on the national debt.