Framing a Minimum Income Guarantee

Quantitative research findings

Framing options tested

The qualitative research stage provided detailed information about responses to a Minimum Income Guarantee and how the framing options may be received. Following this stage of research, Progressive recommended the following for the quantitative survey:

• Adjusting the framing descriptions slightly to ensure all frames tested include a description of what a Minimum Income Guarantee is – to avoid confusing responses to the framing with responses to the policy elements
• Adjusting the ‘fairer society’ description for the survey to include a more positive focus for testing
• Removing the ‘global events’ frame from testing with the quantitative sample, as this is very unlikely to be an effective framing
• Including a question in the survey about preferred naming options.

The framing options tested for the population survey were therefore as follows:

Table 5: Minimum Income Guarantee framing options for quantitative testing

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.

Perceptions and attitudes towards poverty and financial insecurity

Poverty and financial insecurity in Scotland

Across the eight issues presented to respondents, health and social care/the NHS was most likely to be ranked as being the most important issue for the Scottish Government to prioritise (ranked first by 37% of the sample), followed by increasing people’s financial security and reducing poverty (24%). Wider public services, such as transport and childcare – key components of a Minimum Income Guarantee – were ranked first by just 2% of the sample (see Figure 1).

As might be expected, those most likely to prioritise increasing people’s financial security and reducing poverty included lower SEGs (28% of DEs ranked this first v 17% of ABs) and those who reported having financial difficulties at the moment (33% v 14% of those managing well).

Extent to which financial insecurity and poverty is a problem in Scotland

Poverty and financial insecurity were judged to be a serious problem in Scotland: nine in ten respondents in total said that this was either a very serious (52%) or moderately serious problem (38%) – see Figure 2.

Those most likely to say this is a very serious problem included:

• The middle age group (62% of those aged 35-54 v 49% 18-34s and 47% 55+)
• Lower SEGs (56% of C2DEs v 48% of ABC1s)
• Those currently in financial difficulties (63% v 43% of those managing well)
• Respondents with any disability in the household (59% v 47% of those with no disability in the household).

Levels of concern about financial insecurity and poverty in Scotland

As shown in Figure 3, 77% in total said they were personally very or quite concerned about this issue, although the balance was towards ‘quite concerned’ (50%) rather than ‘very concerned’ (27%).

Sub-groups most likely to say they are personally concerned about financial insecurity and poverty in Scotland included:

• Respondents aged under 65 (the 65+ age group were least likely to be personally very or quite concerned: 65% said this, considerably lower than all other age groups)
• Those with the lowest annual household incomes (84% of those with a household income of less than £20k were very or quite concerned, although even 74% those with incomes of £45k or more still said they were personally concerned)
• Those experiencing financial difficulties (95% v 63% of those managing well)
• Respondents in priority families (86% v 75% of those not in priority families)
• Those with disabilities in the household (82% v 74%)
• Respondents with children in the household (85% v 74%).

Extent to which Scottish Government should prioritise helping people in poverty

Reflecting findings about levels of concern, the majority (71%) felt that it should be a top (23%) or high (48%) priority for the Scottish Government to help people experiencing financial insecurity and poverty (see Figure 4).

In line with previous findings, those most likely to say this should be a top/high priority for the Scottish Government included those in financial difficulties (83%), single parents (82%), those with a household income of below £20k (81%), and respondents with a disability in the household (78%).

Attitudes towards poverty and financial insecurity

Respondents were asked their views about the issue of financial insecurity and poverty in Scotland and how people experiencing this might be helped, e.g. through social security, public services and employment opportunities. Some of the statements were designed to reflect the reasons for introducing a Minimum Income Guarantee, while others had a more negative focus to provide a measure of less sympathetic attitudes towards poverty.

There were very high levels of agreement with the statements that support the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee (see a summary of overall agreement levels in Table 6 and a full breakdown in Figure 5). Around nine in ten respondents agreed overall with five of the seven statements, and the balance was towards strong agreement. The highest levels of overall agreement were seen for: being able to afford the essentials is a basic human right (91% agreed overall – and two thirds strongly agreed); everyone should have access to good quality work so they can improve their financial security (91%); and anyone can find themselves in a situation where they can’t afford the basics (88%). The lowest level of agreement was seen for ‘there can never be a fair and just society when some people don’t have financial security’ – although 72% still agreed with this.

