The lack of social mobility in the UK
“We still live in a country where an individual’s future potential is mostly defined by the circumstances of their birth and early years — especially parental income, family wealth, and associated privileges.
The privilege, preference and mediocrity that define the status-quo here in the UK, must be replaced by fairness, opportunity and meritocracy — especially if the UK is to succeed in a post-Brexit world and take advantage of open markets and digital technology as defined by the 4th industrial revolution we are going through.”
The UK, on the whole, largely remains a deeply divided society — not really according to gender, race, disability, age or any other obvious characteristic, but mainly between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. Improving social mobility is one of the major interventions that can help address this divide. As per my opening quote, we can define social mobility as how much your birth determines your future place. It is the probability that those born into underestimated circumstances (or as the media and politicians refer to them as from disadvantaged or less-privileged backgrounds) can work their way to the top — and, similarly, those born into privilege can fall out of it.
In the UK, and to be fair in most other countries, privilege, preference and opportunity have been passed down the generations — and have pretty much trumped: fairness, hard-graft and merit. Certain segments of the population have suffered more because of the overlay of their other predominant characteristics or demographics, for example: ethnic minorities (non-white), women and those with disabilities.
It is the privilege of being born into and growing up in a nurturing and comfortable environment with parent/s who have even modest wealth and income which appear to be the determining factors to lead to a ‘better place’ in society. This comfortable environment facilitated by wealth and income allows access to great schools and colleges via the affordability of paying full-private fees or moving to a house in a better catchment area; extra-curricular experiences and holidays; a pathway to leading universities; a network enabling quality work experience; and, of course, the resulting access to job opportunities and career progression.
Comfort and privilege related to your family’s financial situation
We often forget that the average gross salary in the UK is £27k — yes, that is today in 2018. This is lost on many people — especially those gatekeepers in our organisations, society and the media who do not break out of the bubble of ‘people like us’ or who have a London-centric view.
Coincidentally, average household income is also £27k (i.e. gross income net of taxes and benefits added on) — with approximately 80% of UK households falling below this. This data is skewed by the number of ultra-high income and wealthy households at the top-end and, unfortunately, the even-higher number of poorer households (such as those on income support, family credit and/or with children eligible for free school meals) at the lower end. As a result, this explains the large number of UK households that fall below this ‘modest’ income level.
So if you spent the majority of your early years (generally up to the age of 18) growing up in a home that your parents owned or had a mortgage on; where your parents earned more than the average income (only £27k today, think back to 1970s/80s/90s/00s and what the average would have been then and what your parents were earning) then you were and, very likely, still are in the richest, most financially privileged 20% of the UK. Of course, you then have the highest probability of succeeding in life be it economic, social or indeed on any measure. As a result, privilege does not just refer to royalty or the ultra-wealthy — it is quite attainable in the UK. The ability to draw from the ‘bank of mum and dad’ and expected inherited wealth are greater factors in what divides us than it has ever been. This is particularly evident in the rise of the ‘landed middle-class’ — notably in London and its suburbs.
The property boom of the past three decades has propelled the property owning and landed middle-class into a new, even stratospheric, zone. Their wealth does not advantage their children, as inherited wealth once did, just by landing them in a rather large cash pile or an inherited house. Now, it advantages them via more opportunity. It pays for private education, the tuition that allows them to access grammar and private schools, the catchment areas of the best state schools, and from there the door-opening of the Russell Group universities. It allows them to access work experience where unpaid internships are common or paid experience through family and friend networks. It helps with university fees and cost of living. It helps with ready-made contributions and deposits towards first homes and saves them from the rent trap as rarely do mum and dad charge market-rent. It pays for the graduation present, the first car, the first insurance bill, the first prestige watch, first holidays, wedding — and so on.
Of course having a caring and nurturing environment helps — as well as education — to increase upward social mobility. However, as far more qualified economic, social and political scientists and commentators have pointed out — these factors (nurturing and education focus) are more closely correlated with parents/families who have modest (above average) levels of income and wealth. This is due to the reduced pressures to meet the most basic day-to-day needs and the having the ability to make choices to spend on other items from education to holidays or gifts and home improvements.
