Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better
Two British academics, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, set out to find why health within a population gets progressively worse the further down the social scale you go. What they found instead is stunning in its implications: almost every modern social and environmental problem — ill-health, lack of community life, violence, drugs, obesity, teen pregnancy, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations — is more likely to occur in a less equal society.
They have published their observations in the book, The Spirit Level: why more equal societies almost always do better. From the Times Online:
Their eureka moment came when they thought of putting the medical data alongside figures showing the extent of economic inequality within each country. They say modestly that since dependable statistics both on health and on income distribution are internationally available, it was only a matter of time before someone put the two together. All the same, they are the first to have done so.
Their book charts the level of health and social problems — as many as they could find reliable figures for — against the level of income inequality in 20 of the world’s richest nations, and in each of the 50 United States. They allocate a brief chapter to each problem, supplying graphs that display the evidence starkly and unarguably. What they find is that, in states and countries where there is a big gap between the incomes of rich and poor, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity and teenage pregnancy are more common, the homicide rate is higher, life expectancy is shorter, and children’s educational performance and literacy scores are worse. The Scandinavian countries and Japan consistently come at the positive end of this spectrum. They have the smallest differences between higher and lower incomes, and the best record of psycho-social health. The countries with the widest gulf between rich and poor, and the highest incidence of most health and social problems, are Britain, America and Portugal.
Richard Wilkinson, a professor of medical epidemiology at Nottingham University, and Kate Pickett, a lecturer in epidemiology at York University, emphasise that it is not only the poor who suffer from the effects of inequality, but the majority of the population. For example, rates of mental illness are five times higher across the whole population in the most unequal than in the least unequal societies in their survey. One explanation, they suggest, is that inequality increases stress right across society, not just among the least advantaged.
So why?
Societies where incomes are relatively equal have low levels of stress and high levels of trust, so that people feel secure and see others as co-operative. In unequal societies, by contrast, the rich suffer from fear of the poor, while those lower down the social order experience status anxiety, looking upon those who are more successful with bitterness and upon themselves with shame. In the 1980s and 1990s, when inequality was rapidly rising in Britain and America, the rich bought homesecurity systems, and started to drive 4x4s with names such as Defender and Crossfire, reflecting a need to intimidate attackers. Meanwhile the poor grew obese on comfort foods and took more legal and illegal drugs. In 2005, doctors in England alone wrote 29m prescriptions for antidepressants, costing the NHS £400m.
Provocative, no?
The implications for public policy are obvious. As is the inevitable skepticism. The book will be released in the U.S. on December 22.
RELATED: In this lecture Wilkinson and Pickett discuss the book.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
32 Responses to “Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better”
Interesting post. The psychological effects of inequality aren't something I've thought a lot about. But it makes sense that the divide would stress out both the upper and lower classes.
The question is how bad things will have to get here before we see some return to a more balanced society in terms of wealth distribution (WW2 did the trick before).
This is not particularly surprising. I'm glad they did a real study on it, but it does seem pretty obvious. When upward mobility requires huge leaps, the rich not only fear the poor but have distain for them. When the poor are not merely “barely getting by”, but are truly destitute, there's going to be animosity, plus just a plain old lack of resources for things like food and medicine. When there's no public safety net, falling from rich to middle class or from middle class to poor doesn't seem like such a stretch of the imagination, and when the chasm is so deep between the classes, it seems like a long way to fall. This is why, when people cry out for “redistribution of wealth” or progressive taxation, it's not just a bleeding heart — this study provides evidence that it's actually better for *everyone* when there's some parity.
Well, the study will bring up far more questions than it answers, but nothing is wrong with that. The political responses are obvious. Some will talk about equal outcomes; others will talk about equal opportunity; and then a fight will break out over which side's fault it is.
Anyway, I am intrigued by the research, because I've made comments a few times over the last year that people are social animals and they wish to participate in their own society. When they feel excluded from society, that's when major structural problems (as opposed to individual issues) develop. Since the findings agree with me, they must be right.
I'd guess that the ability to move up, rather than down, the social scale also makes a difference in areas where there is a difference between the two. Differences aren't as stressful when there are realistic ways to overcome them.
[...] More Equal Societies Always Do Better… Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better | The Moderate Voice [...]
I've said it before and I'll say it again: capitalism only works if it is married to morality. Somewhere around post WWII American capitalism became legally separated from morality. They tried this arrangement for awhile but capitalism found there were irreconcileable differences with the bottom line and being thy brother's keeper. So in the 1960s and '70s they got a divorce.
