Framing a Minimum Income Guarantee

Executive summary

Background and objectives

The Minimum Income Guarantee is a policy response which seeks to deliver financial security for all, to reduce inequalities and to tackle poverty. It is a guaranteed minimum level of income beneath which no individual living in Scotland would fall, ensuring an acceptable standard of living that promotes dignity and a decent quality of life.

The Scottish Government committed to delivering a Minimum Income Guarantee in the longer term in its 2021-22 Programme for Government. A Steering Group has been established, which includes a cross-party Strategy Group and an Expert Group of external representatives from academia, think tanks and poverty and equality organisations, to consider issues of design and delivery of the Minimum Income Guarantee.

The Scottish Government, on behalf of the independent Expert Group, commissioned Progressive Partnership to conduct market research in order to test levels of support for a Minimum Income Guarantee and to support future communication and framing around it. The overall aim of the research was to provide robust and timely advice on how a Minimum Income Guarantee should be framed. It aimed to identify how this policy can be communicated effectively to ensure public awareness and understanding, with a focus on testing preferences for framing.

Research methods

The research was designed to follow a staged approach, as follows:

• Project inception and development of framing options: This included a review of key documents provided by the Expert Group to inform the development of the research tools. Conversations were also held with a total of six members of the Expert Group, to provide background understanding and inform the development of the framing options to be tested in the primary research. Four frames were developed based on the themes of: reassurance/safety net; security for everyone/global events; a fairer society for everyone to live in; and freedom/opening opportunity.
• Qualitative research: A series of 24 in-depth interviews was conducted with members of the general public to explore the concepts identified during the inception stage and gain feedback on options for framing a Minimum Income Guarantee. The sample included a mix of respondents in terms of age, gender and socio-economic group, and with representation from groups of particular interest, including minority ethnic groups, those with health issues/disabilities, those with no educational qualifications, priority families^[1], rural/island communities, unpaid carers and care leavers. Interviews were conducted online and lasted an average of 50-60 minutes. Based on findings from the qualitative research, some adjustments were made to the framing options to be tested in the quantitative survey.
• Quantitative research: An online self-completion survey was conducted to test the three most promising Minimum Income Guarantee framing options with the general public via a nationally representative online survey. The survey collected views from 1,053 adults aged 18+, with quotas set to ensure the sample was representative of the Scottish adult population in terms of gender, age and socio-economic group.

Limitations

Please note that qualitative research does not provide statistically robust data, due to the sample sizes involved and the methods of respondent selection. This means that results cannot be applied to, or described as being representative of, the general population. However, this phase of research provided valuable insight into the key perceptions and initial responses to the Minimum Income Guarantee framing options, which was followed by more robust testing in the quantitative survey. There are also limitations associated with any quantitative survey method – e.g. as the survey was conducted online, the sample necessarily excludes people who do not have internet access. However, the quantitative sample does include robust sub-samples of respondents from lower socio-economic groups, those living in the most deprived SIMD quintile, and those on lower incomes – it is no longer the case that online samples are heavily weighted towards more affluent respondents. The sample design provides as representative a sample as possible within the constraints of the available timescale and budget.

Key findings

Perceptions and understanding of poverty and financial insecurity

Almost all qualitative respondents had personal experience of financial insecurity, either now or in the past, or through people they knew. Cost of living issues/rising prices were commonly mentioned, and several respondents were currently struggling financially. Qualitative discussions also suggested that people generally have a good understanding of which groups in society are most vulnerable to poverty, with older people and children/families particularly likely to be mentioned.

The quantitative research also found that people see poverty and financial insecurity as a serious issue and a high priority for action: nine in ten respondents said this was a very (52%) or moderately (38%) serious problem, three quarters (77%) said they were personally concerned about it, and seven in ten (71%) said that helping those affected should be a top/high priority for the Scottish Government.

Evidence suggests that some negative attitudes and contradictory narratives about poverty persist. When thinking about the causes of poverty, qualitative interviewees were most likely to mention causes in wider society/the economy, but some did blame individual factors too, such as people ‘cheating the system’ and being ‘too lazy’ to work etc. The survey results also suggest that there are some persistent negative views of those affected by financial insecurity – e.g. two fifths of respondents (38%) agreed that if people work hard they can avoid being unable to pay for basic needs, and a quarter (24%) agreed that people experiencing poverty have usually made poor choices in life.

This supports previous research findings that people often hold contradictory positions when thinking about poverty – there was evidence in the interviews of some doubts about those in financial hardship being ‘deserving’ of help, but also sympathy and a recognition that the problem is real when thinking about cost of living increases and wider social issues (e.g. housing and employment), and when testing the original framing options and proposed benefits of a Minimum Income Guarantee in the qualitative interviews, any messaging that was seen to place blame on those in financial difficulties did not work well.

