Tackling inequality is key to improving social mobility, Mr Clegg


Duncan Exley is the campaign director for One Society

Eton-HarrowToday, Nick Clegg launches a Royal Commission on social mobility. There are a number of reasons to celebrate this.

Firstly, because it is necessary. The UK has one of the lowest rates of social mobility in the developed world. This is a tragedy for those ‘trapped at the bottom’, but also for the rest of us who will not benefit from the contribution of those who never get to become the innovators, teachers, entrepreneurs or surgeons that they could have been.

Secondly, because Nick Clegg is proposing the adoption of social mobility indicators, which include measures – such as birth weight and the proportion of former state school pupils in top universities - that are of real importance in a civilised and productive society.

Also welcome is the commitment to address the growing injustice of unpaid internships, with an indication that companies which continue this practice may “risk a legal challenge under the national minimum wage legislation”.

On the other hand, statements already made by the deputy prime minister raise serious concerns. Perhaps the most worrying is Nick Clegg’s claim that:

“Social mobility is what characterises a fair society, rather than a particular level of income equality.”

It is worrying for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I think most people would question whether the current “particular level of income inequality” characterises a “fair society”.

For example, is it fair that the average pay of a Reckitt Benckiser employee in 2009 was 0.07% that of the company’s chief executive? Is it fair that the wealth gap between the UK’s 10th and 90th percentiles is 1:97? And is it really OK that millions spend their childhood in poverty (sometimes so severe as to reduce life expectancy by decades), as long as some of them eventually climb out?

Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that the most effective way to increase social mobility is to reduce income inequality; (i.e, trying to address social mobility while ignoring inequality is like trying to lose weight but ignoring calories). Study after study after study after study shows that it is “likely to be very hard to increase social mobility without tackling inequality” and that:

“Income inequality can become entrenched across generations, as elites monopolise top jobs regardless of their talent, gaining preferential access to capital and opportunities. This harms social mobility.”

There are means of encouraging social mobility that do not involve reducing income inequality, including introducing and encouraging the children of low-income parents (and children looked after by the state) to have education and career opportunities beyond their families’ experience.

However, social mobility can take generations; it will be a colossal shame if, after a few decades, the indicators that are now being proposed merely tell us that we have spent valuable time tinkering around the edges and neglecting the real driver of social mobility.

This entry was posted in Good Society and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • Pingback: One Society

  • Pingback: One Society

  • Pingback: One Society

  • Pingback: Tweet4Labour

  • Pingback: David A Springate

  • Pingback: geoff jobson

  • Pingback: Jackie Brett

  • Pingback: Jon Purdom/Paco Saez

  • Pingback: Sarah

  • Pingback: Lucy Sweetman

  • Pingback: Alex Stevens

  • Mark Stevo

    How would LFF stack up from a social meritocracy perspective? Unpaid (or underpaid) interns?

  • http://tom.acrewoods.net Tom Chance

    There are a couple of duff links in the article, can they be fixed? (1:97 and the third study).

  • http://leftlibthistime.blogspot.com/ Geoffrey Payne

    That particular quotation is out of step of mainstream thinking within the Liberal Democrats as well.

  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science Evan Harris

    Where did that particular quotation come from – it appears not to have been today and the whole context would be useful to see.

  • Duncan Exley
  • inyourhouse

    “Is it fair that the wealth gap between the UK’s 10th and 90th percentiles is 1:97? ”

    What should it be? 1:78? 1:65? 1:82.36363646? Any number you choose is arbitrary.

  • Dave Citizen

    The debate about inequality is, rightly, set to dominate British politics over the coming decade. If Britain is to be an innovative prosperous society in the 21st century historical privileges and institutionalised distortions will have to be tackled. When the PM, the Chancellor and the Mayor of London all went to the same school its clear our society is no longer fit for purpose. A meritocracy can’t function if people can buy there way out of it. Well done Duncan on facing up to the challenge we all face.

  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science Evan Harris

    Ref number 5: The quote that you have now sourced is from an article (from last November http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/inequality-injustice-nick-clegg) where Clegg was making the point that it is not enough (in respect of making the country fairer)to move more people from just below the poverty line to just over it, and that wider social mobility was more important.

    I don’t agree with every emphasis in that article but it is not a rejection of the need to create more income inequality.

  • Pingback: Daniel Pitt

  • Pingback: The Equality Trust

  • Pingback: Claire McCann

  • Pingback: Katie

  • Pingback: Inequality « Flickr Comments

  • Pingback: tobirene

  • Pingback: tobirene

  • YouGov Tracker

  • Touchstone Economic Tracker

  • Best of the web

  • Archive