There were high levels of agreement with these statements across all sub-groups in the sample, although there was a broad pattern in responses based on gender, current financial situation and whether respondents live in areas of deprivation:

• Women tended to have more positive attitudes than men: for example, they were more likely to agree that anyone can potentially find themselves in a situation where they can’t afford the basics (90% agreed v 85% of men), being able to afford essentials is a basic human right (94% v 88%), public services should ensure everyone’s basic needs are met (90% v 83%) and everyone should have access to good quality work to improve their financial security (93% v 88%)
• Those currently in financial difficulties were more likely to agree with six of the seven statements (with the exception of the statement about access to good quality work) than those who said they are managing well
• Those living in the most deprived 20% SIMD areas were more likely than those in the least deprived 80% to agree with statements about poverty having an adverse effect on all of society (88% v 82%), financial insecurity undermining a fair society (81% v 71%) and public services ensuring basic needs are met (92% v 86%).

Agreement was lower for the statements with a more negative focus (see Table 7 and Figure 6). However, over half of all respondents agreed that if the benefits system is too generous it discourages people from working (56% agreed overall) and that inequality is inevitable and there will always be some people who live in poverty (56%). Agreement was lowest overall that people experiencing poverty have usually made poor choices in life, but a quarter did still agree with this (24%).

Again, some patterns emerged in responses to these statements by sub-group:

• Men were more likely than women to agree the benefits system is enough to meet people’s needs (31% v 24%) and that if people work hard they can avoid poverty (44% v 33%)
• The youngest age group (18-34s) tended to express more negative views in relation to poverty being due to personal choices, while the middle age group (35-54s) were most likely to disagree with the statements about work (working hard can avoid poverty; generous benefits discourage people from working)
• Better off respondents (higher SEGs, those not on the lowest incomes, and those managing well financially) all tended to express more negative views about poverty than those who were at the lower end of the SEG/income scale or who were in financial difficulties (with the exception of the statement that inequality is inevitable, where there were no differences by economic factors)
• Respondents with no disability in the household also tended to hold more negative views than those where someone in the household has a disability
• However, priority families were also more likely to hold negative views than those not falling into this category.

Analysis by attitudes towards poverty

Since negative attitudes towards poverty in general (e.g. a belief it is due to individual choices or not working hard enough etc.) could affect people’s likelihood to support a Minimum Income Guarantee, respondents were grouped based on their answers to four of these statements: people affected have made poor choices; if people work hard they can avoid poverty; some people will always live in poverty; if benefits are too generous people are discouraged from working. Three in ten respondents agreed with three or four of these statements (see Table 8). This sub-group has been used to look at responses to the Minimum Income Guarantee framing options in the following sections.

Those most likely to fall into the group with the most negative attitudes (i.e. agreeing with three or four of these statements) included:

• Younger age groups (37% of 18-34s fell into this group, v 24% of 35-54s and 31% of 55+)
• Higher SEGs (36% of ABC1s v 25% of C2DEs)
• Those on higher incomes (those with household incomes of less than £20k were the least likely of all income groups to fall into this category: 23%)
• Respondents who said they were managing well financially (41% v 25% of those with financial difficulties)
• Priority families (40%)
• Those with no disability in the household (34%).

Response to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee

Just over a quarter of respondents (27%) said that they had heard of a Minimum Income Guarantee before. It is possible that there is some confusion with the minimum wage or the idea of a Universal Basic Income in these findings.

Initial levels of support for the introduction of a Minimum Income Guarantee

Respondents were shown a short description of a Minimum Income Guarantee and asked to what extent they would support or oppose the introducing of a Minimum Income Guarantee in Scotland. Initial reactions were positive (see Table 9), with an average support rating of 7.72 out of 10. Three fifths gave a score of 8~10, and just over three in ten giving the highest possible score of 10 (strongly support).

Sub-groups of the population who were most likely to express strong support for the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee (scoring 8~10) included:

• Younger age groups (68% of 18-24s and 63% of 35-54s, compared to 52% of those aged 55+)
• Those in financial difficulty (66% v 55% of those managing well)
• Respondents living in the most deprived SIMD quintile (69% v 58% of those in the least deprived areas)
• Those with a disability in the household (64% v 57%).

Unsurprisingly, those with a more negative/less sympathetic attitude in relation to financial insecurity generally were less likely to express support for a Minimum Income Guarantee (46% of those agreeing with three/four negative statements v 70% of those agreeing with none/one). For example, strong support for the introduction of a Minimum Income Guarantee (i.e. the proportion scoring 8~10) was just under half (48%) among those who agreed that a too generous benefits system discourages work, compared to four in five (81%) among those who disagreed. A similar pattern was seen for each of the other negative statements, with around half of those who agreed saying they supported a Minimum Income Guarantee, compared to between seven and eight in ten of those who disagreed.

