Suchergebnisse

Britain is a society increasingly divided between the super-affluent and the impoverished. A Sharing Economy proposes radical new ways to close the growing income gap and spread social opportunities. Drawing on overseas examples, Stewart Lansley argues that mobilizing the huge financial potential of Britain's public assets could pay for a pioneering new social wealth fund. Such a fund would boost economic and social investment, and, by building the social asset base, simultaneously strengthen the public finances. A powerful new policy tool, such funds would ensure that more of the gains from economic activity are shared by all and not colonized by a powerful few. This is a vital new contribution to the pressing debate on how to reduce inequality and combat austerity

Many people would agree that a society in which a chief executive officer earns not five or 10 but 100 times as much as the average full-time worker is not a fair society. The Cost of Inequality argues that this kind of inequality also has an impact on economic growth. The deregulation of the financial sector has had knock-on consequences for our economy. Why invest in an industry with steady but slow- growing returns when there is a quick buck to make in finance? While in the post-war period the gains from productivity growth were equally shared between wages and profits, from the early 1980s

AbstractThis article traces the history of 'crowding out', and its use as a justification for austerity and state deflation from its origins in the 1920s to its latest post‐2010 incarnation. It examines why governments have kept turning to austerity and continue to justify it on the grounds that public sector activity crowds out more productive private activity, despite the accumulated evidence that this traditional pro‐market formulation has failed to deliver its stated goals. It examines three other embedded forms of crowding out that have been highly damaging—leading to weakened social resilience and more fragile economies—but which have been ignored by both governments and mainstream political economists.

Today's dominant model of corporate capitalism is defined by its built‐in inequality escalator that creates a 'fundamental force for divergence'. Could citizens' wealth funds offer a new counterforce for convergence?

AbstractThis article examines the potential to tackle the roots of inequality by the introduction of one or more social wealth funds. Such funds would aim to capture some of the financial gains from the private ownership of capital—a principal driver of inequality—and use the proceeds for wider community benefit, such as investment in social infrastructure. In recent decades a number of countries have introduced a variant on such funds, mostly taking the form of state‐owned sovereign wealth funds resourced through the exploitation of oil, and used for a diversity of economic purposes. In contrast, the UK has failed to take the opportunity to create such funds by, for example, reinvesting the revenue from the sales of public assets. So would it be possible to build one or more such collectively owned funds in the UK, and if so, how should they be financed? As well as funding social investment and anti‐inequality programmes, could such a scheme also help finance a regular Citizen's Dividend payment or a Citizen's Income scheme?

Is 'predistribution' as championed by Ed Miliband, or old fashioned 'redistribution' as adopted, if stealthily, by Labour from 1997, the best way to create greater equality? Some critics have argued that a strategy of predistribution—aimed at closing the income gap before the application of taxes and benefits—would not work and that it will be necessary to rely mainly on redistribution. This article examines the potential impact of weak and more radical predistribution‐style measures on one of the key drivers of inequality—'wage compression'. It examines the potential of a mix of policies for raising the wage floor. It argues that reliance on traditional redistribution would face its own set of constraints and that creating a more equal distribution of the cake, before taxes and benefits, is a necessary condition for lowering the risk of continuing economic crisis.

The rise in inequality across many rich nations, but especially in the United Kingdom and the United States, was meant to lead to a bigger economic pie from which all would benefit. In fact, the increased concentration of income over the last three decades has led to more fragile and unstable economies making it a key cause of the 2008 Crash and today's lack of recovery. The evidence of the last 100 years is that models of capitalism that fail to share the proceeds of growth more evenly will eventually self‐destruct. More equal societies have softer business cycles. In contrast, more unequal economies are associated with more extreme cycles—they have exaggerated booms, deeper falls and extended troughs. The scale of inequality is not just an issue about fairness and proportionality, it is therefore integral to economic health.