|
|
Inequality rising
Recent talk by Cameron and Clegg talk of
‘happiness’ as a policy goal distinct from ‘increasing national income’
is a convenient mask for their austerity policies. It also ignores the
compelling arguments in the book, The Spirit Level – now available in
paperback – that inequality of wealth and income are the biggest
determinants of social wellbeing and quality of life. BILL HOPWOOD
reviews this work which, in many ways, makes the case for socialism.
The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone
By Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
Penguin, 2010, £10-99
"IT IS A remarkable paradox", write Richard
Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, "that, at the pinnacle of human material and
technical achievement, we find ourselves anxiety-ridden, prone to
depression, worried about how others see us, unsure of our friendships,
driven to consume and with little or no community life". The Spirit
Level provides a wealth of well-researched information in support of
something socialists know: that inequality is bad for society, as well
as individuals. Its facts and arguments are a valuable resource. The
book’s central point is that a wide range of health and social
indicators and problems are worse in more unequal societies.
For most of history, and in many poor countries
today, raising material living standards was and is the best way to
improve the quality of life. But recently, in the more prosperous
countries, economic growth and higher average income has not increased
happiness, wellbeing or the quality of life for the vast majority of the
population. In many countries, economic growth in the last few decades
has gone hand-in-hand with growing inequality. The authors present a
powerful case that the key detriment to health and wellbeing among the
richer countries is not the wealth of the country but its degree of
inequality.
The authors examine data – from recognised, fully
referenced official sources from 1999 to 2003 – for many health and
social issues. These include life expectancy, infant mortality, child
wellbeing, levels of trust, women’s status, mental illness, illegal drug
use, child and adult obesity, educational attainment, teenage birth
rates, innovation, homicides, imprisonment, social mobility, working
hours and recycling. These are compared for 23 countries with the
highest levels of average income per person, ranging from the US and
Norway as the richest (around $37,000/person) and Portugal as the
poorest (around $18,000/person).
The most unequal countries are Singapore, the US, UK
and Portugal. The most equal are Japan and the four Scandinavian
countries – although the rapid introduction of neo-liberal policies by
successive governments have undermined many past social gains. The
authors also compare the 50 states of the US. There was no evidence that
the countries with higher income did better. In fact, for many
indicators of wellbeing, the US, which is one of the world’s richest
countries but also one of the most unequal, came out near the bottom. In
contrast, when the same indictors are compared for each country’s level
of inequality there is a strong correlation, with the more unequal
countries having lower standards of health and social wellbeing,
regardless of the country’s wealth.
A wealth of evidence
WILKINSON AND PICKETT discuss their findings for
each of the indicators, outlining other research on the subject and
explaining why greater inequality has a negative impact. To give some
examples, mental illness is three times higher in the US than Japan, and
the UK has a rate twice that of Germany or Belgium (both with lower
inequality). Obesity is ten times higher in the US than in Japan and
three times higher than in Norway and Sweden – the UK’s rate is seven
times and double respectively. The US has a teenage birth rate at least
five times that of Japan, Sweden and Finland, while the UK’s rate is at
least three times higher.
There are some social and health issues, such as
breast and prostate cancer, and alcohol use (rather than abuse), which
are not related to social status so that there is no social gradient
and, therefore, social inequality has no measurable impact. But for a
wide range of social and health indicators, time and again there is a
strong relation between lower inequality and better outcomes and little
or no relation between average income and outcomes.
A glaring example of the wrong approach is over
crime. More unequal societies tend to have higher crime rates and have
much higher rates of imprisonment. In the US, a policy of being ‘tough
on crime’ began in the late 1970s, with the prison population growing
fourfold from 450,000 in 1978 to over two million in 2005. Britain’s
prison population doubled between 1990 and 2007. Yet in other countries,
including Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Japan, the prison population has
hardly changed over recent decades. Most of the increase is due to more
and longer prison sentences, not an increase in crime. In 2004 in
California, 360 people were serving life sentences for shoplifting. The
US rate of imprisonment, as a proportion of the population, is 14 times
higher than Japan’s. Japan mostly imprisons people who have committed
serious crimes, yet it has a reoffending rate nearly half that of the
US.
One part of the ‘American dream’ is social mobility:
anyone can make it through their own effort. Yet the US has the lowest
social mobility, as measured by comparing the income of fathers and
sons, of the countries considered, with the UK second worst. Mobility in
the US increased until the 1980s and then decreased as income inequality
grew dramatically. As societies became more unequal in recent decades,
social problems increased. This shift was particularly rapid and
far-reaching in the US and UK with other countries following along.
Health and social problems increase in more unequal
countries not only because the poor drag down the average. The authors
show that even the well-off do worse in more unequal societies. The
literacy achievement of children, whatever the educational level of
their parents, ranging from not finishing school to having a university
degree, is better the less unequal the society, with Finland near the
top and the US near the bottom. Death and infant mortality rates in
Sweden are lower than in England for each social class, even the
highest. Levels of mental illness are five times higher across the whole
population in the more unequal societies. Of course, the poorest benefit
most from more equal societies, but all but the super-rich suffer from
the effects of inequality.
