Inequality: a game of two halves

 By Laura Billings

Having witnessed yesterday's enthralling RSA debate between Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level – a book released in 2009 that argued that inequality was bad for everyone, even the rich – and Peter Saunders, author of the Policy Exchange report Beware False Prophets: Equality, the Good Society and The Spirit Level,  and Christopher Snowdon, author of The Spirit Level Delusion, both of whom strongly criticised the statistical methodology used in The Spirit Level, I have been re-reminded of the spurious nature of statistics, the inevitable biases of researchers (and their funders), and the folly of thinking you finally have the evidence to change the world.

If the debate had been a football match, it would have been somewhere between a Holland verses Spain and Ghana verses Uruguay showdown: skilful, at times dirty, emotive and utterly absorbing. Ultimately it was much more than a squabble over statistics, but a battle between how we conceive right and wrong and different perceptions of justice and injustice. The dividing line perhaps was not so much about whose numbers were right, but between those who want a more equal world and those who believe that growth in aggregate wealth alone could make the UK a better place to live.

Saunders and Snowden began with a strong and personal critique of Wilkinson and Picketts’ methods – showing new graphs, highlighting contradictory evidence and offering some rather harsh assessments of authors’ statistical understanding. Although it pains me to say this (because, yes, I admit I have my own bias), there was a point to what they were saying. Although they were basing their criticisms largely on the inclusion or exclusion of certain countries, and the lack of consideration of cultural particulars for countries like Japan, I personally think the evidence would be made much stronger if Wilkinson and Pickett were to show how socio-economic outcomes changed in line with inequality overtime within one country.

So at half time it did not look too good for the Spirit Level team. But Wilkinson and Pickett had their own set of graphs, their own methodological criticisms and their own personal rebukes regarding the statistical robustness of their opponents’ work. There is just so much empirical evidence, including psychological and biological theory to support The Spirit Level's conclusions, that it’s hard to dismiss it out-of-hand. Or is that just my bias speaking again?

De-tangling my statistical background with my ethical biases makes it really difficult to judge who won the debate. On the numbers in the book alone I would have to concede some ground to Saunders and Snowden. On overall evidence I would say Wilkinson and Pickett have a strong basis to make the conclusions they do. There is endless evidence on the negative effects and costs of economic inequality, just look here, here and here. We at nef are also concerned that an increase in aggregate wealth would further fuel our over-consumption and further damage the planet.

The argument for equality should not and, in fact, need not rest entirely on the analysis in one book.  Just because The Spirit Level is not 100 percent airtight does not mean inequality is no longer worth addressing. We'd do well to remember that long before peer-reviewed empirical papers ever existed philosophers from Epicurus to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baruch Spinoza believed that more equal societies would be more likely to flourish. Their ideas, and the countless empirical studies done by other researchers besides Wilkinson and Pickett, means that the argument against inequality should still have a prominent place in our political debate.