Life chances formula
Of course, there is no one magic or tragic formula to encapsulate your ‘future place in society’. However, I state that the probability of achieving success in life equals the sum of comfort at birth through early years plus the propensity to take advantage of opportunities plus the inevitable one-off factors. This can be expressed as the below mathematical formula.
P (achieving success in life) = Sum [ (Comfort at birth t=0-x < 18) +P (propensity to take advantage of opportunities) + P (inevitable one-off factors)]
The ‘Comfort at birth’ element can be expressed as a function of various factors. In addition, these factors are related to what I call the 4Es: Entitlement, Education, Employment and Enterprise. Entitlement is the basic problem that we have with social mobility and the ‘accident of birth’ generally determining your place in society. To reiterate, entitlement is facilitated by what I can now refer to as the 3Ps: Parental money, Privilege, Private schools (in that order).
Comfort at birth = f (parental income, wealth, family support, childcare, role models) ∝ the 4Es: Entitlement, Education, Employment, Enterprise — with Entitlement being facilitated by the 3Ps: Parental money, Privilege, Private schools
If entitlement is both a determining factor of the lack of social mobility and a bedrock of privilege, then education, employment, enterprise are factors that can help upward social mobility. However, the caution here is that many of the schemes to increase education, employment and enterprise opportunities help all people and have a disproportionate positive impact on the already privileged! As a result social inequality increases,
The international picture
Social mobility in the UK is amongst the lowest of comparable developed nations — lagging most of northern and western Europe, Australasia, Canada and now East Asia. Denmark is seen as the world leader in social mobility. This is evidenced by the narrower income gap between the top 20% and bottom 20%. In addition, the renowned economist Miles Corak calculates that parents in Denmark pass on c.15% of their economic advantage to their children compared to c.47% for parents in USA.
Denmark is characterised by a combination of high taxes at the top income end and significant transfer payments at the lower income end. Denmark’s top marginal tax rate is 60% on income (20% greater than the national average) and sales tax is 25%. For comparison, Denmark’s government is 55% of the economy versus 34% for USA. Taxes at the top and transfers to the bottom shrink the gap between the two ends. As a result, in Denmark the gap between the bottom and top 20% is $10k to $45k versus $6k to $90k in USA — which is less manageable to move across. However, for me, this illustrates economic social mobility and Denmark still has its own challenges regarding opportunity and aspiration for all.
The current UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, made social mobility the core goal of her Government’s social policy and it was central to her maiden speech on the steps of Downing Street. However, the reality of Brexit, a weakened parliamentary position and the loss of all original members of the Social Mobility Commission (with a significant lag still in appointing new members) have pushed social mobility way down the agenda. This is concerning given that the social inequality gap in the UK is becoming wider leading to a more polarised and unequal society.
The need for a richly experienced and diverse population, drawn from all segments of society, thriving fairly and openly has many benefits in today’s challenging world. It is not just a matter of being fair and equal or a basic human right — it is now becoming as much about an organisation’s or a nation’s economic and competitive advantage.
President Obama said that social inequality is one of the defining challenges of our time (in a speech during 2013 at the Centre for American Policy). Globally, a combination of rising inequality and declining social mobility is bad for society — be it social integration, social cohesion, happiness or economic prosperity.
Inequality and privilege are the taboo subjects — elephants in the room, so to speak. Gatekeepers and those at the top of society are playing their part in maintaining the status quo and actually do not really ‘walk-the-talk’ or do not want to see a change which levels the playing field.
Furthermore, Obama stated that if we are to take on the problems of growing inequality and try to improve upward social mobility then we have to move on from the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern.
We have to reject a politics that suggests any efforts to address social mobility in any meaningful way somehow pits a ‘deserving’ rich, upper and middle class against an ‘undeserving’ poor and lower class.
A one page framework for social mobility and potential solutions
Social mobility exhibits the characteristics of a ‘wicked problem’. It is complex in its nature and outcomes are uncertain due to the long-term implications of potential solutions. In addition, there is copious research, lots of ideas, much commentary and political jostling. Much of the research is focused on the causes of social inequality; however, a lot of this is repetitive with little clarity on breakthrough ways forward. Furthermore, detailed, viable, even-disruptive and ‘costed’ solutions brought together under one umbrella and based on environmental constraints are lacking.
