The Good Society Review by Kate Beckett – Author of Soul Level Reviews | Community books

IIf you wrote a successful book based on one big idea, what would you make the next book about? In 2009, Kate Beckett’s book The Soul Level (co-authored with Richard Wilkinson) argued that inequality was the ultimate cause of almost all our social problems, from obesity and teenage pregnancy to violent crime; They claimed that more equal societies achieve better outcomes across the board. Although it was criticized – as are most Big Idea books – for overstating the case and selecting evidence, it struck a chord, and some aspects of its thesis have now become mainstream.

However, when it comes to the UK, there is an embarrassing problem, both for Beckett and for economists like me, who, while not entirely convinced by the level of ethos, would still like to see a more equal society. In the first chapter of Beckett’s new book, inequality is once again the root cause of all (social) evil: “If you knew the level of inequality in a country, you could do a very good job of predicting the infant mortality rate, the prevalence of mental illness, or the levels of murder or imprisonment.” By contrast, it argues that GDP or GDP growth are very poor measures of overall well-being. Beckett then goes on to list the ways in which the UK has become a worse place to live since 2010 – rising child poverty rates, flattening life expectancy and child mortality, and more people in prison.

But what actually happened to inequality and GDP during this period? According to Beckett’s preferred measure, the Palma ratio, inequality peaked in 2008 and has fallen dramatically since then, as the tax system has become significantly more progressive. At the same time, GDP growth has been very slow compared to the past two decades. If you had asked Beckett in 2010 whether she would accept such a trade – much slower GDP growth in exchange for more progressive taxation and lower inequality – she would have been quick to answer. But now, like most of us, she’s not happy with the results.

Instead of addressing this mystery, Beckett largely evades it. A good society has many ideas: that is, rather than one unified concept, it covers policy problems and solutions in health, education, criminal justice, social care, and elsewhere. In each case, she diagnoses the failure of our current model and proposes alternatives, drawn mostly from the successful social democracies of northern Europe.

The problem is that, as she commendably admits, she has neither the experience nor the space to provide detailed analysis of these topics, and we end up on a whirlwind tour of the greatest successes of progressive social policy, from Finnish schools to Norwegian prisons. If you’re instinctively sympathetic to the view that we imprison too many people, that we should value care work more, that the education system focuses too much on exams and so on, you’ll probably nod to a lot of this. But if you’re not already convinced, you’re unlikely to change your mind. For those who have experience with one of these topics—and can spot the holes, or at least the oversimplifications—this summary is less than the sum of its parts.

Even more interesting – perhaps because Beckett has researched the topic in depth herself – is the section on universal basic income. Working with my frequent co-author and friend Howard Reid, I helped produce detailed and cost-effective blueprints for the UK’s Universal Basic Income Fund. However, I think she overstates the issue: it is simply wrong to claim that a universal basic income would eliminate the need for means-testing or eligibility tests, because the main drivers of these tests in the UK system are disability and housing benefits, which would still be needed even with a universal basic income. Most of the small studies on universal basic income so far have failed to find the transformative benefits they claim. Whether you agree or disagree, this at least represents a serious and substantive proposal to address inequality and injustice.

Finally, in an attempt to address the political obstacles to achieving any of these goals, Beckett concludes his talk with a plea for increased use of evidence in policy making, along with citizen juries. Unfortunately, this leaves her voice out of touch with the current political context. I wish I could believe her claim that “a fairer, healthier, more caring and more sustainable society is well within our reach,” but I fear that I did not finish this book more optimistic than when I started it.