Over the past few days I have been thinking about how far we have travelled since the 1960s and how far we still have to go, so I have put together a quick snapshot of some of the areas that still need to be confronted.
If we look at the classical areas of inequality we could at first glance feel we have made great strides in this country and beyond in terms of the great inequalities of gender, ethnicity and disability. After all, along with other western democracies we have had equal opportunities legislation and it would be a rare thing indeed to see words like ‘Paki’, ‘Nigger’ and ‘Yid’ be used in even the most gutter of journalism. Nor would any woman anticipate being called ‘Dear’ at a job interview or a person in a wheelchair be patted on the head in a similar situation. However, if we dig a little beneath the surface less has changed than we might wish.
Let us look first at the position of women in our society. The latest NOMIS (July 2010) figures show that 7.8% of people aged 16 to 65 are unemployed and seeking work. Broken down by gender the figures are 8% of men unemployed and 7.5% of women unemployed. This seems to indicate equality, but it only includes those registered for work and claiming benefit. If one looks deeper at actual economic activity a very different picture emerges. Once one takes into account those people on sickness and disability benefits, full-time carers and those people running a household full-time and not seeking paid employment it reveals that 23.2% of people aged 16 to 65 are economically inactive. This breaks down to 17% of men and 29.3% of women. Those who are economically inactive are financially dependent upon either the state or on other individuals. In other words they are in receipt of non-JSA state benefits (e.g. disability, DLA etc) or are dependent on another individual (such as a husband or partner).
A picture begins to emerge of continuing female dependence and lower earning capacity. The July 2010 NOMIS figures also show s that women that work are significantly more likely than men to be employees. Whilst 12.7% of working men are self-employed, the self-employment rate for women is only 5.2%. A BBC report of 8th March 2010 also highlights the dearth of women in senior positions, with less than 5% of CEO level positions in the UK being held by women.
In the wider community the inequality persists. Annually 2% of men are subject to domestic violence, compared with 4% of women. (British Crime Survey 2007), whilst the lifetime figures show that 7% of women had suffered a rape or sexual assault between the ages of 16 and 45, as opposed to only 1.5% of men (British Crime Survey 2007). These figures are disputed by some academics, who put the lifetime figure of sexual assault against women as high as 50%., highlighting the problem of underreported violent crime. Further the British Crime Survey (2007) indicates that 54% of rapes of women by men are perpetrated by someone well known to the victim (28% being the husband or partner of the woman).
All in all, we can see that there remains a significant variation in economic and other expected life experiences for men and women, with women routinely faring worse than men.
The latest ONS figures (2004) show an ethnic divide in unemployment and economic activity.
Unemployment rates for people from non-White ethnic groups were generally higher than those from White ethnic groups. However, Indian men had a similar level of unemployment to Other White men, at 7 per cent and 6 per cent respectively.
In 2004 Pakistani women had the highest unemployment rates in Great Britain, at 20 per cent. The next highest female rates were among women from the Black African or Mixed ethnic groups (each 12 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish women (4 per cent each). The unemployment rates for Black Caribbean (9 per cent), Indian (8 per cent) and Chinese (7 per cent) women were around twice the rates for White British and White Irish women.
Among men, those from Black Caribbean, Black African, Bangladeshi and Mixed ethnic groups had the highest unemployment rates (between 13 and 14 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish men (5 per cent in each case). The unemployment rates for Pakistani and Chinese men, 11 and 10 per cent, were around twice the rates for White British men or White Irish men.
The unemployment rate for Indian men (7 per cent) was similar to those for White British or White Irish men.
In 2004 Pakistani women had the highest unemployment rates in Great Britain, at 20 per cent. The next highest female rates were among women from the Black African or Mixed ethnic groups (each 12 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish women (4 per cent each). The unemployment rates for Black Caribbean (9 per cent), Indian (8 per cent) and Chinese (7 per cent) women were around twice the rates for White British and White Irish women.
Among men, those from Black Caribbean, Black African, Bangladeshi and Mixed ethnic groups had the highest unemployment rates (between 13 and 14 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish men (5 per cent in each case). The unemployment rates for Pakistani and Chinese men, 11 and 10 per cent, were around twice the rates for White British men or White Irish men.
The unemployment rate for Indian men (7 per cent) was similar to those for White British or White Irish men.
Working-age men and women from non-White ethnic groups were generally more likely than those from White groups to be economically inactive, that is, not available for work and/or not actively seeking work. Reasons include being a student, being disabled or looking after the family and home. Within each ethnic group, women were more likely than men to be economically inactive.
In 2004 Bangladeshi and Pakistani women had the highest working-age economic inactivity rates in Great Britain (75 per cent and 69 per cent respectively). These rates were up to three times the rates for White British, White Irish and Black Caribbean women (between 25 per cent and 26 per cent). The majority were looking after their family or home.
Chinese men had the highest male economic inactivity rate, at 37 per cent, more than twice the rate for White British men (16 per cent). The vast majority of economically inactive Chinese men were students.
In 2004 Bangladeshi and Pakistani women had the highest working-age economic inactivity rates in Great Britain (75 per cent and 69 per cent respectively). These rates were up to three times the rates for White British, White Irish and Black Caribbean women (between 25 per cent and 26 per cent). The majority were looking after their family or home.
Chinese men had the highest male economic inactivity rate, at 37 per cent, more than twice the rate for White British men (16 per cent). The vast majority of economically inactive Chinese men were students.
