King's College London

Over the last several years, the Irish government has run a large scale pilot of a basic income for artists, and the results are now in. The programme has been ambitious – a randomised trial with 2,000 participants receiving €325 (£280) a month, for three years.

Before we talk about the results, it’s important to note that the ambition of this research has been substantial – not only due to the amount of money paid to participants, but due to heavy investment in ensuring that the pilot scheme developed the best possible evidence.

Randomisation – which produces a robust control group against which to measure what would have happened without the basic income – is a part of this, but so too is the commitment to follow through, and the amount of money invested in the research itself. Participants received hundreds of euros in payments to complete surveys, which has led to tiny levels of attrition from the study. These payments are an order of magnitude higher than in similar studies and are no doubt helpful in helping maximise rigour.

Onto the study itself, the results were positive. Participants spent more time doing art, invested more in research and materials related to their art, and were significantly happier. They earned on average €500 a month more doing art than the control group, while their income from non-arts work decreased by around €280. They also received €100 a month less in benefits. Overall, this left participants better off from non-basic-income sources of income than the control group by around €120 a month.

This speaks to a common argument for strong social safety nets, including basic income programmes – the idea that by being more generous with our benefits, we allow people the time and space to get a better job, whether that’s increasing their ability to hold out for better paying work or, as seems to be the case here, allowing them to invest in their own future earnings.

The study is incredibly strong in terms of its rigour and the quality of its findings, but there are also some key limitations – principally that, like similar studies, it focuses on psychological wellbeing and labour market supply as outcomes, excluding others like formal education; homelessness; health system use and involvement in criminal justice. These are important to consider alongside the more “economic” benefits of a basic income, because these outcomes are both important to individuals, and strongly linked to poverty.

Some will also no doubt point to the provision of a basic income based not on financial circumstances, but on career choice. This is an interesting dilemma – the amounts on offer may mean that more people elect to become artists now that the Irish government is scaling the programme up, which may be desirable, but will also change the pool of people receiving the income and hence could alter its effectiveness.

Ultimately, though, the decision to help artists is a political one, and even if it is one we might not have chosen, it is encouraging to see such a strong evidence base created around it. Over the next few years, many studies, including those that we are leading at the Cash Lab, will arm policymakers with the evidence needed to make informed decisions about how and who to support with cash transfers.

Michael Sanders is a Professor of Public Policy at King’s College London and Director of the Cash Lab in the School for Government at King’s.

Hannah Piggott is a Research Fellow at the Policy Institute at King’s and Deputy-Director of the Cash Lab.