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.
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
The “Wuhan pneumonia” outbreak has become a pandemic, but many countries have yet to come to grips with the worsening severity of this medical crisis. Historian Robert Peckham has studied how the ecology of deadly diseases has changed from the late 19th century until today and, in his 2016 book titled Epidemics in Modern Asia highlights the intrinsic link between global connectivity and emerging infections. The frequency of outbreaks — from SARS in 2003 to swine flu in 2009 and today’s COVID-19 — and their rapid rate of transmission owe much to globalization. Better and cheaper transportation and communications technology have empowered
Early last month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) was elected party chairman, winning with a seven-to-three majority over pro-Beijing former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), a two-time KMT vice chairman. Chiang’s victory has been interpreted as a generational change and the beginning of major party reform. In his inauguration speech on March 9, Chiang did not mention the so-called “1992 consensus.” Analysts believe that his most urgent task is to attract more young people to the party and win voter trust, and that he does not care about Beijing’s reaction. After joining the party chairmanship by-election, Chiang made his