If you want something trashy to read on the beach, I’ve got a recommendation

14 August 2010

Toby Young suffers from Status Anxiety

Another fusillade, this one delivered by Christopher Snowdon of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, involves distinguishing between correlation and causation. Even if we accept that there’s a statistical correlation between inequality and various social evils, it doesn’t follow that there’s a causal relationship. In one example, Snowdon takes the data on suicide rates and shows that there’s a stronger correlation between suicide and recycling than there is with inequality.

To be fair, Wilkinson and Pickett have answers to most of these criticisms, albeit not very satisfactory ones. To my mind, the key issue is not the reliability of their data, but the conclusions they draw. Suppose we accept, for the sake of argument, that in-equality does cause various forms of ill health. That doesn’t mean we ought to equalise incomes. The problem with ‘evidence-based’ arguments for particular social policies is that they presuppose the political combatants share a common goal — in this case, maximising public health. But that isn’t the case. For most conservatives, a certain level of dysfunction is an acceptable price to pay for our social and economic freedoms. To pretend that such differences can be elided, and that important policy decisions can be made on the basis of ‘evidence’ alone, is to trivialise political debate.

To illustrate this, take a solution to the problem of inequality that Wilkinson and Picket don’t consider. One way to tackle it would be to take the poorest 20 per cent of UK wage earners and forcibly expatriate them to an uninhabited island. If, as Wilkinson and Pickett claim, there’s a causal link between income inequality and social dysfunction, this measure would significantly reduce ill health among the remaining 80 per cent, since the gap between the richest and the poorest would shrink. Not only that, but the wellbeing of the expatriated 20 per cent would also improve since they’d now be living in a more equal society. A key argument of The Spirit Level is that it is not discrepancies in the average level of income between countries that account for different levels of public health, but the degree of income inequality.

Such a draconian measure would be monstrous, but it’s hard to see how Wilkinson and Pickett could object if their sole aim is to maximise ‘wellbeing’. The problem, of course, is that forcibly expatriating 12 million people would grossly violate their rights — and the rights to life, liberty and property are among the things that have to be weighed in the balance when assessing the merits of equality. To pretend that a purely ‘rational’ appraisal of the facts leads inevitably to egalitarianism is intellectually dishonest and one of many reasons this book belongs in the trash pile.

Toby Young is associate editor of The Spectator.

Previous page 1 | 2

More articles from: Toby Young | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Dr Social Policy

August 16th, 2010 10:46am Report this comment

What an utterly fatuous piece of writing even during the holiday season. Attacking Wilkinson and Pickett's Spirit Level is certainly flavour of the month despite it having some appeal to leading figures in British politics.

Spirit Level is an excellent example of accessible academic work that should be widely read (more than 36,000 copies sold which is pretty good going) and discussed rather than dismissed as 'junk food for the brain.' This is simply shallow journalism - I was going to call it simple hacking but I still believe in being polite - that Toby Young seemingly peddles.

I think that the Saunders critique is flawed in that he excludes outliers from his analysis. I think the Snowdon point about the difference between correlation and causation is a point worth making but when there are so many indicators suggesting a link between social inequalities and levels of ill health and social problems then there needs to be quite strong evidence that the hypothesis is wrong.

As for Toby Young's point about draconian expatriation of 12 million people... This is nothing short of a ridiculous straw man being constructed to discredit a perfectly defensible point of view put forward by Wilkinson and Pickett. The authors of the Spirit Level offer a road forward to a more equal, healthier and (hopefully) happier society where freedom is positively exercised.

When reading much of what passes for analysis of contemporary society, particularly from the right of centre, I'm reminded of Hobhouse's critique of early 20th century capitalism: 'Liberty without equality is a name of noble sound and squalid result.'

Morus

August 23rd, 2010 2:07pm Report this comment

I think TY is a little unfair to the Spirit Level authors for much of the piece, but the nub is correct.

"Evidence-based" policy cannot exist - it presupposes that the evidence alone prescribes social policy, either through a lack of ideological framework or through ideological consensus.

The proof that smoking causing cancer does not necessarily imply the need for a smoking ban. Evidence AGW doesn't necessarily demand green taxes.

The problem over the last 20 years has been that politicians have been fearful of having ideological stances because they perceive that they deter centrist voters. True, no-one wants an ideologue who ignores evidence, but now we have evidence being used to support only the most obvious intuitive solution (which then claims to be free of ideology, when in fact it is blind to its ideological underpinnings).

Evidence-based policy is a dangerous myth. Evidence-informed policy should be the highest goal, with all evidence used to challenge explicit moral and political frameworks.

The Spirit Level doesn't suggest ideologically-free answers, perfect for the managerialist government: it draws battle lines and makes a case for a Social Democratic path, where greater equality (with limits on social and economic freedoms of individuals) leads to a version of greater happiness. If they're claiming to be the former, it is disingenuous - if the latter, then it's a welcome articulation of one side of the modern debate.

Accordingly

August 23rd, 2010 2:39pm Report this comment

"It's bunkum, obviously" probably won't enter the annals as one of the most effective rebuttals in history.

But to join you on a similar level of sophistication: it is at least refreshing to have some tenets of senseless right-wing reactionism restated with such candour (who really cares about public health, anyway?), and traditionally presented wrapped in the ribbon of 'life, liberty and property'. Thanks.

Neutral Observer

August 24th, 2010 4:19am Report this comment

But umm...hasn't the UK already tried Mr Young's suggestion of shipping the poorest 20% off to some island? As I recall it was called Australia. Moreover in terms of raising health standards for all it was actually quite effective.

Fubar Saunders

August 24th, 2010 1:16pm Report this comment

"Spirit Level is an excellent example of accessible academic work that should be widely read"

Are you for real? Its a pile of Islingtonite champagne socialist sh*te! I read it on holiday in Morocco and had to be forcibly restrained from throwing it in the swimming pool on several occasions. The stats and the conclusions do not add up. The Spirit Level Delusion on the other hand addresses a lot of the failings of the book in detail and I have yet to see a convincing counter-rebuttal from the authors of the original who have made no secret of their socialist agenda. The only reason Islington & Hampstead's self loathing chattering classes rushed to buy it is because it suits their agenda of stiffing the rich - you dont produce conditions to lift the lowest 20% out, you hammer the top 20%.

A load of old socialist b*ll*ks that should be burned. "Excellent example" my arse.