ORCID Profile
0000-0003-4577-1178
Current Organisation
Northumbria University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
Date: 08-2023
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 10-01-2023
DOI: 10.1177/13691481221146886
Abstract: If policy preferences follow material interests, the experience of socioeconomic disadvantage ought to increase support for redistributive policies. However, experiencing disadvantage might also reduce faith in government’s ability to make things better, indirectly reducing support for redistributive action, and leading to a spiral of widening disadvantage and increasing political disengagement. Indeed, disadvantaged communities sometimes favour right-wing platforms over those offering redistribution, as in the taking of ‘red wall’ constituencies in the North and Midlands of England by the UK Conservative party in 2019. This article uses quantitative data from a survey of ‘red wall’ voters (n = 805) to examine the bases of people’s perceptions of redistributive policies. We find that even a radical redistributive policy, Universal Basic Income (UBI), receives consistently high levels of support (69.45 SD 27.24). Lower socioeconomic status, greater financial distress and greater risk of destitution all increase support. These effects are partly mediated by mental distress, which is markedly higher among the less well off. However, the same socioeconomic factors also reduce faith in government, which in turn is associated with lower support. Thus, those who stand to benefit most from redistribution are aware of their material interests, but are also the least confident in the ability of government to improve their lives. As such, there is a clear political challenge for progressive politicians: those whose support they depend upon require a significant redistributive offer, but also need to be persuaded of the viability of reform to support progressive change.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-07-2023
Publisher: Bristol University Press
Date: 02-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 11-04-2021
DOI: 10.1007/S10742-021-00246-8
Abstract: Opposition to Universal Basic Income (UBI) is encapsulated by Martinelli’s claim that ‘an affordable basic income would be inadequate, and an adequate basic income would be unaffordable’. In this article, we present a model of health impact that transforms that assumption. We argue that UBI can affect higher level social determinants of health down to in idual determinants of health and on to improvements in public health that lead to a number of economic returns on investment. Given that no trial has been designed and deployed with that impact in mind, we present a methodological framework for assessing prospective costs and returns on investment through modelling to make the case for that trial. We begin by outlining the pathways to health in our model of change in order to present criteria for establishing the size of transfer capable of promoting health. We then consider approaches to calculating cost in a UK context to estimate budgetary burdens that need to be met by the state. Next, we suggest means of modelling the prospective impact of UBI on health before asserting means of costing that impact, using a microsimulation approach. We then outline a set of fiscal options for funding any shortfall in returns. Finally, we suggest that fiscal strategy can be designed specifically with health impact in mind by modelling the impact of reform on health and feeding that data cyclically back into tax transfer module of the microsimulation.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-2023
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 28-02-2023
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0279845
Abstract: A substantial body of evidence suggests that young people, including those at the crucial transition points between 16 and 24, now face severe mental health challenges. In this article, we analyse data from 10 waves of a major UK longitudinal household cohort study, Understanding Society, to examine the relationship between income and anxiety and depression among 16- to 24-year-olds. Using random effects logistic regression (Model 1) allowing for whether the in idual was depressed in the previous period as well as sex, age, ethnicity, whether the in idual was born in the UK, region, rurality, highest qualification, marital status, employment status and attrition, we find a significant and inversely monotonic adjusted association between average net equivalised household income quintiles and clinical threshold levels of depressive symptoms SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS score ≤45.6). This means that being in a higher income group is associated with a reduced likelihood of clinically significant depressive symptoms, allowing for observable confounding variables. Using a ‘within-between’ model (Model 2), we find that apart from among those with the very highest incomes, increases in average net equivalised household income over the course of childhood and adolescence are significantly associated with reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression as measured by a higher SF-12 MCS score. Compared with previous reviews, the data presented here provides an estimate of the magnitude of effect that helps facilitate microsimulation modelling of impact on anxiety and depression from changes in socioeconomic circumstances. This enables a more detailed and complete understanding of the types of socioeconomic intervention that might begin to address some of the causes of youth mental health problems.
Publisher: Bristol University Press
Date: 02-2023
DOI: 10.1332/175982721X16702368352393
Abstract: Critics of Universal Basic Income (UBI) have claimed that it would be either unaffordable or inadequate. This discussion paper tests this claim by examining the distributional impacts of three UBI schemes broadly designed to provide pathways to attainment of the Minimum Income Standard (MIS). We use microsimulation of data from the Family Resources Survey to outline the static distributional impacts and costs of the schemes. Our key finding is that even the fiscally neutral starter scheme would reduce child poverty to the lowest level achieved since 1961 and achieve more than the anti-poverty interventions of the New Labour Governments from 2000. The more generous schemes would make further inroads into the UK’s high levels of poverty and inequality, but at greater cost. We conclude by assessing fiscal strategies to reduce the up-front deficit of higher schemes, providing a more positive assessment of affordability and impact than critics have assumed.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Howard Reed.