Poverty, the market and the state www.prospectmagazine.co.uk R...

http://www.readability.com/articles/g1atcfpm

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Poverty, the market and the state

by Roger Scruton Nov. 26, 2013 original (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/poverty-the-market-and-thestate/#.UpiTaeKRNlW)

The m ost im portant lesson w e can learn from recent history is that pu tting quality at the top of the agenda wont elim inate pov erty , it m ight m ake it m ore widespread

Phot ofusion/UIG via Get t y Free download: Poverty in the UK: Can it be eradicatedexpert essays with contributions from Roger Scruton, Rowan Williams and Bonnie Greer (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/free-download-poverty-in-the-uk/#.Uo3ZcGSFaUY) Alm ost any thinking citizen, asked if w e shou ld seek to end pov erty in our cou ntry , w ould answ er y es. What political goal cou ld be m ore clearly desirable? And y et, w hen asked to define what pov erty consists in, or why , on som e giv en definition, pov erty is bad, m any people find them selv es stum ped for an answer. The word conjures im ages of Victor Hu gos Paris or Charles Dickenss London, in w hich pov erty w as a condition just this side of the grav e. The 1 9 th-century poor w ere fending off death w ith their last resou rcesby begging, crim e, prostitu tion and the sale of their children. But people described as poor today are usu ally in no such straitscertainly not in the United Kingdom . Of course, there are people elsewhere w ho are less fortunate than the poorest Briton; bu t for pov erty to be a serious m atter of dom estic policy it m ust be a condition that can be identified here, in the United Kingdom . And, looking at the condition of the poorest am ong u s, we find little to com pare with the absolute lack of resou rces that inspired the indignation of Hugo, Dickens, May hew, Marx, Dostoev sky or Proudhon in the 1 9th century . This does not m ean that no-one in Britain today is poor. For the standards against w hich pov erty is m easured depend upon the norm s to w hich w e aspire. Faced w ith the question, how m any knights does a retired sov ereign need, King Lear responded: O reason not the need! Our basest beggars/ Are in the poorest things su perfluou s, thus setting out on the long, hard path by w hich he learned what real pov erty is. How poor we are depends on how poor w e feel; and w hile w e cou ld hav e been com fortable in Victorian England despite lacking a car, a properly equipped kitchen, a telephone and a source of inform ation, such as a com puter, it is u nlikely that we could dispense w ith those resou rces today . What we need depends on the life that surrounds u s. That life has been created by others, and by the pow ers, assets and lu xuries that they take for granted. For this reason, cam paigners hav e tended to follow Peter Tow nshend in em bracing a relativ e definition of pov erty , without attem pting to define a threshold in absolu te term s. Thu s the last Labou r Gov ernm ent defined the pov erty line as 60 per cent of the m edian incom e. Using a related m easu re, the Child Pov erty Action Group (w hich Tow nshend created) tells u s that 3 .7 m British children are now liv ing in pov erty . The choice of children as the test case reflects the assum ption that they are the first v ictim s of pov erty , since the lack of resou rces w ill affect their prospects for the rest of their liv es. On the other hand, w hen y ou take into consideration the purchasing pow er of the m edian incom e today , and calcu late what can actu ally be obtained by som eone w ho disposes of 60 per cent of it, y ou w ill recognise that all but the v ery w ealthiest of 1 9th-centu ry Britons liv ed below today s pov erty line. By the standard adopted by the last gov ernm ent, I was brought up in pov erty in a hou sehold w ithout a car or a

1 of 4

29.11.2013. 19:19

Poverty, the market and the state www.prospectmagazine.co.uk R...

