Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – Bias and Credibility

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER (2.2)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.2)
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is an economics research institute founded in 1969 in response to concerns about the UK’s 1965 Finance Act, which introduced capital gains and corporation taxes. The IFS’s founding members—financial professionals Will Hopper, Bob Buist, Nils Taube, and John Chown—aimed to evaluate tax legislation and its broader implications comprehensively.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) collaborates with various organizations, including academic institutions, public services, the non-profit sector, and businesses. The IFS research team includes some of the world’s leading economists. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is led by Director Paul Johnson, who has been in this role since 2011. Paul Johnson is also a visiting professor in the Department of Economics at University College London.

Read our government and media profile in the United Kingdom.

Funded by / Ownership

The IFS is a non-profit, non-political entity, drawing funding from various sources, including the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Government departments, foundations, the European Research Council, international organizations, companies, and other non-profit organizations. This funding is typically allocated to specific research projects or its two ESRC research centers. IFS has been recognized for its transparency in disclosing funding information. This transparency extends to publishing detailed lists of funders and income sources for specific research projects.​

Analysis / Bias

The IFS is widely respected for its thorough, data-driven approach to economic policy analysis. It’s noted for its rigor and impartiality. However, the IFS has faced critiques for a methodological focus that some perceive as overly emphasizing fiscal precision and market efficiency. This focus might inadvertently align the IFS with conservative economic perspectives, emphasizing fiscal balance and efficiency over comprehensive social outcomes.

First, we analyzed the IFS report titled “The Future of the State Pension,” which thoroughly examines the challenges and potential reforms in the UK state pension system. It includes a comprehensive list of references at its end, encompassing various sources such as academic papers, government reports, and publications from multiple organizations. It cites data from credible sources like the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. These sources effectively substantiate its claims about the impact of changes to the state pension age, particularly on different demographic groups, including those with lower life expectancies.

The language used is balanced, aiming to provide an analysis of the state pension system. It addresses the challenges and future of the state pension with explicit references to statistical data and projections, reflecting a thorough and well-researched approach. While the report is not overtly partisan, it leans toward a fiscal-conservative perspective, evident in its emphasis on the sustainability of pension systems and the economic implications of aging populations. However, it also recognizes social equity concerns, particularly the impact of policy changes on lower socio-economic groups. This balanced approach focuses on economic viability while taking into account the social implications- characteristics of centrist or moderate fiscal policy perspectives.

The second report we analyzed, titled “The Future Path of Minimum Wages,” effectively frames the issue, employs evidence, and cites references such as the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics to support its analysis. By presenting and citing policy proposals from both major political parties (Labour and the Conservatives), the report demonstrates a balanced approach and avoids overt partisanship; however, it places a significant emphasis on the potential negative effects on employment and raises concerns about the sustainability of a higher minimum wage.

The report includes a quote that reads. “Beyond some (unknown) point, a sufficiently high minimum wage must reduce employment. We need to tread carefully to boost the wages of the low-paid without damaging employment prospects too severely,” and “If parties engage in a bidding war over minimum wages, they may end up hurting the very people they hope to benefit.” While the report emphasizes economic viability, it also acknowledges the potential impact on different demographic groups, including women, part-time workers, and those in specific regions. This recognition of social equity concerns aligns with a center-left view that seeks to balance economic considerations with social welfare.  However, the article’s primary focus is on economic stability and caution with policy changes, which align with a right-center economic viewpoint.

Failed Fact Checks

• None in the Last 5 years 

Overall, we rate the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) as Right-Center biased based on its economic analysis and policy research, which often aligns with center-right economic perspectives. We also rate them as High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record. (M. Huitsing 12/30/2023) Updated (11/21/2025)