What ONE change would have the biggest positive impact on our society?

Here are some pointers:

1. Firstly… think big! This is about root causes – big ideas that change society.
2. You don’t have to know how to implement your idea – this is about the what, not the how.
3. Do explain why it will work. What are the social mechanisms at play?
4. Please – no whingeing! This is about positive change, so please… be positive!

So now it’s over to you. What one change would you make? Do you support the evidence about income equality, or perhaps it’s about our approach to happiness? Maybe the biggest change will only come from a new social economic theory? Whatever you think really drives social behaviour, whatever you think the root causes of our social issues might be, please share your ideas.

What’s wrong with happiness?

The problem’s not happiness per se, but more that our collective actions suggest as a society we have  little understanding of what happiness is, where it comes from, or how to get it. Do we know how to be happy? Are we actually aiming to be happy? In his book, Richard Layard states that happiness is our ‘programmed goal’ and that it can be achieved primarily via work – specifically ‘meaningful’ work (i.e. work that helps others). This will come as no surprise to many, but his point is that the consumerist / individualist approach we have widely adopted as a society isn’t the path to happiness. We may be confusing the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of income.

The problem with pursuing income is that the benefits of income are not only temporary (a pay rise may make us happier, but it soon wears off and needs to be replaced with another pay rise) but they are also relative. Relative to our neighbour, relative to our society. Our gain in relative income therefore is to the cost of someone who earns less – who becomes relatively poorer. Income, Layard argues, perpetuates the zero sum game. There is loss for every win. And we are no better off as a society as a result.

What can we do?

Although Layard’s book offers nothing about happiness you wouldn’t be able to get from the classic philosophies / religions – help people, do a job that satisfies you, stop chasing material wealth – what you do get is a perspective on how our actions as a society belie what we have been told for centuries. Our approach to happiness could be described as at best reactive, responding to mental health problems when they happen but with little focus on halting the social conditions in which they prevail. The alternative is to be pro-active – putting happiness and helping others on the public agenda as an objective. Re-establish the Common Good, and put a halt to individualism. This is something for which we can surely take responsibility ourselves.

The role of government

Accepting we have our own role to play, what role does the state play in our happiness? Certainly by making more ‘meaningful’ work available, but in broader terms there is a growing focus on happiness as the correct priority for public policy. That means public policy – including economic policy – should focus on increasing happiness, not GDP. This may seem a daunting task – not least because GDP is internationally recognised as the measure of the value of our economic output, correlating it to our standard of living, but calls for alternative approaches to ‘growth’ are becoming bigger. In France, Spain and Italy a strong degrowth movement has developed, and the UK is also contributing to the search for a new economic model – including the Sustainable Development Commission’s Prosperity without Growth and the new economics foundation’s Great Transition. Even MPs are calling for a move beyond GDP.  At this stage I’m tempted to quote Kenneth Boulding (“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”) but before I do (oops…) I should point put that some economists, too, are keen to be part of the solution (not least Richard Layard who is also an economist).  Alternative theories such as behavioural economics attempt to address the flawed principles of traditional economics and more accurately reflect ‘real world’ behaviour. Maybe we’re already on our way to a happier society.

The more I read the more I see encouraging evidence of a groundswell of change. But returning to the purpose of this blog… Is happiness – or specifically a focus on happiness, helping others and the Common Good – the root that feeds social prosperity?

However, the idea I suggested – making governments accountable to the policies in their election manifesto – shouldn’t really have been a surprise given I was already building the Vote For Policies website at the time.  Monitoring how closely governments deliver on their election promises is the next logical step ensuring we focus on policies when we decide who we vote for.

The general consensus from the program was that legally binding manifestos would place too much of political power in the hands of lawyers. Also, how do you account for unforeseen circumstances (disasters, war) that affect budget and resources. What if there is a hung parliament? My take is that all of these issues can be considered and dealt with fairly in advance, without relying on lawyers to interpret rules for us (why not let the Supreme Court make the rulings?). Given the current climate it’s hard to imagine relying on our politicians to play by the rules, or even resist our own temptation to lynch them at the slightest sign of foul play. But if this is the right approach, I believe we’re intelligent enough to find a way to make it work. Let’s face it, we’ve solved bigger problems than this.

We don’t need to work out ‘how’ at this stage, just the ‘what’. What is the best solution, and putting our bias aside can we all agree? If we can, the rest will be easy.

Some other resources

If you listen to the program you’ll also hear a mention of what is now known as the Robin Hood Tax, as well as the ‘No Vote’ ballot paper option – the most popular suggestion on the night, and at the time of writing is also one of the top 10 votes in the nationwide Power2010 campaign.