Further around 8% of the population of the UK are people from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Backgrounds, yet of senior positions in the public and private sectors only just over 3% are from BME backgrounds.
A report by RADAR, published on 31 March 2010, has found that non-disabled people are three times more likely than disabled people to earn £80,000 or above and twice as likely to be Board-level directors.
So in terms of ethnicity and disability there is still a long way to go to reach anything like equality of life opportunity.
Perhaps the great classical area of inequality is that related to wealth, earning capacity and the family one is born into. Marxists and other socialists may refer to it as ‘Class’, Weberian sociologists as ‘Status’ and there are various other names that are given. Classical capitalist political economy makes such divisions invisible and constantly cites social mobility based upon talent and capacity. The reality is somewhat different. Firstly, the comparative economic capacity of individuals remains the same throughout their lives of over 95% of people, In other words those born wealthy are very likely to remain wealthy, whilst those born poor are likely to remain poor. Social mobility is a myth, made all the more powerful by a media that lionises the handful of ‘working-class boys made good’ such as Lord Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne.
The importance of this is made clear when one looks at that most misused statistic of all; average income.
The mean income in the UK in 2008 was £24,769 per annum. This is the average income of ALL persons in the UK. The modal (or most common) income earned in the UK was £10000 to £15000 per, annum, with 50% of the population earning £20000 per annum or less.
To some extent the income disparity is rectified through the benefits system.
| |
In 2008/09, original income, before taxes and benefits, of the top fifth of households in the UK was approximately 15 times greater than that for the bottom fifth (£73,800 per household per year compared with £5,000). After redistribution through taxes and benefits, the ratio between the top and bottom fifths is reduced to four-to-one (average final income of £53,900 compared to £13,600).
Some types of households gain more than others from this redistribution. Retired households pay less in tax than they receive in benefits and so gain overall. Among non-retired households, single adult households with children also gain. Most other non-retired households pay more in tax than they receive in benefits. However, households with children do relatively better than households without children due to the cash benefits and benefits in kind (including health and education services) which are received by these households.
Cash benefits such as Pension Credit, Income Support, Incapacity Benefit, and the State Retirement Pension play the largest part in reducing income inequality. The majority of these go to households in the lower part of the income distribution. Cash benefits make up 56 per cent of gross income for the poorest fifth of households, 39 per cent for the second quintile, falling to 2 per cent for the top fifth of all households.
With the exception of Council Tax and Northern Ireland rates, all direct taxes are progressive; that is they take a larger proportion of income from those households with higher gross incomes. In 2008/09, the top fifth of households paid 24 per cent of their gross income in direct tax while the bottom fifth paid 11 per cent.
Indirect taxes are regressive, taking a higher proportion of income from households with smaller incomes. Since direct and indirect taxes have opposite effects on the level of inequality, the tax system as a whole has a much smaller effect on inequality than cash benefits.
Final income includes an adjustment for the receipt of benefits in kind from the state, such as health and education services. Households with lower incomes tend to receive more benefits in kind from the state (£6,300 for the bottom fifth compared with £3,900 for the top fifth). Retired households are the biggest users of health services provided by the state, while households with children are the biggest users of education services. These two groups are more likely to be in the lower income groups.
Some types of households gain more than others from this redistribution. Retired households pay less in tax than they receive in benefits and so gain overall. Among non-retired households, single adult households with children also gain. Most other non-retired households pay more in tax than they receive in benefits. However, households with children do relatively better than households without children due to the cash benefits and benefits in kind (including health and education services) which are received by these households.
Cash benefits such as Pension Credit, Income Support, Incapacity Benefit, and the State Retirement Pension play the largest part in reducing income inequality. The majority of these go to households in the lower part of the income distribution. Cash benefits make up 56 per cent of gross income for the poorest fifth of households, 39 per cent for the second quintile, falling to 2 per cent for the top fifth of all households.
With the exception of Council Tax and Northern Ireland rates, all direct taxes are progressive; that is they take a larger proportion of income from those households with higher gross incomes. In 2008/09, the top fifth of households paid 24 per cent of their gross income in direct tax while the bottom fifth paid 11 per cent.
Indirect taxes are regressive, taking a higher proportion of income from households with smaller incomes. Since direct and indirect taxes have opposite effects on the level of inequality, the tax system as a whole has a much smaller effect on inequality than cash benefits.
Final income includes an adjustment for the receipt of benefits in kind from the state, such as health and education services. Households with lower incomes tend to receive more benefits in kind from the state (£6,300 for the bottom fifth compared with £3,900 for the top fifth). Retired households are the biggest users of health services provided by the state, while households with children are the biggest users of education services. These two groups are more likely to be in the lower income groups.
This clearly shows that beyond the issues of ethnicity, gender and disability there are also significant issues of inequality of class continuing in the UK, with the UK having one of the highest GINI (income inequality) ratios in the European Union.
All in all this paints a fairly depressing picture, and one that would appear is set to get worse as the coalition government policies take root. Income inequality will surely grow with increased unemployment and benefit reductions, women’s safety will surely be compromised by reductions in funding to the police and social services and local authority grants to Rape Crisis Centres and Women’s Refuges, and unless proactive measures are taken to combat the increasing ethnic tension in some of our communities, income inequality will be the least of the problems experienced by our BME communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment