A lot has happened in the five years since we published our book, The Spirit Level.
In the UK, New Labour (the period in the history of the British Labour Party from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, under former British prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) were still perhaps too relaxed about people becoming “filthy rich.”
And there was an assumption that inequality mattered only if it increased poverty, and that for most people “real” poverty was a thing of the past.
How things change. In the aftermath of the financial crash and the emergence of Occupy, there has been a resurgence of public interest in inequality. About 80 percent of Britons now think the income gap is too large, and the message has been taken up by world leaders.
According to US President Barack Obama, income inequality is the “defining challenge of our times,” while Pope Francis argues that “inequality is the roots of social ills.”
The unexpected success of The Spirit Level owes more to luck than judgment.
We now feel a bit like the dog being wagged by its tail: In the past five years, we have given more than 700 seminars and lectures. We have talked to academics, religious groups, thinktanks, and to agencies such as the UN, the WHO, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the EU and the International Labor Organisatio (ILO).
The truth is that we have deep-seated psychological responses to inequality and social hierarchy. Our tendency to equate outward wealth with inner worth means that inequality colors our social perceptions. It invokes feelings of superiority and inferiority, dominance and subordination — which affect the way we see, relate to and treat each other.
As we looked at the data, it became clear that, as well as health and violence, almost all the problems that are more common at the bottom of the social ladder are more common in more unequal societies — including mental illness, drug addiction, obesity, loss of community life, imprisonment, unequal opportunities and poorer well being for children.
The effects of inequality are not confined to the poor. A growing body of research shows that inequality damages the social fabric of the whole society.
When he found how far up the income scale the health effects of inequality went, Harvard professor Ichiro Kawachi, one of the foremost researchers in this field, described inequality as a social pollutant.
The health and social problems we looked at are between twice and 10 times as common in more unequal societies. The differences are so large because inequality affects such a large proportion of the population.
To the political defenders of inequality, the idea that too much inequality was an obstacle to a better society was a monstrous suggestion. They accused us of conjuring up the evidence with smoke and mirrors.
However, since our book, research confirming both the basic pattern and the social mechanisms has mushroomed. It is not just rich countries or US states where greater equality is beneficial, it is also important in poorer countries. Even the more equal provinces of China do better than the less equal ones.
Most important has been the rapid accumulation of evidence confirming the psychosocial processes through which inequality gets under the skin.
When we were writing, evidence of causality relied often on psychological experiments that showed how extraordinarily sensitive people are to being looked down on and regarded as inferior. They demonstrated that social relationships, insecurities about social status and how others see us have powerful effects on stress, cognitive performance and the emotions.
Almost absent were studies explicitly linking income inequality to these psychological states in whole societies.
However, new studies have now filled that gap. That inequality damages family life is shown by higher rates of child abuse, and increased status competition is likely to explain the higher rates of bullying confirmed in schools in more unequal countries.
We showed that mental illnesses are more prevalent in more unequal societies: This has now been confirmed by more specific studies of depression and schizophrenia, as well as by evidence that your income ranking is a better predictor of developing illness than your absolute income.
Strengthening community life is hampered by the difficulty of breaking the social ice between people, but greater inequality amplifies the impression that some people are worth so much more than others, making us all more anxious about how we are seen.
Some are so overcome by lack of confidence and social anxiety that social contact becomes an ordeal. Others try to enhance self-presentation and how they appear to others. US data also show that narcissism increased in line with inequality.
The economic effects of inequality have also gained more attention. Research has shown that greater inequality leads to shorter spells of economic expansion and more frequent and severe boom-and-bust cycles.
The IMF suggests that reducing inequality and bolstering longer-term economic growth may be “two sides of the same coin.” And development experts point out how inequality compromises poverty reduction.
Lastly, inequality is being taken up as an environmental issue; because it drives status competition, it intensifies consumerism and adds to debt.
In Britain, one of the few signs of real progress are the fairness commissions set up by local government in many cities to recommend ways of reducing inequalities. As a result, many local authorities and companies now pay the living wage.
However, at the national level, the UK’s coalition government has failed to reverse the continuing tendency for the richest 1 percent to get richer faster than the rest of society.
The UK Equality Trust, which works to reduce income inequality in order to improve the quality of life in the UK, calculates that the richest 100 people in Britain now have as much wealth as the poorest 30 percent of households. The top-to-bottom pay ratios of about 300:1 in the FTSE 100 companies is not diminishing.
Recent global media coverage of Taiwan has at times reduced the nation’s success in containing the spread of COVID-19 to some East Asian values such as cooperation with social control or Confucianism. An article in Wired magazine debunks this myth, crediting the nation’s success to democracy and transparency. It is appalling to learn that this misconception still exists. Here is one thing that world citizens should keep in mind: Taiwan is the first and only country in Asia that has legalized same-sex marriage. There is nothing Confucian about that. If anything, the Confucian legacy is a major obstacle that Taiwanese
The novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 — or the Wuhan virus, after the Chinese city from which it emerged — could not have come at a more advantageous time for China’s communist government. Not for the Chinese people, of course, thousands of whom have perished because of Beijing’s lack of transparency, disinformation and cruel refusal to cooperate with international public health organizations. No, the advantage goes exclusively to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), whose deceptive practices unleashed the deadly virus to the world. To understand how Beijing benefits from the pandemic, it is necessary
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), tasked with reforming the party and returning it to the viable political force that it once was, is faced with a Gordian knot. The complexities of the job ahead go beyond appealing to a younger generation of voters. Chiang might have to decide between jettisoning much of what the party originally stood for and preparing it for a return to the Presidential Office, or doubling down on its founding purpose and representing what is increasingly, in the current state of Taiwanese politics, a minority view. The KMT, as the founding party and self-proclaimed champion
Although concerned over the impact of many citizens returning from Europe and the US while those nations cope with soaring COVID-19 infection rates, Taiwan has handled the pandemic with alacrity and seems to be successfully managing the process compared with many others, including European nations and the US. Despite its proximity to China, by March 3, Taiwan had only 42 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and one death, while Japan had 287 cases and six deaths and South Korea had 4,812 cases and 28 deaths. This is of considerable interest internationally because Taiwan is not only located near China, but is relatively densely