Fullfact – part of their Vision states that “Politicians, journalists, lobbyists and campaigners to be held to account for the claims they make”. Inspiring stuff.

Winston Churchill, presumably warding off more 'average voters'

So said Winston Churchill, apparently. Was he right? It’s not difficult to see his point, let’s be honest. I say this because I include myself in the ‘average voter’ category. In fact, as someone who would struggle to tell you what the main political parties actually stand for (I mean really stand for) I wonder if I could even claim to be in the ‘average’ category at all.

Or maybe I’m being too hard on myself. After all, I only have the benefit of 17 years of education. How can I be expected to understand the difference between the political parties?  Just turning up at the polling booth is commendable enough, right?
Erm, no. That would be wrong.
Let’s face it, I doubt that Churchill would have changed his mind after a five minute conversation with me.

So if Churchill has a point, what’s the solution? Is he implying we should strip ‘the average voter’ of the right to vote? That would surely be a fairly drastic step backwards! My background in web usability reminds me that there is no such thing as user error, only usability error.  If we apply the same principle to politics, we can see the need for a better system for helping voters (like me) to make better use of their vote.

So how do we cut through all of the media spin, squabbling and negative advertising to make an informed decision about which party supports our vision for the future? Surely we would have to read through all of the party manifestos, extract policies for the issues we care about most, then compare them with each other. Who honestly has the time for that? And where do you start? If only someone else could do the leg-work for us… Maybe provide concise policy summaries from each party so we can pick those we agree with most, then find out which party they belong to. That would help us make a more informed choice about who to vote for based on real policies rather than personalities or media spin, right?

Well, guess what readers – someone has! This is my first foray into this arena, and I humbly offer you access to a very simple version of the kind of tool I have described above. More policies and parties are to be added so please offer your suggestions and feedback via the comments form on this post. If you’d like to get involved on any level, please also get in touch.

Try it here then post your comments!

“The health and social problems which we have found to be related to inequality tend to be treated by policy makers as if they were quite separate from one another, each needing separate services and remedies. We pay doctors and nurses to treat ill-health, police and prisons to deal with crime, remedial teachers to and educational psychologists to educational problems, and social workers, drug rehabilitation units, psychiatric services and health promotion experts to deal with a host of other problems. These services are all expensive, and none of them is more than partially effective.

“…And even when the various services are successful in stopping someone re-offending, in curing a cancer, getting someone off drugs or dealing with educational failure, we know that our societies are endlessly recreating these problems in each new generation.”

To paraphrase (perhaps unnecessarily), policy-makers would serve us better by treating the root rather than the symptoms. Furthermore, and in the context of The Spirit Level, authors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett believe that income inequality is just such a root, given that common social problems are many times worse in unequal societies.

Is income inequality the root of our social problems? The evidence is pretty compelling (although I’m now curious about everything that could drive inequality) but it is the approach that I am highlighting here. We must understand and treat the root, not just the symptoms. We need to join up our thinking – find the links between the remarkable research that exists to help us understand how societies work.

With this in mind, it is important to research ‘root causes’ like income inequality and offer them for comment and debate. I want to join the search for root causes – to help identify them beyond any reasonable doubt, and consider how best to treat them.

And then? What next? Wait for policy-makers to take it on board? Hope that the next government listens a bit more? The aim, should we get to this stage, is to present the evidence and support for it in a way that is not only impossible for politicians to ignore, but enables our own communities to take action without waiting for legislation. We have a wonderful opportunity to learn and share knowledge that can impact all of our lives for the better – not just the poorest, but all of us. Let’s take it.

The book draws on research into 22 developed countries, comparing the gap in income between the richest 20% and the poorest 20%. How the countries rank isn’t the main point of interest (although it looks pretty gloomy for us UK readers) – what’s really remarkable is that the rankings closely reflect how those countries perform in relation to 10 common social issues including crime, teenage pregnancy, mental health, literacy, and trust. I’ll attempt to summarise the crux of the findings in two simple points, but I urge you to read the book yourself and draw your own conclusions, or at least download the Guardian’s excellent visualisation of the book’s data (the origin of the above image) with accompanying summary.

1. Unequal societies have more social problems

Looking at the graphic above, the countries further towards the right hand side are;

- More depressed
- More obese
- Have more populated prisons
- Have up to 10 times more teenage pregnancies

(In total, 10 ’social problems’ are identified – it’s not just restricted to the above four areas)

2. Poverty alone is not the problem

Inequality doesn’t just affect the poorest. The research reveals how the affluent miss out too. For example, while literacy and death rates favour the affluent in every society, the affluent in unequal societies are not as literate as they are in more equal societies. Being specific, the richest fifth in Finland are more literate than the richest fifth in the UK (identified as one of the most unequal societies of the free world). Neither do they live as long, and are more prone to drug mis-use and mental health issues. The conclusion – it’s not enough to focus on poverty.

