The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour Second Edition
Ruth Levitas
THE INCLUSIVE SOCIETY?
Also by R...
322 downloads
1180 Views
1MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour Second Edition
Ruth Levitas
THE INCLUSIVE SOCIETY?
Also by Ruth Levitas THE IDEOLOGY OF THE NEW RIGHT (editor) THE CONCEPT OF UTOPIA INTERPRETING OFFICIAL STATISTICS (editor with Will Guy) POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN (editor with Christina Pantazis and David Gordon)
The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour Second Edition Ruth Levitas Professor of Sociology University of Bristol
ª Ruth Levitas 1998, 2005 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First Edition published 1998 Second Edition published 2005 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN-13: 9781403944276 ISBN-10: 140394427X This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne
In memory of my father, Maurice Levitas. No pasara´n!
This page intentionally left blank
Contents Preface to the Second Edition
ix
Preface to the First Edition
xiii
List of Abbreviations
xv
Introduction
1
1 Three Discourses of Social Exclusion
7
2 From Social Justice to Social Cohesion
29
3 The Optimism of Will
49
4 Staking Claims
70
5 Community Rules
89
6 New Labour, New Discourse
112
7 From Equality to Inclusion
128
8 Delivering Social Inclusion
159
9 The New Durkheimian Hegemony
178
10 From Margins to Mainstream
190
Appendix
235
Notes
237
Select Bibliography
261
Index
269
vii
This page intentionally left blank
Preface to the Second Edition The first edition of this book went to press in January 1998, less than a year into the first term of the first New Labour government. Much of the research focused on the ideological and policy developments preceding the 1997 election. The second edition will go to press in the autumn of 2004, probably towards the end of the second term of Blair’s premiership, but before publication of the draft manifesto for a likely 2005 election. It is an opportune moment to review what has happened to ‘social exclusion’ under New Labour. Much has changed in the seven years since Peter Mandelson announced the setting up of a special unit to address social exclusion. Mandelson himself has twice been politically exiled amid allegations of sleaze, and has twice been rehabilitated. By the summer of 2004 Blair’s own popularity with the electorate as a whole, and with Labour supporters in particular, had dropped dramatically, largely as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Repeated attempts to return political attention to the domestic agenda were meeting with little success. If the political context is very different from that of 1997, so too is the social exclusion agenda itself. The language of social exclusion is no longer the preserve of a temporary specialist unit. It has become commonplace in public discourse, and pervades government policy. Since 1999, New Labour has offered an annual audit of poverty and social exclusion in the Opportunity For All reports, and has deployed the rhetoric of inclusion across a wide range of government departments, including, for example, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Since 2000, social exclusion has become central to the social policy agenda of the European Union and hence to the formulation and legitimation of policy. All member states are now required to produce biennial National Plans for Social Inclusion, and there is agreement at European level on some of the key indicators by which exclusion should be measured. Both the remit of the SEU to develop policy recommendations across departmental boundaries and the subsequent mainstreaming of social exclusion create difficulties for the assessment of New Labour’s record: the range of potentially relevant policy is enormous. This difficulty is compounded by the continuing lack of a clear definition of social exclusion either within government or among analysts. The first edition traced a historical shift in the meaning of social exclusion during the construction of New Labour. It argued that the ix
x
Preface to the Second Edition
mid 1990s saw a major change from a redistributive discourse of exclusion (RED) to mix of social integrationist (SID) and moral underclass (MUD) discourses, and that this change was related to the fundamental character of New Labour. Far from being a centre-left project, New Labour could more accurately be characterized as centreright, combining a neo-liberal commitment to the market with notions of ‘community’ replacing the role of the state in Thatcherism. The original text is unchanged, constituting as it does a historical account of that period of change. This second edition adds a new chapter evaluating the Blair governments’ record in power in relation to social exclusion, and a reconsideration of the New Labour project as a whole. It uses the RED, SID, MUD model outlined in Chapter 1 to explore both what has been delivered in terms of social exclusion and whether the meaning of the idea within New Labour discourse has changed since 1997. It is worth clarifying the nature of this model, as it has sometimes been misunderstood. RED, SID and MUD are not types or dimensions of exclusion, but ways of thinking about exclusion that imply different strategies for its abolition. In RED, the assumption is that the resources available in cash or kind to the poor need to be increased both relatively and absolutely, implying both improved levels of income maintenance and better access to public and private services. In SID, the solution is increasing labour market participation, for paid work is claimed to deliver inclusion both directly and indirectly through the income it provides. In MUD, the emphasis is on changing behaviour through a mixture of sticks and carrots – manipulation of welfare benefits, sanctions for non-compliance and intensive social work with individuals. As an analytic device, this model remains useful in negotiating the minefields of social exclusion policy, especially as it can be used to illuminate the co-existence of, and the contradictions and shifts between, these different positions. The dominance of SID in government policy bears out the argument that this approach neglects unpaid work and places too little emphasis on the quality of paid work. The co-presence of MUD identifies particular groups as a problem for social order, and generates behavioural, and often repressive, solutions. RED makes at least an apparent return in the commitment to end child poverty. The new ‘less eligibility’ principle embodied in the slogan ‘making work pay’ reveals the contradiction between SID and residual elements of RED: there is an inherent tension between ensuring people are better off in employment and providing adequate benefits for those outside the labour force. The question is not simply whether there is more or less social exclusion, but what kind of inclusion has been delivered for whom, and on what terms. Some
Preface to the Second Edition
xi
people, especially families with dependent children and working parents, are substantially better off. Some suffer forms of exclusion as a direct result of policies to tackle exclusion itself. The record on social exclusion is deeply contradictory, reflecting the contradictory character of the New Labour project itself. As to my own position, readers rightly detected in the original text a preference for the policy positions implied by RED, but this preference is not unqualified. It remains the discourse best able to give space and value to unpaid work, a central theme of the original text, and to embed principles of equality. However, there are three respects in which RED is, in my view, inadequate. Firstly, it does not place enough emphasis on the social element of social exclusion and inclusion, even though the quality of people’s social relationships was a crucial element in Peter Townsend’s development of the concept of poverty. Secondly, RED has a tendency to look only at the condition of the poor, and to pay insufficient attention to inequality and polarization, and thus to the social consequences of wealth. A focus on redistribution is inadequate if it fails to call into question the principles and conditions of the ‘initial’ distribution of resources, and the economic and social structures in which it is embedded. Thirdly, all current discussion about social exclusion – and indeed almost all public political discourse – has alarmingly short time horizons. A politics for the future needs to call into question the productivist assumptions of continuing economic growth, and to treat with greater urgency issues of environmental impacts and long-term sustainability. I have been gratified by the positive response to the first edition, although this may be because those who disliked it have been less likely to contact me. There have been too many conversations for me to thank everyone individually, so a collective acknowledgement will have to suffice. But I would like to thank all the members of the Rowntree-funded research team with whom I worked on the Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain (or PSE), trying to develop direct measures of social exclusion – especially Dave Gordon, Christina Pantazis, Peter Townsend and Jonathan Bradshaw. I benefited enormously from discussions with Hilary Silver about social exclusion in Europe. Gregor McLennan commented helpfully on the draft of the new chapter. I am grateful to the editors, Alison Howson and Guy Edwards of Palgrave Macmillan, and the copy editor Mary Payne for their skill and efficiency. Thanks, as always, are due to Rob Hunter for personal and intellectual support, as well as a remarkable political memory and excellent proof-reading abilities. Ruth Levitas
This page intentionally left blank
Preface to the First Edition This book is based on a project funded by the ESRC on Discourses of Social Exclusion and Integration in Emergent Labour Party Policy (R000222106). I am grateful for their support, which provided a year free from teaching and administrative commitments in 1996–7, and enabled me to give my undivided attention to the events of the preelection period. Special thanks are due to my research assistant, Gail Hebson, who worked with dedication and flair, and maintained her sanity and good humour despite watching more television interviews with politicians than the average human being can withstand. Neither completion of the research project nor this book would have been possible without her. The project arose from the Equity, Labour and Social Divisions Research Initiative in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Bristol in 1994–5. I am grateful to members of the research group for those early discussions of social exclusion, especially Teresa Rees and Steve Fenton who made invaluable comments on the first draft of the research proposal, and Randall Smith who steered me through the arcane rules of the European Union structural funds. The interest and enthusiasm of staff and students in the Sociology Department has been a great encouragement. Mary Bruce of the Labour Party’s Information Subscription Service was enormously helpful in supplying us with relevant material. Discussions with past and present members of the Labour Party, especially in Bristol, have been vital to my understanding of the changes over recent years. I am especially grateful to Mary Southcott for explaining the workings of the Policy Forum, enabling me to make sense of the constitutional debate at the 1997 Labour Party Conference; and to Sandra Parsons and Ruairi Tobin for their hospitality during the Conference itself. Thanks are due also to Will Hutton, for finding time to talk to me about some of the issues in Chapter 3. I have had many critical and helpful comments on papers which have fed into the chapters in this book, from participants in the British Sociological Association Conference in York; the Capital and Class Conference in London; the Third European Feminist Conference in Coimbra; the European Sociological Association in Colchester; and the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School xiii
xiv
Preface to the First Edition
of Economics. Others have read all or parts of the manuscript, sometimes in several drafts, or sent me useful material. Among these, I would like to thank the following in particular for help, advice and encouragement: Louise Ackers, John Holmwood, Julian Le Grand, Paul Watt, Dan Finn, Gail Hebson, Carol Johnson, Maggie Studholme, Harriet Bradley, Jackie West, Stella Maile and Rob Hunter. Maggie Studholme also copy-edited the manuscript – not, in this case, a thankless task. Particular thanks are due to Diana Levitas, for sisterhood, and for taking more than her share of the responsibilities which fall on the sandwich generation; to Gail Hebson, for commitment and friendship beyond the call of duty; to Harriet Bradley, for friendship, collegiality, intellectual rigour and gin; and to Rob Hunter, for forbearance, political commitment, food and fellowship, and fun.
List of Abbreviations AFDC AHC ASBO ASI AWP BHC CA CASE CCTV CPAG CPRS CPS CSO GDP GUMG HBAI IEA IFS IPPR MAI NAP NDLP NEET NPI OFA ONS PFI PSE RMI SAU SERA SERPS SEU TANF TPS WFTC WTC
Aid to Families with Dependent Children After Housing Costs Anti-Social Behaviour Order Adam Smith Institute American War on Poverty Before Housing Costs Carers Allowance Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion Closed Circuit Television Child Poverty Action Group Central Policy Review Staffs Centre for Policy Studies Central Statistical Office Gross Domestic Product Glasgow University Media Group Households Below Average Income Institute for Economic Affairs Institute for Fiscal Studies Institute for Public Policy Research Multilateral Agreement on Investment National Action Plan (for Social Inclusion) New Deal for Lone Parents Not in Education, Employment or Training New Policy Institute Opportunity For All Office of National Statistics Private Finance Initiative Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain Revenu Minimum D’Insertion Social Affairs Unit Socialist Environment and Resources Association State Earnings Related Pension Scheme Social Exclusion Unit Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Teenage Pregnancy Strategy Working Families Tax Credit Working Tax Credit xv
This page intentionally left blank
" # $ % %& ' &* +/ < " + <" = >/ # @ # K Q Z Z # @ [ > > + " \] # Z ^
_ >]" ` < / _ " " " / >]" # " # > # { # _ Q #] |} @ ~ Q \ = # & @ " Q >
# # # # # " > ] # \ = ] # # + " # + #/ { # / _ / > #] _ / ] >" + Q
Q Q" # / # # / # # # " / / # # / # "
<
/ # # " # # " Q # # Q # / > _/ ] @ ] " @ ] # # # # / Q< " # # #" Z = `> { # # Q #
# > " = > / # " # + # @ & " Q > @ > Q " Z ] ^ # # # Z # Q #
> Q # > / # > " # # `/ " /` > # > " > # # > ` " # > # " K`' > " / > " / ' #
# # > " # / ='
}
Q "
# " K`' ' =' > Z] # > # / " / # # # > "
# > >
" Q # # / # > [ [ " # > # " > # # " # " " Q Q " > Q # # " # / # # # / > " # " Q # # / " #" # " # # > # " #
#" > # # / #
# " > #
# "
%
+ < * _/ ] % ] " Q # > @ ] # _ Q #] _ ] K`' =' '" + < Q Q/ Q
Q # / % $ ] + = \ K ' " + } > Z ^] # Q # + % # \ ~ +
+# " + * Q # Q `{ \ " ] # \ # @ `{ ]" = Q # =' '" + & ] " + & ]
# Q # Q Q # # # Q" ] " + & @ ] # # _/ ] #" # [
# Q " > + K ^ > "
*
+ Q @ ] # K`' =' '" Q Q # Q # = `> @ / # # =' ' " / Q # Z K K # # + " K`' =' ' > # # #" | # = " + + # # # " = K`'" /Q # Q # # " # _ Q # Q ] =' > /Q # ZQ # > + " ] _ > ]" # = > / Q # @ ] / Q" { # Q # Q Q [ / ] Q # # " + | Q @ # " # ] # K`' =' '"
Q # [ Q "
6
The Inclusive Society
Chapter 9 relates these limits to the underlying view of society which is implied by the third way. It compares this to the model of society set out by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim a hundred years ago. The language of social cohesion, social integration and solidarity is strongly Durkheimian, and Hilary Silver has shown the close and explicit connection between the French discourse of social exclusion and a Durkheimian understanding of society.3 Although British discourses of exclusion differ from the French, and explicit references to Durkheim are very rare, contemporary political thinking implicitly reflects a strongly Durkheimian position. One feature of this is a tendency to repress conflicts. Any third way which does this is intrinsically likely to move rightward or leftward as such conflicts surface. I argue that the discourse of exclusion and inclusion can be seen as intimately linked to this repressive tendency, but that broader ideas of inclusion can also subvert it. In this sense, the discourse may lead beyond itself, into the very critique of capitalism which a Durkheimian perspective is unable to mount. Chapter 10, added for the second edition, charts the development and impact of policy on social exclusion from 1997 to 2004. If political positioning is crucial to the third way, the political positioning of a commentator on it cannot be ignored. I am a socialist and feminist. I was a member of the Labour Party for some years from 1983. I am not writing from within RED, although my sympathies with this will be clear. I am deeply sceptical of the effects of discourses of exclusion and integration, which so easily obscure rather than illuminate patterns of inequality, and which do not question the nature of the society in which people are to be included. Yet this, as so much else, is ambiguous. I am still searching for a route to a just and sustainable future. And as part of this critical or even utopian project, the idea of an inclusive society might yet inform a further, more radical, discourse and even, eventually, a more radical politics.
' = `> > " # > " > # "
# " @ / / # # #" # / > " Z # # [ # " `> > # / # " > $
# # " _ > ] # >" $ K`' ' > # =' Q" { # " K`' > / { " ' #
/ # >
|
# Q
/ > " =' # # # Q" Q > # Q" # K`' ' =' { Q # / " @ = @= > Q " Q * }% ~ #
} < # " # / Q / Q " / # _Q] Q" = @= # Q # Q ] Q Q/ # # ] Q"< / # / # Q # Q Q Q #$ Q _
" " " ]" = _
] # { # # # Q [
> "} Q ] " ^ # / Q # Q K`' ' =' Q# # # "
K`'$ = + `+= @ @' +K+ = + + # &|[" ^ " K # / # > $ # Q
# # #" # > #
"% `> # / _ # ] # # " ]" #
[ # " " ] #$ _ >]"* # / " # " # " # > " Q # Q Q # Q Q # " > "
/ # $ #" ^ Q#
Q" @ # $ @ [ # { Q # # > [ "& /
" # #" / &% _
] / & _ ] " +/ # # # ' ` # / # # " #
" # *" # [ # Q # # # # [ # Z # + ^ = = " / $ #/ # > Q # # # " # #
Q # Q [
# /"| # { # Q #" ] # > _ > ]" K # > _ ] _/ " " " Q
] >
" ^ _ #" " " " __ > ]] # > > ]" ^ # # # # > / # # / # Q # Q # {] " # # + # Q # # " # [ / " _ > ] # /
# # # { + +" + Q
!" " " _ # > ] _ > ] _ #
> ] [ " Z Q $ _ Q ]" = > #$ _ # # ]" + Q # " { > [
# # # # " + # > " ^ #
" #
<
[ # # ^ Q Q" ^ Q # #" < [ # " > # #$ > # "
# # ] \ = # #
Q " ] + " " Q #" # { # " Z Q # _ > " " " / # { ]" } #
# { > #
" % K ] _ { ] # > { " * + { # " # { # " & Z { / " ^ { { " > " ^" ] *
}
#" { # # # / " # { # > #$ _ # # # # # # # ]" { # # # # # # / # " #
Q" { # # _ # ]" | ] Q " ^
#" = # { # {" @ # # > { " # > > {
" ] $ # { " [ # [ Q / # { " > # { ]
# { "< / # # # > { " = > / # # # # # " K`' > {
%
" > " K`' { $
{ > " # " { Q" # { > # " # { " " " ] # > K`' # # " ^ "
'$ ^` @'`K+== @' ^` +K` '``@'`@+ K`' Q > { # Q @ K #" | / # " # ] # # > Q >
" K _ ] _ ] # " @ K # | > / # Q
" / / " @/ { # #
*
" / # /
[ " # ## # " _ ] # " [ |%[* ] Q > " # Q [ / [ "< @ K # # # " # K`' " # # [
# > # # / / " # # # > " ` # # = #" ` _ ] _ ] # # [ & [ # / " # " $ # # _ ]" > Q " \ + _# ] _ Q / ] { _ Q ]"<< " _ ] " / # > $ Q #/ / " # #
Q
&
Q " " "
#
Q _ ] "<}
[ [ " > # " Q ] % & ' # > { # > Q / / " `> { Q _
/ # { ]"<% ^ # # > " ^ K ' > " ' Q > { $ _ > " { > " = { ]"<* # { / > $ / Q # # # # # ## Q / # [ Q "<& {
# # " Q ' Q # _ ] _ # " " " # Q # # ]"<
$ _ >
Q ] _ Q _ ] > ]"<| ^ # /
>
_ # ]"< # Q "} { / + " ] |
#/ # Q/ Q ` `" ^ # # > = # " ^ _ # #]" ^
Q _ # ] _ # # / #]" _ ] _ " " " # #/ ] [ # Q "} @ " > # $ _ # / ]$ _ #/ # >
# # / Q ]"}< # #/ { [ [ $ _ " +
]"}} { # # { " # / Q # # # " ] { #
|
# # # # "}% > { # # " > = " K ZQ K # & ' + '+ # @ @ " # Q # # / Q # " # # Q$ <* Q * << / # * " K ] @ ' # " # @ " =
Q / " ' / # " = # Q Q # { # # Q/ @ " # # @ # # # [ Q # _ # # # # # = ]"}* Z # > Q & " | & " Z ZQ Z[< # / " Q [ { { _ ] #" Q # Q " Z + # Q # " ^ #
Q #
# "}& ] " = / # Q " / Q # # " Q # Q # # } # >] / # " # / # " # ] >/ " # # #
{ Q
#" < \ Z#
Q = # # # $ # " Z#
# = ^ }| # $ Z # #
_ #] > # # # # "} Z#
# > " # # /> # " + # " _ ]
<
] # " ' #$ Q # "%
# / # # " > %
" # > /
{ "
# _ Q _ ] Q { #
# ]"%< # # # Q # > $ K`' >
# " # _ ] #" " _ $
Q Q]"%} { _ / ] # / " $ _ # # # # # # # >]"%% > [ # > " = > # # #" ' >
_ # /
]"%* Z
<
> Q / # ' $
> _ ]" " # # _ ]" # #" # # # " Q Q#" # # / [ [ " { # "
='$ = + `+= @ = + @`K @ @' `K ` # > # # ` " # `/ / > > " = # > # # 'Q # + # "%& `> Q Q " > # # {
/ # " # > Q || K ( ) '
# " K K # _ '
] [ #
<<
# Q #
_ # ]"% = # _ ] # " ^ # 'Q > # Q + " # _ ] Q [ Q # " + # _ { ] # # > #" = Q
# # # # # K = Q # [ { "%| # > ` K
# #/= > # "% ## # >/ ` #" / # " ^ #
# > /` "* ' > # [ # #
` Q" Q > ` > # " > @ " ^ # >
` " Q ` [ `# [ # > = ] _ ] " # / =' # Q" =' # `/ # + } %"
<}
=' ` + Z % [ # * + , # + # * [ { / " ' # # { > > Q > / # # Q" # > "
$ _ " " " # / Q #
]"*< # # _ ] # > " = > $ _ *< # > ]*} _ " " " # # > ] _ " " " ]"*% >
_ / ] Q _ # {/ # ]"** # # K`' > > Q / # _ ]
_Q]" _ ] # _ Q]" _ # = # ' ] #
Q" _Q
#] + _ ' - ] "*& = * + , # + # Q #" > Q # " # [ #
<%
Q > "
# Q Q $ _ Q
- Q# #
Q# Q # / > # # { # ] "* # Q /
> ## Q Q # " * + , # + # Q > [ # > _ ]$ _
" " " # # # >/ " + <* } # " " " / # Q # ]"*| ZQ # " Q Q # # Q " # .
_ # { Q # / #] Z _ Q ]"* # " _Z ] # Q > # # Q # ] ] ]" # > # # " Z > _ # #
] _ # Q ]"& Q Q Q " # Q # Q " > Q
<*
Q { # ## Q #"& Q #" Q
# / / # # $ _ # # ] _ ] "&< / # Q# Q " > $ _ > ]"&} _= ] # " Q $ # # _ Q ] _ Q # Q # ]" @ $ _ { __ # ]] ]"&% ^ * + , # $ + # # ` / # " _ ] _ ] ` "
# # `
> # [ Q # #" Q # Q " > # ` ` # " # # + / ] = # / Q " = > Q # # # # # / " # #
<&
# # # Q # " # { ` Q" Q # # _Q] _ ] ` { ` "&* #
` { # # # " Z Q / > { # # # # #" # # # [ [ # Q"
{ # > /
Q [ > [ " # # " Q # # # Q Q # # { " > # # Q # Q
" # # Q > " =' # K`' '$
> / Q" {
# " + Q K`' " Q" = # Q / # Q" # Q Q # "
<
Q " # Q # ] Q " # / Q" K`' =' ' "
" Q
# " > Q #" K`' =' Q ' " Z Q] >/ > { [ " =' ' K`' =' # # # " ' { # " #
> " Q > " @ # #
" Q _ ] _ > ] {
# # [ # # " # { { Q" Q ] # { Q Q / " # Q # # Q" Q # Q # { Q Q / # " =' Q# / Q Q "
<|
Q > Q { " Q
Q" # ' # _ ] { Q #" Q # Q" #/ Q > / # Q $ Q # # { " # # # @ # K`' =' '" / Q# # / Q # @ ' Q # " # /# K`'
# " ] # > # = `> " # _ ] Q " # # # "
< = \ = + @`Z K @`Z ^@~/@~=
Q { | / { / Q #" Q / # Q/ Q + = + = % = | #/ ` *" # # {
# ] Q/ Q + K = +K=" # { " K + ' Z K K = = | " Q # # Q / # #"
# # " Q/ Q # Q # ] K K ' @> # = / # { " " Q/ Q Q # " # [ # [ " # # /Q # " Q/ Q
# " Q/ Q ] Q/ Q Q
# <
}
/ # " > # / / / " # { / " = ||% # Q" # + = # # + @ `> + " * #
# { /. (
" ] ] %. ' # -
" # = [ | # &} ||
<< + " # = # @ " _ # ] # _ Q ] { / ]" = ## = > ` =" ^ /. ( _ ] #/ # = [ Q _ # # Q # Q Q # ]"< ' } # \ " \ ] _@ ] Q # ) + |" \ ' # # # '# ^ # # & # ' " ' # _ * & / / " " " / ]} # / ]
/ 3 ,
}
" \ @ " Q _ Q] # Q " Z Q # / ] Q / # Q# Q = `> " # ] + " ' # 0 / # " _ Q Q ] Q / # / # Q 1 ] Q Q ' " = ' = = # " # = ] " =] # # ' _] / [ \ ] 2 + * [ Q # Q " @> & ' ^ @ # # ` ( " ( } @ _ # ] # _ # ]" @> Q # Q # # " # @ & ' + # " / = ` # { * " # # { # = ' K + || ' 1 [ # { K
^ # & # " ' =` _ # Q ]" _ # ] [ # ^ ~
}<
> @ K # / " { @> @ K # " # Q \ K \Q ##
# ' /
" \Q Q / > |
# # # " # _ __ # ]] ] # # #/ # " ] { # @> Q/ Q$ \ K K / > / / #" _ ] # Q/ Q / #" K || # @ ~ Q + ^ Q # " K _ Q Q Q] _ # #
]" & }<& %}| [ / " # K / Q / " ^ ~ Q] = +/ ` ' ' % +
^ ^ Z " ^ " 1 K] } = ` ' + [ |[<
= # Q " ' = + = \ K % ] +
/ 3 ,
}}
@" " Q + K] = ` "
^` + == @ @ = + \=+` + = \ Q # K \ = < " = + ' # ^ ' + " + $ / # > # # / # # Q / #
> / > Q " { 1 _^ Q #/ # / # ]"% # + Q/ Q /
/ "* @ " ZQ / + {] + # ' & 4"& 3 1
( Q ' # #" / " # { @ _ ] Q # " 3 / # #
}%
# #
Q " '#/ Q { Q "
# _ # ] # #
# " # ] # _ # # Q] Q @ " # "| $ # # "
^ > # @ " # # # _ Q ] _ > ] " Q / " # 3 / #
$ _ Q '# # # Q # # ]" # ^ + = = + @ ] #" / @ Q # @ ] Q ~ Q = " < # $
/ 3 ,
}*
# # # / { _ / / ]" # # # # + {] = Q Q" \` \ ` #
" } _ # > Q # ] > # Q Q K/ '
# " % # # > K`'
=' Q " Q
# { Q # " = > K`' > " > Q ] $ { # # _ Q ] _ # # > / ]" * / " _
[ Q # [ # # ~]" & # > $ # "
# " _ ] _ ] _ > { #/ __ / ]] ]" _ ] _ > ]" _ ] _ # / ]" | Q # " K #/ [ _
}&
] [ Q _ # ] _ / Q " " " Q Q # #/ / > ]" K`' / " # #" # / " ' \
# # " \
# _ #] # _ # # Q # > # ]< [ # # # Z " + # > + {] + # >
_ #
] # # "< Q / > " Q"
# # / Q Q" _ ]"<< Z # # > ^ ^ _ Q]" # _/ ] # Q # # Q"
/ /Q / # " Z # Q
Q > Q # {" 3 Q" + Q/ # # # # { #" ' / Q #
/ 3 ,
}
$ _ #/ # # #" Q # / Q # ]" _ Q
] # { "<} = K`' =' / # # Q / Q # Q " ## $ _ ] ] / # ] + \/ Q] " _ { ] + {] $ _ # # # // # # # ] ] Q # # Q #]"<% > " # Q # { # " _ # ]" ^ # # _ # ]"<* K# { # Q # { # " > _ #/ Q #
Q# ] Q # ]"<&
> Q [ # _ # ] Q" / # # // # # # # #
