Posts Tagged 'Inequality'

The welfare myth of them and us

Read the complete preface to the second edition of John Hill’s influential Good times, bad times below. This ground-breaking book uses extensive research and survey evidence to challenge the myth that the population divides into those who benefit from the welfare state and those who pay into it – ‘skivers’ and ‘strivers’, ‘them’ and ‘us’. 

John Hills (small)

John Hills

Good times, bad times was completed in 2014. A great deal has happened in UK politics and policy since then, not least the election of a majority Conservative government led by David Cameron in May 2015, the result of the referendum in June 2016 for Britain to leave the European Union, and the subsequent appointment of Theresa May as Prime Minister in July 2016.

Through all of this, the issues discussed in this book have remained central. One of its themes is the way that our lives are ever-changing.

Sometimes this is simply because we get older, we form – and dissolve – marriages and other partnerships, children are born, and they leave home.

But it is also because we move in and out of work, change and lose jobs, and what comes in from work and other sources can change not just from year to- year with our careers, but also from month-to-month, or even day-to-day, in ways highlighted by the spread of ‘zero hours contracts’.

Our needs – for education and for health and social care – change as we grow older, but also with the fluctuations in our state of health.

“Much popular debate assumes that people’s lives are unchanging.”

Continue reading ‘The welfare myth of them and us’

Why Cameron’s housing policy will make the UK more spatially unequal

Today’s guest post by Peter Matthews, co-author of After urban regeneration: Communities, policy and place, was written in response to David Cameron’s announced plan to demolish England’s poorest council estates.

This article, originally titled ‘ABI n* – return of the ABI’ was first published on the blog Urban policy and practice on Monday 11th January 2016.

Peter MatthewsI did my doctoral research on area-based initiatives, or ABIs. Even when I was doing the research the writing was on the wall for them.

The focus of my research had been the former Scottish Executive Community Regeneration Fund administered through Single Outcome Agreements. This ceased to be just as I was going into the field following the first SNP victory in 2007, so it ended up being about the “ending” of meaningful regenerationfor residents.

Following the 2010 election and the coalition government it looked like any form of regeneration was off the cards under the excuse of “austerity”. I’ve co-edited a book – After Urban Regeneration – that argues this very point. My research had turned to broader questions of inequality in our cities, particularly what the increasing focus on community engagement and involvement in service delivery might mean for inequalities in service delivery. Continue reading ‘Why Cameron’s housing policy will make the UK more spatially unequal’

Growing injustice: six myths about inequality

final-cover-photoby Danny Dorling

Originally published on the New Statesman Politics Blog, The Staggers, 1 June 2015. Read the original article here.

We need to see things as they are, not as a few with great wealth would have the rest of us believe.

We used to say that most people don’t know how the other half lives; in the UK that has changed. Our society can no longer be meaningfully divided into two halves. Most of us have little understanding of the lives in the tranche just above or below us, and those people have little understanding of the tranches above and below them and so on. We live in different worlds. Most people find it difficult to believe that some people who have an income ten times higher than theirs, when asked, say that they are finding it difficult to manage financially. Continue reading ‘Growing injustice: six myths about inequality’

A response to the European and UK local elections by Alison Shaw, Director of Policy Press

Image

When I set up Policy Press it was because I was passionate about social issues.  I felt strongly that we needed to fight for a fairer society, one that looked after all its citizens regardless of their wealth and background; race, ethnicity or faith; gender, age or (dis)abilities; regardless of whether they lived in England or Ethiopia.

Our authors are the experts on how to achieve that goal, from understanding the challenges at a theoretical level through to how to implement policy and practice on the ground, and until today, I have been delighted to let them do the talking.  But following the recent results in the UK local and European elections I am moved to join the conversation and speak out.

This weekend we have seen again the rise of the extreme right in politics, both in the UK and across Europe.  This move appears to be a response to a range of factors – a belief that the European Union is inefficient and has too much control over nation state policies; a fear that immigration is a threat to jobs, security and culture; and an understandable anxiety for many as the global recession continues to take its toll.

