In a groundbreaking study conducted in Germany, 107 individuals received €1,200 per month, unconditionally, for three years. The results challenge many preconceptions about Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBIE spoke with Jürgen Schupp, scientific lead from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), and Miriam Witz, project and campaign lead at Mein Grundeinkommen, about the surprising findings and implications of this landmark experiment.
Could you briefly explain how the study was designed?
Jürgen Schupp: The pilot project was a collaboration between Mein Grundeinkommen e.V., DIW Berlin, and the Vienna University of Economics. To ensure scientifically robust and meaningful results, we selected about 1,700 people from more than two million applicants through various stages. From these, 107 were randomly chosen to receive the basic income, while the other 1,580 formed the control group. The selected participants received €1,200 monthly for three years, from June 2021 to May 2024. We conducted surveys every six months to track various outcomes.
We deliberately limited our study to people between 21 and 40 years old, living in single-person households, with low to middle incomes (between €1,100 and €2,600 net per month). The rationale was that we expected to see the greatest effects of a UBI in this demographic. A 75-year-old pensioner or a high-income earner would be less likely to change their behavior with an additional €1,200 per month. We also excluded multi-person households to better isolate the individual effects of cash payments.
Miriam Witz: What makes this study unique is that it was entirely funded through private donations collected by Mein Grundeinkommen. This allowed us to design a study that wouldn’t reduce any government benefits recipients might otherwise receive. We wanted to understand the causal relationships of receiving a basic income, which required very complex research methods.
What were the most significant results?
Jürgen Schupp: The findings contradict many stereotypes about basic income. First, recipients didn’t withdraw from the labor market or significantly reduce their working hours.
This challenges the “social hammock” stereotype that people would stop working if given unconditional money.
Second, the mental health and wellbeing improvements were substantial. Recipients showed improvements in mental health by 0.347 standard deviations (SD), purpose in life by 0.250 SD, and life satisfaction by 0.417 SD. These are large effects that remained stable throughout the study period.
Third, recipients saved about 37% of the payments, showing prudent financial planning, and spent about 7% on charitable causes or supporting family and friends.
Miriam Witz: I was surprised that we didn’t see increased risk-taking behavior, which we had expected based on stories from winners of our shorter basic income raffles. But we did see significant pro-social effects – people donated more, gave more money to friends and relatives, and spent more time with friends while maintaining the same working hours.
The strongest effects were in autonomy and what we call the “gender effect” – the more dependent someone is in society, the stronger the basic income effect. There’s a strong correlation between mental health and dependency structures.
How do these results compare to other UBI studies internationally?
Miriam Witz: A key difference in our study is that we focused on single-person households, meaning the basic income wasn’t shared, which gives us more confidence in the effects. The U.S. study found slight reductions in working hours, while we found none. However, the general direction of results is similar across high-income country studies.
Jürgen Schupp: In Finland’s basic income experiment with unemployed people, they also found no significant employment effects. Our study shows stronger mental health improvements than the U.S. study. I think what sets our study apart is that the payments were substantial enough relative to income – increasing household income by 46-110% – to enable meaningful life changes.
What were the biggest challenges in conducting this research?
Jürgen Schupp: The path was long – the idea is already seven years old. We faced challenges during the COVID-19 crisis, which may have limited innovative behavior as people used the payment more as security against economic decline. We couldn’t use a true random sample due to cost constraints, but we still managed to achieve high scientific standards with good response rates (80% of the control group participated throughout the three years).
Miriam Witz: The political climate has moved away from evidence-based social policy, which is challenging. Translating complex sociological concepts into generally understandable language was difficult. We conducted many training sessions to help communicate the findings accurately.
Were there any findings that particularly surprised you?
Jürgen Schupp: I expected more mobility processes, increased self-employment activity, and more volunteer work. None of these materialized significantly, which might be due to the sample size. The extent of savings was anticipated based on preliminary surveys.
Miriam Witz: The only attitude change we observed was increased altruism.
I was particularly impressed by how UBI positively affected mental health – the effect is comparable to therapy!
