Impact of Social Inequality on Health & Education: Insights from 'Injustice' by Danny Dorl, Slides of Psychology of Happiness

Download Impact of Social Inequality on Health & Education: Insights from 'Injustice' by Danny Dorl and more Slides Psychology of Happiness in PDF only on Docsity! Why social inequality persists Danny Dorling University of Sheffield Based on the book: “Injustice: why social inequality persists”, to be published by Policy Press in April 2010. www.shef.ac.uk/sasi 27th January 2010 Lancaster Environment Centre and Royal Geographical Society Seminar University of Lancaster Of all the 25 richest countries in the world, the US and UK rank as 2nd and 4th most unequal respectively when the annual income of the best-off tenth of their population is compared that of the poorest tenth. In descending order of inequality the 10%:10% income ratios are: 17.7 Singapore, 15.9 United States, 15.0 Portugal, 13.8 United Kingdom, 13.4 Israel, 12.5 Australia, 12.5 New Zealand, 11.6 Italy, 10.3 Spain, 10.2 Greece, 9.4 Canada, 9.4 Ireland, 9.2 Netherlands, 9.1 France, 9.0 Switzerland, 8.2 Belgium, 8.1 Denmark, 7.8 Korea (Republic of), 7.3 Slovenia, 6.9 Austria, 6.9 Germany, 6.2 Sweden, 6.1 Norway, 5.6 Finland, and 4.5 Japan. International tests are used today to label children by supposed „ability‟. The above graph is derived from the OECD (2007). „None‟ implies possessing no knowledge as far as can be measured. „Limited‟ implies possessing very limited knowledge. „Barely‟ stands for barely possessing adequate knowledge in the minds of the assessors. „Simple‟ means understanding only simple concepts. „Effective‟ is a little less damning. „Developed‟ is better again; but only „Advanced‟ pupils are found to be capable, it is said, of the kind of thinking that might include „critical insight‟. Children by „ability‟, the Netherlands 2006 Almost no matter how the students had „performed‟ in the OECD tests, the curves drawn above from the results of those tests would have been bell shaped. When calibrating the results (adjusting the scores before release), it was “…assumed that students have been sampled from a multivariate normal distribution”. OECD (2009, page 145). These educational economists decided upon the ability distribution of children before they began testing them. If you do that, then, even in the Netherlands, every seventh child is, at best, “limited”. Children by „ability‟, the elitist model Until 2009 only around one in twenty top prices were awarded to women. Testing humans is almost always to an extent disingenuous. To win a Nobel Prize the key requirements were first to be alive in the right century and then to be of the right sex. Even male mainstream economists know that Albert Einstein, Alan Turing and James Watson were just the inventors of “…discoveries about to happen. If these particular individuals had not found them, others would have made these discoveries instead.”. : Kay, J. (2004, page 258). Nobel Prizes illustrate bias (1901-2008) If you believe that God or Genes gives differing children differing positions at the starting posts of education; then education, education, education is not about equality, opportunity or outcome. It is about realising that which is largely pre-ordained by „the Lord‟. See Ball, S. J. (2008, page 12 for Tony Blair‟s words in full). Our genes (or the gods if you like) endow us with what is called „plasticity‟ at birth. We inherit the ability not to inherit ability. Elitism is efficient if you believe in a deity who discriminates at birth: “…with „the young‟ we should ... push them … until the young children … get the chance to make the most of their God given potential.” (Tony Blair, 2005). The same is true if your personal religion is the kind of science that invokes the fictional “IQ gene”. A more convincing science finds that we are born “plastic”. W i herit the bility not to inherit ability. See Wilkinson, R. and K. Pickett (2009, chapter 8), the work of James Flynn, and the studies of how Afro-Caribbean boys were treated in schools in 1968 in Britain. Combined, these explain later measured differences in test „performance‟. They do so far better than the „general factor‟ determining your so called intelligence what eugenists called inherited intelligence or “..the non-committal symbol of „g.