10 ms·

Many Kenyans refusing basic income experiment

101 points by Todd 10y ago

Todd 10y ago
This seems like the kind of surprising result that the scientific method begs for. Instead of trying to understand it, or profit from its prevalence, the organization is attempting to reduce it. It doesn't seem likely that this type of thing will be a long term concern, but perhaps something can be learned about how society adapts if a significant subset decline the payment.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  To be blunt it shows how out of touch those involved are. Firstly they obviously had very little understanding of African / 3rd world culture, secondly they haven't considered what we do when people offer us free stuff. Consider if somebody walked up to you and offered to pay you 6k/mo, you would be insane not to question it. And in a country where "free stuff" doesn't happen, where corruption and entrapment are common, you would also be insane to accept it. Several of my friends have spent time in 3rd world countries. Most had the modern, egotistical, charity tour and I would suspect that their particular brand of experience is what the experiment used. There are many well run charities and organisations operating in these countries which fully understand the problems of interacting with people there and would have seen this situation a mile off. Those that have spent time with these charities have rightly laughed at my naivety and false superiority when talking about problems those countries face. The upshot is - this is not a surprising result, this could have been expected and appears not to have been due to the poor practice of the organisation running the experiment. They are jeopardising their own experiment and have dealt a blow to both its credibility and the credibility of other BI experiments which already suffer from accusations of low quality science and superiority complexes. This is the long term concern.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > you would also be insane Your hyperbole really bothers me here.
    - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
      Yes you are absolutely right. On rereading that I wish I had used more meaningful phrasing.
  - whack 10y ago
    You seem to have some axe to grind with GiveDirect. They've already run many Basic Income experiments in many parts of Africa, with great success. The fact that they are hitting some snags in a few counties, doesn't diminish them as an organization in any way.
    - AJ007 10y ago
      Assuming that this really is an experiment, they are being asked to possibly be subjected to negative results. Researchers get to walk away when subjects of an experiment can carry the consequences of an experiment with them for the rest of their lives. It seems to me that it is a survival instinct to refuse new things you don't understand from untrusted sources. Damn right that I do. The fact that I have a Western education and many years of Western life experience may mean that the reasoning I come up with is quite a bit better than someone lacking that, but it doesn't over ride a desire to not radically disrupt my current lifestyle - for better or worse - on a blind bet.
      - whack 10y ago
        What's your opinion on double-blind randomized medical trials where half the people are given placebos, and the other half are given treatments that have not been fully proven to be safe & effective.
  - dilemma 10y ago
    How their local representative responds is troubling: >They find it "hard to believe that a new organization like GiveDirectly would give roughly a year's salary in cash, unconditionally," Le writes. "As a result, many people have created their own narratives to explain the cash, including rumors that the money is associated with cults or devil worship." Le creates his own narrative about the locals as less educated and less civilized than himself - why else would they refuse his charity? It is clear that neither he nor his organization see the locals as equals.
    - b6 10y ago
      It seems like you quote Le and then give an unsubstantiated opinion that isn't even really related to the quote.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      What makes you think Le is imagining this?
      - dilemma 10y ago
        Where's the substance? What do you know that makes you think it's fact?
        TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
        The phrasing does not imply it's a hypothetical, so why do you think it's not true? Do you believe they're lying?
- ktRolster 10y ago
  or profit from its prevalence, How on earth do you profit from people who won't take money because they think you are a cult/devil?
  - Kliment 10y ago
    You sell them devil repellent or a countercult. It's an ancient and well-established business model.
  - Todd 10y ago
    I meant profit in non-monetary terms, but in terms related to the experiment. When you run an experiment, and you get a result you didn't expect, there may be a new discovery or a silver lining if it's an undesirable discovery.
- ced 10y ago
  From the article: "We've done a lot to try to understand what has led to this increase in refusals," Le wrote in the post. From the blog post: We’ve found that people typically refuse out of skepticism. Potential recipients find it hard to believe that a new organization like GiveDirectly would give roughly a year’s salary in cash, unconditionally. As a result, many people have created their own narratives to explain the cash, including rumors that the money is associated with cults or devil worship. We’ve debated how much effort to expend trying to address the refusal issue. We considered leaving Homa Bay since working in an area with lower refusals would be better for efficiency targets and staff morale. However, ultimately we decided to stay because we are in the process of implementing a large scale research project in Homa Bay, and leaving the area would result in meaningful delays and cost overruns for our research partners. We also believe it’s important to try to address the issue here or else rumors could spread to other areas we’ve not yet been.
  - Todd 10y ago
    Yes, they've taken pragmatic steps to deal with it, given the current situation. It seems that there may be another aspect to basic income refusal that isn't immediately evident. Perhaps the suspicion that is prevalent here for reasons related to local culture and customs are actually more universal. Maybe there is a way that UBI can be tweaked to accommodate for that. I know that one of the cornerstones of UBI is unconditionality. However, it may need to be adjusted if this is a more universal phenomenon.
rusanu 10y ago
I'm speculating and have no evidence, but my thinking is that offering money with no strings attached is a threat to those that offer money (or other help) with strings attached. Spreading rumors would be a defense strategy to protect those interests.
- fsiefken 10y ago
  Hi Rusanu, some people or subcultures have a higher propensity to magical thinking. In Kenya for example all kinds of conspiracy theories exist about the origin of AIDS. There doesn't need to be an extra agency that intentionally spreads disinformation to explain this phenomenon. That there are agencies involved in this type of manipulations in general is a fact though, not sure who the parties would be that are threatened by this. NGO's would welcome reliable results I think Also read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-create-chicagos-street-gangs-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-cr...
  - PostOnce 10y ago
    Counterpoint: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor, quote: “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” This is not the only thing the government did, or continues to do, to destroy various peoples' faith in it.
    - awinder 10y ago
      Not to mention direct action against leaders like MLK, which, I don't think, was done under the cover of drugs
pipio21 10y ago