Responses to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee

Initial responses to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee were positive: three fifths (60%) of survey respondents scored their level of support as 8~10 out of 10, and just over three in ten (31%) gave the highest possible score of 10. Qualitative respondents were also broadly supportive of the idea, with key positive elements including: it would ensure the most vulnerable in society are supported/nobody would fall below a certain standard of living; it includes good quality work and services, not just benefits; it felt quite aspirational and positive; and people saw that it could have wider benefits for society as well as individuals. However, interviewees tended to assume that they were unlikely to benefit personally from the introduction of a Minimum Income Guarantee.

Survey results also suggest some altruism in responses to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee. While three quarters of survey respondents (75%) thought that a Minimum Income Guarantee would have a positive impact on society as a whole, people were less likely to anticipate benefits for themselves personally: just under half (49%) said it would be positive for them. These findings indicate that while there is perhaps a need to communicate a strong message about why a Minimum Income Guarantee would have a positive impact on everyone, people do still support the idea even when they assume it will benefit others rather than themselves.

Certain sub-groups of the population had different attitudes towards financial insecurity, and this was reflected in their initial responses to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee. For example, those who were better off (in higher socio-economic groups, currently managing well financially, not living in areas of deprivation etc.) tended to be less supportive of a Minimum Income Guarantee and were less likely to say it would have a positive impact than those who were less well off.

It should also be noted that respondents raised a lot of questions about how a Minimum Income Guarantee would work in practice. When first hearing about the idea, qualitative respondents raised a number of (mainly practical) questions/concerns: how it will be funded/paid for; how it will be administered (e.g. whether it will be means tested, how eligibility will be determined, who would be eligible); what the minimum threshold would be and how it would be calculated; how to ensure it was not abused; how to ensure the minimum levels set did not disincentivise work; and queries around fairness (e.g. someone earning just below might get a top up, while someone earning just above gets nothing). Similar queries were raised in the population survey.

Persuasive advantages of a Minimum Income Guarantee

Talking about the benefits for both individuals and for wider society can help people think more positively about the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee – but the advantages for individuals were most effective in increasing support for the policy.

For example, qualitative respondents found the potential benefits for individuals to be the most persuasive and relatable – greater financial security for individuals being the benefit that stood out the most. People responded particularly well to specific examples of situations that could lead to needing help – common things like ill health, job loss, relationship breakdown etc, which people found relatable. The advantages of a Minimum Income Guarantee for wider society (such as better public services, reduction in crime etc.), while seen to be worthwhile, were felt to be less achievable/realistic and so did not work as well to gain support for the policy.

In the survey, the individual benefit that people said was most likely to increase their support for the introduction of a Minimum Income Guarantee was allowing people to live a decent/dignified life, not worrying about whether to ‘heat or eat’ (38% ranked this first from the list of individual benefits) – this also reflects the qualitative findings, as the ‘heat or eat’ messaging resonated with people as something that highlighted the realities and impacts of financial insecurity. However, qualitative findings were mixed in relation to use of the word ‘dignified’ in this context, e.g. implying that people on low incomes were not dignified.

Providing greater financial security for when things happen out of people’s control was also ranked highly (24% selected this first). Similarly, the benefit for communities/society that was ranked first (by 31%) was reassurance that a financial safety net is there for everybody. A reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour and better public services were much further down the list of persuasive community benefits. Qualitative findings also suggest that focusing on crime and anti-social behaviour is less effective, since people feel this is placing blame on those in poverty.

Framing options

Three framing options were tested in the survey, following some adjustments based on the qualitative research, and the removal of a fourth framing option about security in relation to global events which did not test well. These were as follows:

Frame/theme:

Reassurance/safety net

Description:

The cost-of-living crisis has demonstrated that no one is entirely protected from financial hardship, and that we must go further in providing a safety net. Anyone might need a helping hand at some point in their life, and a Minimum Income Guarantee, delivered through a combination of fair and accessible paid work, high quality services and adequate social security, would be there as a reassurance for all – no matter your current position in life or what might happen in the future – you are promised a minimum standard of living.

Frame/theme:

A fairer society for everyone to live in

Description:

Inequality and poverty are harmful to society, not only for those at the sharp end of it, but for everyone. Inequality can be linked to some social problems, so reducing poverty will help to alleviate strain on the NHS and reduce crime, which in turn will lead to higher levels of trust and stronger community life. By introducing a Minimum Income Guarantee, delivered through a combination of fair and accessible paid work, high quality services and adequate social security, we will not only be improving the living standard for those who need it most, but also for society as a whole.