It may be that the European Union as an institution is in need of reform, but we have to remember why we have a Union.  Initially a post-World War II settlement, it was a means for ensuring cooperation to avoid future conflict.  More recently it has been more about power and global influence in response to the rise of the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil – but the initial  collaborative intent must not be forgotten.

My fear is that, if we remain silent, then things we take for granted like the belief in equality and fairness will be lost and things we don’t think possible, will happen.  Our authors’ thoughtful writing has helped me to contemplate many of these issues and the three books below stand out for me.

ImageThe UK Government’s response to the global recession was an ‘Austerity’ drive, cutting back spending dramatically, especially to the welfare budget. This has hit those already in challenging circumstances in a devastating way.  Mary O’Hara, a journalist and Fulbright Scholar spent a year travelling the UK interviewing those facing hardship and those supporting them.  Her eloquent, insightful book Austerity Bites, published today, provides first hand testimony of what it is like to be struggling –  not to have enough to feed your family despite working your hardest in low paid, insecure jobs.

When we feel our security is challenged, one response is to fight back.  When we feel threatened we can look around for those that are different to blame.  Perhaps this points to why we are facing an increasing tide of anti-immigration rhetoric.  The headlines in some of the UK tabloid papers have been shocking: “We must stop the migrant invasion” Daily Express, “4,000 foreign murderers and rapists we can’t throw out” Daily Mail or “How Romanian criminals terrorise our streets” Daily Express.

headlines

Image

Malcolm Dean, previously Social Affairs Editor for the Guardian, looked at how the media influences and manipulates public opinion and the effect this has on politics and policy in his highly praised book Democracy under Attack.  It provides perhaps one possible answer to how and why we have seen the French National Front, the Dutch Freedom Party and the UK Independence Party (UKiP) gaining such traction in the recent elections.

Image Dimitris Ballas, of Sheffield University and Danny Dorling and Ben Hennig of Oxford University have created the first European Social Atlas and it  analyses social and political Europe in detail.  This beautifully produced book shows in clear graphic form that Europe is a blend of cultures, languages, traditions, landscapes and ideologies that are often not bound by state or regional borders.  The social atlas of Europe is “an insightful look at today’s Europe” (Robert Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley) and will be published on 25 June. It shows Europe and the Europeans in an entirely new light and highlights why we should be, working together, not pulling apart.

After the Olympics frenzy, will London’s East End return to its former poverty?

Photograph of Anne PowerBy Policy Press author Anne Power, Professor of Social Policy and Head of LSE Housing and Communities at the London School of Economics

East London boroughs are different from the rest of London – their populations have lower incomes, higher unemployment, lower skills, bigger concentrations of residents from ethnic minority backgrounds. Their population is younger with more lone-parent families, higher population turnover, more social housing. But the East End also has many valuable assets – more spare land and more disused buildings, more space for redevelopment, faster improving skill and lower house prices than London as a whole. All this is the legacy of centuries of intense development as London’s backyard.  The Olympic Games came to East London to overcome this twin legacy of high deprivation and spare capacity, which divides the area into extremes of wealth and poverty.

The LSE Housing and Communities team made repeat visits over ten years to one hundred low-income East End families in two of the Olympic boroughs – Hackney and Newham, both before and after the bid was announced. Today the LSE team is again interviewing residents about the direct impact of the Olympics on family life and local neighbourhoods. Newham is the main host of the Games and the borough will be directly affected. Before the Games, Newham had three times the national level of lone parents, double the unemployment rate, three times the rate of violent crime, double the proportion claiming benefits, double the proportion living in social renting. Despite the Games developments, Newham still ranks among the very poorest local authorities in the country.

