The UK’s national living wage has just been raised by 10% to £11.44 per hour. It is now payable for all workers aged 21 and over, where previously it was for those aged 23 and over. Introduced by the Conservative government in 2016 as the flagship policy for boosting the wages of low-paid workers, the national living wage is now one of the highest minimum wages in the world.

It reached 63% of the median wage in the UK in 2023, having been 52% as recently as 2015, and compares favourably to rivals such as France and Germany.

What have been the consequences? Researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and University College London and I have sought to comprehensively evaluate the effects on wages, employment and household income. In a new paper published in the Journal of Labor Economics, we looked at the period between 2016 and the last pre-pandemic increase in 2019 (during this time the national living wage was legally binding only for those aged 25 and over, with lower rates applying to younger workers).

Many previous studies have focused on the effects on jobs, but we have analysed this using a new empirical methodology, while for household incomes we used an IFS model of tax and benefits called Taxben, which is the most accurate of its kind in the UK.

Few previous studies have investigated how the distributions of wages and household incomes are affected by minimum wage policies, and most have focused on the US. Minimum wage levels in the US are comparably low, at least at federal level, so we were interested to see how the UK results might differ.

Minimum wage by country (US$)

How jobs have been affected

As you might expect, each increase in the national living wage during 2016-19 benefited those whose pay had to be increased. On average, 5.4% of low-paid workers received the raises each time.

We find almost equivalent increases in the number of jobs paid at the new minimum wage level and up to approximately £2 per hour above it. So not only has the policy raised wages for low-paid workers, there have been spillover effects on those slightly above the minimum.

Our research suggests that this was achieved with minimal negative effects on employment. Each wage increase reduced employment for those aged 25 and over by an estimated 0.1% of the level of employment before the policy was introduced. This finding aligns with previous studies both in the UK and elsewhere.

Household income

Our analysis reveals that increases in the national living wage considerably benefit poorer households. Every £1 increase in the minimum wage results in an average 0.6% increase in income for households in the bottom half of household incomes, with positive effects fading out rapidly in the upper half.

This effect is similar across the lower half, meaning that the poorest households don’t seem to benefit proportionally more than somewhat richer ones. This is partly because earnings represent a lower share of total income for many poor households, since they often do not have anyone in work and so cannot gain from the minimum wage increase.

The poorest households’ wage increases are also often offset by benefit reductions. For a £1 increase in the minimum wage, the average increase in earnings among existing minimum wage workers is £30.68 per week. However, after accounting for taxes and reductions in means-tested benefits such as universal credit, net household income increases by £21.60 per week.

Effect by household income bracket

It’s worth noting that our results differ from what was documented by this 2019 study of the US, which showed that the minimum wage only benefited earners with the very lowest household incomes. This difference is partly because minimum wage workers in the US are predominantly located at the lower end of household incomes, whereas in the UK they tend to be concentrated in the middle (meaning they might be more likely to be living with a higher earning partner, for instance).

Also, minimum wage workers in the UK in the lowest income households tend to gain less from wage increases than in the US because of the simultaneous reduction in benefits, and because they work fewer hours. They also tend to derive a significant proportion of their income from self-employment, which falls outside the scope of the minimum wage.

What it means

Although our analysis only looks at minimum wages in the late 2010s, it hopefully gives a strong indication of how more recent increases will have affected workers’ finances and employment overall. However, it will be trickier to separate out effects during the pandemic period because it created such a huge economic upheaval.

Our findings indicate that the minimum wage can be a successful policy tool in delivering what it was intended for: boosting the wages of low wage earners.

The fact that this has occurred without reducing overall employment levels, both in the UK and elsewhere, removes one of the main potential objections to the policy.

The effectiveness of minimum wages as policy levers to support the working poor requires careful consideration of how such policies interact with tax and benefit systems. If the UK government wanted to tweak the current system so that the national living wage was more beneficial to the lowest earners, one option would be to reform the tax system so that they paid less tax on each additional £1 of income than they do at present.