It is worth highlighting some of the great sources of available research and insight. This includes: the UK Government’s Social Mobility Commission, Business in the Community, Sutton Trust, McKinsey & Co, leading academics (such as Professor Jane Waldfogel at Columbia University, Professor Robert Putnam at Harvard and Professor Stephen Machin at The LSE) — and the mass of insight that exists in sections of UK civil society and with certain leaders in education.
As a result of consuming much of this research and speaking to many of these leaders, I developed a framework capturing what we know and potential solutions in a more simplistic and dynamic fashion. Figure 1 below, captures as much of this research and insight as simply as possible on one half of one piece of paper (covering hindrances to social mobility and drivers to improve it) and then, on the other half of the same piece of paper, I propose solutions at a national Government level and then for other stakeholders (parents, schools, universities, recruiters, employers). I stress that these proposed solutions were relevant at the time of development and do not include many of the disruptive thoughts. {Please email me if you would like a clear copy of the mindmap — which as a dynamic document is work in progress.}
However, given the simple statement of birth generally determining your place in society, the second mindmap, Figure 2: UK Life Chances, is an extension of the first mindmap — highlighting the importance of path and trajectory. This should resonate with the growing view for early intervention — especially during the years from birth to formal schooling and disruptive, targeted solutions.
Much of the social mobility debate is lost in the politics of private schools or the elite position of Oxbridge and the Russell Group universities providing a pathway to the major professions and influential jobs. These two mindmaps and the social mobility equations show that this is not the whole truth — factors from much earlier related to the circumstances of birth and early years are the drivers.
The fact is that access to private schools, Oxbridge and the Russell Group universities are parts of a path and trajectory that are closely correlated to an individual’s parents’ privileged position, income and wealth. In addition, the knowledge for many children that they will inherit their parents or grandparents modest wealth or house (especially for those in urban centers such as London) allows them to take more risks and experience more.
Access to opportunity is the mantra here. We may increase standards and opportunities for all. However, this seems to benefit those of privilege more. As a result, there is a need to be disruptive and more targeted towards those from under-estimated backgrounds. We should address aspects such as reduced access to scholarships and bursaries for those in real need; the abolition of assisted places for those from households on very low incomes to access private schools; and the reduced chances of the under-estimated of accessing grammar or good state schools given the cost of housing and the lack of social council housing in those catchment areas.
The difficulty in addressing privilege and social mobility
Many of the conversations in political and media circles are stymied by the fact that those at the ‘top’ of society, our gatekeepers, politicians and commentators come from privileged backgrounds themselves. Indeed, it was the former Chair of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, Rt Hon. Alan Milburn, who stated that: “Our research shows it is entirely possible for politicians to rely on advisors to advise, civil servants to devise policy solutions and journalists to report on their actions having all studied the same courses at the same universities, having read the same books, heard the same lectures and even being taught by the same tutors.”
Of course, many of these folk come from the same privileged and wealthy households. Aside from being uncomfortable to many gatekeepers at the top of society, there does not appear to be a strong desire to change the status quo rather than protect and pass down the privilege acquired. This closed shop at the top can all too easily give rise to a ‘not for the likes of me’ syndrome in the rest of society and can be easily exploited for political and economic gain. Many have said that this can partially explain what happened in 2016 as regards the UK’s referendum on the EU and the US Presidential election.
The real difficulty is that those born into privilege do not and do not want to acknowledge the significant part that their privilege played in their journey.
This is best brought to life by the following graphic illustration by Toby Morris titled ‘On a plate’.
It beautifully and, more importantly, simply articulates what many refer to the ‘lottery or accident of birth’. I have often said that privilege is invisible to those who benefit from it. Toby’s illustration compares the path of privileged Richard versus less-privileged Paula. Richard’s parents can pay his school’s fees, university tuition and upkeep so that he does not have to work or self-finance; in addition they can pay for his football or cricket kit, extra-curricular activities, holidays and provide him with a network to get work experience and further opportunities.
