Addressing Economic Inequality At Root
Addressing economic inequality at root5 goals for a fairer UK
New Economics Foundation (NEF) is anindependent think-and-do tank that inspiresand demonstrates real economic well-being.We aim to improve quality of life by promotinginnovative solutions that challenge mainstreamthinking on economic, environmental and socialissues. We work in partnership and put peopleand the planet first.Friedrich-Ebert-StiftungThe Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is a non-profitGerman political foundation committed to theadvancement of public policy issues in thespirit of the basic values of social democracythrough education, research, and internationalcooperation. The foundation, headquarteredin Berlin and Bonn, was founded in 1925 andis named after Friedrich Ebert, Germany’sfirst democratically elected president. Today,the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has 13 regionaloffices throughout Germany, maintainsoffices in over 90 countries and carriesout activities in more than 100 countries.
ContentsSummary4Introduction6Part 1: Time for actionWhy tackling economic inequality matters9What is driving the growth in economic inequality?11Time to act on the evidence16A target for reducing economic inequality21Part 2: Setting the agendaChildcare and early years intervention27Wages and working conditions31Building skills and progression pathways36Job creation40Taxation44Considerations and barriers49Next steps for practical action51Annex52Endnotes54
4Diversity andeconomicAddressingIntegrationinequality at rootSummarySpiralling economic inequality is underminingour economy, society and democracy. Now seenby many as one of the world’s most pressingchallenges – the time has come for action.Is it any surprise that four out of five British citizens want the government toact on inequality? The richest 1% of the UK population are now wealthier thanthe poorest 50% put together – a disparity that has been growing steadilysince the 1970s, and on current trends is set to get even worse.But this isn’t about the politics of envy; nor is it purely about what is morallyright or wrong. We have convincing evidence that extreme economicinequality is contributing decisively to financial instability, wasted humancapital, lower well-being and mental health, domination of politics by anelite few and low voter turn out.We can no longer afford to ignore our inequality problem. It’s time foraction.The authors of this report call on the government to start with two key steps.The first is to set a tangible target to reduce economic inequality, as theyhave for child poverty. The second is to establish a high-level commissionon economic inequality tasked with devising a broad policy agenda to tacklethe drivers of inequality.We then identify five high-level goals that must be achieved to address someof the root drivers of economic inequality. Each goal is accompanied with aset of policy area priorities:yy Universal provision of high-quality childcare that is affordable for all.High-quality childcare can transform life opportunities for children and willhelp to address unequal starting points. Making it equally available andaffordable to all families would give parents more choices about balancingtheir families’ needs and their working lives.Policy priorities: Public funding supporting the supply of childcare in orderto cap family childcare expenditure at 15% of income; increased standardsof training and qualifications to ensure childcare is always high quality; andbetter working conditions for childcare workers, including a Living Wage,stable contract hours and career and pay progression opportunities.yy Narrow the difference between top-to-bottom earnings and rebuild thelink between economic prosperity and wages. Over time, the proportionof UK economic prosperity shared out as wages has shrunk in favour of
5Addressing economic inequality at rootshareholder profits. Within this smaller wage share median wages havefallen while pay at the top has sky-rocketed. Concerted action to restorewages and shrink the income gap would create a healthier economy andaddress in-work poverty.Policy priorities: Ensure workers have a collective voice in workplacedecision-making by law; establish a Department of Labour tasked withrestoring wages in the economy and improving working conditions;establish a stronger wage-floor to eliminate in-work poverty; and enforcepay ratio reporting to address wage differentials.yy Access to valued careers for all with opportunities for progressionand skills development. Non-graduates are being increasinglyfunnelled into low-paid, dead-end jobs with little or no prospects offuture progression. Addressing the lack of investment in training anddevelopment for staff and managers would broaden opportunities forpurposeful and rewarding work.Policy priorities: Promote pooled training investment by sector; invest inincentive structures to improve high-quality management skills at differentlevels; use state support to ensure apprenticeship schemes lead toprogression at work across more industries; and establish better education,training and employment links at the local level.yy Creation of good jobs for all that benefit workers, the economyand society. Everyone should have the right to a well-paid, secureand meaningful job. But the current jobs market is hugely unbalanced,both in terms of geography and job quality. We need to invest in good,environmentally sustainable jobs around the country.Policy priorities: Co-ordinate and co-produce a national industrial strategy;establish a state investment bank with regional focus; funding for better jobsand training to guarantee full employment; and reform business to ensureworkers have a collective voice.yy A fairer, more progressive tax system. When you take account of directand indirect taxes, those on low incomes in the UK are being hit too hard,while billions of pounds each year are being lost through tax avoidance andevasion at the top. Progressive tax reforms would help to address inequalityat root as well as redistributing economic power.Policy priorities: Strengthen legislation and resources to abolish taxavoidance and evasion; implement and co-ordinate more progressiveincome and wealth taxes; establish a Land-Value Tax; and shift the taxburden onto environmentally unfriendly activities through green taxes.There is no silver bullet for tackling economic inequality: the interconnectionsbetween different areas mean that a package of bold interventions is required,with each policy step reinforcing the next. While not exhaustive, we believethis report covers the most pressing issues and provides a clear starting pointfor determined, coordinated action.
