|
If the issue of equality defines us as 'being on the
left', agreement on the left about what we mean by 'equality'
is far from clear. In broad terms there are two schools
of thought. Those who see poverty as a relative concept
and therefore want to close the gap between richest and
poorest, and those who see the merits of the more limited
goal of raising the floor for those at the bottom.
To discuss these key issues we asked (in the right corner)
Phil Collins and (in the left) Gavin Kelly to swap emails.
Phil is the Director of the Social Market Foundation and
Gavin is Research Director at the Institute of Public Policy
Research and before that worked at the Fabians. As you will
see, neither fits either of the absolute positions outlined
above. But Phil is the keener meritocrat while Gavin tends
to mind the gap. Their discussion is lively, illuminating,
relevant and important in helping to define a sense of purpose
for a modern social democracy.
1 October 2001
Dear Gavin,
The argument about equality generates so much wilful misunderstanding
that it might be best to proceed by ignoring it. Let us
instead begin to unravel the idea. What do we on the left
actually mean when we describe equality as our animating
ideal?
We emphatically do not mean thorough material equality
of outcome. This is a caricature offered by the right to
which nobody on the left is silly enough to lend any credence.
So, some inequalities are licensed. The critical question
is how we distinguish just inequality from unjust inequality.
When we say equality I think most people on the left are
really talking about social justice.
There are two separate questions here. The first is the
question of our life chances. Some people have more of the
goods required to make their own way and this is unfair.
It is no fault of mine that I was born into a life less
splendid than my counterpart at the Institute for Public
Policy Research. The second question is: even assuming prospects
are tolerably equal, why should greater rewards attach to
some choices over others? What is morally reputable about
investment bankers earning six times as much as think tank
directors?
The first question is another way of declaring ourselves
in favour of fair equality of opportunity. If that is what
is meant by equality then this conversation ceases here.
Or, rather, it becomes more technical. It becomes a question
of, first, what we need to do to ensure it and, second,
how much of this we think the electorate might be persuaded
to bear.
Let us assume, for argument's sake, that the first question
has been answered. In those circumstances we should then
respect people's choices in the matter of devising their
own life plan. This will produce inequalities in income.
There is no doubt about that. It is in the nature of the
capitalist system of distribution. This begs a much bigger
question that is certainly not part of the remit of the
Blair government.
The inequalities of luck and 'ability' are not straightforwardly
fair. It is vital to remind ourselves that market distribution
obeys no moral principle. For all the righteous self-satisfaction
of people on vast salaries, they do not deserve their money.
The price in a market is simply what you can get away with.
However, we have to remember that, possessed of enough information
to make sensible decisions and equipped with skill to trade,
people chose to do as they did. I can live with this, material
inequality notwithstanding. The two questions are, of course,
linked by generations. We should accept people's own experiments
in living but that does not mean that the status quo in
rewards is fine. Where it impedes those who are beginning
the race anew - which it does most obviously in education
and wealth transfers - then I see no reason not to argue,
on moral grounds, for action to restore effective fairness
of opportunity.
Yours,
Phil
4 October 2001
Dear Phil,
You are right, of course, to give short shrift to a right-wing
caricature of the centre-left's position on equality. But
you are wrong to try and divert the discussion away from
the central issue of what needs to be done to attain what
you call 'fair equality of opportunity'.
This is the politically significant point. There is a long
tradition of people who say that in theory they like the
sound of 'fair' equality of opportunity but that in practice
it is a bit difficult to attain, hence they favour aiming
for 'tolerable' (as you put it) levels of (in)equality of
opportunity. Unfortunately 64 this objective itself tends
to collapse into a view of 'equality' that consists of modest
efforts at boosting the absolute conditions of the very
worst off in society, plus the passing of laws to prevent
the most blatant forms of discrimination. Now, many would
say this dilution of our commitment to equality is a perfectly
sensible response to the perceived realities of electoral
constraints. Decent people could sign up to a political
strategy based on this reasoning. But let us be honest:
they are decent one-nation Tories, not social democrats.