"Too good to be true" is a valid concern. When someone gives you something for free, this person could have further objectives that you don't see now, but will become evident later. It is well know the drug dealer strategy of "The first dose is free, until you become hooked. This equally applies to a lot of products we use today. For example when Facebook started giving a very good service for free it was a bargain. Basically a useful service for free with no strings attachment, no advertising, all paid with investor's money. Then they started gradually monetizing the people to levels that a new participant in Facebook would consider obnoxious, but being gradual people has gotten used to it and consider totally normal. In some ways now you are forced to be in Facebook because your social circle is in Facebook, you are hooked now. For a service like Facebook I certainly prefer to pay and my data or personal-social information be mine. In the same way, making your income dependent on some external entity makes yourself lose your independence and your freedom from this entity. Never forget that an entity powerful enough to give you most of your income has to be equally useful to take, steal, or seize the income of someone else, those who create the wealth. This has been done and it is called "socialism". It is nothing new. Part of my family had to ask for a car or a house or a TV to the Government because "everybody had equal rights to it". Of course some were "more equal than others" and my family will wait for years for his totally shit car or house, but the people near power will get it instantly, and their houses, cars or TVs will be great because whatever excuse(like because you are in the Party's dome you need the best TV or car for your job). For my family to have this "right" meant giving away most of their income in taxes and earn a misery compared to other West societies for equal jobs like being engineer or University teacher. As an example today you can't earn more than 30 dollars or so in Cuba, that is the limit you have, you can be a doctor or engineer. The only rich people in Cuba are the Communist, but not officially of course, officially they earn 30 dollars like everybody else. I consider this movement to "basic income" neosocialism. There are powerful entities like Central Banks that want to go back to a centralized economy, they being in charge of the new system, of course. In my opinion, the way to face the "robots taking our jobs" is to share the ownership of the means of productions(the robots and computers), locally, but never globally.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  You lost me at the last paragraph. Could you elaborate on what you mean by local means of production?
hacksonx 10y ago
Perhaps not the biggest reason behind the refusal but the fact that it is mentioned warrants discussion. Che Guevara is said to have travelled to the Congo to train Guerrilla militia there and stopped when instead of focussing on training, the people focused on voodoo magic to protect them. A similar phenomena was witnessed in South Africa with the Marikina massacre of 2012, where miners believed that herbs provided by a witchdoctor would make them invisible. The best approach to such situations is, as the organisation is following, to educate the people. It might be hard with low literacy levels but it's possible, especially for a cash studded organisation such as theirs. edit: Fixed Gorilla to Guerrilla
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "to educate the people" It's not 'reading and arithmetic' that's the problem. It's a basic lack of intelligent social organization across the board. It's the thousand little bits of behaviour that make you 'civilized' vis-a-vis other cultures. I'm weary of the using the word 'civilized' because it sounds a little colonialist, but when people turn to 'magic spells' for many things ... you know there really are some deep issues. And it goes far, far beyond magic spells. People totally lack an understanding of human nature when they address these issues. 'Inequality' is not the problem in Africa. Africa has ample natural resources, if they acted in an intelligent and organized manner, there's no reason they couldn't be as rich as anywhere else. It's a million little things summarized in a very clumsy way by the word 'ethnicity' or 'culture'. Again - trying to avoid a completely condescending perspective, but the only measuring stick we have for our degree of civilization is ourselves.
  - efaref 10y ago
    You know things are crazy when "civilization" becomes a dirty word.
    - x1798DE 10y ago
      I don't know if GP meant civilization was a dirty word, just that it's an overloaded term, because it at least partially means, "ordered society" and partly it means "society ordered like ours". In this context, taking it to mean the second meaning could be incredibly arrogant, so I think it's reasonable to be careful about one's meaning.
labster 10y ago
When I first read the headline, I saw "Many Keynesians refusing basic income experiment", which confused me because I thought Keynes fans would totally go for UBI. But yeah, free money looks a lot like colonialism if you squint. I can see people avoiding it. You get $500 a month now, and then 3 months later, they come asking for a "favor" in return, and it would be a shame if something happened to your kneecaps. This is not reality of course, but let's just say I've been trained to avoid emails offering me free money in the past.
- elementalest 10y ago
  That is something I had never considered. If many people become dependent on UBI, they are entirely dependent on the state - to the point they can be taken advantage of if power is abused. UBI in some ways does take an element of freedom from people, granted it may provide other forms of freedom. What is to stop the government from changing the laws to require everyone only on UBI (no job) to perform some form of community service for a set number of hours per year. What i to stop the government from increasing it further? So whilst you may gain security for the basic living needs, you may trade it for a less freedom.
  - ahoy 10y ago
    The same thing that, presumably, stops government from doing those things now - voters. That's not to say that system of checks works. Places like Florida have enacted mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, so there's obviously some political will to punish and regulate the poor.
    - elementalest 10y ago
      It not the kind of thing that would happen suddenly, but gradually. A little change here, a little change there and after 10 years, its changed a lot. All it would take is the right political climate and circumstances, combined with ad campaigns and lots of lobbying. Many arguments would be put forth to convince people a minor change is a good thing, that due to the current circumstances, its necessary. Many people would likely agree, despite the risk it opens up the potential for the system to be abused with another minor change in the future. And its voted through by popular demand. A few years later, the political climate changes and the government isn't perhaps as trustworthy/predictable as it might have once been. Now of course it could go the other way. However, power creep rarely goes backwards.
bsbechtel 10y ago
Maybe people really do have an innate sense of ethics that tell them if they're receiving free money, it means it's being taken from somewhere else.
- SolarNet 10y ago
  Well that sense would be wrong. Since this is charity. Also it seems like the problem is assuming strings are attached, so more like survival instinct.
  - bsbechtel 10y ago
    Do the Kenyans really know it's charity? Also, if BI is ever to be implemented as policy, coming from the government isn't charity.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  The world is not a zero sum game and handing out free money is a proven concept - as long as the recipients are big firms and banks... you already forgot the "financial crisis" and the entire last decade? Money does not work in such simplistic ways except for on a tiny scale, for example within the circle of family and friends. Already when you take out a credit your sentence becomes untrue: Debt is created by commercial banks out of thin air - you yourself "pay" for it, because the "debt" promise you give is worth as much as the money you get (plus interest). When a government hands out "free money" the promise is not direct but indirect but essentially the same: They think that the money will "pay for itself" in the end through economic activity that would otherwise never happen. This is the same thing that happens with every single credit, only that then the responsibility for "repayment" is only one step removed instead of an indefinite amount. In this context (about the nature of modern money, not UBI), before anyone wants to tell me money for credit comes from other people's savings, I recommend reading "Money Creation in the Modern Economy" (2014) written by the Bank of England. I link to the Guardian article by Graeber, the actual PDF is linked near the beginning of that article though, but it has a summary on page one where it already supports the main points of the article. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-... > It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were > a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" > to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public > spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this > week is that none of this is really true.