6Addressing economic inequality at rootIntroductionThis report sets out goals and policy priorities tokick-start decisive, coherent action on tacklingeconomic inequality. These have been shaped byconversations with a range of leading childcare,labour market and economic experts.In December 2013, a partnership between the New Economics Foundation(NEF) and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung convened 60 European experts fromacross academia, policy, civil society, trade unions and the media to discusshow to tackle economic inequality at root.The conference, Addressing Inequality and the Living Standards Crisis, heldin London, combined plenary and roundtable discussions on five specificareas: childcare and the early years; wages and working conditions; skills andprogression pathways; job creation; and taxation. Each roundtable was taskedwith drawing up a goal and practical policy priorities. The focus was on UKrequirements especially, but with applicable learning from other governmentsfacing similar challenges.We are grateful to all those who took part in the conference. This reportpublishes our analysis of the roundtable discussions. It also builds on NEF’sprogramme of research on economic inequality. The report should not be readas representing a consensus among the participants at the conference, norshould it hold any of the experts to the views expressed. Responsibility for thecontent and analysis rests solely with the authors.Our analysis does not claim to be definitive. This is for good reason; webelieve that the detail of policy in each area needs to be worked out with adedication of resources and collaboration among social partners and policymakers. However, we believe the goals provide an ambition and a validframework that policy-makers should sign up to without delay. The policypriorities, such as implementation of a statutory basis for ensuring a collectivevoice for workers, and commitment of public funding for a universal system ofchildcare, provide a platform for instigating action in some of the most criticalareas for addressing economic inequality at root. The policy priorities arewhere the detail of specific interventions needs to be built in but we call foradoption of the agenda as the first major step.The report is aimed directly at policy-makers but can also strengthen publicdebate and pressure for work to begin to tackle economic inequality. It isevident that policy-makers must recognise that there is no silver bullet to
7Addressing economic inequality at rootresolve the economic inequality challenge and equally that nothing short ofdeep-seated reforms are required. Systemic action on a number of levels isneeded because economic inequality extends from and into economic andsocial processes, structures and institutions This means that a comprehensivestrategy is required if we are to decisively tackle economic inequality at root.The report is structured in three parts.yy The first part gives an overview of the evidence on why tackling economicinequality matters and what is driving the growth in economic inequality.From here we go on to explain what this means for taking action now andhow the different policy areas we have examined come together into acoherent agenda for change. The first part concludes with a discussionaround setting a measurable target for reducing economic inequality.yy The second part of the report sets out more detail on each of the policyareas we have looked at: childcare and early years intervention; wages andworking conditions; building skills and progression pathways; job creation;and taxation. These dedicated sections are followed by a short discussion ofthe considerations and barriers that experts believe need to be addressedin order to move the agenda forward.yy The report concludes with practical recommendations for immediatenext steps.
Part 1Time for actionThe cycle of reinforcing drivers of economicinequality means we need a coherent policyagenda to create a ‘virtuous cycle’ for positivechange. This must be spearheaded by a clearreduction target to clarify ambition and holdpolicy-makers to account.