Often times an individual’s achievement and success, especially one from a privileged background, is mistaken solely for hard-work when actually it was facilitated greatly ‘on a plate’ with, of course, some hard work in context. These individuals will rarely share their parent’s income, wealth, privilege and how the ‘bank of mum and dad’ and their network had supported them on their path and trajectory. That just would not be cricket or ‘whiff whaff’.
Many people have benefited from privilege and in all its different forms, not just economic. I, for one, was fortunate to have caring and nurturing parents who instilled an ethic (which has become one of my core principles) to ‘succeed, serve and share’. Aside from this, my own pivot for social mobility came from having a full-funded government assisted place (given I would have been eligible for free school meals) to attend a great private school which accelerated my own path and trajectory. This in itself is a privileged environment of those supported, driven and being given the confidence to aspire or dream big. One of the drivers for my passion for social mobility is questioning why all children can’t have that quality of education and opportunity. Hence, the work I did as a mentor 25 years ago and then being a governor of a failing inner-city school 20 years ago. On a personal note, I am saddened and doubt if many children today from a background comparable to me could have a similar path or trajectory — firstly as the assisted places scheme has been abolished, but more so because of the greater inequality, social and economic gaps that exist.
Separately, there are those from underestimated backgrounds who may feel uncomfortable to admit their struggles in the context of people around them or may not know how to navigate the environment they are being placed in. For instance, the child or student living in a crowded home or contributing to the family household may not talk about their looking after younger siblings, helping to maintain a home or doing a number of part-time jobs to put cash on the table. All of these show examples of the practical skills we look for when employing individuals but for many applicants and gatekeepers it is easier and more comfortable to talk about extra-curricular activities, organising May-balls, rugby or cricket success, holiday experiences or expeditions.
Education and the environment of the early-years
There is nothing new in trying to break the cycle of privilege — with education seen as a key driver. Many people point to the academic and resulting professional success of immigrant communities — who in greater equivalent percentages against the general UK population attend leading universities and excel in professions, such as medicine, or entrepreneurship. Some academics such as Professor Stephen Burgess from Bristol University refer to this as the London effect, illustrating the effects of a diverse population and ethnic minority pupils raising attainment levels in even the most challenged boroughs.
The Government’s Social Mobility Index examines in detail the life chances available to young people from poorer backgrounds in each of the 324 local authorities in England to: i) Gain the educational qualifications they need to succeed in life; ii) The opportunities in the local area; and iii) To convert those qualifications into a good job and a decent standard of living. The key findings show that London and its commuter belt are pulling away from the rest of the country; coastal areas and industrial towns are becoming social mobility cold-spots; England’s major cities are failing to be the places of opportunity that they should be; many of the richest places in England are doing worse for their disadvantaged or under-estimated children than places that are much poorer such as inner-London boroughs.
Focusing on the early-years, education and nurturing — I highlight two leading academics and their research. The first is Jane Waldfogel, Professor of Social Policy at Columbia University and Visiting Professor at The LSE. Waldfogel’s most recent book is titled ‘Too Many Children Left Behind’ and examines the achievement gap of children in the UK, USA, Australia and Canada. She proves how the achievement challenge and many related social ills begin much earlier in life and is also linked to parental background and privilege.
Waldfogel summarises her great body of research and findings into three policy areas that would make a difference: i) Boosting high-quality early-years learning given the size of the achievement gap of children even at the age of five years; ii) Addressing income inequalities — pertinent in the UK given the debate over tax and universal credits; and iii) Increasing the engagement and quality of teaching which is not reflective of the ‘higher attainment grades’ in public examinations.
Most worryingly, if you extrapolate her data on the achievement gap between children from high and low socio-economic status families/backgrounds, you observe that for USA the gap is a staggering nineteen months for children at the age of five with 70% of that gap remaining at the formative early teen years 11–14. In the UK the gap is twelve months with 57% of that gap remaining at the formative early teen years 11–14. It reinforces that we should be spending more time and targeted resource in the very early years (birth through to nursery) to give children the best possible start and path in life.