PieterH 10y ago
Given the "gift in one hand, gun in the other" history of western actions in Kenya and other African countries over the last centuries, it's hardly surprising there's going to be the random pocket of paranoid skepticism, no matter how good the UBI marketing/education. I'm personally confused as to why anyone would think it's a good idea to trial UBI in Kenya, as a sort of private charity initiative, given the sordid historical background. It cannot be feasible to get any meaningful data from such projects. There is so much background noise. Put the funding into microloans or (unfashionable in the west and yet a vital layer in Africa's commercial middle class) labor organization (= unions). Protect the free media and lobby for laws against corruption in politics. Invest in documentation of the continuous crimes against the public interest. Help break the sociopathic power elites that run most African capitals and national economies. Invest in schools. Pay families that keep their children in school. Create demand for local high technology skills, by looking for local partners & experts before flying in foreigners. Name and shame organizations that don't do this. Name and shame national and international companies that overcharge for Internet, for transport, for medicines, for books. There are surely so many ways to spend money to help Africans continue to break free of the grip of generations of thieves in power (as they are doing in many countries), and pull themselves out of poverty. In this context, UBI seems... extraordinarily misplaced, and I can't fault people for refusing it.
- michaelt 10y ago
  There are surely so many ways to spend money to help Africans Give Directly works on the theory (and they have some studies that seem to back this up [1]) that the Africans know what they need better than you and I do; and that they have the incentive to see donations spent in the most effective way. [1] http://blog.givewell.org/2012/12/26/the-case-for-cash-2/ http://blog.givewell.org/2012/12/26/the-case-for-cash-2/
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    On the contrary, there are a large number of examples from e.g. South African shanty towns that if people living in tiny metal shacks with dirt floors get a bit more disposable income, many prefer to stay where they are and buy satellite TV and the latest iPhone rather than save that money to try and move to a better place.
mulle_nat 10y ago
Some people want to live their own lives and not be dependent on "gifts" from someone else.
sangnoir 10y ago
Different cultures have different attitudes towards gifts and favors: which the Basic income could be classified as one by the recipients. I suspect the researchers did not take this into consideration. In some cultures, gifts are just that, and have no strings attached. Yet in others, gifts create an obligation to the recipient to 'return the favor' at a later date, so accepting a gift is a liability. A lot of research has been done in this area, comparing different cultures[1] or focusing on a specific one [2] 1. http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/socialquilts.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/socialquilts.pdf 2. http://www.japanintercultural.com/en/news/default.aspx?newsID=266 http://www.japanintercultural.com/en/news/default.aspx?newsI...
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Interesting. I have no desire to dump on UBI -- I want to see how these various experiments pan out -- but I am reminded of a thought experiment. Imagine it's 10,000 years ago. You arrive in pre-history with all of the technology of today: electricity, communication, medicine, automation, and so on. Your mission? To destroy mankind. Assuming infinite resources, how would you go about doing it? Sure, you could build out an infrastructure, create a robotic army, and begin hunting humans down. Or, you could build out about the same amount of infrastructure and just give people whatever they want: food, housing, warmth, and so on. After all, what would a bunch of hunter-gathers really want? It'd probably be easier than hunting them all down and fighting them. As long as you're not under any time pressure, what's the difference between killing them immediately and waiting four or five hundred years for them to stop breeding? The premise of UBI is that this would not eventually eliminate the species, that individuals here and there would still learn new skills and advance knowledge. The main criticism of UBI (aside from the moral one) is that while stress and struggle for individuals can be a terrible thing, for the species as a whole it results in evolutionary survival. It will be interesting to watch these populations over time to see how adaptive they are compared with control groups.
- skybrian 10y ago
  Oh come on, what is this crap? You are talking about people like they're almost subhuman. People more more adaptable than that. Maybe not everyone, but at least some will take any advantage they get and put it to good use, and the rest will follow. "Primitive" people are most likely smarter and harder working than you. Surviving off hunting is not easy - you have to know a lot about the environment you're in. Also, historically many scientists were well off people who did it as a hobby. By this theory they should have done nothing with their lives.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    "...You are talking about people like they're almost subhuman...." Anything but. The fact is, I am not looking at individuals. I am looking at the population. A population is not a human. You make a good point. When we talk about UBI, the relevant examples should be the independently wealthy. Many have done great things with their lives. Some have destroyed themselves. Some have had positive effects on others, encouraging them to also do better. Some have had negative effects on others, causing despair or disillusionment. Why the difference? Beats me. So let's experiment. On a personal level, we should always be kind and treat people with respect and love. But that doesn't make any of these population questions go away.
known 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
dilemma 10y ago
Ivan Illich's To hell with good intentions is applicable here: http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm
zzzcpan 10y ago
Aren't those basic income experiments kind of useless? Giving people money for a limited time doesn't give them the notion, that they can rely on the money supply for the rest of their lives. They still have to earn an equivalent sum once the supply stops and make their decisions accordingly.
- UVDMAS 10y ago
  This UBI experiment is novel because, GiveDirectly, the non-profit implementing this experiment, plans giving recipients UBI for more than 10 years.
zekevermillion 10y ago
I just got an email from Shroud of the Avatar last night -- apparently the developers are worried about unequal SotA gold distribution and are implementing some sort of UBI-like scheme in that game. Would be interested to see how that works out, given the ideal virtual circumstances for enforcing such a law (ie, no cheating or corruption possible).
DavidWanjiru 10y ago