This is especially relevant after COVID. The “zero effect” on labor market participation was satisfying confirmation, as this is the biggest point of contention in public debates.
What’s next for basic income research in Germany?
Miriam Witz: On May 1st, we’re launching a new €500,000 basic income raffle, where we also will survey what winners do with the extra money. We’re also commissioning a potential analysis of what UBI would mean macroeconomically for society in light of our study’s findings – without false assumptions like decreased work activity. In 2026, we’re planning a new research project on group effects.
Jürgen Schupp: We’re still finalizing the linkage with income and labor market data, which will allow us to identify longer-term effects on labor market behavior more precisely. This will complete our labor market paper in the next three months.
How has this experience changed your own perspectives?
Miriam Witz: I’ve learned a tremendous amount, especially about how our political assumptions shape how we see the world. The data has been a reality check for my own assumptions. I’ve come to believe that the ability to say “no” is very important in our society. We need an instrument that enables as many people as possible to be involved in decision-making processes – and in capitalism, that prerequisite is money.
Interestingly, I didn’t start the project as a basic income advocate, but I’m now convinced. The ability to combine our raffle with research gives us a new mandate to continue and expand this work.
Jürgen Schupp: The collaboration with an NGO was initially challenging from a research perspective, but ultimately worked very well with the Mein Grundeinkommen team. We were able to independently research the research questions and the design of the study and were able to conduct the study as part of our own research activities. The project also attracted excellent young researchers.
While a basic income isn’t currently on the political agenda, I believe that for the urgently needed restructuring of social systems, all reform options must be considered, including elements of universal basic income as a supplement – not a replacement – for our social security system in Germany.
What do these findings mean for the broader UBI debate?
Jürgen Schupp: With these results, particularly regarding labor market behavior, certain stereotypes like the “social hammock” can be objectively addressed. Universal cash payments could be particularly valuable in crisis times, as the COVID-19 pandemic showed. A direct payment mechanism could strengthen citizens’ socioeconomic security and resilience.
Miriam Witz: Our results show that UBI functions as a resilience instrument. The strongest effect was on autonomy, and there’s a strong connection between mental health and dependency structures. These findings confirm results from other high-income countries.
I believe UBI gives people the possibility to say “no” – which is crucial in our society. It’s not just about supporting people financially, but about fundamentally changing power dynamics by giving people more choice and agency in their lives.
This interview has been conducted by Dániel Fehér for UBIE and edited for clarity and length. The German basic income pilot project was conducted from 2021-2024, with results published in April 2025.
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Schupp is a German social scientist specializing in empirical social research, social indicators, and social inequality. He studied economics and sociology in Mainz and Frankfurt, earning his degree in sociology from Goethe University Frankfurt in 1983. Since 1984, he has worked at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), where he led the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) from 2011 to 2017. From 2013 to 2022, he also served as a professor of sociology with a focus on empirical social research at Freie Universität Berlin.
Miriam Witz is a dramaturg and project developer at the organization Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income). She coordinates research projects, including the Basic Income Pilot Project, and focuses on redistribution mechanisms. Before joining the team, she worked for the climate protection initiative German Zero. Alongside her work, she also writes about inequality and tax systems.
More about the study and its results:
- Sandra Bohmann, Susann Fiedler, Maximilian Kasy, Jürgen Schupp and Frederik Schwerter: Cash Transfers, Mental Health, and Agency: Evidence from an RCT in Germany (Preliminary research paper)
- Sandra Bohmann, Susann Fiedler, Maximilian Kasy, Jürgen Schupp and Frederik Schwerter: Pilotprojekt Grundeinkommen: kein Rückzug vom Arbeitsmarkt, aber bessere mentale Gesundheit (DIW Wochenbericht 15 / 2025, S. 221-229)
- Pilotprojekt Grundeinkommen (in German)
Photo credits
- Visual: Pilotprojekt Grundeinkommen
- Portraits: Marcel Maffai / Pilotprojekt Grundeinkommen