}|
Q # Q _ # ] #/ # # # Q # # ]" Z
_ ] * Q > > "< # Q # # { " # [ > [ # Q # # #" # / / " Q 3 =' K`'" Q Q # Q / Q
>" K`' Q [ # " ~ _ # ] # _ # #]"<| # % # ||&" / ## # _ ] # # _ Q __ ] ]] ]"< / Q Q # `/ ZQ # ` # & Q # " Q ~
_ # # ]"} / [
/ 3 ,
}
# _Q/ ] Q" Q " Q $ _ Q [ [ Q " #"]} ZQ / Q _ " " " Q # # /
]"}< _ #/ / > ]"}} + #" _ ] _ # ] _# # ]"}% Q Q # # / # _ / ]" 3 K`' # Q # Q / " # Q =' # # " " ^ / [ $ _ # " " " ]"}* > " # =' Q K`'" <% % [ # # # [ = " ] Q _ ] Q # Q ]
_ #
%
]" ^ $ _= \ > > # # " " " / ]" K`' # $ _ + " " " # / > ]" * _ # ] " \ >
# # ]" Q ' + _ / / ]"}& / " + # Q / K "
@ @K @ @+ ` @' Z`^ \ K
Z = *" / / @ "} $ # # Q # " ^ K + / Z # {" # " " # / \ ^ [ ' + = `> =`" Q
/ 3 ,
%
# $ # > # # # # # > ## # [ # [
#" K # # # # " # { Q # # > /Q " $ # # #
# Q # > # # { # { " # # Q # Q # # " Z # "
# " # > <[} " # # " $ # # > # Q # " ` # # # Q " <[} " _ # " " " ]}| " = " #
%<
# # " # $ _ " K " " " " " " #/ ]"} + Q / $ _ <[} # [ # # Q "]% ' # / # / _ ]
# / " # Q {$ _ # # # # __ ]] > # # # #/ ]"% $ # / > "
# Q #
# " _ / $ # # " " " Q " " " ]"%< # > " Z / # # >" # " # # #" @ # # "
/ 3 ,
%}
# "
^` '^K`@' K K` K ' ] + K " + Z + = + K ' \ *" # # ' Q Z ^ "%} Q K/ * + , # + # >
> " / " Q # # Q " # >/ / { " K`'
" # # # # # "
# " / _ " " " #] # _ # # " " " ]"%% = Q # Q " / # [ # _ ] [ $ _ Q
]" " Q # _ ] [ # " _> #
%%
# # # / ]"%* " $
" [
[ > # Q
# Q # / #" > # # "
# Q Q " { "%& { > "
# K`' $ _ ] # "% $ " # # > $ _ # ]"%| K`' ' ] ^ ## " _ # # { ]" ^ $ Z " > [ # # [ # / " " / # " + Q % _ ] [ > #
/ 3 ,
%*
[ > # " # K " K # _ # / # ]"* " # > " _ " " " ] { #] > _ ] _ ]"* > # > # Z ^" # " > _ ]" # # Q"
# # / " # # " = { _ ] _ # # " " " " " " ]"*< #
# [ # " { [ '# ^ # | [
" Q _ # { Q ]"*} + * > " > $ _ # Q / ]"*% ] ' # _ >
%&
{ " " "
> " Z ]"** # # " # _ # & <* Q ]*& Q" > # Q" _ # Q ] " ^
_ ]* # # # > " / Q / Q # / " _ZQ] Q # $ _ZQ Q # # Q / #" ZQ / # "]*| # " + {] = Q > Q #" Q " # / # [ [ Q # " =
#
Q # " Q Q {
/ 3 ,
%
" / " ' =' ' " / # Q " # ' @ [ Q # / #" # + = += [ @ = @= [ " @ > # " / @ _/ Q Q / #]"* # # # / "
+ @+= @ Q/ Q # # _/ ] @ > # " # #
" Q" Q # / & / # # > " Q Q # Q" # Q K / ' ='" / # #
%|
# > " / # # > " # Q # "
} Z Z ^] Q 4' \ *
Q # Q "
K K " 3 < % K }" = 4' <}* " Q Q # Q Q & Q # / " % " , Q # }* " #
#
^ " ^ & ` &. " ` Q K ^] & , #" # ' Z _ ] Q]" ' = ## ^] _ > ~ # ]"< Q # # / # # ~ % @ K # > " # # Q # Q / # " # # " " > # _ ] # @ K # #
* @ ] # / # + " { @ K # # %
*
# # > # > " # # # [ # Q" # # " K # # Q" ^ _ K # Q [ __ ]] ]"} = Q #
Q" Q Q Q #
# " ^] # " ^
Q # " / # # / " # # Q _ / Q " " " " " " ]"% Q / _ Q # ]$* _ Q Q #
]"& # ^ # # # " # _ # ]
" ^ { # " ^ # Q > _ # ] Q { # / Q #" _ / # # ]"| ^ ] + _
&# 4
*
] # _ " " " #]" _ ]
" Q # Q " Q " Q " ^ # # / # " # # # " / # / # # [ #/ " / { _ [ ]" _ # Q # #
]" " = # / > " + > # # /
Q" > # / " ^ ` { / # #/ / # " " { #/ " # " $
*<
# / " > #
>
>
> " > / # # /# # " <
^] > } _ { ] } " { > > > " # Q / # " ^ _}}% ] [ Q " # # & + $ _} " } # # % ## # ]" ^] % " Q # # # / Q [ Q K " # } # > Q # " K Q Q | _ ] < # " % ^ / # " " = / " = % [ # " = ]
&# 4
*}
# " ^ # Q
# { # _ >/ ]" * _ #] # # _ /
Q # [ # /Q ]" & $ _ Q # #
# # " " " ]" } # # " Q / / / / # #" = } K] [ ^ # Q # " } > ^] #
#" > # Q [ # " % [ [ " Q / / / #" Q Q % "
Q$ # # _ ] Q Q / Q / / " ^] # Q #$ _ < / # <* / # # Q]" | / Q # / # > # " # # # Q" Q
*%
# # Q # # / # " Q Q { # / { # _ > Q]" _K Q # Q]< _ # ]"< = Q # ^ $ # / # # Q/ # " # #
Q " Q # # > " = Q # # "<< ^] # " = > > $ _= / # #/ # #/ > / ]"<} _ / #]<% _ #
/ Q # Q]<* [ Q # # Q " = Q # #/
Q $ _ / #/ { # # ] _ # > ]"<&
&# 4
**
^ > # # $ _ # / ]"< Q > Q # _ # # # " " " # Q Q ]"<| Q # _ Q] / # # _ Q ]" ^ # " # # # $ _ Q/ + # ]"< # { # Q/ # { " # /
# # # # " ^ _ # # # Q Q # # ]"} ^ > # # #" Q # Q " _ " " " " Q Q [ Q [ " # Q # " "]} + + # + >
^ /# # # Q " _ # #
# # # # # ]"}< ^ # # # > # " + # # # >/
*&
# {
#" # $ _ [ "]}} ^ # / Q #" ^ # Q # _ # ] # _ # Q " " " # / Q # ]"}% ^ Q [ # " ^ _ Q]}* # { # { # #
Q " ^ # _ ]
# " _ ] 4' ^ / _ ]" # , ## # _ # # " " " Q # # ]"}& = _/ # # / ] "} ^ # _ ] # / # {$ " " " / # "
[ # # [ Q " Q # # "
&# 4
*
# " #/ Q " + "
# > #
> # Q # " = # "}| ## # Q
# # "} = Q / |%[* ] Q" Q _ Q Q # # \ ]"% ^] #/ # " _ Q # Q / #
] # _ / ]"% + # { # " > Q # # " Q # # _ ]"%< Q > " ZQ / # # Q " # Q Q Q " # ^ # Q Q# # Q / Q#" ZQ
*|
# Q " ` # # > / Q / "
# # #" _ # / /Q Q]%} # Q # Q " _> Q] Q]%% " ZQ _ ] # # "%* _ # " " " ] _ " " " # ] _ Q # > Q Q ]"%& Q] / # #
[ ^ Q# [ "
@`K @ ^K ^ Z K~ Q # Q " _ ] _ Q # ] _ # [ # # >] _ # # # # ] _ Q Q] _# Q ] _ Q # ]"% @ # Q/ " _ Q ]%| Q # " / ^] }}% / Q > ^]
&# 4
*
_ Q ]"% ` _ " " " # # # Q ]"* Q ] $ Q # #" Q # " Q # > " " "
" Q # "* Q # $ _ Q ]"*< _ Q # > ]" # _ # Q ]*} Q # " ] Q/ Q/ Q [ # # " ^ # [ # Q " Q # Q$ _ # / Q ]"*% K ] ($ # # > / # Q # # Q Q " Q " ^ # Q / / " # Q / # # > Q
/ "** # {
&
[ / Q " ^ > Q _ #] / " / Q # " = Q Q " # # [ # [ Q > _ ] " ^ # { # Q # # # _ Q #]*& > " ` Q # / Q " / ^] } # + # # " ZQ _ ] _ # # ] ]"* = # # Q # ## Q #" ^] # Q # # / " # Q > # #" # # Q > " ^ # Q _ Q #/ <*/ # # # #] "*| K # $ # # / / " Z # /
&# 4
&
" Q Q / # / > # ## "* $ _ # /
# # # / # ]" 'Q ^ _ " " " " " " # # ]"& @ Q # _ # _ #] "& Z # ^ ' ^ # # $ [ # # # # [ # Q / # " " " " Q # # Q # [ # "&<
`@'`K @' Z K~ @' `+ @ + @+ ^] # Q _ # # ]"&} ^ > ## # / Q #
# " Z # # Q _ ]" @ _Q # # Q # > Q Q ]"&% ^ # ] Q # ] Q" / Q" # }}% # _ /
]" # / #
&<
Q# Q"&* ^ # _ ] _ # Q # ] # " ^ # _ # Q # # # ]"&& K _ } [ ]"& # } [ % #/ " [ > Q [ " / Q # # / /
Q" # Q _ ]&| _ / Q Q Q [ Q / Q]"& Z ^ Q _ # ] Q " _ # / # # ] Q " _ # # [ # # ]" ^
_ # #] # # Q " # Q# Q # Q # # _ # # / ] # > " ^ Q ] " Q ] Q # # "
&# 4
&}
Q Q # # # _ / #] + / # Q " _ # # # Q #] Q " # / # / Q [ [
" Q Q # # $ # Q ] Q # Q # > + # Q
#
# Q " { ## Q ## # "< Q # # # { "
@+= @ @' @` # Q #$ _ Q Q > # # ]"} Z > ^] # # Q " ^ > # # # [
Q { ] (
"% ^ _ # Q Q ]"* ^
&%
Q _> ] _ # ] _ > # ]"& # _/ " " " " " " [ > ]" ^] # " 4' & # $ _` / # " " " # ]"| Z { # # # / " } [ # Q [ _ { ]" { # # Q " K _ # ]" ^ # _ ]"| # Q / # > # " ^ # { Q _ # # Q ]"| ^ " # _ ] # $ # # " # " " " /
&# 4
&*
# / / > " { # # / "|< # /
" ^ _ #/ # ]|} " ^ ## # # # " = > Q # / / # " # / " # > # > " # # " ^] # " = _ # " " " " " " ]"|% ^ Q #$ _ / # ]"|* ^ # # " Q Q" # > Q Q # " # _ # # Q ] # # _ / { ]"|& # Q ^ ## < #
# " = # # # > [
&&
# > # >" > " # Q /
" # > $ ] Q# # # # [ # Q # # " > # "| , ^ _ # ]$ Q / # #" / # " # " Q # # " Q # # # "|| Q > $ _ # # # Q # > [ # # Q # "]| Q
/ " # 4' , # " Q # Q # Q , #/ # Q #"
&# 4
&
" \ ^ $ _ # # ]" ^ _ " " " ]" _ ] [ _ ]" $ ^ # > # > # Q "
^` =~`^ '`K]= '` ^] # Q " + # " / Q # " ^ Q"
[ # # > / " # " Z / # " ^ / > " Q ] # # # / " ^ # \ # # " _ ] _ Q ]" ` # ^ >
&|
{ " ^] # / # " #
# # { # " }}% Q " ^ Q $ Q
# Q " ^ # # { # # Q/ " ^ # #
# Q # " # { / " > # / Q # # # " = [ > > " /
# $ #
# Q # " _ ] #
# " Z " Z #/ " # Q _ Q # # ] [
_ Q # ]"<
" # # #
&# 4
&
_ ]" # " ^] # # # " ^ / " ^ Q/ # # # #" Z Q # @ ] # ] = # \ & \ _^ ] "} @ # ^ [ # # [ > "% $ _Z # # " > ]"*
% = Q # + & Q # # # # " # > _ Q ]" ` ] # Q " ] = = # + # Q " + Q/ # Q" Q Q #
# #" # ' Z _ #] _ # ]"< K ## Q # # Q # Q # } = # # Q # "% ~ " { Q Q/ # > " # # Q # _ # # ] Q # / _ # ] _ / / ] [ "* Q/ # _ " " " ] " _ #
Q # # " " " # ]"& = Q # Q Q # # / " { # # Q ^ # # # Q" \ _ Q #] " {
- ,
_# ] /
# # " + Q # > / $ Q
Q Q #/ " # # # / # # # " ` _ Q #] _ # Q > Q / # # ]" Q # ^ " \ ~ # Q/ # " Q # + # > > "
\ ^@ ~$ =~`^ '@ @' + K K` =++`== } ~ /
, # " " ^ # # / #" Z Q [ [ Q > / #" / # Q > # { Q# > # > #" Q # " ~ # Q" Q $
" Q # # > " # " Q
<
# Q" # # # " # # ~ ] #" ^
# # _ / Q # # ]"| = / # Q"
#
~ # > "
~ Q
Q" # " = / / # > #/ # " #/ _ / ] _ # # # ]" / # Q # Q #
" _ / " " " # ]" > Q / # _ ]" K # 'Q ] # " Z Q / # " ~ # [
- ,
}
~ " # Q/ # " @ _
]" _ #
# Q # # # ]" " Q _ ] >
] # " _ ] > > # # " # _ ] > _ # # ]" = > _ ]" < # # # #$ _ ] _ ] >
" # ~ # # Q/ # #
Q #" ~ / # # # " # / " } / $ # Q/ ] # ~ Q # " _ ]" ~ # $ _
Q# ]" _ #
%
]" % ^ # # " @ # " K # # # _ ] Q" Q _ / #]" * # # Q # " _ __]] Q # # Q Q]" & ~ # #
# _ # Q # Q]" # / # > { _ ]" # Q
#/ / / Q #" # >
{ " / Q " Q Q " / " + / { " > " Q # ~ Q _ / # ]" | " { / # _ #
- ,
*
# { ]" ~
{ #/ # #
" # # _ #] _ # / ]"< # / Q _/
# ] # _ # ] #
_ # ]"< Q Q > # { # _ / ] # _ ] # / " Q " > # #" ` /
> #] # $ _ " " " # { # # { ]"<< _ ]
Q Q " # # # # " # ~ ] # " _ # # # # # / /
# Q / ]"<} _ ]" _ ]
/ # _ ] _ # Q Q]"<% Q # # # "
&
# &"<* ^ ~ _ ] _/ Q / ] > \ @ = # = { # Q Q # " # @ K #" ~ _ Q # { @ K # # ]"<& _` Q #] _# ] _ # # ]
_ # # ]"< / ~ ] @ K #$ @ K # " @ K # / [ # " { [ # " @ K # [ > # " > [ " " # Q / " " " " # Q # Q Q"<| #" / @ K # / # / " / @ K # #" ^ Z ` > Q " ~ # # / "< # # { @
- ,
K # { Q # ~ @ K #] " = _ ] > / > # # " # Q [ [ Q Q " / " # " { # # " ~ #
# " Q _ ] _
]" # ~ _ / ]" Q # ~ # [ `{ " + > # { _ ]} # # " " ~ # > # _ " " " / # " " " ]"} =
" ~ _
# # { # # ] _ Q " " "
# ]"}< @ K # { # ~ " + # # # Q
|
" ~ _ # ]"}} ^ # # / _ {{] Q # # " ~ #
{ # " / " # ~ ] Q # # #/ # # " \ + # Q
Q "}% ~ #
" # Q > " _ ] Q Q # Q/ # # " = # # _ / ] # _ ] # _ #/ ]"}* ^ { / " ~ ] > # # # [ # [ " # # " @ # > " @ K # Q Q Q" Q/ # # #
> " + " + { Q #
- ,
# # _ # # # ]}& ' ~ ] _ ]"}
^` K$ K @ K =`K \ + / # 2 2 5 @ " ^/ ' > # # Q + }| / "} @ _ Q #] _ # > ]" ~ + _ ]"% Q + = \ + K" " # " # / ] " # # ] # $ # ] " # Q / ~ $ _ ] # # " $ # / / # #/ # # # Q # " # / # # _ # ]"% # #
|
" ` ]
# # " Q # " # # # / " Q _ # " " "
# #
# #/ ]"%< _/ # # Q ]"%} ^ Q / # / # _ __ ]] ]"%% _ # / ] Q _ #/ / ] "%* + # " _> # ]" # _> ] # Q" # Q/ + ## _ # # # # Q # # #] [ # / # " ^ _>/ ] " # > # # { " Q # /# # _ # # Q]"%& / { Q/ " ^ # #
- ,
|
# / # " # _ Q
# # ]"% # / # @ K #" _ Q]" # Q Q _Q Q ] ]"%| + / # ] # /
#$ # # Q
Q " Q / " = Q Q # Q # " # #"% # Q Q # " # _/ ] _ # >
> " " " " Q
> ]" > # > Q # # $ _ # / # # # #
Q Q " # # # Q/ # ]"* # # # # Q "* _ # Q #] _ # / # / ] # ] #/ ]"*<
|<
> { Q " # ] Q
] _ Q > { [ Q [ # {]"*} = Q # " # > _ ]*% ## # " + # _ # {]"** > > # > Q"
> " Q ^ + _ # ]"*& # " Q _ > / # > Q]"* # Q # [ # # " + # # " # / " " ` # _ ] > Q Q / / " > " /Q > / # > # " Q # # /
{ # # # " # / #
- ,
|}
> # _ ]*| " # # = Q K @ ] # $ _= Q # # # " Q @ Q
" " " @ ] Q # " " " Q # " + ]" #] # _ Q #] _ Q #]" ^ _ / " Q " # # / # # ]"* # > #
Q " / # Q # #" = Q # $ # Q Q #
> "
K'+ =~`^ '@ Q # " + Q # \ Q = + + " + Q # / # # # # Q " 6 - 4 - , # # - # # " #/ # #/ # # #
|%
Q [ _ ] [ _# # # ]"& #/ $ # Q # # Q" Q Q " " > Q Q Q > " = Q #/ [ " = Q # " = Q # # / " # "& / > Q #
" / Q] Q # # Q" Q # Q # +$ _ / Q # Q Q / # Q # ]"&< K # # { # / / " Q # / _ # # Q ]" ^ # >
# # > $ _ Q # # ]"&}
- ,
|*
^] # # + ~ ] [ ~ + / ^ # " # ~ " Q # " Q # # Q # # Q/ " # Q " + # $ _ # ]"&% + # # Q # " Q # # " " ~ #
#" + # _ Q ] # # # ] ]"&* Z / Q Q " Q # " + ## # # " # @ ` Q
|&
Q # $ / " Q # " = + ] + # " K _ #] #/ # # # +] # # / "&& ^ # _ #
# ] /# _ ] "& @ ` # # +" @` |& _ ] # # " / Q Q #"
] # # Q # { $ _ Q Q ]" Z Q # _ # Q]"&| # # _ # # # Q Q ]" = Q _ Q / " @ # Q #
# ]"& " # ~ ^ + # "
- ,
|
# # # Q Q _ Q ]
# " # _ / ] Q " Q # # " Z 4' * ^ {
#
# " ^
_ Q # > ] _ / # # / ]" #
# Q # "
+ @+= @ Q # # Q / #" `> # { Q # # / _ ] / Q" = Q _ ] #" / _ ] # # " " = #
] & + " / # Q # " = Q/ # # Q
||
# # # Q |" # # Q #
# { # / Q # "
* + K = Q Q Q$ " / $ Q { Q" # # _ ] Q " Z # " _+ ] # # " # ~ ` ` ` ` " / # " # ## _ Q ] _# ]" _+ ] # / / "< `{ \ #
# " # Q/ Q" `{ ] # , ' # K "} # @ K # @ Q/ Q # Q" 1 ( # ` + = " ' 4- = Q 2 ' " |
\ = # | # / # } &" Q # " Q # + " ] Q # `{ #
@ " K`= @=` + @K@= $ ` @ # , # # Q ="% 1 * (
# # # > / # # "* # " `{ _ / ] # / " # , { # # > # _ ]" 1 * ( # / $ _ # / #
#/ # Q # ## ]"& # _ # ] #" _ ]" # # " # / `{ ] " ^ # $ + Q / " +
, (
# " " " " + / # > "| Q # { " * _ " " " # ]" & # _ Q/ ] Q / ]" # _ ] #" _ Q] _ # # # / Q ]" # $ _ ] _ # #
Q] # # _ # # ] " # ] Q _ # > ]" < Z _ # # # # # ]" _ / # / ]" } # [ # `{ Q
# # # Q _ ]" K _ # # / / ]" % `{ ] #
_ # ] # # _] " / # { " `{ # _ # ] # # { " * +
<
_ # # ]" _ # $ Q # # ]" & /
{ > {
" { Q / / # " _ # #] # _ # ] Q # / " _' # ] Q # # # # _ Q " " " # Q / ]" # " / " Q # _ ] #
# _ # ] $ _ # Q # Q]" | / " # #
Q # " Q Q
# Q / / Q > / " # , ## / > " / # > / _
]" 1 * ( Q " ^] #
, (
}
## Q # _ > ] Q" = { " # , `{ ## # # { " # > $ _ # Q ]"< `# # # # $ = # " " " " # " " " # # # # / # "< ` { _
# # ]" + # " # [ > [ # " / { _ > # / # ## > ] [ Q # [ # "<< { # " ^ " Q # Q $ _ # # / Q # # ] Q ] ]"<} / $
%
ZQ " " " / Q Q Q # Q / # " + { / # # > Q / { "<%
`{ ] / $ # / " " # Q # /
Q" @ Q > " `{ _] # / # _ ] # # Q "<* ^ # # / Q {{ # Q " # _ #] [ # Q [ # # # # " Z `{ _] #
_ # ]<& _] Z > # Q `{ " ' # # _ # # #]"< ^ # _ #] # # > # " /
/ #
, (
*
# / _ # Q " " " " / # > / ]"<| # #" Q Q # # Q " # # # # # ## Q " ## / # Q > " = > Q [ ] # [ " Q # Q Q Q Q `{ ] " `{ ] " " Q " + " > # # # " `{ _ Q ] #$ ]"< ^ # # " `{ # Q # Q # # " / _ # # Q # ]"} Q _ ] "} _# ] # _ #]"}< $ ] _ # ]"}} # Q #
`{ ] # "
&
" #
# " `{ # { " ^ # Q /
#" # # # # # # {] # # " _ ] _ #]"}% _K Q # ]" # $ _ > #
# # Q ]"}* = # / # " `{
# # / " # # # / { # # `{ #" # # " `{ / [ / / # $ _ # ]"}& # # # " # / # " # / Q # # # " Q # # " ` # / #
, (
" ^ # Q " > # # " Q Q " # # _ # #
# ] # # > > # "} # # $ _ # # > __ ]] # [ __ ]] "] `{ ] _ ]$ _ __ ]] Q Q ]"}|
+ @K@ `K= $ \ ^@ K `{ # #
" # # / # " _ / ] _ # ]"} / > `{ # Q
# Q # " ^ # # {
" # _ # / Q # ]"%
# @ K #"% #
|
@ Q/ Q / @> " # ] Q # @ ] #" #
# ##" / > # Q [ [ ' ='" # > K`' " # ] / / @ K # Q" ^ > / # # # / #" ^ Q @ K # _ Q / # ]"%< / # @ K # # { Q # # Q " _# " " "
] _ # Q # #]"%} ` / Q / #" # " # @ K # _ ]"%%
" Q _ / ]"%* Q " _ Q # # # # "]%& # " Q
, (
Q" # Q " `{ # # " Q _ Q # > ]% [ ## # Q" _ ] _ # Q # ] "%| + # Q " # Q "% + # # # / / " # / $ _Z _ Q] # " " " # # ]"* ^ _ ]"* _ # / # ] _ # # #]" _ { #] _ ]"*< Q > Q # " Q ## Q > "*}
_ # # ]"*% Q `{ # " ## Q `{ / > # > " 1 ( # _ # ] > " # # _ / ] " / _ " " " Q / Q ] _ # # # # Q ]"** = # { " ] # _ # ]"*& # ## Q # # " = _ / # Q ]"* ]
{ ## / " _ ] _ ]"*|
Q _ Q Q ] _ Q # # ]"* $ _ Q > Q / ]"& = # $ _ > # > ]"&
, (
] Q ' ='" ' # _ ] _ ] _ ] "&< # # > " Q _> # __ ]] > ]"&} _> ] @ K # "&% = > _ # / ]"&* =' # # # [ # > > " _
Q # Q] # _ ]"&& ] # # # / " _
# > # "]& ^ # # # Q # _ Q / / ]"&| # # { ## Q # # " ^ # # =' / Q _ / #
]& # # Q " ] =' # # { " # Q" ^ # { / # [ # { > Q # " ## # / ## # Q" ^ > #"
<
> # { > / / {" = _ # >]" /
$ # # # # " _ # / # Q # ]" ] Q / K`' # # / # # #" 1 ( # # Q # Q # Q " _ # # ]" # # # $ _ " " "
# # Q
]" / # # # _ ]
$ _ # " " " " " " " #/ /# ]"< 2 Q # "} / / " = _ # ]" # # " { [ # # { > [ " Z / " Z Q # # { " = #
, (
}
# " # _ / # Q # ]"% # Q" # Q # { " @ K # / # _ # Q # > ] _ # { ]"* # > # _ ] # " ` _ / # # > ] # "& # # # " # # " ^ { @ K # / @ K #
# " Z # # Q ^ Q / / { # [ # " ^ #
> / Q K# =" # # @ K # Q" = # /
" # /
Q " Z # [ # #$ " " " # / # > " Q " # # # #
%
" # # #/ # # # # # " ^ _ ] / # Q / # " Q $ _ Q # / # # ]"| { Q # _ # Q # ]" ^ Q Q Q Q {/ {/ " #/ { Q Q" # #" K # / # # *" " # Q # _ ]
/ *"
Z $ +/ +/K #
, (
*
+ # " # _ ] Q ]"| + $ _ #/ # # # [ # [ Q # " " " @ ]"|
+^K=@ + @K@= $ \ ^@ + KK + \ " Z / +
+ " / # # # " + = ] / \ \ Q = ' + ' + ] = + # ] " # + # # _ ] >
/ " = / # _ ] / _ ] # # "|< ] " =
# # "|} `{ # " #
&
# # " # # # " # ] $ _ / # Q ' \ # " " " ~ # Q " " " # ] _ # ]"|% # / # $ _Z Q + ]"|* # # { / $ ` #" ^ # # #" " = # / / " Z #" # " # / " Z # # #" ` " " " " # # # "|& ^ # # #" # # # " _ ]" + _ # / ]"|
, (
# Q " " # # [ / " " ^ / #
^ " # # # " ] # " _ Q #]"|| +/ * #
# # # "| # $ / # # " Z _ ] [
_ ] # " # # # " # " # " `> # [ # # [ # ] " + / { > $ " " + Q# " ] Q [ " + / _ ] _ Q
|
/ ] / ## " # > " " _ _
" " " " " " ]" @ Q / # " ^ # # $ Q " Q # $ _ # Q # " " " " ZQ
# > ]"< # \] " ` " + [ # [ " # " > { " / " ^ # { / { " _
]
> [ "} ^ # { > # {" _ " " " ] _ # # >]"% ^ # # # " Q > "
# # _ ]"*
, (
$ _
]
_ " " " # Q ]"& Z > # " > " Z > " _ # # # " " " # > ]" # { # # _ # ] # / "| # _ #
] # { " = # / > " # / /Q# > " # " # _ # ]"
# / " # _ ] # # # # # Q " \ # _ Q]" Z _ # {
]" < # Q # # # # # $ _ ]" } # > " `> " # Q # Q " " # # > [ [ " Q `{ / _ ] % [ #"
+ @+= @
# " # # Q Q " / # # " # # [ #
# # / " # [ # `{
#
" / # '" # + K`' =' ' / # # Q #
, (
" Z # ' > >" + / Q " ' " `{ ' Q # '
=' ] # K`'" #
" # @ "
& @ @ ' ^` K K` @ @' ^` ^K' Z * & Q # " @ @ K # _ ] _ ] " + * _ > #]" / # # #" # Q" / Q " Q # #$ _ ] _ # ] " = >" / " 1 %. + 1 _@ @ K # # # " # ]" / # " ' @ K # / # # ] " ' # # " @ K # " Q \ @ @ K # / # / Q # " # @ K # Q <
1 %. + 1
}
# ] _ # ] @ # # Q # # " K# { # Q / # @ > / " @ K # { _ Q] _# { ]" # / # Q > # # #" # Q > # # " # " @ Q$ _ # ] # _ Q ]"< # _ Q Q] _# Q ]" _> ] / _ # ] [ _ # # # ]"} Q # @ Q # " _@] Q " _@] _ ] # _] " _# ] _ ] _ ]" @ #" _ > ] @ _ ] # _ ] _ ]" Q /Q { # " _ { ]% # @ > + Q K ^ / # " /
@ _ ] + " > # _ ] > $
%
Z # > > #" / Q _ Q # ]" Q # # Q " # " # ] # # Q#"* _## # # ] _ # / > " " " ] Q" _ / # # " # # Q ]"& @ _ / [ # Q #]" + { @ ] [ ] [ # { Q "|
" Q # # { Q # #
# " ' # Q " Z / > # " > > # / + # # # # " " & + $ _# " @ Q" " " ]" ` _ ] Q # / # "
1 %. + 1
*
#
# _ ] _ ] _ ] [ @ # # " ` / # { # "
=~`^ '@$ =K`+ K`K` @ # " > # # # ] # " Q/ # Q > ^] " Z Q Q # \ & ^ # $ Z " # Q # " = Q `
# # >" # " ^ # Q Q #
# Q " ^ _ # # # ] # _ " " " / Q ] ]" ' # / " Q Q > Q " ^ # _ # Q # ]"
&
Q # # Q # Q $ _ " " " Q # Q # ]" Z _ # Q ] _ Q ]" # # # Q # Q
" _ Q/ ] _ ] > $ _ # " " " " # # ]" _
] _ Q # / / Q]" # _# Q ] _ # Q ]" Q # Q # # # Q # " Z #] 4 7 %. 8 # ] _ Q # ] _ / / #] + #/ # _# __ ]] ] _ " " " # ]" Z # + ^ ] _+ / ] ## _ Q # Q ] # _ / # ]" + $ _ #/ Q # Q ]" _ ## { ] _ " " " / Q # # ]" < ^ Q # { # " ' Z # Q ^ # / # " } 4 7 , 8 # Q _ / Q
" " " Q __ ]] # > ]" ^ ] Q #
1 %. + 1
# # > _ ] # # Q _ + Q Q / # { ]" % ' #] - ,# / Q # Q # #" * ^ # Q # # # # # { _ " " " ]
_ Q # # ]" & > # # # # Q$ _ # ] _ # # ]" Q _ Q Q ]" | # Q _ ] _ ] _ ] _ / Q ]" ' # # Q / [ # Q [ { Q " Q Q # Q Q " ' #] Q Q #$ Q ] " [ # # @ [ Q #" # _ # Q ] $ _ Q]" Q # #$ _ # # " # Q/ [ Q ]" = Q # _ Q/ ] + "
|
K @=`+K ` ^] # #
" 4' > " & " # # # _# # > ## __ ]] Q Q # ]"<
` ` # Q <* * #" ## \ Z # # "< + # Q
# #" # # " # > Q # > # " { " _\ " " " Q ] _ ] ] _ / ]"<< _ ]"<} Z # " = # Q #
# " # '
+ Z > " + ] <% < Q # _ ] [ [ " Q # _ / " # ]"<% ^ Q # Q #" #
1 %. + 1
+ # "< " " / # # # #" # Q # " + < Q # # # < # " Q # _# ] > # # # / " + # } { # Q# # " # # / Q # Q" | / # " ^ ] # _ # # Q #/ Q >
] ]" _ Q # # # #/ # ]"<* ^ # " # _ ] Q # # ] _ # ]" _# # # " " " Q > Q # ]" ^ / ' # > # _
> # ## #
]" _ #
<
/ ]"<& # # ' + > _ Q] ^ >/ " # / Q
# _ Q #] # " # # # " @ # " _ ] # { _ # ]"< Q # _ /
> Q # # ] _ # #]" # `] > / # " Q Q " ` $ _# # # ]"<| _ ] $ _ Q # / # " # Q ]"< # _ " " " # Q Q # Q
] _ " " " # " " " # ] ]"} Q" K # " _ Q ]"}
1 %. + 1
<
[ Q Q _ ]" # # " _ # #]
" _ #
]"}< _ # ] # / > Q _ #]"}} Q # Q
" _# Q ]}% _ / Q ]"}* # # _ # ## # # ]"}& # _ ]"} Q Q Q $ _ # Q Q
# Q " # Q Q #]"}| = # # # " Z _ #]}
# Q Q " # # _ # [ [ ]" Q _Z " " " Q # # Q # # / ]"% # > # "
+ @ _= ] $ ] / " / #
<<
`{ " Q # Q `{ " _@ ] ] _ " " " Q ] _# ] # "% _K / # # ] Q ]"%< _@ ] ] ~ \ ] Q Q " _ Q ] _ # # ] # _ ] _ #
]"%} = `{ _ #/
]"%% _=# ]"%* " _ # # # ]"%& _ # ]
_ # # #
]"% _ " # #" # / " Q # ]" / #" \ Q = _ # " # # # # > # ]"%| @ _ # ]" K " ] _ #
1 %. + 1
<}
] / # _ / ]"% \ Q = " ' # _ ] _ Q Q/ # ]"* # _# # ] [ # # # / # + _# ]" + { # # " / Q# " - 6 , ( 6 3 $ _Z # Q # ]" Q / $ _ # # ]"* # # #" _ # # "]*< # _ " " " ] / # ]"*} @ & # _ #] _# # #]" # { # [ ## # # ] # { " / # $ _ # ]" K # _ Q # # > ]
_ # ]" # _ / # ]" # _ ] # " / _ #]
<%
_ # ] _ # # {]" # _
# Q ]" # # # # / " Z # Q > # @^= > # _ # / # ]" _ ] # _ # # ] _ Q ] #]" _ ] # " Q
# " + [ $ _ " " " " " " ]"*% # $ _ Q # / ] _ ]** _ # # / # # ]"*& / # $ _ / Q # Q " > / # " " " #/# ]"* Q # _{ ] # # _ / ] _ ]" " * = 2 0 % _ / # > ]" # [ # > Q "
1 %. + 1
<*
+ *| " 2 0 % _+ ] _ / ] # > " + ' " + # # " " ] [ Z = `# # # / # { Q # # " / # # / " +
[ > # [ " > > # # # Q " Q # $ _ ]" _ { ] Q # # # " _ # ]"* + [
# [ Q #" " _ # # ]"& _ ] / # { " ` / / # # # { #" # { Q / " + +# Q # _ # / #
<&
# # ]" # { / @ ] # _ #] # _ ]" _ ]& _ > { Q ]" { # #
" _ # Q { ]" + { [ _/ ] [ #$ _ # / { Q ]" _ ] # " $ _ Q # ]"&< { _ ] " ## _ Q ] ## _ ]$ # # # " ` # # [ # # " ]
Q "&} _ ] " [ "
" # # " > Q " [ # #
1 %. + 1
<
# Q [ >" _ ] _ ] #" $ Q # # # " Z # # # # / " " " # # Q # "&% = + / _ / Q #] # # " + # # $ ] # " "
_ ] " _+ ] #/ / # # " #
# Q # #"&* = + _ # ] _ ] _ # # # ]"&& Q # " # # #
"
` ^ @ ] { # Q > K / > / `{
# ] " Z K`' # > " Q Q =' Q" @ ' Q [
# '" = `> =` > # '" @ ' =` { " #
# " # #
"
^` ^ K K`' # > Q + # " # < > > " <|
/ 9
<
/ Q " =
# # < " ] > + { # # " / # / # " @ # < # > Q/ " < > * # # @
> % # >" +
# # # > / = # & / " " # {/
_ Q Q / > ]" ] _ ]" ^ # # [ / " # <
Q " / < Q # > _ # ] Q #" < / " # _ ] [ # " < # > _ #] # # / {"
}
< ## [ [ # " / ' # # # >
# > / # _ ]" Z ' # # # / # # " + # / { " # # # [ # > Q # " ` / # { #" # # [ " _ ` ] < [ # " Q # # / Q # / # #" # # # Q Q/ # # " Z # # Q " ] # # # Q " / # # Q # { # _ ] Q " # " ` # # # \ & # / . + / 4 -"
/ 9
}
] # # K`' ='" * Q # # #" | / # Q" & / # & " * |"<* "* <|"&*" #
< # # % <<" < ] / # * | # Q" ` #/ =`K= < ] #" & # # Q #
" # [ # =`K= [ > / # # " _ Q ] [ /
# > # / Q # / Q" ] Q Q =`K= Q # Q" ` @ # Q # / # # # / " # " Q # [ Q # " _ Q] { # # # # Q " Z # Q " # ## # {]
}<
Q #" = # > # " ^ # # # #" # _ #] " ] Q + # @
#/ "< # / Q Q " & + + # # # Q =`K= > ^ " # + + ^ " Q/ / # " = > _ ] _> # ] [ " # + + # # Q # " Z | ] Q " @ ] # / <
* # " = # #
[
# # ^ " ## K Q # # =
# # #
/ 9
}}
# / " # # # # Q # #" ^ # /
Q # # Q$ _ Q / [ Q [ > Q # #]"}
^`K=`]= = =@' ] # Q / " K ^ "% # Q# { \ = @ ~ Q |} ^ ] ~ Q] " = ~ Q^ _ Q] / # ~ Q / #/ # ^ " ^ # _ > # ] # @ ] ^ " [ [ # / # " ^ ] # # + # $ _ # # " Z ]" ^ / / [ # _/ ] # Q \ # " Q _^ # # # " " " # #]"* ^ Q Q # 2 $ _ # " " " # > #
}%
# # " " "
/ # Q] ] " ^ ] _ > # # ] Q] #/ _ # # < # Q # # # ]" ^ # / $ Q # # Q # Q # Q " `# # # _ # ]
# $ @ Q
# " " Z " # / " #" " _ ] $ _ Q ^ # < # # ]"& Q _ # ] ] * " ]
^ ] # + # # # " Z + ] # # # + # _ > ] [ ] _ ] @ ] # _ ]"| @ K # # # |
/ 9
}*
# _ " " " ]" > $ _ /
Q ] # " "] + # *& # Q # / { # / / # " # " _ ] $ _ " " " ]" _Q " " " ] _ Q ## ]" _ # ] " = # _ #] _ # ] [ # " $ _ Q " " " ] # _#
] # _ ]" ` Q # $ _
]" ^ $ _
# " @/ ]" ^ > # # #
" ^
# # " Q
#
}&
$ _ > "
Q # # ] [ ^ / " ] " # " _ Q Q] [ * _ ]" + # _ # ] " # Q $ _`# / " " " > Q]" ] _/ Q
] _ " " " Q Q ]" ^ Q K`' ='" # [ # [ " Q " _ Q] "
{ $ _ ] _ ] Q" ^ _# ] # _ # > Q] # _ # Q # ]" # $ _Z Q ]" ] / " K # Q [ + # [ # " Z # _ ]
/ 9
}
_ # # #]" Z Q K # > # " # _ Q # / # Q/ Q # ] # _ ]" < ] " = ' + `> * _ ] &< # Q Q " Q _ ] # $ / # |&" { ^ Q # " = _ > Q # ]" } + `> Q ' / Q > Q # # Q" ` # " ] # > # ' " # ' # # / $ > / " @ # # = Z " / # @ > ] _ ] ]" # ' ] " K # # > " ^ Q [ [ # # " ^ _ # >] % " # '
}|
] " # # # # # { " + > [ = Q # # #" ' ] _Q] "
=']= @`Z '` ^ # Q # # > " @ ' Q \ # #/ > > { " = `> # ' " Z Q # = `> =' '" ] # Q # ] " Q # { #
{ # [ # _ / ] [ " # _ ] # # / > Q / # # # <& # # /Q " # _ # / ] _ #
# ]" * Q Q _# Q Q]" &
/ 9
}
" _ Q " " " Q ] _Q / ] = _Q / /]" # Q Q > Q #" / Q # # $ # # | <% #/ "# > " # ` = Q > / # " % { " ` # > &/ /Q > # Q" Z Q # Q # ` Q _ ]" {
" = / " _ ] # # # " \ * Q
# <* " # _# ] < Q > # Q > " # # [ # #/ [ " # # <* # " ^ Q # # " / #" # # @ ' / # " #
%
Q ^ / & ## \ = Q \" # / # #
'== ` = # " / # @ " + / # # ` " < / / / " / # #
# # " _` > ] # # " / #
Q Q / Q # { # @ ' " @ ' @ + / # # / # " / # Q # #
# " ` Q Q /Q + " # # Q #" ' ] Q Q # ] #
Q [ # # " / " # # #
/ 9
%
Q " ^ # > $ _ Q # # # # " # ** Q | Q # " Z > Q + ] # Q ]" K @ ' # <* " / Q # " + @ ' # > # \Q] % #
Q Q # / @ ' " # [ # # # [ " \ _ # Q # # ] # " # Q" #
/ " Q" # @ ' # Q " #" # # @ ' " > # # " < #
# # #" # + > # "
%<
+
# <& Q > " # # _ ] # \
^ \" $ " Q # " @ " # / ` =
Q # # / " K \ Q # ## # $ Z #
Q Q" ] Q = > Q Q " " " " | Q # # ] # / # Q Q # " +/ # #" > Q # + # #/ " ' ' # " Q Q " `@@ @` K`@= @ & "
/ 9
%}
/ +
# Q" + *"&*" # #" ' = Z / + # # " ' %* # # + " / '
# # + # Q" ^
# " > # # Q # # " ## " Q # Q# # " + ## #
" # > =' ' ] " ^ ] \ ^ # # '" #/ # # K`' # Q # > # ='" Q # ~ # # Q _/ # ] #" K
> Q Q #" ^ ] @ ' Q
# * Q " $
%%
# Q Q Q # /Q " ^ @ ' " ZQ / Q " ^ # _ # Q ] { _ # * # #
]" Z @ / $ { _ / #/ # # # # ]" ^ ] > '" Q / [ # # _Q ]" Q # _ Q [ > ]" = _ Q # ]" = " ^ _ @ ' # Q] # #" > @ ' / # Q # # [ # + =] Q ] _ # ]" # Q # " # / / = +
Q" / Q Q Q # _ ] " Z Q # > # Q # @ '
/ 9
%*
" # # " Z # # ## # _ " " " Q # / $ # # ]
# "
@' Z K~ + Q" Q # # Q" Z _ Q # ] Z # _ Q # # ]" @ ' " ^ # # / / / " Z _ Q # ] ]" Q# # { # Q" # # Q # { > # { #" / # " / Q# Q # _ ]" # # { " Q# # # # > " / # Q # # { # Q" ^ ] # { Q # Q >" Z Q
%&
/ # # Q # # " > Q" # Q Q " ^ ] / Q # # Q" Z / {
[ # / { " Q # " = # Q #"
# # { " # ] # / # " # Q
_ ] # # # # Q # #" _ # # Q # ]"< > ## #
Q$ # ] _ # ]"< ## # $ _Q # # / " " " > # ]"<< ] Q # ## Q Q $ _ ] # _ Q # # Q]"<} > ] # # # Q " + /
Q [ Q " Q ] # { / Q Q #
/ 9
%
Q # Q Q { " Q # Q " Q # > Q _ { ] [ [ " # # Q # # / Q " > " # _ " " " ]"<% > { Q # _ # Q]"<* # / _ #/ ]"<& $ _ Q # Q Q
]"< Q$ _ ] # # Q # Q # "
^` = + `+= @ @ = > # ' Q # > " _ # # / ]" = `> Q Q / # " # Q # > Q " ` ' = + # Q # @" / " / / / # Q # ] Q" ^ # ` ~
%|
= = = ` ` \ ^ + ^ K K " > _ Q Q # #
Q]" ] Q _ # # Q > ] _ # # # / # Q # # /
]" / # > # #/ # # > [ / / " # > " > # > # # _ { ]
_ # # / # # # / Q ]" | _ # / ] Q # > # # _ # ] _ # Q # > ]" # #" > # # Q # ' # " > Q > # " > = `>/ # ^ ^ @ + = `> +=` = ` ` = K + = `> $ _ __ > ]] >" Z