‟” Wells, H. G., J. Huxley and G. P. Wells (1931, page 822, quoting Prof. Charles Spearman). The Brown eyed / Blue eyed test is key: There is striking evidence that performance and behaviour in an educational task can be profoundly affected by the way we feel we are seen and judged by others. When “… we expect to be viewed as inferior, our abilities seem to be reduced.” That is enough to explain way t e results of the studi s of separated „identical‟ twins. Treat children differently in class by the colour of their eyes and watch: Social exclusion is the new image of injustice that grew out of the old face, out of general eradication of the bulk of an old social evil, „want‟; going hungry, wanting for clothes and other basic possessions, warmth and other essentials. But to go back to see the origins of the idea that the poor will always be with us unless „we‟ control „their‟ behaviour, look back to the world‟s first ever geographical example of a graph used to suggest in-breeding of “the unfit”. Elitist thinking not only determines children‟s life chances but also has an effect on everything that is seen as decent or acceptable in a society. Where elitist thinking was allowed to grow most strongly, social exclusion became more widespread again. In the UK we tolerate older adult benefits of only £9 a day to live on: exclusion fro society. Pauperization. Inequality clouds judgement People get into debt to avoid their standard of living falling immediately when their incomes fall. Above, the X axis measures income poverty. The Y axis measures adequacy of material goods (necessities). Households tend to circulate anti-clockwise. Source: David Gordon, Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research, University of Bristol (http://www.bris.ac.uk/poverty/). Social mobility is lowest where the lengths of these axes are longest. Households cycle into and above poverty: Poverty as measured through low income or by otherwise being excluded from the spending norms of society rose in Britain and America in the 1970s as the rich sought to maintain high growth in their wealth despite the worldwide slump. The poorest continent and poorer people in richer continents suffered most from the slump: „Real growth‟ per decade in GDP (%) per person by continent 1955-2001 (drawn above) shows the widening gap. Source: Estimates by Angus Maddison, from versions provided in spreadsheets given in www.worldmapper.org. Sustaining postwar growth in rich nations after the 70s would have required another planet Decadal growth rate (in GDP) The curve only looks „normal‟ when money is valued multiplicatively (hence the log X axis). The affluent in rich countries excluding themselves from social norms results in ever greater consumption by smaller groups in the rich world that, in turn, causes want to rise elsewhere. It regenerates the old evil of the most basic of wants rises as peasants are made into paupers in the poorest of countries. “Pauperization is now clearly seen by many to be the direct end result of massive economic polarization on a world scale” (Amin, S., 2004). The global bell-curve is of income distribution: Concentration of Conservative votes, general elections 1918-2005. This graph shows the spatial segregation index for Britain. The index shows the minimum proportion of such voters who would have to be transferred between a fixed set of parliamentary constituencies if each constituency were to have the same national proportion of Conservative voters at each general election. The geographical concentration reflects how people come less to know, to share the views of, their neighbours in other areas. The „over-concentration‟ of votes since 1997 and not just their low numbers lost the Conservatives power from then until at least 2005, but the influence of their concentrating „geographical block‟ affected all politics. Left wing politicians feared the right-wing “middle-Britain”. Answer: Enough people voted for it – in the right places at the right times Conservative vote concentration 1918-2005 Share of all income received by the richest 1% in Britain 1918-2009. Lower line is post-tax share. Source, Dorling 2010 updating and relying on Atkinson (2003) and Brewer, Sibieta et al. (2008). Recent bankers bonuses are not included above. If the full extent of the 2008 and 2009 bankers‟ bonuses are added, inequality by 2010 would be seen to exceed the 1922 gilded-age maxima. Taxation of the bonuses in 2010 may, for the first time since the 1970s, see this rise in the exclusion of the very richest be curtailed. However, it is not just bankers that constitute the most affluent single percentile of the population. As a result of what first became politically possible and then, apparently, politically impossible, inequality fell and then rose What the richest 1% get Income inequality in Britain: the trend In more unequal times, and in the aftermath of the shock of mass unemployment, more people in poorer areas die young as compared to other times and places. The prospects of the wealthy also move away from those of the average. The line marked by white squares shows how much lower the age-sex standardized under age 65 mortality rate of the best-off 10% by area is as compared to the average. The line marked by dark diamonds shows how much higher that of the worst-off 30% is than the average. (Source Dorling