http://www.readability.com/articles/g1atcfpm

refrigerator, w ith only the rare holiday in a B&B in Monm ou th, and w ith a restricted diet of w hich baked beans were the m ost reliable com ponent. And y et, by the standards of those days , we were com fortable and, thanks to ou r local gram m ar school and the sy stem of gov ernm ent grants, I enjoy ed the best av ailable education, m y parents not pay ing a penny for m y schooling right u p to the day when I receiv ed m y doctorate, by w hich tim e I w as a fellow of a Cam bridge college. I look back on m y childhood w ith gratitudetowards m y parents, and also towards the benign welfare state of those day s, which enabled them to offer their children opportu nities that they them selv es had not enjoy ed. Illness, w hen it cam e, did not lead, as it so often led in the past, to destitution and bankruptcy . Thanks to the National Health Serv ice, serious illness w as a cost that our fam ily cou ld bear. I wou ld say that, for m y parents generation, and also for m ine, things w ere getting rapidly better and that w hatev er the policies w ere that produ ced this effect, they m ust hav e been the right ones. But Peter Tow nshends work Poverty in the United Kingdom , pu blished in 1 97 9 , gav e quite a different im pression. Tow nshend shifted attention from pov erty to som ething called relativ e depriv ation, m eaning the com parativ e inability to enjoy the fru its of surrounding affluence. He concluded that 1 5m Britons (a quarter of the total) liv ed on or near the m argins of pov erty . Reading this in 1 97 9 , at a tim e w hen I w as beginning to enjoy the fruits of m y parents sacrifices, I could not restrain a m easure of indignation on their behalf. They wou ld hav e fiercely rebu tted the description of them selv es as poor, and wou ld hav e added a few non-conform ist im precations against those w ho m easure the v alue of life in term s of gadgets and holiday s. It is true that standards of pov erty m ust change to reflect changes in our way of life. But this does not m ean that they are relativ e: it does not m ean that to be poor is to be poor in com parison w ith others. Defining pov erty in Tow nshends w ay im plies that pov erty w ill nev er go aw ay . When m y neighbours hav e two cars each, expensiv e holiday s in the Caribbean and m ortgage-free hom es in com forta ble subu rban locations, I am pretty likely to experience a tw inge of relativ e depriv ation at the sight of them . We m ight all get richer and richer, but m y relativ e depriv ation w ill stay just the sam e. It is as though nothing has im prov ed since Dickenss day , and the w hole effort of creating a welfare state, w ith social hou sing and gu aranteed pensions, w as w asted. I dont think Tow nshend him self intended any such conclusion to be draw n. But in m y v iew he greatly confu sed the issue by both defining pov erty in a w ay that m akes it inescapable, and at the sam e tim e su ggesting that the reason why the poor are poor is becau se the rich are richa conclu sion that in fact follows by logic from his definition. Tow nshends analy sis encou rages w hat to m e are the two greatest obstacles to thinking clearly abou t pov erty : first, the zero-su m fallacy , w hich say s that costs and benefits balance, so that one persons loss is caused by another persons gain, and secondly the use of that fallacy to stir up resentm ent tow ards the successful. The zero-sum fallacy is a perm anent tem ptation; so too is resentm ent tow ards those who are better off than w e are. And the two tem ptations are connected. I m ight cope w ith the difference betw een m e and m y rich neighbou r, if I think he has prospered at m y expense. For then I m ight feel justified in expropriating him . Many political parties and m ov em ents exploit this feeling, notably the Com m unists and the Nazis in the y ears of crisis following the First World War. Of course, it is som etim es true that people are depriv ed of goods u nfairly . It is all too often tru e that people enrich them selv es at others expense. But this should not prev ent u s from turning a critical ey e on the beliefs that this is always so, and that inequ ality is the cause of pov erty . Defenders of the free econom y w ill argue to the contrary , that m arket transactions are, in the norm al case, positiv e sum gam es: transactions entered freely benefit both parties, since otherwise the parties w ould not agree to them . The result m ay be an unequ al distribu tion of rew ards. How ev er, inequ ality is neither the aim nor the norm , but sim ply the unintended by -produ ct of our free agreem ents. This does not m ean that inequality is sim ply to be accepted. For inequality breeds resentm ent, and resentm ent m u st be ov ercom e if there is to be social harm ony . Wealthy people m ay be aware of this and anxious to do som ething abou t it. They m ay giv e to charity , dev ote som e part of their resources to helping others, and in general display an appropriate m easure of sy m pathy for those less fortu nate than them selv es. In particular they m ay set u p enterprises that offer em ploy m ent, and so giv e to others a stake in their own success. That is how it has usually been in Am erica, and it is one reason w hy , in m y experience, Am ericans, how ev er disadv antaged, are pleased by others good fortunebeliev ing that, in som e way , they m ight hav e a share in it. In European countries, how ev er, it is not norm al for people to be pleased by the good fortune of others. We are often afraid to rev eal our w ealth, our pow er or our success in worldly things, for fear of the aggression that this w ill attract. Nietzsche attribu ted ressentim ent, as he called it, to a deep fault in our civ ilisation, m anifested equally in the Christian religion, in dem ocracy and in the socialist program m es of his day . Max Scheler, defending Christianity against Nietzsches charge, w as m ore eager to attribute resentm ent to bourgeois m orality , w hich m easu res ev ery thing in term s of m aterial possessions. Socialism , for Scheler, w as just the latest form that this m orality had taken. And there is no doubt that resentm ent has play ed an im portant role in the attitu de to inequality that prev ails today . To be honest, I see no solution to widespread resentm ent other than the traditional Am erican oneto put y our w ealth to use, and to giv e as m any people as possible an interest in y our using it su ccessfully . How ev er, things hav e changed in w ay s that threaten the old Am erican m odel. There has been, both before and after the financial crisis of 2 008, a sudden and escalating rise in the disparity between incom es at the top end of the scale and those at the bottom . This has happened all across the dev eloped w orld, and in Am erica in particular. Joseph Stiglitz has argued, in The Price of I nequality, that the top percentile of Am ericans has increased in w ealth not only w hile those low er dow n the scale hav e either rem ained static or fallen into pov erty , but m ore im portantly that the w ealth of those at the top has been increased at the cost of those beneath them . If this w ere true, th en any policy to reliev e pov erty m ust also address the problem of inequality , achiev ing som e redistribution of wealth at the expense of those who currently possess it. Whether this is so is a question that all policy -m akers m ust address, and I return to it below . From those thoughts I draw the follow ing prelim inary conclusions:

