Framing a Minimum Income Guarantee

Conclusions and recommendations

People understand that poverty and financial insecurity exist in Scotland, and they see the need for action.

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

Recommendation/implication: 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.

Spontaneous comments about who is vulnerable, and proposed solutions, suggest people are open to the ideas that will be part of a Minimum Income Guarantee.

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. A lot of the spontaneously proposed solutions to tackling poverty also included things that a Minimum Income Guarantee would be designed to achieve, e.g. reducing costs, improving services and ensuring access to well paid work – so there are a lot of positive things that can be communicated about the policy that will resonate.

Recommendation/implication: Highlighting all the key elements of a Minimum Income Guarantee 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.

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 agreed that if people work hard they can avoid being unable to pay for basic needs, and a quarter 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, any messaging that was seen to place blame on those in financial difficulties did not work well.

Recommendation/implication: There is an element of blaming individuals for their financial insecurity, which 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. Survey data also provides an indication of what types of messaging will be most effective when communicating with the minority of the population who hold the most negative attitudes (see the framing section below). Communications should also avoid messaging which could be interpreted as placing blame on those in poverty/in receipt of benefits.

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.

Initial responses to the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee were positive: three fifths of survey respondents scored their level of support as 8~10 out of 10, and just over three in ten 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 thought that a Minimum Income Guarantee would have a positive impact on society as a whole, they were less likely to anticipate benefits for themselves personally: just under half said a Minimum Income Guarantee 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.

Recommendation/implication: 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.

Talking about the benefits for individuals and society can help people think more positively about the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee – but benefits for individuals were most persuasive.

Qualitative respondents found the benefits for individuals to be the most persuasive and relatable – greater financial security for individuals being the one that stood out the most. People responded particularly well to the 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, while seen to be worthwhile, were felt to be less achievable/realistic and so did not work as well to gain support for a Minimum Income Guarantee.

In the survey, the individual benefit that people said was most likely to increase their support was allowing people to live a decent/dignified life, not worrying about whether to ‘heat or eat’ – 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. Similarly, the benefits for communities/society that was ranked first 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.

Recommendation/implication: At least initially, messaging should focus on benefits for the individual: 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.

All three framing options tested in the survey have potential to be effective in communicating about a Minimum Income Guarantee across the general population – but the reassurance/safety net theme worked best.

All three of the final frames tested in the survey have potential, in that levels of support for a Minimum Income Guarantee were slightly higher after respondents read each of the three frames when 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.

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 – although views were relatively evenly split overall, with substantial minorities choosing the ‘fairer society’ and ‘freedom/opportunities’ 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 a Minimum Income Guarantee, 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. When asked to rank their preferred themes, reassurance/safety net also performed particularly well among those who had the most negative/least sympathetic attitudes towards financial insecurity, and among those who had initially opposed the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee.

Recommendation/implication: Use the reassurance/safety net theme 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.

The name ‘Minimum Income Guarantee’ had the most consistent levels of support across the sample.

Some issues were raised in the qualitative research about the policy name, e.g. some thought ‘minimum’ implied the bare minimum or was related to the minimum wage, and there was some preference for ‘living income’ – although no very strong views were expressed. In the quantitative survey, views were fairly evenly split in terms of a preferred name for the policy; however, the name ‘Minimum Income Guarantee’ had the most consistent levels of support across demographic sub-groups.

Recommendation/implication: Retain the current name for the policy.

There are lots of questions about how a Minimum Income Guarantee would work in practice.

When first hearing about the idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee, 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). When people were asked if they had any additional comments/thoughts about the policy in the survey, around a quarter of those who left a comment also raised similar questions/concerns.

Recommendation/implication: Communication about a Minimum Income Guarantee 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.