"Many Kenyans refusing basic income." I'm not sure how representative this project is. I mean, if someone tried a pilot project in San Antonio, would the results of that project be taken as a representative outcome for Texas or the United States? Remember, this "sampling," such as it is, is different from the kind of sampling they do on opinion polls, why they query a small but representative sample of the population. My guess as to why they're failing is that they're not clearly elucidating their purposes and intentions. For instance, I can confirm to you that if you came to Kenya where you gave, say, high milk-production breeds of cows to dairy farmers, or any other similar thing with a clear quid (if not pro quo), then the uptake would probably overwhelm you. But with free basic income, it's a very counter-intuitive idea. What do you mean you're giving me free money? Where is it coming from? What's your intention? What do I have to do for it? If they were to explain that they're conducting an experiment (I bet they're not clear on that point) where they want to see what people would do with their lives if they had a certain basic income guaranteed by someone (say, government), then Kenyans would take you up on the offer, I'm sure. After all, many Kenyans expect and often call upon the government to help in all kinds of areas, so if you took that basic-income-provided-by-government angle as your ultimate goal, I think people would listen. That lack of clarity is what is most likely causing people to shun the money. It's not that Kenyans don't want free money. We probably do. After all,we seem to be very keen, for example, on these churches where you "plant a seed" (give money to the church in exchange for "blessings"), and money given out during political campaign seasons (we have one coming up next year) always seems to be taken up very well. But in these cases, the financial logic is not clear. Where is the logic with free basic income? If you don't clearly and understandably explain that to people, you're going to fail. Especially if when they ask you to explain and your response is something along the lines of "Why do you care? It's free money, you sucker living below the poverty line." (I'm not saying that's what happened. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was). PS: Just because I'm Kenyan doesn't make me an expert, or even basic informed, on Kenya. Just because you live in a country doesn't necessarily mean you understand it. Exhibit A: Trump supporters. Exhibit B: Brexit. Edit: typo.
- skybrian 10y ago
  This isn't the first time GiveDirectly has given Kenyans free money and they haven't had this much trouble before. It's probably not a beginner mistake. Something is different this time.
complubur 10y ago
Hey, buzzard, are you cloth-eared? Come on, look at hotchas here http://v4646e.skhit.in/ http://v4646e.skhit.in/
SmokyBorbon 10y ago
We're only getting the organization's side of the story. Isn't it possible these people would rather work to earn their income instead of eating from a trough like an animal in a zoo? Concepts like dignity are alien to Westeners but not in other parts of the world. Microloans and fair trade are the solutions to poverty in developing countries.
dahart 10y ago
I think just as many Americans would refuse basic income too. "experts say that Americans –- going back as far as Colonial times, when Elizabethan poor laws were in vogue — have never favored unlimited government handouts that are not contingent upon work." http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/why-do-americans-still-hate-welfare/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/why-do-american... Personally, I'd also be afraid to start something like that, since it's would end abruptly, and could easily end early if research funding runs out. Plus, we're all conditioned to know there's no free lunch - someone who offers one is probably hiding something. There are probably strings attached, any reasonable person might be forgiven for thinking. It doesn't seem surprising at all that people in Kenya or elsewhere are skeptical.
- skybrian 10y ago
  I can understand some skepticism because when people offer free money it's usually some kind of scam. But would you really refuse free money just because you don't think you could handle it responsibly? You couldn't even handle giving it away?
Rustydave 10y ago
I understand why people don't want to take this money. Basically, here in Kenya we're brought up in a way that there is nothing for free, you have to work to get what you want. So someone giving you free money is very suspicious there must be something they want in turn.
- skybrian 10y ago
  Yes, it's understandable that people are suspicious. But before, GiveDirectly was able to convince them that it's not a scam so it's a bit surprising that it didn't work this time.
  - zouhair 10y ago
    White people giving free money never ends well most of the time, especially in Africa.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  I think it's true anywhere poverty is a common economic status for folks. You live with less, so every thing you get you want to own 100% of. Gifts are just deposits (implicit) on favors in the future, so I always avoid them unless they're from family or good friends. Strangers and gifts aren't a good mix in my opinion here from the US side of things.
norea-armozel 10y ago
I think the fact that strangers are giving "free money" anywhere in the world results in rejection isn't surprising. I don't think the specific excuses aren't unusual either because how many times have we've seen similar scams in the US? I know as someone who's been poor I've had people try to give me supposedly "free money" only later on ask me a favor or try some other nonsense like proselytize me. It's just not worth the risk if you think about it. I hope the organization continues to improve how they inform people because I think UBI is a good idea. I just think you have to think like a poor person where every gift is just a deposit on a favor in the future.
zouhair 10y ago
This is not a Basic Income experiment. This is a foreign entity giving money for a certain amount of time.
Falkon1313 10y ago
One thing to note about these experiments is that they tend to paper over or ignore both the Universal and the Basic parts of Universal Basic Income. (Those are the hard parts.) They end up just experiments to see what happens if you give some people a little money. In this case, what if 6,000 out of 45,000,000 people get $1 per day (which is about 1/9th the GDP PPP per capita) for a limited time. I don't know about the cost of living or employment situation in Kenya, but by GDP PPP per capita, that calculates to about the equivalent of $17.42/day in the U.S, or $522/month ($6,264/year). That's way below poverty level, and not likely to cover housing, utilities, food, and healthcare anywhere in the U.S. Of course, that would be helpful to anyone with low income, but it is not a basic income. The situation may be different in Kenya, but by the math it doesn't sound promising. If it only affects 1/100 of 1% of the population, there is no way to observe the societal effects of a universal income. That's a long way from universal. Also, because it is an experiment rather than a social contract, there is no way to observe what people will do if they have it as a safety net, because they can't rely on it. To be fair, if it is going to run for 10 years, that's something, but still not representative of lifetime security. --- Regarding the comments about poor people buying TVs and cellphones, etc. - there are many reasons for this, but it really is utility and value. These people aren't stupid. The economy works completely differently when you are poor. Thinking that they should invest their $300 tax refund in a diversified stock portfolio is nonsense. With fees of $10/transaction, they would lose 1/3rd of their money just buying into 10 cheap stocks, and an equivalent amount selling it. They would need > 100% return just to break even. Likewise, money in the bank is a liability. It detracts from foodstamp allowances etc. But they don't send people around to appraise your TV when they're calculating your foodstamps. And in a pinch, you have things that you can trade, sell, or pawn. If you leave the money in the bank, it will be lost to bills, bank fees, etc. And sure, you could have caviar and shrimp instead of ramen and rice cakes, but it'd be gone as soon as the meal is done. A stereo will still be there tomorrow. Generally speaking, if you are working poor, trying to save up to improve your position costs you and you lose. Buying things saves you money, maintains the status quo, gets you things which you can sell in an emergency, and makes your life better until then. Consider states of matter - solid, liquid, gas. Things work quite differently depending on the state of matter. Likewise, the economy works quite differently if you are lower class, middle class, or upper class. Telling someone poor that they should spend their money more wisely is often like telling someone trapped in ice that they should just swim up to the surface. In the latter case, physics just doesn't work that way. In the former case, economics just doesn't work that way.
Noos 10y ago
I'm curious at about how much freedom the Kenyans have after they accept it.If it's an experiment, there will be data collected. Having someone record every purchase you make and giving you constant interviews or more for ten years might be a lot of hassle.

