The debate should really be framed as: do the redistributive measures required to reduce income inequality (not that Gordon Brown even managed that) depress the economic growth that removes absolute poverty to such an extent that we oughtn’t bother? I don’t think either side has this quite right: we freeborn Britishers are probably prepared to accept more taxation than is often supposed, provided we think we’re getting value for money. (A lot of us, for this reason, arrive at a conservative position by default rather than by choice.) Related to this is the extent to which communities and public space are squeezed by individualism on one side and statism on the other: somehow we have to rescue the community from the failing individual and the failed state, and redefine how we pay for public services in the process.
David Cameron grasps at this with his big society narrative, though very inarticulately. That the phrase has become a synonym for “savage cuts” in the public mind suggests they haven’t thought it through properly; and if there’s no philosophy behind it, it’s hard to disagree with the public mind. But it should be very simple…
Society
Community
Family
Individuals
We’re governed from the top and bottom of these inwards; what if we were governed from the centre outwards?
Bagehot, earlier, also suggested that David Miliband gets it; if so, he is alone in the Labour Party, bereft of this supposed “moral seriousness”. For Labour, then, I propose an admission that an ever-bigger state won’t work: there has to be an ideal size, and they should tell us what they think it is. They should rediscover their righteous anger about the five giant evils but admit that more and more bureaucracy has failed to solve them. They should revisit the neglected small-c values of mutuals and co-operatives, which worked on the principle of cohesion without coercion. And they should admit that they betrayed Keynes’ name by running a huge structural deficit in the boom times: which has only given their successors cover for the savage cuts. Instead, work should be encouraged and progressive taxes (whatever that means) could be redistributed to aforementioned co-ops, social enterprises and charities, to see if they can do any better: it’s a pity that Labour’s scorched earth legacy means this couldn’t be run as a controlled experiment, even if the new government wanted to. The left also has to stop resenting the idea of charities delivering public services as an attack on the state and the privileges of its workers, and start seeing it as a potential partner in fighting those social ills.
For the LibCons, my advice is to embrace localism and direct democracy, and trust people enough to give power away from Westminster and Whitehall: but don’t forget your roots in pessimism, which is the ultimate guard against utopian idealism. As for the Tories in Scotland… surely it’s time to throw in the towel. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist brand is clearly never going to recover from its status as Thatcher’s angels of death. There’s still a deep strain of self-sufficient, relatively social conservative One Nationism in Scotland – even among many people who vote Labour or SNP – and this is potential fuel for a new centre-right movement. At last this is being discussed openly. The question Adam Smith’s heirs will have to face is whether to stick with the union, or – as probably seems a better route to achieving a competitive, small-state nation eventually – support Scottish independence, or at the very least full fiscal autonomy. The next question is: entryism in the SNP, or a new party that, thanks to proportional representation in the parliament and councils, might just make an impact?
I don’t really know enough about the Spirit Level debate to discuss it at great length, but isn’t it just a manifesto for socialism? Also are you in favour of independence now? I thought our German friend would have put you off the idea.
It does seem to be a pretty thinly veiled manifesto for socialism, though thickly enough that Call Me Dave sang its praises (though if you believe most Tory bloggers he’s a socialist too). It also seems like common sense that societies with less inequality would have fewer problems, but to regard that as the only or even the main factor in what causes social problems seems to require quite a lot of ‘hiding the decline’ (to use another favourite phrase of the Tory bloggers).
The way I read the reaction to Herr Phil’s performance (basically from the opening booing onwards) was that most people here don’t like to be told what a dump Scotland is now. I think it could be a helluva better country than it is if we changed a few things (including taking responsibility for raising the money we spend) but not if we carry on with the sort of state of affairs the Stand regulars seem quite happy with.
[...] Philosophical Zombie talks about the spirit level debate and asks, why can’t we be more like Singapore? http://philosophicalzombie.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-society/ [...]
I like your hierarchy of governance, but it got me thinking. Fairness is enforced from the top down. Children appeal to their parents to resolve disputes, families appeal to local courts to settle disagreements, the state prevents grossly unequal living standards by diverting taxation from rich areas to poor.
Competition exists at all levels, and pushing power downwards would seem to me to tend to increase the potential for unfairness. I like the idea of devolving power, but I can’t help but think it would decrease fairness in society rather than increase it. It wouldn’t be such a big deal except that some sections of society have heavily entrenched advantages in terms of wealth and education. I guess The Big Society is a call for those advantaged to “play fair”, but I get the impression that most Tories are salivating at the prospect of being given freedom to trample on the less fortunate.
I think you’ve put your finger on the best argument against local democracy, though I would still say the pros probably outweigh the cons. Clearly state centralisation hasn’t succeeded in ironing out these inequalities – far from it. No doubt there will be still be postcode lotteries in terms of services and economic and social outcomes. But if you look at countries in Europe where local government is more powerful relative to central, far more people take part in local politics (even if only by turning out to vote), so if that were the case here it would be realistic to expect better governed towns and cities overall. I agree that a lot of economic immobility is because of poor education, so I would argue it’s worth trying to give the people most affected by that more control over it. I think the status quo of Whitehall control has failed so spectacularly that the alternative is worth a try, though I agree there are no easy solutions. It’s a pity the Labour approach was to throw money at the problem but try to solve it themselves, while the new one is not to throw money and let local communities sort it out. Probably the ideal solution would be to throw the money while putting control of that money in local hands – but it seems like we’ll never get to try that experiment.
Out of interest, what’s your view of yesterday’s settlement for academia in general and science in particular?
For what it’s worth I think the science budget freeze is good relative to other areas facing cuts, but the UK still spends half as much as the US and other countries on scientific research. I don’t think it should be at the expense of primary and secondary education funding though, as this just increases inequality for those who don’t make it to tertiary education.
Inequality and Prosperity by Jonas Pontusson is good for statistics like these, and it also argues that redistributive measures do not impede economic growth, although employment growth may suffer.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uDdpTLNPnVgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=pontusson&hl=en&ei=TR_tTN3RBcaAhAfQtoDNDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
He also provides statistics to show that absolute poverty is worse in more unequal countries, as well as the relative poverty cited in the spirit level. His classification of market economies and their welfare states fits with differing levels of inequality, and provides a more nuanced view of economic influences than simply income inequality.
You are familiar with the concept of a graduated expenditure tax?