Either 'fair equality of opportunity' means a full-blooded
commitment to public action to equalise life-chances or
it is a slogan devoid of content. I think that the goal
of equalising life-chances is ethically sound, politically
popular and worthy of animating the centre-left's view of
social justice. I also think that, not only does fair equality
of opportunity not exist in the UK, but that we are so far
from having it that it is inconceivable that it could be
attained without large-scale changes in how we organise
society.
One element of these changes will be a sustained and substantial
increase in public spending the likes of which we have not
yet seen. Why do I say this? It has nothing to do with the
politics of envy, the desire to 'level down', or any other
right-wing cliché. It is because we know that the
scale of investment necessary to ensure equal life-chances
is staggering. At the moment eligibility for free school
meals is one of the strongest predictors of how well a child
will do as an adult. A child from a low-income family is
around seven times as likely to die from a car accident
as one from an affluent background. Mortality rates amongst
the poor are twenty years lower than the rich. The list
goes on.
Reversing these trends will in part depend upon transforming
the services that we offer to disadvantaged groups, whilst
also keeping those on average and above incomes content,
which in itself a hugely ambitious and expensive goal. Where
should the extra funds come from to take forward this project?
Presumably anyone purporting to be on the centre-left would
want them to be raised through some form of progressive
taxation, which in itself will affect the overall distribution
of income.
But on its own this focus on services will not suffice.
For we also know that a child's life chances are determined
in no small part by the income and wealth position of their
parents. Ensuring that disadvantaged children 'start even'
requires us to improve the relative, not just absolute,
position of disadvantaged households (something which is
recognised in the Government's Child Poverty Target). In
short, the incomes of the poor need to grow more quickly
than those of households further up the income ladder if
we are to begin to move towards fair equality of opportunity.
These are not just 'technical' issues. They go to the heart
of contemporary politics. Indeed, it is only once we reveal
the types of commitment that we think need to be made in
order to achieve 'fair equality of opportunity' that we
can have a meaningful debate about policies.
The question that I think you want to pose is: 'if we arrived
at this distant land in which all children had equal life
chances should we be willing to accept all remaining inequalities
that emerged thereafter? This is an important question but,
given where we are starting from, its significance is more
philosophical than practicable. Nonetheless, you answer
the question in the positive. I think there are good grounds
for suggesting that it should be answered in the negative.
This is because I think there should be more to the centre-left's
account of social justice than a sole focus on equalising
life-chances - crucial though that goal is.
But let us turn to this issue once we have cleared up the
prior question of the commitments that need to be made to
secure fair equality of opportunity. Do you agree that this
is likely to involve - amongst other things - action which
will result in a reduction of gap between the rich and poor?
If so, we can continue with our philosophical discussion
safe in the knowledge that, in terms of practical politics,
we are both on the same side.
Yours,
Gavin
8 October 2001
Dear Gavin,
Scientists often say about a bad theory that it's not even
wrong. I felt a bit like that as I picked up some of the
straw men you had bravely knocked to the ground. The most
weary and flea-ridden of all of them was the one with the
label of 'Tory' pinned to him. That paragraph wasn't even
wrong.
The accusation that I sounded like a one-nation Tory reflected
badly on you. I said explicitly in my final sentences that
there was a moral case for public action to restore effective
fairness of opportunity. I specified the fields of education
and the transfer of wealth as the critical determinants
of life chances and made it clear that it is unfair that
privileged children start with their advantages. I was conscious
at the time of coming at the problem from the left of the
government. This was deliberate. It may be right or it may
be wrong but I don't know any Tories who would agree with
me. To answer your parting question: yes, I am sure that
fair equality of opportunity would reduce the gap between
the rich and the poor.
You baldly state that equalising life chances is politically
popular. In the abstract, it might be. But you might find
it gets a lot less popular when the devils get through to
the details. You say, rightly, 'the investment necessary
to ensure equal life-chances is staggering'. The money is
going to come through progressive taxation. So, it's to
be staggering tax increases then? Do you really think we
have the political mandate for this? Even leaving aside
the questions of whether it is desirable or likely to be
effective, do you really think this is remotely likely on
the threshold of a recession? At the moment, this isn't
even wrong either.
Enough knocking copy already. The heart of this argument
is what it takes to provide fair equality of opportunity.
