We find no evidence that they had positive impacts on our pre-specified survey outcomes at any time point.

I saw this proposed experiment back in 2020.  I was intrigued because there were doing what is always recommended.  Re-registered methodology, robust sample size, etc.  They even pre-surveyed experts to assess what the expected results might be.  The experts were wrong and the outcomes are inconsistent with how advocacy groups argue the world ought to work.  

🚨 New WP 🚨 In late 2020 we gave 5,000 low-income US participants $2000, $500, or nothing ($2.5m in transfers), measured survey outcomes, & (for 43%) have access to bank info. What did we find? 1/ (w/ @AniaJaroszewicz, @julianjamison, & Oliver Hauser)

🔓https://t.co/et1W6hJhBf pic.twitter.com/jU16SZHvKV

— Jon M Jachimowicz (@jonj) July 5, 2022

The thread is a good summary of the findings.  

From How Effective Is (More) Money? Randomizing Unconditional Cash Transfer Amounts in the US by Ania Jaroszewicz, Jon Jachimowicz, Oliver Hauser, Julian Jamison.  From the Abstract:

We randomized over 5,000 US individuals in poverty to one of three conditions during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: receiving a one-time $500 unconditional cash transfer (UCT; half a month’s worth of total household income for the median participant; N=1,374), a $2,000 UCT (two months’ income; N=699), or nothing (N=3,170). We measured the effects of the UCTs on participants’ financial well-being, psychological well-being, cognitive capacity, and physical health through surveys administered one week, six weeks, and 15 weeks after cash receipt. For 43% of our sample, we also observe bank account balances and financial transactions. While the cash transfers increased expenditures for a few weeks, we find no evidence that they had positive impacts on our pre-specified survey outcomes at any time point. We further find no significant differences between the $500 and $2,000 groups. These findings stand in stark contrast to the (incentivized) predictions of both experts and a nationally representative sample of laypeople, who---depending on the treatment group, outcome, and time period---estimated treatment effect sizes of +0.16 to +0.65 SDs. We test several explanations for these unexpected results, including via two survey experiments embedded in our trial. The data are most consistent with the notion that receiving some but not enough money made participants’ needs---and the gap between their resources and needs---more salient, which in turn generated feelings of distress.

I might characterize the results as:  If you do not provide enough money to materially change the context for recipients, all you are doing is increasing their anxiety.  Of course the results need to be replicated but it perhaps drives the conversation away from tactical financial relief and towards some sort of UBI or some other change in skill, decision-making or incentive work.  

This is of course not definitive but because it is both methodologically rigorous and reasonably powered, the results cannot be dismissed.  

UPDATE:  Also, When Giving People Money Doesn't Help by Zvi Mowshowitz.