Addressing economic inequality at rootWhy tackling economic inequalitymattersEconomic inequality has risen in most OECD countries in the past severaldecades and in the UK it is at historically high levels. Recent revelationsdrawn from UK tax records and described in Thomas Piketty’s bestsellingbook, Capital in the twenty-first century, demonstrate that the concentrationof wealth among the richest 1% and 10% in the UK has been rising sincethe 1970s (see Figure 1).1 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) Wealthand Assets Survey, which underestimates wealth at the top of the spectrum,still finds that the richest 1% now has more wealth than the poorest 50% puttogether.2 Increasingly people struggle to understand how such wealth at thetop is fair when the majority have experienced a real-term decline in wagessince 2008.Figure 1: Share of total wealth for the top 1% and 10% in the UK1910–2010100%Percentage share of total wealthTop 10%Top 19200%19109Source: Piketty, T. (2014). Technical appendix, Capital in the twenty-first century 3According to the Gini coefficient measure, where a score of 0 meansabsolute equality and 1 absolute inequality, income inequality stoppedgrowing and remained stable between 2008 and 2010 at around 0.35.4This is in part because of the impact of the recession on incomes for thetop 10% of earners, and the way incomes at the bottom are protected bywelfare provision. However, this stabilisation is more of a respite then anew trend. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) expect income inequality torise again as incomes at the top recover and austerity measures mean thepoor are less protected. The signs are certainly there that this is the case:average pay for the chief executive officers (CEOs) of the 15 leading banksincreased by 10% in 20135 yet the number of meals given to people in foodpoverty increased by 54%.6
10Addressing economic inequality at rootIn light of these figures, it should come as no surprise that the majority of theBritish public support action to reduce disparities. A recent ICM Research pollshows that 80% of the British public now support action to reduce economicinequality, higher than the number who support action on immigration orbenefits.7Justification for action on economic inequality can also be found in thegrowing evidence that extreme economic inequality is damaging for oureconomy, society and democracy. Chief among these impacts is the way higheconomic inequality lowers social mobility, divides communities, lowers wellbeing, increases instability in the economy and reduces voter turnout amongthe poor.8Economic inequality is also self-perpetuating, making interventionincreasingly difficult as time goes by. It is becoming increasingly apparentthat the rich influence policy-makers and policy through lobbying to fortifyand extend the institutional structures that promote economic inequality.One recent example of this is the endeavour made by the UK’s coalitiongovernment to block the EU from limiting bankers’ bonuses.9 This pressureon policy-makers or ‘political capture’ by the rich is no longer considered tobe a conspiracy theory but a fact.10Now is the time to act. The UK is already one of the most unequal countries inthe developed world, only slightly more equal than the US.11 If, as predicted,economic inequality continues to grow, we will undermine our ability to build ameritocratic and cohesive society, resilient economy and healthy democracy.12
11Addressing economic inequality at rootWhat is driving the growth in economicinequality?Tackling economic inequality at root means identifying and understandingthe factors driving current trends. Until recently, the mainstream literatureexplaining economic inequality almost exclusively focused on globalisationand skill-biased technical change. There is now a growing recognitionthat these factors fail to satisfactorily explain why economic inequality isrising in the majority of high-, middle- and low-income countries, and theexcessive increases in pay and wealth among the richest. New, competingexplanations point to deeper structural shifts in the economy and politicaleconomy, the latter reflecting choices that are being made about societyand our management of the economy. Below we briefly consider the roleof globalisation and technology as well as financialisation, declining tradeunion membership, redistribution policies and political capture. This overviewof the mechanics of economic inequality illuminates the scale of the policychallenge and signals the need for multiple interventions to disrupt the surgein economic inequality.GlobalisationThe term globalisation can mean many things. Here we focus on theconnections with increasing integration at the international level and impactson the movement of labour and capital. We consider the issue of growingfinancial flows separately, under the financialisation heading below.The basic explanation of how globalisation is driving economic inequality isthat opening up economies to developing countries undermines the positionof low-skilled workers in richer nations. On the other hand, skill-intensivesectors become more concentrated in higher-income countries where agreater proportion of the population is highly qualified. Fewer opportunitiesfor those without many formal qualifications, alongside more opportunities forthose with graduate skills, lead to growing economic inequality.Despite its popularity as an explanation for increased income disparities,the data on globalisation does not suggest that it is the central factor. TheOECD’s statistical analysis found that higher imports from low-incomecountries only caused wage dispersion in countries with weaker employmentprotection legislation.13 Furthermore, the lowest wages and poorest workingconditions are not found in sectors where jobs are at risk of flight overseas tocheaper labour markets, but rather in the care and hospitality sectors wherejobs, by their nature, remain within the domestic economy.14 The inability ofglobalisation to explain economic inequality growth has a silver lining – itopens up the space for policy discussions and solutions. This is because ifglobalisation was key to driving economic inequality, then tackling it wouldrequire measures to address globalisation. Not only would this be verydifficult it would widely be considered undesirable.