You suggest (because you mention nothing else) that this
is a question of money. Well, it is, of course. Everything's
a question of money to some extent. But there is a great
deal more to changing people's lives than that. We need
to alter their expectations and their behaviour.
So what can do this? What are the conditions of equal life
chances? Education that is as close to the same quality
everywhere, health services likewise. Another vital consideration
is the ethos of a child's upbringing, the things that are
asked of the child. This set of expectations is, of course,
related to the circumstances of the parent. It is, to a
large extent, also a material question. But not wholly.
One of the differences between impoverished children that
make it and impoverished children that don't is the confidence
and drive given to them by their parents. Whether or not
their parents dream on their behalf is vital.
There are other, more negative, pre-conditions of equal
life chances. Life chances are not equal when people are
discriminated against on irrelevant criteria. Women are
not paid as much as men for the same work, black people
are less likely to gain jobs for which they are qualified,
gay people are very brave to join the armed forces. Their
life chances are impaired because other people hold noxious
views.
I've tried to begin the discussion about the pre-conditions
of equal life chances. There is a lot more to say, I know,
and I hope you'll pick up the baton. You also now need to
specify what else you want to include in your account of
social justice.
It's easy to knock second best schemes and make pure noises
about 'your full-blooded commitment to public action'. You're
likely to be hugely disappointed in the Labour Party if
you mean it.
Yours,
Phil
13 October 2001
Dear Phil,
The tone of your response suggests that my contribution
must have been a bit close to the bone. Rather than have
a squabble let me try to clarify the argument that, at the
moment, may be rather opaque to the reader.
My first point is that a commitment to the principle of
'fair equality of opportunity', if taken seriously, is a
distinctively left position. You agree. The second point
is that it is inconceivable that we can create anything
like a 'fair equality' society without taking actions that
will result in a reduced 'gap' between rich and poor. You
also agree with this. It's worth replaying that: we both
concur that the scale of the gap between rich and poor would
have to be reduced if we are to have equal life chances.
The third stage of the argument should be to examine the
nuts and bolts of the policies through which Government
should advance fair equality. There are some measures (which
don't cost much money) where I expect we would share the
same view - and, yes, occupy a space to the left of the
Government - for instance acting to end various forms of
privilege and discrimination. But even if we made progress
on this front we would still need to raise sufficient taxes
in order to allow for the scale of spending on services
and incomes that - in principle at least - we both agree
are necessary. The fourth and final stage of the debate
should be to go onto exploring whether there needs to be
more to the centre-left's account of social justice than
fair equality of opportunity (see below).
Unfortunately your (non) position on tax, with the exception
(I assume) of taxes on inheritance, makes it very hard to
move beyond the third stage. You appear to have adopted
the intellectually uncomfortable position of believing that
equal life-chances will require large scale increases in
spending whilst opposing a rise in general taxation. In
fact, your position is even more untenable than this given
that without an increase in the current tax burden there
will soon have to be a reduction in the rate of growth in
public spending over the period of the next Comprehensive
Spending Review. Unless you are hoping that the rich will
voluntarily decide to donate some of their high incomes
to the Inland Revenue, I don't see how this will advance
your stated goal of creating a fair opportunity society.
In short, you are willing to support the ends of 'fair
equality' but not the means. As I pointed out before, unless
we match our commitment to the principle of equalising life-chances
with concrete measures to deliver on it, we simply become
apologists for the status quo. It is no use writing elegant
essays articulating the principles of the centre-left and
then backing the policies of the centre-right on the crucial
issue of tax and spend.
To answer your specific question on tax I see absolutely
no reason - economic or otherwise - why over the period
of the next CSR the Government should not increase taxes
on those on above average incomes (even if for now this
comes in the form of higher NI contributions). But more
importantly, isn't it the role of those in politics - and
even more so those working in think-tanks - to argue about
how things should be? If the likes of you and I don't do
this then we can hardly criticise the Government for failing
to do so. Just as parents dream for their children, politicians
should dream for their country.