1 . Absolu te pov erty is an ev il, and any policy that allev iates or rem ov es it should be prom oted, ev en if the result of that policy is an u nequal distribution of w ealth. 2 . Pov erty can be defined in absolute term s, ev en if the standard changes. For hu m an society ev olv es, and w ith it the needs of its m em bers. 3 . Pov erty defined in com parativ e term srelative pov erty is sim ply another nam e for inequality . 4 . By confou nding the tw o concepts of pov erty , w e ru n to gether two quite different political goals: the relief of pov erty , on the one hand, and the creation of an equal society on the other, where equ ality is m easured in term s of m aterial assets. While the relief of pov erty is a goal shared by all political factions, the creation of an equal society is a special concern of socialists, and is seldom seen as either possible or desirable by their opponents. 5. From this it follow s that the relief of pov erty , when pov erty is defined in Tow nshends way , looks like a uniqu ely socialist project. We conserv ativ es are condem ned ou tright, as the heartless people for whom the poor are of no accou nt. So how should conserv ativ es respond? There m ay be good reasons for wanting an equ al, or a m ore equal society . Bu t the easiest way to produce an equ al society is to depriv e ev ery one of ev ery thing, as Pol Pot did in Cam bodiaa trium ph of the egalitarian idea, but no v ictory ov er pov erty . Nor w as Pol Pot an exception am ong com m unist leaders. The ev idence from the 2 0th century is ov erwhelm ing, that the single-m inded pu rsu it of equ ality leads to widespread im m iseration, and the concentration of pow er and resources in the hands of the few . Conv ersely , a radically unequal society , such as som e people believ e is em erging today , m ay concentrate pow er and resources in the hands of the few , by creating rents on the social

2 of 4

29.11.2013. 19:19

Poverty, the market and the state www.prospectmagazine.co.uk R...

