Osborne sukuks up to Islamic finance, but will it work?

Ensuring that the sukuk are watertight in their compliance with sharia will be the acid test for the Chancellor.

The government could soon issue its first taxpayer-guaranteed sukuk, marking the UK’s entry into the lucrative, rapidly expanding market of Islamic finance, which was until now exclusive to Muslim countries. But what are sukuk and why are they important?

Sukuk (plural of ‘sakk’) are essentially government bonds that must comply with the moral code and religious law that comprises sharia (as any part of the holistic system of Islam must). This word will probably generate some trembling articles in the right-wing press, but sharia’s main stipulation in terms of finance is simply a ban on riba (interest). Since Islam sees money as a pure measure of value, and not a profitable asset in and of itself, the charging of interest on money is haram (forbidden). In lieu of interest, the issuer of a sukuk (in this case, the UK government) sells an investor or group the bond, who then rents it back to them for an agreed-upon rental fee. The issuer also signs a contract promising to buy back the bonds at a future date at par value. Sukuk are traded on 'real' assets, not risk and futures.

The first sukuk (which translates as 'cheques' or 'certificates') proposed by Osborne would only be valued at £200m, a miniscule amount in the context of the total Islamic finance market (currently valued at around £750bn and expected to double in value by 2017 according to the 2012 Global Islamic Finance Report), leading Jonathan Guthrie in the Financial Times to call it little more than an "amuse bouche". Issuing them is not about to end Britain’s economic woes with a tide of oil money from the Gulf.

Sukuk are at this stage a marketing tool: a gesture to the Muslim world that London is open for business. Whoever you are, we’ll suit your conditions (if you have cash). Osborne wrote an article to this effect in the FT last week, stating his ambition for London to be "the unrivalled western centre for Islamic finance". It would make Britain the first non-Islamic country in the world to issue sovereign sukuk, joining Egypt, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Qatar and Turkey. As London is already a global finance capital whose stock market dwarfs those of all these other countries put together, the potential for growth in a new sector of culturally-sensitive investment funds (another example would be green investment) is not to be underestimated.

But ensuring that the sukuk are watertight in their compliance with sharia will be the acid test for Osborne. If they’re not, they are rendered pointless and a huge waste of time and money. In the winter of 2011, Goldman Sachs proposed to debut a $2bn sukuk al marabaha (deferred payment) program, but it was judged non-sharia compliant and was aborted, causing a lot of red faces in some quite altitudinous boardrooms. Since sharia works horizontally rather than hierarchically – that is, fatwas (judgements on points of sharia) can be issued by anyone with the recognised Islamic qualifications and then debated on equal terms – scholars can often differ irrevocably on the finer points.

But even in the event that the government’s sukuk are eagerly snapped up, it is not going to revolutionise our financial relationship with the Islamic world. London is already a piggy bank for the world’s elite, whatever their religion, because, as Michael Goldfarb recently argued in the New York Times, skyrocketing prices and a tax law which is only able to skim British earnings mean that London property has now all but become a "global reserve currency" – a sort of hyper-money only accessible by the global super rich, most of whom don’t live here and don’t intend to.

And as the New Statesman has already shown, the Middle East in particular has been enthusiastically pouring cash into the UK (well, London) for the past decade anyway. Qatar alone owns 95% of the Shard, Harrods, over a quarter of Sainsbury’s, a fifth of the London Stock Exchange itself, the Chelsea Barracks, the Olympic village, 20% of Camden market, No. 1 Hyde Park (the world’s most expensive block of flats), and the US embassy building.

So if Osborne’s sukuk have a successful debut, it will herald a greater level of fiscal openness and consensus between the Islamic world and Britain, and it will make it easier for some of Britain’s own 2.7 million Muslim citizens to decide upon halal (permitted) domestic investments. As far as Treasury policy can be, this is socially inclusive. But that’s about it. Even in the case that a new enthusiasm for religiously-influenced investment boosts GDP, as each day passes we see that the previously accepted link between GDP and living standards has all but dissolved anyway.

It is highly unlikely this policy will make a difference to the life of the average British Muslim, and issuing a few culturally-catered bonds will not even begin to address the rampant inequality and instability of a British economy increasingly leaning on the crutch that is the trickle-down of elite foreign capital. The extent to which Osborne’s financial policy adheres to the central Islamic idea of maslaha (public interest) is, to put it mildly, up for debate.

The 9th World Islamic Economic Forum at ExCel on October 29, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.