The 1980s was the bacchanal where capitalism revelled in his new freedom while morality wept in quiet corners. The 1990s was the custody battle where the two came to loggerheads over who got to keep the government. Now in the new century we are at a point where we the Jury have to decide who wins this nation. Who will prevail? Will these two ever see eye-to eye and maybe have a go at a second marriage?
I think the Reverend Obama would make a fine minister for the ceremony. If only capitalism would agree, I think morality would me more than willing to share the power equally.
[...] of medical epidemiology at Nottingham University, … Go here to see the original: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better | The Moderate Voice Share and [...]
Silhouette…did not the entirety of Western civilization divorce itself from morality during the same time period? When in fact was capitalism married to morality? I dare say it may be hard to find any period of time when true free-marketeering was not running amok within its host culture. It would be nice to see a transcendent awareness develop within the business community, one that does not seek to simply assuage concerns over capitalism's disparities with mere ethics.
One could make arguments for the disparities in capitalism as facilitating the drive to excel. Why seek to do better – to out perform your rivals – if there is no risk in not doing so? Mr. Wilkinson is a social liberal and I can't help but think that he marries his findings to some grand socialist Utopian vision deep in his heart. The Economist wrote a short but interesting review of Mr. Wilkinson's book…the comments are worth reading also. http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm…
It's not just “exclusion…” study after study has shown the people (and even primates) derive satisfaction not merely from what they have, but how it compares to what others have, keeping in mind what they had to do to get it.
You could have an unequal society where some people choose to not work hard and get only the basics, and everyone that works hard gets roughly the same amount, and people will be happy in general. It's when people feel that they aren't getting the fruits of their labor that they get upset. (Or chimps that did a task to get a reward get upset when then they see that other chimps get it without the task. Or if they get more).
jokenzee,
If you read back you'll see where I said “his” relationship with morality was rocky from the get-go. We're talking about America here on this website…at least it seems to be a hot topic here. But yes, capitalism in all nations who practise it.
This nation's founders were big on freedom but they implicitly said “nation under God”. What the meaning of that is that God will be the check on our freedoms and not other men. A generic rendering of that would be to say that morality will be the check on our freedoms and “freedoms” are implicit in the nut of capitalism. Capitalism and morality were meant to be “married” here since day one. The problem is that our founding fathers didn't really give a road map for how to enforce morality save that we can get together and vote on what we feel is moral and enact laws to check freedoms that way. And that is what we've done.
No one will argue that if people had good moral fiber, fewer laws would be necessary. In a perfect society, people would be their brother's keeper. And in the old days by and large people did reach out to each other in this way. It was rare to find someone wholly indifferent to another person, though these rare examples did exist in every area. They were though seen as freaks, not as examples to uphold and model one's behavior after! It's our basic moral fiber that has quietly been replaced with a new religion: that of the bottom line. And when you pray to that God you put your palms together and bend downwards instead of looking up at the sky.
[...] Check out this fascinating post on [The Moderate Voice]: [...]
It's an interesting study and I'm not surprised. Despite the fact that I lean conservative, I'm on record in previous comments as noting the increasing income disparity in the US (certain deceptive graphs notwithstanding) as a problem.
However, it's interesting that every one assumes it is the income disparity that causes the other social ills. Pretty much the only thing I remember from my college statistics class is that correlation does not equate to causation. It seems reasonable that social ills such as crime, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, etc, could cause a wider wealth gap as those effected by such things find it more difficult to keep up economically. Those things also contribute to a less stable atmosphere, and economic stability thrives on social stability. It's also entirely possible that there is a third factor that is the cause of both economic disparity as well as these various social ills. The picture seems more complicated than this article suggests.
So, while I think the income disparity, as well as the social ills that correlate with it, are problems, I'm not yet convinced that the way to fix these problems is through redistributive tax policy, as roro80 suggests. It could be that the best way to fix it is to address the social problems directly, which could also help diminish the wealth gap, or maybe look for a third factor (educational inequalities? http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/a…)
What the study also shows is that people are better off in small, non-diverse areas.
What would be the best example of the U.S. to follow. Unless you can find a country that is less than 60% white that has a high level of equality and is well off economically, then please forget the idea.
Also, if equality is a goal of the government then why support open borders, unlimited immigration, a welfare state, and a government educational policy that seems to be designed to trap children in bad situations.
mikkel – “You could have an unequal society where some people choose to not work hard and get only the basics, and everyone that works hard gets roughly the same amount, and people will be happy in general”
WHAT? Have you ever worked a job where anyone would go along with working harder than their peers and receiving equal pay in the process? Maybe it's this 'service economy' or predominately white collar reality that America lives in that allows for such thinking. In such a world it may be easier to pretend to work as hard as the next guy when one is just pushing paper around or punching cash register keys. However – in the real knuckle busting and back breaking reality of manufacturing there is no delusion about who works harder and why that person should make more. Does anyone remember the criticisms rendered against the Soviet Union and its workforce?
