IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Localisation and the means test: A case study of support for English students from Autumn 2012


  • John Hills
  • Ben Richards


The combination of spending cuts, efforts to protect the poorest from some of their effects, and 'localised' decision-making are leading to an increase in the numbers of means tests designed by lower level institutions. This paper examines a case study of the effects of this, looking at the means-tested support which has been offered to English students applying to go to 52 universities from Autumn 2012, designed partly to offset the rise in general fees to or towards £9,000. 27 of these universities are offering significant levels of means-tested support through bursaries or fee reductions depending on parental income. Although using a common income definition, each university has designed its own system with widely varying criteria. Taken with the national maintenance grant system, these imply substantially different levels of support for students from lower and higher-income families. Nearly all of them involve significant downward steps or 'cliff edges' in support at particular income levels, often involving a drop of several thousand pounds. Just looking at student support by itself, this implies typical marginal withdrawal rates exceeding 40 per cent and even 100 per cent over particular income ranges. Taken together with the effects of other parts of the tax and benefit system that would have affected family income, the effect is marginal effective tax rates on family resources that exceed 50 per cent for the entire income range up to £43,000. They typically reach 180 per cent for £1,000 income variations around income of £25,000. For the most generous case, Oxford University, the £13,050 reduction in subsequent means-tested student support is equivalent to nearly the whole of the £13,250 net income difference between two-child families that earned £17,000 and £44,000 in 2010-11. As well as introducing extra complexity and questions of equity in treatment within student finance, this kind of development runs counter to other parts of government policy, such as Universal Credit, intended to smooth out and simplify means-tests. As localisation is pushed further, and more agencies become responsible for designing their own mean tests, the lack of a system to take an overview of their overlapping effects, and to avoid undesirable design features will become an increasing problem across social policy, not just in this particular area.

Suggested Citation

  • John Hills & Ben Richards, 2012. "Localisation and the means test: A case study of support for English students from Autumn 2012," CASE Papers case160, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
  • Handle: RePEc:cep:sticas:case160

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Mike Brewer & James Browne & Wenchao Jin, 2012. "Universal Credit: A Preliminary Analysis of Its Impact on Incomes and Work Incentives," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 33(1), pages 39-71, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Frank A Cowell & Eleni Karagiannaki & Abigail McKnight, 2012. "Mapping and measuring the distribution of household wealth: A cross-country analysis," CASE Papers case165, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.

    More about this item


    means-testing; student finance; bursaries; university fees;

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I22 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Educational Finance; Financial Aid
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:cep:sticas:case160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.