IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v370y2025ics0277953625001844.html

Trading-off outcomes and policy characteristics of a Universal Basic Income and a Minimum Income Guarantee: Evidence from an exploratory mixed-method preference-based study

Author

Listed:
  • McHugh, Neil
  • Bomark, David
  • Baker, Rachel
  • Watson, Verity
  • Craig, Neil
  • Donaldson, Cam

Abstract

What policies should we introduce to tackle the UK's worsening population health trends? From an economic perspective, the concern is with achieving the greatest health outcomes from available resources. This reflects economics preoccupation with outcome-based utility. However, evidence from within health economics suggests that how outcomes are achieved matters as well as what outcomes are achieved, reflecting a concern for process utility. This issue has received much less attention in public health perhaps because of the greater complexity. For example, upstream, non-health policies affect both health and non-health outcomes and policy characteristics, such as universality versus targeting, can generate much debate. In this mixed-method exploratory preference-based study we examined whether and why 50 members of the general public from across Glasgow and Newcastle traded-off the policy characteristics and health and non-health outcomes of a Universal Basic Income and a Minimum Income Guarantee using Benefit Trade-Off and qualitative questions in one-to-one face-to-face interviews. For a majority of respondents, choices were driven by outcomes over policies characteristics, although for a substantial minority it was policy characteristics and not outcomes that influenced preferences. Qualitative data provide support for the different choices. As respondents trade-off policy characteristics and policy outcomes reflecting different preferences for each, studies looking at either in isolation may under- and over-state preferences. Similarly, failure to account for process utility in policymaking may result not only in the misallocation of resources but a lack of social acceptability, which could jeopardise the chances of a policy being implemented in the first place.

Suggested Citation

  • McHugh, Neil & Bomark, David & Baker, Rachel & Watson, Verity & Craig, Neil & Donaldson, Cam, 2025. "Trading-off outcomes and policy characteristics of a Universal Basic Income and a Minimum Income Guarantee: Evidence from an exploratory mixed-method preference-based study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 370(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:370:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625001844
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625001844
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117855?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Connolly, Kevin & Eiser, David & Kumar, Ashwin & McGregor, Peter G & Roy, Graeme, 2024. "A micro-macro-economic modelling approach to major welfare system reforms: The case of a Universal Basic Income for Scotland," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 259-268.
    2. Bruno Frey & Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but Also How Matters," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(3), pages 377-401, September.
    3. Wilson, Naomi & McDaid, Shari, 2021. "The mental health effects of a Universal Basic Income: A synthesis of the evidence from previous pilots," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    4. Andrew McAuley & Cheryl Denny & Martin Taulbut & Rory Mitchell & Colin Fischbacher & Barbara Graham & Ian Grant & Paul O’Hagan & David McAllister & Gerry McCartney, 2016. "Informing Investment to Reduce Inequalities: A Modelling Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Rachel M Thomson & Daniel Kopasker & Patryk Bronka & Matteo Richiardi & Vladimir Khodygo & Andrew J Baxter & Erik Igelström & Anna Pearce & Alastair H Leyland & S Vittal Katikireddi, 2024. "Short-term impacts of Universal Basic Income on population mental health inequalities in the UK: A microsimulation modelling study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Hurley, Jeremiah & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Walli-Attaei, Marjan, 2020. "Inequality aversion in income, health, and income-related health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, Enero-Abr.
    8. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    9. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.
    10. Richardson, Elizabeth & Fenton, Lynda & Parkinson, Jane & Pulford, Andrew & Taulbut, Martin & McCartney, Gerry & Robinson, Mark, 2020. "The effect of income-based policies on mortality inequalities in Scotland: a modelling study," EUROMOD Working Papers EM3/20, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    11. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    12. Stephen Birch & Joy Melnikow & Miriam Kuppermann, 2003. "Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: Testing for process utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 879-884, October.
    13. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    14. Miranda Perry Fleischer & Otto Lehto, 2019. "Libertarian Perspectives on Basic Income," Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee, in: Malcolm Torry (ed.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income, chapter 0, pages 439-458, Palgrave Macmillan.
    15. Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson, 2017. "How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 635-646, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    2. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    3. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2025. "Corrigendum to ‘Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment’ [Soc. Sci. Med. Volume 269, January 2021, 113573]," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 370(C).
    4. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2013-035 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, March.
    6. Kirsten Howard & Glenn Salkeld & Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2008. "HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 593-605, May.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Boujaoude, Marie-Anne & Dalziel, Kim & Cookson, Richard & Devlin, Nancy & Carvalho, Natalie, 2025. "Aversion to income, ethnic, and geographic related health inequality: Evidence from Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 364(C).
    9. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    10. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    12. Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija & Zawadzki, Wojciech & Tienhaara, Annika, 2023. "Cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments with positive status quo cost," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    13. Kehl, Konstantin & Stahlschmidt, Stephan, 2013. "A new perspective on the economic valuation of informal care: The well-being approach revisited," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2013-035, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    14. Katherine Payne & Marion McAllister & Linda M. Davies, 2013. "Valuing The Economic Benefits Of Complex Interventions: When Maximising Health Is Not Sufficient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 258-271, March.
    15. Matthew D. Adler & Maddalena Ferranna & James K. Hammitt & Eugénie de Laubier & Nicolas Treich, 2025. "Fair Innings: An Empirical Test," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(7), pages 1350-1364, July.
    16. Sukanya Tianviwat & Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong & Stephen Birch, 2008. "Different dental care setting: does income matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 109-118, January.
    17. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    18. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    19. Carlo Borzaga & Ermanno Tortia, 2004. "Worker involvement in entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations. Toward a new assessment of workers' perceived satisfaction and fairness," Department of Economics Working Papers 0409, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    20. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    21. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:370:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625001844. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.