We live in an age of crisis. Increasingly, there is
understanding that the bases of our crises are material in nature: financial
insecurity, poverty and inequality. The cost of living crisis is hitting
Britain at the worst possible time since World War II. The global financial
crisis (GFC), austerity measures, Brexit and the pandemic have all reduced
Britain’s economic, social and health resilience. National institutions and
services are under relentless pressure and an increasing number of those in
work are now also in poverty – a proportion that is increasing significantly as
a result of the cost of energy. Research at Northumbria has demonstrated the
link between health and income, and persuaded
policymakers and politicians of UBI’s health, social and economic benefits.
While policy has often understandably focused on
improving healthy behaviour and increasing the efficiency of services, interest
is growing in addressing the social determinants of health. A large body of
evidence indicates that a range of conditions are strongly affected by such
factors as income, wealth, education, social capital and opportunity. Given the
government’s prevention agenda, policymakers are increasingly examining the
role of cash interventions to prevent illness. While some GPs have called for
cash prescriptions, a range of organisations, health bodies, community groups
and politicians have called for trials of Universal Basic Income (UBI): a
largely unconditional, regular payment to all adult permanent residents to
support people’s basic needs.
A multidisciplinary team led by Professor Matthew Johnson and funded by the Wellcome Trust and NIHR, is examining the health
case for UBI at a time in which policy makers are both more aware than ever of
the need for public health measures and less able than ever to deploy
traditional policy means to deal with the crisis.
The team has explained how UBI could influence health and
wellbeing by reducing poverty, increasing predictability of income and reducing
inequality. Prof Johnson’s team’s research has used citizen engagement with Royal Society of Arts in vulnerable, left-behind communities, such as Jarrow and
Bradford, analysis of large longitudinal datasets, such as the Millennium
Cohort Study and Understanding Society, and microsimulation modelling to
explore evidence underpinning the theoretical model. Key findings include:
These original, unique justifications have transformed
evaluation of UBI’s value to society.
The evidence indicates a clear relationship between
financial strain and a range of health, social and economic outcomes. It shows
how cash transfers (UBI) can be an effective means of mitigating social
determinants and promoting improved outcomes. This is informing the design
and evaluation of the Welsh trial of basic income for care leavers. For
instance, the research team has influenced policymakers of the importance of
evaluating cash transfers against their health value.
However, there are serious concerns that UBI schemes are
not politically feasible, because there is assumption that voters regard it as
unpopular, or economically viable due to cost at a time of extreme pressure on
post-pandemic public budgets. The team has worked with policymakers to explore these assumptions, concluding that UBI is popular, particularly in
‘red wall’ constituencies in the North of England, and that UBI schemes can be
affordable through administrative reform, health savings, growth and land
taxes.
This is informing how policymakers adopt and deploy basic
income schemes and reform existing welfare programmes. With the emergence of an
expanded North East Combined Authority and its role in social policy in mind,
this work includes development of a micropilot of a UBI scheme for Jarrow with Big
Local Central Jarrow and Compass.
