Long-term study on basic income
The 1200 euro experimentHow does life change when you get a gift of 1200 euros a month? A study should provide information. DIW researcher Jürgen Schupp explains how to apply as a participant - and what result he expects.
Money from the state for everyone - just like that. This idea of an unconditional basic income creates a passionate debate. One reason for the sharpness of the dispute is that there is a lack of common ground - namely facts and knowledge about the requirements and effects of a basic income that are recognized by both sides. Whether in terms of costs and financing, integration into the existing welfare state or the consequences for the world of work.
That is about to change, at least for one sub-area: This is what the initiators of the first German long-term study announced, for which the starting shot will be given this Tuesday. 120 people are to receive 1200 euros every month for three years - and are questioned and measured just as intensively as a comparison group of 1380 people who do not receive any cash payments.
The aim is to gain well-founded scientific knowledge about how people's behavior and attitudes change when they regularly receive money without any conditions: Are they lazy - or creative? Are they shortening working hours or giving up the job entirely? Do you use the extra time and money just for yourself - or are you committed to social benefit? The makers of the study want to find one million applicants for participation by November.
The team behind this "Basic Income Pilot Project" has a relatively unusual composition: It was initiated by the "Mein Grundeinkommen" association, which has been raffling off one-year payments of 1,000 euros a month financed by private donors for six years - that is, by clear advocates of a basic income . This time, too, the association is organizing the financing of the basic income and, according to its own information, has already won 140,000 private donors. But the activists also brought renowned scientists on board: behavioral economists, psychologists, and public welfare researchers.
The most important partner from science is the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin). DIW researcher Jürgen Schupp, who knows the life situation and attitudes of Germans better than almost anyone else, has a leading role: the 64-year-old has been working for the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) since 1984 - and thus almost from the beginning. for years he was its director. The SOEP is considered extremely informative; 30,000 people are surveyed for it every year - always the same if possible. Despite the cooperation with activists, Schupp wants the project that has just started to be understood in this context: "The study is not contract research," he says.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Schupp, you want to pay your study participants 1200 euros every month for three years, just like that. Is there really any need for scientific evidence that people find such a gift of money quite pleasant?
Schupp: If that were our question, certainly not. Happiness research has long since proven that more money increases well-being. But we want to find out a lot more: To what extent does such a reliable, unconditional flow of money affect people's attitudes and behavior - in relevant areas of life? How do, for example, professional life, daily structure, commitment, diet or relationships change? And how does that differ depending on age, area of residence, other income and so on? That's a lot of exciting and so far unanswered questions.
SPIEGEL : But there have already been a few experiments on this. For example the recently completed state project in Finland or here in Germany by the association "Mein Grundeinkommen", which has now also initiated this study.
Schupp : Yes, and there was always valuable knowledge. What is new about our study, however, is the quality of the scientific method: It is designed in such a way that we can clearly and exclusively attribute these changes in people's behavior and attitudes to the payment of money - and not to any other factors.
SPIEGEL : How do you want to achieve that?
Schupp : We use the supreme discipline of empirical social research, randomization. We form two groups: one receives the basic income, the other does not. The key point is that we have people with the same characteristics and life situations as possible, on the one hand in the relatives and on the other in the comparison group - so-called statistical twins. In the best case scenario, people are the same and only differ in terms of their basic income. Measured changes are then clearly caused by the payment of money.
SPIEGEL : And how do you find such statistical twins?
Schupp : Through an elaborate selection process. We have a goal of one million applicants by November . From this large population, 20,000 people are randomly selected and interviewed extensively about their living situation. Based on this data, we can select 1500 participants: 120 receive the basic income, 1380 more do not receive it and form the comparison group. We are the first to examine the basic income in this way and at this level. Incidentally, it is important that the sample also includes people who tend to be negative about the basic income so as not to distort the results from the outset.
SPIEGEL : A basic income would not only make itself felt in the wallet of individual people, but would have an impact on consumer prices, wages, production, consumption and probably also the tax system - i.e. the economic environment of the recipients.
Schupp : That's right. We cannot simulate a basic income world, it would have to be introduced. It is important to make the limits of our study clear: We will not find out anything about these economic consequences, not even about possible shifts in power between employers and employees, the level of net costs or the effects on migration. This also applies to possible further stages of the experiment - we are planning variants in which the income of the recipients is only increased to 1200 euros or the basic income is offset against simulated taxes. Our subject of study is narrowly defined: the changes in attitudes and behavior of people who receive unconditional cash payments for three years.
SPIEGEL : What is the value of these findings?
