Building on broad support for better social security

In this article, we present new evidence of broad public support for higher benefit levels in the UK, in line with a more generous Minimum Income Standard. Benchmarking entitlements against a publicly agreed Minimum Income Standard could build on this support and better engage with questions of human need in our social security system. Provision of this would contribute towards a so-called ‘civic minimum’ that serves as a transformative basis on which to redefine the social contract between citizens, the state and markets.2

Beyond the current cost-of-living crisis, welfare reforms and austerity measures introduced since 2010 mean the real terms value of non-pensioner benefits has fallen considerably. For example, the value of Child Benefit has fallen by more than a fifth (-22.7 per cent) since 2010 and Universal Credit has fallen by 15.5 per cent in value since its introduction in 2013 (See Figure 1).5 As the value of benefits has fallen, reliance on crisis support and charitable food aid has risen sharply, with food bank use being strongly linked to problems with or inadequacy of social security payments.6

As the value of benefits has fallen, the risk and depth of poverty has increased considerably.7 Progress made towards reducing child poverty has stalled significantly, and children, larger families and black and minority ethnic communities are more likely to be in deeper forms of poverty than they were a decade ago.8 In response, there have been growing concerns about the adequacy of social security payments and their capacity to mitigate against the causes and consequences of poverty.9

Proponents of a social contract rooted in ‘fair reciprocity’ argue that the “institutions governing economic life” have a duty to provide a “sufficiently generous share of the social product” to all citizens.12 They argue that if a set of “core commitments” is not fulfilled, those disadvantaged have a “proportionately reduced obligation” to perform the duties prescribed by the state.13 Such an argument reframes debates about the permissiveness of welfare, to refocus attention on the duties of economic citizenship held by the government and the legitimacy of welfare contractualism when adequate protection is missing.

What the public think benefit payments are is one question. What they think they should be is another. Historically, low benefit levels have often been politically justified as necessary to discourage ‘welfare dependency’ and encourage people to work. These sorts of arguments respond to and reinforce hackneyed caricatures of ‘skivers’ and ‘strivers’ and are often assumed to reflect the intuitions of the wider public.21 However, the level at which benefits are set or should be is often left ambiguous and rarely specified in public debates and discussion. When asked about the specific level at which benefits should be set, the majority of the survey respondents supported more generous payments. Specifically, most British people think that the benefits that claimants receive should be at least enough for them to afford ‘everything they really need’ (if not necessarily everything that most others in society take for granted) – that is, that benefits should meet a Minimum Income Standard.

Public support for a more generous and expansive social security system varies considerably according to the perceived circumstance and characteristics of claimants. For example, 73 per cent of the British public believe that in-work claimants should, at the very least, receive payment levels that mean they can afford ‘everything they really need’ (that is, a nutritious and varied diet, safe and dry accommodation, money for utility bills, clothing, childcare and transport). Support is roughly the same (72 per cent) for disabled claimants who are unable to work. However, it drops to 65 per cent for unemployed single parents and to 56 per cent for unemployed single people with no children. Nevertheless, this means that, even for the least supported group (unemployed single people with no children), most people support the idea that benefits should cover all necessities.

In terms of support for the most generous Social Participation Standard (benefits which would allow people to afford both necessities and things that most people take for granted), attitudes again vary depending on the type of claimant. The British public are most likely to support this standard for disabled people who are unable to work (42 per cent), followed by in-work claimants (33 per cent), unemployed single parents (22 per cent) and finally unemployed single people with no children (16 per cent).

It is also worth noting that the attitudes and policy preferences of benefit claimants themselves broadly mirror those of the general public. While benefit claimants are ever so slightly more likely to support higher levels of social security entitlement, it appears they nonetheless draw similar distinctions between the assumed needs, circumstance and ‘deservingness’ of different claimant groups. For example, support for a Social Participation Standard is highest for disabled people who are unable to work, with 46 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this, and lowest for unemployed single people with no children, with only 23 per cent of benefit claimants supporting this (See Figure 3).22

To build on this, further work is needed to improve public understanding of changes to the social security system that have undermined benefit adequacy and coverage over time. In particular, further evidence and strategic communication is needed around the damaging effects of benefit freezes, the five-week wait for Universal Credit, benefit deductions, the two-child limit and the benefit cap – all of which are pushing low-income claimants into more severe forms of financial hardship.24 This includes challenging public perceptions of claimant circumstance and characteristics – for example, by stressing that many low-income households in receipt of social security are already in work or very much on their way (back) towards it.

While this is not the only mechanism through which to achieve this, examples such as Dibao offer lessons on how to rethink our approach to the question of benefit adequacy. At present, social security payments in the UK are made without any consideration of the extent to which they alleviate poverty or facilitate social inclusion. This is despite considerable public support for a more generous benefits system. To ensure that this translates into a more meaningful and progressive policy agenda for social security, we need to make sure political debate and policy discussions surrounding welfare are strongly tethered to objective living standards. We know that there is across-the-board support for a more generous Minimum Income Standard in the UK social security system. So we need to benchmark benefit entitlements against it and assess the performance of welfare on this basis. Without this clear reference point, policy discussions will always drift away from the central question of ‘is this enough to live on?’. By failing to seriously engage with this question and provide a ‘civic minimum’,26 we not only render social security ineffectual at protecting people against deeper forms of poverty, we also undermine the cogency of the current social contract between citizens and the state in the UK.