101 points by Todd 10y ago

Todd 10y ago

This seems like the kind of surprising result that the scientific method begs for. Instead of trying to understand it, or profit from its prevalence, the organization is attempting to reduce it. It doesn't seem likely that this type of thing will be a long term concern, but perhaps something can be learned about how society adapts if a significant subset decline the payment.

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
To be blunt it shows how out of touch those involved are. Firstly they obviously had very little understanding of African / 3rd world culture, secondly they haven't considered what we do when people offer us free stuff. Consider if somebody walked up to you and offered to pay you 6k/mo, you would be insane not to question it. And in a country where "free stuff" doesn't happen, where corruption and entrapment are common, you would also be insane to accept it. Several of my friends have spent time in 3rd world countries. Most had the modern, egotistical, charity tour and I would suspect that their particular brand of experience is what the experiment used. There are many well run charities and organisations operating in these countries which fully understand the problems of interacting with people there and would have seen this situation a mile off. Those that have spent time with these charities have rightly laughed at my naivety and false superiority when talking about problems those countries face. The upshot is - this is not a surprising result, this could have been expected and appears not to have been due to the poor practice of the organisation running the experiment. They are jeopardising their own experiment and have dealt a blow to both its credibility and the credibility of other BI experiments which already suffer from accusations of low quality science and superiority complexes. This is the long term concern.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > you would also be insane Your hyperbole really bothers me here.
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    Yes you are absolutely right. On rereading that I wish I had used more meaningful phrasing.
- whack 10y ago
  You seem to have some axe to grind with GiveDirect. They've already run many Basic Income experiments in many parts of Africa, with great success. The fact that they are hitting some snags in a few counties, doesn't diminish them as an organization in any way.
  - AJ007 10y ago
    Assuming that this really is an experiment, they are being asked to possibly be subjected to negative results. Researchers get to walk away when subjects of an experiment can carry the consequences of an experiment with them for the rest of their lives. It seems to me that it is a survival instinct to refuse new things you don't understand from untrusted sources. Damn right that I do. The fact that I have a Western education and many years of Western life experience may mean that the reasoning I come up with is quite a bit better than someone lacking that, but it doesn't over ride a desire to not radically disrupt my current lifestyle - for better or worse - on a blind bet.
    - whack 10y ago
      What's your opinion on double-blind randomized medical trials where half the people are given placebos, and the other half are given treatments that have not been fully proven to be safe & effective.
- dilemma 10y ago
  How their local representative responds is troubling: >They find it "hard to believe that a new organization like GiveDirectly would give roughly a year's salary in cash, unconditionally," Le writes. "As a result, many people have created their own narratives to explain the cash, including rumors that the money is associated with cults or devil worship." Le creates his own narrative about the locals as less educated and less civilized than himself - why else would they refuse his charity? It is clear that neither he nor his organization see the locals as equals.
  - b6 10y ago
    It seems like you quote Le and then give an unsubstantiated opinion that isn't even really related to the quote.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    What makes you think Le is imagining this?
    - dilemma 10y ago
      Where's the substance? What do you know that makes you think it's fact?
      - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
        The phrasing does not imply it's a hypothetical, so why do you think it's not true? Do you believe they're lying?
ktRolster 10y ago
or profit from its prevalence, How on earth do you profit from people who won't take money because they think you are a cult/devil?
- Kliment 10y ago
  You sell them devil repellent or a countercult. It's an ancient and well-established business model.
- Todd 10y ago
  I meant profit in non-monetary terms, but in terms related to the experiment. When you run an experiment, and you get a result you didn't expect, there may be a new discovery or a silver lining if it's an undesirable discovery.
ced 10y ago
From the article: "We've done a lot to try to understand what has led to this increase in refusals," Le wrote in the post. From the blog post: We’ve found that people typically refuse out of skepticism. Potential recipients find it hard to believe that a new organization like GiveDirectly would give roughly a year’s salary in cash, unconditionally. As a result, many people have created their own narratives to explain the cash, including rumors that the money is associated with cults or devil worship. We’ve debated how much effort to expend trying to address the refusal issue. We considered leaving Homa Bay since working in an area with lower refusals would be better for efficiency targets and staff morale. However, ultimately we decided to stay because we are in the process of implementing a large scale research project in Homa Bay, and leaving the area would result in meaningful delays and cost overruns for our research partners. We also believe it’s important to try to address the issue here or else rumors could spread to other areas we’ve not yet been.
- Todd 10y ago
  Yes, they've taken pragmatic steps to deal with it, given the current situation. It seems that there may be another aspect to basic income refusal that isn't immediately evident. Perhaps the suspicion that is prevalent here for reasons related to local culture and customs are actually more universal. Maybe there is a way that UBI can be tweaked to accommodate for that. I know that one of the cornerstones of UBI is unconditionality. However, it may need to be adjusted if this is a more universal phenomenon.

rusanu 10y ago

I'm speculating and have no evidence, but my thinking is that offering money with no strings attached is a threat to those that offer money (or other help) with strings attached. Spreading rumors would be a defense strategy to protect those interests.

fsiefken 10y ago
Hi Rusanu, some people or subcultures have a higher propensity to magical thinking. In Kenya for example all kinds of conspiracy theories exist about the origin of AIDS. There doesn't need to be an extra agency that intentionally spreads disinformation to explain this phenomenon. That there are agencies involved in this type of manipulations in general is a fact though, not sure who the parties would be that are threatened by this. NGO's would welcome reliable results I think Also read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-create-chicagos-street-gangs-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-cr...
- PostOnce 10y ago
  Counterpoint: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor, quote: “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” This is not the only thing the government did, or continues to do, to destroy various peoples' faith in it.
  - awinder 10y ago
    Not to mention direct action against leaders like MLK, which, I don't think, was done under the cover of drugs