/ 9
%
Q " Z # Q # " Z / ]" # / _ >/ Q ]" = # > " _ ] _ # # ]" > _ # # { Q
]" Q K`' =`] =' '" _ Q # Q ] # > # #" > _ ] # " Q ^ ]
# ] # Q $ _ ] _ : # / ]" ^ # _ > Q # # # ]" Q +/ / # K K / + #
Q / # # # # # _ Q > Q]" > _ # ]$ / Q # # _} # " " " # > # #
*
]" # Q #" Q Q " # # Q
_ # ] / # _ # ]" # Q # > [ " # Q # # # > " Z = `> ' [ ] [ # _ # #
]"<| > # ='
' # $ ] Q Q > Q Q " ] # Q # ] # Q " Z ] # # # # > " # " # # "< ] # Q # _# ] / [ # " # = `>
# =' '" Q @ ' # Q" ' # = ## Q [ > # Q" _ Q # " " " // QQ # # # ]" +
/ 9
*
# Q " ## # _ # # # Q / # ]"} ^ +=` Q $ ZQ ] Q > " ZQ "
" ZQ # #" " " " ZQ " Z / # Q" / #
Q" ZQ [ Q /
" " " " ZQ # # # " ZQ Q" Q Q #" # Q " # > ^ ] _ #
Q #]"
# ' ='$ _ " " " /
> # ]" ^ { > # $ " $ Q Q # #" $ # Q / # # [ # #
/ # " / Q" @ ] Q # > $
*<
> > # Q >" # Q # # Q #" > # Q # # # # # / Q/> "} # Q# K`' / " " ' Q Q # ='" _ # ] [ / Q #
" " # # / #" ^ # Q # Q / #" ##/ Q _ # ]
# # = K +Q] # ## "
^` '` = + K Q = `> / # ' ' / @" " @ # ' Q > " & > # _ # > # $ # #
/ 9
*}
Q]"}< Q K`'" _ # / Q # #"] _ ] [ > Q " # ='$ > # _ Q # # # > ]" + " Z & # # ' # _ # ] # # $ _ / # Q # # / Q Q ]"}} '
K`' # " ~# # _ > >
# ] & > _ " " " ]"}% # > >
" ^ _
# # > ] _ Q / ]"}* ^ # # > " ^ ~/ # $ _ ~ Q # ]" ^ ## / $ _ Q " " " / ]"}& # _ # # > # ]"} # _ # " " " #
*%
Q # # # ]"}| # { > # _ Q ]"} > # $ _> # " " " $ #
/ > # > / ]"% `> # Q / $ Q ^ /
" ZQ _ ] _ # Q Q ]"% Q # $ _ Q # Q > % / Q Q / ]"%< _ # # # Q
Q Q ]"%} # > # Q # $ _ Q # " # {
]"%% # Q Q # _ Q
# # Q Q]"%* # ] ] # " _ # /
] _ #
# ]"%& _ # # # Q # ] # _# Q / ]"% _
/ 9
**
Q # Q #]" # # / _ Q # # ] # #]"%| Q # " ^] } _ ] >" # > / | $ _ * #/ # [ ]"% ` Z " # ] # # / " ^
_ ] # #
> _ # # / Q # ]"* @^= # / " ^ # > Q # # #$ _ # > Q]"* _ ] _ Q# Q ]*< [
# # # ` + ] "*} # ] # @ ] > Q/ { " # # " ^ $ _ Q # ]" # # " _ # # # " # #
*&
# # ]"*% / > # _ ] _ # #]"** " _ # # ]"*& _ ] _ { " " "
]"* # # " _ #
# # # " " " Q/ ]"*|
K@ ~@ +~= =' ' # # # # " #$ _ > > "]* ^ Q _ # / ] # _ ]"& \
# Q # " $ = [ " Q
Q" "
/ " Q # # # # / [ Q " "& = # # [ #
[ # " \ + = \ #
/ 9
*
] _ # ] [ # #"&< # [
[ " # # > / " @ ] # " Q { " # $ _` Q ]"&} K &% / { # =' Q ' [ / / Q " Q
> Q" > # / # _ ] # > Q" =' # # / " " # Q # # # =' '" / ) Q Q Q Q " + ] > * ## #$ _ ] ## { "&* ^ ' #
" K / /Q # { / > " > / # /
*|
# > Q [ #
# [ / " Q > Q" # # # / Q + * ## [ Q Q Q # Q " # Q / # [ # Q " Q" [ Q/ [ Q # " = Q " Q _ ] # " Z Q Q $ {
{ "
| ' # = ^ # / < <<" Q Q / Q
Q " @ / > [
> Q " # > K`' =' ' # # " / " ] # # > " = # > " / Q K`' Q = `> K`' =' '" / _ ]
Q / [ "
Z`K` Z K~$ ^` `Z K =' Q = `> K`' =' '" Q # " K`' / =' Q ' Q " # $ / / *
&
# # # # " # # " / # " =' # # # Q # Q # #" # #
@ ' > # # / " # # <* # # @ ' # " \Q] " | @ ' " # # Q # " ` # # # Q# # # " #
> " #
Q + ] [ = [ # > " = # " / Q # `
= # Q " Z = # ` = " #" ' ~ = # # " Z Q > =' # > #" K # =' # # #
&
Q" ^ / # # " # Q # # " ## Q / " = # Q @ ' " = Q # Q # $ #" # # # > Q > / # # # > Q" " ^ # / Q # / " # # > # Q" Q Q ='] [ [ " / " Q " # =' Q =' ' " Q Q / Q / # Q / " @ ' # # Q/Q _ ]" / Q " Z # Q ## " # @ ' # " # Q > " ## # "
&<
~ # [ =' " =' { Q" Z =' # $ >/ /Q # # # # # Q"
Z`K` Z K~$ ^` `Z K ' ' Q # # " Q " = ' Q Q " + # [ # " ' # # # " ] Q # ZQ # @ # < \` \ ` # " @ ' " # Z ZQ Z[< = \ K# Z[< / = ` _^ ' ]" `> Z Q > " # " ' " ZQ # " # [ _ # ]" Q > Q [ ] Q # / " /
"
&}
Q # [ ]
# # Q " = '
Q"
Z`K` Z K~$ ^` `Z K K`' K`' # >" Q # >
# " # / # # "} Q Q # # " " =' Q " Q " + # # > [ / # @ ' # Q / # " + Q " K`' Q =' > Q
> " Q " # K`'" Q " K`' # { # Q Q/ #" @ ' " K`' Q >/ "
&%
'``K@ = + @+= @$ ^` = + `+= @ @
Q > > " Q
] # " Q / { " & # ' >/ _ Q # Q # ] [ =' [ # ## > " _ / Q] _Q / Q # Q Q ]"% > " K`' > # / > " # > " / # # # > " = `> > > / " # K`' / " > "
" ' > #
[ # # " ' _ ] K`' _ ]" K`' ' " / > K`' = `> Q > Q"
&*
# ##" >
> " K/ Q " [ Q" + / # { # " Q Q # _ # / ]" # # # # [ / Q # / # # " # K`' # + # # " # $ >
" K`' = `>/ " # # # # > # # " K`' { ' / { # " `> " Q # ' # / Q # K`'" > " / # Q = `> ] [ # # " Z \ Q = Q \ ' <| = # Q # ] [ / # #
# > # " = #
&&
> [ > # > # " = `>/ Q _ " " " ] > / ] "* #
" [ # { > " / > " + ' Q _ / ] # # _ Q ]" _ # #
/ ]" " / / # [ " # Q # # #" # = `> > ] " # & % }} } Q/ # " Q [ #
# # # " # ## / # " # # # # K`' =' '" # " Q # K`' ' Q
&
" ' _# # ] _ ] K`' " # ] Q " ' # Q " + ' / # " # # / # " Q # " \ Q = Q # # " " # # ] " # # # # ## _ ] Q" Z # # [ # # # # @ Q " ## > # #" < # # Q" # Q " # = `> K`' =' ' [ K`']
" ## _# # " " " #
# Q # ] "& #
&|
#
> " #" ` # # # # [ # [ Q # > " > " ' # _ # # {] " # # / > "
_= +] @+= @ = `> Q Q " > # " K`' Q " `> > [ / " ^ # _ ] / " ' Q " = _ Q #
# # ] _ ]" Q [ Q " Q Q Q # "| Q _ # { { Q # # # " ]" ' > # " Q #
&
[ Q " # Q
# Q " = Q #$ # " K`' =' ' Q # [ K`' " Q " # ^ Q# Q # _ ## #] ] Q # > " # # Q # " Q
" Q"
@' Z K~ Q # ] " Q # / # # Q " Q # # # [ # #/ Q # " ` Q " Q #" Q #
# / { Q# # Q # Q # # # Q " = Q"
# Q Q " " ^ Q # # > Q # Q [ " ] Q " Q " @= # # Q / Q " # Q " Z # # # \ Q = Q " # # { # Z # ^Q + # " # Q Q # # / # K`'" K`'" Q / Q # # / # # " Q" Q # # Q" Q/ # # Q ` # # " " # # # # / "
`@ ^`K` Q Q
# # # # #
" " # / " ='
K`' " K`' $ " /> " = [ # # # " > Q Q # " # # =`K] Z # _
] _ #
] {]" # " K # # # # " # # / #
" K # # / " # " Q # " " # [ # # Q #" = / Q > # " " = > # ] " = # # " # Q # #
#" #" =`K _ # # >] _
<
# " " " ] # Q # _
] ]" # { # # # " Z Q # # " # # [ # # Q" ## " K # ] Q"
+ @ @= @= ^] ## " > " ^] " # # # # Q # @ ^ = /
" Z # # Q
# " Q _ ] [ @^= # # " " = Q #
# # # # Q " > @ # " # " # # Q " { ` Q " { _ # ]
}
# " # > " { _ ] Q " > # ]
> Q # Q > # # Q `{ + *" # { > _ ] # { #
" # # "
# [ # # "
"
+ @+= @
" Q # > > { / " = $ >/ # # # " K`' " # # = Z #
# # " Z # # Q" # [ # # # # " #
%
" = Q # # "
# " ] / / _ / #] " >/ > " Z
# " = # {] # " # > / " / # " [ # # [ # [ Q Q Q [ # # " # # / # " = # # Q # ] [ " ] " # / / [ # # " #
" ] # #/ # Z " # ^ ^ # # = = = = " # \ KQ Q Q "
*
^ # ] [ Q " Z ] # " # # #
# # " >
{ " =Q # @# > / " < # # [ [ # " > [ / # { # # # ] " # " # ' # = Q/ Q Q K ' # " # Q / / Q # _ ]" " ' +/ # > Q Q " ^ & ' ` ` " / / ' / + + [
# Q ' + ' # ' / { # ] " ' # # # # / [ + / Q # # { #
&
" } ^ _ ] _ # ]" @ > [ _ ]" / " # > Q #" ' # = # " Q + +# # _ #] # _ ] { \ Q # # / # # " _ ] " ^ _ ] # Q # Q
@ ^ = " ^ {$ _ " # # #/ " [ > # # # " @ [ " #" # ]" " / " # # $ _] # "
# [ " # # _ #
] \# ^ # # Q " ` #
Delivering Social Inclusion
177
take on the appearance of consensus, and political inclusion risks becoming political co-option. Moreover because there are presumed to be only differences of opinion, not conflicts of interest, dissenting voices outside the consensus are marginalized as trouble makers. Genuine political inclusiveness may be necessary to overcoming social exclusion, though it is certainly not sufficient. Rhetoric about inclusiveness, and even actual inclusion, in the processes of policy formation must be distinguished from the outcomes of these policies. The dirigiste management of Blair’s Government is easily understandable as repressing conflicts which might otherwise divide the Party within and beyond Parliament. What is less immediately obvious is that the underpinning model of society on which the third way is based is one in which conflicts of interest are suppressed. It is this which leads to the instability of the third way and its tendency to fall into authoritarianism. This model, with its consequences and limits, is the subject of the next chapter.
@ 'Q ^# = > Q # > "
{ # > Q # " Q # / " + > # > " /
# # # Q " # # # Q" # # 'Q # " Z # 'Q 'Q # " > " 'Q ] #"
>
'Q " 'Q ] Q [
"
%. # / # " > " # " # "
%. # # # |
1 - ;
" { "
# #
# " # / "
# " =/ # # # Q
# " > =' ' Q # # / " = Q # @ / # "
# > # # Q / # " + `{ Q 'Q " `{ #/ # # 'Q { # " ^ ## / 'Q ] #/ " `{ _ ] # _ Q] _ # # ] 'Q ## Q " ^ 'Q / _ _ Q] ] _ " " " # ] `{ ] / "< ` `{ # # > / " Z Z #
#
|
_ # { # ]"} = " + > # =] / # $ # " " # # # " " " Q " " " "
" = " # " Z $ "% # >
# > # _ # / ]"* Q Q # Q # ^ $ Q Q " # " # # Q Q # # Q" 'Q ^ "& 'Q # # Q " = ] / # = + _ # _ ]" [ # # # " 'Q #
# > Q >
1 - ;
|
" ^ #
> > "
Q # # # _ / ]"| # " 'Q # / # # "
" _ $ " " " # Q # ]" 'Q # _ ] _ # ]" # / Q # " # # = ## > Q " _ ] _ > ]" _ / " " " ] " _ # # Q
Q {
#]" < 'Q ## ## # # $ _ " " " Q # # # ]" } ' 'Q Q # _ # " " " Q
#]" % Z # # Q " # # Q"
|<
+ { / " Q 'Q Q > Q" =
# Q # " Z ^ # # # 'Q ## # #
$ > "
# " > # # # Q /
# = # { Q # > " / Q # # # # " * # # + `# # # _
# #]" & Q # # " [ Q # Q " Q # =' #
Q # " Q #" 'Q Q Q Q # "
1 - ;
|}
\ 'Q ] / # ] Q " ^ # # { " Q # 'Q # [ + Q # [ # >" Q > " | # Z 'Q ] # " ## _ # ] # # " '/ Q # $ _ > # ]" '/ Q _ Q # # #] Q " # # "< 'Q ] # # # # " =
# Q # " 'Q _/ ] ^ / # " 'Q/ ] # ## # #
> " ^ # { > # #/ # $ _ Q $ Q
/ ]"< #
|%
"
%. 'Q _ ] # # # / " # " ^] # # # /
# # " _ ] 'Q / _# ] ^ # [ # # " # # [ 'Q ] # # ^] " " 'Q ] # " # # > # # [ # ^ [ " 'Q ] # # _ ] # $ " 'Q # [ > > [ # " ^ ## " ^
Q # # # [ [ _ Q ]"<< [ 'Q $ _ # " " " # # ] _ " " " > ]" # / # # > 'Q # {
" K# 'Q
1 - ;
|*
Q # Q " _ Q
] "<} ^ 'Q # " K # '/ Q # ^ _ ] ] ] ]
## 4' _'Q @ " " " # # # " " " ]" ^] # # #" Q # # #
# # Q
Q# # Q " # # # 'Q " > # " ^ $ >" # ^ " / > " ^ ~ `{ [ [ 'Q " ` Z
# / " Z 'Q # / " # # #" = # # # > " 'Q _ ]"<%
|&
# '"
# + K`' =' ' Q # " Z # ' ^ " 'Q ] # #
" # 'Q "<* Q 'Q > "<& Q \ 'Q ] # "< Z Z > 'Q ] # # "<| Q 'Q ] # " Z 'Q
^] `{ ] > " 'Q # /'Q # " @ ] > " 'Q Q # Q Q " > # "
" / / @ ] / # # " # # # /
" / " # # { #
1 - ;
|
[ # # Q # Q " @ \ " > K`' ' # " $ @ # # ^ # # / # # # " ] # > Q "
` @' @+= @ `# # # # " # _ ] " ^ # / _ ] " " " Q ^ # # # Q Q { Q" # Q
# # Q " Q ] # { Q " " > Q
||
> " + # ## " > / Q " # " + 'Q { # " 'Q " > # / " Z#
_ ] > "< / # /> " # " # > " = > / # # # / [ Q 'Q ] " Z > / Q > / " > # " 'Q " # " > " # #
> / 'Q # # " # # Q Q
1 - ;
|
" # Q "
10 From Margins to Mainstream INTRODUCTION This chapter examines New Labour’s record between 1997 and 2004 in terms of the delivery of social inclusion. It uses the RED, SID, MUD model to examine the range of policies developed across both terms of government, enabling us to see what has been achieved in tackling exclusion, and to explore whether there has been a shift back to RED since 1997. It highlights the contradictions that have resulted from the continued co-presence of and shifting between the different discourses. The obvious starting point of this analysis is the work of the Social Exclusion Unit itself, whose launch is discussed in Chapter 8, but this is no longer the primary domain. By the end of Blair’s first term, social exclusion had become a mainstream issue in both UK and European Policy, a shift reflected in the development of indicators to measure progress in tackling exclusion. Developing such indicators was initially part of the SEU’s remit. By early 1999, the best advice the Unit could offer was to consult an independent report issued by the New Policy Institute (NPI) in 1998, detailing a battery of forty-six indicators of poverty and social exclusion, and intended to form the basis of an annual audit. Once the two years of sticking to Tory spending plans were over, poverty returned to the government agenda. In 1999, Blair announced the commitment to ending child poverty by 2020, and halving it by 2010. The government’s own annual audit of poverty and social exclusion, initially comprising a battery of forty indicators (rising to fifty-eight in 2004) was first published in October 1999 as Opportunity For All: Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion. The OFA reports are a key source for understanding the range of policies and indicators deemed to be relevant to social exclusion, as well as for assessing progress on these indicators. The OFA reports themselves have undergone a further metamorphosis as a result of European social policy. Since the Lisbon Summit in 2000, the promotion of social inclusion and social cohesion have been central strategic goals of the European Union. Member states must now produce biennial National Plans for Social Inclusion (NAPs). 190
From Margins to Mainstream
191
The first tranche of these plans was published in June 2001, and the second tranche, covering 2003–5, in June 2003. They are required to address four key objectives specified at the Nice Summit in December 2000, although allowing considerable scope for member states to interpret these in different ways through the ‘open method of co-ordination’. This means that common objectives are set at European level, while member states design nationally appropriate policies and report on these and on their outcomes, thus both monitoring progress and sharing best practice. The Nice objectives are: .
facilitating participation in employment [SID] and access by all to resources, rights, goods and services [RED]; . preventing the risks of exclusion; . helping the most vulnerable; . mobilizing all relevant bodies in overcoming exclusion. The second and third criteria can imply responses located in any of the discourses, depending on how the causes of social exclusion are understood and who is deemed to be ‘vulnerable’, and to what. One of the consequences of this clause is that the term ‘vulnerable’ has spread rapidly through UK policy documents, most often implying a higher ‘risk’ of not being in paid work. This understanding is underpinned by the material fact, noted in NAP 2003, that European funding to tackle exclusion, specifically the European Social Fund, remains focused on policies and projects with a labour market orientation. Since Nice, the most significant development has been agreement on a set of common indicators, the Laeken indicators, on which member states should supply information for the purposes of monitoring progress on a Europe-wide basis. These consist of primary, secondary and tertiary indicators, with the tertiary level left to the discretion of member states. The primary and secondary indicators are principally concerned with income distribution, education and employment and jobless households. They also include life expectancy at birth and self-defined health differentiated by income, together with the Gini coefficient as a summary measure of inequality.1 Like most member states, for the 2001 plan Britain simply reorganized its existing policy and statistics under the Nice headings, emphasizing the Sure Start programme as its main example of good practice. The National Plans are thus substantially a reformulation of the OFA reports, although they range slightly more widely across government policy. One of the effects of the devolution of powers to
192
The Inclusive Society
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is that the constituent nations of the UK have separate responsibilities for health, education and training, law and order, housing and economic development, while matters relating to employment, fiscal and economic policy, taxation, benefits and pensions are reserved to Westminster. There are therefore separate strategies and separate institutional frameworks for addressing social exclusion, with the work of the Social Exclusion Unit covering England only, and this also being the main focus of the OFA reports.2 The NAPs, however, are required to report on policies and outcomes across the UK. The 2003 plan incorporates both the OFA indicators and those agreed at European level. It is also more systematically organized to address the Nice criteria. One of the general weaknesses in the 2001 plans was the failure to fulfil the fourth criterion – involving all relevant bodies. This means that inclusion needs to be mainstreamed through all relevant central government policy, and is a priority for local government. It also requires a more participatory approach involving the voluntary sector and the poor themselves in the formulation of policy. Consequently, the 2003 UK plan contains an annex reporting on feedback from a series of ‘NAPinc awareness seminars’ held in the autumn and winter of 2002/3, commenting critically on the government’s approach. The OFA reports and NAPs thus constitute a resource equal in importance to the output of the SEU. They also point to the range of developments regarded by government as most significant in terms of delivering inclusion. The picture that emerges is complex, and there is a surfeit rather than a shortage of information. Besides the OFA indicators, in 2004 the SEU identified 235 key new policies in the fight against exclusion, and sixty-nine targets spread across over a dozen government departments. But the question is not simply whether there is more or less social exclusion, but what kind of inclusion has been delivered for whom, and on what terms. Examination of the SEU, OFA and NAP reports and the wider fields of social policy to which they refer reveals the continued co-presence of RED, SID and MUD, with an overwhelming emphasis on paid work. The contradictions between these approaches are visible in individual reports, as conflicts between reports, and in the exclusionary and repressive aspects of policies sometimes ostensibly directed at inclusion. They arise because of the contradictory causal understandings and policy implications of the different discourses, but more fundamentally because of the contradictory character of the New Labour project itself. From the outset, the compatibility of ‘economic efficiency and social justice’ was
From Margins to Mainstream
193
established by repeated assertion. However, the particular marketoriented, neo-liberal understanding of economic efficiency embeds a contradiction between these two goals. By late 2003, therefore, many social democrats who had been unequivocal supporters of New Labour or even among its architects were calling for a re-orientation of the project and a redefinition of the direction of the increasingly moribund Third Way. Above all, by 2004 the pressure was mounting for a sustained assault on levels of inequality, substantially unchanged since 1997. This chapter therefore begins by looking at the early work of the SEU during the 1997–2001 period. It then turns to the development of the OFA reports and the NAPs, before returning to the later work of the SEU under the influence of this mainstreaming of social exclusion. It shows how, using different understandings of exclusion, some policy developments can be seen as having exclusionary effects. It examines certain key themes in the government’s approach to exclusion, notably the emphasis on paid work, on intergenerational effects, and on opportunity, linking these to the underpinning meritocratic model of a good society. The final section returns to the question raised in the original text, but made more crucial by current debates, of whether genuine inclusion can be delivered without equality, and whether New Labour can or will deliver greater equality. It argues that the contradictions apparent from the inception of New Labour have become more acute and are visible in a ‘revolt of the think-tanks’ around questions of equality and redistribution that poses fundamental questions both for the future of Labour and for the future of social inclusion.
THE SOCIAL EXCLUSION UNIT I: JOINED UP THINKING? The Social Exclusion Unit was set up for two years in the first instance, based in the Cabinet Office and reporting directly to the Prime Minister, staffed by a mixture of civil servants from government departments and people seconded from outside organizations. Its purpose was to produce ‘joined-up solutions to joined-up problems’, addressing complex issues initially specified by or in consultation with Blair himself. Social exclusion was defined by the Unit in terms of interconnected factors: it is ‘a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown’. The flexibility of this definition rests on a lack of clarity: it fails to specify what it is
194
The Inclusive Society
that ‘happens’ when some or all of these factors combine. The meaning of social exclusion must therefore be inferred from the SEUs work rather than from the definition itself. Since its inception, the SEU has published thirty-five reports, as well as consultation frameworks and interim reports, twenty-seven of which were issued before the 2001 election.3 The imbalance between outputs in the first and second Blair governments results from the ‘national strategy for neighbourhood renewal’, launched in the wake of Bringing Britain Together, which led to a series of eighteen Policy Action Team (PAT) reports from different government departments. In this first period, the SEU’s work focused either on areas regarded as socially excluded, as in the neighbourhood renewal reports, or on groups deemed to have or to pose particular problems. MUD, as argued in Chapter 1, tends to replay recurrent themes about ‘dangerous classes’, to focus on the consequences of social exclusion for social order, and to emphasize particular groups such as unemployed and potentially criminal young men, and lone parents, especially young never-married mothers. These themes recur in the SEU’s early work, which includes rough sleeping, truancy and school exclusions, teenage pregnancy and sixteen to eighteen-year-olds not in education or training. The choice of these groups tends in itself to locate the discourse within MUD. In general, during the first Blair government the SEU showed more concern for moral conformity and social order than with the ending of poverty. The repeated recognition of poverty as a factor in the genesis of social problems (RED) is overridden by concerns with employability (SID), and with solutions that focus on behaviour rather than material circumstances (MUD). This can be seen both in individual reports, and in two general themes that arise, the use of personal advisers, and the attention to area-based inequality. Problem youth Problem groups of young people are the subject of three reports covering truancy, teenage pregnancy, and sixteen to eighteen-year-olds not in education or work. The original SEU report on Truancy and School Exclusion was equally concerned with the effects on future employability (SID), and also proposed better resourcing of services such as pupil referral units (RED). However both the press coverage of the launch and Blair’s own pronouncements centred on the claimed link between truancy and criminality, presenting truancy as proto-criminal behaviour. That many young offenders (or at least those who are
From Margins to Mainstream
195
apprehended and charged) have been persistent truants does not, of course, mean that truancy itself leads to criminality. But this link continues to be asserted in government documents: NAP 2003 refers to ‘programmes seeking to reduce truancy – and as a consequence, its links to criminality and low educational achievement’.4 Ensuing legislation and policy from the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) onwards has been largely concerned with policing truants and their families. New measures include truancy sweeps to return children to school, whether or not they are accompanied by a parent when apprehended; fines for taking children on family holidays during termtime; parenting orders requiring parents to ensure school attendance; and increased powers to prosecute and jail parents of truants. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003) gave Local Education Authorities and head teachers extended rights to fine parents, with non-payment potentially leading to prosecution and imprisonment; and extended the possible application of compulsory parenting orders to the parents of disruptive pupils. The concern with social order rather than education led the Schools Minister David Miliband to assert in 2004 that school children should not be allowed out of school during the lunch-hour. These strategies have not proved effective in reducing truancy. They may, however, have had the perverse effect of increasing social exclusion. Fining poor parents exacerbates impoverishment, and in so far as (from a RED perspective) poverty may both constitute and produce social exclusion, is itself exclusionary in its effects. It may also be counterproductive in tackling truancy. A study in London between 1997 and 2000 demonstrated a clear link between poverty and truancy, and reported that a large majority of welfare officers thought prosecuting parents ineffective in cutting truancy rates. It concluded that the best strategy to reduce unauthorized absence from school would be to improve welfare benefits, job opportunities and access to leisure.5 If impoverishment exacerbates social exclusion, imprisonment must also be seen as a form of exclusion, and one whose effects are unlikely to be positive. Some parents have indeed been imprisoned as a result of their children’s truancy, although the term ‘parent’ disguises the fact that these punishments are disproportionately inflicted upon poor women. It is instructive to contrast approaches in England and in Scotland as represented in the 2003 NAP: In England, a Behaviour and Attendance Strategy promotes, for example, co-ordinated truancy sweeps, electronic registration, and early intervention through the Fast-Track to Prosecution pathfinder.