Families struggling on low incomes in deprived neighbourhoods want a better future for their children. They welcome investment in their area, as long as it doesn’t directly threaten them, such as demolition of their homes. The Olympics, building on largely derelict sites, will add a major park and better transport connections, but locals are still unsure how much they will directly benefit. Olympic jobs have not proved easy to access. The Olympic site itself was firmly closed up to the Games; and the much vaunted legacy of new homes, school and health centre is yet to kick in. Only the brand new Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, the dense blocks of the athletes’ village in the distance, the festive street improvements, the outline of the stadium and the sight of the huge Olympic Park suggest the massive legacy there will be.

Yet real community change has happened since our family interviews began in 1998. Firstly, the arrival of high speed international trains at Stratford, long in coming, paved the way for London winning the Games, making King’s Cross less than 10 minutes from the Park. London buses, local trains and underground have improved around this long run plan. Secondly, the local Stratford shopping centre rose to the challenge of upmarket Westfield, by upgrading its image while still providing cheap, affordable goods for low-income local populations. Thirdly, local schools have climbed steadily from their very poor performance in the 1990s to catch up with national scores in the last few years.

So post-Olympic East London may become an easier place to bring up children, it may become a more harmonious, more hopeful, more resilient place. Or it may be left even poorer as spending cuts bite harder and resources tighten. Local leadership will need to fight for their existing communities, not for richer newcomers. More jobs, more education, more opportunity, more local events and more support for families and young people are the lifelines of survival in tough times. Local communities will be the losers if developers take their space and displace them. There’s a lot to win or lose after the Games.

Note: LSE Housing and Communities is carrying out research into the long term impact of the London Olympics on deprivation in the London Borough of Newham.

Anne Power is the co-author of East Enders: Family and community in East London, which is our special offer during August for only £15.00 (RRP £23.99). Purchase your copy.

Other books by Anne Power with The Policy Press:
City survivors: Bringing up children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods
Jigsaw cities: Big places, small spaces
Phoenix cities: The fall and rise of great industrial cities
Family futures: Childhood and poverty in urban neighbourhoods

DEBATE: ‘Capitalism works only when the rewards are seen to be shared’

Policy & Politics Debates, July 2012
Sarah Ayres, Associate Editor, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol

The most recent ‘debates’ articles for Policy & Politics are written by Stewart Lansley (Visiting Fellow, University of Bristol) and Professor Kevin Doogan (Centre for Urban and Public Policy Research, University of Bristol).

Lansley charts the growth of inequality under capitalism since the 1970s. He contends that ‘the proceeds of economic growth have been increasingly colonised by a small financial and business elite’ and that this trend is unsustainable. The forces driving higher levels of inequality remain in place and this, it is argued, makes economies increasingly unstable and prone to crisis. You can read the article, ‘Capitalism works only when the rewards are seen to be shared’ for free here.

Doogan responds by suggesting that appeals for a ‘nicer capitalism’ are perhaps unrealistic and instead solutions need to be found in broad societal transformations, rather than incremental reforms of the capitalism system. His article, ‘A fairer capitalism?’ is also now available for free here.

To find out more about Policy & Politics, please visit our website.

The petty politics of the anti-inequality brigade

Daniel Ben-Ami

The following is an extract from an essay on the Spiked website.

It is easy to make the mistake of assuming there is a big drive towards equality in the world today. Politicians, pundits and even billionaire financiers rail against the dangers of inequality, excess and greed. A handful of Occupy protesters claiming to represent the ‘99 per cent’ against the super-rich ‘one per cent’ are widely lauded in influential circles. Parallel campaigns slate the wealthy for failing to pay their fair share of tax. Officially sanctioned campaigns promote fairness, social justice, social equality, equal access to education and the like.

From this false premise it appears to follow that radical politics is alive and well. If equality was historically a core principle of the left then, so it is assumed, the current discussion must be enlightened and humanistic. Those who oppose the plethora of apparently pro-equality initiatives are therefore cast as reactionary souls who are probably in the pay of giant corporations.

