The Finland Basic Income Trial
What happens when you trust people with security?
Photo: Alexandr Bormotin / Unsplash
Between 2017 and 2018, KELA ran the Finland Basic Income Experiment, one of the most closely watched social policy experiments in modern history. The Finnish government selected 2,000 unemployed citizens at random and gave each of them €560 per month, unconditionally, with no means testing, no job search requirements, and no penalties for finding work. What they found challenged almost every assumption critics had made about basic income. This is what happened, what it proved, and why it still matters.
What Were They Testing?
The Finland Basic Income Experiment began as a bold national experiment in trust and social wellbeing.
The Finnish government wanted to know whether a universal basic income could improve wellbeing without reducing the incentive to work. The goal was simple yet radical — to see what would happen when people were given room to breathe. Would they stop looking for work? Or would the stress relief and autonomy improve their chances of finding purpose and stability?
How Did it Work?
2,000 unemployed Finnish citizens were selected at random to receive €560 per month, unconditionally. There were no reporting requirements, no job search mandates, and no penalties for finding work. Participants simply received the payment and lived their lives.
An independent research team tracked outcomes across employment, mental health, financial security, trust in institutions, and overall life satisfaction. The first results were released in 2019. The final comprehensive report followed in 2020.
Why Finland?
Finland was uniquely positioned to run this experiment. A stable democracy with strong institutions, a comprehensive existing welfare system, and a culture of civic trust, it was the ideal environment to test whether basic income could work within a functioning modern economy. Not a developing nation. Not a crisis state. A wealthy, well-governed country choosing to ask a genuinely difficult question about how it could do better.Participants simply received the payment and lived their lives.
An independent research team tracked outcomes across employment, mental health, financial security, trust in institutions, and overall life satisfaction. The first results were released in 2019. The final comprehensive report followed in 2020.
What Did They Find?
The results were not what the critics predicted.
People did not stop working. They did not become passive or disengaged. They did not waste the money or lose their motivation. What they did was breathe, many of them for the first time in years.
The Human Difference
The most striking findings weren’t economic. They were human. Participants reported feeling less anxious, more optimistic, and more capable of planning their futures. They slept better. They engaged more with their communities. They trusted their government more.
These are not soft outcomes. A population that trusts its institutions, plans for the future, and engages civically is a more productive, more stable, and more democratic society. The Finland trial didn’t just test basic income; it tested what happens when a government decides its citizens are worth trusting.
The Human Difference
This was the central question, and the answer was unambiguous: no significant drop in employment. In fact, younger participants showed a slight increase in employment activity. The fear that people would stop working if given unconditional support was not supported by a single data point from this trial.
People didn't stop working. They started working better.
Increased Life Satisfaction
Participants reported greater happiness, optimism and sense of purpose, sustained throughout the entire trial period.
Source: KELA Final Report 2020
No Drop in Employment
Job seeking remained stable or improved slightly, directly disproving the “people will stop working” argument.
Source: KELA Final Report 2020
Reduced Stress & Anxiety
Financial fear decreased significantly. Participants reported better sleep, more energy and improved mental clarity.
Source: KELA Final Report 2020
Greater Trust in Institutions
Recipients reported increased trust in government and public institutions, a finding with profound democratic implications.
Source: KELA Final Report 2020
Improved Focus & Agency
Participants felt more able to make long-term plans, pursue education and engage with their communities.
Source: KELA Final Report 2020
Increased Financial Security
Basic needs were consistently covered. The floor worked exactly as intended, dignity without surveillance.
Source: KELA Final Report 2020
What Does This Mean for Australia
Finland is not Australia. The cultures are different, the economies are different, the welfare systems are different. Critics will say that what worked in Helsinki won’t necessarily work in Hobart.
They’re not entirely wrong. Context matters.
But here’s what also matters — the fundamental questions the Finland trial asked are not Finnish questions. They are human ones.
Will people stop working if you give them security? No. Will mental health improve if financial fear is removed? Yes. Will people trust their government more if it trusts them first? Yes.
Those answers don’t belong to Finland. They belong to human beings. And Australians are human beings.
What We Have in Common
Australia and Finland share more than geography separates them:
- Both are wealthy, stable, well-governed democracies
- Both have existing welfare systems that are increasingly inadequate
- Both are experiencing automation disruption, housing stress, and growing inequality
- Both have populations that are losing trust in institutions
The conditions that made the Finland basic income trial meaningful are present in Australia right now.
Where We Differ
Australia is larger, more diverse, and has a more complex federal system. Implementation would require careful design — a staged rollout, proper funding mechanisms, and genuine consultation with First Nations communities whose relationship with welfare systems carries specific historical weight.
None of these differences make UBI impossible in Australia. They make it more complex to design. That’s not a reason not to do it — it’s a reason to do it carefully. Which is exactly what we’re proposing.
Evidence at Home
We don’t have to rely entirely on overseas trials. Australia has its own evidence base, from ACOSS poverty research, to Productivity Commission welfare reform recommendations, to ANU modelling showing a $500/week UBI would increase GDP by 1.3% with minimal inflationary effect.
The evidence exists. The Finland basic income experiment shows us this. The question is whether we have the political will to act on it.
That’s what WeRise is for.
Sources & Further Reading
The claims on this page are drawn from primary sources. We encourage you to read them, challenge them, and share them.
- KELA Final Report 2020 — The definitive account of the Finland Basic Income Experiment. Available in English.
- KELA Preliminary Results 2019 — First release of trial findings.
- Basic Income Earth Network — Global UBI research and advocacy.
- The Finland Experiment — BBC Analysis — Accessible overview for general audiences.
- Kangas et al. 2020 — Academic paper: The Basic Income Experiment 2017–2018 in Finland. Available via Google Scholar.
- Per Capita — Australian poverty and inequality research.
- The Australia Institute — Independent Australian policy research.
Found this useful? Share it. The more people who understand what the evidence actually says, the harder it becomes to ignore.