pipio21 10y ago

"Too good to be true" is a valid concern. When someone gives you something for free, this person could have further objectives that you don't see now, but will become evident later. It is well know the drug dealer strategy of "The first dose is free, until you become hooked. This equally applies to a lot of products we use today. For example when Facebook started giving a very good service for free it was a bargain. Basically a useful service for free with no strings attachment, no advertising, all paid with investor's money. Then they started gradually monetizing the people to levels that a new participant in Facebook would consider obnoxious, but being gradual people has gotten used to it and consider totally normal. In some ways now you are forced to be in Facebook because your social circle is in Facebook, you are hooked now. For a service like Facebook I certainly prefer to pay and my data or personal-social information be mine. In the same way, making your income dependent on some external entity makes yourself lose your independence and your freedom from this entity. Never forget that an entity powerful enough to give you most of your income has to be equally useful to take, steal, or seize the income of someone else, those who create the wealth. This has been done and it is called "socialism". It is nothing new. Part of my family had to ask for a car or a house or a TV to the Government because "everybody had equal rights to it". Of course some were "more equal than others" and my family will wait for years for his totally shit car or house, but the people near power will get it instantly, and their houses, cars or TVs will be great because whatever excuse(like because you are in the Party's dome you need the best TV or car for your job). For my family to have this "right" meant giving away most of their income in taxes and earn a misery compared to other West societies for equal jobs like being engineer or University teacher. As an example today you can't earn more than 30 dollars or so in Cuba, that is the limit you have, you can be a doctor or engineer. The only rich people in Cuba are the Communist, but not officially of course, officially they earn 30 dollars like everybody else. I consider this movement to "basic income" neosocialism. There are powerful entities like Central Banks that want to go back to a centralized economy, they being in charge of the new system, of course. In my opinion, the way to face the "robots taking our jobs" is to share the ownership of the means of productions(the robots and computers), locally, but never globally.

dajohnson89 10y ago
You lost me at the last paragraph. Could you elaborate on what you mean by local means of production?

hacksonx 10y ago

Perhaps not the biggest reason behind the refusal but the fact that it is mentioned warrants discussion. Che Guevara is said to have travelled to the Congo to train Guerrilla militia there and stopped when instead of focussing on training, the people focused on voodoo magic to protect them. A similar phenomena was witnessed in South Africa with the Marikina massacre of 2012, where miners believed that herbs provided by a witchdoctor would make them invisible. The best approach to such situations is, as the organisation is following, to educate the people. It might be hard with low literacy levels but it's possible, especially for a cash studded organisation such as theirs. edit: Fixed Gorilla to Guerrilla

jomamaxx 10y ago
"to educate the people" It's not 'reading and arithmetic' that's the problem. It's a basic lack of intelligent social organization across the board. It's the thousand little bits of behaviour that make you 'civilized' vis-a-vis other cultures. I'm weary of the using the word 'civilized' because it sounds a little colonialist, but when people turn to 'magic spells' for many things ... you know there really are some deep issues. And it goes far, far beyond magic spells. People totally lack an understanding of human nature when they address these issues. 'Inequality' is not the problem in Africa. Africa has ample natural resources, if they acted in an intelligent and organized manner, there's no reason they couldn't be as rich as anywhere else. It's a million little things summarized in a very clumsy way by the word 'ethnicity' or 'culture'. Again - trying to avoid a completely condescending perspective, but the only measuring stick we have for our degree of civilization is ourselves.
- efaref 10y ago
  You know things are crazy when "civilization" becomes a dirty word.
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    I don't know if GP meant civilization was a dirty word, just that it's an overloaded term, because it at least partially means, "ordered society" and partly it means "society ordered like ours". In this context, taking it to mean the second meaning could be incredibly arrogant, so I think it's reasonable to be careful about one's meaning.

labster 10y ago

When I first read the headline, I saw "Many Keynesians refusing basic income experiment", which confused me because I thought Keynes fans would totally go for UBI. But yeah, free money looks a lot like colonialism if you squint. I can see people avoiding it. You get $500 a month now, and then 3 months later, they come asking for a "favor" in return, and it would be a shame if something happened to your kneecaps. This is not reality of course, but let's just say I've been trained to avoid emails offering me free money in the past.

elementalest 10y ago
That is something I had never considered. If many people become dependent on UBI, they are entirely dependent on the state - to the point they can be taken advantage of if power is abused. UBI in some ways does take an element of freedom from people, granted it may provide other forms of freedom. What is to stop the government from changing the laws to require everyone only on UBI (no job) to perform some form of community service for a set number of hours per year. What i to stop the government from increasing it further? So whilst you may gain security for the basic living needs, you may trade it for a less freedom.
- ahoy 10y ago
  The same thing that, presumably, stops government from doing those things now - voters. That's not to say that system of checks works. Places like Florida have enacted mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, so there's obviously some political will to punish and regulate the poor.
  - elementalest 10y ago
    It not the kind of thing that would happen suddenly, but gradually. A little change here, a little change there and after 10 years, its changed a lot. All it would take is the right political climate and circumstances, combined with ad campaigns and lots of lobbying. Many arguments would be put forth to convince people a minor change is a good thing, that due to the current circumstances, its necessary. Many people would likely agree, despite the risk it opens up the potential for the system to be abused with another minor change in the future. And its voted through by popular demand. A few years later, the political climate changes and the government isn't perhaps as trustworthy/predictable as it might have once been. Now of course it could go the other way. However, power creep rarely goes backwards.

bsbechtel 10y ago

Maybe people really do have an innate sense of ethics that tell them if they're receiving free money, it means it's being taken from somewhere else.

SolarNet 10y ago
Well that sense would be wrong. Since this is charity. Also it seems like the problem is assuming strings are attached, so more like survival instinct.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Do the Kenyans really know it's charity? Also, if BI is ever to be implemented as policy, coming from the government isn't charity.
Noseshine 10y ago
The world is not a zero sum game and handing out free money is a proven concept - as long as the recipients are big firms and banks... you already forgot the "financial crisis" and the entire last decade? Money does not work in such simplistic ways except for on a tiny scale, for example within the circle of family and friends. Already when you take out a credit your sentence becomes untrue: Debt is created by commercial banks out of thin air - you yourself "pay" for it, because the "debt" promise you give is worth as much as the money you get (plus interest). When a government hands out "free money" the promise is not direct but indirect but essentially the same: They think that the money will "pay for itself" in the end through economic activity that would otherwise never happen. This is the same thing that happens with every single credit, only that then the responsibility for "repayment" is only one step removed instead of an indefinite amount. In this context (about the nature of modern money, not UBI), before anyone wants to tell me money for credit comes from other people's savings, I recommend reading "Money Creation in the Modern Economy" (2014) written by the Bank of England. I link to the Guardian article by Graeber, the actual PDF is linked near the beginning of that article though, but it has a summary on page one where it already supports the main points of the article. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-... > It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were > a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" > to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public > spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this > week is that none of this is really true.