Other possible causes
WILKINSON AND PICKETT consider a number of possible
explanations other than inequality for the patterns. They look at
cultural differences and similarities but these factors do not provide
an explanation. Spain and Portugal are culturally similar, both even
ruled by dictators until the mid-1970s. Yet Portugal is a more unequal
society and fares worse on most measurements than Spain. Japan and
Sweden have very different cultures and histories but are among the most
equal. They even achieve their relative equality differently. Sweden has
relatively progressive tax and public spending policies to narrow the
initial income differences. Japan, on the other hand, has relatively
narrow income differences with government tax and spending having little
redistributive impact. In spite of the different roads to relative
equality the social outcomes are similar with Japan and Sweden either
being best or nearly best on most measurements.
Another common explanation for poor performance on
the many measurements is the breakdown of the family – how often do
politicians talk about ‘family values’? – resulting in many single
parent families. Usually children of single parent families do less well
than those from two parent families. But what are the causes? The
authors present a graph comparing child wellbeing with the proportion of
single parent families in society. There is no correlation. There is,
however, a strong link between child wellbeing and society’s level of
inequality.
One of the striking thoughts in the book, obvious
but seldom considered by politicians, is that our societies treat each
problem separately, tackling symptoms rather that causes. Quite large
sums of money and much time are spent treating poor health, mental
illness, crime, or children struggling at school. Yet these programmes
usually have limited benefit. They may help some individuals but do not
tackle the causes so the problems are constantly recreated. The book
argues, with good evidence, that tackling inequality would be a more
effective response as it would tackle the roots of many problems.
Divisive and corrosive
HUMANS ARE SOCIAL beings. We depend on society to
exist and have a high awareness of social relations. In more unequal
societies people are more concerned about status and more insecure. The
greater the inequality the more status matters as people try to keep up
appearances. Perceptions of status affect behaviour.
Wilkinson and Pickett refer to experiments testing
children from different social backgrounds in India and the US. When the
children were unaware of each others’ status, those from a lower caste
in India did better than upper caste children. When their caste was
announced beforehand, the lower caste children did worse. In the US,
groups of black and white children were given tests. In one, they were
told that the test was of ability, in the other, that it was not. The
white children did the same in both cases, but the black children had
worse results if told they were being tested for ability.
In an even starker example, school children were
told blue eyes were linked to higher intelligence. Subsequently, those
with blue eyes rapidly out-performed the other children and acted
superior to them. The brown-eyed children became timid and their marks
declined. After some time, the teacher said she had got it wrong and
that brown eyes were linked to intelligence. Soon the roles and
performance in the class were reversed.
Also, in a more unequal society if things go wrong,
such as job loss, failure to do well at education, serious injury,
long-term illness, or household break-up, the distance to fall is
greater with more suffering. So in more unequal societies there is more
stress and insecurity. Even for those doing reasonably well there is
concern about the future.
Among the responses to concern about status is a
trend to talk oneself up and to try to look good. People in unequal
societies often appear to have high self esteem. However, this is
fragile and linked to insensitivity to others. It is often called
‘threatened egotism’ or ‘narcissism’. Modern advertising (a $1
trillion-a-year business) exploits concerns about status to sell goods.
Most ads are about how the product will make you feel good and seem
better in some way, encouraging so-called ‘shopping therapy’. But it
does not make a person happy, more loved or whatever, so the treadmill
of buying continues. Insecurity encourages excessive consumerism –
buying things to look good and ‘keep up with (or in front of) the
Joneses’ – rather than buying goods to meet needs or find satisfaction.
There is strong evidence that people have a deep
sense of fairness which an unequal society offends. In an unequal
society, people feel excluded or fear being excluded. It is harder to
form and maintain strong friendships and a sense of community.
Inequality is divisive and corrosive of societal and individual
wellbeing. The stress and anxiety of individuals in unequal societies
are passed on to children even before birth. The chemicals of stress in
the mother’s blood are passed to the foetus. Then in early childhood,
living in stressed households with anxious and insecure caregivers
impacts on a child. Children absorb stress and anxiety both physically
and emotionally.
Although Wilkinson and Pickett do not use the word
‘alienation’ in the book, in many ways the concept captures the results
of increased inequality – people are more alienated from society, work,
other people and themselves. All of this contributes to social ills.
Alienation was a key concept for Karl Marx in discussing the negative
impacts of capitalism. In recent years it has been less frequently used
by Marxists; it is probably time to re-establish alienation as part of
our critique of capitalism.
Sustainability and innovation
ONE OF THE important points of the book’s discussion
of the findings is around sustainability and the environment. Some
environmentalists claim the ecological crisis is so great that we have
to tackle this without waiting to solve social issues. Some even
advocate an eco-dictatorship to save the planet. Yet Wilkinson and
Pickett show that greater equality and better social justice is
important for environmental action. More equal societies score better on
environmental performance. More equal societies have higher levels of
trust and cooperation, important qualities to help make the changes
needed. The authors point out that environmental actions that are unjust
are much less likely to gain widespread support. Social justice is vital
to tackle the environmental issues the world faces.