The aim of this essay is to show that there is no dynamic towards equality at present. Instead there is a drive towards what could be called the therapeutic management of inequality. This is not a trivial distinction. On the contrary, the two sets of ideas embody fundamentally opposing conceptions of humanity.

Historically, support for equality was ultimately about trying to achieve the full human potential or what was often called the perfectibility of mankind. It meant advancing from a more backward society to a civilised one. In its most advanced forms it married a desire for social equality with support for economic progress.

In contrast, the discussion in recent years has shifted decisively against the idea of economic progress and towards a deep suspicion, even hatred, of humanity. It promotes initiatives to counter the dangers of social fragmentation in an unequal society. Indeed, this fear of a disintegrating society can be seen as the organising principle behind a wide range of measures to regulate supposedly dysfunctional behaviour. These range across all areas of personal life, including childrearing, drinking alcohol, eating, sex and smoking. Such initiatives assume that public behaviour must be subject to strict regulation or it could fragment an already broken society.

A distinct feature of the current discussion is that the rich are also seen as posing a threat to social cohesion. Their greed is viewed as generating unrealistic expectations among ordinary people. In this conception, inequality leads to status competition in which everyone competes for ever-more lavish consumer products. A culture of excess is seen to be undermining trust and a sense of community.

The contemporary consensus thus marries the fear of social fragmentation with anxiety about economic growth. It insists that the wealthy must learn to behave responsibly by maintaining a modest public face. It also follows that prosperity must be curbed. This is on top of fears about the damage that economic expansion is alleged to do to the environment.

This drive to curb inequality is informed by what could be called the outlook of the anxious middle. It is middle class in the literal sense of feeling itself being torn between the rich on one side and ordinary people on the other. Its aim is to curb what it regards as excesses at both the top and bottom of society. It sees itself as living in a nightmare world being ripped apart by greedy bankers at one extreme and ‘trailer trash’ at the other.

This essay will examine the significance of the contemporary fear of inequality. First, it will examine current criticisms of inequality made by politicians, the media and academics in more detail. Typically, they are keen to promote economic sacrifice, thus paving the way for austerity, while supporting intrusive measures to curb social fragmentation. Second, it will look at the historical support for equality from the Enlightenment of the late seventeenth and eighteenth century onwards. Typically, egalitarians of this period linked their support for equality with notions of progress and the realisation of human potential. Economic advance was often seen as playing a central role in this process.

In conclusion, it will examine the damaging consequences of the current debate. It is harmful on both political and economic grounds. On the one hand, its therapeutic drive to regulate behaviour makes it a gross threat to individual freedom. On the other, through its populist rhetoric it paves the way for the popular acceptance of austerity. In this respect, what could be called ‘green egalitarianism’ is essentially about promoting equitable sacrifice. Its goal is to ensure that pain is ‘fairly’ distributed in society.

This essay focuses on the transformation of the discussion of economic and social equality. However, it should be noted in passing that there is also a parallel debate to be examined in relation to the redefinition of political and legal equality.

Read the rest of this essay on the Spiked website.

Daniel Ben-Ami is the author of Ferraris for all: In defence of economic progress, published by The Policy Press.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Archives


Helen Kara

Writing and research

Peter Beresford's Blog

Musings on a Mad World

Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy

Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of Stirling

Path to the Possible

Democracy toward the Horizon

The GOVERNANCE blog

Governance: An international journal of policy, administration and institutions

Shot by both sides

The blog of Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP

Paul Collins's Running Blog

Running and London Marathon 2013 Training

Bristol Civic Leadership Project

A collaborative project on change in local governance

Stuck on Social Work

And what a great place to be

Points: The Blog of the Alcohol & Drugs History Society

short and insightful writing about a long and complex history

Urban policy and practice

Publishing with a purpose

TessaCoombes

Policy Politics Place

Blog

Publishing with a purpose

Public Administration Review

Public Administration Review is a professional journal dedicated to advancing theory and practice in public administration.

EUROPP

European Politics and Policy

%d bloggers like this: