 |
 |
I think I saw someone mention Rawls. I was introduced to him by Raymond Plant who said - possible complete misquote - if you have a million oranges why do you want a million and one? Live long and prosper! Clive Clive Durdle 4 Toronto Road Ilford Essex IG1 4RB 0208 554 5889 0794 198 8846 [log in to unmask] http://clivedurdle.wordpress.com/about/ http://web.me.com/clivedurdle I wish to develop the Renaissance concept of Opera, where people work together closely to resolve the issues they face, from a participatory, equal, just, sustainable and whole system perspective. Clive Durdle MSc BA (Econ) FCIH Dip Soc. Studs Durdle Door Consulting On 30 Sep, 2010,at 06:27 PM, "Moore, Robert" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Tawney and Galbraith (especially in 'The Affluent Society') were a great inspiration to me (when I was still in the Navy!). Add C. Wright Mills and you have a culture of radical social critique that I don't think has been equalled since. There have been very important contributions to debates about poverty and inequality - the work of Peter Townsend being a conspicuous example - but perhaps never quite same intellectual excitement (or did I just get old?). Robert Professor Robert Moore School of Sociology and Social Policy Eleanor Rathbone Building The University of Liverpool L69 7ZA Telephone and fax: 44 (0) 1352 714456 ________________________________________ From: email list for Radical Statistics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane Galbraith [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 29 September 2010 21:43 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Does income inequality have negative effects? I cannot agree with David Byrne's comments below. An unequal society is unpleasant even for those with wealth as it is insecure. Personal income is only one aspect: High quality public services ... universal free education, health care, social services, roads, railways, civic infrastructure etc. are important for the benefit of all. Here is a wikipedia extract that might be relevant to Karen's project: The Affluent Society is a 1958 book by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. The book sought to clearly outline the manner in which the post-World War II America was becoming wealthy in the private sector but remained poor in the public sector, lacking social and physical infrastructure, and perpetuating income disparities. The book sparked much public discussion at the time, and it is widely remembered for Galbraith's popularizing of the term "conventional wisdom". He also coined "private wealth and public squalor" Best wishes Jane Galbraith ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: Does income inequality have negative effects? From: "Kat Nower" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, September 29, 2010 10:24 am To: [log in to unmask] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have come to this discussion a little late, but I just wanted to let the group know that the Race Equality Foundation will be publishing a paper from Danny Dorling entitled 'How Race Makes Place', which will touch on the topics covered in The Spirit Level. The paper is currently at draft stage, but I will post to the list once it is available. If you are interested in our other evidence-based briefings on race equality, or in signing up to our monthly newsletter, then please do visit the Better Health (www.better-health.org.uk) and Better Housing (www.better-housing.org.uk) websites. Many thanks Kat Kat Nower Information Officer Race Equality Foundation Unit 35 Kings Exchange Tileyard Road London N7 9AH Tel: 020 7619 6233 Fax: 020 7619 6230 Email: [log in to unmask] http://www.raceequalityfoundation.org.uk Embed race equality into your every day work with our free-to-view resource collections on Better Health and Better Housing -----Original Message----- From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BYRNE D.S. Sent: 08 September 2010 10:59 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: FW: Does income inequality have negative effects? This came to the Social Policy mailing list but I don't seem to have seen it on Radstats. My own view of the Spirit Level is that the argument is John Stuart Mill utilitarianism. That is to say it tries to argue that inequality is bad for everybody and hence we have to address it and nobody will be worse off. I would take a James Mill view i.e. argue for the greatest good of the greatest number and recognize that inequality is good for some - in the contemporary UK I would say for households in the top decile of the income distribution, irrelevant for those in the next two deciles down, and increasingly bad for the bottom seven deciles. Of course there are regional variations. You can suffer from the externalities of income inequality in terms of crime even if you are very rich and live in inner London. The Berwickshire News thinks a brick through a car window in Duns is a front page story! Overall however I think the Spirit Level's liberal approach weakens its argument. I do sympathize with Wilkinson and Pickett's objectives but I think that Radstats needs to have a careful examination of the arguments including statistical elements which are avowedly simplified. The ideologues of the right are worried by evidence - hence the Snowdon and Little, Dice and Saunders stuff but perhaps we need to be more radical and accept that there are real clashes of interests. David Byrne -----Original Message----- From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Rowlingson Sent: 08 September 2010 10:28 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Does income inequality have negative effects? Dear Colleagues The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has commissioned me to carry out an independent assessment of the evidence on the impact of inequality on various socio-economic outcomes. I am writing to you see if you have any thoughts on this that you would like to contribute to the debate. The most recent and widely cited publication in this field is: Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K (2009) The Spirit Level, Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better , Allen Lane. There have also been some recent critiques of this work, notably by: Snowdon, C (2010) The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left's New Theory of Everything, Little Dice; and Saunders, P (2010) Beware False Prophets: Equality, the Good Society and The Spirit Level, Policy Exchange. The aim of the JRF work is to: • Summarise the main points from the existing work on the impact of income inequality, focusing particularly on The Spirit Level book. • Provide an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence, in terms of the data analysed, the methods of analysis used, the theoretical framework applied and the explanations put forward for the patterns identified. The JRF research will also set out ways that further research could contribute to the important question of the effect of inequality, independent of poverty. If you would like to contribute your thoughts to this debate or send me any references then I'd be very grateful. Please send them to: [log in to unmask] by the end of September. There will be a 10-15,000 words report from this work published in 2011. Thanks in advance and all the best Karen Rowlingson Professor of Social Policy Director of CHASM: Centre on Household Assets and Savings Management http://www.chasm.bham.ac.uk/ University of Birmingham ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. ******************************************************* ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. ******************************************************* ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************