Filed under: Social mobility
Alan Milburn writes in The Times:
“Like many in my generation, I have had that chance in my life. I was lucky. I grew up on a council estate and ended up in the cabinet. I benefited from a good family, a strong community and a society that was moving from 1950s rigidness to 1960s openness. Social mobility was in full swing. The reforms of the postwar years – universal education and the welfare state – provided unheard-of opportunities for working-class kids to get on. And as professional and service-based jobs grew, so more room was created at the top of British society.
“In the decades since then, birth, not worth, has become more and more a determinant of people’s life chances. But the latest evidence suggests that the long-running decline in social mobility has bottomed out. This is the right time for the government to make its core purpose creating an upwardly mobile society again.”
Swingin’ social mobility, eh? Hmph. Milburn massively overplays the decline in mobility (see David Goodhart’s article here). The implicit argument is that, in a history of immobility, there was a brief flowering in the 1960s, and then it all collapsed again… Until the Blairites made it all better, that is. Probably not, in fact. There was a huge explosion in mobility in the immediate postwar era because Britain had previously been highly immobile; this then receded a bit (more for men than women, as women were catching up). Social change rarely starts and stops neatly.
Given that at least some degree of (cognitive and non-cognitive) ability is heritable (through genes and environment), mobility was likely to decline after its initial growth – because the distribution of ability across social class was going to change too. Dynamics matter. Also, universal education continued to expand, albeit more slowly, after the 1960s, while the welfare state also expanded well in the 1960s and 1970s (in the 1980s too, but that was to cope with high numbers). But leave the diagnosis aside, here comes the prescription…
“And we know, from evidence across the globe, what makes for a more upwardly mobile society. An economic policy that prioritises high skills and quality jobs. A welfare system that encourages work, not dependence. Early-years education that is comprehensive and high quality. Schools that have rising standards. Learning that is for life. Families that are supported. Communities that are empowered. Individuals that own assets and feel they have a real stake in society.”
Some of these are trivially true – nobody’s going to want schools with falling standards or an economic policy which prioritises crap jobs, I imagine. The questions that matter are what those goals look like in practice, and how we can realise them; and they’re bloody difficult questions with no easy answers. But some of them raise some interesting contrasts with his own story. Milburn (correctly) places a lot of value on coming from “a good family, a strong community”; but were those families especially supported, were those communities empowered, in the terms we mean?
Let’s be honest, public bodies aren’t exactly renowned for setting about their business without the odd hiccup here or there.*
And it’s probably going to get harder, not easier, in the years ahead – with the present Government eager to squeeze more and more results, often on short timescales, for funds which will grow much more slowly. That, and the same agencies are stuck with staff that they probably paid more for than they wished (because they went on a recruitment spree when they had lots of money). Not that they’ll get much sympathy, but times are tough for delivery bureaucrats.
So all you need is to be lumbered by Harriet Harman with this:
“Public bodies, including local government, have a crucial role in helping people to fulfil their potential and in removing the barriers that hold people back. We have already legislated to require public authorities to tackle the inequality that arises from race, gender, or disability. But we know that inequality does not just come from your gender or ethnicity, your sexual orientation or your disability. Co-existing and interwoven with these specific inequalities lies the persistent inequality of social class.
“Given the important role that public policies and services play in supporting individuals to make the most of their talents, we will consider legislating to make clear that tackling socio-economic disadvantage and narrowing gaps in outcomes for people from different backgrounds is a core function of key public services.” (New opportunities: fair chances for the future, Cm.7533)
Leaving aside the desirability of eliminating social class divisions, even if it is ultimately achievable (and I’m somewhat sceptical, to put it mildly), it’s going to be tough and highly costly. Lumbering the unspecified and potentially massive task on public bodies which have actually quite important work to be getting on with (thanks!), which they already struggle to deliver properly, doesn’t seem to be like a good idea… But maybe that’s just me.
This via Peter Hoskins at Coffee House, who worries about it being used for all manner of money-wasting boondoggles. I’m sceptical on that score; I think the cost will be less detectable, in the appointment of Social Division Co-ordinators and the collection of monitoring data and the issue of Life Chances Action Plans to be shelved and never read. This is apparently all at the behest of Harriet Harman, who is a lawyer and has form for wanting to put the law at the service of her own conception of the good society.
Incidentally, according to Political Betting, Ms Harman is 10-3 favourite to be the next Labour leader at the moment. Like Blair, she is an independently educated lawyer who’s very presentable to middle England and was one of the loyal founders of New Labour, after all. Unlike Blair, she is seemingly always keen to hitch her wagon to the kind of opinions (i.e. positive discrimination) which would be remembered as much an electoral asset as Hague’s baseball cap.
* This is not an ideological point against ‘government’ as such. Public bodies do difficult and unglamorous things, and only get noticed when they do things wrong. All that that proves is that they face limits as any other human institution does – a basic point which people like Ms Harman seem unable to grasp.
Filed under: Social mobility
Matthew Taylor makes a good point about the potential negative consequences of seeking to increase social mobility. You should read it because you won’t hear much about arguments against social mobility in the years ahead, as all three parties (Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the Government) have started competing in a meritocracy arms race.
Fitting nicely with my previous post, Matthew implies that the Left’s concern with social mobility is a function of the case for redistribution having become politically embarrassing. An example of this in action is Kitty Ussher’s comment here (p.32 onwards), who describes her belief in terms of “breaking the link between class and the access to a fair outcome in life,” and then goes on to frame the argument against inequality in instrumental terms (p.35): “in a society with large wealth inequalities, resentment is bred and communities are undermined by feelings of marginalisation and and separation.” No attempt is made to argue for equality, as a matter of justice.
But anyway. A White Paper is due tomorrow, which will I’m sure unleash a new wave of social mobility. Or so will be the promise. As Matthew says, Cabinet Office Minister Liam Byrne has said that it’s a “classic liberal error” to view any gains in upward mobility (i.e. born poor but die rich) as being at the expense of downward mobility (i.e. born rich but die poor). All have won, and all must have prizes.
Well, possibly. (more…)