http://www.readability.com/articles/g1atcfpm

productin other words, positions that perm it people to extract w ealth without producing it. This too could throw people into pov erty , though there is no ev idence that it has done so to the extent or on the scale of the com m unist experim ents. But it raises the question of what kind of inequ ality , and w hat am ount of it, is acceptable. Now , it could be, as defenders of the m arket argue, that w ealth creation depends upon the free use of priv ate property , and it cou ld also be that the result w ill be an increase in w ealth for ev ery body , as well as su bstantial inequalities between those at the top and those at the bottom . And it could be that the resulting inequality is an ev il, to be rem edied by som e form of redistribution. Bu t if it is an ev il, it is an ev il of a different kind from that of pov erty , and one that m ust be rem edied in another w ay . And w e shou ld be careful, in ou r desire to create a m ore equ al society , that we do not destroy the m otiv es of the wealth-creators; for w ithout them w e shall all be poor. Ev en left-liberals recognise the dangers here. John Raw ls, in his definition of the just society set ou t in A Theory of Justice, incorporates the difference principle, according to which inequ alities are perm issible, prov ided they benefit the w orst off. Conserv ativ es wou ld probably add that they are perm issible any way , and w ho are y ou to forbid them ? But they w ould certainly agree w ith Raw ls, that the egalitarian project m ay be just as great a threat to the poor as to the rich. Nor does history tell us otherw ise. Indeed, it seem s to m e that the m ost im portant lesson that we can learn from recent history is that putting equ ality at the top of the agenda does nothing to elim inate pov erty , and m ay indeed m ake pov erty m ore w idespread. So long as we fram e the question in Tow nshends term s, using idiom s like relativ e depriv ation, w e obscure the fu ndam ental fact, which is that, in dev eloped countries, ev ery body has been getting richer, so thatuntil the recent dow nturnabsolute pov erty was getting rarer. That is true, ev en by reasonable u pdated standards of what pov erty consists in. And it is an achiev em ent for w hich we should be gratefu l. The welfare state has m ade an im portant contribution to this achiev em ent. But in the conserv ativ e v iew , it w ould not hav e been possible w ithout rights of property and security of contractthe tw o institu tions that enable u s to engage in econom ic activ ity without the perm ission or the control of the state. Like m any people of conserv ativ e leanings I am therefore su spicious of laws that rew rite contracts for the benefit of the w eaker party , since such law s v iolate both the right of property and freedom of contract. They also hav e u nintended consequ ences that place burdens on the rest of us. Thus the UK Rent Act of 1 9 68, which granted security of tenure to existing tenants at controlled rents, and w hich seem ed at the tim e to be a m easure that w ould rectify exploitation and grant security to th e poorest of the poor, had the effect of killing the rental m arket, so that poor people w ho did not y et hav e a roof ov er their heads were no longer able to find one. This legislation substantially increased the burden on the poorer m em bers of the com m u nity , by forcing them either to take ou t a m ortgage, often at a rate that they could not afford, or to join the waiting list for social hou sing. Likew ise m ore recent legislation im posing a m inim u m w age, w hich has benefited those already in em ploy m ent, has also killed off the job m arket at the bottom of the scale. New em ploy m ent is only offered at a rate that em ploy ers can afford, not at the rate that w ill be dictated to them afterw ards by gov ernm ent. The existence of a m inim u m w age m eans that, necessarily , jobs are not av ailable to the pooresti.e., to those prepared to w ork for less. But em ploy m ent, howev er poorly paid, is a fu ndam ental step in the escape from pov erty . For it enables y ou to exercise y ou r skills and present y ourself in the job m arket. It is the first rung on the u pw ard ladder. Hence the m inim um w age has created a new class of the poor. In general I am su spicious of any policy that is based on the redistribution of existing assets. My reasons are these: first such policies penalise econom ic success and therefore discourage those w ho hav e the gift for w ealth creation. This can only depress the ov erall lev el of w ealth, and therefore reduce the funds to be distribu ted. Secondly , the assets are redistribu ted, as a rule, to the existing poor, as in the two exam ples that I hav e giv en, bu t do not allev iate pov erty in the long ru n. On the contrary , they tend to destroy opportunities, create new burdens of hom elessness or unem ploy m ent, and deter the inv estm ents necessary for econom ic grow th. A conserv ativ e policy for the relief of pov erty w ould aim to reliev e pov erty as it arises, not by creating a new class of poor to replace the old one, but by ensuring, if possible, that those w ho fall into pov erty hav e the opportunities and the will to get out of it. One encouraging initiativ e has been the Gram in bank, fou nded by Muham m ad Yunu s in Bangladesh and subsequently im itated around the globe. The policy of offering sm all loans, together with a potential share in the bank, in order to capitalise hom e-grown bu sinesses, transform ed the ru ral econom y of Bangladesh and lifted m any v illagers ou t of pov erty by pu tting their products on the wider m arket. Of course it w as a priv ate act of charity that capitalised the initiativ e; but the bank soon prov ed self-supporting and, w hile not insu lated from fraud, continues to operate in its original setting with ev ident benefits to the poor. The m odel cou ld surely be adapted and refined to becom e a tem plate for policy here in Britain. Moreov er, it su ggests a principle. We help the poor by freeing the channels throu gh which opportu nities com e to them . Old fashioned banking was closed to those w ho could offer no security for a loan, and therefore it did nothing to support the econom ic activ ity of the tru ly im pov erished. It w as one part of the pov erty trap, w hich prev ented those w ho had fallen into penury from w orking them selv es out of it. The welfare sy stem wou ld then step in to prov ide for them , so ensu ring that they rem ained dependent on handouts from the state. This w as the first step tow ards the cu ltu re of dependency , w ith all its well-know n adv erse social and psy chological consequ ences. Likew ise, the m ortgage m arket was in recent m em ory closed to the poor, w ho could giv e no security for a loan. The em ergence of the sub-prim e m ortgage created opportunities for hom e ow nership am ong people w ho wou ld not prev iously hav e been able to enjoy su ch a thing. Sure, the sub-prim e m arket play ed a part in the recent Wall Street crash. But that w as becau se banks w ere trading in debts that they could not gu arantee and treating speculativ e retu rns as solid assets. Again, it m ight be possible to work out a w ay of refining this particu lar financial instrum ent so as to m ake it av ailable to the poor w ithout jeopardising the goal of giv ing them the opportu nity to acquire a secure capital asset. Indeed, in their original conception, the building societies and friendly societies of Victorian Britain aim ed at ju st such a resu lt: offering m ortgages to poor people w ho thereby acquired an interest in a shared capital v entu re. Those charitable societies were built on the know ledge that people can raise them selv es out of pov erty , and that the best w ay to help them is to prov ide networks of m utu al support. We are all aware of the extent to which banks hav e exploited the loan m arket, risking capital that they did not possess for qu ick returns, and rew arding their directors and m anagers with v ast bonuses w hile pu tting their shareholders at risk, often rely ing on the state to step in to sav e them w hen the crisis cam e. What is to be done in response to thisand it is only one part of a larger problem concerning how to regulate financial transactions withou t extinguishing them is a difficu lt question. Becau se it has affected the bottom end of the m ortgage m arket in Am erica the sub-prim e crisis has throw n m any people into pov erty and hom elessness w ho were prev iously working their way u p into the m iddle class. Howev er, this does not im ply that su b-prim e m ortgages are essentially precarious, or that the regu lations could not be put in place that w ould once again m ake them av ailable and reliable for those w ho cannot giv e collateral guarantees for a loan. Any reform of the financial sy stem ought, in m y v iew, to hav e this goal as a priority . The labou r m arket could be freed, w ere the penalties to be lifted from those w ho seek to offer em ploy m ent. For exam ple, there are m any people w ho cou ld m ake use of dom estic help and w hose earning capacity wou ld be increased if they did not hav e the burden of m anaging their hou seholds. But the m ajority of such people cannot afford to pay a salary out of post-tax incom e. By allowing them to claim their em ploy ees w ages against tax, and by lifting the burden of national insurance, a v ast area of em ploy m ent opportunities at the bottom of the m arket w ould be opened. This wou ld not redu ce gov ernm ent rev enu es, since tax wou ld be collected on the em ploy ees w ages and there w ould be a corresponding redu ction in benefit pay m ents. The result w ould, indeed, represent a fiscal sav ing, w hile again placing the feet of the beneficiaries on the upw ard ladder. Moreov er this policy w ould cause poor people to w ork side by side with m em bers of the m iddle class, w ho are as likely to be caring and responsible as their em ploy ees. The em ploy ers w ould be m otiv ated to help w ith such m atters as the edu cation of children, and the m anagem ent of the legal and other burdens that lay su ch a heav y shadow across the liv es of the poor. In general a conserv ativ e policy w ill be fav ourable to the rich, not because

3 of 4

29.11.2013. 19:19

Poverty, the market and the state www.prospectmagazine.co.uk R...

http://www.readability.com/articles/g1atcfpm

they are rich, bu t becau se they hav e the prov en ability to create w ealth. And it w ill aim to distribute that w ealth w ithout penalising the activ ities that create it. It w ill not, in the norm al case, redistribute wealth directly . Instead it w ill attem pt to create the opportu nities that people need, in order to create wealth for them selv es. That this is psy chologically m ore beneficial than w elfare dependency is, I think, one of the lessons to be learned from the w ork of Charles Murray ( Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980) and Jam es Q Wilson ( The Moral Sense). It is also m ore econom ically efficient, since it encou rages the poor to produ ce econom ic v alue and not just to receiv e it. Murray and Wilson present ov erw helm ing ev idence from the Am erican case, that the pov erty trap exists, that it locks its v ictim s into failure and discouragem ent, and that it is accom panied by ev ery kind of anti-social behav iour as its v ictim s beat fruitlessly against the w alls that contain them . Yet the policies that produce this trap continu e to be espou sed, wherev er pov erty is redefined as inequality . For then the only rem edy proposed is forcible redistribution, the im m ediate effect of w hich is to depress the econom y and to create new classes of the poor. But this retu rns m e to the question of inequality . As I suggested abov e, if inequalities, or extrem es of inequality , are ev ils, then they are ev ils of another kind from pov erty . Pov erty is ov ercom e w hen ev ery one has su fficient for a decent hum an lifeand how m uch that is depends in part on the surrou nding conditions. Bu t inequality is ov ercom e w hen ev ery one has the sam e. It is not becau se it produ ces pov erty that inequality is an ev il, for it does not do so. If it is an ev il it is an ev il of another kindfor exam ple the ev il of prov iding rents on the social product that place enorm ous power in the hands of people w ho hav e no m otiv e to u se that power responsibly , and w ho m ight u se it in w ay s that threaten the prosperity and the sav ings of the rest of u s. This w e hav e seen in the corporate sector. Bu t w hat is the rem edy ? Stiglitz opts for m assiv e redistributiv e taxation, up to 7 0 per cent at the top incom e lev el, and a heav y estate tax. But there is no ev idence from the European case that su ch m easures do any thing to ov ercom e pov erty , ev en if they m ake it m ore difficu lt to be rich. On the contrary , they penalise w ealth creation, lead to a flight of capital and also m ake people less likely to sav e, opting to spend their m oney during their lifetim e. My ow n v iew is that we should striv e to lim it the opportu nities for rent-seeking by returning powers to shareholders and inv estors, and restricting the capacity of banks to trade in u nreal estate. The desire to punish the rich is u nderstandable; but it is no part of a policy to help the poor. There is one class of poor people, howev er, that it is increasingly difficult to help, not because the free econom y cannot extend its benefits in their direction, bu t becau se social changes hav e rem ov ed the protection on w hich they depend. I am thinking of the elderly , and in particular of those w ho are too frail to work. The dissolution of the extended fam ily and the increasing tendency to exhaust the equity of the fam ily hom e before the death of its older residents, hav e led to m ore and m ore elderly people falling into a pov erty trap from w hich they cannot em erge by their ow n dev ices, since they hav e none. Until now the focu s of gov ernm ent policy , in response to the cam paigns of the Child Pov erty Action Group, has been on children. In m y v iew it w ould be better directed to the old, for m any of w hom there is no other source of help. Pension funds, as w e know , are in crisis, on account of the unexpected longev ity of their beneficiaries. State pensions too can prov ide funds only by borrow ing from an u ncertain fu tu re. Stopgap m easures, su ch as the winter fu el allow ance, barely tou ch the surface of the problem . It is significant that, when Bism arck first introdu ced a w elfare state into Germ any , it was the situation of the elderly that m ost concerned him , w ith the right to a publicly funded pension the first am ong the prov isions that he introduced. And I cannot help feeling that this is the correct em phasis for a conserv ativ e. We should recognise that there is a collectiv e duty on all of us, to help those w ho can no longer help them selv es. For the rest, howev er, policy shou ld hav e a com pletely different focus not to look after them , but to prov ide the opportunities that they need in order to escape from the pov erty trap. For the m ajority of able-bodied people this trap has been enhanced by gov ernm ent policy and not cured by it, and the principal reason for this is the fallaciou s belief that equ ality , not w ealth, is the thing that w ill rid us of the poor. AC Grayling believes poverty in the UK is a moral issue, pointing to the indifference of many in the rich world. Read more in his essay, What is Poverty? (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/a-c-grayling-what-is-poverty/#.UpSyMWRdXPw)

Political Visions is a partnership between Prospect and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (http://www.jrf.org.uk/). In a collection of essays by some of the UKs leading thinkers from economics, politics, philosophy, medicine and the charity sector, we address how poverty can be eradicated in the UK. Bringing together voices from across the political spectrum, it offers a range of opinions on what poverty is, the relationship between state and market, and how a better understanding of its catalysts can help to create consensus in achieving a low-poverty UK.

Original URL: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/poverty-the-market-and-thestate/#.UpiTaeKRNlW

4 of 4

29.11.2013. 19:19