Anticipated impact of a Minimum Income Guarantee

Respondents were then asked how positive or negative they thought the introduction of a Minimum Income Guarantee would be for society as a whole in Scotland, and for themselves personally (see Figure 7). People generally believed that a Minimum Income Guarantee would have a positive impact on society as a whole, with three quarters (75%) saying this – and almost two fifths (38%) saying it would be ‘very positive’. Respondents were less likely to anticipate benefits for themselves personally, with just under half (49%) saying a Minimum Income Guarantee would be positive for them (evenly split between moderately and very positive) and almost two fifths saying this would have neither a positive nor a negative impact for them personally.

Those most likely to say that a Minimum Income Guarantee would have a positive impact were similar to those who expressed strong support for the idea, for example:

• Younger age groups were most positive – those aged 65+ were least likely to say it would be positive for society as a whole (66%), and for them personally (29%)
• Lower SEGs were more likely to think a Minimum Income Guarantee would have a positive impact on them personally (53% C2DE v 44% ABC1)
• Those with the lowest household incomes were most likely to think it would have a positive impact on them (60% of those on less than £20k), as did those who were in financial difficulties (66%)
• Priority families were more likely than others to say it would be positive for society (80% v 74%) or themselves personally (61% v 45%)
• Those with disabilities in the household were also more likely than others to think it would be positive for them personally (53% v 45%).
• A similar pattern was observed based on attitudes towards poverty as was noted earlier – i.e. those who tended to agree with statements focusing responsibility for poverty on individuals were least likely to anticipate a Minimum Income Guarantee would have a positive impact on society or themselves.

Response to the framing options

Following testing of initial responses to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee, respondents were shown the three different ways of describing how a Minimum Income Guarantee would help people and society and asked about their level of support based on each description provided. As in the qualitative research, question order was randomised to avoid any order effect on results.

For the sample as a whole (see Table 10), results were broadly similar across all three frames: the mean score was highest for the reassurance/safety net theme (7.85) and lowest for fairer society (7.75), but these differences were small.

Responses to each theme were also compared to the original level of support demonstrated before any of the frames were shown – i.e. whether levels of support had increased, decreased or remained the same based on the score out of 10 originally, and the score out of 10 given following each frame (see Table 11). Although all three frames generated a small increase in mean scores, these were very small changes, and for the majority of respondents, the level of support did not change after seeing any of the three frames – but as noted previously, initial support was generally already high, so scores were starting from a relatively high baseline of support.

The same analysis was conducted specifically looking at those who were initially opposed to the idea of introducing a Minimum Income Guarantee in Scotland (i.e. scored 0~4 initially) – since these are the people who most need to be persuaded about the idea. Because initial support was generally high, this analysis is based on a relatively small base size (n=90). However, results are encouraging in that those who initially opposed the idea were fairly likely to increase their level of support after seeing the more detailed descriptions – particularly for the reassurance/safety net theme: 43% of this group gave a higher score after seeing this frame (see Table 12).

Preferred frame

Respondents were asked to rank the three options they had seen in terms of which made them feel most positively towards a Minimum Income Guarantee being introduced in Scotland (see Figure 8).

Reassurance safety/net was most likely to be chosen as the preferred frame, with 37% of the sample ranking this first. The freedom/opportunity theme was least likely to be ranked first, although results were fairly evenly split with no very strong preferences expressed.

Some differences emerged in relation to the most effective frames based on pre-existing attitudes and initial levels of support for a Minimum Income Guarantee before seeing any of the theme descriptions:

• Reassurance/safety net performed particularly well among those who agreed with three or four of the negative attitudinal statements about poverty (44% ranked this first, compared to 33% of those who agreed with none or one of these statements)
• Conversely, freedom/opportunity was less likely to be ranked first among those with the most negative attitudes (24% of those agreeing with three or four statements, compared to 33% of those agreeing with none or one)
• Among those who initially opposed a Minimum Income Guarantee, the preference for reassurance/safety net was even stronger – 63% of this group ranked safety net first, while 20% ranked fairer society first and 17% ranked freedom/opportunity first. As noted, this is based on a relatively small base size (n=90) but could indicate the effectiveness of the safety net theme in persuading those initially less positively disposed to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee.