For the sake of clarity, I do not argue that higher taxing
and spending will in itself equalise life chances - if only
things were that easy. Higher taxes are a necessary, not
sufficient condition for progress. But they will provide
extra revenues, which make things possible. Some obvious
measures that I would support include: using tax credits
to ensure that the incomes of low-earners increase more
rapidly than those higher up the income ladder; boosting
spending on education and health particularly for poor communities;
and ensuring that every young child starts life with their
own trust fund (again with the disadvantaged receiving the
most support). Given that you don't want to make the case
for higher taxes you would presumably forfeit these changes
even though this would result in less opportunity for fewer
people.
Let me turn briefly to the issue of why I think that fair
equality of opportunity - on its own - may not be enough
to secure social justice. Public action to equalise life-chances
may allow subsequent disparities in income, wealth and access
to the good life to open up over the course of an individual's
life that breach the idea of 'social equality'. By social
equality I mean a society in which there is equal respect
between all citizens, where public spaces and services are
shared, and where rigid class divisions are eradicated.
On its own 'fair equality of opportunity' may produce (a
much improved) meritocracy, but one in which new class divisions
emerge and social segmentation still prevails. Generating
'social equality' will require all sorts of measures - some
of which I think we agree on (e.g. inherited wealth). My
point is that social equality is unlikely to exist or sustain
itself in a society in which the long-term trend is one
in which the incomes of the affluent increase at a faster
rate than those lower down the income ladder. If you care
about social equality, you need to care about the 'gap'.
Finally, you imply that because I think the gap matters
that I'm bound to be disappointed by the Labour government.
Well, it is certainly true that no government is perfect
and it is also the case that this one sends out mixed messages
on the question of which equalities matter. But it is absolutely
wrong to contend that this administration has no interest
in the relative position of rich and poor. One only needs
to look at its totemic commitment on child poverty (using
a relative measure of poverty) or its pledges on reducing
inequalities on health to see this. In any case, it is surely
better to be clear about what you believe and be willing
to be disappointed by political leaders, rather than trim
your convictions in order to accommodate whatever is on
offer.
Yours,
Gavin
16 October 2001
Dear Gavin,
I agree on what we agree on. We also agree on quite a lot
more, I think. I have no dispute with you that the structure
of taxation should be used for social ends and that the
current arrangements are not the progressive optimum. I
also agree that there is a lot more that can be done to
end privilege and discrimination. Our main area of dispute
seems to me that you have rather more faith than I do in
the efficacy of government in increasing life chances through
taxation. I am not saying that it has no effect (nobody
thinks that) but this strategy really does have to do a
lot of work for you. Once a Fabian …
You do not explicitly specify income tax as your target
and I hope I am not putting words into your mouth if I assume
that is your principal instrument of policy. You did leave
me wondering what you thought the increased revenues could
buy. Obviously this depends on how much you would like to
see taxation raised by. It also depends, of course, on the
risky assumption that revenues will continue to rise along
with the tax burden. A perfectly valid Labour criticism
of the Liberal Democrat's 1p for education is that it won't
do very much. So, although you come over very pious about
willing the means, actually I think you're awarding yourself
compliments.
As you know, in the transfer of privilege and the determination
of life chances, wealth is crucial. It is even more unevenly
distributed than income. It is also morally inferior because
wealth is largely inherited and unearned. I am not backing
away from my earlier point that we cannot equate a market
distribution with merit. But I think you would agree that
inherited wealth has absolutely nothing at all to do with
merit. This gives us grounds for an argument that I think
could be popular.
Really, I wanted to prod you into being clear about your
strategy of increasing taxation, which you have been, though
I would like you to be clearer still. I don't believe life
chances can be made equal as long as arguments like this
are dominated by the level of income tax. It would be better
to start with the determinants of what you call social equality.
I wasn't persuaded, by the way, that your necessarily brief
account of social equality did anything more than repeat
the earlier point about material inequality.
Here's one constructive option: we should change the life
cycle pattern of public spending. It is a commonplace in
policy that money spent early is money better spent. Yet
we spend far more at post-16 level than we do prior to the
age of 5. By 16 many of the privileges we both deplore have
done their work on the individual recipients. If we spent
the same amount but loaded it early in the life cycle we
would do more to equalise life chances than anything else
I can think of.
And, finally, if you were implying in your reply that I
was in any way elegant, then thank you.