PieterH 10y ago

Given the "gift in one hand, gun in the other" history of western actions in Kenya and other African countries over the last centuries, it's hardly surprising there's going to be the random pocket of paranoid skepticism, no matter how good the UBI marketing/education. I'm personally confused as to why anyone would think it's a good idea to trial UBI in Kenya, as a sort of private charity initiative, given the sordid historical background. It cannot be feasible to get any meaningful data from such projects. There is so much background noise. Put the funding into microloans or (unfashionable in the west and yet a vital layer in Africa's commercial middle class) labor organization (= unions). Protect the free media and lobby for laws against corruption in politics. Invest in documentation of the continuous crimes against the public interest. Help break the sociopathic power elites that run most African capitals and national economies. Invest in schools. Pay families that keep their children in school. Create demand for local high technology skills, by looking for local partners & experts before flying in foreigners. Name and shame organizations that don't do this. Name and shame national and international companies that overcharge for Internet, for transport, for medicines, for books. There are surely so many ways to spend money to help Africans continue to break free of the grip of generations of thieves in power (as they are doing in many countries), and pull themselves out of poverty. In this context, UBI seems... extraordinarily misplaced, and I can't fault people for refusing it.

michaelt 10y ago
There are surely so many ways to spend money to help Africans Give Directly works on the theory (and they have some studies that seem to back this up [1]) that the Africans know what they need better than you and I do; and that they have the incentive to see donations spent in the most effective way. [1] http://blog.givewell.org/2012/12/26/the-case-for-cash-2/ http://blog.givewell.org/2012/12/26/the-case-for-cash-2/
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  On the contrary, there are a large number of examples from e.g. South African shanty towns that if people living in tiny metal shacks with dirt floors get a bit more disposable income, many prefer to stay where they are and buy satellite TV and the latest iPhone rather than save that money to try and move to a better place.

mulle_nat 10y ago

Some people want to live their own lives and not be dependent on "gifts" from someone else.

sangnoir 10y ago

Different cultures have different attitudes towards gifts and favors: which the Basic income could be classified as one by the recipients. I suspect the researchers did not take this into consideration. In some cultures, gifts are just that, and have no strings attached. Yet in others, gifts create an obligation to the recipient to 'return the favor' at a later date, so accepting a gift is a liability. A lot of research has been done in this area, comparing different cultures[1] or focusing on a specific one [2] 1. http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/socialquilts.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/socialquilts.pdf 2. http://www.japanintercultural.com/en/news/default.aspx?newsID=266 http://www.japanintercultural.com/en/news/default.aspx?newsI...

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Interesting. I have no desire to dump on UBI -- I want to see how these various experiments pan out -- but I am reminded of a thought experiment. Imagine it's 10,000 years ago. You arrive in pre-history with all of the technology of today: electricity, communication, medicine, automation, and so on. Your mission? To destroy mankind. Assuming infinite resources, how would you go about doing it? Sure, you could build out an infrastructure, create a robotic army, and begin hunting humans down. Or, you could build out about the same amount of infrastructure and just give people whatever they want: food, housing, warmth, and so on. After all, what would a bunch of hunter-gathers really want? It'd probably be easier than hunting them all down and fighting them. As long as you're not under any time pressure, what's the difference between killing them immediately and waiting four or five hundred years for them to stop breeding? The premise of UBI is that this would not eventually eliminate the species, that individuals here and there would still learn new skills and advance knowledge. The main criticism of UBI (aside from the moral one) is that while stress and struggle for individuals can be a terrible thing, for the species as a whole it results in evolutionary survival. It will be interesting to watch these populations over time to see how adaptive they are compared with control groups.

skybrian 10y ago
Oh come on, what is this crap? You are talking about people like they're almost subhuman. People more more adaptable than that. Maybe not everyone, but at least some will take any advantage they get and put it to good use, and the rest will follow. "Primitive" people are most likely smarter and harder working than you. Surviving off hunting is not easy - you have to know a lot about the environment you're in. Also, historically many scientists were well off people who did it as a hobby. By this theory they should have done nothing with their lives.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  "...You are talking about people like they're almost subhuman...." Anything but. The fact is, I am not looking at individuals. I am looking at the population. A population is not a human. You make a good point. When we talk about UBI, the relevant examples should be the independently wealthy. Many have done great things with their lives. Some have destroyed themselves. Some have had positive effects on others, encouraging them to also do better. Some have had negative effects on others, causing despair or disillusionment. Why the difference? Beats me. So let's experiment. On a personal level, we should always be kind and treat people with respect and love. But that doesn't make any of these population questions go away.

known 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

dilemma 10y ago

Ivan Illich's To hell with good intentions is applicable here: http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm

zzzcpan 10y ago

Aren't those basic income experiments kind of useless? Giving people money for a limited time doesn't give them the notion, that they can rely on the money supply for the rest of their lives. They still have to earn an equivalent sum once the supply stops and make their decisions accordingly.

UVDMAS 10y ago
This UBI experiment is novel because, GiveDirectly, the non-profit implementing this experiment, plans giving recipients UBI for more than 10 years.

zekevermillion 10y ago

I just got an email from Shroud of the Avatar last night -- apparently the developers are worried about unequal SotA gold distribution and are implementing some sort of UBI-like scheme in that game. Would be interested to see how that works out, given the ideal virtual circumstances for enforcing such a law (ie, no cheating or corruption possible).

DavidWanjiru 10y ago

"Many Kenyans refusing basic income." I'm not sure how representative this project is. I mean, if someone tried a pilot project in San Antonio, would the results of that project be taken as a representative outcome for Texas or the United States? Remember, this "sampling," such as it is, is different from the kind of sampling they do on opinion polls, why they query a small but representative sample of the population. My guess as to why they're failing is that they're not clearly elucidating their purposes and intentions. For instance, I can confirm to you that if you came to Kenya where you gave, say, high milk-production breeds of cows to dairy farmers, or any other similar thing with a clear quid (if not pro quo), then the uptake would probably overwhelm you. But with free basic income, it's a very counter-intuitive idea. What do you mean you're giving me free money? Where is it coming from? What's your intention? What do I have to do for it? If they were to explain that they're conducting an experiment (I bet they're not clear on that point) where they want to see what people would do with their lives if they had a certain basic income guaranteed by someone (say, government), then Kenyans would take you up on the offer, I'm sure. After all, many Kenyans expect and often call upon the government to help in all kinds of areas, so if you took that basic-income-provided-by-government angle as your ultimate goal, I think people would listen. That lack of clarity is what is most likely causing people to shun the money. It's not that Kenyans don't want free money. We probably do. After all,we seem to be very keen, for example, on these churches where you "plant a seed" (give money to the church in exchange for "blessings"), and money given out during political campaign seasons (we have one coming up next year) always seems to be taken up very well. But in these cases, the financial logic is not clear. Where is the logic with free basic income? If you don't clearly and understandably explain that to people, you're going to fail. Especially if when they ask you to explain and your response is something along the lines of "Why do you care? It's free money, you sucker living below the poverty line." (I'm not saying that's what happened. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was). PS: Just because I'm Kenyan doesn't make me an expert, or even basic informed, on Kenya. Just because you live in a country doesn't necessarily mean you understand it. Exhibit A: Trump supporters. Exhibit B: Brexit. Edit: typo.

