What's behind the 367,000 new self-employed people?

It could be an outbreak of entrepreneurism, tax avoidance, or maybe just plain old unemployment

The strength of the UK labour market has been an on-going puzzle. Despite a 4 per cent drop in GDP, employment has risen, and more people are in work than in 2008. Yet the rise hasn’t been in full-time employee jobs. Part-time work has accounted for some of the increase, but most of it has been a result of self-employment. New figures released today (6 Feb) by the ONS show self-employment has grown by 367,000 since 2008, with the trend most pronounced amongst males and older workers.

So what’s behind this trend? There are a number of possible explanations. Ministers will no doubt claim it as a resurgence of entrepreneurialism, with new companies emerging from the ashes of the old economy. Yet this is unlikely, and few of the newly self-employed will be starting the Facebooks of tomorrow: 66,000 fewer self-employed workers are actually employing staff.

A second potential culprit is the Work Programme. Long-term unemployed jobseekers may be encouraged into self-employment by providers who are incentivised to get them off Jobseekers Allowance. However, this effect is unlikely to be significant enough to explain the overall trends: ERSA estimate that only 10% of those who have found work have entered self-employment. Assuming around 300,000 job starts, only 30,000 will be self-employed (even if all survive in self-employment).

A third explanation may be more significant: firms are shifting workers onto self-employed contracts to avoid paying National Insurance, holiday pay and benefits. Yet while such contracts are increasingly used in construction, the explanation doesn’t quite fit with the characteristics of many of the newly self-employed. Research by the TUC shows that the biggest rise in self-employment has been in professional occupations.

This leaves a fourth culprit looking increasingly guilty: the weak economy is pushing workers into self-employment. The evidence fits. Underemployment amongst the self-employed has increased from 6.4 per cent in 2008 to 10.8 per cent in 2010, and is now slightly above the rate for employees. So while some will find self-employment a good way to earn a living, for others the situation is decidedly bleaker. Professionals don’t want to be unemployed, so they become “self-employed” as a way of saving face.

The rise has been most pronounced for older workers, which is perhaps not all that surprising since this is the group with the most contacts, experience and start-up costs to move into work on their own. Some will also be deferring retirement to avoid the low value of pensions. Others will find self-employment an attractive alternative to a tough formal labour market.

So why does the rise in self-employment matter? Surely self-employment is better than unemployment?

Yet self-employment can be tough – many will be building up debt as they scrape along. And later this year, Universal Credit will be introduced. It will assume that the self-employed earn a certain amount, regardless of whether this is actually the case. Those with low incomes in self-employment will find they lose benefits. For many workers now, self-employment is tough. But it is likely to get tougher in the future.

Photograph: Getty Images

Neil is the Senior Economist at The Work Foundation

 

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle