As a new report from the Institute of Economic Affairs explains this week, the tale we are told about inequality in Britain is more fiction than fact. Again and again it is claimed that the UK is being crippled by spiralling inequalities of income and wealth, and that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer.

It is ironic that the near-hysteria about inequality has come about since 2008 when income inequality has been in decline and the rich have seen their incomes fall by more than any other group. Even before the financial crisis, inequality had not risen for many years and Britain, though less equal than many EU countries, was neither more nor less equal than the rest of the world.

What can explain this sudden emphasis on distribution at a time when growth has been a more pressing concern? Such books as The Spirit Level and Capital in the 21st Century have made a contribution, but they would not have become best-sellers had there not been a zeitgeist to tap into. Perhaps British commentators have unconsciously imported narratives from the USA where there has been a gradual, linear rise in inequality since the early 1970s and it is currently at a level that puts it high in the rankings of rich world countries? Perhaps the conspicuous consumption of millionaire celebrities has been a stark and inescapable reminder of the gap between ourselves and the super-rich?

One possible reason is considered almost impolite to mention, though it is an obvious explanation when somebody becomes preoccupied with the wealth of other people. Envy is perhaps too strong a word. Resentment describes it better; resentment at what are perceived to be unjust rewards. For the past quarter of a century, the top ten per cent of earners in Britain have received a quarter of all income. This share has remained remarkably static since 1990 and yet we know that the share of income going to the top one per cent has increased quite sharply. We also know that the 90 per cent of the population who fall outside the top decile have not seen their share of income fall; it has held steady at around 75 per cent.

If the top one per cent has increased its share and the bottom 90 per cent has not reduced its share, it stands to reason that there is only one income group that has seen its share of income decline in relative terms: those who are inside the top ten per cent but outside the top one per cent. This is where the real divide has taken place – between the rich and the super-rich. For those at the top end of the income ladder, the last 25 years may indeed feel like an era of growing inequality.

Who are these people – the rich but not super-rich who are just outside the infamous one per cent? They are the people who earn between £50,000 and £150,000 before tax. They are the natural aristocracy of white collar professionals, academics, politicians, senior journalists, broadcasters and public sector bosses who see their peers making ever larger fortunes in business, finance and show business. This upper-middle class has seen the nouveau riche barge past them. Could this be a cause of resentment among our opinion formers? It is, I would suggest, a possibility.

Finally, there is the political dimension. It is no coincidence that the most vocal academics in the inequality debate – Richard Wilkinson, Thomas Piketty, Danny Dorling et al – are men of the left. The narrative of crippling inequality is most fiercely and enthusiastically expressed in the pages of the Guardian, the Observer, and the New Statesman. Equality of outcome has always been associated with socialism, but it has taken on a fresh importance since the economic arguments about production were won by the right. In the post-Soviet era, it is no longer tenable for the left to claim that a state-run economy is more efficient than the free market. Having grudgingly accepted that the cake is bigger when capitalism makes it, socialists instead complain about how it is sliced. The cake does not need to be any bigger, they say, it only needs to be cut more evenly.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, an alliance of left-wingers and environmentalists have found a way of making a virtue of socialism’s vices. Marxist leaders have often dragged their countries towards economic decline – most recently in Venezuela – but, in fairness to them, that was not their intention. Only recently has stagnation, under the guise of ‘steady state economics’, become a conscious policy objective.

Reducing inequality, on the other hand, was always a socialist goal. The problem is that it has tended to be achieved by levelling down rather than lifting up. Under the new egalitarians, none of this is a problem. They can do without economic growth because it is perceived to be bad for the environment. All that matters is evenly distributing the wealth that exists, by any means necessary. If that means levelling down then so be it.

This is an important change of emphasis but there has been no change in the political programme. The policies of the new egalitarians are indistinguishable from those of the old left: higher taxes, more public spending, a bigger welfare state and more powers for trade unions. At heart, the inequality agenda may be an excuse to reheat economic policies that were discredited in the 1970s. The self-styled egalitarians are counting on the public being so convinced of the urgent need to tackle ‘spiralling’ inequality that they will not ask too many questions of the zombie economics they are being asked to endorse.


Christopher Snowdon is the IEA’s Director of Lifestyle Economics. This artice was first published by Conservative Home.

Read his paper ‘Never Mind the Gap: Why we shouldn't worry about inequality’, co-authored with Ryan Bourne, here.

Comments (0)

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

As in all IEA publications, the views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff.

Previous blog posts


Ryan Bourne
24 May 2016

The anti-Brexit Project Fear reached its zenith yesterday. Having published a paper suggesting GDP per household would fall by £4,300 in the long term (by 2030) if Britain left the EU, the...
Robert P. Murphy
23 May 2016

Several anticapitalist slogans riff on the contrast between people and profit, and nobody thinks John Lennon’s song “Power to the People” is a plea for unbridled laissez-faire. Even...
Richard Teather
20 May 2016

Oxfam has organised a letter, signed by over 300 economists, calling for a crack-down on tax avoidance. But what of Oxfam’s own tax practices?  Some of them look remarkably like tax...
Ryan Bourne
19 May 2016
1 comment

IMF chief Christine Lagarde said last week she has “not seen anything positive” about Brexit in terms of economics. Even for the head of a global body which we might expect...
Len Shackleton
18 May 2016

The Department of Business Innovation and Skills, which in a sensible world probably wouldn’t be responsible for our universities, has firmed up its earlier proposals and is now pushing ahead...
Ann Robinson
17 May 2016

The debate about the UK’s membership of the EU is dominated by economic arguments – would we be better off in or out? It is hard to see any convincing arguments either way. Probabilities...
Kristian Niemietz
16 May 2016

I did not pay much attention to London’s mayoral election campaign. I lost interest early on, as soon as I realised that the campaign would be dominated by different variations of identity...
Richard Teather
13 May 2016
1 comment

In an Oxfam-coordinated letter, 355 economists claim that tax havens “serve no useful economic purpose” and do “not add to overall global wealth or well-being”. I once made...
Kristian Niemietz
12 May 2016

I won’t crack open the champagne if the Brexit side wins the EU referendum on 23 June. On its own, Brexit will not solve a single one of the UK’s economic and social problems. Brexit will...
Diego Zuluaga
11 May 2016

The climate of opinion around free trade has changed dramatically on both sides of the Atlantic in the last few years. Both presumptive presidential nominees in the U.S. are lukewarm about, if ...
Philip Booth
10 May 2016

Yesterday, 355 economists signed a letter co-ordinated by Oxfam arguing that tax havens have “no useful purpose”. There are some luminaries among the signatories. Angus Deaton, winner of...
Gabriel Sahlgren
9 May 2016

In the past decades, an increasing number of governments have pursued reforms to increase choice, competition and autonomy in education. Research indicates that these reforms have generally had...
Diego Zuluaga
6 May 2016

The Institute for International Finance has just released an interesting briefing paper on the trends in risk-weighted assets (RWA) among major banks before and after the financial crisis. RWA is the...
Kristian Niemietz
5 May 2016

A while ago, a powerful image was making the rounds on social media. It contrasted a part of the US-Mexican border, with its massive fence, to a part of the Dutch-Belgian border, which was just a...
Ryan Bourne
4 May 2016
1 comment

Not content with setting the wages in future of up to 20 per cent of the private sector workforce through its National Living Wage, the government has now decided to clamp down on tipping practices...
Stephen Littlechild
3 May 2016
1 comment

On 17 March 2016 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its Provisional Decision on Remedies in its investigation of the energy market. The following is a summary of the concerns...
Len Shackleton
29 April 2016

  On 27 April 2016, the JustShare group held a debate on the Trade Union Bill at St James's church in Piccadilly. The article below is based on Prof Shackleton’s contribution.  ...
Ryan Bourne
28 April 2016

Today, the IEA publishes ‘In Focus: The Case for Privatising the BBC’. My chapter examined instances of bias in BBC coverage. In that essay, I readily admit that all broadcasters are...
Steve Davies
27 April 2016

To the non-economist, all goods and services are the same in terms of their basic nature, however much they vary in superficial details. Economists, however, have known for a long time that this is...