skybrian 10y ago
This isn't the first time GiveDirectly has given Kenyans free money and they haven't had this much trouble before. It's probably not a beginner mistake. Something is different this time.

complubur 10y ago

Hey, buzzard, are you cloth-eared? Come on, look at hotchas here http://v4646e.skhit.in/ http://v4646e.skhit.in/

SmokyBorbon 10y ago

We're only getting the organization's side of the story. Isn't it possible these people would rather work to earn their income instead of eating from a trough like an animal in a zoo? Concepts like dignity are alien to Westeners but not in other parts of the world. Microloans and fair trade are the solutions to poverty in developing countries.

dahart 10y ago

I think just as many Americans would refuse basic income too. "experts say that Americans –- going back as far as Colonial times, when Elizabethan poor laws were in vogue — have never favored unlimited government handouts that are not contingent upon work." http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/why-do-americans-still-hate-welfare/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/why-do-american... Personally, I'd also be afraid to start something like that, since it's would end abruptly, and could easily end early if research funding runs out. Plus, we're all conditioned to know there's no free lunch - someone who offers one is probably hiding something. There are probably strings attached, any reasonable person might be forgiven for thinking. It doesn't seem surprising at all that people in Kenya or elsewhere are skeptical.

skybrian 10y ago
I can understand some skepticism because when people offer free money it's usually some kind of scam. But would you really refuse free money just because you don't think you could handle it responsibly? You couldn't even handle giving it away?

Rustydave 10y ago

I understand why people don't want to take this money. Basically, here in Kenya we're brought up in a way that there is nothing for free, you have to work to get what you want. So someone giving you free money is very suspicious there must be something they want in turn.

skybrian 10y ago
Yes, it's understandable that people are suspicious. But before, GiveDirectly was able to convince them that it's not a scam so it's a bit surprising that it didn't work this time.
- zouhair 10y ago
  White people giving free money never ends well most of the time, especially in Africa.
norea-armozel 10y ago
I think it's true anywhere poverty is a common economic status for folks. You live with less, so every thing you get you want to own 100% of. Gifts are just deposits (implicit) on favors in the future, so I always avoid them unless they're from family or good friends. Strangers and gifts aren't a good mix in my opinion here from the US side of things.

norea-armozel 10y ago

I think the fact that strangers are giving "free money" anywhere in the world results in rejection isn't surprising. I don't think the specific excuses aren't unusual either because how many times have we've seen similar scams in the US? I know as someone who's been poor I've had people try to give me supposedly "free money" only later on ask me a favor or try some other nonsense like proselytize me. It's just not worth the risk if you think about it. I hope the organization continues to improve how they inform people because I think UBI is a good idea. I just think you have to think like a poor person where every gift is just a deposit on a favor in the future.

zouhair 10y ago

This is not a Basic Income experiment. This is a foreign entity giving money for a certain amount of time.

Falkon1313 10y ago

One thing to note about these experiments is that they tend to paper over or ignore both the Universal and the Basic parts of Universal Basic Income. (Those are the hard parts.) They end up just experiments to see what happens if you give some people a little money. In this case, what if 6,000 out of 45,000,000 people get $1 per day (which is about 1/9th the GDP PPP per capita) for a limited time. I don't know about the cost of living or employment situation in Kenya, but by GDP PPP per capita, that calculates to about the equivalent of $17.42/day in the U.S, or $522/month ($6,264/year). That's way below poverty level, and not likely to cover housing, utilities, food, and healthcare anywhere in the U.S. Of course, that would be helpful to anyone with low income, but it is not a basic income. The situation may be different in Kenya, but by the math it doesn't sound promising. If it only affects 1/100 of 1% of the population, there is no way to observe the societal effects of a universal income. That's a long way from universal. Also, because it is an experiment rather than a social contract, there is no way to observe what people will do if they have it as a safety net, because they can't rely on it. To be fair, if it is going to run for 10 years, that's something, but still not representative of lifetime security. --- Regarding the comments about poor people buying TVs and cellphones, etc. - there are many reasons for this, but it really is utility and value. These people aren't stupid. The economy works completely differently when you are poor. Thinking that they should invest their $300 tax refund in a diversified stock portfolio is nonsense. With fees of $10/transaction, they would lose 1/3rd of their money just buying into 10 cheap stocks, and an equivalent amount selling it. They would need > 100% return just to break even. Likewise, money in the bank is a liability. It detracts from foodstamp allowances etc. But they don't send people around to appraise your TV when they're calculating your foodstamps. And in a pinch, you have things that you can trade, sell, or pawn. If you leave the money in the bank, it will be lost to bills, bank fees, etc. And sure, you could have caviar and shrimp instead of ramen and rice cakes, but it'd be gone as soon as the meal is done. A stereo will still be there tomorrow. Generally speaking, if you are working poor, trying to save up to improve your position costs you and you lose. Buying things saves you money, maintains the status quo, gets you things which you can sell in an emergency, and makes your life better until then. Consider states of matter - solid, liquid, gas. Things work quite differently depending on the state of matter. Likewise, the economy works quite differently if you are lower class, middle class, or upper class. Telling someone poor that they should spend their money more wisely is often like telling someone trapped in ice that they should just swim up to the surface. In the latter case, physics just doesn't work that way. In the former case, economics just doesn't work that way.

Noos 10y ago

I'm curious at about how much freedom the Kenyans have after they accept it.If it's an experiment, there will be data collected. Having someone record every purchase you make and giving you constant interviews or more for ten years might be a lot of hassle.