Give people money
Cash transfer
Cash-transfer interventions give recipients money — conditional on behaviors (Progresa), unconditional (GiveDirectly), or as part of a larger package (graduation programs). The mechanism is direct: the recipient gets resources and the autonomy to deploy them.
20
Experiments
5
Policy areas
1968–2021
Year span
14 / 20
Positive
When it works
When the binding constraint on the outcome is income or liquidity. Strongest evidence is for poverty reduction, food security, child nutrition, and household stability. Effects on adult labor supply are typically small.
Watch out for
Pure cash works less reliably when the underlying problem is non-financial — addiction, mental health, community dysfunction. Conditional cash and 'cash plus' bundles (cash + services) often dominate pure cash in those settings.
Cash transfer across policy areas
Cash Transfers· 6 experiments
- Positive
Child Tax Credit 2021 Expansion (American Rescue Plan)
US Treasury / Columbia University Center on Poverty and Social Policy / Brookings evaluation · United States (national) · 2021
Effect: Monthly child poverty rate dropped from 15.8% (June 2021, pre-expansion) to 11.9% (July 2021, first month of payments) — the largest single-month decline in child poverty ever recorded. Food insecurity among households with children dropped by 26%. Difficulty paying basic expenses declined by 30%. Effects fully reversed when payments expired in January 2022; child poverty climbed back to pre-expansion levels within two months. No significant negative effect on parental labor force participation was detected.
- Positive
Stockton SEED Guaranteed Income Pilot
SEED (Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration) · Stockton, CA, USA · 2021
Effect: Full-time employment: +28 percentage points over control by month 12; income volatility reduced; anxiety and depression scores improved significantly
- Positive
Finland Universal Basic Income Experiment
KELA (Social Insurance Institution of Finland) · Finland · 2018
Effect: Employment: +6 days/year (modest positive); well-being score: +0.09 SD; trust in institutions: significantly higher; mental health symptoms: meaningfully reduced
- Positive
GiveDirectly Unconditional Cash Transfers
GiveDirectly / MIT / Princeton · Western Kenya · 2011
Effect: Assets: +58%; earnings: +38%; food security: +20%; psychological well-being significantly improved; no evidence of alcohol or tobacco spending increase; effects sustained 3 years later
- Mixed
New York City Family Rewards
NYC Center for Economic Opportunity / MDRC · New York City, USA · 2007
Effect: Poverty rate: −11 pp during program; health insurance: +6 pp; high school course passing: +10 pp; sustained employment among those initially working: positive; effects mostly faded after payments ended
- Positive
PROGRESA Conditional Cash Transfer
Mexican government (SEDESOL) · Rural Mexico · 1997
Effect: School enrollment: +3.4 pp secondary (girls); child illness days: −23%; consumption: +11%; child stunting: −1 cm height gain; effects larger for girls and youngest children
Basic Income· 6 experiments
- Positive
Stockton SEED — Guaranteed Income Pilot
University of Tennessee / University of Pennsylvania EPRC · Stockton, CA, USA · 2019
Effect: Full-time employment: 28% treatment vs. 25% control at baseline; 40% treatment vs. 37% control at 12 months — treatment group employment increased more. Income volatility: significantly lower in treatment group. Mental health: significantly better (anxiety and depression scores). Physical health: no significant difference. Spending: primarily on food, clothing, utilities — not alcohol or cigarettes.
- Mixed
Finland Basic Income Experiment
Kela (Finnish Social Insurance Institution) · Finland · 2017
Effect: Employment: treatment group worked an average 6 more days than controls in 2018 (statistically significant but modest). Wellbeing: treatment group reported significantly higher life satisfaction (+0.09 SD), lower psychological distress, greater trust in institutions, and lower perceived bureaucracy. No significant increase in income.
- Positive
GiveDirectly — Large-Scale Basic Income in Rural Kenya
GiveDirectly / Princeton / MIT / UC Berkeley · Siaya County, Kenya · 2016
Effect: Consumption: +30% vs. baseline; assets: +40% in asset values; food security: significantly improved; psychological wellbeing: large positive effects on stress and happiness; hours worked: no reduction; local economic spillovers: significant — control villages within treated areas also showed consumption increases (~$2.50 for every $1 transferred, via multiplier effects)
- Positive
Manitoba Mincome — Guaranteed Annual Income
University of Manitoba / Canadian federal and Manitoba governments · Manitoba, Canada · 1974
Effect: Hospitalization rates fell 8.5% relative to control communities; mental health hospitalizations fell significantly; domestic violence-related hospitalizations fell; high school completion increased; labor supply: only small reductions, primarily among mothers (who delayed return to work after childbirth) and teenagers (who stayed in school longer)
- Mixed
Seattle/Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (SIME/DIME)
SRI International / Mathematica / US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare · Seattle, Washington and Denver, Colorado, USA · 1971
Effect: Husbands reduced hours by ~7%; wives by ~17%; female heads of single-parent households by ~12%. Marital dissolution rates were notably higher in the treatment arm — roughly 36–42% higher than control among black and white families — a finding that surprised researchers and became politically controversial. Effects on educational enrollment were positive (modestly increased schooling among adolescents in treatment families).
- Mixed
New Jersey Negative Income Tax Experiment
Mathematica / Office of Economic Opportunity / University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty · Trenton, Paterson, Jersey City, and Passaic, New Jersey; and Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA · 1968
Effect: Husbands reduced hours worked by approximately 5–6%; wives reduced hours by 20–30% (off a low base); overall family labor supply fell by 5–8%. Effects were considerably smaller than the policy debate had assumed but were measurable and statistically significant.
International Development· 6 experiments
- Mixed
Impact of Microcredit — Mexico
Compartamos Banco / MIT / Innovations for Poverty Action · Rural Mexico · 2015
Effect: No significant effect on average household income or consumption; business investment increased for existing entrepreneurs; female-run businesses showed modest profit gains
- Positive
South Africa Child Support Grant
South African Social Security Agency / World Bank · South Africa · 2009
Effect: Child stunting: −3.5% for children enrolled in first year of life; school enrollment at age 7: +4.5 pp; young adult earnings at age 20–25: +7.3% for early recipients
- Positive
Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme
World Bank / Ethiopian Government · Ethiopia · 2008
Effect: Months of adequate food: +1.8 months/year; asset index: +0.14 SD; proportion selling assets in drought year: −9 pp; income diversification: improved
- Positive
BRAC Graduation Programme
BRAC / MIT / multiple governments · Bangladesh (original); replicated in 10 countries · 2007
Effect: Consumption: +5% (pooled); assets: +16%; food security: +9%; financial inclusion: +23%; psychological well-being: improved; effects significant in 5 of 6 countries at 3-year follow-up
- Positive
Brazil Bolsa Família Conditional Cash Transfer
World Bank / IPEA / Brazilian Ministry of Social Development · Brazil · 2007
Effect: Child school enrollment: +4 pp; vaccination: +3 pp; household food consumption: +16% for extreme poor; poverty headcount: contributed to 29% reduction in extreme poverty 2002–2011 (program component)
- Positive
Colombia Familias en Acción
Colombian government / Inter-American Development Bank · Rural Colombia · 2001
Effect: School enrollment (grades 1–3): +5 to +8 pp; child height-for-age: +0.16 SD (significant for under-2); consumption: +18%; health visits: +31 pp