SOCIOLOGY: T he Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do BetterRichard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett Allen Lane, 297pp. £20
THIS BOOK communicates a relevant and powerful message for our times. It suggests that we have sought to explain our “broken economy” on the behaviour of the rich and our “broken society” on the behaviour of the poor – and sets out to show that the truth is that both the broken society and the broken economy resulted from the growth in inequality .
The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Betterhas a particular relevance in an Ireland of gross income inequality – an inequality that is so entrenched that a prominent banker recently saw fit to communicate his personal sacrifice in reducing his annual salary to below €2 million.
Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett put forward compelling evidence that income inequalities are at the root of a wide range of health and social problems in society.
Their book has a further relevance in an Ireland newly dedicated to consumption – so dedicated that an obituary writer in a national newspaper not long ago felt it appropriate to detail the make of car and the type of helicopter owned by the deceased. The Spirit Levelquotes a USA bumper sticker "The one who dies with the most toys wins" as it sets out how inequality heightens competitive consumption.
Wilkinson and Pickett make a detailed and well researched case that ill health and social problems in rich countries “are not caused by the society not being rich enough (or even by being too rich) but by the scale of material differences between people within each society being too big”.
They go further to find that the vast majority of the population is harmed by greater inequality and that the benefits of smaller income differences in the more equal states (of the USA) seem to spread across all income groups.
The authors compare different countries and different US states with each other on the basis of income inequality data. They check their data and findings across these two different settings. The first setting is a grouping of 23 of the richest countries, in which the USA, Portugal, Singapore and Britain emerge as the most unequal in terms of income inequality – and Japan and Sweden as the most equal. The second setting is 50 states in the United States of America. The findings are remarkably similar in both settings.
Levels of trust between people, life expectancy, educational attainment and social mobility are all found to be lower in the more unequal states – the outcome of income inequality. Mental illness rates, use of illegal drugs, obesity levels, teenage pregnancy, levels of violence and rates of imprisonment are all found to be higher in the more unequal countries – again the outcome of income inequality. The difference found between countries or US states is not found to rest on the difference between high risk and low risk groups in these settings but on the prevalence of problems which apply to the whole population.
The authors conclude that if governments understood the consequences of widening income difference they would be keener to prevent them. This appears wildly optimistic in the context of the current responses to the “broken economy” in Ireland.
There are limitations to the analysis put forward in The Spirit Level. The research is necessarily confined to income inequality for lack of other comparative data. This places the emphasis on economic inequality and does not allow for a consideration of inequalities of power or of recognition for different groups in society. Thus Japan emerges as one of the more equal countries on the basis of income distribution despite the significant inequalities in the status of women there.
This wider perspective on equality – that combines a focus on economic inequality with inequalities of power and recognition for difference – is unlikely to change the overall conclusion that inequality is bad for most people in society. It would however assist a better understanding of why this is so and what to do about it. The analysis put forward in the book on both these questions is weaker as a result of the narrower perspective on economic inequality used.
The analysis of why income inequality is bad for society is confined to a psychological and, in parts, a biological rationale. “Status competition” is put forward by the authors as the principal reason why health and social problems are caused by inequality. There is little analysis of societal structures and systems that underpin inequalities and thus ensure that they generate these health and social problems.
The analysis of what to do about such problems is largely confined to a proposal to democratise economic institutions through employee share ownership accompanied by participatory management systems. There is little reference made to the need for cultural change so that the concept of “equality” could assume the same common sense status currently enjoyed by the concept of “economic competitiveness”. The challenge to retain high-quality and accessible public services as a key means of redistribution and achieving equality is not explored. The need to reinforce and resource drivers for equality in the statutory sector and across civil society is not addressed.
Inequality, and in particular income inequality, has grown in Ireland over the past decade. If we are to address our current economic crisis we need to address this equality crisis. This book valuably provides the evidence to underpin this assertion – and to pose this challenge.
Niall Crowley is the former chief executive officer of the Equality Authority. He is the author of An Ambition for Equalitypublished by Irish Academic Press