Freedom left, fairness right?
Tonight on Moral Maze we are discussing benefit reforms and more specifically whether – as a number of bishops have argued - the poorest in society should be protected from austerity. Delving into the debate I noticed an interesting inversion.
Arguments over policy tend to revolve around three broad criteria; fairness, freedom and efficiency. Broadly we associates concern about fairness with the left, about freedom with the right, while the question of ‘what works’ is contested by both (albeit often tendentiously).
When it comes to how the state treats the poorest the reference points change. Often the strongest arguments made by those supporting a cut in real terms benefits levels are made in terms of fairness: it is not fair either to taxpayers or to the working poor that those who are not in work are able to maintain their income at the expense of the rest of us and in contrast to many workers who are suffering failing living standards.
Conversely, the case for maintaining a basic living standard for all people can be made in terms of the freedom of people to be able to subsist (for this is all it is) despite the fact that they might not choose or be able to live the kinds of lives of which we approve. From this perspective it is better that we accept the small moral hazard of some people choosing to live fecklessly on benefits than that we live in a state where people are made utterly destitute unless they are willing to become wage slaves.
Of course, these arguments aren’t absolute. Few benefit cutters think the unemployed should be left without any income at all, while the supporters of some kind of basic income recognise that for reasons of practicality and fairness it is bound to be quite modest. Therefore, although I am a supporter of welfare conditionality (as long as it involves genuine support as well as threat) I oppose this benefit cut for a variety of general and specific reasons.
First, on grounds of fairness we need to remember that the recent rise in benefit levels in comparison to average wages is a shallow and short lived phenomenon. As the reliably robust and provocative Jonathan Portes has pointed out, since 1979 the basic level of unemployment benefit/Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) has fallen from 22% of average earnings to 15%. If a group of people have been losing out steadily for twenty five years it seems perverse to say it is unfair that they have clawed back a fraction of those losses in the last three years.
Second, the very level of JSA (to focus on one benefit) at £56 for 18-24 year olds and £71 for over 25 year olds seems to defy the idea that virtually anyone would choose to live on them. Of course, most people on JSA get other payments – such as housing benefit – but these are to pay for specific costs. No one on benefits can afford anything but the most basic of lifestyles (and even that is threatened when unexpected costs – like the need to replace a cooker, or buy a school uniform – kick in).
Third, more generally, the evidence that small changes in already modest benefits levels have an impact on work incentives is very limited (indeed some people argue the evidence goes the other way). This reduces the power of both the moral hazard and fairness to tax payers’ arguments and undermines the case that decent benefit levels are inimical to economic efficiency.
Fourth, I do not believe, especially in economic hard times, that the responsibility for people facing either penury on benefits, or virtual penury on minimum wages, lies primarily with the poor individual. A reason why judges have some discretion in sentencing is to take extenuating circumstances into account. If people are seen to be totally responsible for the bad choices they make we feel more justified in denying their freedom. But do we really believe that in most cases it is the unemployed who are most responsible for the unenviable economic circumstances they face? If not shouldn’t we defend them having the marginally greater dignity/freedom resulting from a slightly higher unemployed or in-work benefit entitlement?
Given that I am up against Melanie Phillips and Michael Portillo it is bound to be a very lively debate; so why not tune in tonight at 8.00 on Radio 4?
Comments
3 Comments on Freedom left, fairness right?
-
Chris Creegan on
Wed, 13th Mar 2013 5:13 pm
-
matthew taylor on
Wed, 13th Mar 2013 5:16 pm
-
Chris Creegan on
Thu, 14th Mar 2013 9:10 am
A good read as ever Matthew. I’m sure it’ll be lively as you say and I look forward to listening. A number of things strike me on reading your piece.
First I’m obviously aware from my time at NatCen that attitudes have shifted. But it would be wrong to assume (I’m not suggesting you do) that a shift towards welfare cuts is based on a lack of compassion or a rightward drift. The data suggests I think that people remain concerned about the gap between rich and poor for example. So is the shift in attitudes in part about an understandable concern about how the public cake is split in hard times? And if so surely it’s possible to be concerned about that whilst at the same time being concerned about the inequity of the private cake.
Second it I wonder about the extent to which it’s the ‘state’ in state benefits that people have a problem with? People accept that those less well off need a hand, but they increasingly don’t trust the institutions that provide the hand out or the politicians who make decisions about them. The sometimes maligned pre-distribution debate is relevant here; eg. does the living wage campaign offer (in part) an alternative to state heavy mechanisms like tax credits?
Third it reminds (again) me that we seem incapable of having an honest debate about taxation. The political class in general has been guilty for far too long of pretending that people can have more and pay the same or less.
Notwithstanding the challenges of debt and deficit (not the same thing of course) there does seem something profoundly immoral about focusing on the public cake to the detriment of those least able and least likely to have a say, while private gain remains rampant particularly when there is scant evidence that many of the beneficiaries have much interest in being benefactors. How can we hard wire corporate social responsibility beyond gesture and fluffiness?
Over and out.
Great comment Chris – thanks. You may hear some of your ideas played back to you in a couple of hours!
Cheers Matthew. Just caught up with it on iPlayer. Interesting discussion. Timely reminder of the necessity of shifting the terms of the debate; not easy or straightforward.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.