196
The Inclusive Society
Guidance will support more effective prosecutions of negligent parents. . . . In Scotland, work to tackle pupil disaffection includes initiatives to promote positive behaviour and to develop alternatives to exclusion, for example flexible curricula and programmes to provide alternative success and achievement for disaffected learners.6 Teenage Pregnancy and the resultant Teenage Pregnancy Strategy (TPS) are less punitive than the responses to truancy. This report identifies lack of economic opportunity and poverty as causal factors in the high rate of teenage conceptions in Britain (RED), and is concerned about the loss of education, training and employment of young mothers (SID). Nevertheless, the policy recommendations still focus on changing behaviour, partly through better sex education. This can be read either as improved service delivery (RED) or as a focus on the moral delinquency of the poor (MUD). The clear message is not just that young women should be given the information and resources to prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies, but that those who might choose young motherhood should be discouraged. A ‘preference for being a young mother’ is cited as a risk factor, with peer education directed at eradicating it. This ethically dubious process involves young mothers taking their babies into schools and saying ‘don’t do what I have done’. Thus OFA 2004 says that ‘the strategy is set over a ten-year period in recognition of the time needed to make the attitudinal and behavioural changes required in some of the most deprived communities’.7 Success is claimed for the strategy since there has been a drop of 9.4 per cent in the under-eighteen conception rate since 1998. However, this only returns the figures to their 1995 level before anxieties about the safety of the contraceptive pill caused a sharp rise. Levels of teenage pregnancy and young motherhood are very high by European standards. Whether a behavioural (MUD) approach or a RED approach of addressing poverty and inequality is more likely to reduce them is one question. More immediately, the policies following from the TPS may themselves have an exclusionary effect. RED conceptualizes inclusion principally in terms of impoverishment and lack of access to resources, but a further key aspect is the consequent exclusion from social relations, or from the obligations and rights attaching to social roles. The TPS means that from 2003, teenage mothers ‘unable’ to stay with their parents or partners will not be eligible for housing and benefits enabling them to live independently in the community, but will be required to live in supported, or supervised, housing. There is a physical as well as a symbolic continuity with the
From Margins to Mainstream
197
mother and baby homes of the 1950s and 1960s, where young women were sent to hide the shame of pregnancy and birth: in at least one instance, the same buildings are being used. In some cases, this move will presumably entail placements away from home, excluding young mothers from their social networks. The TPS also involves compelling young women under sixteen to place their babies in childcare and return to school to complete their education. More extremely, in January 1999, Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, suggested that teenage mothers should be encouraged to look on adoption as a positive option for their children. Lone parenthood is typically seen as leading to social exclusion for both mother and child as a consequence of poverty, and for young mothers because of their detachment from education or training. Yet the suggested exclusion of young women from their social role, obligations and status as mothers, and exclusion of children from their family of origin, is social exclusion of a profound kind. A new socially-excluded or problem group is identified or created by Bridging the Gap, the report on sixteen to eighteen-year-olds not in education or training, or NEET. The concern here, as for teenage mothers and those truanting or excluded from school, is primarily with employability (SID). Thus Blair’s foreword to the report says ‘The best defence against social exclusion is having a job, and the best way to get a job is to have a good education with the right training and experience’. As with the report on teenage pregnancy, poverty is recognized as causal: ‘the young people involved are disproportionately from poor backgrounds in deprived areas’ (RED). The solutions involve measures directed at poverty. Educational Maintenance Allowances have been made available across England from 2004 for those over sixteen on low incomes, conditional upon attendance at school or college – as Blair put it, ‘new rights matched by new responsibilities’. The principal policy outcome, however, is the new unified advice and support service for thirteen to nineteen-year-olds announced in the White Paper Learning to Succeed, Connexions. Connexions now works with all young people, but is designed to give priority to those ‘most at risk of underachievement and disaffection’. Its principal component is the use of ‘personal advisers’ offering young people both a single point of contact with available services, and, potentially, mentoring.8 Personal advisers: service delivery or social control? The use of ‘personal advisers’ has been a central plank of the strategy to combat social exclusion. They have been deployed in the New
198
The Inclusive Society
Deals, in the TPS and in Sure Start as well as in the Connexions programme. It is an ambiguous development. The complexity of policy means that advisers can be a useful way of accessing information. Thus they can be seen, within RED, as a positive development in the effective delivery of services: ‘Personal advisers offering tailored support and help make services more responsive to the different needs experienced by disadvantaged people’.9 However, if the causal model behind the adviser system is one of intensive intervention at individual level to change behaviour and attitudes, then it is closer to MUD. The compulsory work-focused interviews that all benefit claimants are now required to undergo (and which are imposed on lone parents once their youngest child is three), are not neutral offers of help. They are persuasive, if not coercive, in intent. Thus OFA 2003 insists that ‘partners [of those claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance] and lone parents will attend more frequent interviews with personal advisers’ while ‘New Incapacity Benefit claimants will also be given more help to ensure that employment opportunities and barriers to work are regularly discussed’.10 The Connexions service ‘also has objectives of contributing towards improvements in young people’s behaviour and reducing crime’.11 The manipulative element in the personal adviser system, and the overt reliance on techniques to change behaviour, is made explicit in a 2004 Strategy Unit paper on Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: ‘In the hands of a skilful advisor, welfare to work can also play on reciprocity (society wants you, or even I want you to make a contribution in return for support); social proof (many others have done this) and personal affiliation (on the basis of an ongoing relationship)’.12 In some instances, the use of advisers may be a substitute for more appropriate practical help. NAP 2003 says that ‘a particular group at risk of exclusion is young people that find themselves with onerous caring responsibilities for other family members. Where these are at risk of disengaging from learning they will receive intensive one-to-one support’.13 Even in its own terms, there are problems in the reliance on mentors and personal advisers. Successful mentoring depends on the formation of a positive relationship, which requires both time and continuity. Sure Start advisers themselves complain of excessive caseloads, and comment on the high turnover of staff. In Bristol, the caseloads of Connexions advisers are certainly high: there is one adviser to 660 young people in the target age group. The SEU stresses the importance of continuity so that the individual needs of clients can be better understood and addressed. However, even this contains a deficit
From Margins to Mainstream
199
model of clients, who lack appropriate knowledge, skills, and emotional responses: ‘disadvantaged people may find it hard to trust strangers, be less aware of services available and find it difficult to navigate their way around and access them’.14
Hard-to-shift problem areas The initial report on neighbourhood renewal, Bringing Britain Together, reveals similar ambiguities and contradictions. It begins with structural explanations of poverty, inequality and urban decline, and draws attention to the particular vulnerability of minority ethnic groups (RED). But Paul Watt and Keith Jacob argue that the geographical focus, particularly the treatment of ‘poor areas’, slides the discourse to MUD/SID.15 These areas are described as pockets of intense deprivation, contrasted with the rising living standards of ‘the rest of the country’, which have high levels of crime, anti-social behaviour, drug use, truancy and teenage pregnancy. Their inhabitants are credited with low skills, low levels of literacy, and with knowing few people in employment. Although Bringing Britain Together did commit £800 million to the problem of ‘poor neighbourhoods’, most of this was not new money. Moreover, the resultant New Deal for Communities, like the Conservative government’s Single Regeneration Budget, required poor communities to compete for limited resources, while the ‘rights and responsibilities’ theme deliberately made new funding for neighbourhoods conditional on community involvement. Area-based deprivation remains a key element in social exclusion policy, and is the topic chosen for extended treatment in OFA 2004. The National Strategy Action Plan identifies eighty-eight Neighbourhood Renewal Areas. It sets floor targets for ‘deprived areas’ aimed at reducing their distance from the average in employment rates, skills, domestic burglary rates, and health inequalities. The Laeken indicators include area differences in employment as the sole measure of social cohesion, reflecting the dominance of SID in European policy; this has been added to the OFA list. If the approach to employment, with its emphasis on skill deficits and employability, implies deficiencies in individuals, the approach to health and education targets the inadequacy of service provision, with pressure put on service providers to meet stringent targets set by government. However, area-based initiatives suffer from the ‘ecological fallacy’. Not all individuals in ‘poor areas’ are poor, while the majority of people who are poor live
200
The Inclusive Society
elsewhere. Some areas do suffer poorer services, but it is arguable that the principal causes of area-based inequalities are compositional, that is the result of the poverty of the population, rather than contextual, or related to the area itself. The best current assessment is that neighbourhoods in themselves have modest, if any, effects.16 The focus on spatial inequalities can mask the effects of economic inequality and class position, and shuffle off the responsibility for tackling exclusion onto service providers, and/or local government. Area inequalities are being given precedence even in matters where questions of economic inequality are known to have an overwhelming effect. One commitment is ‘to reduce by at least 10 per cent the gap between the one in five areas with the lowest life expectancy at birth and the population as a whole by 2010’. Infant mortality is 70 per cent higher in low income than in affluent areas. But the class effect is even stronger: between 1998 and 2000, the rate for the lowest social class was twice that of the highest, professional social class, or 100 per cent higher.17 If levels of inequality were reduced to their 1983 levels, 7500 lives among people under sixty-five would be saved each year.18 How big is the problem? Targeting particular groups and areas can also understate the extent of social exclusion. In 1996/7 3000 children were permanently excluded from school. Under 500 000 secondary school pupils were absent without authorization at least once a year. There were 8800 known conceptions among girls under sixteen, and 94 400 in the (overlapping) fifteen to nineteen age group. The 2001 election manifesto Ambitions for Britain followed the SEU agenda. It described social exclusion as ‘affecting around ten per cent of the population, living in fewer than 1000 of the most deprived wards in Britain’, to be addressed through tackling homelessness, teenage pregnancy, truancy and exclusion, young people who are NEET, and neighbourhood renewal.19 Ten per cent is hardly a small number, being between five and six million people. But there were 3.3 million children and a further 7.2 million adults living in households below the then unofficial poverty line of half average income, more than half of them outside ‘poor areas’. Using a consensual measure of poverty, the PSE Survey estimated that in 1999 26 per cent of the population, or 14.5 million people were poor. Over seven million were too poor to engage in common social activities such as visiting friends and family, attending weddings and funerals, and having modest celebrations on special occasions.20
From Margins to Mainstream
201
The SEU was nibbling at the edges of the problem. But just before the 2001 election it published a summary report Preventing Social Exclusion. This ranged more widely across government policy, reflecting the mainstreaming of social exclusion that was already in train. The result is both self-congratulatory and incoherent. It celebrates leafleting 135 000 people in deprived areas about the health benefits of fruit and vegetables alongside the new Sure Start programme, the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners, the success of the various New Deal schemes, as well as the neighbourhood renewal programme. The shift to a broader agenda is signalled in the indicators chosen to reflect changing levels of exclusion, although labour market attachment remains paramount. The two indicators chosen to illustrate the rise of social exclusion between 1979 and 1997 are long-term unemployment and the number of workless households – the indicators identified in Chapter 8 as the lead indicators for SID and MUD. The indicators of success since 1997 are the drop in the proportion of children in jobless households, the numbers finding work through the New Deals, better provision for excluded pupils and a rise in the proportion of teenage parents in education, employment or training, and a reduction in rough sleeping. Questions of poverty trail behind.
MAINSTREAMING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: INDICATORS, AUDITS AND PLANS In 1997, I argued that the most important indicators of social exclusion differ for the three discourses. A strategy regarded as successful from all perspectives would need to meet a number of objectives simultaneously. It would have to reduce the numbers dependent on benefit; move those concerned into socially-useful paid employment delivering self esteem, social relationships and a reasonable standard of living; provide high quality, affordable care for children; reduce poverty; reduce social security spending, releasing more money to be spent on health and education; and it would have to do this without coercion. I added that ‘pigs might fly’. The evidence set out in the OFA reports and NAPs could suggest that all these criteria have been met, and that I should eat my words. Closer inspection suggests that we should pause before celebrating the arrival of airborne bacon. The lead indicators I suggested for the three discourses were labour force participation rates for SID; workless households in the working age population for MUD, and poverty for RED. All three are included
202
The Inclusive Society
in the OFA list. All three have moved in the intended direction. Labour force participation rates among the population of working age rose from 72.9 per cent in 1997 to 74.9 per cent in 2004. This is already higher than in most EU countries. The Treasury target for the UK is to exceed 75 per cent by 2010, but in October 2004, Blair raised the stakes and declared a target of 80 per cent.21 The percentage of working-age people living in jobless households dropped from 13.1 in 1997 to 11.6 in 2004, and the percentage of children under sixteen in such households dropped from 18.5 to 15.9.22 There has also been a drop in poverty, as the percentage of people in households below 60 per cent of current median income fell from 18 to 17 measured before housing costs, and from 25 to 22 measured after housing costs. The fall in poverty is, however, tiny compared with the rise since 1979, when the rates were 12 and 13 per cent respectively. There are now fifty-eight indicators in the OFA reports. They include a range of indicators of income poverty (RED) and of labour market attachment (SID), as well as some, besides the number of jobless households, that are at least potentially MUDdy, such as truancy rates, teenage pregnancies and rough sleeping. OFA 2004 claims that since the baseline (1997 in most cases) thirty-five indicators show improvement, eleven show no change, for nine there is insufficient information to establish a trend, and only three have deteriorated: childhood obesity, the number of families in temporary accommodation, and employment rates among the least qualified. The most recent data shows that in many cases improvement has stalled. Twenty-four indicators show an improvement, twenty-seven show no change, five cannot show a trend, and two (childhood obesity and the number of families in temporary accommodation) continue to get worse. The difference in infant mortality between ‘routine and manual’ groups and the population as a whole has widened since 1997, although this is one of the indicators on which the summary table suggests no trend is visible. The overall employment rate (SID) has stopped rising, while that for the lowest qualified group has been unchanged since 1997. Reductions in the proportions of children and working-aged adults in jobless households (MUD) have stalled. Truancy rates (MUD/SID) have quietly been replaced by figures on school attendance (less both authorized and unauthorized absence), but these show no overall improvement since 1997. The proportion of sixteen to eighteen-yearolds in learning in England has not risen. There are difficulties with any such battery of indicators concerning the prioritization, selection and quality of the indicators included. The
From Margins to Mainstream
203
Acheson inquiry into health inequalities made a total of seventy-three recommendations. Commentators observed that a reduction in poverty and inequality, especially by increasing benefits to women of child-bearing age, expectant mothers, young children and older people to enable them to afford an adequate diet, had the same status as reducing traffic speed and offering concessionary fares to pensioners.23 Similarly, measures of poverty in the OFA report have the same status as smoking rates in pregnancy and fear of crime. Questions of selection affect both the topics included and the precise nature of the indicators. For some time, reductions in rough sleeping were headlined in OFA, and were the principal indicator of homelessness included in the series. This disguised the fact that falls in rooflessness were accompanied by a consistent rise in the number of households in temporary accommodation, which the NPI series shows had more than doubled since 1997 from 45 500 to over 100 000.24 No comparable indicator was included in the OFA series until 2004, when the number of homeless families with dependent children was added to the indicators for social exclusion for children, though not for adults.25 There is also a policy difference between England and Scotland. England is ‘committed to sustaining the reductions in rough sleeping and . . . to end the use of bed and breakfast hotels for homeless families with children, except urgent cases of less than six weeks duration’. In Scotland, legislation will mean that ‘all homeless people are entitled to permanent accommodation by 2012 and that support will be provided to those who are intentionally homeless’.26 Both OFA and NPI audits have always included indicators of present exclusion and risk factors in future exclusion. The NPI, for example, includes divorced parents in the children’s section, while the SEU definition and the OFA reports refer repeatedly to family breakdown. This approach is consistent with both the Nice criteria and the SEU commitment to ‘preventing the risks of exclusion’, but the identification of risk factors raises questions about causality. The treatment of pension contributions exemplifies embedded causal assumptions. The OFA indicators include three addressing contributions to non-state pensions (none of which has shown a sustained improvement). They are listed for ‘older people’, for whom receipt of private pensions is more germane than contributions to them, rather than for working-age adults. The lack of such contributions may be a risk factor for pensioner poverty, although the protection offered by the pensions industry is unreliable. It is not an indicator of actual exclusion among the elderly. The NPI uses the more logical
204
The Inclusive Society
‘pensioners with no private income’. In both cases, however, the implied problem is the absence of private pensions, rather than the inadequacy of collective provision, thus naturalizing the effects of policy decisions. Indicators of actual exclusion among older people are sparse because of the excessive focus on work for other adults. The NPI identify ‘a lack of clarity about what social exclusion might mean’ for older people, ‘because neither inclusion within education and training nor inclusion within paid work will be central to overcoming any problem’.27 A notable absence from both Laeken and OFA indicators is the specifically social aspects of social exclusion. In 1998, the IPPR suggested that it was essential to develop indicators of social capital, membership of civic organizations and social support The NPI noted the need for indicators of social isolation. The Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) had derived some limited data from existing statistics. At the same time the methodology of Breadline Britain, a descendant of Peter Townsend’s 1979 index of deprivation, was developed to incorporate direct measures of exclusion from common social activities, isolation and social networks, social support and civic participation. These were used in the Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain (PSE). Versions of those measures have subsequently been incorporated into ‘social capital’ sections in the General Household Survey (GHS) and the Families with Children Survey (FACS) in the UK, and in the European Survey of Income and Living Condition (SILC), but are still notably absent from OFA and NAP. The PSE suggests that if social exclusion is understood as exclusion from social relations, the role of paid work is more problematic. Some forms of participation are certainly reduced among the jobless because of the poverty that (as a matter of policy) follows; others, notably contact with family and friends, are not. But the time absorbed by paid work is itself a factor in limiting social contact and social participation, especially for those with children. Poverty and material deprivation have a profound impact on people’s ability to participate in common social activities such as having friends (or children’s friends) round for a snack or having a week’s holiday away from home. In 1999, only 68 per cent of the adult population had a holiday, with 18 per cent saying they could not afford it. This affected 22 per cent of children.28 If selection and priority are problematic, so too are the precise measures used. Changes in poverty are particularly susceptible to the choice of indicator. Among the OFA indicators are three relating to
From Margins to Mainstream
205
low income, listed as relative, absolute and persistent. Relative poverty means below 60 per cent of the median household income, adjusted for household composition. The resurrection of the terms absolute and relative poverty is problematic. Absolute poverty usually implies a subsistence-level minimum, while relative poverty involves comparison with the living standards of a specific society. Under Thatcher, the existence of significant poverty in Britain was systematically denied because it was only ‘relative’, and not ‘absolute’ or ‘real’. One of the advantages of the term ‘social exclusion’ within RED was that it sidestepped this argument. What is here called ‘absolute’ low income is not a measure of absolute poverty in the conventional sense, but a fixed standard of 60 per cent of the 1996/7 median uprated for inflation. This gives a measure of whether people are better off in real terms than in 1996/7. Persistent low income means those below 60 or 70 per cent of the median for three out of four years. Equivalized income can, however, be measured either before or after housing costs (BHC or AHC), with a higher proportion of the population in poverty on an AHC basis. Both BHC and AHC figures are given in the OFA reports for ‘absolute’ and relative poverty, while persistent poverty is given on a BHC basis only. Relative poverty has fallen slightly on both BHC and AHC bases. ‘Absolute’ poverty dropped from 18 to 10 per cent BHC, and from 25 to 14 per cent AHC by 2002/3. This looks impressive, but what it actually means is that while average household incomes rose by 24 per cent, by 2002/3 there were still 14 per cent of the population and 17 per cent of children living in households below the 1997 poverty line. Persistent poverty has shown no change for children, working-age adults or pensioners since New Labour came to power. Changes in relative poverty have not been consistent across the population. The BHC measure for pensioners has remained constant at 21 per cent, while the AHC measure has dropped from 27 per cent to 21 per cent. For children, the BHC measure has dropped from 25 per cent to 21 per cent although it has stalled at that level, while the AHC measure has fallen from 34 to 28 per cent. Poverty among working-age adults has, however, shown very little change, dropping from 15 to 14 per cent BHC and 21 to 19 per cent AHC. These complexities are reflected in the measurement of child poverty, whose reduction is a central plank of government policy. After much consultation, agreement was reached on three measures; success requires progress on all three. The indicators are absolute poverty; relative poverty; and low income and material deprivation,
206
The Inclusive Society
combining 70 per cent of median income with not-yet-decided measures of material deprivation. However, income will in each case be calculated on a BHC basis, a difference in 2003 between 28 per cent or 3.6 million AHC, and 20 per cent or 2.6 million number BHC. This is partly because in most of the EU housing costs have less effect, so the Laeken indicators are based on low income BHC. The annual series of statistics Households Below Average Income has always calculated both measures, and both are still reported in the OFA reports. However, although AHC measures show a more sustained fall, because the BHC figures are consistently lower, changing the headline measure could take a million children out of the poverty figures without lifting any out of poverty. A shift to BHC measures will make progress on pensioner poverty look less impressive. But although there is an aspiration to reduce pensioner poverty, no targets have been set, so none can be missed. Changes in the payment of housing benefit will also cause a divergence between the ‘official’ picture and the reality of people’s lives. From November 2003, ‘local housing allowance’ is being piloted, in which housing benefit to private sector tenants will be paid ‘according to average local rents rather than rents charged’, a policy which will, according to OFA 2003, ‘promote choice and personal responsibility’.29
RETURNING TO RED? As soon as the two years of sticking to Tory spending plans were over, the term ‘poverty’ re-entered the political lexicon. Banished under Thatcherism, it re-appeared both in the description of the OFA reports as an audit of ‘poverty and social exclusion’, and in the concerted attack on child poverty. The clear commitment to end child poverty by 2020 and halve it by 2010 made poverty central to government policy. In the first months of the Labour government, poor children in lone parent families were made poorer by benefit cuts. This was a public relations disaster. But subsequent policies reversed this loss. A raft of policies has redirected resources to poor families. They include increases in child benefit, child tax credits, tax credits for child care, and, crucially, the Minimum Wage and Working Families’ Tax Credit. WFTC provided a minimum income to families with dependent children and an adult in work at levels significantly higher than the old Family Credit, and was replaced by Working Tax Credit, extending the principle to childless workers. Lone parents families are better off in real terms than in 1997, although the ‘less eligibility’ principle embodied in ‘making work pay’
From Margins to Mainstream
207
means they still have a high rate of poverty. The NDLP has raised employment rates among lone parents, but more than half are not in paid work. Specific targets have provided a lever for increased resources, especially when it looked as if the 2004 target of a 25 per cent reduction in the numbers of poor children would not be met. These measures have been described as ‘redistribution by stealth’, partly because they are described as tax credits rather than benefits, and partly because they have not been accompanied by an open commitment to redistribution, or by higher direct taxation of the rich. They are credited to Gordon Brown and the Treasury, whose instincts are seen as more redistributive than Blair’s, this being one reason why sections of the Labour Party would prefer to see Brown as Prime Minister. Both talk and action about poverty might be seen as a return to RED. Such an interpretation would be mistaken. The three discourses and policy approaches co-exist, so there are certainly elements of RED present. But the redistribution is largely by stealth, and is firmly subordinated to SID. Attacks on poverty have largely excluded working-age adults. No contradiction is perceived, apparently, in the 2001 election manifesto statement that ‘Poverty denies basic rights. So we chose to reform the welfare state to channel extra money to the poorest pensioners and poorest children’.30 There has been an effective redefinition of the deserving poor on the basis of working age, linked to the repeated assertion that work is the best route out of poverty. The summary response to the 2001 National Inclusion Plans for the EU as a whole, the Joint Inclusion Report, showed that low income was a greater problem in the UK than in many member states, with a relatively high proportion of people, and of children, in poverty. NAP 2003 responds to this by arguing that ‘[a]ction to tackle low income is at the heart of the UK’s poverty strategy but it is generally agreed that this cannot be the only indicator of progress’. People in work in the UK are not more likely to be poor than elsewhere in Europe. It is those not in work who are significantly poorer. Rather than addressing the question of why this is so, NAP 2003 says ‘[t]his underlines the importance of a job for everyone of working age’. The main pillars of ‘the UK’s anti-poverty strategy’ are described as maintaining a strong economy, flexible labour markets (SID) and service delivery (RED). The long-term goals of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal are to ‘deliver lower worklessness and crime [MUD] and improve health, skills, housing and the physical environment’ (SID/RED), as well as to narrow area inequalities. The priorities identified in NAP 2003 for the
208
The Inclusive Society
2003–5 period are tackling joblessness, especially in ‘disadvantaged groups’ and ethnic minorities; reducing the income gap between men and women; continuing work to reduce child poverty; and narrowing area inequalities.31 It is notable that none of these mentions reducing overall levels of poverty or reducing inequality. Between 1999 and 2003 there was some shift away from MUD in the language of the OFA reports, although not always in policy developments. What remains central is the overwhelming emphasis on work. OFA 2003 constantly reiterates that work is the best route out of poverty or low income, and that a central plank of policy has been ‘making work pay’. It insists that non-participation in paid work results in ‘loss of a role, [of] social contact, daily routine, feelings of participation, and self-esteem and self-worth’.32 Both SID and MUD are present, however, in a recent move to describing those not in paid work as ‘inactive’ rather than ‘economically inactive’. Thus OFA 2003 repeatedly uses the terms ‘inactive’, ‘inactive people’, ‘inactive and disengaged’ or, specifically, ‘inactive and in receipt of incapacity benefit’, and condemns the ‘use of public resources to pay people to be inactive’.33 OFA 2004 discusses ‘variations in inactivity rates’.34 The SEU declares that ‘a quarter of people aged 45–59 in Tyne and Wear are inactive’ and that ‘[m]ost inactive people are women, and the most common reason for their inactivity is family and care responsibilities’.35 The connotations of laziness and inertia may be accidental but remain disturbing. OFA 2003 insists that the ‘solution to poverty . . . has to involve raising levels of economic activity’. The core of policy is therefore ‘improving’ labour market flexibility, and improving employability by ‘ensuring that the skills people have meet the needs of employers’; ‘providing financial security and inclusion – primarily by ensuring that work pays’; and breaking cycles of deprivation. The original mantra about welfare to work was ‘work for those who can, security for those who cannot’. But the space devoted to security for those who cannot work dwindles as the legitimacy of non-participation in the labour market declines. There is a faint air of threat in the statement that ‘A million of the [3.4 million] disabled people who are out of work say they would like to work. Many others are fully capable of working . . . if they are given the right support’.36 A special section in OFA 2003 is devoted to ‘vulnerable groups’, identified as large families with three or more dependent children in the household, disabled people and ethnic minorities. In all cases, the focus is on levels of labour market participation. A ‘barrier’ to mothers
From Margins to Mainstream
209
entering paid work is that many want to spend time with their children, especially when they are young. This desire ‘was reported more often among large families than among small ones’ – attributed to the fact that large families are more likely to have younger children, although it may also be that people who like children have more of them. Again, people have the ‘wrong’ attitudes. The increasing expectation that all working-age adults should be in paid work, preferably full-time, underpins the observation that ‘lack of work is a key determinant of low income’, and ‘virtually no children in the low-income group have two full-time workers in a couple’. For ethnic minorities, poor outcomes in the labour market are attributed to a variety of factors, including racial discrimination and the fact that 67 per cent live in the eighty-eight most deprived local authority districts. But supply-side factors also contribute: in ‘lack of job networks, lack of command of English, and low expectations of job availability’.37
VOICES FROM THE GRASSROOTS: THE EXCLUSIONARY EFFECTS OF INCLUSIONARY POLICIES In 1997, I commented on the failure of SID to acknowledge the social or economic value of unpaid work, as well as on the contradiction between the SID/MUD objective of making work pay as a disincentive to ‘dependency’ and the RED objective of tackling poverty. Both these problems remain at the heart of Labour’s policy, and are very clear to the NGOs, advocacy groups and the poor themselves who participated in the ‘NAP awareness seminars’. The appendix to NAP 2003 summarizing their responses carefully reminds the reader that these views do not reflect those of central government. Participants criticized the lack of recognition of women’s unpaid work with unequivocal statements that ‘parents with care are working in their homes’, and that ‘[t]here is an inadequate recognition of the importance of mothering children and the priority this must have when developing work and welfare policies’. They also pointed to the tension between the New Deal for Lone Parents, aimed at pushing lone mothers into employment, and Sure Start, intended to support the care and nurture of disadvantaged children.38 The conflict between paid work and care for pre-school children is formally recognized in the child care strategy, aimed at providing additional child care places and in supporting costs through tax credits. The government is also committed to work–life balance. This primarily involves persuading
210
The Inclusive Society
employers to put in place ‘family-friendly policies’, but there has been some supportive legislation. Parents of children under six or disabled children under eighteen have the right to request flexible working hours, and employers have a statutory duty to consider such requests seriously (but not to accede to them). Paid maternity leave has been extended and paid paternity leave introduced, together with unpaid leave to deal with crises affecting dependents of any age. However, none of these obligations is recognized as work or as economic activity. The needs of older children for levels of parental supervision and support that conflict with paid work are largely unrecognized, although new plans propose opening schools for ten hours a day to supervise school-age children. There is also little effective recognition of the work of those who care for adults. OFA 2003 has one sentence on ‘the vital role that carers play in our social fabric’.39 Policy in this area ostensibly recognizes parenting and caring as ‘valuable’: ‘Just as Government recognises that parenting is a valuable, worthwhile, difficult and rewarding role, for which parents need help and support, so equally we value caring and will value and support the carers who provide it’.40 Blair’s foreword to Caring about Carers extols the ‘extraordinary work which carers may do’ and calls them the ‘unsung heroes of British life’. Caring is ‘one of the most valuable roles anyone can fulfil’.41 ‘Valuable’ should not however be taken literally. The report describes carers who are not also in paid employment as ‘economically inactive’, even while acknowledging that the absence of such caring ‘would be [a] considerable cost to the taxpayer’.42 The emphasis is on better support and information, whose costs will fall upon local rather than central government, or as the report suggests, on volunteers. A small amount of money is ring-fenced for respite breaks. Support projects for young carers are endorsed, but there are no proposals to substantially reduce their responsibilities. Thus if carers should be ‘properly recognised and properly supported’, this does not extend to payment, and the list of carers’ needs does not include sufficient money. This should ideally be provided by paid work, even where the unpaid work of care takes up more hours than a full-time job. The SEU recently reported that 200 000 people combine full-time paid work with caring responsibilities of over fifty hours a week. But ‘[t]he Government’s objectives for carers who are of working age are: to encourage and enable carers to remain in work’ and ‘to help those carers who are unable to, or do not want to, combine paid work with caring to return to work when their caring responsibilities cease’.43 OFA 2004 reiterates the point:
From Margins to Mainstream
211
‘We are committed to support for carers, in particular those who wish to combine caring with employment’.44 There is a Carers Allowance payable to those aged over sixteen, earning less than £79, and caring for more than thirty-five hours a week for someone themselves entitled to Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance. There is some protection of pension credits for those qualifying for CA. The current value of the Carers Allowance is £44, or approximately one pound an hour. Participants in the NAP seminars were critical of the emphasis on ‘making work pay’, and of the publicly-encouraged stigma attaching to claiming benefits. They argued that work should not be seen as the only route out of poverty and that benefit levels for those not in work need to be raised. They called for a major reassessment of minimum acceptable living costs to ensure the adequacy of benefits, observing that no such assessment has been undertaken since 1948. Responses were also sharply critical of government attitudes to debt, the subject of a dedicated SEU report as well as an issue for OFA. The principal SEU recommendation is improved financial literacy, implying that the primary problem is the failure of the poor to manage their money. OFA 2003 says that the proportion of families on low to moderate income with at least one debt decreased from 42 per cent in 2000 to 35 per cent in 2001. Debt, however, is defined as the inability to meet repayments, since credit is a common feature of our society. A government deliberately plunging students into massive debt could hardly say otherwise. The fact that the poor pay higher interest rates ‘simply reflects that they attract a higher risk’.45 In contrast, the NAP participants blamed debt on poverty: ‘it is strongly felt that there is a lack of recognition of the connection between income inadequacy and indebtedness’.46 The seminars also identified a need for more social housing to be built and criticized the lack of support for poor home owners of any age. A characteristic of SID is its emphasis on the non-financial benefits of paid work. The NAP seminars show that these are not universally experienced. Reservations were expressed about employment rights, conditions at work, poor pay and the unrecognized costs of work. Specific problems about pay included non-enforcement of the minimum wage, the lower rate for those aged eighteen to twenty-two, and the exclusion of under-eighteens. The poor pay for caring work, and the need for better skills and qualifications for carers, were also raised. Participants also regarded the commitment to security for those who cannot work as inadequate. They saw the ‘work first’ strategy as a
212
The Inclusive Society
threat to the safety and security of those with disabilities. State pension provision was seen as grossly inadequate, and reliance on private pensions too risky. Thus ‘[t]he insecurity in the value of private pensions means they are not an adequate foundation for retirement security. The state pension should be the foundation of retirement security’; and ‘[t]he state pension is inadequate to live on and the link with earnings must be restored’.47 There were criticisms of the policy focus on spatial rather than economic inequality. Participants said that ‘[a]rea-based programmes targeted at ‘‘deprived communities’’ do not get at rural poverty and exclusion, or at the poverty in better-off areas. There is huge poverty outside the 88 Neighbourhood Renewal Unit areas’. They argued that ‘the widening gap between rich and poor counteracts the impact of regeneration programmes’.48 These responses, overall, suggest a tension between the SID/MUD orientation of central government, and the RED orientation of grassroots organizations and the poor themselves.
REPRESSION AND EXCLUSION The NAP seminars also raised concerns about the civil liberties implications of some government initiatives. ‘People are suspicious about the disclosure and sharing of information about young people required by ‘‘Connexions’’ ’.49 The original plan of a consolidated data-base on all young people has not materialized, largely for technical reasons. Surveillance is, however, increasing as a result of policies nominally targeted at exclusion. In August 2004, plans were announced to track the children of ‘criminals’ from birth to their teenage years in order to prevent them following in their parent’s footsteps, justified on the grounds that 65 per cent of those whose father serves a prison sentence will do so themselves. A government minister added that ‘Children who have been in local authority care are low-achievers and are more likely than others to end up offending, so let’s track them from early on as well’.50 This is a clear example of repressive policies located in MUD being legitimated to a wider constituency under the banner of ‘social exclusion’, but it is not the only one. A central issue in the neighbourhood renewal strategy was the level of crime and ‘anti-social behaviour’ in ‘poor areas’. Crime does not feature in the OFA indicators, except as ‘fear of crime’ among older people. Policies to address anti-social behaviour, especially Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) have been highly controversial. They are a
From Margins to Mainstream
213
stark example of the way in which policies to tackle exclusion, especially when rooted in MUD, generate exclusionary effects. They are not mentioned in NAP 2003. ASBOs were first introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which defines anti-social behaviour as acting ‘in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household’, whether or not accompanied by intent. Examples include harassment of residents or passers-by; verbal abuse; criminal damage; vandalism; noise; graffiti; threatening behaviour in groups; underage smoking or drinking; substance abuse; racial abuse; joyriding; begging; prostitution; kerb-crawling; ticket-touting; throwing missiles; assault and vehicle crime. ASBOs may be granted by courts on application by local authorities, police forces including the British Transport Police, and registered social landlords, who must demonstrate both that an individual is guilty of anti-social behaviour, and that such an order is necessary for the protection of the public. A criminal standard of proof is demanded in relation to guilt, although this is undermined by the permission of hearsay evidence and of reliance on ‘professionals’ as witnesses that alarm and distress were likely to be caused by the behaviour in question. The second criterion merely requires a judgement by the court. ASBOs last for two years, and may proscribe particular behaviours, and/or exclude people from entering specified areas, such as named streets, stations or shopping malls. Breach of an order is a criminal offence, with a maximum jail sentence of five years for adult offenders or a two-year detention and training order for juveniles. Some antisocial behaviour could be dealt with under existing criminal law. Some, not in itself criminal, is effectively criminalized by this legislation. Where orders are served on those under seventeen, parenting orders may be served at the same time, which if breached can result in fines of up to £1000. The 2003 White Paper Respect and Responsibility suggested new powers to cut housing benefit from tenants found guilty of anti-social behaviour. The Crime and Disorder Act said that ASBOs were mainly intended for use against adults. However, the primary targets have been boys and young men. Between April 1999 and June 2003, a total of 1337 orders were issued. The vast majority were against males, and about two-thirds affected juveniles under eighteen. Where adult women were recipients of orders, this was largely related to attempts to remove prostitutes from particular areas (thus again focusing on the sexual delinquency of young women as opposed to the proto-criminal
214
The Inclusive Society
behaviour of young men).51 There is no automatic protection of the identity of juveniles subject to ASBOs, and Manchester, responsible for the issue of more than 300 orders in this period, accompanied them by leafleting local residents, as well as relying on publicity for miscreants in the local press.52 Official guidance on the court handling of applications is explicit that ‘the welfare of the child is not the principal purpose of the order hearing’,53 excluding poor children from normal legal protection. By March 2004, the total number of ASBOs issued had risen to over 2400. To overcome resistance to using them, an intensive programme of training was instituted to ensure magistrates were aware of their powers. Strong arguments have been made that these policies intensify poverty and lead to eviction and homelessness, at best moving problems to another area, and at worst exacerbating them. Making people homeless works directly against strategies to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Whole families are punished by being moved to unsuitable temporary accommodation, moving schools and disrupting social networks. Given that the overwhelming majority of those receiving ASBOs are male, this also means that women and girls are penalized for the ‘anti-social behaviour’ of boys and men. Over two-thirds of defendants in anti-social behaviour cases have problems such as mental illness, drug or alcohol dependency or are victims of physical or sexual abuse.54 Government responses to concerns about such punitive policies generally point out that liberals protesting about civil liberties are not those who have to put up with the behaviour, and that concern about anti-social behaviour is rising. But rising concern is not necessarily indicative of real changes, being susceptible to media manipulation. And some have argued that fear of crime and disorder is a proxy for other, possibly material, insecurities, and the vocabulary through which these are expressed. People may consequently be excluded through being perceived as a threat, especially young people, minority ethnic groups, those with mental health problems and asylum seekers. Others have argued that the remit of anti-social behaviour should be drawn more widely and focus less on the poor, and more on those who, for example, promote excessive drinking by selling cheap alcohol. It is tempting to go down this route and argue that ASBOs could potentially be used against other classes, such as disorderly students or the local hunt. But the fact that ASBOs are currently being used against those who are young, poor and whose behaviour may be unpleasant in the extreme should not blind us to the implications of this legislation.