and Thomas 2009, derived from Table 4.3 with interpolation between five year rates in some circumstances). The most harmful cost of inequality: Inequality in health – premature mortality Best and worse off r - differences from average Outstanding consumer debt as a proportion of disposable income, USA 1975-2005. The debt was needed to “keep up with the Joneses” and to keep living away from those you increasingly fear if you live in a more unequal affluent country. The bars show the ratio of debt to annual disposable income with axis to the right. The line shows the percentage change in that ratio over the coming five years (with axis to the left). Disposable income is the income after paying taxes. Derived from: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Flows of Funds, Accounts of the United States, Historical Series and Annual Flows and Outstandings, Fourth Quarter 2005 (Foster 2006). We racked up our debt because of greed Debt in the USA Poverty rate by NOx emission and ambient air quality for 10,444 British wards in 1999. When you drive a car (to let you live further from the poor but still get to work) it is not just you who suffers inconvenience. It is people living in those parts of inner cities which are poorest, where they are least likely to own cars, who breathe in the most air pollution from the exhausts of the cars of those who drive past their homes (graph from Mitchell and Dorling 2003). Note: low emitting and polluting quintiles are labelled 1, the highest are labelled 5. The proportion living in poverty is derived from breadline surveys. We pollute the poor because of greed Social security and taxation prosecutions, Australia, counts, 1989-2003 Source: Redrawn from figures originally appearing as a graph in the Journal of Social Policy, and in a presentation by Greg Marston (2007). Much the same could be drawn for Britain except that social security fraud has been falling in recent years while tax avoidance/evasion has been rising greatly (Horton and Gregory, 2009, page 211). Widespread greed makes us progressively care more for ourselves and our immediate gratification and more suspicious of others and other types of planning. We avoid/evade tax because of greed Adolescent girls assessed as depressed, %, North America, 1984-2001. In this graph circle size is drawn proportionate to clinical trail size. Source: Reanalysis of (Costello, Erkanli et al. 2006) The data shown above are for those studies where the children lived in the United States, the U. S. territory of Puerto Rico, or Canada. The same trend is not found in more equitable affluent nations, but is found in data drawn from Britain and among adults as well as children. One in three families in Britain now live with a family member suffering from poor mental health. This is most often depression or anxiety. Reports from trials Girls assessed in North America as depressed by around age 15 Children in unequal rich countries are suffering rising anxiety Prescriptions per day per 1000 people, mainly of SSRIs (such as Prozac), 1992-2006. Across the whole of Scotland prescription of antidepressants rose over the course of the 1997 to 2005 period to include almost a tenth of the population regularly being dosed up (far more in parts of Glasgow). All this before the summer of 2007, the crash of 2008, and the gloom of 2009. Source: NHS (2007, Table 1.1, page 12). Measuring: Defined Daily Doses per 1,000 people aged 15+. Note: The National Health Service uses financial years when reporting on prescribing rates. Possibly because costs are still mainly counted in terms of money rather than human misery? The rate of prescribing antidepressants by the NHS in Scotland More and more pills are prescribed Male/female mortality ratio by age in the rich world (1850–1999). Although higher rates of anxiety and depression are recorded for women than men, it is men who suffer the bulk of the excess premature mortality that now accompanies perceived economic failure and particularly age cohorts entering the labour market at the wrong time. Source: original figure given in Rigby and Dorling (2007), sample size 1 billion people. Note: Each line refers to the cohort born in the decade it is labelled by. The X axis gives ages. The Y axis gives how many more times a man of that age born in that decade is likely to die in a year as compared to a women living in the same set of countries born at the same time and of the same age. Men dying per woman by age and birth cohort CigarettesFailure Young men are also particularly vulnerable “Perhaps the most serious problem created by growing inequality is that it facilitates the reproduction of the politics and ideology of inequality.” (Irvin, 2008) Such politics sees inequality rise as in recession it is the low skilled who are laid off first and in growth and those with