Giulia Giupponi receives funding from the the Low Pay Commission (grant number CR20017), the Open Research Area programme (grant number ES/X008339/1), the Economic and Social Research Council through the Centre for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy at IFS (ES/T014334/1) and through the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund under grant reference ES/ W010453/1.

Read More

The UK government recently published guidance for physical education (PE) aimed at all schools in England. The guidance is non-statutory, meaning it is not compulsory by law for schools to follow. Instead, it is intended as inspiration to help schools change their PE provision to benefit all pupils.

Initially, this document seems like a catalyst for positive change. Those, like us, who research and work in school PE have advocated for more high-level support and focus on the subject for years. But on closer inspection, the guidance seems like a missed opportunity. It shows that PE is still undervalued and misunderstood, particularly by the government.

A key recommendation set out in the guidance is that every pupil should take part in a minimum of two hours of PE a week. This, however, falls considerably short of the target set by the UK’s chief medical officer of 60 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for children.

Not only is two hours a week not enough, it’s also nothing new. The Labour government set this as a target for young people in 2002, and set up a specific strategy to achieve it in 2008.

PE could be at the core of a curriculum that promotes embodied learning – learning through all the body’s senses, rather than sitting still and thinking.

The latest government guidance offers examples of schools that have prioritised active learning as models. But it also suggests that PE teachers need to use evidence to persuade school leadership and the school community of the need to include two hours of PE in the weekly timetable. Teachers deserve better than the expectation that they should have to fight for their subject.

Focus on sporting success

The guidance also emphasises that PE should be more inclusive. This includes equal provision for girls in PE, to ensure that boys and girls have access to the same sports and activities. But a big problem with PE’s inclusivity is how closely it is tied to sport and sporting success.

PE isn’t the same thing as sport. It’s an opportunity for children to learn about physical movement, health and fitness, and to gain social and emotional skills. But it isn’t appreciated as a standalone subject in this way.

For many, PE is only worth talking about when it is a way to emulate sporting success or create more successful sportspeople. This can be seen, for instance, in the links emphasised by the government between the success of England’s women’s football team, the Lionesses, and improving PE for girls. It’s also in the education secretary Gillian Keegan’s comment on the new PE guidance: “As the Women’s Six Nations kicks off, I’m delighted that we’re taking the next step to support schools to help boys and girls follow their sporting role models.”

A lack of interest or appreciation for the PE curriculum by school leadership can mean that what is on offer is driven by individual teachers’ sporting interests – with a focus on competitive sport (and often associated gender stereotypes) reinforced along the way.

Of course, increasing access to organised sport is good for the girls who want to play it. But many girls – and boys – don’t. They may feel judged by their classmates if they are less skilled, or that teachers prefer the pupils who are better at competitive sport. Children who don’t have an affinity for competitive sport are pushed out.

Lifetime benefits

PE should increase children’s physicality in learning by offering them a choice of activities that engage, motivate and inspire them to continue a lifetime love of movement. This would require a step-change in the planning and delivery of PE, as well as the training required for teachers. This new guidance will not change attitudes, access and pupil motivation.

Read more: London's Olympic legacy: research reveals why £2.2 billion investment in primary school PE has failed teachers

Good quality PE can enhance children’s mental, social, emotional and physical development. But this new guidance does little to advance the state and status of PE. It will continue to be pushed aside in favour of the subjects that pupils go on to take compulsory exams in.

Children are still experiencing the mental and physical fallout from pandemic lockdowns, and pupil absence is at an alarming high. PE could and should be at the forefront of making a real and lasting difference to children’s lives and education.

PE as a curricular subject must not be viewed just as a platform for sport. To better foster the movement of young people, it should be at the centre of a curriculum that is dedicated to supporting holistic development, health and wellbeing, and improving life chances.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Read More