What a targeted basic income can teach us about evidence-based policymaking
Across the UK and Ireland, policymakers face a familiar challenge. They are expected to respond to increasingly complex social and economic problems while operating within tight financial constraints. Whether the issue is poverty, economic insecurity, precarious work, regional inequality, population ageing, or support for strategically important sectors, governments are under pressure to identify policies that deliver meaningful outcomes while remaining affordable and politically achievable. Finding those solutions is rarely straightforward. This is where social science matters.
While social science is sometimes presented as a discipline focused on explaining social problems, its contribution extends far beyond that. It helps us identify practical policy interventions, test their effectiveness, understand why they succeed or fail, and generate evidence that enables governments to make better-informed decisions. In a period marked by economic uncertainty, technological change and growing demands on public services, that capacity has never been more important.
One area where social science has made a particularly valuable contribution is the development and evaluation of basic income policies. For many years, debate about basic income has often been framed in absolute terms. Supporters typically advocate a universal basic income for all citizens, while critics question whether such schemes are affordable or politically feasible. As a result, the debate can polarise between those who support comprehensive universal schemes and those who dismiss the concept altogether.
Yet social science research often challenges these binary choices. Rather than asking whether governments should introduce a universal basic income, social scientists increasingly explore how to strengthen income security through more targeted and experimental approaches. In doing so, they open up new possibilities that might otherwise be overlooked.
This is where the concept of a targeted basic income becomes particularly interesting. A targeted basic income applies many of the principles associated with basic income, namely regular, predictable and unconditional payments, but directs support towards specific groups rather than the entire population. The objective is not simply to provide financial assistance. Rather, it is to address clearly identified social or economic challenges, generate evidence and evaluate outcomes before decisions are made about future policy development. As social scientists, we are interested not only in whether a policy works, but also in why it works, for whom it works, and under what conditions it can be replicated elsewhere.
Crucially, targeted basic income schemes also offer policymakers flexibility: support can be directed precisely towards groups facing specific challenges, such as workers in the creative industries; withdrawn once objectives have been achieved or circumstances have improved; and redeployed to support other groups, thereby maximising both policy effectiveness and the efficient use of public resources.
A particularly valuable example is Ireland’s Basic Income for the Arts scheme. Launched in 2022, the programme initially provided €325 per week to 2,000 artists and creative workers selected by lottery. The scheme was established in part to address longstanding concerns about precarious employment in the cultural and creative sectors and the severe disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
What makes the Irish experience especially important is not merely the scheme itself but the emphasis on evaluation. Researchers, policymakers and government departments have worked together to measure outcomes and understand impacts. The emerging evidence has been striking. Government evaluations reported that every €1 invested generated approximately €1.39 in social and economic value. Participants reported reductions in anxiety and depression, increased financial security, greater artistic activity, and more time spent working in the arts rather than seeking employment elsewhere. Importantly, these findings emerged because social scientists were involved in designing evaluations, collecting evidence and interpreting outcomes. Research has shifted the discussion beyond ideology towards evidence.
My own research (with Rhun Gwilym at the University of Leeds) on musicians participating in the Irish scheme suggests that the impacts extend beyond economic outcomes. Participants described being able to invest in equipment and studios, undertake creative projects that would previously have been impossible, and plan for the future with greater confidence. Some spoke about the psychological effects of income security, while others highlighted improved wellbeing, family stability and opportunities to expand their creative work. The phrase “life-changing” appeared repeatedly throughout the interviews. See also How Universal Basic Income (UBI) Can Empower the Working Class Through Improved Wage Negotiation and Poverty Alleviation.
These findings are important not because they show that every country should adopt exactly the same scheme. Rather, they demonstrate the value of evidence-based policy experimentation. This points to a broader lesson for policymakers. Social science enables governments to move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions. Through carefully designed policy trials and evaluations, governments can identify where specific interventions have the greatest impact. A targeted basic income for artists is one example. Similar approaches could be explored for care leavers, unpaid carers, people retraining after industrial transitions, entrepreneurs in deprived communities, or groups facing particular forms of labour market disadvantage. The precise target group matters less than the process of evidence generation and evaluation that accompanies it.
This approach also reflects one of social science’s greatest strengths: the ability to bridge research and policymaking. Social scientists draw on insights from economics, sociology, political science, psychology, public policy and other disciplines. They help policymakers understand not only financial costs but also behavioural responses, social outcomes, wellbeing impacts and long-term implications. They provide tools that enable governments to test assumptions rather than rely on them.
Indeed, some of the most innovative public policies of recent decades have emerged through precisely this process. Pilot programmes, field experiments, qualitative research, longitudinal studies and impact evaluations have transformed how governments understand social issues. The result is often more effective policy, better value for money and greater confidence among decision-makers.
At a time when public debate appears increasingly polarised, this evidence-based approach is especially valuable. Social science rarely offers simple answers to complex questions. What it does offer is a rigorous framework for understanding problems and assessing potential solutions.
The debate over income security is a good example. Rather than treating basic income as an all-or-nothing proposition, social science research encourages us to ask more practical questions. What problems are we trying to solve? Which groups face the greatest barriers? Which forms of support are most effective? How do we measure success? And how can evidence inform future policy decisions? These are precisely the kinds of questions social scientists are trained to investigate.
Ireland’s Basic Income for the Arts demonstrates what can happen when governments are willing to experiment and when researchers are given the opportunity to evaluate the results. The wider significance of the Irish experience is evident in growing international interest in the model. Scotland has announced plans to pilot a Scottish Artists Minimum Income inspired by the Irish programme, demonstrating how evidence generated through policy experimentation can travel across national boundaries.
The Irish scheme has helped support the recovery of the creative and cultural sectors following the severe disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including venue closures and income losses for many artists and creative workers. The fact that another government is seeking to replicate the approach suggests that policymakers view the emerging evidence as sufficiently compelling to warrant adaptation in a different context. This illustrates one of the key strengths of social science: its ability not only to evaluate policy innovation but also to identify interventions that can be transferred and tested elsewhere. Whether similar schemes are adopted elsewhere or not, the wider lesson remains the same: social science helps society move beyond rhetoric towards evidence.
In an era of increasingly complex social challenges, that may be one of its most important contributions.
About the author
Dr Hefin Gwilym is a Lecturer in Social Policy, Criminology and Social Justice at Bangor University and a Senior Fellow of Advance HE. His research focuses on social policy, poverty, welfare reform, universal basic income, housing policy, neoliberalism and social justice. His work has informed policy discussions in Wales and the wider UK, particularly regarding universal basic income, welfare reform, and anti-poverty strategies. He has presented research to Welsh Government officials, at national conferences, to professional organisations, and to public audiences, including the National Eisteddfod of Wales.
Photo Credit: Sarah Agnew on Unsplash