I agree that the other critizism are much worse (too little money for a too short time).
But while a sample size of 2000 is statistically enough, a study this small can't find the effects of giving a basic income to an entire country. Giving income to one person changes that person, giving income to everyone changes the entire economy.
For an initial experiment this is actually fine. You first want to check that the effect on the individual is beneficial and people don't just stop contributing to society. But to draw useful conclusions you would need a second experiment that gives basic income at least to an entire community, preferably even an entire region, for a duration that allows people to forget about the "after".
>For an initial experiment this is actually fine. You first want to check that the effect on the individual is beneficial and people don't just stop contributing to society.
Is it though? With the knowledge that it will be over in 2 years you get a different sort of behavior then if it actually functioned as a guaranteed support net.
I would have found it much more interesting, if it supported people 10 year from retirement for those 10 years. They could just stop everything and dont have to care for after the project ends.
But while a sample size of 2000 is statistically enough, a study this small can't find the effects of giving a basic income to an entire country. Giving income to one person changes that person, giving income to everyone changes the entire economy.
For an initial experiment this is actually fine. You first want to check that the effect on the individual is beneficial and people don't just stop contributing to society. But to draw useful conclusions you would need a second experiment that gives basic income at least to an entire community, preferably even an entire region, for a duration that allows people to forget about the "after".