Schupp : So far, the debate about the basic income has been like a philosophical salon in good moments and a war of faith in bad times. It is - on both sides - shaped by clichés: Opponents claim that with a basic income people would stop working in order to dull on the couch with fast food and streaming services. Proponents argue that people will continue to do fulfilling work, become more creative and charitable, and save democracy. Incidentally, these stereotypes also flow into economic simulations as assumptions about the supposed costs and benefits of a basic income. We can improve this if we replace these stereotypes with empirically proven knowledge and therefore can also conduct a more appropriate debate.
SPIEGEL : What results are you particularly looking forward to?
Schupp : We examine a lot, the effect on health or social cohesion and democracy. Personally, I'm particularly interested in the job market: Do more people really dare to take the plunge into self-employment? How does the new freedom to be able to say no once in a while - especially for those who do their job not because it makes sense for them, but because they simply need the money? How do people's time budgets change - do they perhaps do without one or the other overtime, do they work part-time? Then what do you do with your free time? In fact, if they were just sitting in front of the television, we wouldn't have won anything.
SPIEGEL : As a long-time social researcher, you have surely already made assumptions.
Schupp : In the Socio-Economic Panel we ask people what they would do if they "unexpectedly received 10,000 euros". Around half answered that they would not change anything and would not touch the money at all, but instead put it in their reserves. I wouldn't be surprised if a similarly high proportion of our basic income recipients would stick to it. In other preliminary studies, around ten percent of those surveyed said they would give up their job. My guess would be that some would actually do that who only work for the money.
SPIEGEL : The initiators of the study are clear advocates of an unconditional basic income, and some of the scientists involved at least sympathize with the idea. How do you feel about it personally?
Schupp : I'm not an ardent supporter who is one hundred percent committed to the basic income. I value our existing social security system in Germany too much for that, which is also of a high standard compared to other rich industrial countries. And I think one principle is important in political reforms: they should only be carried out if their positive effect is proven - if the situation afterwards is clearly superior to the previous one in terms of the balance of advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, I consider fundamental reforms of our social security system to be inevitable for the foreseeable future, and politics should now deal with them far more intensively.
SPIEGEL : Why?
Schupp : Because the previous system of contribution financing - i.e. through the burden on the labor factor - will reach its limits because of two megatrends : demography and digitization. When the baby boomers retire - in other words by 2030 at the latest - the relationship between contributors and beneficiaries in terms of pension, health and care will tip over into the intolerable. The tax subsidies in these systems are already substantial. Then there is digitization, which will revolutionize our working world ...
SPIEGEL : ... but according to all serious studies, the bottom line is that it will not lead to less gainful employment - which refutes an important argument in favor of the basic income, according to which there will soon not be enough work for everyone anyway.
Schupp : That may be, but what kind of jobs will they be - those requiring social security? Or will we get many forms of self-employment in the platform economy, in which the employed are simply not integrated into the network of social security that was so viable up to now. If these people lose their jobs after a few years, they too need to be caught. There are good arguments to change our social system - away from the burden of work towards financing from taxes. That will take a long time anyway, after all, the accumulated pension entitlements will be retained. This makes it all the more important to start now and not just when the financial crisis is huge. A study commission of the Bundestag could be a start.
SPIEGEL : There is already a tax-financed safety net: Hartz IV and basic security in old age. Since the Constitutional Court significantly restricted the sanctions, it has also been practically unconditional - with some discounts. What is the difference to the basic income?
Schupp : There are some differences, just the attitude towards the recipients. But let me highlight one aspect that is often overlooked: the basic income would be paid out to everyone - you have to apply for the current basic security. But an incredible number of people don't do that, out of shame or ignorance. We know from our data from the Socio-Economic Panel that only half of the senior citizens who are entitled to basic social security actually receive it. At Hartz IV, the proportion is also high. That might please a finance minister. But we as a society cannot accept that so many people live below the subsistence level - although they have a right to it.
SPIEGEL : And the job centers can be abolished when the basic income comes?
Schupp : No way! We still need job recruiters, professional qualifications and help for people who have difficulties meeting the demands of the labor market. Even with 1200 euros, you are certainly not happy if you take early retirement and sit at home alone.
SPIEGEL : The initiators of the study are clear advocates of a basic income; most of the 140,000 private donors are likely to be too. At the same time you affirm that the results of the study are open. Doesn't a renowned research institute like DIW get into a conflict?
Schupp : No, because we scientists have the final say in design and implementation. There are clear red lines, we maintain all scientific standards. Such a collaboration is certainly uncharted territory: During the preparation we had quite a few tough discussions, it was partly a clash of cultures. But what I appreciate about Michael Bohmeyer (founder of the association "My Income", editor's note ) is that he does not advertise the basic income with promises of salvation. And without his open attitude - according to the motto "If the basic income doesn't work, I at least want to know" - DIW Berlin and I personally wouldn't be there now.
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/grundeinkommen-studie-startet-das-1200-euro-experiment-a-413dcee7-1d58-4d19-abd1-8d241972ffd4