Yours,
Phil
18 October 2001
Dear Phil,
We do agree on a fair amount but disagree on fundamental
issues such as tax, where your position continues to confuse
me. I can't work out whether you oppose my argument for
higher taxes (in order to improve services and address the
gap) because you honestly don't think that we need to spend
any more money to bring about fair equality; you don't really
trust government sufficiently to spend the money; you are
worried this strategy will upset middle-England; or you
are anxious about the impact on the economic cycle. Maybe
it's all of these. Maybe you just don't think Labour will
do it so it's not worth making a fuss. Whatever the reason,
if our radicalism on tax does not extend beyond the (admirable)
desire to crack down on inheritances I fear this would,
at best, leave the current government in a position where
it can only contain existing levels of inequalities.
What would I suggest? We could start by progressively raising
the upper earning limit for National Insurance and being
less generous in the way in which the tax system treats
the pension contributions of top rate taxpayers. What might
this mean for spending? It should raise sufficient funds
to allow the Government to continue the current rate of
increase in spending until 2006 (without undertaking imprudent
levels of borrowing). And what would this 'buy'? Well, it
would create the possibility, and no more, that government
could continue making good progress on eradicating child
poverty; preserve universality in health and education at
the same time as targeting more resources at disadvantaged
communities; and offer improved forms of support to young
people (e.g. trust funds and a much more ambitious Sure
Start programme). There is a strong case for going further,
but this would be a good start.
Let me turn to your proposal for increasing support for
young children. I totally agree with the sentiment of being
more ambitious in what we do for under fives but your suggestion
that this could be funded by re-directing existing resources
reveals the weakness of your wider argument. Are you seriously
contending that government could make a large-scale reduction
in spending post-16 education? Given the already established
(and contested) shift towards student fees and loans, the
chronic under-funding of further education, and the Government's
commitment to expanding Higher Education, how would this
work? I'm afraid to say that the idea that we can find large
sources of revenue for new social programmes by cutting
back on existing ones sounds horribly like a line from the
2001 Tory manifesto. I expect it would prove no more popular.
If society wants to improve levels of support for young
children then it will have to pay for it. You seem to think
that posing this type of choice sounds 'pious'; I think
it is no more than a statement of the obvious.
And you are right, of course, to caution against an overly-optimistic
view of the capacity of government acting on its own to
deliver change. But this provides a rationale for progressives
to lead the search for new ways of ensuring that public
action translates into real gains for citizens, not an excuse
for failing to make the case for the tax-base, or the overall
distribution of income, that we think necessary if we are
to ensure equal life chances for all. So if by 'Fabian'
you mean that I firmly believe in collective action and
the ultimate responsibility of government for delivering
social justice then I'm guilty as charged. If you mean I'm
a fan of the dirigism then you've got the wrong man.
Our focus on the link between life-chances and tax means
that we haven't done justice to the Croslandite notion of
'social equality'. At the moment it is difficult to contend
that social equality exists in Britain. Anyone who spent
a day walking from one side of a British city to another
would see this. I do not mean by this that we should swallow
the myth that all rich people live in walled communities
while the poor are caged in their estates; the reality is
far more complicated than this crude caricature. But patterns
of home-ownership, schooling, shopping, leisure, crime,
pollution, transport and many other aspects of our common
life are socially segmented, often in a profound way.
There is, of course, no formulaic link between income inequality
and social inequality. Simply relying on raising the taxes
of the richest in order to increase the benefits of the
poorest would be a very blunt way of addressing the issue:
the goal of social equality needs to inform our thinking
on issues as varied as school admissions, transport, social
housing, planning, regeneration, and the design of public
spaces. We need to build the public institutions and spaces
that promote social cohesion and make a reality of the notion
of equal citizenship. But to pretend that we could achieve
anything resembling social equality whilst the gap between
rich and poor continues to grow is to turn our back on the
world around us. As material inequalities become more extreme
so the opportunities for citizens to rub shoulders as equals
become fewer. If you believe in equal life-chances for all,
if you think that social equality matters, if in short,
you are a social democrat - then you need to care about
the 'gap'.
Finally, you can have elegance, I'll settle for equality.
Let's keep the debate going.
Yours,
Gavin
|
