One of my summer holiday reads was a fine polemic, The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. It's a blast against inequality, no nonsense about obfuscatory academic language or presenting counter-arguments and nuanced points. This partisanship is a strength and a weakness. The book is an invigorating read – inspiring, even, if you start out agreeing with the authors – but on the other hand is a very long way from being convincing for those who don't start out with the same point of view.
The hypothesis is simply that inequality is causally responsible for many of the ills of society, from poor health, mental illness, teen pregnancy, crime, imprisonment, not to mention unhappiness and low growth. The book takes it as read that there's no point in further economic growth on the average, based on the now-received wisdom (although I believe it's incorrect – see the terrific recent Wolfers and Stephenson paper) that rises in GDP do not increase happiness. As Wilkinson and Pickett put it: “Having come to the end of what higher material living standards can offer us… the evidence shows that reducing inequality is the best way of improving the quality of the social environment, and so the real quality of life, for all of us.”
As I agree at heart with the view that some societies have become too unequal, it's disappointing that the evidence presented here isn't more convincing. The evidence consists of repeated scatter plots showing correlations of the right sign between income inequality and X, where X is the relevant economic or social indicator. Once or twice causality tests are mentioned but not described in detail. Some of the scatter plots are quite tight, others show much greater variation, and some scream out that a different partition of the data, or a multivariate relationship, would deliver different results. Perhaps the original papers contain much more convincing empirical work but if so it's a shame there isn't a better description of it here.
Furthermore, there is a strong claim that more unequal societies deliver worse outcomes not only on average but also for the richest cohorts than do more equal societies. However, the causal mechanism is not clearly described, and I found it hard to understand how the result could hold for indicators such as health which are related to low social status. In other words, stress arising from being low in the pecking order contributes to heart disease – how then can high-status people in an unequal society have more stress-related heart disease than high-status people in a more equal society? Clearly, the causes have to be more complicated than inequality alone.
Having made this empirical gripe, there are many parts of the story the authors tell which are convincing. The work on health certainly falls into this category, and it is a good causal story too. Being poor and lacking control over one's life clearly must contribute to a range of illnesses, physical and mental. I also found the chapter on trust and social capital persuasive in terms of the argument as opposed to the scatter diagrams. Other chapters were less convincing. On crime, for example, although inequality – tied up with racial and social prejudice and other markers of deprivation – will obviously play a part, it is equally clear that other factors must play a role. Glaeser, Sacerdote and Scheinkman have shown that crime patterns are affected by social norms. From this side of the Atlantic, gun ownership seems worth highlighting too.
Still, all in all, the book makes a point that the UK and US certainly need to take seriously. The same global trends in technology and trade affect income disparities much less in some countries than others, and the effects of too much inequality are corrosive – politically as much as socially and economically. The challenge posed by structural change can be addressed. However, the argument is weakened by the poor empirical presentation. I'd have much preferred one which claimed less but made a more convincing case.
PS: For anyone who thinks I'm being too pernicketty about the statistical evidence, John Kay's FT review of The Spirit Level makes a similar point.
I suppose it's inappropriate to comment on a book you haven't read, but I don't think I will bother reading it. I heard one of the authors talking about it on the radio, and I thought it was odd that they didn't comment on one of the most obvious data points: that the societies that they look to for inspiration on equality (eg, Japan, Sweden etc) are also the most homogenous. Are we prepared to trade inequality for homogeneity? It's a very uncomfortable question for anti-inequality “liberals” to be forced to answer. Was the interview I heard unrepresentative or do they address this issue?
No they don't – on the contrary, it's a submerged issue. Ed Glaeser in particular has made lack of homogeneity a focus of his work in inequality.
So will the meek inherit the earth (i.e. conforming) or will it be this wonderful cult of the individual that manages to totally stuff this place for everybody. ben elton recently did a book that, although pretty crap otherwise, had a key message, that the cult of individuality hasd caused more repression and homogeneity than boring conformity. yes , great art and literature happen at the edge, but you don't have to stretch the edge so far it just loops around into itself.
i 'spose the figures come down to : do you really care about others or do you want to “express” your individuality. the stats show that caring about others, although boring, also helps everyone live longer, happier lives.
Which type of protines and healthy food i have to take when iam in stress?
I think that it's brave of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett to write a book arguing that economies should stop growing when millions of jobs are being lost. A friend of mine from easy saver rewards recently recommended me the book and I think its authors may be pushing at an open door in public consciousness. This book goes a long way towards explaining what and why we all feel like there's something missing in our daily lives.