Lee Crawfurd

I will never understand why people want *universal* basic income. Why not devote more resources to just those who need it? E.g. 3x as much to just the bottom 1/3 of earners.

Because targeting is costly and mistakes are inevitably made, and it creates strong disincentives for people to try and earn more when they are close to the threshold for benefit withdrawal

Surely paying out the top 2/3 is more expensive than finding the bottom 1/3? And it's only a strong incentive if the amount is high enough to live quite comfortably. Not many people will sit back and collect $10k when they could go out and work for $20-$40k, I reckon.

" We do find a negative labor supply effect for workers 20-29 years old for their hours worked."

Interesting! How did you come across this paper and how come this scheme is not more well known?

It aint opening

Iran has such a vibrant and successful economy .... not unlike Venezuela . Where do these silly stories come from ... and how gullible are some people

The research article above is from an academic journal. Articles are only published after being peer reviewed (verified by other experts in the field - ie other developmental economists) It's not a newspaper article, or a blog, Doesn't mean it isn't open to interpretation though

But a singular Iranian, a real life Iranian, took 10 seconds to blow the whole report apart! The author's claimed "70 million" recipients was halved to 35. Did anyone of the peers spot that? It's hardly a minor error and surely undermines the whole report?

The claim of 70 million seems to be associated with the originator of this thread, not the authors of the article. And given that the authors are discussing cash transfers to households not individual's, it seems unlikely that the claim came from the research paper.

Sorry, I assumed the originator was involved in the project. My apologies. But the abstract does quote "70 million" and almost suggests they are individual accounts. So there may be a little translation/use of English problem there.

My understanding from other comments here is that the programme has become more targeted over time, so may have begun as universal (~70m) before dropping to the current ~35m

You're right. I didn't scroll down, just read the highlights. The study was done on households though - so the 70 mill is an approximation about extent. Anyway, I suppose the point of the article is that UBI is possible without some of the bad outcomes. Although, not a fan.

Finland just stopped their trial .... major issues emerged necessitating closure