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Santayana
I gotta say, mikkel, my reaction to your comment is similar to stop your insanity's. I can't imagine any work environment operating the way you envision it. The people who are working harder, if not rewarded, are going to resent it and either go somewhere else where they'll benefit from their harder work, or get frustrated and decide to start slacking off as they see other people doing.
Maybe in some societies where there's a more collectivist ethic, the less productive workers would be less numerous and things could be more equitable like that, but in our society there seem to be plenty who will slack off if they can and then a few who always feel obligated to do more than their fair share (but would not be happy if that extra work isn't amply rewarded.)
I also strongly agree with adelinesdad's comment about causality with regard to the social conditions.
Hunh. I didn't read Mikkel's comment the same way. This section:
You could have an unequal society where some people choose to not work hard and get only the basics, and everyone that works hard gets roughly the same amount, and people will be happy in general.
To me, Mikkel's saying that there might a society in which there are people who work hard, and people who choose not to work hard. Those who don't have only the basics. Those who DO work hard all have some roughly equal amount of *more* than the basics.
Not quite the same thing, I don't think, as workers and non-workers getting the same reward.
Of course, that just moves the problem to that hard-working group. Are they all working equally hard? And do they perceive that they are?
That last part is the sticking point IMO, PM. It's not as though most of the worker bee types are all equally productive, and I don't see why they shouldn't be rewarded according to their relative productivity (nor why they'd be satisfied if they weren't.)
In huge corporations, I do think the scale gets ridiculously out of proportion- largely because compensation ends up being sort of relative to 'assets under management', so when you get these megamergers the behemoth corps are netting such enormous proceeds that the CEO/upper management echelon is getting a similar percentage as a CEO of a small corp would make but it's wildly out of proportion to normal salaries. And recent events, IMO, have shown that those CEOs can't possibly really manage assets of that size, so the companies should never have been allowed to grow to the point that they're too big to manage and obviously the compensation shouldn't be so high.
But in smaller, manageable sized companies, I think a normal pay gradient is important, and the upper levels won't get to those absurd levels.
That last part is the sticking point IMO, PM. It's not as though most of the worker bee types are all equally productive, and I don't see why they shouldn't be rewarded according to their relative productivity (nor why they'd be satisfied if they weren't.)
In huge corporations, I do think the scale gets ridiculously out of proportion- largely because compensation ends up being sort of relative to 'assets under management', so when you get these megamergers the behemoth corps are netting such enormous proceeds that the CEO/upper management echelon is getting a similar percentage as a CEO of a small corp would make but it's wildly out of proportion to normal salaries. And recent events, IMO, have shown that those CEOs can't possibly really manage assets of that size, so the companies should never have been allowed to grow to the point that they're too big to manage and obviously the compensation shouldn't be so high.
But in smaller, manageable sized companies, I think a normal pay gradient is important, and the upper levels won't get to those absurd levels.
I read mikkel's statement the same as Polimom. I didn't particularly have a problem with it. Yes, the question of how to you measure how hard someone is working is a difficult one, which is what a competitive labor market attempts to approximate.
In the discussion of being paid relative to how hard one works, I just want to interject that there should be other factors at play also. Instead, I would say that one should be compensated proportional to their level of contribution to society (in an ideal world, which also assumes that everyone has equal opportunities to contribute), which is a factor not only of hard work, but also of good decision making (ie. Should I pursue higher education to increase my knowledge and skills? Should I start this business to provide this good that I think there is a need for? etc.)
This is probably a minor point, but could become important depending on where this discussion goes. If “hard work” is the only requirement, then this feeds the view that blue-collar workers are getting the shaft because white-collar workers often make more but work less.
Um, that's not what I said at all, I had lazy phrasing. I said the exact opposite actually. If you work similarly as hard but don't get the same reward then you will be resentful regardless of how much you are given.
This is to me undoubtedly true both across and within class distinctions. This is why some financial people can millions of dollars and be unhappy because the guy next to them is making more even though they perceive* that they are working just as hard if not harder. This is why our “working poor” are middle class by the global (and upper middle class by historical) levels but are still rightfully considered poor.
But no, in general based on my own experience and research, I am all *for* performance related pay. Heck, when thinking about how I'd ideally want to do it, I'd be pretty extreme that way.
