While welcoming the acknowledgement for the continued role of
redistribution of incomes, we need also to broaden our notion of
redistribution to include time and different forms of work - paid and
unpaid. This is particularly important from a gendered perspective. This
also links in with Stuart's final point about 'an illiberal mode of social
inclusion' predicated on paid work. He makes the point in relation to
groups who aspire to a way of life in which paid employment is less
central, giving the example of travellers. The point also relates to those
who spend time caring in the home or engaged in volunteering/community
based activities. While I support the philosophy underpinning the New
Deals there is a danger that 'in reforming welfare around the work ethic',
New Labour is seen to be devaluing non-paid forms of work.
I also welcome the emphasis that Stuart places on social insurance.
However, we have to recognise that the current social insurance system is
in poor shape and needs to be rejuvenated in the face of changing
employment and family patterns and made more inclusive. The
recommendations of the Commission on Social Justice are still relevant
here. The failure to map out a clear strategy for the future of social
insurance was one of the big holes in the Green Paper ' A New Contract for
Welfare'.
Extract from contribution to Nexus/LSE debate:
"· Most commentators point to the shift in Labour thinking from a concern
with equality of outcome to equality of opportunity as definitive of 3W
thinking. Again, we are being presented with a false dichotomy which
attempts to paint those of us who still believe in redistribution through
the tax-benefit system as a means to greater equality as stuck in some kind
of ‘old labour’ timewarp. I want to make 5 points here:
1. No one to my knowledge argues for equality of outcome which is, of
course, a nonsense. The case made is a relative one concerning the degree
of inequality.
2. Nor, I think, would anyone oppose the idea of equality of opportunity in
itself, especially when defined by Gordon Brown as ‘a continuing
opportunity for everyone to have the chance to realise their potential to
the full’. The point is that equality of opportunity within the context of
profoundly unequal economic and social structures and power relationships
is likely to remain a chimera, as massively unequal starting points affect
the ability to grasp the opportunities opened up. Moreover, not everyone
can succeed. An inclusive society must value those who don’t as well as
those who do and provide a decent floor of social rights to guarantee their
security and to underpin the ethos of self-help that permeates 3W thinking.
3. The case for tackling inequality is, in many ways, greater than ever.
The latest JRF Income & Wealth report produced by John Hills, here at the
LSE, demonstrates that ‘even with recent falls inequality was greater in
the mid-1990s than at any time in the forty years from the late 1940s’ and
that ‘inequality growth in the UK was exceptional compared with
international trends’. The v power of the ec forces driving inequality
today increases the onus on govt at least to ameliorate them through its
tax-benefit policies. Moreover, apart from any moral issue about the
acceptability of massive inequalities, research suggests that inequality is
bad for national prosperity, health and social cohesion.
4. Yet the language of social cohesion and claims to govern on behalf of
the whole nation can serve to obscure these inequalities of resources and
power and the conflicts of interest that they may throw up. Of course,
pre-Election promises mean that room for manouvre through the tax system is
limited, as tax rates cannot be raised. And it has become something of a
conventional wisdom that voters will not stand for higher taxes. But this
is not axiomatic: direct taxes are relatively low in the UK; there is some
evidence to suggest that people would be willing to pay some extra tax [and
I’m not talking about the ‘penal’ higher rate tax rates of the pre-Thatcher
era] if they were confident that the money was being spent efficiently; and
it ignores the responsibiltiy of politicians to educate. If even Labour
politicians represent taxation as a ‘bad thing’ rather than as an
expression of our responsibility to each other as citizens, it’s hardly
surprising if voters see it as a bad thing too.
5. Finally, and leading into the issue of welfare, or more specifically
social security, reform, another false dichotomy has been created by
caricaturing redistributionists as arguing only for redistribution through
the tax-benefit system. In fact, most of us who are arguing a
redistributionist case have also emphasised the need for primary
redistribution through employment as well as secondary redistribution which
cannot carry the weight of reducing inequality on its own.
· But counter-arguments that tackling poverty and social exclusion cannot
simply be about extra money for those on benefit have shifted subtly to a
position that it is not about better benefits period. This is to ignore
research that indicates that educational and employment opportunities,
which are the Government’s chosen vehicle for tackling poverty and
exclusion, could be undermined if impoverished children cannot make the
most of the educational opportunities offered to them and if claimants
struggling to survive are caught in a ‘hardship trap’ that makes it
difficult to seize employment opportunities."
Ruth Lister
PS I like David Donald's idea of 'a political economy of citizenship' and
hope that he will elaborate on that.
Ruth Lister
Professor of Social Policy
Department of Social Sciences
Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leicestershire.
LE11 3TU UK
Tel: +44 -(0)1509 223350
Fax: +44 -(0)1509 223944 omit the '0' from outside the UK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to 3way, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing