Over recent years, we at BINS have welcomed the studies on innovative ways to alleviate poverty and inequality in Scotland. These have included the globally-significant groundbreaking work on how, why and when a Universal Basic Income could be piloted and mainstreamed here, and then the analogous important research and analysis on a Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG. Each of these was underpinned by expert steering groups, robust and peer-reviewed modelling by respected and internationally renowned academic and scientific centres (https://www.gov.scot/publications/minimum-income-guarantee-early-steps-deliverability-paper/; https://www.gov.scot/publications/minimum-income-guarantee-modelling-social-security-options/; https://www.gov.scot/publications/minimum-income-guarantee-level-modelling/). We contributed to discussions and debates around each, and responded to calls for evidence, and have recognised and welcomed the objectivity, rigour and honesty integral to both exercises.
Yet, although the UBI work attracted much interest and attention, the publication of the MIG proposals was muted and attracted limited public or media attention. That is unfortunate as much of the analysis in the MIG reports are relevant to the potential for a UBI in Scotland and generally to identifying the definitions, dimensions and causes of poverty and inequality in our economic system, and to how a MIG could help alleviate some of these within our devolved powers, and so we commend their work and encourage wider dissemination. Indeed, the excellent repository of intelligence these and associated studies has generated has been appreciated across the world, celebrated in successive global congresses organised by BIEN and others, but largely ignored in Westminster and in UK media and policymaking circles.
So, we have seen little coverage and critique of the MIG, although there have been noteworthy reflections and possible developments. Notably, there was an impressive article by Craig Dalzell where he examines the background to establishing the MIG Steering Group, the similarities and differences between MIG and UBI, and why introducing either is constrained by the attitudes and intransigence of the Westminster and Whitehall establishments. Like BINS, he is in favour of a UBI for Scotland but, from that perspective, appreciates the value of the MIG work as a stepping stone to alleviating poverty here in the meantime. As he notes: a MIG seeks to gain many of the benefits of a UBI while bypassing that critique of spending resources on those who ‘don’t need it’. Rather than a payment given to everyone, a MIG says that people should be guaranteed to receive a minimum amount of money and if their wages from work or other sources don’t meet that minimum amount, then it should be topped up by the benefit.
There have been proposals for a range of UBI payments to individuals to be made in Scotland depending on current levels of Universal Credit (implying £5200 pa per person) and others, based on assumptions about affordability and social acceptability from lower amounts up to c£12000 (see references above and in footnote for more details). For the MIG modelling, payments to households are proposed related to the UK Minimum Income Standard which would mean individuals guaranteed a minimum income of almost £20,000 pa, with an effective tax rate of 55% beyond that (mirroring the current UC taper rate). Although there are several national and international campaigning in and around UBI, there are also advocates for particular groups to receive a basic income. These include a variety of disparate communities ranging across farmers, artists, care leavers, Roma amongst others. Similarly, arguments for others to receive an MIG, and these tend to settle on £20k pa also. So, whether relating these different proposals based on what the British public consider to be the required incomes for a decent life, or to relative levels of GDP and median incomes per capita across Europe, there is a good deal of consistency in arguing that no individual should have an income less than half of the average.
In our submission to the MIG steering group, we emphasised the key difference between the basic income model that BINS advocates and the proposed MIG: Basic Income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. A MIG based on the household fails to give agency to dependents (particularly to women in abusive relationships), we are encouraged to see this has been addressed in the proposals though detail on how this would operate in practice needs to follow. Under the existing constitutional arrangements, it is unclear that the conditionality for many social security payments would be removed. However, overall the vision and road map for a just Scotland where all are guaranteed to have lives not blighted by poverty run through Minimum Income Guarantee: report – a roadmap to dignity for all and present the promise of a very different society to the unequal nation today.
Given the obstacles erected by Westminster and Whitehall departments, Scotland’s Parliament would face hurdles in implementing a MIG but, as Craig Dalzell argues, the costs of not doing so are great when these are considered in a full social cost benefit analysis: there’s a solid case for designing and launching at least a limited MIG now and expanding it out as it beds in. The goal is clear and the elimination of poverty in Scotland is possible. We must transform levels of poverty, inequality and insecurity in Scotland and help to build a much more resilient economy, with wellbeing at its core.
1 thought on “Minimum Income Guarantee. An essential step on the way to introducing a Basic Income or the opportunity for another delay?”