12Addressing economic inequality at rootTechnologyProduct innovation has resulted in new technologies in the workplace thatfavour more educated workers. In response, employers have increaseddemand for more skilled workers who complement the new technology. Theresult is that the wages and employment of the more-skilled has risen relativeto their less-skilled counterparts. This bias is further skewed by processinnovations which have led to increased mechanisation, such as those onfactory lines and supermarkets, resulting directly in job losses.Again, just as with globalisation, the assertion that technological changeis the key driver of growing economic inequality leaves very little space forpolicy intervention and makes rising economic inequality seem inevitable.However, there is debate over how big a piece technology is in the puzzleof increased economic inequality. For example, economic inequalitygrew at a much faster rate in the 1980s than in the 1990s and 2000s,yet technological change has been ongoing.15 It is also hard to see howskill-biased technical change can explain the exponential increases inwages among CEOs.16We do not wish to completely dismiss the role of technology in drivingeconomic inequality. It is clear that newer technologies, when compared tothe electromechanical revolution, for example, are creating fewer jobs andmuch higher returns for entrepreneurs. The former Chair of the FinancialServices Authority, Lord Adair Turner, has spoken of the new technologicalage as contributing to a winner-takes-all society. For example, MarkZuckerberg, founder of Facebook, made almost inconceivable returns on acompany that required very little capital investment.17 However, this is notsimply the outcome of new technology, but technology combined with thefunctioning of our financial system.FinancialisationFinancialisation can be understood as the increasing size and influenceof financial markets, actors and institutions in domestic and internationaleconomies. It is often seen as a negative phenomenon, linked to “speculativeand excessively liquid financial flows that create debt-laden balance sheets,overly short-term perspectives, volatility and mispricing of important assetprices, including exchange rates, and subsequent misallocation of resourcesand unstable economic growth”.18 In short, the liberalisation of capitalmovements results in financial bubbles.Financialisation has resulted in greater economic inequality predominantly bycausing protracted country current account deficits, resulting in the inflation ofassets. In the UK, the inflation of assets has been particularly skewed towardshousing, but other types of assets have also seen consid
7 Addressing economic inequality at root resolve the economic inequality challenge and equally that nothing short of deep-seated reforms are required. Systemic action on a number of levels is needed because economic inequality extends from and into economic and social processes, st
Measuring economic inequality Summary Economics 448: Lecture 12 Measures of Inequality October 11, 2012 Lecture 12. Outline Introduction What is economic inequality? Measuring economic inequality . Inequality is the fundamental disparity that permits one individual certain
growth will be discussed. Concepts on both regional income inequality and local economic growth will follow. 2.1 Theories on Income Inequality: Does Harm Growth Stiglitz (2012) argues inequality slows economic growth. According to Stiglitz, inequality weakens aggregate demand f
Income inequality has two components: (a) ‘market’ inequality and (b) govern-ment redistribution via taxes and transfers. In principle, the two can be combined in any of a variety of ways: low market inequality with high redistribution, low market inequality with low redistribution, high market inequality
2.2 Gender Inequality in Economic Outcomes The second strand of the literature aims to identify the link between gender inequality in economic outcomes and economic growth. Studies use different measures of economic inequality, including gender gaps in labo
of its income inequality (Lu and Chen, 2005). Innovation not only plays a role in the economic development of developing countries, but can also impact income inequality. While there is ample literature studying income inequality in China, there is less concern about the impact of the innovation level on income inequality.
applies this framework to analyse inequality in North and Central Asia with respect to inequality of outcomes and opportunities which are defined in the publication.1 Inequality of outcomes, or economic inequality, is disparities in material dimensions of human wellbeing among individuals. It is usually measured by monetary values such as
increases and if it decreases in income inequality. If income distribution is Pareto, the rate of redistribution increases monotonically in income inequality if ˇ 0:78 and it has an internal maximum if . Moreover, the maximum occurs at a lower level of inequality, so that the rate of redistribution de
The Korean language is relatively homogeneous and the dialects from different areas can be mutually intelligible to a great extent. Nevertheless, the dialects of Korean exhibit considerable variety in phonology, morphology, and vocabulary. They are finely differentiated into a number of areas based on regional differences. There is no obvious correlation between the modern dialects and the .