So what’s the solution?

In light of this evidence, how do we make societies more equal?

The two of the fundamental routes to greater equality lie in 1) redistributing income via taxes and benefits – as is the case in Sweden, for example, and 2) reducing the difference at source (i.e. before taxes and benefits are applied to incomes) as is the case in Japan. Whichever route or combination of routes is applied, what’s clear is that government policy has an overwhelming power to affect income equality. Their success, however, depends on a much greater awareness of the effects of inequality in our society. A cultural shift, and one which needs to be happen among politicians and the public alike.

An awareness campaign is therefore the primary aim of The Equality Trust (set up by the book’s authors), and which looks to be receiving increasing political attention. In calling for the ‘political will’ to reduce inequality, The Equality Trust reveal social factors which will play a key role in affecting change.

“Many people worry about what has gone wrong with modern societies without recognising how many of the problems originate in the effects of low social status and status competition which are exacerbated by greater inequality.”

And there it is. Social status and status competition. Issues whose significance are coincidentally also echoed in a report published by the World Health Organisation focusing on the effects of inequality on mental health (see PDF “Mental health, resilience and inequalities“). The report concludes that “greater inequality heightens status competition and status insecurity across all income groups and among both adults and children”. This may not be a surprise given the evidence discussed (mental health being just one of many social problems that fall foul of inequality), but there is reason to think that the approach to treating mental health issues could hold the key for the other social problems…

In her conclusion that “our mental health is incredibly sensitive to inequalities”, the report’s author, Dr Lynee Friedli, suggests there is “undue focus on individual solutions” to mental health, and that what’s required is a more broad-reaching “social solution”. Just as The Spirit Level describes the importance of social relations, Friedli also believe it comes down to the “a radical rethink” of the kind of society we want to live in. “For all kinds of complex reasons, we cannot adapt to inequality. [Research shows] that our response to injustice is written on our bodies. Those countries in Europe that have huge inequalities have to deal with this at a society-wide level. I’m an advocate of CBT, but no amount of CBT will address this. If we look at the population as a whole, mental health reflects the kind of society we live in.”

For me, Friedli’s observations are fascinating and lead me to the conclusion of this post. She describes individual mental health as a symptom of the health of our society. She gives support of CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) in treating individual cases, yet also describes the ultimate futility of any individual solution as long as we refuse to address the health of our society as a whole. It is this that raises the question in my mind as to whether we can use the process of CBT to identify to the root of society’s problems as a whole (to arrive at the question), and then address those issues? If we could, what questions would we need to ask ’society’ to uncover its  flaws, and what would it reveal about the inter-relationship between income inequality and social anxiety – which one is the dominant force in driving the other?

I’m not a CBT professional, so perhaps the next move will be to ask someone who is. But what are your thoughts? Is income inequality the root cause of so many social problems or, since correlation does not imply causation, is there something that drives income inequality?

1. are problems that impact us all
2. are not necessarily problems in every society
3. are problems because our society doesn’t have a system in place to address them properly

Those, surely, are facts. Nothing controversial.  I would also add that these problems;

• are not being addressed in a coordinated, non-emotional, non-political way
• are problems because the greatest problem solvers are not being attracted to the greatest problems

I invite you to comment on whether you agree with those last two points, but whether you do or not – what are the solutions? What is the actual problem and how will we know when it’s solved? How can we attract the best minds to work on this? What would need to happen? Where do we start?

Rather than just looking for a solution, we need to be sure we really understand the problem – the real problem – the root, if there is one. For this to happen we must surely join up our collective thinking and pool our learning. If we could ever get to that stage, we would then be in the incredible position of being able to ask the question of how to solve it – to present that question to the many amazing thinkers and problem solvers around the world. But only when we really know the problem can we ask the question of how to solve it.

So what is The Question?

This, simply, is the reason I have started this blog. In order to get there, I simply aim to participate in the discovery of The Problem by investigating current theories about how societies really work.

Can you help? If you have suggestions for leading theories or discussions please add your comments.

Hello cyberspace chums. I’m thoroughly delighted to declare this blog well and truly launched! Gawd bless her, and all who read her. I’m using this space to learn and share knowledge about societal issues, in the hope that we can improve The Way We Live by pooling our collective knowledge and experience. Most importantly I’m hoping to share ideas much better than my own, so may I make an early plea for your opinion, thoughts, experience, ideas, and/or anything else you have in your treasure trove of inner wisdom. I hope to provide a suitably tasteful background for whatever it is you can contribute, but I’ll let you be the judge of that…

You can find out even more about this blog, but otherwise we can just crack on…