The second academic is political scientist Robert Putnam, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard, whose recent book, Our Kids, examines the collapse of social mobility and the knock-on threats to American democracy and values. He points to the opportunities and time that children from less-privileged and poorer backgrounds have with parents and carers than those more privileged — sustained by high income jobs and property wealth.
He states that the marginalised and under-estimated children of poorer parents suffer cognitively and environmentally in their very early years and generally do not develop the life skills and self-control to compete with the children of the privileged and even relatively well-off. The children of the latter group benefit from both economic advantages and invisible benefits such as nurturing. Children from privileged backgrounds are likely to develop confidence and positive habits for life. By contrast, children from poorer backgrounds are more likely to be raised in an atmosphere of financial insecurity by a single parent or parents who are unlikely to have time or resources to nurture self-confidence and ability.
Putnam mentions that globalisation, social change and increased inequality — have been accompanied by local employment suffering, juvenile delinquency rocketing, more family unit breakdowns and now we see that child poverty is increasing. The collapse of the working class has been accompanied by the birth of a new upper class — sustained by high income jobs and property wealth.
Putnam also highlights the direct effects of parenting on the brains of young children. He states that: “The roots of many cognitive and behavioural differences that appear in middle childhood and adolescence are often present by 18 months and their origins, we now know, lie even earlier in the child’s life. Neuroscience has shown that the child’s brain is biologically primed to learn from experience, so that early environments powerfully affect the architecture of the developing brain. The most fundamental feature of that experience is interaction with responsive adults — typically, but not only, parents.”
Waldfogel’s and Putman’s findings reinforce the view that we need to refocus our efforts away from later in life (i.e. post school, university or early employment) towards the very early years. Of course, society is healthier when everyone has greater access to a nurturing environment and better education. Their work has heavily influenced my views.
Moving the social mobility agenda on: where next and how?
I should also mention that the mindmaps were informed by some practical work (digital and social media programmes) that one of my organisations delivered in UK inner-city schools to support attainment, aspiration, ‘employability’ and social mobility. The programmes and partnerships that we created helped teachers deliver more engaging lessons, supported outstanding teaching, built practical skills in both an academic and a professional context, assisted students in job searches and were applicable within a business and professional environment.
However, I am aiming to move the mindmaps forward to better advocate for change at a national government level and to unearth and deliver more solutions for social mobility. Having consumed most of the research and publications on social mobility and being the originator of the mindmap representations), I realised that the level of complexity and numerous variables called for two further aspects.
Firstly, more and diverse stakeholder standpoints are required to challenge and improve the mindmaps — as well helping to further simplify and scope the scale of the problem (as defined by its complexity and uncertainties). Secondly, I need to partner with a decision tech firm to introduce a methodology which makes it more manageable and facilitates the process to arrive at a set of potential, yet viable, solutions.
Structuring the problem can be achieved via the mindmaps. This allows us to define a number of parameters which characterise the issues within the problem. In addition to the key variables being ascertained, we need to determine the interaction between each of these variables to identify those which are consistent with each other in order to help define the potential solutions. It is good practice to develop an iterative approach to mitigate the risk of selecting a poor set of solutions (with negative unintended consequences) and, as mentioned, to engage fully with a wide a range of stakeholders as possible so as to reduce input bias.
The mindmaps are useful to collate and show the relationships across the data; however in any decision making environment additional aspects of the problem may be required. In this case, we can add the ‘usual suspects’ as operational constraints: money, time and current political landscape as defined by the government and its power. These constraints and the detail need to be better defined by experts in the field and government. I look forward to working with the team and partners on taking this all forward.
However, this is all linear thinking. The solutions proposed and highlighted in the mindmaps follow the tried and tested aspects of: i) Focusing on the underestimated (‘less-advantaged’ individual or ‘less-privileged’ cohort of society) rather than the gatekeepers; and ii) Improving access to opportunities, whether it be better education or career progression opportunities as opposed to changing the system. Against a context of increasing wealth for the top quintile of society, the effect of these two aspects over the last many decades has actually been to increase inequality and reduce social mobility as more people from the middle to the top have benefited. As a result, there must be more bold and disruptive thinking from unconventional sources to challenge the gatekeepers, change the system and help increase social mobility. Watch this space.