* There is the other problem that people overestimate their contribution and underestimate other people's, so most people will feel underpaid.
“If “hard work” is the only requirement, then this feeds the view that blue-collar workers are getting the shaft because white-collar workers often make more but work less.”
Yes that was the gist of my argument as I feel that this is undoubtedly true. Sure there are a small percentage of people that make outsized contributions to society that should be compensated more, but I feel that they are the exception rather than the norm. The true problem solvers and risk takers are the minority in any industry and I really don't see why a code monkey deserves twice as much money as an efficient line worker — or heck even a manager at a fast food restaurant.
On a personal level I'd like to see class distinctions have much more overlap and performance stratification be much greater. That would mean that the average worker in [nearly] any job would get roughly the same pay (I do view a few specialties as falling outside of this such as doctors…..and uh, I'm having a hard time thinking of any others) while the 10th percentile would get roughly double. The top 1% would still be highly dependent on industry because I think it should scale with profits and obviously some businesses have much higher potentials than others.
You may say that this would dissuade people from getting a better education since they won't get paid much more if they are merely average. You are probably right, but my argument would be that the primary reward for education would not be money, it would be the ability to have a more satisfactory job. I feel that this would raise the skill level of the average worker in white collar industries, as each person going in would be doing it primarily for the intellectual pursuit, and also it would lower overall enrollment such that education costs would fall and make it more affordable for them. Right now it seems like about 50% of college grads I knew just went to make more money and they just go into their jobs and sit there and don't really contribute one iota more than what is spelled out for them because they don't care about the job at all.
It makes more sense that you meant it that way, and I had read it a couple of times trying to figure out if that was your intent. Maybe lazy reading on my part too- but it came across more like a two tiered compensation (though even that, I doubted that you meant literally, with no further stratification) with a baseline comp for the clockpunchers and then a higher tier for the productive workers.
I think in order to get at the system that functions best, you somewhat have to factor out the happiness quotient and look at rewarding hard work to improve productivity. I'm sure you're right about relative perceptions coloring a lot of people's satisfaction/ happiness- but the extra compensation still functions as a carrot even if the person chasing the carrot isn't ultimately fulfilled by it.
“And do they perceive that they are?”
Regardless of the philosophical problems with precise measurement of contribution (including but not limited to politics and the fact that some positions are inherently more visible and thus prone to getting more credit than warranted) there is the very repeatable problem that if you ask a group of people to estimate their percent contribution then the sum will always be around 130-150%. These two issues are why few companies really bother with performance based pay except maybe as a small bonus relative to baseline salary…otherwise it could get really ugly.
“I really don't see why a code monkey deserves twice as much money as an efficient line worker.”
And you probably don't see why men deserve more than women. But if you make a serious study of the details, it turns out there are a whole bunch of reasons that owe little to rigged rules and much to individual choices.
I think you'd find the code monkeys have invested a lot more in education and refining their craft, they show up to work more reliably, they work longer hours, they take more responsibility for the end quality of the product, and they add more economic value (ie, their outputs are worth substantially more than their inputs).
“The implications for public policy are obvious.”
They are? The countries you're holding up as models are not just economically homogeneous, they're racially and culturally homogeneous as well, to the point of xenophobia in Japan. So what are you proposing to do with our black and immigrant citizens?
An example: my uncle is in public education in a school district where kids speak over 100 languages, and teaching them is a real challenge. He went to Japan and asked educators there how they deal with kids who don't speak Japanese. He couldn't get a direct answer, but he concluded they basically don't. Kids aren't allowed not to speak Japanese, and those who can't aren't accommodated.
I'd say the public policy implications for us are not obvious at all.
“I'm sure you're right about relative perceptions coloring a lot of people's satisfaction/ happiness- but the extra compensation still functions as a carrot even if the person chasing the carrot isn't ultimately fulfilled by it.”
Well CS, first of all, I didn't mean a baseline comp for clockpunchers…I meant people that didn't work, at all.
Secondly, you need to understand that my viewpoint comes from a larger philosophical belief about the nature of our society. Simply put, I think we have far too many workers due to automation…and if we stopped being so focused on labor and embraced automation to the point that we could, then we'd see a nearly unimaginable amount of efficiency.
Historically about 75-85% of the population was needed just to grow food. This was roughly constant since food scaled with population growth. Now we have 2-3% in the US (yeah yeah, I know, illegals, but still that is only another few percent), which objectively speaking, makes more food than the entire world needs, if we cut back on meat consumption nearly entirely and 75% if Americans cut back to recommended levels. The #1 issue facing humanity since its existence has been rendered moot in the last 50 years and now hunger is entirely a distribution problem, not a production problem. Yes this will be challenged as oil peaks, but with targeted genetic manipulation not even that will be an issue.