Frame/theme:

Freedom/opening opportunity

Description:

There are people in our communities who do not get the opportunity to live decent, healthy and financially secure lives, and are, for example, being forced to choose between whether ‘to heat or to eat’. This is unacceptable in our modern society, and something that we need to collectively rectify. The Minimum Income Guarantee, delivered through social security benefits, fair work/good jobs, and the provision of key basic services, would ensure a minimum standard of living to all, allowing people to pursue life’s opportunity and live fulfilling lives.

Results indicate that all three of the final frames tested in the survey have potential to be effective in communicating about a Minimum Income Guarantee across the general population – levels of support for the idea were slightly higher after respondents read each of the three frames, compared to initial support levels. It is worth noting that it is relatively difficult to increase scores substantially when support for the idea is already high.

The reassurance/safety net theme worked best overall. When asked to select which of the three frames made them feel most positively about the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee, the ‘reassurance safety/net’ concept was most likely to be chosen, with 37% ranking this first – although views were relatively evenly split overall, with substantial minorities choosing the ‘fairer society’ (33%) and ‘freedom/opportunities’ (30%) themes.

As noted previously, certain sub-groups of the population had different attitudes towards poverty which was reflected in varying levels of support for the introduction of a Minimum Income Guarantee. Since those opposed to the idea are the most in need of being convinced of the need for the policy, analysis focused on how those with the most negative attitudes responded to the framing options.

Encouragingly, those who had initially been opposed to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee did increase their level of support after hearing the more detailed framing descriptions – and this was particularly the case for the reassurance/safety net theme (43% of this group gave a higher score after seeing this frame). When asked to rank their preferred themes, reassurance/safety net also performed particularly well among those who had the most negative attitudes towards financial insecurity/tended to blame individuals for their situation, and among those who had initially opposed the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee.

Recommendations/implications

1. People understand that poverty and financial insecurity exist in Scotland, and they see the need for action. Findings indicate that the Scottish population is open to messaging about potential policies to address financial insecurity. All qualitative interviewees also spoke about local issues when asked about poverty, suggesting there is an opportunity for communication about a Minimum Income Guarantee to tap into widespread recognition that poverty is relevant in Scotland today.

2. Spontaneously proposed solutions to tackling poverty included things that a Minimum Income Guarantee would be designed to achieve, suggesting that people are open to the ideas that will be part of the policy. Highlighting all the key elements of the policy in combination is likely to be effective: mentions of better public services and improvements to the world of work were viewed particularly positively, as well as ensuring adequate social security.

3. Some negative attitudes towards poverty persist, and there is an element of blaming individuals for their financial insecurity – this presents a challenge for communicating about/gaining support for a Minimum Income Guarantee. It may be effective to highlight experiences that everyone can understand, and focus on issues affecting everybody, since respondents were very aware of the cost-of-living crisis and rising prices etc. Communications should also avoid messaging which could be interpreted as placing blame on those in poverty/in receipt of benefits.

4. There was broad support for the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee in principle, although there was a tendency to assume it would benefit other people. Communication about a Minimum Income Guarantee should highlight benefits for everyone/wider society, as well as focusing on the advantages for the most vulnerable. There is a greater need to persuade certain sub-groups of the population of the need for a Minimum Income Guarantee, particularly those who are personally better off financially themselves.

5. While some benefits of a Minimum Income Guarantee for wider society may be realised in the longer term, highlighting individual benefits may be more productive in terms of gaining public support in the short term, as these are seen as more achievable and realistic – particularly in the current climate of funding cuts and in the face of some fairly pessimistic views about the problem being ‘too big to solve’. Including specific examples of situations leading to people needing financial help should be included to ensure messaging is relevant/resonates across the population. People will need more explanation of how and why benefits will be delivered for wider society, particularly in relation to reducing crime and improving public services – which some people felt should be addressed anyway, independently of any policy related to a Minimum Income Guarantee.

6. It is recommended that the reassurance/safety net theme is used to frame messaging about a Minimum Income Guarantee, since this was most effective across the population as a whole but particularly among those who need most persuading about the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee.

7. The name ‘Minimum Income Guarantee’ had the most consistent levels of support across the sample. It is recommended that the current name for the policy is retained.

8. There are lots of questions about how a Minimum Income Guarantee would work in practice. Communications will need to clearly explain the practicalities and answer the key questions people will have, such as how the policy will be funded, how it will be administered and how the Scottish Government will ensure its operation is fair. It is understood that providing answers to these types of questions about policy operation is part of the wider work of the Expert Group.