From Margins to Mainstream
215
Breach of a civil order can constitute a criminal offence, and the potential scope of ASBOs is enormous. As the Home Office proudly announces, ‘the ability to tailor the terms of the order to each specific case illustrates their flexibility’.55 There is potential for political use against demonstrators and dissenters in a growing armoury of legislation negligent of civil liberties: the Anti-Social Behaviour Act gives powers to disperse any gathering of two or more people whose behaviour might provoke alarm and distress, and to forbid return within twenty-four hours.
WHO IS EXCLUDED FROM THE EXCLUDED? Although the third Nice criterion requires attention to ‘vulnerable groups’, there are some groups who have been marginal to debates about social exclusion. Recently, an SEU report identified dual heritage groups, refugees, asylum seekers, homeless people, disengaged young people, mobile or transient populations such as gypsies or travellers, and those in the bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution as ‘highly vulnerable groups’.56 NAP 2003 asserts that ‘[a]ction to tackle discrimination, including against asylum seekers and refugees is essential if we are to develop a truly inclusive society’.57 Some of these groups have either been previously excluded from consideration, or subjected to highly exclusionary policies. The bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution have failed to gain from redistribution by stealth precisely because of the commitment to ‘make work pay’. Travellers and asylum seekers have also fared badly under New Labour. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 removed the obligation of local authorities to provide sites for travellers, and Labour has not re-instated this. In the absence of permanent, temporary or emergency sites, travellers have bought land, but are generally denied planning permission and thus occupy it illegally, risking eviction. Constant eviction from their own land or elsewhere may contravene the Human Rights Act, and certainly contravenes the first Nice principle, since it inhibits access to services such as health care and education. Both 2003 and 2004 OFA reports note that traveller children have the worst educational results of any ethnic minority group partly because of their intermittent attendance at school, but do not comment on the role of government policy in exacerbating this. The failure to tackle the government’s own discriminatory policies was highlighted in the summer of 2004 when Kit
216
The Inclusive Society
Sampson returned her MBE awarded for work with travellers to John Prescott, chosen because of his refusal to address the issue of travellers’ accommodation in the new housing bill. In some cases, the representation of British policy in the NAPs is seriously misleading. Two paragraphs in NAP 2003 address support for asylum seekers. They claim that ‘[t]he national asylum support service (NASS) provides financial support and, where necessary, housing, to eligible destitute asylum seekers while their applications are being considered’. No figures are given for the meagre level of this support, a mere 70 per cent of basic income support, or £38.96 a week for a single adult.58 What is also left out is that between January 2003 and June 2004 (the period during which NAP 2003 was drafted and submitted), even this was deliberately witheld under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which stipulates that asylum claims must be made ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ on entry to the UK.59 Benefits were thus denied to those who had not lodged a claim at the first technically available opportunity. The government was forced to reinstate support, after an appeal court judge found the policy in breach of asylum seekers’ human rights. This is disguised in the word ‘eligible’ in the NAP presentation. NAP 2003 also refers to policies to support and integrate successful asylum seekers, and to the problem of discrimination against asylum seekers and refugees. The Refugee Council, however, argues that the policy of integration should date from the point of application, not success (which may require appeal and take months if not years).60 In general, policy since 1997 has been one of literal exclusion, keeping out or deporting asylum seekers, and the social exclusion of those here, whether awaiting assessment of their claims, appealing decisions or ultimately failing in their applications. Refugees in Britain have increasingly been dispersed to hostile environments, or confined in special detention centres such as Yarls Wood. Here, entire families were imprisoned even though their cases were not yet determined, and children were excluded from access to education in proper schools. When fire broke out, lives were put at risk by the absence of a sprinkler system and the priority given to preventing residents from escaping. Detention centres are run by private companies who are excluded from minimum wage legislation, and who are permitted to employ detainees at very low wages. There have been concerted attempts to reduce rights of appeal against failed asylum claims. Yet for some groups, notably Somali and Sudanese applicants, the rate of success on appeal is over 40 per cent,
From Margins to Mainstream
217
casting serious doubt on the quality of initial decisions. Those refusing to leave Britain voluntarily are threatened with the removal of all legal means of support, with their children being taken into care, and with removal of rights to NHS health care for themselves and their families. The ultimate form of social exclusion is deportation, and the 2001 election manifesto set targets in advance of assessing claims: ‘Asylum seekers and their dependants whose claims are rejected will be removed from Britain with the aim of more than 30,000 in 2003–4’.61 Further targets for deportations were announced in 2004, while Britain was the first European country to announce in the Spring of 2004 the enforced return of unsuccessful Iraqi asylum seekers, despite the evident unsafety of Iraq and the concerns of organizations such as Amnesty International. Short of deportation, the most extreme form of exclusion from society is imprisonment. It is not mentioned in the OFA reports or NAPs. The NPI tracks the number of children held in young offenders’ institutions or prisons, which rose by 15 per cent between 1997 and 2002, with a 65 per cent rise in the number in secure accommodation. But the number of children found guilty of indictable offences or cautioned dropped consistently, continuing a trend since at least 1990. The adult prison population rose steadily between 1997 and 2004, with an overall increase of 22 per cent. Most of this rise was caused by harsher sentencing rather than increases in detection rates. It includes disproportionate increases in the numbers of women in prison, and those serving life sentences. More are also held on remand, although one in five of these will not be convicted, and half will receive a noncustodial sentence. Foreign nationals and ethnic minority offenders receive tougher sentences for equivalent offences. The incarceration rate in England and Wales is the highest in western Europe, 44 per cent higher than Germany and 52 per cent higher than France. Although over 600 new criminal offences were created between 1997 and 2004, there was a significant drop in crime. Estimates suggest that the increase in the prison population accounted for about a sixth of this fall. Incarceration is a form of social exclusion in its own right. It also precipitates other forms of social exclusion for prisoners and for their families. The suicide rate among detainees is high, especially for women. Prisoners, including those on remand, are at risk of losing their jobs, their homes, and contact with family. Astonishingly, no systematic data is collected on how many prisoners are parents. It is estimated that two-thirds of female prisoners are mothers, and
218
The Inclusive Society
that each year jail sentences separate 17 700 children from their mothers. Only 5 per cent of these children remain in their own home, and only half of mothers are visited by their children when in prison.62 Some of these issues are addressed in the 2002 SEU report Reducing re-offending among ex-prisoners. This is an excoriating report on the consequences of locking up swathes of citizens in overcrowded accommodation, failing to provide the most basic services such as appropriate healthcare, and in many cases taking no responsibility for what happens to them on discharge. Despite a chapter headed ‘Prisoners: a socially excluded group’, the SEU report does not treat incarceration as constituting social exclusion. Social exclusion is perceived as a cause of offending and re-offending, and as a consequence of imprisonment. The causal aspects of social exclusion are a mix of personal characteristics and behaviours, mirroring the elements of the SEU definition: running away from home, being in local authority care, truanting or exclusion from school, unemployment, homelessness, drug abuse and mental illness. While it notes the correlation between deprivation and incarceration in terms of area characteristics, it slides over the fact that the prison population is drawn from the most impoverished groups in society: ‘no information is held on levels of poverty experienced by prisoners in childhood’.63 ‘Service failure’, rather than poverty and deprivation, is identified as the characteristic life experience of offenders. The remit of the report – reducing re-offending rather than offending – means that the focus is on conditions in jail and preparation for release, and thus on service delivery and co-ordination and on changing behaviour, rather than underlying deprivation. The sequence of chapters might be seen as a ranking, in which education and employment take priority (SID). Personal characteristics and behaviour of prisoners (drug and alcohol misuse, mental and physical health, attitudes and self-control, and institutionalization and life skills) come next (MUD). Issues of material and social deprivation such as housing, finance and family networks (RED) come last. The report does recommend changes to the benefit system, especially to housing benefit and to the discharge grant, to prevent prisoners losing their accommodation and accruing rent arrears while in prison. Reducing re-offending argues that prison increases the risk of re-offending. This is not because bad company teaches people to be better criminals. Rather, it is a recognition that incarceration causes catastrophic disruption to people’s lives and precipitates social exclusion:
From Margins to Mainstream
219
For example, a third lose their house while in prison, two-thirds lose their job, over a fifth face increased financial problems, over twofifths lose contact with their family. There are also real dangers of mental and physical health deteriorating further, of life and thinking skills being eroded, and of prisoners being introduced to drugs. By aggravating the factors associated with re-offending, prison sentences can prove counter-productive as a contribution to crime reduction and public safety.64 The report argues that many of those in prison should not be there: There is a growing consensus that we are sending some people to prison who should not be there. Short prison sentences are not appropriate for all the offenders who currently receive them; and too many people with severe mental illness are in prison rather than secure treatment facilities.65 Government policy is partly responsible for this, as ‘[r]ecent legislation requires courts to impose minimum prison sentences on offenders who commit repeat offences such as armed robbery, burglary or drug trafficking’.66 This ‘contributes to the problem of overcrowding, which in turn limits the capacity of prisons . . . to work effectively to reduce re-offending’.67 Unsurprisingly, the policy proposals taken up by the Home Office in response to the report do not include a change in sentencing policy. And rather than sending to prison fewer women who are no threat to the community, new provision will enable children to be kept in prison with their mothers until the age of five rather than the current eighteen months that applies to the few places in mother and baby units.68
THE SOCIAL EXCLUSION UNIT: NEW DIRECTIONS The SEU was moved in 2002 from the Cabinet Office to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, reporting to John Prescott rather than to Tony Blair, and reports after 2001 have also to be seen against the background of mainstreaming exclusion. A new website launched in 2004 was designed to cover social exclusion policies across government, rather than the work of Unit itself. Some of the later reports, like that on reducing re-offending, continue the focus on vulnerable groups, also considering young runaways, children in care, and mental
220
The Inclusive Society
illness. But there is a broader agenda of assessing current policies and future priorities in the light of perceived drivers of social exclusion. The strong orientation to labour market solutions remains. The report on mental health opens with two questions following the pattern of the first Nice criterion, which refers to both access to employment and to resources and services (in that order). First, ‘What more can be done to enable adults with mental health problems to enter and retain work?’ Secondly, ‘How can adults with mental health problems secure the same opportunities for social participation and access to services as the general population?’ Carers providing substantial care have twice the risk of mental health problems compared with other groups. The report does not recommend either payment or practical support for people undertaking this unpaid work. It focuses on public attitudes and an ‘anti-stigma’ campaign, with the goal of ‘communities accepting that people with mental health problems are equal’, and on ‘redesigning mental health services to promote social inclusion’.69 Personal advisers will help people to manage their condition better in a work environment. If the SEU is concerned about imprisoning those who are mentally ill and wishes to promote social inclusion, some policy initiatives point in the opposite direction. There has been extended controversy over provisions in the Mental Health Bill to compulsorily detain and treat those deemed to pose a potential threat even if no offence has been committed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed serious reservations about the proposed legislation, warning that it could be used to compulsorily treat drug addicts, alcoholics, people with learning disabilities, and illnesses that adversely affect mental functioning, including epilepsy and diabetes.70 The proposals are justified on grounds of public protection. However, as many people are killed each year by the police as by those suffering from mental illness.71 The spatial theme in the SEU’s work is carried forward in a major 2003 report on transport Making the Connections. The role of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is in part to ‘enhance opportunity and tackle social exclusion in rural areas’.72 Defra’s targets include reducing inequalities between rural areas and improving delivery of services. Clearly, transport is a major issue especially for non-car owners in rural areas, affecting access to schools, jobs, services and social activities. Similarly, the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal identified transport problems as significant for social inclusion. Making the Connections emphasizes ‘accessibility planning’, including long-term land use
From Margins to Mainstream
221
planning and encouraging home and virtual delivery of services as well as transport. Land use planning is addressed in terms of access. Wider environmental considerations are absent, even though high fuel consumption and vehicle emissions deplete resources and cause global warming, while buildings, roads and car-parks increase run-off and contribute to flooding. The report does address other ‘environmental’ impacts of road traffic: pedestrian accidents, air pollution, noise and busy roads cutting through residential areas disproportionately affect socially excluded areas and individuals. One in three households does not have access to a car. Better public transport is needed, with a wider mainstream network of bus routes plus demand-led flexible services. The report notes that many are excluded by cost even from available bus services: fares have risen by nearly a third since 1985, while motoring costs have remained stable. However, the impact of deregulation is ignored. Improved provision needs to be accompanied by improvements in (people’s sense of) safety when using public transport, a point also raised in the NAP 2003 consultation. Installation of CCTV and alarm points at bus stops and on buses and removal of graffiti are proposed to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. Rail, from which many are excluded by lack of availability or high costs, and where safety raises different issues, is not considered. Again, a key focus of the report is access to work and to education. The rights and responsibilities rhetoric remains: in return for ‘increasing the help . . . offered to jobless people to enable them to get to work opportunities’, ‘individuals will be expected to review their travel horizons and be prepared to look for and take up work within a reasonable travelling distance’.73 This help may mean subsidized use of public transport, the lease of mopeds, bikes or cars, subsidized repairs to existing vehicles or driving lessons. The work imperative and reliance on individualized solutions will eventually necessitate people acquiring and financing cars of their own, adding to the negative effects of traffic. Drivers and trends The increasing breadth of the SEU’s work and its location in a mainstreamed approach to social exclusion, is most clearly reflected in its new programme of work on ‘impacts and trends’. This has generated two reports from the Unit itself, Tackling Social Exclusion in 2003 and Breaking the Cycle in 2004, plus a commissioned literature review, The Drivers of Social Exclusion. NAP 2003 identifies the key drivers of
222
The Inclusive Society
social exclusion as joblessness, the intergenerational transmission of poverty, living with a persistent low income, and living in a deprived area. Tackling Social Exclusion lists the main causes as unemployment, low income, and, especially, worklessness. Rather than celebrating the success of the New Deal, it complains that only 53 per cent of lone parents are in paid work, and reports low participation in the voluntary New Deal programmes for lone parents (9 per cent) and disabled people (6 per cent), perhaps presaging a more coercive approach. Poverty is identified as an issue only for those above or below working age, and the problematic take-up of means tested benefits by these groups, such as pension credit and free school meals is also noted. Like NAP, there is strong emphasis on the intergenerational transmission of poverty, ‘cycles of deprivation’, and the importance of early years intervention. The Drivers of Social Exclusion is an independent survey of available evidence on issues relating to social exclusion, and thus a fundamental contribution to ‘evidence based policy’. It identifies three sets of factors that are crucial in determining levels of poverty, inequality and social exclusion: demographics; the labour market context; and the social policy context. Groups susceptible to social exclusion that are increasing in size are lone parents, migrants and asylum seekers. But susceptibility to social exclusion and poverty is dependent on other drivers. Chief among these is labour market demand, although 39 per cent of those in poverty live in households with someone in employment. This report emphasizes the crucial role of inequalities in earnings in producing poverty, inequality and exclusion. Unlike all reports from government departments, this report points out that the effects of earnings inequalities depend on the social policy context. Historically, social exclusion has resulted because ‘policy either failed to protect against the impact of other drivers or actually exacerbated it’.74 The drivers of social exclusion thus include linking benefits to prices rather than earnings; cutting them in real terms; restricting entitlements; moving from direct to indirect, and from progressive to regressive, taxation; and implementing cuts in services or increases insufficient to meet needs. These policies were, of course, put in place by Thatcher, but have been continued, exacerbated or only partly modified by New Labour. Consequently singles and couples without children have seen no real improvements in out-of-work benefits; the complexities of claiming Working Families Tax credit and other benefits have led to problems in take-up; the reduction in child poverty has been disappointing; and despite the minimum wage, low pay is still a
From Margins to Mainstream
223
problem.75 The Drivers of Social Exclusion substantially concurs with the analysis in the 1995 Rowntree Report on Inequalities in Income and Wealth, discussed in Chapter 2. That too identified the causes of rising inequality and exclusion as economic restructuring, increasing dispersal of earnings, and changes in the tax and benefits system. This commissioned review was presumably intended to inform Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future. This latest SEU report is long, dense, and informative but veers between explanatory frameworks. It contains a number of references to problems of poverty and inequality. Poverty is identified as a cause of social exclusion, given equal weight with joblessness, family breakdown and living in a poor area. Multiple deprivation is recognized as strongly linked to social class. There is less nonchalance about debt than in earlier reports. Increasing inequalities in wealth are noted, as are increasing social segregation and polarisation, and falling social mobility. Social exclusion is described as ‘the end of a longer continuum of inequality’. All of this is compatible with RED. Yet the emphasis remains on paid work. Continued pressure must be kept up on the large-scale economic drivers of social exclusion, ‘particularly stubborn concentrations of unemployment and persistently high economic inactivity’. In a list of groups at risk of exclusion, those in poverty are included only for children and pensioners, and not for young people and adults. Making work pay is endorsed as a key element in increasing labour force participation. The shortcomings of SID are occasionally mentioned: ‘The benefits of moving into work can sometimes be limited if the work is of poor quality, low paid, or for too many hours’. But even here, the problem is people’s perceptions, rather than the merit of paid work itself: ‘Some households do not always see themselves as clearly ‘better off’ after moving into work due to decreases in discretionary income and loss of entitlements to free services. Feeling worse off as a result of moving in to work can have negative effects on other areas of life, such as health’. MUD is apparent in the emphasis on ‘risky behaviours’ in a discussion of health inequalities (which also reports a deterioration in the selfreported health of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution since 1997). It recurs in the characterization of vulnerability as personal deficit: ‘[t]he development of so-called ‘‘soft’’ skills, like having self-confidence and the ability to communicate well with others, is particularly important for some vulnerable people’; and ‘where individuals have made progress longer term support may be needed to ensure that they do not fall back into a state of vulnerability’.76
224
The Inclusive Society
Overall, the drivers identified in Breaking the Cycle focus on the already central issues of labour market attachment and intergenerational transmission, and pass over the role of the tax and benefit system in sustaining inequality. The focus remains on ‘vulnerable groups’. The list includes children excluded from school or missing from school records (but not truants); teenage parents; NEET sixteen to eighteen-year-olds; rough sleepers; children in care. These usual suspects are joined by prisoners, asylum seekers, travellers and gypsies, carers, and some minority ethnic groups. But the prescription is essentially more of the same: continued progress in reducing child poverty, expanding early years support and raising educational attainment. Priority areas for the future are low educational attainment among some groups; economic inactivity and concentrations of worklessness; health inequalities; concentrations of crime; and homelessness. If current policies do not succeed, it will be necessary to ‘actively consider radical new policies’, but there is little indication of what those policies might be.77
THE INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF POVERTY The title of Breaking the Cycle emphasizes what is now assumed to be the core problem, the transmission of disadvantage from one generation to the next. Reducing child poverty is one part of this strategy. The other involves ‘direct preventative policies to break the intergenerational link through effective nurturing in the early years’. The key programme here is Sure Start, which was flagged in NAP 2001 as Britain’s main example of ‘good practice’. Its main intention is to improve the nurture and parenting of disadvantaged children through the provision of advice, support and nursery places: it ‘[p]romotes the physical, intellectual and social development of young children – particularly those who are disadvantaged – so that they can flourish at school and in later life’. The NAP 2003 consultations suggested that there was a lack of joined-up thinking in the relationship between the NDLP and Sure Start. But although the initial remit of Sure Start was solely concerned with early years intervention and better parenting, this was later extended to include getting parents into work: it ‘helps strengthen families . . . by enabling parents to maximise their opportunities to work’.78 Sure Start is one of the most popular of government policies, criticized only for being too limited in scope. By October 2003, there were
From Margins to Mainstream
225
only 80 000 Sure Start places, meaning that in the 20 per cent of poorest wards where it had begun only one child in eleven had a place. When an embarrassing deficit appeared in the schools budget, £100 million was extracted from the Sure Start budget to compensate.79 Breaking the Cycle claims that by March 2004, Sure Start programmes were ‘accessible to’ 400 000 children under four, including about a third of under fours living in poverty.80 But Sure Start, like many other policies, is ambiguous. It represents greater investment in those with greatest need and improved service delivery, redistributing resources to the poorest children (RED). But at the same time, it risks locating the causes of the intergenerational transmission of poverty in the deficiencies of poor parents and children, rather than in poverty itself. It had its first roots in Supporting Families, a document by Jack Straw that suggested among other things that ‘by investing in parenting now we will reap the rewards in improved behaviour in the future’.81 Even leaving aside this blatantly MUDdy intervention there are reasons to question the role that Sure Start is expected to play. The concept of ‘cycles of deprivation’ has a long history. It was a core element in the thinking of Keith Joseph, Thatcher’s eminence grise, in the 1970s. Further back, in the 1950s alongside the ‘discovery’ of maternal deprivation, Betty Spinley’s The deprived and the privileged argued that the disorganized parenting of poor parents produced disorganized personalities in their children, thus condemning them to poverty.82 Such explanations locate the problem in the dysfunctional characters and behaviour of the poor. In the 1960s, theories of a learned ‘culture of poverty’ were also popular, emanating from the work of Oscar Lewis in the United States. In fact, Lewis’s argument was that in so far as a distinct culture existed, it was an adaptation to conditions of deprivation brought about by the structural character of capitalism. However, the use that was made of this theory detached it from its structural elements. The idea of a maladaptive culture was central to the American War on Poverty in the 1960s. Many aspects of the current strategy to tackle social exclusion, including the heavy reliance on mentoring, mirror the approach of the American War on Poverty launched by Lyndon Johnson in his State of the Union Address in 1964. Sure Start is directly modelled on Head Start, the early years compensatory education element of the AWP. Head Start was initially administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity, underlining its role in improving opportunities for poor children, but in 1969 it was transferred to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as a child development programme.
226
The Inclusive Society
Extensions to the Head Start programme were made in 1995 and 1998, coinciding with the design of Sure Start in the UK. Head Start, like Sure Start, emphasizes the development of self-esteem, motivation, and social skills as well as cognitive skills. Evaluations of Head Start declare it a success, in that children exposed to it perform better when they first start school. Its contribution to longer-term reductions in educational inequality is more doubtful, for, as the Illinois Head Start Association says, such a programme cannot possibly inoculate children against the effects of growing up in poverty. Thus while ‘[c]hildren and families do benefit in Head Start’, ‘[t]o change lives, broader social changes are required, such as health care and adequate nutrition for life, safe neighbourhoods, good schools and child care, and positive role models’.83 Breaking the Cycle says it is too early to say how effective Sure Start will be in narrowing the gap in educational attainment. But it too says this is unlikely to be enough, if only because of the effect of poverty in adolescence on expectations, attitudes and educational outcomes. More generally, however, the US experience should make us cautious not only about Sure Start, but about the whole strategy of trying to tackle ‘cycles of disadvantage’ without tackling inequality and disadvantage itself. The USA is somewhat more unequal than Britain, with the income of the top 10 per cent of the population seventeen times, rather than fifteen times, that of the lowest 10 per cent. It also has lower social mobility. Copying the American model may be like re-inventing the square wheel. Early years intervention without a marked reduction in structural inequalities will not produce equal opportunities.
OPPORTUNITY – AND ‘RESPONSIBILITY’ Equality of opportunity is both the goal and the means. Breaking the Cycle talks of ‘[t]ackling intergenerational disadvantage by promoting greater equality of opportunity’.84 Tackling Social Exclusion says ‘we may need to work harder to achieve equality of opportunity’.85 Indeed, all recent government reports are concerned about equality of (labour market) opportunity between men and women, between ethnic groups and between areas, and about equality of opportunity (or life chances) for children. Ambitions for Britain said that ‘the principles of inclusion and equality of opportunity remain central to our commitment to liberate the potential of every child’.86 ‘Opportunity’ is the key word.
From Margins to Mainstream
227
The annual audit is called Opportunity for All – not Security for All or Equality for All. When it was first announced, Alistair Darling identified the causes of poverty as lying in dependency and poverty of expectation. His 1999 speech to the Labour Party Conference reiterated the argument that the solution to poverty lies in opportunity, not security. The initial OFA report effectively redefined poverty in terms of lack of opportunity rather than lack of resources. Thus ‘Poverty . . . [exists] when people are denied opportunities to work, to learn, to live healthy and secure lives, and to live out their retirement years in security’; ‘Poverty exists when those on low incomes lack opportunities to improve their position’. Low income may be ‘an important aspect of poverty’, but the strategy is focused on those who ‘are, or are at risk of becoming trapped on low incomes for long periods, especially those who have limited opportunities to escape’.87 When John Prescott was interviewed on the Labour Party’s Centenary, he was asked whether Labour had abandoned its traditional commitment to redistribution. He replied that the Party was in favour of redistribution of opportunity. Blair himself, pressed in a Newsnight interview in 2001 on whether the Party regarded inequality as a problem, would say only that the government was committed to increasing opportunities for the poorest. His speech to the 2004 Labour Party Conference made repeated reference to ‘the opportunity society’, suggesting that opportunity will be the guiding theme of a third term. The aspiration is ‘not a society where all succeed equally – that is a utopia; but an opportunity society where all have an equal chance to succeed’. Brown’s conference speech also acclaimed ‘new opportunities’, and a society of ‘aspiration and ambition where . . . opportunity in education, business, in culture and in leisure is genuinely equal’. New Labour is committed to the position that opportunity plus responsibility will deliver inclusion: Ambitions for Britain promised ‘increased responsibilities for claimants’, trading ‘quality opportunities for real responsibility’. Inclusion is still something individuals must perform: ‘Government cannot achieve social inclusion for people, but it can help them achieve it for themselves’.88 If many of these statements were made during Blair’s first term, the MUD focus on behavioural manipulation of those stepping out of line remains crucial to the Blairite agenda. In 2004, the Strategy Unit produced a report on Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, whose authors include Geoff Mulgan (formerly of Demos), and David Halpern (formerly of Nexus). This contrasts personal responsibility and self-reliance (good) with reliance on the state (bad). It argues that policy goals depend on
228
The Inclusive Society
changes in personal behaviour, and that behaviourally-based interventions can be significantly more cost-effective than traditional service delivery. It therefore explores theories of behavioural change, and applies them to welfare to work, health, crime and education. The targets are, of course, the poor, and it is they who need to be made more ‘responsible’. Thus it endorses what it calls ‘punitive conditionality’, meaning the imposition of fines and partial or total withdrawal of benefit, arguing that this has ‘worked much better than critics expected’, and has also ‘reshaped norms in subtle ways’, making ‘notable impacts on attitudes to work’.89 It also suggests ways of manipulating disabled people into paid work. It recommends that: campaigns that promote the expectation that – where possible – people with disabilities work, should run alongside programmes to: improve self-efficacy; change the expectations of those around the disabled person; and encourage the acceptance of people with disabilities by employers and workplaces. Such a strategy might encourage people with disabilities to see movement into the workplace as part of the process of encouraging their greater social acceptance.90 This is precisely how the policy to force people with disabilities into work is presented in NAP 2003. Nor are the exclusionary and civil liberties consequences of ASBOs seen as a problem. ‘A key advantage . . . is that their imposition requires only a civil rather than a criminal burden of proof (balance of probability rather than ‘‘beyond reasonable doubt’’) [and] they can be used on juveniles’ against a wide range of behaviours.91 As with anti-social behaviour, the rich escape scrutiny. There is no discussion of how to persuade them to pay existing or higher taxes, how to dissuade them from buying their way out of common institutions, or how to induce them to reduce car and air travel and thus their contribution to global warming.
THE PROBLEM OF INEQUALITY The rich may, however, be part of the problem. As Will Hutton has consistently argued, their exit from common institutions and public services has negative effects on the quality of these. Their capacity to buy into exclusive institutions, notably public schools, is socially divisive. The abolition of free higher education, which was the means of social mobility for so many members of the government, can only exacerbate
From Margins to Mainstream
229
this. Brian Barry, like Hutton, argues that there is an upper threshold of exclusion, as well as the lower one that is the overwhelming focus of social policy.92 If the AWP tells us anything, it is that even the best policies in the social exclusion strategy will have only marginal effects unless the overall problem of structural inequality is addressed. But seven years of Labour government have not reduced inequality, and in output on social exclusion, this is neither a priority nor even an aspiration. The supply-side orientation is so strong that employability is held responsible for occupational and income structures themselves: Breaking the Cycle says that increases in educational attainment will create better labour market opportunities for the next cohort of young workers. Similar claims lie behind expectations that the income premium historically attracted by graduates will be sustained for evergreater numbers attending university. Demand factors, however, mean that the average premium is likely to drop, with greater hierarchy within the system and competition on exit. More generally, the causes of structural inequalities and the causes of individual achievement and failure are both analytically and empirically distinct. In relation to homelessness, Bradshaw observes that the overall level is affected by the (un)availability of affordable housing, while the reasons individuals become homeless are of a different kind.93 It is a bit like musical chairs. The reason some people are unable to sit down is that there are too few chairs. The reason particular people are ‘out’ is that they are less fit and agile than others, less willing to push and shove, or simply unlucky. But for New Labour, it is always the individual factors that are the focus of policy. However, supplying enough chairs is not the answer, for the shortage is the whole point of the game. The underpinning model of the good society in New Labour’s politics is a meritocracy – a society with unspecified levels of inequality, but with equal opportunities to compete for advantageous positions in it. The term was coined by Michael Young as the title of a dystopian satire, The Rise of The Meritocracy, in 1958. Young’s point, as he reiterated in 2001, was that meritocracy is unworkable. It depends on the upward mobility of talented individuals from poorer backgrounds, and on the downward mobility of dimmer richer people. But downward mobility is blocked by the fact that privileged groups will do anything to prevent their less able offspring from dropping far down the social hierarchy. Young also suggested that a system in which the least well off are forced to attribute their position to their personal inadequacy would generate resentment and rebellion, making the system inherently unstable.94 And it is precisely
230
The Inclusive Society
those conditions that Oscar Lewis identified as generative of the ‘culture of poverty’. Social mobility has started to figure in SEU reports, following discussions in Strategy Unit papers.95 These developments are predicated on sociological work demonstrating a decline in mobility between the 1970s and 1990s. This fall supports the belief that equal opportunities depend on substantive equality, as inequality rose sharply in the 1980s. The Strategy Unit papers endorse early years intervention as a way of increasing upward mobility. They also ask what would produce downward mobility. The sole policy identified is the abolition of inheritance. The choice of this recalls Durkheim’s argument (Chapter 9) that inherited wealth creates ‘unjust inequalities’, especially as Breaking the Cycle identifies the reduction of ‘unjust inequalities’ as a key goal of the social exclusion strategy.96Abolishing inheritance is not proposed as a policy, although a number of think-tank reports suggest more progressive inheritance tax.97 Child Trust Funds are also seen by some as indicating a wish to spread wealth more widely, although asset-based welfare can equally be read as a mode of individualizing risk. Other potential means of encouraging downward mobility, such as the abolition of independent schools, may be so Old Labour as to be literally unthinkable. The political unacceptability of such policies underlines Young’s claim that meritocracy is unworkable.
REDISTRIBUTION AND INEQUALITY The meritocratic goal, however, is to achieve equality of opportunity without reducing inequality itself. It is easy to forget that current levels of UK inequality are very recent. It was at its lowest in the late 1970s. But between 1979 and 1990, reductions in income inequality achieved over the previous century were expunged by economic restructuring, increasing wage dispersal, and changes in taxation and social security. The top marginal rate of income tax was reduced from 83 per cent in 1979 to 40 per cent: the rich saw their tax bills fall by amounts greater than the annual incomes of the poorest families. Income tax is now barely progressive beyond the lowest levels: the standard rate of income tax plus national insurance is 33 per cent and the top rate 41 per cent, while indirect taxation is heavily regressive. Marginal deduction rates remain far higher for the poor than for the rich, despite recent adjustments. Before the 1998 budget, 740 000 people faced a marginal deduction rate of over 70 per cent, while for 5000 it
From Margins to Mainstream
231
Table 1. Percentage shares of total net income received by individuals in different deciles of the income distribution in 1979, 1990/1, 1996/7 and 2002/3, calculated after housing costs.
Lowest 10% Second 10% Third 10% Fourth 10% Fifth 10% Sixth 10% Seventh 10% Eighth 10% Ninth 10% Top 10%
1979
1990/1
1996/7
2002/3
4 6 7 7 8 10 11 12 14 21
2 4 5 7 7 10 10 12 16 27
2 4 5 6 8 9 10 13 15 28
2 4 5 7 7 9 10 12 15 29
Sources: 1979 and 1990/1, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inquiry into Income and Wealth (1995); 1996/7 and 2002/3, Households Below Average Income 2004, DWP.
was over 100 per cent. By 2003/4, only 185 000 had a marginal rate of over 70 per cent, but 1.5 million faced rates of 60 per cent.98 The maximum rate for those above the National Insurance ‘ceiling’ remains 41 per cent. The Tax Justice Network suggests that tax loopholes enable the rich to deprive the exchequer of between £25bn and £85bn each year, the lower figure corresponding to the current public sector deficit, and the higher more than is spent on the entire National Health Service.99 Corporation Tax fell from 52 to 33 per cent in 1997 to 30 per cent in 2001, with the small companies rate dropping from 42 to 19 per cent, generating only 7.2 per cent of the total tax take. The shift from corporation to personal taxation can also be seen in the exemption of commercial property transactions from stamp duty, while house price rises push an increasing number of domestic property purchases into the higher bands. The purchase of a property priced at £250,000 is taxed at £7,500, while the average house price in the Greater London area in 2004 was over £280, 000. The share of total income going to the bottom 10 per cent of people dropped from around 4 per cent in 1979 to around 2 per cent by 1990 – that is, one fifth of what they would have received under conditions of distributive equality. By 1990, the AHC incomes of the poorest 10 per cent were lower in real terms than in 1979. If this was catastrophic, changes for the rich were equally dramatic. In 1979, the richest 10 per cent received over 20 per cent of national income, or twice their share; by 1997 this had risen to 28 per cent, and by 2002 to 29 per cent, or
232
The Inclusive Society
nearly three times their share. In 1979, the top 10 per cent had five times the share of the bottom group; by 2001/2, they had nearly fifteen times that share. The redistributive measures of Labour’s budgets have stemmed this rise in inequality, but have not reversed it.