Likewise, intellectual property takes a long time to develop, and I truly feel that a small percentage of the population can actually contribute efficiently. This has led to the paradox that productivity hasn't increased in the last 50 years even though the workforce in white collar jobs has exploded. Greenspan has said many times that this is puzzling, but to me it's obvious that stuffing people in these jobs doesn't really add any value and after a certain point even reduces efficiency. I don't think that this would really change much even in an ideal system (the productivity gains I referred to above were either one time deals or due to less inefficient building) and I think corporations are starting to realize this, as they have reduced jobs over the last 10 years.
So what's left for the rest (like 60-70%) of the population? Service jobs and manufacturing. But manufacturing doesn't need very many people — especially if we finish automation — and our service economy is already at an unsustainable level, where we have at least a decade if not two of overbuilt stuff. And even that level is only because of our grossly inefficient city layouts and lack of good transportation.
We will need a ton of people to care for the growing amount of elderly, but other than that we have a massive excess of labor. So to me, I foresee an efficient economy consisting of a large group of people that choose not to work at all and they are just given a lower middle-class lifestyle and can focus on art/cultural stuff/self realization/whatever (ok most of them would probably just sit around and watch TV…I'm being idealistic!), a large group of average workers that work much less than they would now, and have like 6 months on/6 months off (simply because there are even going to be too many average workers) and would have a solid middle class lifestyle and a small group (10-20%) of the population that works fulltime and has an upper-middle/upper class lifestyle. Oh and of course small businesses would still be encouraged, and a lot of people would do that — perhaps even more than now — but most of them do fail.
I mean obviously this would require a massive restructuring of society that will never happen in our lifetimes (and may never be realistic) and you can argue about what we should do now, but on the philosophical level this is what I think is the root cause for many of our imbalances and wasteful spending.
Other than getting more education (and showing up to work, I wouldn't say doing work), I disagree with the rest of your assertions if we're talking about a modern, highly automated factory. I say this from having to work with code monkeys directly and indirectly and second hand through family members that have worked closely with line workers to develop their skillsets and find new jobs when plants close. If you're talking about the old style line where you just stand there putting a flower in a box all day, then yes.
Also I don't think “rigged” is the right word, I would just say that I don't think that our society values things very well. I'm not against a market system, indeed it's probably the best way to distribute things based on values, I just think that our values are misplaced and thus leading to problems.
Uh…OK. As you might guess, that's way too radical for me, and seems fraught with potential unintended consequences. Even the one that you sort of brush off- TV watching- I think is mightily likely in that scenario and really unhealthy for the society- and that's assuming that the idle choose something that's sort of mindnumbing but otherwise not directly harmful, to occupy their time.
Haha yeah I figured. But on the other hand, I fail to see how an economy where the vast majority of people just work in the service industry is sustainable…and an increase in manufacturing will quickly lead to resource depletion and collapse. I think that tens of millions of people being permanently unemployed is pretty much a given now that hte service bubble is collapsing (they say it takes 2.5% gdp growth to create jobs and projections are for less than that over the next 20 years…so we may have 10%+ unemployment that long) so I see this less as a “we should have a revolution” and more an accommodation towards reality.
Mikkel, I'm not sure how to respond to a statement as broad as “I don't think that our society values things very well.” Near as I can tell, you're painting a weird vision of an “efficient” society where machines do all the work and we can all take it easy. It sounds nice. In a Wall-E-esque sort of way.
Yes I am. I am very much a technocrat in the original sense of the word (about the goals, perhaps not the means) that developed during the Great Depression which is focused on a no-population growth, “ideal” resource usage (similar to Stiglitz's calculations) economy. I very much am advocating for a “post-scarcity” path where eventually the vast majority of basic needs don't need human labor — Wall-E, or Star Trek too. The difference between the two is that in Star Trek they have intellectual, political and spiritual pursuits as the main social values while Wall-E has consumption.
Yeah it might sound like a pipe dream, and I'd obviously only argue this philosophically at this point, but personally I think we grossly underestimate what will happen to our economic setup as the population pyramid flattens and we hit peak production of several critical resources in the next 50 years; some of which will make the energy problem look easy to solve. It's more like the call for a new Renaissance rather than policy prescription.
I agree but would like to add one thing “accountability” without it you have a runaway train. I wish someone would kiss the bride.