Inequality increases consumerism, the unnecessary
purchase of goods in the vain attempt to meet social and emotional needs
which cannot be met by things alone. This consumerism feeds the
unnecessary consumption, use of resources and production of waste.
One of the more striking findings of the book is
about innovation. Right-wing politicians and academics claim that
innovation is stimulated by the possibility of personal gain and that
this is greater in more unequal societies. Wrong. The authors look at
the number of patents in proportion to population. They found that more
equal societies do better. Finland, Sweden and Norway have ten times
more than the US, Portugal and the UK. A more equal society will be more
likely to develop new and appropriate technologies for the environment.
It is still true that billions of people need their
living standards raised. Even in the richer countries there is real
poverty and most people need to escape from insecurity with an assured
good standard of living regardless of whether they are working, retired,
healthy, ill, studying or a child. The book’s evidence points out that
in the richer countries reducing inequality is an important step. A much
more equal society in the richer countries, ending the hugely excessive
consumption of the top 10%, and drastic cuts to wasteful spending on
advertising and armaments, would improve life for all and provide spare
wealth to help the rest of humanity. This, combined with greatly
improved technology and full use of renewable energy, could meet the
needs of humanity without damaging the environment. Social justice and
environmental action need to be combined for a better future for
humanity.
Not surprisingly, The Spirit Level has provoked a
lot of discussion, much of it favourable, since it was first published
in 2009. However, there have also been some strident criticisms from
organisations such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance in Britain. The second
edition of the book and The Equality Trust
website
have detailed responses to the critics. Many of the criticisms are
deliberate misrepresentations for political reasons to try to undermine
the book’s evidence.
One critic, Christopher Snowdon, works for the
so-called Democracy Institute, a right-wing think tank, which opposes
tax on tobacco while supporting gambling. It also has links to the Cato
Institute in the US, noted for its scepticism of climate change and
support for the privatisation of public services. Another critic, Peter
Saunders, writes for the Policy Exchange, a British Conservative think
tank that has advocated massive cuts in public spending and
public-sector pay and pensions, further widespread privatisation,
attacks on unions and increased university fees. Does this sound
familiar? By your enemies are you known!
Political conclusions
WILKINSON AND PICKETT recognise that to reduce
inequality will take a political transformation. It was the political
offensive of the right wing in the US and Britain (Reagan and Thatcher)
that launched the dramatic increase in inequality which is now hitting
every country. The authors also point to the domination of large
corporations that shape the world. At times, however, the political
conclusions of the book are mixed. Maybe the authors are trying to
appear moderate in the hope of getting right-wing politicians to support
them. They claim, for example, that a more equal society could spend
less on repairing the damage of inequality, such as prisons, healthcare,
social benefits, treating mental illness, etc, and so could cut taxes.
Of course, this assumes that right-wingers really care about these
issues. Class society is run for the benefit of a tiny minority, the
very people who do not suffer from an unequal world. They strive to cut
and privatise public services and attack trade unions to boost their
profits and weaken the ability of working people to fight back.
The authors point out that, for the last few
decades, politics and ideology have been dominated by those who embrace
greater inequality, using the claim that in a globalised world there is
no alternative. However, this has delivered the worst recession in 80
years and most people are less happy and worse off. In contrast to the
claims of the right, most people support reducing inequality. A survey
in the US found that 92% of people would prefer to live in a society
with Sweden’s level of inequality than the USA’s. Wilkinson and Pickett
argue that their research shows that many social problems can be
reduced. More importantly, the book gives hard evidence to support most
peoples’ feeling of revulsion at huge inequality. They write:
"Egalitarian sentiments are hidden close to the hearts of vast numbers
of people… the culture of the last few decades has reduced us to closet
egalitarians: it is time to come out of the woodwork".
There is a risk that the authors idealise the
distribution of wealth of 40 years ago. The reforms that produced the
reductions in inequality after the second world war were the result of
huge struggles around the world. The authors seem to believe that a more
equal society, at least to the levels of the 1960s and 1970s, can be
achieved within capitalism. However, this would require a mass
mobilisation to reverse the neo-liberal attacks, sustained pressure to
prevent a repeat of the onslaught of the last 30 years, and assumes that
the capitalist economy will recover enough to afford it.
It would be more beneficial to mobilise to eradicate
capitalism, the root cause of inequality and poverty, rather than
limiting the struggle to reducing inequality. Also, the authors do not
analyse the economic dependence of capitalism on constant growth, both
economically and politically, regardless of damage to the environment.
The ruling elites, rather than tackling poverty through redistribution –
which they do not want – claim that economic growth will lift people out
of poverty. This is one of the legitimising myths of capitalism. While
some of the political analysis about the nature of capitalism is weak,
the book does demolish the false claims of ‘trickle-down’ economics. It
provides powerful evidence in support of socialist economic planning and
workers’ democracy. |