Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group work and potential trial in Scotland: intersectional analysis

Reviewing the foundations of this work

Ambition and design of group working methods

In interviews and written documentation reviewed by the consultants, it is unclear whether a definition of intersectionality and intersectional analysis was agreed upon by the Expert Group. This is fundamental to building a foundation and a shared ambition within the group. In particular, discussions around the use of intersectionality across public and third sector institutions in Scotland are often generic or diluted, leading to a reinforcement of a one size fits all approach, rather than analysing through the specificity of compounding inequality that intersectional analysis demands - referred to as “generic intersectionality” by Christofferson (2022). This approach deprioritises the issues of power and oppression within intersectional analysis and instead reduces it to the understanding that “everyone experiences some form of inequality.” By doing so, it creates “sameness” in its analysis and delivery. There is indication from interviews that this type of misinterpretation of intersectionality may have been applied in this work, which is why space for nuanced discussion and an agreed definition is crucial. Without this space being made from the start of this work and regularly throughout, it becomes more likely that default methods of working will be leaned upon which leave equalities considerations at the periphery and focus on siloed protected characteristics.

Multiple Expert Group members who were interviewed expressed that the overarching ambition of the Expert Group was not fully discussed and defined. As such, those from different policy or campaigning areas, particularly those representing equalities and/or anti-poverty spaces, came into this development work with a transformation and systems change perspective which preferred a focus on using this opportunity to dismantle existing inequalities (for example, redesigning services or the social security system more widely). This perspective is more complementary to intersectional analysis as it seeks to identify and tackle systemic inequality including where and how these systemic inequalities overlap and compound one another.

Conversely, but equally necessary, other experts on the group came to this work with a perspective that focused more on immediate mitigation and enabling a Minimum Income Guarantee that can deliver within the constraints of wider systemic inequality and limitations in the existing policy landscape. However, this may then reinforce existing inequalities and fail to deliver fully for those who need such financial interventions the most.

In interviews it became apparent that, at times, this created tension within the Expert Group’s working and prioritised decisions which are likely to have had a negative impact on the group’s ability to assess a Minimum Income Guarantee through an intersectional lens. A balance can be reached; however, sufficient space is required to prioritise these foundational discussions.

It would have been beneficial for this tension to have been directly addressed by the Expert Group members to ensure that all individuals in the group were approaching the development of this work with the same expectations. Some of this may have been resolved through the group’s ten foundation principles (as included in the interim report), which included the principle to be “accessible to all of us with a clear focus on reducing inequalities.” However, to take the issue of intersectionality seriously and respond to it adequately, a guiding principle could have and should have been included which stated a commitment to “embedding intersectional practice.” This would have involved the group being proactively feminist, anti-racist, anti-poverty, disability inclusive, and equality focused as the starting point for this work.

It is welcome that in a draft report the Expert Group has attempted to resolve this through a number of recommendations that focus on the technical delivery of a Minimum Income Guarantee alongside the need for improvements to services and access to meaningful fair work.

The final report should include a more complete and stronger narrative that joins these two “categories” of recommendations together. A narrative is needed which explains that the success of any form of Minimum Income Guarantee in Scotland (and indeed any trial) cannot be delivered without the radical systems change required. A narrative missing from the current reporting is the in-built systemic inequality in current systems including work and social security which cause disproportionate harm on those who experience intersecting inequalities, especially the overlapping of classism, sexism, racism, and disability discrimination. It should be made clear that the status quo of services and support design and implementation in Scotland (and the UK) does not enable the tackling of systemic inequalities, but rather often further reinforces it.

Despite attempts for Social Security Scotland to have inclusion and dignity built into its approach, the consequences of systemic inequality are still visible in its implementation, for example, BME groups are underrepresented amongst social security applicants. Further, social security approval rates by ethnicity are 67% across applicants, 66% for mixed or multiple ethnic group applicants, followed by a drop for Caribbean or Black at 62%, and the lowest rate was Asian applicants at 61% (Social Security Scotland Data April 2023 – March 2024). There are likely to be multiple causes behind this, but these may include issues related to access, communication, and bias within the decision-making processes. Similar concerns have also been raised by people of colour using other services such as employability support in Glasgow (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2023). This may have been overlooked by the Expert Group given phase one did not include any members with specific anti-racist expertise. This type of analysis, whilst not intersectional, is still crucial and should be utilised in the Expert Group’s analysis and final publication to illustrate the realities for marginalised communities and how these must also be addressed for any attempts at a minimum income guarantee (or equivalent) to be effective.

Multiple Expert Group members who were interviewed discussed that the group felt more like a space of consultation rather than design. As a consequence, discussion related to nuanced and complex issues such as intersectionality were somewhat stifled as the majority of the group’s work was to read and respond to papers rather than discuss and co-produce outputs. This is often the case with working groups of this kind; however, it relies upon those leading the work and the group’s secretariat being well-informed and proactive in its ability to apply the needed layers of complexity: in this case, applying an intersectional lens, as well as having the ambition and agenda to centre intersectionality.

Some interviewees expressed that the hierarchical nature of who was involved in the group (multiple CEOs and senior leaders from the third sector) meant that members did not have sufficient time or resources to engage in the technical and complex nature of this work. This is particularly true for those members who felt they needed to spend more time advancing the intersectional and equalities analysis of this work, however, were not granted the space, resources, or time to do so due to the competing priorities and workload of their day jobs. Expert Group members provided what time they could within an increasingly demanding landscape where they are over-stretched but under-resourced. It is for third sector organisations to consider what capacity they have and their ability to delegate beyond CEO level and for the Scottish Government to adequately resource these organisations for the expertise they provide.

Limitations within the Scottish Government’s understanding and application of intersectionality

Related to the above, for intersectional analysis to be built into the foundations of any work which is externally advising the Scottish Government, it is dependent on some intersectional understanding within the secretariat, but more critically, competent intersectional analysis and application within the Scottish Government directorate and official teams which are working alongside and influencing the work of any external group.

The lack of intersectional analysis and prioritisation is not at all unique to this Expert Group. These impediments have had negative consequences on the delivery of policy development across a number of Scottish Government working groups and strategies. The experiences of this group should act as an impetus to embed a more advanced understanding of equalities policy, intersectionality and application of intersectional analysis across the Scottish Government. By doing so, intersectional data gaps would be prioritised and overcome, space and resources would be allocated to intersectional analysis, and those providing external expertise would not have to expend energy on persuading others of the need for this work.

Application of intersectionality cannot be solely reliant on equalities organisations, and it cannot be assumed that they have the resources or invitations to always be in the necessary spaces to influence wide-ranging policies. Creating a baseline of understanding across the sector and the Scottish Government on intersectional policy and service design, as well as data collection and analysis, is therefore crucial.