THE REVOLT OF THE THINK TANKS? The latter part of Blair’s second term has seen rising concern from left-leaning think-tanks about these persistent levels of inequality. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has consistently monitored the redistributive consequences of Labour’s policies, and their limits. In 2003, it said that to halve child poverty by 2010, the government would need to spend one per cent of GDP in child tax credits, or achieve a substantial rise in parental employment. In 2004, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation held a centenary conference to discuss strategy for the next twenty years. It suggested that ‘if Labour really wants to abolish child poverty by 2020, it will have to redirect money from rich to poor radically. The income of the bottom 10% will have to rise at three times the rate that it increases for the top 60 per cent of the population for the next two decades’. This of course would require not only a much higher minimum wage, but also greatly improved benefits to people not in paid work and higher taxation of the rich.100 In the summer of 2004, the IPPR published an interim report on a programme described as ‘an exercise in rethinking social justice for the next generation’ to mark the tenth anniversary of John Smith’s Commission on Social Justice (Chapter 2). The State of the Nation: An Audit of Injustice in the UK covers poverty, prosperity and inequality, social mobility and life chances, citizenship and participation, and quality of life. Like the IFS reports, it demonstrates Labour’s failure to reduce inequalities of income and to prevent growing inequalities of wealth, and pays particular attention to the fall in social mobility. Two new thinktanks have also joined the fray. Catalyst, set up in 1998, represents a social democratic position well to the left of New Labour, and has been stringently critical of the PFI. A new umbrella group, Compass, in 2003 called for greater equality and a return to social democracy.101 The editors of the Labour journal Renewal declared ‘we thought New Labour would deliver a revived social democracy: we were wrong’.102 There are three reasons why these responses are not likely to produce significantly greater equality, and why the outlook for social inclusion is therefore bleak: the equivocation of the think-tanks
From Margins to Mainstream
233
themselves, public opinion, and the fundamental character of the New Labour project. Both IFS and IPPR describe the changing pattern of inequality: growing dispersion in the top 10 per cent and a huge rise for the top 1 per cent since 1997, with the bottom 10 per cent gaining little. For the remaining 80 per cent, average annual income growth ranges from just over 2 per cent at the upper end to around 3 per cent at the lower end. The IPPR describes this as not so much the 30-30-40 society as the 10-89-1 society,103 although those at the top of the 89 per cent have incomes several times those at the bottom. The IPPR data shows the rich taking more of the nations income and wealth and the poorest no less poor. The life expectancy of women in the lowest social class has declined; the proportion of those in poverty expressing satisfaction with family life fell from 60 to 45 per cent between 1996 and 2003. Nevertheless, the report equivocates about the causes and consequences of inequality. It says that ‘in many respects Britain has become fairer in the last ten years’, and that ‘life is improving in many ways for the very worst off’. There is no general attack on inequality, for ‘[n]ot all inequalities are unjust’. Social justice merely ‘demands a society in which the social class, ethnicity or talents of your parents makes less difference to the kind of life you are able to lead or the opportunities open to you’. The issue is equality of opportunity: ‘progressives should . . . be committed to a greater equality of opportunity and social mobility than actually exists’. Area inequalities incur greater disapproval than those resulting from class or ethnicity. ‘It is unacceptable that people’s life chances should be restricted simply because they happen to be born in one place rather than another.’ Even the commitment to equal opportunities is qualified: ‘[t]he centre-left should not necessarily want to fashion a purely meritocratic society: equality of opportunity may trade off against other objectives such as social cohesion and solidarity’.104 Similar equivocation can be found in the Compass statement.105 More importantly, both the IFS and the IPPR discuss the current structure of inequality as a permanent shift. Paxton and Dixon, for the IPPR, describe inequalities in income, wealth and wellbeing, and in persistent poverty as ‘stubbornly high’, as if consistent attempts have been made to reduce them, but have failed.106 ‘Researchers’, they say, ‘do not understand well enough why this break in trends happens’. This naturalizes a change whose causes are well-documented. A substantial reduction in inequality would require measures as dramatic and controversial as those of the Thatcher years. Some argue that ‘old Labour policies, including steeper marginal rates of income tax, may
234
The Inclusive Society
be necessary’, but that ‘the intervening twenty years of political history make them unusable’.107 Certainly ‘no-one has begun to prepare voters yet for redistribution on that scale’.108 The political difficulties are real. Opinion polls in the summer of 2004 showed that only 22 per cent of the electorate, and less than half of labour voters, think Britain is fairer than in 1997.109 Eighty per cent of the population think Britain is too unequal and the government should do something about it, but a similar proportion are opposed to ‘redistribution’.110 What needs to be called into question, however, is not only the degree of redistribution to ‘correct for’ market outcomes, but the legitimacy of the market distribution itself. The social product is distributed not on the basis of social contribution or need, but on the basis of the price people can exact for their labour. And markets are not neutral distributive mechanisms. They are embedded in social and legal structures that sanction and support the redistribution of the social product away from workers and towards capital. If the limits of redistribution involve political will, and are affected by public opinion, they are also affected by the fundamental character of New Labour and especially its relation to markets. David Clark argues that the attempt to marry social democracy and neo-liberalism is problematic both ideologically and structurally. Market values encouraged in the economic sphere generate a political culture that is not conducive to social solidarity and redistribution.111 The economic basis of social democracy has been progressively undermined by the spread of markets through the public services.112 Stuart Hall describes New Labour as a hybrid between neo-liberalism and social democracy, in which the social democratic element is systematically subordinated to neo-liberal ends. It governs in the interests of capital, while engaging in just enough redistribution to keep its traditional supporters on board. The ‘double shuffle’ of governing in the interests of one constituency while maintaining electoral support in another is sustained by ‘spin’, in which ambiguous rhetoric plays a crucial part.113 The flexibility of the concept of social exclusion is, in this context, part of the point. Conceptual ambiguity, however, is less easy to disguise when it translates into policy. Thus the ambiguities and contradictions in the strategy to tackle exclusion can be seen as the outcome of the contradictory nature of the New Labour project itself. If this analysis is right, the prospects for greater equality are bleak. So too, then, are the prospects for inclusion. For to tackle social exclusion without making serious inroads into inequality is to fight the battle with both hands tied behind our backs.
Appendix The Changes to Clause IV THE ORIGINAL CLAUSE IV National (1) To organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.* (2) To cooperate with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, or other kindred organisations, in joint political or other action in harmony with the party constitution and standing orders. (3) To give effect as far as may be practicable to the principles from time to time approved by the party conference.* (4) To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration of each industry or service. (5) Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life.
Inter-Commonwealth (6) To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in the Commonwealth overseas with a view to promoting the purposes of the party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries.
International (7) To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in other countries and to support the United Nations Organisation and its various agencies and other international organisations for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.
*Retained elsewhere in the constitution
235
Appendix
236 THE NEW CLAUSE IV
(1) The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone; so as to create for each of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties that we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect. (2) To these ends we work for: . a dynamic economy, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and cooperation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper, with a thriving private sector and high quality public services, where those undertakings essential to the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them; . a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power; . an open democracy, in which Government is held to account by the people; decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect; and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed; . a healthy environment, which we protect, enhance, and hold in trust for future generations. (3) Labour is committed to the defence and security of the British people, and to co-operating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other bodies to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all. (4) Labour will work in pursuit of these aims with trade unions, cooperative societies and other affiliated organisations, consumer groups and other representative bodies. (5) On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.
Notes NOTES TO INTRODUCTION 1.
2. 3.
Andersen, Paul and Mann, Nyta (1997) Safety First: The Making of New Labour, London: Granta Books; Davies, A.J. (1996) To Build a new Jerusalem: The British Labour Party from Kier Hardy to Tony Blair, London: Abacus; Jones, Tudor (1996) Remaking the Labour Party: From Gaitskell to Blair, London: Routledge; Panitch, Leo and Leys, Colin (1997) The End of Parliamentary Socialism: From New Left to New Labour, London: Verso; Shaw, Eric (1994) The Labour Party Since 1979, London: Routledge. Layard, Richard (1997) What Labour Can Do, London: Warner Books. Silver, Hilary (1994) ‘Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms’ International Labour Review Vol. 133, Nos. 5–6, pp. 531–78.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Murgatroyd, Linda and Neuburger, Henry (1997) ‘A Household Satellite Account for the UK’ Economic Trends No. 527, October: 63–71; Waring, Marilyn (1988) If Women Counted, London: Macmillan. These gender differences are almost certainly understated. The methodology does not allow people to record themselves as doing more than one thing at once. Respondents are expressly instructed that doing housework while caring for children should be recorded as housework rather than care of children. If this is extended to activities such as eating and leisure (which are not counted as unpaid work), the child care responsibilities of women will be seriously undercounted, and the differences between men and women reduced. Glucksmann, Miriam (1995) ‘Why ‘‘Work’’? Gender and the ‘‘Total Social Organisation of Labour’’ ’ Gender, Work and Organisation Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 69, 67. Townsend, Peter (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom, Harmondsworth: Penguin p. 32. Ibid., pp. 399, 249. Ibid., p. 564. Duncan, Simon and Edwards, Rosalind (1997) Single Mothers in an International Context: Mothers or Workers? London: UCL Press. Townsend’s (1979) attitude to unpaid work, and to the position of women more generally, was not wholly consistent. In talking about levels of unemployment, he argued that the numbers would be far higher if the ‘under-utilized productive capacity of non-employed women with or without dependants’, together with other economically inactive groups were to be included. On the other hand, he was concerned that the shift from manufacturing to service industries would ‘create a major new
237
238
9. 10. 11. 12.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.
Notes source of inequality and poverty in society’ as older men were displaced from the labour market in favour of women. He predicted that ‘a larger number of physically active middle-aged males will be pensioned off to facilitate occupational opportunity for women’ p. 682. Townsend, Peter (1997) ‘Redistribution: The Strategic Alternative to Privatisation’, in Alan Walker and Carol Walker, Britain Divided: The growth of social exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s, London: CPAG, p. 269. Walker, Alan and Walker, Carol, (eds) (1997) Britain Divided: The growth of social exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s, London: CPAG. Ibid: 8. Harker, Lisa (1996) A Secure Future? Social security and the family in a changing world, London: CPAG; Harker, Lisa (1997) ‘New Paths for Social Security’ in Alan Walker and Carol Walker, Britain Divided: The growth of social exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s, London: CPAG. Walker, op cit., p. 8. Golding, Peter (1986) Excluding the Poor, London: CPAG. Lister, Ruth (1990) The Exclusive Society: Citizenship and the Poor, London: CPAG. Goodin, Robert E. (1996) ‘Inclusion and Exclusion’, European Journal of Sociology Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 343–71. Marshall, T.H. (1950) ‘Citizenship and Social Class’ in T.H. Marshall and Tom Bottomore, Citizenship and Social Class, London: Pluto Press 1992, p. 8. Ibid., p. 44. Pateman, Carole (1988) The Sexual Contract, Cambridge: Polity Press; Walby, Sylvia (1994) ‘Is Citizenship Gendered?’ Sociology Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 379–95. Lister, op cit., p. 68. Hall, Stuart and Jacques, Martin (1983) The Politics of Thatcherism, London: Lawrence and Wishart; Levitas, Ruth (1986) (ed.) The Ideology of the New Right, Cambridge: Polity; Gamble, Andrew (1988) The Free Economy and The Strong State, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Cole on the Dole, 19 February 1993. Townsend (1979) op cit., p. 920. Field, Frank (1990) Losing Out: The Emergence of Britain’s Underclass, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, p. 101. Dahrendorf, Ralf (1987) ‘The erosion of citizenship and its consequences for us all’ New Statesman, 12 June, p. 13. Ibid. Field, op cit., pp. 7, 107. Ibid., pp. 155, 107. Ibid., p. 8. Field, Frank (1995) Making Welfare Work: Reconstructing Welfare for the Millennium, London: Institute of Community Studies. Murray, Charles (1990) The Emerging British Underclass, London: IEA, p. 23. Ibid., pp. 4, 17. Ibid., p. 7. Murray, Charles (1994) Underclass: The Crisis Deepens, London: IEA.
Notes 35. 36. 37.
38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.
48. 49. 50. 51.
52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.
239
Bewick, Tom (1997) ‘The poverty of US welfare reform: lessons from California’, Working Brief 87, August/September, pp. 21–7. Panorama, 29 September 1997; Rogers, J. Jean (1997) ‘Making welfare work’, New Statesman 29 August, pp. 17–18. Macnicol, John (1987) ‘In pursuit of the Underclass’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 293–318; Mann, Kirk (1992) The Making of an English Underclass, Milton Keynes: Open University Press; Morris, Lydia (1994) Dangerous Classes: The Underclass and Social Citizenship, London: Routledge. Thinking Aloud, 12 November 1987, ‘Is There a New Underclass in British Society?’ Channel 4. Westergaard, John (1992) ‘About and Beyond the ‘‘Underclass’’ ’, Sociology Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 575–87. Oppenheim, Carey (1993) Poverty: The Facts, London: CPAG. Dean, Hartley and Taylor-Gooby, Peter (1992) Dependency Culture: the explosion of a myth, New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Lister op cit., p. 26. Adonis, Andrew and Pollard, Stephen (1997) A Class Act: The Myth of Classless Society, London: Hamish Hamilton, p. 16. Ibid., p. 13. Duffy, K. (1995) Social Exclusion and Human Dignity in Europe, Council of Europe. Silver op cit. Spicker, Paul (1997) ‘Exclusion’, Journal of Common Market Studies 35(1): 133–143; Evans, Martin, Paugam, Serge and Prelis, Joseph A. (1995) Chunnel Vision: Poverty, social exclusion and the debate on social welfare in France and Britain, STICERD working paper WSP/115, London: London School of Economics. Spicker op cit. Room, Graham (1995) (ed.) Beyond the Threshold, Bristol: Policy Press. Sostris (1997) Social Strategies in Risk Societies: Social Exclusion in Comparative Perspective, Sostris Working Paper 1, London: University of East London. EC (1994b) European Social Policy: a way forward for the Union, Brussels: European Commission; EC (1994a) Growth, competitiveness, employment: the challenges and ways forward into the 21st century, Brussels: European Commission. EC (1994a) op cit., p. 3. EC (1994b) op cit., p. 49. EC (1994a) op cit., pp. 15–16. EC (1994b) op cit., p. 49. Ibid., pp. 35–6, 51–2. EC (1994a) p. 136. EC (1994b) op cit., p. 49; EC (1994a) op cit., p. 134. EC (1994a) op cit., pp. 9,11. Ibid., pp. 148–9. Maier, Friederike (1994) Equal Opportunities for Women and Men: Wage and Non-wage Labour Costs, Social Security and Public Funds to Combat Unemployment, Brussels: European Commission; Rees, Teresa (1994)
Notes
240
62. 63. 64. 65.
Equal Opportunities for Women and Men: Equality into Education and Training Policies, Brussels: European Commission. EC (1994a) op cit., pp. 12, 15. Ibid., p. 54. Ibid., pp. 15–16, 139. Ackers, Louise (1998) Shifting Spaces: Women, Citizenship and migration within the European Union, Bristol: Policy Press.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
14.
Thompson and du Gay (1997) ‘Future imperfect’ Nexus, Winter/Spring, pp. 8–9. Twigg, Stephen Fabian Review Vol. 109, No. 2, p. 23. Cohen, Nick (1997) ‘Totally Wonkers’, Observer, 9 March, p. 20. New Statesman 15 January 1993, p. 5. The membership of the Commission on Social Justice was: Sir Gordon Borrie, QC; Professor A.B. Atkinson, Oxford; Anita Bhalla, Asian Resource Centre, Birmingham; Professor John Gennard, Strathclyde University; The Very Reverend John Gladwin, Provost of Sheffield and Bishop-Elect of Guildford; Christopher Haskins, Chairman, Northern Foods plc; Patricia Hewitt; Dr Penelope Leach, Fellow, British Psychological Society; Professor Ruth Lister, Loughborough University; Professor David Marquand, University of Sheffield; Bert Massie, Director, Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation; Emma MacLennan, Vice-Chair, Low Pay Unit; Dr Eithne McLaughlin, Queens University, Belfast; Stephen Webb, Institute for Fiscal Studies; Margaret Wheeler, UNISON; Professor Bernard Williams, Oxford. Beresford, Peter and Turner, Michael (1997) It’s Our Welfare, Report of the Citizens’ Commission on the future of the Welfare State, London: National Institute for Social Work. Commission on Social Justice (CSJ) (1994) Social Justice: Strategies for Social Renewal, London: Vintage, p. 96 (emphasis added). Townsend, Peter (1995) ‘Persuasion and Conformity: An assessment of the Borrie report on Social Justice’, New Left Review Vol. 213, pp. 137–50. Milne, Kirsty (1995) ‘Welfare Statement’, New Statesman and Society, 27 January, p. 21. CSJ op cit., p. 95. Ibid. Andersen and Mann op cit. This was part of the Australian ‘Working Nation’ initiative, which, like New Labour’s New Deal, was introduced by a right-wing Labour administration. See Finn, Dan (1997) Working Nation: Welfare Reform and the Australian Job Compact for the long term unemployed, London: Unemployment Unit. Showstack Sassoon, Anne (1996) ‘Beyond pessimism of the intellect: Agendas for Social Justice and Change’ in Mark Perryman (ed.) The Blair Agenda, London: Lawrence and Wishart, p. 159.
Notes 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.
241
CSJ op cit., p. 112. CSJ op cit., p. 81. CSJ op cit., p. 103, 111. CSJ op cit., p. 170, 147, 3. CSJ op cit., p. 6, 169, 178. CSJ op cit., p. 166. CSJ op cit., p. 262. CSJ op cit., p. 152. CSJ op cit., p. 104, 151. CSJ op cit., p. 264–5. CSJ op cit., p. 20. CSJ op cit., p. 243. CSJ op cit., pp. 126, 366, 368. CSJ op cit., p. 82. CSJ op cit., p. 187. CSJ op cit., p. 193. CSJ op cit., p. 197. CSJ op cit., p. 189. CSJ op cit., p. 166. CSJ op cit., p. 76. CSJ op cit., p. 18. Milne op cit., p. 21. The members of the Inquiry Group were: Sir Peter Barclay, Trustee of the JRF and former Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee; Tessa Baring, Trustee of the Baring Foundation and Chair of Barnados; Michael Bett, Deputy Chairman of British Telecom and Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee; Vivienne Coombe, NCH Action for Children; Howard Davies, Director-General of the CBI; Kathleen Kiernan, Senior Research Fellow, Population Studies, LSE; Ruth Lea, Economic Editor, ITN; Pamela Meadows, Director, Policy Studies Institute; John Monks, General Secretary, TUC; Robin Wendt, Chief Executive, Association of County Councils; John Willman, Features Editor, Financial Times; Tricia Zipfel, Director, Priority Estates Project. John Hills, LSE, was Secretary to the project. Rowntree (1995) Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inquiry into Income and Wealth, 2 vols, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Vol. I, p. 33. Ibid., p. 32. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., p. 34. The membership is given in the report as: Lord Dahrendorf, Warden of St. Antony’s College, Oxford; Frank Field, Member of Parliament for Birkenhead, Chairman of the House of Commons Social Security Select Committee; Carolyn Hayman, Executive Director, Rutherford Ventures; Ian Hutcheson CBE, Chairman and Chief Executive of Acatos and Hutcheson [who provided the financial support for the Commission]; Will Hutton, Assistant Editor of the Guardian; David Marquand, Professor of Politics, University of Sheffield; Andrew Sentance, Senior Research Fellow, London Business School; Sir Ian Wrigglesworth,
Notes
242
44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.
Deputy Chairman John Livingston & Sons Ltd.; Secretary, Dan Trelford. Among those listed as giving advice to the group are Andrew Dilnot from the Institute of Fiscal Studies; Richard Layard (LSE) and John Monks (TUC), both of whom were members of the IPPR Commission on Public Policy and British Business, discussed in Chapter 4; Mark Goyder, similarly acknowledged in the report of that Commission and Howard Davies, who, like Monks, was also part of the Rowntree team. The launch of the Dahrendorf report was sponsored by the Prudential Corporation. Dahrendorf, Ralf et al. (1995) Report on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in a Free Society, London: Commission on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion, pp. 43, 33. Ibid., pp. 34–5. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid., p. 15. Dahrendorf, Ralf (1996) ‘On the Dahrendorf Report’, Political Quarterly Vol. 67, No. 3, p. 196. Dahrendorf, Ralf et al., op cit., p. 15. Ibid., p. 103. Ibid., p. 17. Ibid., p. vii. Ibid., p. 26. Ibid., p. 97. Ibid., p. 18. Ibid., p. 26. Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., p. 100. Hewitt, Patricia (1993) About Time: the revolution in work and family life London: IPPR/Rivers Oram Press.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Willetts, David (1997) Why Vote Conservative? Penguin, p. 4. Marquand, David and Seldon, Anthony (1996) The Ideas that Shaped Post-War Britain, London: New Statesman/Fontana, p. 3. Hutton, Will (1997a) ‘Our Stake in Society’, Observer, 20 April, p. 29. Hutton, Will (1995a) ‘High Risk Strategy’, Guardian, 30 October, p. 3. Hutton, Will (1997a) ‘Our Stake in Society’, Observer, 20 April, p. 29. Hutton, Will (1997c) The State to Come, London: Vintage, p. 4. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., p. 64. Hutton, Guardian 24 April 1995. Hutton, Will (1995b) The State We’re In, London: Jonathan Cape, p. 114. Ibid., p. 21–2. Ibid., p. 24. Hutton, Will (1996a) The State We’re In, London: Vintage, p. 169. These figures are as given by Hutton in January 1995.
Notes 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.
56. 57.
243
Hutton (1995a) op cit., p. 2. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p33. Hutton, Will (1996b) ‘The Stakeholder Society’ in Marquand and Seldon op cit., p. 297. Hutton (1995a) op cit., p. 3. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 197. Hutton (1995a) op cit., p. 3. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 323. Hutton (1996b) op cit., p. 300. Hutton (1996a) op cit., p. xxv. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 326. Hutton, Guardian 17 January 1996. Hutton, Guardian 9 January 1996. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 68. Ibid., p. 32. Hutton, Guardian 17 January 1996. Hutton and Kay, Observer 13 October 1996. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 295. Hutton (1996a) op cit., p. 330. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 71. Ibid., p. 65. Hutton, Guardian 6 March 1996. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 81. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 296. Ibid., p. 297. GUMG (Glasgow University Media Group) (1976) Bad News, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 81. Hutton, Guardian 17 January 1996. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 81. Ibid., p. 81. Ibid. Hutton, Guardian 17 January 1996. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 81. Hutton and Kay, op cit. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 111. Hutton, Guardian 17 January 1996. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p24. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 99–100, 111. Hutton and Kay op cit. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 66–7. Ibid., p. 67. Plant, Raymond (1997a) ‘Rights, Obligations and the Reform of the Welfare State’, Public Lecture, University of Bristol, 14 May; Moon, J. Donald (1988) ‘The Moral Basis of the Democratic Welfare State’ in Gutmann (1988) pp. 27–52; Elster, Jon (1988) ‘Is There (or Should There Be) a Right to Work?’ in Gutmann (1988) pp. 53–78. Hutton (1995a) op cit., p. 3. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 231.
244 58. 59.
60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94.
Notes Hutton, Guardian 22 May 1995. Hutton (Observer, 2 November 1997).This point appears to be drawn straight from Tony Giddens, whom Hutton admires. Giddens overstates his own case, but at least he does not imply that women are principally affected by the impact of ‘reflexive modernity’ on personal relationships, nor formulate this in terms of greater ‘hard-headedness’. Staying in bad relationships out of economic necessity is at least as hard-headed as leaving them when that necessity is removed. Hutton, Observer 2 November 1997. Hutton, (1997b) ‘An Overview of Stakeholding’ in Kelly et al. (1997), p. 8. Hutton, Guardian 18 March 1996. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 41. Hutton, Observer 8 December 1996. Levitas, Ruth (1996a) ‘Fiddling while Britain Burns: The ‘measurement’ of unemployment’ in Ruth Levitas and Will Guy (eds) Interpreting Official Statistics, London: Routledge, pp. 45–65. Hutton (1995a) op cit., p. 2. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 40. Hutton (1995a) op cit., p. 3. Hutton, Observer 8 December 1996. Hutton, Guardian 27 December 1995. Interview with Will Hutton, July 1997. Freely, Maureen (1997) ‘Want to be a stakeholder? Better get a wife’, Guardian, 23 January, p. 9. Hutton (1997b) op cit., p. 3. Hutton, Will (1996c) ‘Left with no illusions’, Prospect, March, pp. 46–50. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 89. Ibid., p. 75–6. Ibid., p. 89. Hutton (1996b) op cit., p. 300. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 309. Hutton, Guardian 27 March 1995. Hutton (1996a) op cit., p. 341. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 310–11. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 214. Hutton, Observer 20 October 1996. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 308. Ibid., p. 311. Hutton, Guardian 8 November 1995. Hutton (1997c) op cit., p. 6. Ibid., p. 63. Interview with Will Hutton, July 1997. Perkin, Harold (1996) The Third Revolution: Professional Elites in the Modern World, London: Routledge, pp. 174, 168. Hutton (1995b) op cit., p. 323. Plender, John (1997) A Stake in the Future: The Stakeholding Solution, London: Nicholas Brealey. The acknowledgements in The State to Come suggest that Hutton’s connections with the Blairite circle were very strong. They include David
Notes
95.
245
Miliband, Geoff Mulgan, John Gray, and David Marquand as well as Anthony Giddens, Martin Jacques, David Held, Neil Belton, Colin Mayer, David Halpern and Stuart White. Hutton, Observer 19 October 1997.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
Guardian 9 December 1996. Willetts (1997) op cit., pp. ,13–14. Guardian 16 January 1997. Newsnight December 1996. Kelly, Gavin, Kelly, Dominic and Gamble, Andrew, (eds) (1997) Stakeholder Capitalism, London: Macmillan, p. 239. Ibid., pp. 255, 248. Lloyd, John (1997b) ‘Interview: Clive Hollick’, New Statesman, 24 January, p. 19. Kay, John (1993) The Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 186. Ibid., p. 50. Ibid., p. 320. Ibid., p. 322. Ibid., p. 326. Kay, John (1996b) The Business of Economics Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ibid., pp. 81, 111. Ibid., p. 108. Ibid., p. 112. Ibid., p. 86. Ibid., p. 123. Ibid., p. 131. Ibid., p. 125. Ibid., p. 124. Ibid., p. 131. Ibid., p. 135. Ibid., p. 132. Kay (1996b) op cit.; Kay, John (1996a) ‘The Good Market’, Prospect, May: 39–43. Kay (1996b) op cit., p. 139. Ibid., p. 138. Ibid., pp. 140–1. Ibid., p. 143. Ibid., p. 141. Ibid., p. 124. Ibid., p. 146. Ibid., p. 144. Barratt Brown, Michael and Coates, Ken (1996) The Blair Revelation: Deliverance for Whom? London: Spokesman. Kay (1996b) op cit., p. 146.
Notes
246 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.
Financial Times 1 November 1996. Kay (1996) op cit., p. 87. Jones, Nicholas (1997) Campaign 1997, London: Indigo. Financial Times 22 January 1997. Lloyd (1997b) op cit., p. 19. Commission on Public Policy and British Business (CPPBB) (1997) Promoting Prosperity: A Business Agenda for Britain, London: Vintage, p. 29. Ibid., p. 103. Ibid., p. 103. Ibid., p. 104. Ibid., p. 103–4. Ibid., p. 111. Mandelson, Peter and Liddle, Roger (1996) The Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver?, London: Faber and Faber, p. 25. CPPBB op cit., p. 49. Ibid., p. 106. Ibid., p. 105. Ibid., p. 105. Ibid., p. 117. Ibid., p. 49. Ibid., p. 112. Ibid., p. 270. Ibid., p. 184. Ibid., pp. 186–7. Ibid., p. 185. Observer 16 February 1997. Trades Union Congress (TUC) (1996) Your Stake at Work: TUC Proposals for a Stakeholding Economy, London: Trades Union Congress, pp. 5, 15. Ibid., p. 20. Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., p. 21. Ibid., p. 23. Guardian 30 December 1996. Hutton (1996a) op cit., p. 296. Green Party (1993) Manifesto for a Sustainable Society London: Green Party, pp. 12–13. Ibid., p. 26. Ibid., p. 7. Hutton (1996a) op cit., pp. xxiii, 342.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5 1.
Tonnies, F. (1963 [1887]) Community and Society New York: Harper and Rowe.
Notes 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.
247
Mulhall, Stephen and Swift, Adam (1992) Liberals and Communitarians, Oxford: Blackwell. Halsey, A.H. and Young, Michael (1995) Family and Community Socialism, London: IPPR. Etzioni, Amitai (1995 [1993]) The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda, London: Fontana. Etzioni, Amitai (1997 [1996]) The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society, London: Profile Books. Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., p. 57. Etzioni (1995) op cit., p. ix. Etzioni (1997) op cit., pp. 61, 64. Etzioni (1995) op cit., p. 12. Etzioni (1997) op cit., p. 65. Ibid., pp. 71–3. Etzioni (1995) op cit., pp. 13–4. Ibid., p. 6–7. Etzioni (1997) op cit., p. 167. Etzioni (1995) op cit., p. 91. Ibid., pp. 90, 63, 69. Ibid., p. 85. Ibid., p. 72. Etzioni (1997) op cit., p. 186. Ibid., p. 212. Ibid., p. 187, 172. Etzioni (1995) op cit., p. 25. Ibid., p. 91. Etzioni (1997) op cit., p. 149. Etzioni (1995) op cit., p. 36. Ibid., p. 63. Ibid., p. 61. Etzioni (1997) op cit., p. 146. Etzioni (1995) op cit., p. 15. Ibid., p. 40. Etzioni (1997) op cit., p. 124. Etzioni (1995) op cit., p. 43. Ibid., p. 145, 76. Ibid., p. 130. Ibid., p. 241. Ibid., pp. 251, 252. Ibid., p. 174. Gray, John (1997) Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought, Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 116. Gray, John (1993a) Beyond the New Right: Markets, government and the common environment, New York: Routledge, p. 59. Gray, John (1989) Liberalisms: Essays in Political Philosophy, London: Routledge; (1993a) Beyond the New Right: Markets, government and the common environment, London: Routledge; (1993b) op cit.; (1995) Enlightenment’s Wake: Politics and culture at
248
42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.
Notes the close of the modern age, London: Routledge; (1997) Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought, Cambridge: Polity Press. Gray (1995) op cit., p. vii. Gray (1993a) op cit., p. viii. Ibid., p. x. Gray (1995) op cit., pp. 88–9. Gray (1997) op cit., p. 100. Gray (1995) op cit., p. 91. Gray (1997) op cit., p. 18. Gray, John (1992) The Moral Foundations of Market Institutions, London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit. Gray (1997) op cit., pp. 19–20. Gray (1993a) op cit., p. 59. Gray (1997) op cit., pp. 16–17. Gray (1993a) op cit. Gray (1997) op cit., p. 17. Gray (1993a) op cit., p. 105. Ibid., p. 24. Ibid., pp. 33–4. Ibid., p. 33. Ibid., pp. 33–4, 53. Ibid., p. 37. Ibid., p. 13. Gray (1997) op cit., p. 2; (1995) op cit., p. 89. Gray (1997) op cit., p. 148. Ibid., p. 142. Ibid., p. 81. Ibid., p. 45, 47. Ibid., p. 123. Ibid., p. 47. Ibid., p. 124. Ibid., p. 44. Gray (1993a) op cit., p. 122. Ibid., p. 103. Gray, John (1997) ‘After Social Democracy’ in Gray (1997) Endgames op cit. Ibid., p. 23. Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., p. 17. Gray (1993a) op cit., p. 113. Gray (1997) op cit., p. 115. Ibid., p. 100. Ibid., p. 25. Ibid., p. viii. Blair, Tony (1994b) Socialism, Fabian Pamphlet 565, London: Fabian Society. Brittan, Samuel (1997) ‘Tony Blair’s real guru’, New Statesman, 7 February, pp. 18–20.
Notes
249
84. Macmurray, John (1935b) Creative Society: A Study of the Relation of Christianity to Communism, London: SCM Press, pp. 69–70, 105. 85. Macmurray, John (1932) Freedom in the Modern World, London: Faber and Faber, p. 61. 86. Ibid., p. 196. 87. Ibid., p. 193. 88. Ibid., p. 189. 89. Macmurray, John (1957) The Self as Agent, London: Faber and Faber; (1961) Persons in Relation, London: Faber and Faber. 90. Macmurray (1935b) op cit., p. 118. 91. Ibid., p. 162. 92. Macmurray, John (1931) Learning to Live, London: BBC, p. 24. 93. Macmurray (1935a) op cit., p. 114–15. 94. Ibid., p. 120. 95. Ibid., p. 255. 96. Macmurray (1935b) op cit., p. 158; (1931) op cit., p. 31. 97. Macmurray (1935b) op cit., p. 154. 98. Ibid., p. 159. 99. Ibid. 100. Macmurray (1961) op cit., p. 187. 101. Ibid., p. 44–5. 102. Macmurray (1931) op cit., p. 25, 34. 103. Ibid., p. 12. 104. Macmurray (1935a) op cit., p. 90.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), due to be signed in April 1998, is an OECD treaty whose purpose is to remove from governments of member states virtually all powers to regulate foreign investment within their territories. It will open all sectors of the signatories’ economies (except defence) to foreign investment, and will allow companies to sue local and national governments in international courts if they attempt to impose restrictions on companies. There is a lot of information on the MAI on the internet, or see New Ground 53, Winter 1997/8: 8. Blair, 14 October 1996, speech at the CPU Conference, Cape Sun Hotel, Cape Town. Mandelson and Liddle (1996) op cit., p. 3–4. Blair, 7 April 1997, speech at the Corn Exchange London. Mandelson and Liddle, op cit., p. 29. Blair, 14 October 1996, op cit. Mandelson and Liddle op cit., p. 4. Barratt Brown, Michael and Coates, Ken (1996) The Blair Revelation: Deliverance for Whom?, London: Spokesman. Levitas, Ruth (1986) (ed.) The Ideology of the New Right, Cambridge: Polity.
