Abstract
Basic income was a hot issue in the recent Korean presidential election. Its pros and cons were used to scramble for the electorate’s votes. However, their arguments largely relied on political rhetoric and lacked scientific facts. The problem is that politics without the backing of science is not only prone to a misguided conviction but also going to deal a blow to the future development of basic income. This study aims to narrow the gap between rhetoric and facts through evidence-based research on basic income. By employing methods of fact-finding and effect evaluation, we analyze using four aspects of assessment, namely, general information about basic income experiments; details on the experiments; development of the experiments; and the effect of the experiments. Basic income-related data are drawn from the World Bank and the Basic Income Laboratory at Stanford University. Significant results of the review are that some positive effects were identified at the micro level but any meaningful macro-level impact was impossible to confirm. To sum up, the outcomes are so erratic that it is difficult to detect any clear pattern in policy impacts. To approach basic income more scientifically, further research is urgently needed.