A pilot project on unconditional basic income (UBI) brings new facts into a debate that is often emotionally charged: over a period of three years, 107 randomly selected individuals received €1,200 per month - no conditions attached. The results disprove common clichés, such as the alleged withdrawal from working life.

As part of the project initiated by the organization Mein Grundeinkommen e.V., the participants were compared with a control group of 1,580 individuals. All participants lived alone, were between 21 and 40 years old, and had a monthly net income between €1,100 and €2,600 before the project began. The study was accompanied by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), the Vienna University of Economics and Business, and other research institutions.

Contrary to widespread fears, the recipients of the money neither reduced their working hours nor withdrew from the labor market. Around 90 percent of participants remained in full-time employment throughout - a level also observed in the control group.

Financially, the participants acted responsibly. Over a third of the payments were saved, and a significant portion went to charitable causes or to support relatives. Compared to the control group, notably more money was set aside, and the proportion of individuals with very low assets decreased significantly in the intervention group.

Subjective well-being also improved: the group receiving basic income reported significant increases in life satisfaction, mental health, and feelings of autonomy. These effects remained stable throughout the entire study period - with no signs of diminishing over time.

One of the most striking findings was the increase in social interaction: recipients spent several more hours per week with friends and family than those in the comparison group. More funds were also used for leisure activities and travel, suggesting an enhanced quality of life.

Despite its limited scope - the project focused on single-person households and excluded macroeconomic effects - the study provides an empirical basis to bring more objectivity into the basic income debate. In particular, the frequently cited notion of safety net abuse appears to be poorly supported in light of the findings.

The project’s initiators emphasize that basic income is currently not on the political agenda. However, in light of upcoming social system reforms, they are calling for an open-ended, evidence-based debate on potential alternatives.