250 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
Notes Blair, 8 January 1996, speech to Singapore business community. Blair, 29 January 1996, ‘Faith in the City – Ten Years On’, speech at Southwark Cathedral, London. Wright, Tony (1997) Why Vote Labour? Penguin, pp. 56–7, 65. Willetts, David (1996) Blair’s Gurus; Willetts, David (1997) Why Vote Conservative? Penguin. Willets (1997) op cit., p. 11, 13. Kelly et al. (1997) op cit. Alistair Darling, Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., p. 16. Ibid., p. 17. Ibid., pp. 18–19. EPI (1996) Employment Audit, 2, Autumn, p. 1. Gregg, Paul and Wadsworth, Jonathan (1996) ‘Feeling Insecure?’, Employment Audit, 2, Autumn, pp. 17–26. Blair, 8 February 1997, speech to Labour’s Local Government Conference; 16 April 1997, ‘Seven Pillars of a Decent Society’ speech at Harbour Lights Cinema, Southampton. Meacher, Michael, Guardian, 14 March 1997. Allan Black of the GMB Guardian 7 January 1996. Peter Hain Guardian 7 January 1997. Peter Hain Observer 22 December 1996. Labour Party (LP) (1996d) Learn as You Earn: Labour’s Plans for a Skills Revolution, p. 5. Blunkett, 18 April 1997, ‘Rights and Responsibilities’, speech in Birmingham. LP (1996d) op cit., p. 9. Blair, 21 January 1997, ‘Making Britain Competitive in a Modern World’, speech at the IPPR; LP (1997a) Labour’s Business Manifesto: Equipping Britain for the Future. LP (1996d) op cit., p. 10. Blunkett, 18 April 1997, op cit. LP (1996d) op cit., p. 3. Blunkett, 18 April 1997, op cit. LP (1996d) op cit., p. 10. Labour Party (LP) (1996c) Lifelong Learning, p. 4 (emphasis added). Blair, 14 April 1997, ‘21 Steps to 21st Century’, speech at the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham; LP (1996d) op cit., p. 10. LP (1996c) op cit., p. 7. LP (1996d) op cit., p. 18. Blunkett, 22 January 1997, speech to the Excellence in the Early Years Conference, Congress House, London. Mandelson and Liddle op cit., p. 19. Labour Party (LP) (1996f) Labour and the Voluntary Sector: Setting the Agenda for Partnership in Government, p. 7. Mandelson and Liddle op cit., p. 20. Ibid. Labour Party (LP) (1996g) Strategy for Women, p. 9.
Notes 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.
251
Mandelson and Liddle op cit., p. 125. Blair, cited in Ibid., pp. 47–8. Jack Straw, Campaign Roadshow 29 April 1997. Guardian 23 March 1995; Blair, 16 April 1997, op cit. Labour Party (LP) (1996a) Tackling Youth Crime: Reforming Youth Justice, p. 12; Labour Party (LP) (1995b) Safer Communities, Safer Britain., p. 1. Straw, Newsnight 14 April 1997. LP (1996a) op cit., p. 16. Mandelson and Liddle op cit., p. 136. LP (1996a) op cit., p. 13. Labour Party (LP) (1996b) Parenting, p. 18. Labour Party (LP) (1996m) Protecting Our Communities: Labour’s Plans for Tackling Criminal, Anti-social Behaviour in Neighbourhoods., p. 3. Mandelson and Liddle op cit., pp. 135–6. LP (1995b) op cit. Labour Party (LP) (1995a) Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities, p. 1. LP (1996f) op cit., p. 5. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., pp. 7–9. Ibid., p. 8. Blair, Tony (1994a) ‘Sharing Responsibility for Crime’, in Anna Coote (ed.) Families, Children and Crime, London: IPPR, p. 90. Blair, Guardian 23 March 1995. Margaret Beckett, Election Call, 14 April 1997; Alistair Darling, Newsnight 25 April 1997.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 7 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Room op cit. Castle, Barbara and Townsend, Peter (1996) We Can Afford the Welfare State, London: Security in Retirement for everyone. Harriet Harman, 13 November 1997; speech at the Launch of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. Hattersley, Guardian 26 July 1997. Aitken, Guardian 7 August 1997. Blair, Sun 29 July 1997. Aitken, Guardian 7 August 1997; Brown, Guardian 2 August 1997. Mandelson and Liddle op cit., p. 17. Hattersley, Guardian, 6 August 1997. Blunkett, 25 February 1997; speech to the Raising Awareness: Combatting Inequality Conference, Institute of Education, London. Observer 17 August 1997. Mandelson and Liddle op cit., p. 22. Observer 21 December 1997. Channel 4 News 6 September 1997. Guardian 27 September 1997.
252 16. 17.
18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.
Notes Blair, 2 June 1997, ‘The Will to Win’; speech at the Aylesbury Estate, Southwark. Brown, 26 March 1997; speech at the Forte Posthouse Hotel, Basildon; 11 September 1997, ‘Good Work for Everyone’, speech at the Churches Conference. Straw, 16 December 1996, ‘Law and Order at the Crossroads’, speech at the Guardian/LSE Conference, London School of Economics. Layard, Richard (1997) What Labour Can Do, London: Warner Books, p. 72. CSJ op cit., Chapter 2. LP (1996g) op cit., p. 11. Brown, 13 February 1997, ‘The Anthony Crosland Memorial Lecture’. LP (1996g) op cit., p. 8. Ibid., p. 12. LP (1996f) op cit., p. 8. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 8. Mulgan, Geoff (1997a) Connexity: How to Live in a Connected World, London: Chatto and Windus, p. 122. Blair, 8 December 1997, ‘Bringing Britain Together’, speech for the launch of the SEU, Stockwell Park School, South London. Ibid. Observer 7 December 1997. Observer 17 August 1997. Perri 6 (1997b) ‘Social exclusion: time to be optimistic’ in The Wealth and Poverty of Networks: Tackling Social Exclusion, Demos Collection 12, London: Demos, pp. 3–9. Ibid., p. 8. Kruger, Danny (1997) ‘Access Denied’ The Wealth and Poverty of Networks: Tackling Social Exclusion Demos Collection 12, London: Demos, p. 20; Perri 6 (1997b) op cit., p. 3. Mulgan, Geoff (1997b) (ed. ) Life After Politics: New Thinking for the Twenty-first Century, London: Fontana Press, p. xviii. Ibid., p. 187, 189. Ibid., p. 190. Mulgan (1997a) op cit., p. 178. Ibid., p. 237. Ibid., p. 69. Mulgan, Geoff (1997c) ‘Think well-being, not welfare’, New Statesman 17 January, p. 29. Ibid. Mulgan (1997a) op cit., p. 67. Mulgan (1997b) op cit., p. 165. Mulgan (1997a) op cit., p. 227. Ibid., p. 129, 172. Ibid., p. 137, 227. Ibid., p. 184–5. Lloyd, John (1997a) ‘A plan to abolish the underclass’, New Statesman 29 August, p. 14.
Notes 50. 51. 52. 53.
54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.
253
Mulgan (1997a) op cit., p. 202. Ibid., p. 137. Ibid., p. 185. Guy, Will (1996) ‘Health for All’ in Ruth Levitas and Will Guy (eds) Interpreting Official Statistics London: Routledge; Wilkinson, Richard (1997) Unhealthy Societies: From Inequality to Wellbeing, London: Routledge. Blair, 2 June 1997, op cit. Ibid. Blair, 24 January 1997, ‘The 21st Century Welfare State’ Social and Economic Policy Conference, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Blair, 2 June 1997, op cit. Mandelson, Observer 17 August 1997. Blair, 29 January 1996, op cit. Harman, 13 November 1997, op cit. Brown, 11 September 1997, op cit. Mandelson, 14 August 1997, ‘Labour’s Next Steps: Tackling Social Exclusion’, Fabian Society lecture. Harman, 13 November 1997, op cit. Plant, Raymond (1997b) ‘The Labour Market, Citizenship and Social Exclusion’, CASE Seminar, London School of Economics, 10 December. Campbell, Bea (1993) Goliath: Britain’s Dangerous Places, London: Methuen.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 8 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Downes, David, Guardian 25 November 1997, ‘Prison does wonders for the jobless figures’; Western, Bruce and Beckett, Katherine (1997) ‘How unregulated in the U.S. Labour Market? The Penal System as a Labor Market Institution’, paper presented to the American Sociological Association, Toronto. Finn, Dan (1997) Working Nation: Welfare Reform and the Australian Job Compact for the Long Term Unemployed, London: Unemployment Unit. Townsend, Peter (1996) ‘The Struggle for Independent Statistics on Poverty’ in Ruth Levitas and Will Guy (eds) Interpreting Official Statistics, London: Routledge. Perri 6 (1997b) ‘Social exclusion: time to be optimistic’ in The Wealth and Poverty of Networks: Tackling Social Exclusion, Demos Collection 12, London: Demos, p. 3. Observer 7 December 1997. Guardian 30 December 1997. Perri 6 (1997b) op cit., p. 6; Schneider, Jo Anne (1997) ‘Welfare-tonetwork’ in The Wealth and Poverty of Networks: Tackling Social Exclusion, Demos Collection 12, London: Demos, p. 30. Perri 6 (1997) Escaping Poverty, London: Demos. Hall, Peter A. (1997) ‘Social capital: a fragile asset’ in The Wealth and Poverty of Networks: Tackling Social Exclusion, Demos Collection 12, London: Demos, p. 35.
Notes
254 10. 11. 12. 13.
Stewart, John (1997/8) ‘And the SERA response’, New Ground 53, p. 13. Ibid. Skjeie, Hege (1991) ‘The Rhetoric of Difference: On Women’s Inclusion into Political Elites’, Politics and Society Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 133–63. Daniel, Caroline (1997) ‘May the taskforce be with you’, New Statesman 1 August, p. 29.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
Durkheim, E. (1964 [1893]) The Division of Labour in Society, New York: Free Press. Gray (1997) op cit., pp. 19–20. Watts Miller, Willie (1996) Durkheim, Morals and Modernity, London: UCL Press, p. 246. Soros, George Guardian 18 January 1997. Durkheim, op cit., p. 211. Levitas, Ruth (1998) ‘Will Hutton: Closet Durkheimian’ in Paul Bagguley and Jeff Hearn (eds) Transforming Politics: Power and Resistance, London: Macmillan. Watts Miller op cit., p. 4. Ibid., p. 90. Durkheim, cited in Giddens, Anthony (1986) (ed.) Durkheim on Politics and the State, Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 8. Stanley, John L. (ed.) (1976) From Georges Sorel: Essays in Socialism and Philosophy, Oxford University Press. Durkheim, op cit., p. 17. Ibid., p. 16. Durkheim, cited in Giddens, op cit., p. 21. Durkheim, op cit., p. 242. Ibid., p. 2. Pahl, R.E. (1991), ‘The Search for Social Cohesion: from Durkheim to the European Commission’, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 348. Lehmann, Jennifer (1994) Durkheim and Women, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins (1966 [1898]) Women and Economics, New York: Harper Torchbooks. Durkheim, cited in Watts Miller, op cit., pp. 75–6. Durkheim, Emile (1952 [1897]) Suicide, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Durkheim, cited in Giddens op cit., p. 31. Ibid., p. 238. Durkheim (1964) op cit., pp. 377–8. Durkheim, cited in Watts-Miller op cit p. 254. Fenton, Steve (1984) Durkheim and Modern Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Giddens (1971) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Giddens (1978)
Notes
26. 27. 28. 29.
255
Emile Durkheim, London: Fontana; Lukes, Stephen (1973) Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work, London: Allen Lane; Pearce, Frank (1989) The Radical Durkheim, London: Unwin Hyman. Lockwood, David (1992) Solidarity and Schism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gane, Mike (1992) ‘Durkheim: Woman as Outsider’ in M. Gane (ed.) The Radical Sociology of Durkheim and Mauss, London: Routledge: 85–134; Lehmann op cit. Watts Miller, op cit. Westergaard, John (1992) ‘About and Beyond the ‘‘Underclass’’ ’, Sociology Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 575–87.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 10 1.
2.
3.
On European Indicators see Tony Atkinson, Bea Cantillon, Eric Marlier, and Brian Nolan (2002) Social Indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, and Ruth Levitas, ‘The Concept and Measurement of Social Exclusion’ in Christina Pantazis, David Gordon and Ruth Levitas (eds) Poverty and Social Exclusion: The Millennium Survey, Bristol: Policy Press, 2005. On definitions and indicators of social exclusion see also: Catherine Howarth, Peter Kenway, Guy Palmer and Cathy Street Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion: Labour’s Inheritance, York: New Policy Institute/Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1998; Cali Lessof and Roger Jowell, Measuring Social Exclusion, CREST Working Paper 84, Oxford: CREST, 2000; John Hills, Julian Le Grand and David Piachaud (eds) Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford University Press, 2001. Ideally, a complete coverage of the record on social exclusion should explore the differences between England and the devolved administrations. Reasons of space make this impossible. The equivalent publications to OFA are: for Wales, Annual Report on Social Inclusion in Wales; for Scotland, Social Justice Annual Report; for Northern Ireland, New TSN Annual Report. In the first term of government, the reports were: Truancy and Social Exclusion (May 1998); Rough Sleeping (July 1998); Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal (September 1998); Review of the Social Exclusion Unit (December 1999); Teenage Pregnancy (June 1999); Bridging the Gap: new opportunities for 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training (July 1999); Minority ethnic issues in social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal (June 2000); A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal – national strategy action plan (January 2001); National strategy for neighbourhood renewal – Policy Action Team audit (January 2001); Preventing social exclusion (March 2001). In addition, there were eighteen Policy Action Team reports from different government departments relating to the neighbourhood renewal strategy. Reports published during the second Blair Government were: Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners (July 2002); Young
256
4. 5.
6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
Notes runaways (November 2002); Making the connections: transport and social exclusion interim findings (May 2002); Making the connections: transport and social exclusion (February 2003); A better education for children in care (September 2003); Tackling Social Exclusion: Taking stock and looking to the future – emerging findings (March 2004); Action on Debt: why it matters and what you can do (April 2004); Mental Health and Social Exclusion (June 2004); Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future (September 2004). The Unit also commissioned a review of the literature on social exclusion undertaken by academics at the University of York. Jonathan Bradshaw, Peter Kemp, Sally Baldwin and Abigail Rowe, The Drivers of Social Exclusion: A Review of the Literature, SEU/ OPDM May 2004. NAP 2003: 24. Ming Zhang ‘Links between School Absenteeism and Child Poverty’, Pastoral Care in Education 21 (1): 10–17, March 2003; Ming Zhang ‘Time to Change the Truancy Laws? Compulsory Education: Its Origin and Modern Dilemma’, in Pastoral Care in Education 22(2) pp. 27–33, June 2004. UK National Plan on Social Inclusion 2003–5 (NAP 2003), p. 55. Opportunity For All: Sixth Annual Report, Department of Work and Pensions, Cm 6234, 2004 (OFA 2004) p. 29. Bridging the Gap, pp. 6, 8, 6, 11. A major independent evaluation of Connexions is ongoing and its results as yet unknown, while the programme itself was only extended to cover the whole of England from 2003, and there are local variations. In many cases young people at risk are identified by schools, who classify pupils into three groups who are not evidently at risk of educational failure/underachievement, at some risk, and at high risk. Both for schools and the Connexions service, success in meeting targets is most likely to be achieved by focusing on the middle group rather than those with the most difficulties, while the process of classification itself is potentially stigmatizing. Breaking the Cycle, p. 133. OFA 2003, p. 22. NAP 2003, p. 54. David Halpern, Clive Bates, Geoff Mulgan, Stephen Aldridge, Greg Beales and Adam Heathfield, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy, Cabinet Office, February 2004, p. 32. This document is identified on every page as a discussion document and not as government policy. NAP 2003 p. 56. Breaking the Cycle, pp. 105, 106. Paul Watt and Keith Jacobs ‘Discourses of social exclusion: an analysis of ‘‘Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal’’’. Housing, Theory and Society 2000, 17 (1) pp. 14–26. Bradshaw et al., 2004. Will Paxton and Mike Dixon, The State of the Nation: An Audit of Injustice in the UK, London: IPPR 2004, p. 35. R. Mitchell, Mary Shaw and Daniel Dorling, Inequalities in life and death: What if Britain were more equal?, Bristol: Policy Press, 2000. Ambitions for Britain, p. 29.
Notes 20. 21. 22. 23.
24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.
257
Gordon et al., 2000; Pantazis, Gordon and Levitas (eds) 2005. Tony Blair, ‘Building the Opportunity Society’, Speech at Beveridge Hall, University of London, 11 0ctober 2004. Opportunity For All: Fifth Annual Report 2003, Department of Work and Pensions 2003. Donald Acheson, Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, Stationery Office, 1998; George Davey Smith, Daniel Dorling, David Gordon and Mary Shaw The widening health gap – what are the solutions? Bristol: Townsend Centre for International Policy Research, University of Bristol 1998. NPI website: www.poverty.org.uk/indicators/index.htm. OFA 2004, pp. 172–3. NAP 2003, p. 48. Catherine Howarth, Peter Kenway, Guy Palmer and Cathy Street Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion: Labour’s Inheritance, York: New Policy Institute/Joseph Rowntree Foundation 1998, p. 14. Gordon, David, Laura Adelman, Karl Ashworth, Jonathan Bradshaw, Ruth Levitas, Sue Middleton, Christina Pantazis, Demi Patsios, Sarah Payne, Peter Townsend and Julie Williams Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2000; Christina Pantazis, David Gordon and Ruth Levitas (eds) Poverty and Social Exclusion: The Millennium Survey, Bristol: Policy Press, 2005. OFA 2003, p. 28. Ambitions for Britain, 2001, p. 4. NAP 2003, pp. 8, 74, 27. OFA 2003, p. 5. OFA 2003, pp. 5, 6, 9. OFA 2004, p. 84. Breaking the Cycle, pp. 76, 75. OFA 2003, pp. 19, 5, 6, 104. OFA 2003, pp. 100, 9. NAP 2003, Annexes, pp. 82, 78. OFA 2003, p. 36. Department of Health, Caring About Carers: a national strategy for carers, 1999, p. 14. Ibid., pp. 11, 14. Ibid., pp. 19, 3–4. Ibid., p. 27. OFA 2004, p. 55. OFA 2003, p. 33. On the quality of work, see Polly Toynbee, Hard Work: Life in Low Pay Britain, London: Bloomsbury, 2003. NAP 2003, Annexes, p. 88. NAP 2003, Annexes, p. 83. Ibid., pp. 87, 86. Ibid., p. 78. ‘Government plans to ‘‘track’’ criminals’ children’, The Guardian, 16 August 2004. Siobhan Campbell, A review of anti-social behaviour orders, Home Office Research Study 236, Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate,
258
52. 53. 54.
55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.
Notes January 2002. See also Respect And Responsibility: Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour, Home Office, March 2003; The AntiSocial Behaviour Act 2003; Defining and measuring anti-social behaviour, Home Office Development and Practice Report 26, 2004. Nacro Youth Crime Briefing: Anti-social behaviour orders and associated measures, Part 1 December 2003, London: Nacro. Decca Aitkenhead ‘When home’s a prison’, The Guardian, 24 July 2004. A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Home Office, March 2003, p. 37. Aitkenhead, 2004; Adam Sampson ‘The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill – will it deliver for communities?’, Poverty 115, Summer 2003; Caroline Hunter, Judy Nixon and Sigrid Shayer Neighbour nuisance, social landlords and the poor, Joseph Rowntree Foundation/Chartered Institute of Housing, Coventry, 2000. A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Home Office, March 2003, p. 11. Tackling Social Exclusion, p. 23. NAP 2003, p. 26. NAP 2003, p. 59; www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/myths/myth001.htm. Refugee Council, Hungry and Homeless: the impact of the withdrawal of state support on asylum seekers, refugee communities and the voluntary sector, London: Refugee Council, April 2004. Refugee Council, Agenda for Integration (Consultation Draft) London: Refugee Council, May 2004. Ambitions for Britain, p. 34. Prison Reform Trust Factfile, July 2004, London: Prison Reform Trust. Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, p. 18. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 8. Ibid., p. 24. Ibid., pp. 24, 8. Reducing Re-offending: National Action Plan, Home Office, 2004. Mental Health and Social Exclusion, p. 6. David Batty, ‘Mental health bill sparks human rights fears’, The Guardian, 11 November 2002. Tony Zigmond, the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ spokesman on mental health law, quoted in Mark Gould ‘Desperate times, desperate measures’, The Guardian, 19 November 2003. NAP 2003, p. 58. Making the connections, p. 6. Bradshaw et al., 2004, p. 8. Ibid., pp. 17–18; Stephen McKay, Working Families’ Tax Credit in 2001, Department for Work and Pensions, Research Report 181, Leeds: CDS Breaking the Cycle, pp. 129, 9, 58 (my emphasis), 60, 71. Ibid., p. 82. OFA 2003, pp. 2, 45, 50. Polly Toynbee, ‘What the party faithful want is a better Blair’, The Guardian, 1 October 2003. Breaking the Cycle, p. 43.
Notes
259
81. Home Office, 1999, Supporting Families. 82. Betty Spinley, The deprived and the privileged: personality development in English Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953. 83. www.ILHeadStart.org/myths.html. 84. Breaking the Cycle, p. 6. 85. Tackling Social Exclusion, p. 18. 86. Ambitions for Britain, p. 18. 87. Opportunity For All: Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion, Department of Social Security, Cm 4445, London: The Stationery Office, 1999, p. 23. 88. Ambitions for Britain, pp. 26, 24. 89. Halpern et al., op. cit., p. 64. 90. Ibid., p. 33. 91. Ibid., p. 48. 92. John Hills, Julian Le Grand and David Piachaud (eds) Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford University Press, 2001. 93. Bradshaw et al., 2004. 94. Michael Young, The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870–2033, London, Thames and Hudson, 1958. Michael Young ‘Down with Meritocracy’, The Guardian, 29 June 2001. 95. Stephen Aldridge, Social mobility: a discussion paper, Performance and Innovation Unit, 2001; Stephen Aldridge, Life Chances and Social Mobility: An overview of the evidence, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2004. 96. Breaking the Cycle, p. 34. 97. Commission on Taxation and Citizenship, Paying for Progress: A New Politics of Tax for Public Spending, London: Fabian Society, 2000; Dominic Maxwell, Fair Dues: Towards a more progressive inheritance tax, London: IPPR, 2004. 98. OFA 2003, p. 32. 99. George Monbiot, ‘Publish and be damned’, The Guardian, 28 September 2004. 100. Polly Toynbee, ‘Be brave: The only fix for poverty is to tax the rich’, The Guardian, 4 February 2004. 101. www.catalystforum.org.uk; www.compassonline.org.uk. Think-tanks come and go: Nexus no longer exists, and Demos has substantially changed it role. See Gregor McLennan and Judith Squires, ‘Intellectuals and tendencies’, Soundings 27, Autumn 2004, pp. 86–94. 102. Neal Lawson and Paul Thompson, ‘The stakes are too high’, The Guardian, 9 August 2004. 103. Will Paxton and Mike Dixon, The State of the Nation: An Audit of Injustice in the UK, London: IPPR 2004, p. 23. 104. Paxton and Dixon, 2004, pp. 5, 19, 33, 27, 33. 105. See Ruth Levitas, ‘Shuffling back to Equality?’, Soundings 26, Spring 2004, pp. 59–72. 106. Paxton and Dixon, 2004, pp. 5, 16. 107. David Walker ‘The Blairites big dilemma’, The Guardian, 15 January 2002. 108. Polly Toynbee, ‘Be brave: The only fix for poverty is to tax the rich’, The Guardian, 4 February 2004.
260
Notes
109. ICM Poll, 16–18 July, The Guardian, 20 July 2004. 110. Alison Park (ed.) British Social Attitudes: The 20th Report, London: Sage, 2003. 111. David Clark, ‘Only Europe can safeguard our social democratic future’, The Guardian, 22 September 2004. 112. Ruth Levitas, ‘Shuffling Back to Equality?’ 113. Stuart Hall, ‘New Labour’s double-shuffle’, Soundings 24, Autumn 2003, pp. 10–24.
Select Bibliography Acheson, Donald (1998) Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, London, The Stationery Office. Aldridge, Stephen (2001) Social mobility: a discussion paper, London: Performance and Innovation Unit. Aldridge, Stephen (2004) Life Chances and Social Mobility: An overview of the evidence, London: Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. Andersen, Paul and Mann, Nyta (1997) Safety First: The Making of New Labour, London: Granta Books. Barratt Brown, Michael and Coates, Ken (1996) The Blair Revelation: Deliverance for Whom? London: Spokesman. Beresford, Peter and Turner, Michael (1997) It’s Our Welfare, Report of the Citizens’ Commission on the future of the Welfare State, London: National Institute for Social Work. Blair, Tony (1994b) Socialism, Fabian Pamphlet 565, London: Fabian Society. Bradshaw, Jonathan and Peter Kemp, Sally Baldwin and Abigail Rowe (2004) The Drivers of Social Exclusion: A Review of the Literature, London: SEU/ Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Campbell, Bea (1993) Goliath: Britian’s Dangerous Places, London: Methuen. Commission on Public Policy and British Business (CPPBB) (1997) Promoting Prosperity: A Business Agenda for Britain, London: Vintage. Commission on Social Justice (CSJ) (1994) Social Justice: Strategies for Social Renewal, London: Vintage. Commission on Taxation and Citizenship (2000) Paying for Progress: A New Politics of Tax for Public Spending, London: Fabian Society. Dahrendorf, Ralf et al. (1995) Report on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in a Free Society, London: Commission on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion. Davies, A. J. (1996) To Build a New Jerusalem: The British Labour Party from Kier Hardie to Tony Blair, London: Abacus. Dean, Hartley and Taylor-Gooby, Peter (1992) Dependency Culture: the explosion of a myth, New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Demos (1997) The Wealth and Poverty of Networks: tackling social exclusion, Demos Collection 12, London: Demos. Department of Health (1999) Caring About Carers: a national strategy for carers, London: The Stationery Office. Department of Social Security (1999) Opportunity For All: Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion (OFA 1999), Cm 4445, London: The Stationery Office. Department of Social Security (2000) Opportunity For All. One Year On: Making a Difference (OFA 2000), Cm 4865 London: The Stationery Office. Department of Work and Pensions (2001) Opportunity For All: Making a Difference. Third Annual Report (OFA 2003) Cm 5260, London: The Stationery Office. Department of Work and Pensions (2002) Opportunity For All: Fourth Annual Report (OFA 2002) Cm 5598, London: The Stationery Office.
261
262
Select Bibliography
Department of Work and Pensions (2003) Opportunity For All: Fifth Annual Report (OFA 2003) Cm 5956, London: The Stationery Office. Department of Work and Pensions (2004) Opportunity For All: Sixth Annual Report (OFA 2004) Cm 6234 London: The Stationery Office. Duncan, Simon and Edwards, Rosalind (1997) Single Mothers in an International Context: Mothers or Workers? London: UCL Press. Durkheim, Emile (1952 [1897]) Suicide, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Durkheim, Emile (1964 [1893]) The Division of Labour in Society, New York: Free Press. Etzioni, Amitai (1994) The Parenting Deficit, London: Demos. Etzioni, Amitai (1995 [1993]) The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda, London: Fontana. Etzioni, Amitai (1997 [1996]) The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society, London: Profile Books. Fairclough, Norman (2000) New Labour, New Language, London: Routledge. Fenton, Steve (1984) Durkheim and Modern Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Field, Frank (1990) Losing Out: The Emergence of Britain’s Underclass, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Field, Frank (1995) Making Welfare Work: Reconstructing Welfare for the Millennium, London: Institute of Community Studies. Finlayson, Alan (2003) Making Sense of New Labour, London: Lawrence and Wishart. Finn, Dan (1997) Working Nation: Welfare Reform and the Australian Job Compact for the long term unemployed, London: Unemployment Unit. Gamble, Andrew (1988) The Free Economy and The Strong State, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Gane, Mike (1992) ‘Durkheim: Woman as Outsider’ in M. Gane (ed.) The Radical Sociology of Durkheim and Mauss, London: Routledge, pp. 85–134. Giddens, Anthony (1971) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, Anthony (1978) Emile Durkheim, London: Fontana. Giddens, Anthony (ed.) (1986) Durkheim on Politics and the State, Cambridge: Polity Press. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins (1966 [1898]) Women and Economics, New York: Harper Torchbooks. Glucksmann, Miriam (1995) ‘Why ‘‘Work’’? Gender and the ‘‘Total Social Organization of Labour’’ ’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 63–75. Golding, Peter (1986) Excluding the Poor, London: CPAG. Goodin, Robert E. (1996) ‘Inclusion and Exclusion’, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 343–71. Goodman, Alissa and Zoe Oldfoeld, (2004) Permanent Differences? Income and Expenditure Inequality, London: Institute of Fiscal Studies. Gordon, David, Laura Adelman, Karl Ashworth, Jonathan Bradshaw, Ruth Levitas, Sue Middleton, Christina Pantazis, Demi Patsios, Sarah Payne, Peter Townsend and Julie Williams (2000) Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Select Bibliography
263
Gray, John (1989) Liberalisms: Essays in Political Philosophy, London: Routledge. Gray, John (1992) The Moral Foundations of Market Institutions, London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit. Gray, John (1993a) Beyond the New Right: Markets, government and the common environment, London: Routledge. Gray, John (1993b) Post-Liberalism: Studies in Political Thought, New York: Routledge. Gray, John (1996) After Social Democracy, London: Demos. Gray, John (1997) Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought, Cambridge: Polity Press. Gray, John (1995) Enlightenment’s Wake: Politics and culture at the close of the modern age, London: Routledge. Green Party (1993) Manifesto for a Sustainable Society, London: Green Party. Gregg, Paul and Wadsworth, Jonathan (1996) ‘Feeling Insecure?’, Employment Audit, 2, Autumn, pp. 17–26. GUMG (Glasgow University Media Group) (1976) Bad News, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Gutmann, Amy (1988) Democracy and the Welfare State, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Hall, Peter A. (1997) ‘Social capital: a fragile asset’ in The wealth and poverty of networks: tackling social exclusion, Demos Collection 12, London: Demos, pp. 35–7. Hall, Stuart (2003) ‘New Labour’s double-shuffle’, Soundings 24. Hall, Stuart and Jacques, Martin (1983) The Politics of Thatcherism, London: Lawrence and Wishart. Halpern, David, Clive Bates, Geoff Mulgan, Stephen Aldridge, Greg Beales and Adam Heathfield (2004) Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy, London: Cabinet Office. Halsey, A. H. and Young, Michael (1995) Family and Community Socialism, London: IPPR. Harker, Lisa (1996) A Secure Future? Social security and the family in a changing world, London: CPAG. Harker, Lisa (1997) ‘New Paths for Social Security’ in Alan Walker and Carol Walker, Britain Divided: The growth of social exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s, London: CPAG. Hills, John, Julian Le Grand and David Piachaud (eds) (2001) Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford University Press. Howarth, Catherine, Peter Kenway, Guy Palmer and Cathy Street (1998) Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion: Labour’s Inheritance, York: New Policy Institute/Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Hutton, Will (1995a) ‘High Risk Strategy’, The Guardian, 30 October, pp. 2–3. Hutton, Will (1995b) The State We’re In, London: Jonathan Cape. Hutton, Will (1996a) The State We’re In, London: Vintage. Hutton, Will (1996b) ‘The Stakeholder Society’ in Marquand and Seldon (1996) pp. 290–308. Hutton, Will (1996c) ‘Left with no illusions’, Prospect, March, pp. 46–50. Hutton, Will (1997a) ‘Our Stake in Society’, The Observer, 20 April, p. 29.