what are seen as high skills who benefit most from „competition‟ (Kelsey, 1997). The mantra that “greed is still good” is played to the rhythm of “there is no alternative” sung to the tune that “massive cuts demonstrate economic responsibility”. Before you ask what is to be done, you have to decide what is wrong that you currently may condone. In becoming a grossly unequal society it is usu ll clear thinking that is among the first casualties of new l vels of „normal‟ inequality Clear thinking is harder in more unequal countries Thoughts and memories can be made foggy by living for too long under too much inequality. What was seen clearly as injustice began to be excused as inevitable. Unless you look around at most of the rest of the rich world for alternatives, and at all of the rest of the world for what happens when you are so mistaken. Can we aim to only be as unequal as the average OECD country. Is that too much of an aspiration? You can only do that which you come to believe is possible, acceptable and desirable. First you need to know. For instance: More people aged 5 to 25 are killed by cars than in any other way in the UK. So 20mph speed limit in residential areas should be a key public health policy. Quick gains are possible If all this is obviously just, sensible and fair then why is it not done? It is not done because of what people in the most unequal of affluent nations have come to believe and have been taught. Far too many believe that they themselves are amongst the most able tiny fraction, or that their children are the brightest. At the extremes over half belief they are in the top tenth by favours measures. In beliefs such as this we have become more stupid than we once were. Slow down, stop it, what is in your interest is what is also in others‟ interest. In affluent countries with elitist education all children do worse at school. Solutions: Ensure the nearest school to every child is funded by need, not just numbers. Introduce free higher education for those who attend their nearest university. Fund education from a redistributi of monies from the wealthy among the old, not by putting the young into debt. Other changes take longer If the very rich really did have the broadest smile on their faces every minute of every waking hour then perhaps it would be worth trying so hard to join them and do others down on the way. Celebrity magazines and carefully edited television presents an image of people smiling far more often than is humanly positive given cramp and the limits of our facial muscles. Wealth brings fear as well as security. It breeds mistrust within affluent families and a distain for others. How else do you excuse your wealth if you are not someone special? The new squalor of our times is greed. It is not an easy habit to kick. Almost everyone could be made better-off if they were not sold (and did not buy) the story that to do well you must have more than others. Running more than one car is an expense worth avoiding. Owning more than one home is not necessary. Private swimming pools are not the luxury they tell you. Another world already exists Marston, G. (2007). presentation on “Welfare Fraud, Welfare Fiction”, Social Policy Unit, The University of Queensland: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Greg_Marston_Welfare_fraud&fiction_29Nov07_.pdf Mitchell, G. and Dorling, D. (2003). „An environmental justice analysis of British air quality‟, Environment and Planning A, vol. 35, no 5, pp 909-29. NHS (2007). NHS quality improvement Scotland: Clinical indicators 2007, Glasgow: NHS Scotland. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2007). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), OECD‟s latest PISA study of learning skills among 15-year-olds, Paris: OECD OECD (2009). PISA 2006 Technical Report. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development's technical report on the latest PISA study of learning skills among 15- year-olds. (page 145). Rigby, J.E. and Dorling, D. (2007). „Mortality in relation to sex in the affluent world‟, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol.61, no 2, pp 159-64. Pearson, K. (1895). „Contributions to the mathematical theory of evolution – II. Skew variation in homogeneous material‟, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical, vol. 186, pp 343-414. Preston, R. (2008). Who runs Britain? How the super-rich are changing our lives. London, Hodder & Stoughton. (page 336). Wells, H. G., J. Huxley and G. P. Wells (1931). The Science of Life. London, Cassell and Company Limited. (page 822). Wilkinson, R. and K. Pickett (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London, Allen Lane. (chapter 8).References Can we aim to only be as unequal as the average OECD country? Is that too much of an aspiration? Credits – Slides by Benjamin Hennig