There were very few sub-group differences in terms of demographics/economic profile for which frames were ranked first. Those most likely to prefer the reassurance/safety net theme included women (40% ranked this first v 34% of men) and older respondents (e.g. 47% of 65+ v 28% of 18-34s), while those most likely to choose freedom/opportunities included men (34% v 27% of women) and younger people (36% of 18-34s v 21% of 65+) – and there were no demographic differences for the fairer society theme.

Reasons for selecting preferred frames

Respondents were asked why they had selected their first choice and comments were coded into themes for analysis.

As outlined in Table 13, those who chose the reassurance/safety net theme tended to say that this was because anyone can fall on hard times or need help (26%) and/or that it is important/reassuring to have a safety net/protect people if something bad happens to them (22%).

Respondents who chose the fairer society theme were most likely to say that this was because it would make society fairer (25%), that everyone should be treated equally (18%), and/or that everyone should have the basics/a certain standard of living (11%) – see Table 14.

For respondents who preferred the freedom/opportunity theme (see Table 15), this was because they said people should have freedom/choices (28%), people/everyone should have a good/full life (17%) and/or that it will improve happiness/wellbeing (12%).

Benefits of a Minimum Income Guarantee for individuals and communities

A range of potential benefits of a Minimum Income Guarantee were shown, for both individuals and for society as a whole, and respondents were asked to rank these in order of which would make them most likely to support the idea.

Benefits for individuals that would increase support for a Minimum Income Guarantee

Allowing people to live a decent/dignified life, not worrying about whether to ‘heat or eat’, was the most likely to be ranked first as an individual benefit, by some margin – almost two fifths (38%) ranked this first (see Figure 9). This was followed by providing greater financial security for when things happen out of people’s control. The benefits associated with the freedom/opportunity theme were ranked lowest.

However, certain sub-groups within the sample were more likely to be persuaded by particular individual benefits, for example:

• The ‘greater financial security’ benefit was more likely to be ranked first by higher SEGs (29% ABC1 v 20% C2DE) and those living in the least deprived areas (26% v 19% of those in the most deprived quintile). It was also popular with those who were initially the most opposed to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee (45% v 22% of those who strongly supported the idea) and those with the most negative attitudes towards poverty (33% of those agreeing with three or four negative statements v 19% of those agreeing with none or one)
• The ‘greater freedoms’ benefit was also more likely to be ranked first by those with negative attitudes (26% v 16%) and by those with children in the household (23% v 17% of those without children).

Benefits for communities/society that would increase support for a Minimum Income Guarantee

As shown in Figure 10, the benefit related to the safety net theme was ranked most highly in the list of community/society benefits: reassurance that a financial safety net is there if and when people need it – 31% ranked this first. Less pressure on the NHS was also ranked highly, followed by a general improvement in the wellbeing of society.

Those experiencing financial difficulties were more likely than those managing well to rank the reassurance of a safety net first (35% v 27%), as were those in priority families (37% v 29% of those not in a priority family).

The only difference based on attitudes was that a reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour was more likely to be ranked first by those with a more negative attitude to poverty generally (16% of those agreeing with three/four negative statements v 6% of those agreeing with none/one). Reducing crime was also a more persuasive community/society benefit among those who initially opposed the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee (21% ranked it first v 8% of those who supported it).

Naming options

Respondents were asked which of three potential names for the policy they thought was the best. Views were very evenly split, with no clear winner overall in terms of the preferred name (see Figure 11). No names were suggested by more than one or two respondents who said it should be called something else.

Although views overall were evenly split between the proposed names, there were some differences between sample sub-groups:

• The name ‘Minimum Income Guarantee’ had consistent levels of support across demographic sub-groups
• ‘Living Income Guarantee’ was more likely to be chosen by women (34% v 25% of men) and by higher SEGs (33% ABC1s v 26% C2DEs)
• ‘Scottish National Income’ was preferred by priority families (37% v 27% of those not in a priority family); those with a disability in the household (33% v 27% of those with no disability in the household); and men (34% v 26% of women). However, this name was less popular among older age groups (e.g. 17% of those aged 65+, lower than all other age groups).

Any other comments

Finally, respondents were asked if they had any further thoughts about the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee. A total of 359 respondents provided any further feedback. These responses were coded into broad themes, presented in Table 16 below.

The majority of those who commented gave positive feedback or said they supported the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee. Around a quarter gave negative feedback or criticisms of the policy, including concerns about potential abuse of the system. A quarter raised queries/concerns about how it would work in practice (e.g. how it will be funded).