264
Select Bibliography
Hutton, Will (1997b) ‘An Overview of Stakeholding’ in Kelly et al. (1997) pp. 3–9. Hutton, Will (1997c) The State to Come, London: Vintage. Jones, Nicholas (1997) Campaign 1997, London: Indigo. Jones, Tudor (1996) Remaking the Labour Party: From Gaitskell to Blair, London: Routledge. Kay, John (1993) The Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kay, John (1996a) ‘The Good Market’, Prospect, May, pp. 39–43. Kay, John (1996b) The Business of Economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kelly, Gavin, Kelly, Dominic and Gamble, Andrew, (1997) (eds) Stakeholder Capitalism, London: Macmillan. Labour Party (LP) (1992) It’s Time To Get Britain Working Again (Election Manifesto). Labour Party (LP) (1995a) Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities. Labour Party (LP) (1995b) Safer Communities, safer Britain. Labour Party (LP) (1995c) A Quiet Life: Tough Action on Criminal Neighbours. Labour Party (LP) (1995d) Excellence for Everyone: Labour’s crusade to raise standards. Labour Party (LP) (1995e) A New Economic Future for Britain: Economic and employment opportunities for all. Labour Party (LP) (1996a) Tackling Youth Crime: Reforming Youth Justice. Labour Party (LP) (1996b) Parenting. Labour Party (LP) (1996c) Lifelong Learning. Labour Party (LP) (1996d) Learn as You Earn: Labour’s plans for a skills revolution. Labour Party (LP) (1996e) Aiming Higher. Labour Party (LP) (1996f) Labour and the Voluntary sector: Setting the Agenda for partnership in government. Labour Party (LP) (1996g) Strategy for Women. Labour Party (LP) (1996h) A Fresh Start for Britain: Labour’s strategy for Britain in the modern world. Labour Party (LP) (1996i) Getting Welfare to Work: Opportunities for Lone Mothers. Labour Party (LP) (1996j) Building Prosperity: Flexibility, efficiency and fairness at work. Labour Party (LP) (1996k) Labour’s New Deal for a Lost Generation. Labour Party (LP) (1996m) Protecting Our Communities: Labour’s plans for tackling criminal, anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods. Labour Party (LP) (1996n) New Labour, New Life for Britain (draft manifesto). Labour Party (LP) (1997a) Labour’s Business Manifesto: Equipping Britain for the Future. Labour Party (LP) (1997b) Because Britain Deserves Better (1997 Election manifesto). Labour Party (LP) (2001) Ambitions for Britain (2001 Election manifesto). Layard, Richard (1997) What Labour Can Do, London: Warner Books. Lehmann, Jennifer (1994) Durkheim and Women, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Select Bibliography
265
Levitas, Ruth (1986) (ed.) The Ideology of the New Right, Cambridge: Polity. Levitas, Ruth (1996a) ‘Fiddling while Britain Burns: The ‘measurement’ of unemployment’ in Ruth Levitas and Will Guy (eds) Interpreting Official Statistics, London: Routledge, pp. 45–65. Levitas, Ruth (1996b) ‘The concept of social exclusion and the new Durkheimian hegemony’, Critical Social Policy 46, Vol. 16, pp. 5–20. Levitas, Ruth (1998) ‘Will Hutton: Closet Durkheimian’ in Paul Bagguley and Jeff Hearn (eds) Transforming Politics: Power and Resistance, London: Macmillan. Levitas, Ruth (2004) ‘Shuffling back to Equality?’, Soundings 26 pp. 59–72. Levitas, Ruth (2004) ‘The Concept and Measurement of Social Exclusion’ in Christina Pantazis, David Gordon and Ruth Levitas (eds) Poverty and Social Exclusion: The Millennium Survey, Bristol: Policy Press. Lister, Ruth (1990) The Exclusive Society: Citizenship and the Poor, London: CPAG. Lloyd, John (1997a) ‘A plan to abolish the underclass’, New Statesman, 29 August, pp. 14–16. Lloyd, John (1997b) ‘Interview: Clive Hollick’, New Statesman, 24 January, pp. 18–19. Lockwood, David (1964) ‘Social Integration and System Integration’ in George K. Zollschan and W. Hirsch (eds), Explorations in Social Change, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lockwood, David (1992) Solidarity and Schism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lukes, Stephen (1973) Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work, London: Allen Lane. Macmurray, John (1931) Learning to Live, London: BBC. Macmurray, John (1932) Freedom in the Modern World, London: Faber and Faber. Macmurray, John (1935a) Reason and Emotion, London: Faber and Faber. Macmurray, John (1935b) Creative Society: A Study of the Relation of Christianity to Communism, London: SCM Press. Macmurray, John (1957) The Self as Agent, London: Faber and Faber. Macmurray, John (1961) Persons in Relation, London: Faber and Faber. Macnicol, John (1987) ‘In pursuit of the Underclass’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 293–318. Mandelson, Peter and Liddle, Roger (1996) The Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver? London: Faber and Faber. Mann, Kirk (1992) The Making of an English Underclass, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Marquand, David and Seldon, Anthony (1996) The Ideas that Shaped PostWar Britain, London: New Statesman/Fontana. Marshall, T. H. (1950) ‘Citizenship and Social Class’ in T. H. Marshall and Tom Bottomore, (1992) Citizenship and Social Class, London: Pluto Press. Maxwell, Dominic (2004) Fair Dues: Towards a more progressive inheritance tax, London: IPPR. Mitchell, R., Mary Shaw and Daniel Dorling (2000) Inequalities in life and death: What if Britain were more equal?, Bristol: Policy Press. Morris, Lydia (1994) Dangerous Classes: The Underclass and Social Citizenship, London: Routledge.
266
Select Bibliography
Mulgan, Geoff (1997a) Connexity: How to Live in a Connected World, London: Chatto and Windus. Mulgan, Geoff (1997b) (ed. ) Life After Politics: New Thinking for the Twentyfirst Century, London: Fontana Press. Mulgan, Geoff (1997c) ‘Think well-being, not welfare’, New Statesman, 17 January, pp. 28–9. Mulhall, Stephen and Swift, Adam (1992) Liberals and Communitarians, Oxford: Blackwell. Murray, Charles (1990) The Emerging British Underclass, London: IEA. Murray, Charles (1994) Underclass: The Crisis Deepens, London: IEA. Oppenheim, Carey (1993) Poverty: The Facts, London: CPAG. Pahl, R. E. (1991), ‘The search for social cohesion: from Durkheim to the European Commission’, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 345–60. Panitch, Leo and Leys, Colin (1997) The End of Parliamentary Socialism: From New Left to New Labour, London: Verso. Pantazis, Christina, David Gordon and Ruth Levitas (eds) (2005) Poverty and Social Exclusion: The Millennium Survey, Bristol: Policy Press. Pateman, Carole (1988) The Sexual Contract, Cambridge: Polity Press. Paxton, Will and Dixon, Mike (2004) The State of the Nation: An Audit of Injustice in the UK, London: IPPR. Pearce, Frank (1989) The Radical Durkheim, London: Unwin Hyman. Plender, John (1997) A Stake in the Future: The Stakeholding Solution, London: Nicholas Brealey. Room, Graham (1995) (ed.) Beyond the Threshold, Bristol: Policy Press. Rowntree (1995) Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inquiry into Income and Wealth, 2 vols, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Shaw, Eric (1994) The Labour Party Since 1979, London: Routledge. Shaw, Mary, Daniel Dorling, David Gordon and George Davey Smith (1999) The widening gap: Health inequalities and policy in Britain, Bristol: Policy Press. Showstack Sassoon, Anne (1996) ‘Beyond pessimism of the intellect: Agendas for social Justice and Change’ in Mark Perryman (ed.) The Blair Agenda, London: Lawrence and Wishart. Silver, Hilary (1994) ‘Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms’ International Labour Review Vol. 133(5–6), pp. 531–78. Skjeie, Hege (1991) ‘The Rhetoric of Difference: On Women’s Inclusion into Political Elites’, Politics and Society Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 133–63. Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Rough Sleeping, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Truancy and Social Exclusion, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Teenage Pregnancy, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Bridging the Gap; new opportunities for 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Review of the Social Exclusion Unit, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2000) Minority ethnic issues in social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal, London: SEU.
Select Bibliography
267
Social Exclusion Unit (2001) A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal – national strategy action plan, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2001) National strategy for neighbourhood renewal – Policy Action Team audit, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2001) Preventing social exclusion, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Making the connections: transport and social exclusion interim findings, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, London: Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Young runaways, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the connections: transport and social exclusion, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2003) A better education for children in care, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2004) Tackling Social Exclusion: Taking stock and looking to the future – emerging findings, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2004) Action on Debt: why it matters and what you can do, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2004) Mental Health and Social Exclusion, London: SEU. Social Exclusion Unit (2004) Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future, London: SEU. Sostris (1997) Social Strategies in Risk Societies: Social Exclusion in Comparative Perspective, Sostris Working Paper 1, London: University of East London. Spicker, Paul (1997) ‘Exclusion’, Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 133–43. Tony Atkinson, Bea Cantillon, Eric Marlier, and Brian Nolan (2002) Social Indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Townsend, Peter (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Townsend, Peter (1995) ‘Persuasion and Conformity: An assessment of the Borrie report on Social Justice’, New Left Review Vol. 213, pp. 137–50. Townsend, Peter (1996) ‘The Struggle for Independent Statistics on Poverty’ in Ruth Levitas and Will Guy (eds) Interpreting Official Statistics, London: Routledge. Toynbee, Polly (2003) Hard Work: Life in Low Pay Britain, London: Bloomsbury. Trades Union Congress (TUC) (1996) Your Stake at Work: TUC Proposals for a Stakeholding Economy, London: Trades Union Congress. UK National Plan on Social Inclusion 2001–3 (NAP 2001). UK National Plan on Social Inclusion 2003–5 (NAP 2003). Walker, Alan and Walker, Carol (1997) (ed.) Britain Divided: The growth of social exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s, London: CPAG. Waring, Marilyn (1988) If Women Counted, London: Macmillan. Watts Miller, Willie (1996) Durkheim, Morals and Modernity, London: UCL Press. Westergaard, John (1992) ‘About and Beyond the ‘‘Underclass’’’, Sociology Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 575–87.
268
Select Bibliography
Willetts, David (1996) Blair’s gurus. London: Centre for Policy Studies. Willetts, David (1997) Why Vote Conservative? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Wright, Tony (1997) Why Vote Labour? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Young, Michael (2001) ‘Down with Meritocracy’, The Guardian, 29 June. Young, Michael (1958) The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870–2033, London: Thames and Hudson.
Index 6 Perri, 152, 153, 164 accountability, 29, 31, 75, 77, 80, 115, 125, 173 Acheson inquiry, 203 Ackers, Louise, 26 Adonis, Andrew, 20 Aitken, Ian, 133, 134 American War on Poverty, 225–6, 229 Andersen, Paul, 34 anti-social behaviour, 199, 212–15, 221, 228 Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), 195, 215 anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOS), 166, 212–15, 228 area-based inequality/deprivation, 194, 197, 199–200, 207, 208, 212, 218, 220, 223 Ashdown, Paddy, 43 ASI (Adam Smith Institute), 29, 31 asylum seekers and refugees, 215–17, 222, 224 Barclay, Sir Peter, 40 Barratt Brown, Michael, 78, 114 Barry, Brian, 229 basic income, 101–2 see also citizen’s income Beckett, Margaret, 32, 79 benefits, 10, 37, 41, 118, 132, 136, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 150, 151, 153–5, 157, 161, 164, 203, 206, 211, 218, 222 in 1992 manifesto, 129, 131, 139 in 1997 manifesto, 129, 132–3, 139 Carers Allowance, 211 child, 5, 12, 129, 142, 143, 144, 206 Educational Maintenance Allowances, 197 for asylum seekers, 216 for disabled, 133, 142, 198, 211 family credit, 140
in-work, 5, 82, 206, 222 income support, 129 industrial injuries, 142 jobseeker’s allowance, 37, 141, 160, 198 for lone parents, 5, 105, 133, 141–2, 143, 198, 206 means testing, 10, 16 as moral hazard, 15, 17, 20, 146 unemployment, 37 working family tax credit, 5, 206, 222 Working Tax Credit (WTC), 206 see also pensions Beveridge, William, 49 Black, Allan, 118 Blackstone, Tessa, 33, 130 Blair, Tony, 1, 30, 31, 32, 39, 69, 87, 90, 114, 128, 132, 133, 140, 143, 175, 176, 177, 190, 194, 197, 202, 207, 210, 219, 227, 232 on 30/30/40 society, 52 on community, 122–3 on crime, 123 on education, 129 on Hattersley and Benn, 134 on lone parents, 141, 142 on the role of government, 125–6 Socialism, 30 on truancy, 150 on underclass, 20, 155–6 on women and work, 146 on work, 138 Blue Circle, 118–19, 120 Blunkett, David, 120, 122 on equality, 134 on poverty, 135 Borrie, Gordon, 33, 113 Bradshaw, Jonathan, 229 Breaking the Cycle, 223–6, 229–30 Bridging the Gap, 197 Bringing Britain Together, 194, 199 Brittan, Samuel, 105
269
270
Index
Brown, Gordon, 12, 105, 128, 132, 134, 138, 207, 227 on equality, 135–6 on inclusion through work, 138–9 on lone parents, 141 on women and work, 146 Byers, Stephen, 148 Cadbury Committee, 55 Campbell, Bea, 157 Goliath, 157 capitalism, 49, 50, 51–2, 54–7, 67–9, 74, 102, 104, 105, 109, 171, 180, 183–4, 187–9 Caring about carers, 210 CASE (Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion), 40, 148–9, 204 Cash, Bill, 143 Castle, Barbara, 10, 132 Catalyst, 232 Centre for Policy Studies, 29 Centre for Tomorrow’s Company, 86 charity, 125, 137–8 Charter, 88, 31 child care, 5, 10, 24, 28, 140, 144, 145–7, 150, 160, 162, 170, 197, 201, 209, 224, 237n Chisholm, Malcolm, 105, 143 christian socialism, 30, 90, 105 see also socialism; ethical socialism churning, 161 Citizen’s Commission, 33 It’s Our Welfare, 33 citizen’s income, 11, 36, 46, 87 see also basic income citizenship, 5, 7, 12–13, 16, 26, 44, 46–7, 102, 103, 109–10, 126, 128, 147, 158, 173–7 active, 45, 46, 54, 125–6, 147, 158 see also rights class, 13, 19, 26, 28, 64, 106, 108, 114, 168, 183–5, 200, 223, 233 Clause IV, 1, 40, 49, 50, 112, 127, 133, 175, 235–6 Coates, Ken, 78, 114 Commission on Public Policy and British Business, 4, 79 Promoting Prosperity: a Business Agenda for Britain, 79, 120
Commission on Social Justice, 4, 32, 33–40, 44, 49, 79, 144, 156, 162, 232, 240n Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal, 33, 38, 39, 49 Commission on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion, 4, 43–7, 241n communitarianism, 4, 45, 90–110, 112, 127, 128, 168–9, 179 community, 2, 4, 12, 28, 34, 73, 77, 78, 89–111, 113, 121–7, 149, 155, 165, 168, 180, 199 Compass, 232–3 Connexions, 197–8, 212, 256n Conservative government (1979–97), 11, 60, 128, 129, 143 Conservative Party, 1, 29, 104–5, 175 contracts relational, 72–5 classical, 72, 73 Cook, Robin, 152 Coote, Anna, 32 corporate governance, 55, 74, 80 corporatism, 77–8 Corry, Dan, 32 CPAG (Child Poverty Action Group), 11, 165 Britain Divided: the Growth of Social Exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s, 11, 12 CPRS (Central Policy Review Staffs), 29 crime, 17, 42, 46, 78, 121–5, 148, 150, 166, 167, 194–5, 199, 203, 207, 212–15, 217, 221, 224 Crime and Disorder Act (1998), 195, 213 Crime and Disorder Bill (1997), 125, 166, 167 Crosland, Anthony, 4, 113, 134 Dahrendorf, Ralf, 16, 43, 44 Dahrendorf report, the, 4, 43–7 see also Commission on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion Daniel, Caroline, 175 Darling, Alistair, 117, 175, 227 Davis, Sir Peter, 137 Dearing Report, the, 130
Index debt, 165, 211, 223 Demos, 29, 30, 31, 33, 89, 137, 152–6, 164, 168, 175, 227, 259n dependency, 146 culture of, 14, 15, 20, 100, 102, 141, 144, 150–1, 154–5, 157 see also underclass devolution, 125, 173–4, 191 Diana, Princess of Wales, 137–8 Dimbleby, Jonathan, 165 disability, 8, 26, 38, 133, 142, 171, 174, 187, 208, 212, 228 discourse, distinguished from ideology, 3 Dixon, Mike, 233 Drivers of Social Exclusion, The, 222–3 Du Gay, Paul, 29 Duffy, Katherine, 20 Durkheim, Emile, 6, 22, 61, 178–86, 230 The Division of Labour in Society, 178–80, 184 Suicide, 183 economic inactivity, 36, 52, 61–3, 208, 210, 223, 224 education, 65, 79, 92, 93, 99, 109–10, 124, 130, 149–50, 160, 166, 172–3, 191, 192, 196, 197, 199, 215, 216, 224, 228, 229 higher, 82, 130 nursery, 82, 140 primary, 82 private, 52, 65, 68 see also skills, training Education Bill (1997), 172 employability, 4, 115, 118–21, 128, 147, 150, 153, 156–7, 164, 194, 197, 199, 208, 229 EMU (European Monetary Union), 25, 68, 80 Environmental Task Force, 139 EPI (Employment Policy Institute), 118, 120 equality, 12, 13, 47, 63, 65, 94, 102–3, 105–9, 128–34, 136, 145, 149, 153, 156–7, 185, 187, 188, 193, 226, 230, 232–4 contrasted with inclusion, 44, 63–7 see also inequality
271
ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) 148 ethnicity, 11, 13, 19, 38, 41, 44, 105, 114, 148, 174, 187, 199, 208, 209, 215, 217, 224, 226, 233 Etzioni, Amitai, 4, 77, 89, 90–7, 100, 105, 122, 128, 179, 185 The Parenting Deficit, 89 The Spirit of Community, 89, 92 The New Golden Rule, 90, 92 European Social Policy, 23, 24 European Union, 21–6, 38, 51, 190–2, 202, 207 funds, 2, 22, 25, 191 Fabian Society, 29, 30, 31 fairness, 99–100, 102, 114–15, 130, 136, 233 families, 38, 60, 94–5, 103, 108, 152, 181, 183 and social control, 5, 122 see also parents, mothers, fathers fathers, 17, 155 lone, 10, 140–1 Field, Frank, 16, 17, 40, 43, 45, 142 Losing Out: the Emergence of Britain’s Underclass, 16 Fitzsimons, Lorna, 144 Foyer movement, 167 France, 2, 21, 22, 160 Freely, Maureen, 63 Gane, Mike, 186 GDP (Gross Domestic Product), 8, 47 and social security, 160 see also wealth gender, 7, 13, 19, 26, 38, 46, 60, 61–3, 94, 101, 108, 114, 174, 192n Giddens, Anthony, 31 Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 183 globalization, 35, 55, 84, 102, 104, 117, 127, 135, 187 Glucksmann, Miriam, 8, 27, 146 GMB (General, Municipal and Boilermaker’s union), 119 GNP (Gross National Product), and unpaid work, 47 Golding, Peter, 12 Goodin, Robert, 12
272
Index
Government Statistical Services, 29 Gray, John, 4, 31, 32, 89, 97–105, 122, 128, 133, 134, 135, 179, 180, 185, 187 Beyond the New Right, 89, 100, 102 Enlightenment’s Wake, 89 After Social Democracy, 31, 89, 102, 133–4 Endgames, 89, 99 Green Party, 4, 86 Greenbury Committee, 55 Gregg, Paul, 118 Growth, Competitiveness, Employment, 23–4, 25 Habermas, Jurgen, 176 Hague, Douglas, 30 Hain, Peter, 119, 120 Hall, Stuart, 19, 234 Halpern, David, 31, 227 Handy, Charles, 116 Hargreaves, Ian, 31 Harker, Lisa, 12 Harman, Harriet, 32, 36, 132, 133, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 156, 174 Hattersley, Roy, 4, 113, 133–8, 149, 187 Hayek, Freidrich, 103 Head Start, 225–6 health, 99, 172, 191, 192, 199, 202–3, 217, 218–19, 220, 223 Heseltine, Michael, 79 Hewitt, Patricia, 32, 33, 34, 144 Hills, John, 40 Hollick, Clive, 32 homelessness, 200, 203, 214, 215, 217, 218–19, 224, 229 homework clubs, 150 Howarth, Alan, 142, 175 human rights, 215, 216, 220 Humphreys John, 143 Hurd, Douglas, 45 Hutton, Will, 4, 25, 43, 45, 49–69, 85, 86, 87, 92–3, 115, 116, 132, 154, 169, 172, 180, 182, 185, 186, 187, 228–9 on 30/30/40 society, 52–4, 68
The State We’re In, 49, 56, 64, 66, 86, 118 The State to Come, 49, 56, 66 identity, 60, 101, 154, 158, 174, 180, 181, 182 ideology, 3 IEA (Institute of Economic Affairs), 17, 29, 76–7 IFS (Institute of Fiscal Studies), 232, 233 indicators, 164, 190, 201–6, 255n Laeken indicators, 191, 199, 204, 206 Individual Learning Accounts, 130 inequality, 7, 26, 38, 39, 41, 44–5, 63–7, 136, 137, 170, 172, 183–5, 188, 191, 193, 196, 199, 208, 212, 222–34 see also equality inheritance, 66, 184, 185, 230 Institute of Public Relations, 86 IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research), 29, 32, 79–83, 175, 204, 232 intergenerational effects, 193, 208, 222, 224–6 Irvine, Derry, 105 Jacob, Keith, 199 Jacques, Martin, 30, 31 Japan, 36, 67, 76 Jenkins, Roy, 32 job security, 4, 35, 49–54, 58, 60, 84, 93–4, 113, 117, 118–21 Johnson, Lyndon, 225 Johnson, Melanie, 1 Joseph, Keith, 225 Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inquiry into Income and Wealth, 4, 40–3, 47, 49, 64, 223, 241n Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, 32 Jowell, Tessa, 105, 148 Kay, John, 4, 71–9, 85, 86, 185 The Foundations of Corporate Success, 71 The Business of Economics, 76
Index Kennedy, Helena, 31–2 Keynes, John Maynard, 49 Kinnock, Neil, 1, 32, 34 Kruger, Danny, 153 Labour, old, 1, 30, 112–15, 133 Labour Party Manifesto, 1992, 129, 130, 131, 139 Manifesto, 1997, 116–17, 129, 130, 132, 139–42 Manifesto, 2001 (Ambitions for Britain), 217, 226, 227 Lamont, Norman, 1 Lang, Ian, 1, 83 Lawson, Neil, 31 Layard, Richard, 142 Learning to Succeed, 197 Lehmann, Jennifer, 183, 186 Lewis, Oscar, 225, 230 Liberal Democrat Party 1, 31, 32, 43, 175 Liberalism, 14, 98, 103–4, 113 Liddell, Helen, 137 Liddle, Roger, 63, 81, 114, 123 The Blair Revolution, 63 Lisbon, 190 Lister, Ruth, 13, 20, 149, 164–5 Livingstone, Ken, 143 Lloyd, John, 70, 79 Lockwood, David, 186 lone parents, 8, 10, 17–19, 36, 44, 92, 94, 123–4, 133, 139–45, 162–3, 167–8, 169, 194, 197–8, 206–7, 222 see also benefits for lone parents, poverty, underclass Low Pay Commission, 141–2 LSE (London School of Economics), 31, 40, 148, 162 Maastricht Treaty, 26, 143 MacDonald, Calum, 105 Macmurray, John, 4, 90, 105–10, 122, 188 Mahon, Alice, 144, 145 MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) 113, 249n
273
Mandelson, Peter, 30, 63, 81, 114, 123, 148, 149, 151–2, 156, 175 The Blair Revolution, 63 Labour’s Next Steps: Tackling Social Exclusion, 30 Mann, Nyta, 34 Marquand, David, 43, 49 Marshall, T. H., 12–13, 44 Marx, Karl, 50 Marxism, 3, 113–14, 105 masculinity, 17, 42, 157–8 Meacher, Michael, 118 Mellor, David, 175 meritocracy, 193, 229, 230, 233 Michael, Alun, 126, 148 Miliband, David, 32, 195 miner’s strike, 15 minimum wage, 5, 11, 39, 41, 55, 79–80, 84, 136, 138, 140, 141, 163, 206, 211, 216, 222 Monks, John, 83, 176 Moore, Robert, 149 mothers, 155 lone, 17–19, 142, 162, 167 see also families, lone parents MUD (Moral Underclass Discourse), 2, 7, 8, 14–21, 40, 45, 101, 110–11, 128, 138, 149–53, 156–7, 159–77, 190–2, 195–6, 198–202, 207–9, 212, 218, 223, 227 Mulgan, Geoff, 30, 31, 152, 153–6, 188, 227 Murray, Charles, 17–18, 19–20, 163 The Emerging British Underclass, 17 National Insurance, 129, 131, 132 National Lottery, 138, 140 National Plans for Social Inclusion (NAPs), 190–5, 198, 201, 207–9, 211, 213, 216–17, 228 NEF (New Economics Foundation), 86 New Deal Roosevelt’s, 18 New Labour’s, 28, 128, 138–45, 150, 160, 161, 163, 198–201, 207, 209, 222 New Economy, 32 New Policy Institute, 203–4
274
Index
New Right, 14, 15, 32, 49, 76–7, 89, 97–8, 103, 113, 114, 134–5 New Statesman, 31, 32 Newton, Tony, 1 Nexus, 29, 31, 32, 98, 227, 259n NHS (National Health Service), 124, 172, 176 Nice, 191–2, 203, 215, 220 Northern Ireland, 192 Offer, Avner, 62 ONS (Office for National Statistics), 8, 47, 170 opportunity, 5, 24, 33, 34, 39, 45, 47, 54, 115–16, 122–3, 127, 128, 133, 136, 144–6, 149, 150, 151, 156–8, 187, 193, 196, 226–8, 233 Opportunity For All (OFA) Reports, 190–2, 198–206, 210, 217, 227 ownership, 55, 58, 68, 73–4, 114 common, 1, 34, 133 public 50–1, 113 Pahl, Ray, 182 parenting, 4, 60, 92, 224 full-time, 146 inadequate, 28, 93, 97, 123–4 orders, 167, 195, 213 as social control, 5 and transport, 171–2 as unpaid work, 10, 62 as work, 95, 146–7, 154, 163, 167 see also lone parents, fathers, mothers participation, 10, 11, 35, 45, 54, 101, 117, 128, 138, 149, 152–3, 154, 159, 160–2, 164, 168, 170–7, 178, 187 income, 11 Paxton, Will, 233 pensions, 5, 10, 41, 46, 52, 53, 65, 117, 203–4, 212 citizen’s, 131 in 1992 manifesto, 129, 131 in 1997 manifesto, 131, 132 private, 137, 203–4, 212 see also Castle, Barbara performative inclusion, 5, 45, 157–8, 227
Perkin, Harold, 67 personal advisers, 194, 197–9, 220 Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, 198, 227–8 Plant, Raymond, 157 Plender, John, 69 political inclusion, 159, 173–7 poll tax, 15 Pollard, Stephen, 20 pollution, 171 Portillo, Michael, 1, 30 poverty, 2, 7, 8, 9–11, 13, 16, 19, 23, 26, 38, 53, 101, 123, 132, 134, 135–6, 138–9, 149–50, 152, 153, 156, 160, 163–5, 170, 188, 194–7, 199–209, 212, 218, 222–7 child, 190, 202, 204–8, 218, 222–5, 232–3 Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey (PSE), 200, 204 Prescott, John, 216, 219, 227 Preventing Social Exclusion, 201 prison, 160, 166, 195, 212, 217–19, 220, 224 privatization, 75 Radiohead, 49 Rayner Review, the, 29 RED (Redistributionist Discourse) 2, 7, 8, 9–14, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 102, 110–11, 128, 136, 149–53, 156–7, 159–75, 190–9, 201–2, 205, 207, 209, 211, 212, 218, 223 redistribution, 5, 7, 10, 11, 32, 34, 97, 102–3, 112, 131–8, 149, 156, 170, 187, 193, 207, 215, 227, 230–4 Reducing Re-offending among Prisoners, 218–19 responsibility, 34, 63, 94, 97, 99–100, 106–7, 108, 110, 115, 116, 121, 123, 124, 127, 129, 146, 147, 157, 164, 167, 185, 206, 226–8 Rifkind, Malcolm, 1 rights, 13, 26, 44, 45, 55, 68, 94, 102, 185 and responsibilities, 35, 54, 63, 91, 112, 113, 116, 117, 122, 197, 199, 221 risk, 53–4, 124, 132–3, 137
Index RMI (Revenu Minimum D’Insertion), 21, 22 Robinson, Geoffrey, 31, 137, 148 Roche, Barbara, 148 Rogers, Jean, 162 Room, Graham, 22, 128 Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, 29, 40 Ruddock, Joan, 174 rural development, 171 Sampson, Kit, 215–16 Sawyer, Tom, 70 Scargill, Arthur, 70 Scotland, 192, 195–6, 203 Scruton, Roger, 103 Securities and Investments Board, the, 137 security, 34, 78, 103, 105, 118–20, 153, 156 as shifter, 121–7 see also job security Seldon, Anthony, 49 self, 107 discipline, 93–4 esteem, 59, 60, 101, 108, 144, 145–6, 147, 154, 157, 158, 159 identity, 59, 101, 158, 181 SERA (Socialist Environment and Resources Association), 171–2 SERPS (State Earnings Related Pension Scheme), 131, 132 SEU (Social Exclusion Unit), 2, 5, 31, 128, 138, 147–52, 159, 164–8, 190–4, 198, 201, 203, 210, 215, 219–24, 230, 255n SID (Social Integrationist Discourse), 2, 7, 8, 21–7, 35, 37, 39, 101, 110–11, 128, 136, 138, 149–53, 156–7, 159–77, 190–202, 207–12, 218, 223 Silver, Hilary, 6, 21 Singapore, 76 skills, 24, 65, 79, 82, 118, 120–1, 135, 148; shortage 118, 120 Skjeie, Hege, 175 Smith, John, 1, 33, 34, 39 social accounting, 85–6
275
social capital, 168–9 social chapter, 80 social cohesion, 2, 6, 23, 35, 41–2, 43–7, 103, 110, 116, 122, 178–9, 182, 199, 233 and growth, 43, 47 incompatible with equality, 64 inequality as threat to, 44–5 and taxation, 66 social control, 4, 48, 61, 78, 93–4, 95, 165, 168, 178 families and, 122 social democracy, 4, 31, 33, 49, 98, 102–3, 104, 114, 153, 187, 193, 232, 234 Social Fund, 25, 129 social integration, 6, 35, 46 work as, 36 socialism, 31, 33, 34, 49, 50, 104, 130, 135 ethical, 105, 113 christian, 105 state, 180 socialization, 91–3, 108 social mobility, 223, 226, 228–30, 233 Soley, Clive, 144 solidarity, 22, 23, 25, 103, 108, 185–6 Durkheim’s concept of, 178–9, 183, 185 Sorel, Georges, 181 Soros, George, 180 Spinley, Betty, 225 Spencer, Herbert, 180 stakeholders, 72, 74, 75, 80, 82, 84, 117, 128 stakeholding, 2, 4, 43, 45, 49, 50, 54–8, 63, 70–88, 118, 112, 115–17, 127, 168–9, 179 Stakeholder Capitalism, 117 Your Stake at Work: TUC Proposals for a Stakeholding Economy, 83–7 Straw, Jack, 105, 122, 123, 124, 165, 197, 225 on parenting orders, 167 A Quiet Life, 124, 125 Safer Communities, Safer Britain, 124–5
276
Index
Straw, Jack (Continued) on work, 139 Tackling Youth Crime: Reforming Youth Justice, 123 substitution, 161 Sure Start, 198, 201, 209, 224–6 taxation, 41, 67, 71, 116, 121, 128, 129, 130, 141, 150, 192, 207, 222, 228, 230–1, 233–4 Taylor, Martin, 137 teenage pregnancy, 194–7, 200, 202, 224 TGWU (Transport and General Workers Union), 33, 118 Thatcher, Margaret, 30, 31, 40, 103, 113, 205, 222, 233 Thatcherism, 4, 12, 20, 28, 97, 113, 114, 133, 153, 187 think tanks, 4, 17, 29–33, 47, 230–4 third way, the, 4, 6, 33, 49, 50, 70, 83, 90, 104, 112–27, 128, 153, 177, 180, 186–7, 188, 193 Thompson, Tommy, 18 Thompson, Paul, 29 To ¨nnies, Ferdinand, 89 total social organization of labour, 8, 27, 28, 63, 146–7, 183 Townsend, Peter, 9–11, 12, 15, 34, 40, 132, 204 Poverty in the United Kingdom, 10 trade unions, 1, 32, 33, 43, 56–8, 63, 68, 80–1, 87, 112, 114, 116, 176, 182 Traidcraft, 85 training, 52, 65, 79, 120, 121, 129, 139, 150–1 transport, 23, 149, 150, 159, 170–2, 220–1 travellers, 215, 224 Tressell, Robert, 59 The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, 59 truancy, 148, 150, 166–7, 194–6, 199, 202, 218 Truancy and School Exclusion, 194 trust, 45, 54, 68, 107, 168
TUC (Trades Union Congress), 4, 70, 83, 86, 125, 176 Your Stake at Work: TUC Proposals for a Stakeholding Economy, 83–7 Twigg, Stephen, 30 underclass, 14, 15–19, 20, 44, 53, 100, 101, 152, 154, 155–6, 188 see also dependency culture unemployment, 35, 36, 48, 53, 62, 65, 82–3, 101, 134, 138–9, 148, 150–1, 156, 159, 160, 161, 163, 201, 218, 219, 223 benefits, 37, 65, 82 and crime, 166 female, 46 as insecurity, 120 male, 46, 60–1, 157 and truancy, 166 see also economic inactivity United Distillers, 118, 119 vulnerable, vulnerability, 191, 198, 208, 219, 223, 226 Wadsworth, Jonathan, 118 Wages for Housework Campaign, 170 Waldegrave, William, 1 Walker, Alan, 11, 12, 27 Walker, Carol, 11, 12, 27 Wales, 192 Watt, Paul, 199 Watts Miller, Willie, 179–80, 183, 186 wealth, 41, 42–3, 47, 106, 109, 137, 184–5 Webb, Steve, 143, 145 Weber, Max, 3 welfare reform Australia, 162, 195n Green Paper on, 5 United States, 17–19, 160, 162 welfare state, 4, 37, 93–4 welfare to work, 5, 28, 31, 128, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 159–63 Westergaard, John, 19, 188 Willetts, David, 49, 116 Wilson, Harold, 10
Index Wise, Audrey, 144 work ethic, 16, 17, 19, 66, 108, 154, 162 paid, 8, 23–4, 25, 27, 35–6, 38, 39, 43, 58–9, 93–4, 101, 102, 108, 112, 118–21, 128, 131, 138–42, 144, 146, 147, 151, 153–4, 159, 162, 163, 167, 169, 170–1, 180, 182–3, 190, 192, 201, 207–11, 220–3, 228 lone parents and, 143–5 and men, 60–1, 63 redistribution of, 170 and self identity, 59–60, 157–8 as social integration, 47–8, 145 and women, 61, 140–1, 57–8, 183 unpaid 5, 8, 10, 12, 24–5, 35, 36, 37–8, 43, 47, 125–6, 131,
277
145–7, 159, 169–70, 180, 209–11, 220 child care, 28 domestic, 27 emotional labour as, 95 parenting as, 95, 146–7, 163, 209–10 and private sphere, 46 voluntary, 4, 37–8, 125–6, 170–1, 210 women, 61–3, 157, 172 workfare, 59 working hours, 9, 24, 38, 39, 60, 154, 210 Wright, Tony, 116 Young, Michael, 229, 230 The Rise of the Meritocracy, 229
