September 2026
The Poverty and Inequality Commission (PIC) has today published a review of evidence on universal, targeted and combined approaches, and how they are used in Scotland, to help inform the Scottish Government’s approach to tackling child poverty. It has been published alongside a study by the University of Strathclyde’s Fraser of Allander Institute, which was commissioned by PIC to assess the distributional impacts of the Scottish Government’s Cost of Living Guarantee.
Download: Poverty and Inequality Commission – report – the role of universal and targeted approaches
Download: PIC distributional analysis – final report
All countries use a combination of universal and targeted policies to provide services and address social issues. Universal policies are available to everyone within a population or group that fits particular categories, while targeted or selective measures provide additional support to particular groups or specific needs. International evidence on universal and targeted policies indicates that both can be effective in the right circumstances and that a range of factors determine their impact.
Scotland’s approach to universalism and targeting is distinctive in both a UK and international context. Alongside universal services such as free prescriptions, funded childcare, free school meals and concessionary bus travel, Scotland has used its devolved social security powers to provide targeted support through measures such as the Scottish Child Payment and other family payments.
The Commission’s report reviews the evidence on universal and targeted approaches, examines how they are used in Scotland, and highlights key considerations for policymakers seeking to reduce poverty and inequality.
Why is the Commission publishing these reports?
The Poverty and Inequality Commission is publishing these reports at a time of increasing pressure on public finances and continued high levels of poverty. As governments face difficult choices about how public resources are allocated, debates about whether support should be universal or targeted have become more prominent.
What did the Commission find?
There is no single model that consistently delivers the best outcomes
Neither universal nor targeted policies are inherently more effective. International research suggests that broad universal provision combined with additional support for those with greatest or additional needs achieves the best outcomes. What matters most is designing and delivering policy effectively to achieve aims.
Scotland has developed a distinctive approach
Since devolution Scotland has developed and expanded a range of universal services, including free prescriptions, funded childcare, concessionary bus travel and free tuition.
Devolved social security powers have also been used to provide targeted financial support to lower-income families, particularly through the Scottish Child Payment and associated family payments.
This combination has created a distinctive Scottish service landscape. However, it also raises questions about long-term affordability and whether existing provision is achieving the greatest possible impact in reducing poverty and inequality.
Universal provision does not always produce equal benefits
Universal services are often viewed as fair because everyone is entitled to them. However, evidence shows that universal benefits are not always distributed nor used equally.
Some universal services provide greater benefits to lower-income households. For example, free school meals and concessionary bus travel tend to deliver proportionately greater benefits to lower-income groups, reflecting both higher levels of need and greater reliance on these services. Others are used more extensively by higher-income households, who may be better placed to access and maximise available support. For example, on average, higher income families are more likely to use their full entitlement to universal funded childcare for 3 and 4 year-olds.
As public spending comes under greater pressure, policymakers need to assess not only who is eligible for support but also who benefits most from it.
Targeting can be effective, but only when it is well designed
Targeted support can direct resources towards and have significant positive impacts on those in greatest need. The Scottish Child Payment demonstrates the impact of this approach.However, targeted systems can also create risks. Complexity, stigma and barriers to access can reduce take-up and exclude people who need support. Poorly designed targeting can therefore weaken the effectiveness of policy and leave gaps in provision.
The evidence suggests that targeted measures tend to work best when they sit within a universal system, are informed by data, and achieve high levels of take-up.
The Commission’s overall assessment
The central conclusion of this review is that the debate should move beyond binary decision making between universal and targeted approaches.
Neither approach on its own is sufficient to reduce poverty or inequality. Universal provision can reduce stigma, support participation and provide broad social benefits. Targeted interventions can focus resources on people facing the greatest challenges. The strongest evidence points towards combining both approaches in ways that are deliberate, evidence-based and focused on outcomes.
At a time of constrained budgets, policymakers on whether a policy is effective, accessible, affordable and capable of delivering measurable reductions in poverty and inequality. The challenge for Scotland is not choosing between universalism and targeting, but ensuring that both work together to deliver the greatest impact for those who need support most.
The Fraser of Allander Institute published an article explaining the findings of its distributional analysis of the policies in the Scottish Government’s Cost of Living Guarantee, highlighting the lack of similar analysis in Scotland, and stressing the importance of distributional analysis in scrutinising the effects of government policy: Who benefits from the Cost of Living Guarantee? | FAI